The Game Stash: Virtual Virtues

[Steve Butts]

I honestly don't understand people who want to do "evil" things in games. And I'm not talking about morally ambiguous things like looting already-dead bodies, the empty homes of dead people, or stealing a loaf of bread when you are starving. I?m talking about what another person pointed out is psychopathy: raping, torturing, killing innocent people or animals that have not done anything to you.

This is one of the most disturbing areas of gaming and one that's definitely suitable for a future column.

I still don't get the appeal of Postal, or the Columbine mods, or the airport level in Call of Duty. To me, it's just visceral exploitation hiding behind a thin veil of artistic expression or social relevance. The lack of sincerity becomes apparent when the same people who make high-minded claims that games are capital-A "Art" immediately fall back on the excuse, "It's just a game," whenever the appropriateness of the content or commentary is challenged.

 

[JEBWrench]

I demand more articles from the Escapists new mustachioed editor supreme.

Thanks. I am officially changing my title.

You are quite welcome. As a proud member of the facial hair collective, the recognition of a truly epic 'stache is important.

The lack of sincerity becomes apparent when the same people who make high-minded claims that games are capital-A "Art" immediately fall back on the excuse, "It's just a game," whenever the appropriateness of the content or commentary is challenged.

Oddly enough, this is one of the reasons why I don't think gaming has yet reached the point of Art - because any attempt to challenge what's being expressed is more often than not shushed down with "It's just a game", rather than an opinionated counter-argument.

 

[Smokescreen]

I think part of the problem might be clinging to old tropes as a necessity for gameplay.

I recall reading about Bioshock and I think it was Ken Levine who said (heavily paraphrased from memory); To make the good/evil choice meaningful, we gave you less Adam, but from a gameplay perspective we had to make it up to the people choosing good, otherwise we ran into a serious problem later along the line and it wasn't fun anymore.

If you want to include a morality system, cool. Now remove my need to steal money. Mass Effect has gameplay rules that say; You need money to get X. Not levels. Not negotiations. (Although those do play into it) Money.

So they have to make stealing consequence free, otherwise all your good actions go into the shitter.

Ditto any RPG game. You're the 'hero' yet the game insists that you need money to get what you want. Fine; now give me positive and negative ways to earn that money with the consequences-or find me a way to go without money.

 

[Flying Dagger]

Between the moustache and the name I just cannot take these articles seriously.

 

[JEBWrench]

Ditto any RPG game. You're the 'hero' yet the game insists that you need money to get what you want. Fine; now give me positive and negative ways to earn that money with the consequences-or find me a way to go without money.

Arcanum handles that well, though not perfectly. There are actual ramifications for whichever way you decide to earn your money, such as being more prone to attacks from hitmen if you sell your story to the newspaper (which is neither on the good/evil spectrum, but it merits note).

Though there it still uses the good/evil meter, and you can still buy your way into the good status, it's expensive, and it's harder to be good than evil.

 

[LaBambaMan]

I believe the "moral choice system" is the biggest flaw in digital RPG's. Not simply because it only gives options of the most extreme, but because it doesn't accurately represent roleplaying. In a true RPG you are free to do or say whatever you want, there's no restrictions. Video game designers have to put in all this pre-generated text which forces options upon you and kinda' ruins the whole point of role playing. You're not getting to make the decisions, you're just given an option of already laid out decisions and consequences.

 

[Attelia]

In Fallout 3, I never really have a need for money. People are willing to call me "Messiah", but I've stolen my good share of things. I've never played a Bioware game, so I can't compare, but I can say that Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (no morality) and Fable 2 (crappy morality) never need you to be bad to get money.

In Fallout and Oblivion, looting your dead enemies is expected because of the circumstances. If I kill a bandit, marauder, or raider, I'm not going to fight my inner moral self because this is the Capital Wasteland and the unforgiving wilderness of Cyrodiil.

Perhaps in our comfortable, civilized world, things like looting and stealing from the dead seem like moral injustice. However, if Oblivion or Fallout forced the gamer to eat and sleep (like a normal human being) you would loot without shame or you would die. Simple.

By the way, epic doom 'stache.

 

[Steve Butts]

But what about going out of your way to kill an enemy who isn't presenting a threat to you or anyone else? And what about stealing from the living (and presumably decent) inhabitants of these worlds?

 

[carpathic]

A thoughtful, well reasoned argument. The thing is, we like games because they aren't real life. Maybe there should not be consequences for bad actions in games - they aren't teaching tools for morality, they are RPGs where we write the story.

 

[KeeperOfMadness]

While playing Red Dead Redemption, I had eagerly been scooping up bullets and various odds and ends from all of my gunned down victims. That is, up until I met Seth the crazed and (more than) slightly creepy graverobber. Rockstar actually managed to make me feel uncomfortable about stealing from the dead, and so I stopped doing it for the remainder of the game.

 

[Yureina]

Totally agreed. It seems like in every single game, no matter what "alignment" I am trying to fit my character as, I always behave in the same fashion. Namely, that the wealth of the world is mine for the taking and that before the game ends, everything last gold coin, bottle cap, or piece of money will be in my posession. I am a rampaging looter in every single game I play where I have this opportunity, and because games don't seem to care that much about this, even my "good aligned" characters sit in a massive pile of in-game currency or wealth.

But, that's just how I am I guess. At least in games.

 

[The_ModeRazor]

For me, this kinda thing is called *looks up tvtropes to make sure segregation is correctly spelled* story and gameplay segregation. What I do in the game as a completely cliché and obvious gaming device doesn't matter as long as what I do story-wise remains ok with the people it concerns. Although it's fun when in Kotor 2, Kreia calls you out on looting a dead body in the morgue.

 

[JediMB]

The looting scene in ME2 did make me pause when I played the game. Made Shepard look like a huge hypocrite/dick. Granted, that's sort of the kind of character I was playing at the time, except against her crew, but still.

One moment I could go on about peaceful solutions, and another I could kick someone through their apartment window.

 

[RelexCryo]

"I usually turn a blind eye to this kind of thing but Mass Effect 2 doesn't do a good enough job hiding the moral contradiction here. In fact, the game makes it explicit. It becomes openly laughable during this plague sequence when Shepard and his companions enter an apartment to find two looters standing over a dead body. "Stealing from the dead?" Shepard asks. "I don't like looters."

Wait a minute."

-Steve Butts

You have got to be kidding me. That is just insane.

 

[Duncan Turner]

There is one time I can remember a really good example of this kind of complicated evil vs. good choice in an RPG.

I always play through as good/heroic/paragon character first and then do the evil/dick/renegade on a subsequent play through.

In KOTOR there was the "Romeo & Juliet" couple with the warring families. The first time through I got them together and got the families to make nice for their sakes. The second play through I got to this mission and there is no way to start it without getting lightside points. Either you help a little or skip it. But if you do the first step to help a little it leads to a point where you can goad both families into destroying each other over it.

I remember this so clearly because of the doing a little good to do a greater evil aspect of it. One of the truly messed up and evil