Should Skyrim have a Karma system?

[Agarth]

One of my main complaints about Fallout 3 was how it had the karma meter. I liked it more in Oblivion where it said, "Your infamous for doing ## amount of evil acts, and your famous for doing ## good acts/story missions." It made me feel like I wasn't "Good" or "Evil" but that I was more of a "I'll do it... if it fits me." sort of person. I liked that because i'm that sort of person.

 

[Kurokami]

No. There is only one game in which black/white or good/evil karma has a place and that is inFamous.

There's another game that sort of needs that whole black/white thing... What's it called? Oh yeah, Black and White. =D

I hate Karma systems because they never make too much sense. Sure, I might have killed the orphan who was infected with some disease instead of taking him to the magical cure, but that could be because I wasn't sure he'd make the trip, maybe I thought I should end his agony right there and then, and maybe as the savior of the whole goddamn land I thought I should prioritize the rest of the world by doing something more useful with my time rather than pursuing a fetch quest.

Alright, so I probably could have come up with a better example, but I think this one works somewhat to prove my point. You don't know my motivation, so you should judge me for it. I was also annoyed at Dark Messiah which had a good love interest and an evil love interest. So let me get this straight, the woman who [spoilers, sort of by the way.] hates part of you even after you saved her life several times and makes you do all the work at every turn is the good one, and the woman who genuinely cares for you and looks to serve you, even wants you to succeed her creator, she's evil? And 'purifying' yourself of her is the 'good' thing to do?

Luckily DM:OMM had no real Karma/moral system, so it all just went down as a series of events that effected the ending more than anything else, and I think that's fine. Still hate that killing Xana was supposed to be good though. =[

 

[ShakyFt Slasher]

I think it should have a reputation system but not a karma system. Different groups should react differently towards you depending on what you do but the whole "Cuddle with puppies or burn them" system is a little old.

 

[Argtee]

I think that it should keep the fame/infamy system.

I'd like to see Skyrim have a reputation system, similar to the one in Fallout 2 and New Vegas.

 

[Ruiner87]

No, no, no, no, no. And for extra effect, NO!

Karma systems are absolutely obtuse. They're just arbitrary meters that measure how much of a jerk or a saint you are, and don't actually have any place in the game. I don't need a karma meter to tell me what my character is like, I can do it myself by looking at the situations presented in the game and by rationalizing it in a manner which my character would.

For instance, my character might need some money to pay for whatever magical artifact will save the world. Unfortunately, he's broke. So what do I do? Do I murder some nameless, faceless NPC (reulting in bad karma) take all their stuff and sell it in order to save the world? Or, do I sit around with my thumb up my ass, safe in the knowledge that I never harmed a single person and let the world get destroyed?

Obviously that's an extreme example, but it shouldn't be up to the game to decide my character's alignment. It should be up to me, the player, to decide whether or not the ends justify the means, and whether what I'm doing is right or wrong. The only decent karma system I've ever see was in Mass Effect, where's it's more of a personality meter. Also, it worked in KOTOR, but only because of that Dark Side, Light Side, "use the Force" crap.

 

[Sandernista]

I hope there's a reputation system similar to F:NV.

 

[V8 Ninja]

I like to think that karma systems actually lessen the impact of a choice if you know you'll get X amount of A points for one choice and Y amount of B points for another.

 

[IBlackKiteI]

Karma systems are awful, they do nothing to help gameplay and at worst they actually damage the game. If the game presents you with a choice, then it should be a moral choice, where the decision actually has depth, and the player can interpret which of the options presented is the best, not just being given a clear black and white decision, because all that does is ask the player "do you want to be good or evil?", and gives no room for the player to impose their own values or beliefs.

Agreed. The best way to have some sort of karma mechanic in games is to not really show it, and let the player interperet which choice is good or bad, selfish or selfless, coke or pepsi, whatever. The whole moral thing shouldn't be some driving point of the game either unless the player wants it to be, of if the game forces choices on them but has a good reason.

Pretty much all forms of karma systems done so far have been a halfassed way to make the player play the game several times to unlock everything. While they do have a shitload of potential, thats currently all I see them as, 'cos they when implemented they suck.

 

[Mechsoap]

Now, The karma system was okay in oblivion, not good, but adequate.

Then there is fable, it has a horrible karma system. Like Yatzhee said, to destroy a pond for profit and get evil, or have it remain the same and be good? Thats retarded.

The idea of just effecting others people perception of you, is better then growing a pair of fucking wings, turn white and get a butterfly tattoo.

 

[TheTim]

I liked Fallout NV's karma system, so ill say yes.

 

[AdamRhodes]

The main flaw with Karma meters is that there is always rewards and restrictions associated with each side. For example, Mass Effect 2. You could only Charm/Intimidate if you had enough Paragon/Renegade points. Then it becomes less "What should I do?" and more "Which gives me enough points to unlock etc., etc.?"

 

[Rick Rod]

Gosh, Tough topic, not sure if I'm stepping into hot waters but I'm gonna try to keep this nice and clean.

No, because of the obvious reasons. I would not consider any action strictly 'good' or strictly 'evil' because it is a very vague description of the event if I has an Idea for a "choice" system It would go a bit like this.

Religion A is a faction, factions have several groups:


Templars

Priests

Skeptics

Common

Each group prefers a different approach and shares their advantages and disadvantages for example, lets say Templars prefer a direct approach, attacking a problem head on with Sword, Heavy Armor, and Holy Radish in hand, whilst Priests are more Traditional and will approach problems according to customs or politics. Skeptics don't have much of a head for tradition but do not enjoy being lied to about or kept from any important information regarding their beliefs, and Common Chapel-goers are influenced by whichever of the 3 are in power.

Lets say the player character performed a quest for a townsman to retrieve his blade from a nearby cavern,and after further investigation, you discover a document that can damage a certain Priests reputation, which you then sell to the local post.

While you have a bit of gold lining your pocket, the priests don't like you very much, but the Skeptics are the dominant force in town.

Priests Influence = 3
Skeptics Influence = 4

As a result no change to the "Common" disposition was made as the quest had no effect on the Skeptics, but lets say that the story brought the priesthood closer together, as they can relate to the scandalous priest, causing them to be more well known and, over time, more influential.

Priests Influence = 3
Quest influence = Priests + 1
Priest influence = 4
Skeptics influence = 4
Templar influence = N/a
Common influence = N/a

A small-to-major power struggle, Major/Minor property damage, Priest-Obeying Shopkeepers become more competitive with Skeptic-following competitors and side quests for dominance start where the player can help one side subtly without damaging the other side, cause one group to rise to power by purposefully damaging another's, reputation, Cause another group to rise from the conflict (Zealots, Scholars, Templars, Hired thugs etc.) or simply leave them be and let them settle it.

As much as I like the idea personally I could be wrong about it, and Bethesda seem to be doing just fine without trying to stuff an elaborate master quest system into the game before it's release, still with what they have done with their franchise, I seriously doubt Skyrim will be a disappointment and that it will be worth our money, with or without a Karma system

(...but seriously, no.)

 

[DustyDrB]

Karma systems only feel right to me when the characters judge you, not the game itself.

New Vegas's factions got it just right.

I agree with both points. If Oblivion reprimanded me every time I stole something...yikes.

And though the faction system did have problems, I did love how it added a sense of consequence to your choices. It's something that I always wanted in Oblivion, actually. Seeing it in New Vegas made me feel like I was listened to, which is always pleasant.

 

[ChupathingyX]

I liked Fallout NV's karma system, so ill say yes.

When you say that are you referring to the fact that it barely had any effect on the game or did you mix it up with the reputation system?

 

[Ruiner87]

The main flaw with Karma meters is that there is always rewards and restrictions associated with each side. For example, Mass Effect 2. You could only Charm/Intimidate if you had enough Paragon/Renegade points. Then it becomes less "What should I do?" and more "Which gives me enough points to unlock etc., etc.?"

Exactly. It becomes less about playing the game how you want to play it, and more about playing in absolutes, so as to gain achievements, be able to unlock dialogue options etc. Developers take away the ability to create compelling characters, in favour of playing as some sort of caricature of Hitler or Mother Theresa.

 

[NickKuroshi0]

Id prefer they did as long as they dont make the choices so black and white

 

[TheTim]

I liked Fallout NV's karma system, so ill say yes.

When you say that are you referring to the fact that it barely had any effect on the game or did you mix it up with the reputation system?

Well, im talking like the factions of the game that you could work with if thats what you mean by reputation system.

 

[ChupathingyX]

Well, im talking like the factions of the game that you could work with if thats what you mean by reputation system.

Yeah that's the reputation system, not the karma system.

 

[Evil Top Hat]

Agreed. The best way to have some sort of karma mechanic in games is to not really show it

You hit the nail of the head. If I help save a woman's lost son from the bottom of a radscorpion infested cave, then I'll have wasted time, ammo, and some stimpacks. I might get a reward for doing this, I might not. Some good actions should be randomly remembered by the populace of the game world, and have affects on the rest of the game, but the game should never tell you when one of these moments is coming up. That would make it too obvious, and boils it down to a simple " do you want to be good or evil" situation, whereas not telling the player which of his/her generous deeds will have after affects and which will just be a massive ammo sink will actually test how good that character is, because there is no guarantee that there will be a reward for the good actions, and there certainly wouldn't be some dumb meter or points system for it.

Choosing not to do a generous deed shouldn't be seen as "evil", because that player might think that the ammo spent on saving one boy could be better spent on saving an entire down of people from raiders. It all comes down to point of view, that's real morality. There is no good and evil, there is only what different people think of your actions, and how they view you. A military group in the area might see your choice to waste all those time and resources on saving one child as reckless and simply dumb, because it was only one boy when there are bigger fish to fry, whereas the home town of said boy might see you as a hero.

That's how karma should be managed, IMO.
TL;DR: Fable... you're doing it wrong.

 

[GloatingSwine]

No. Individual faction rep would be better. Preferably one that doesn't get completely broken by the fact that members of a faction are hostile by default and you lose rep with them for defending yourself.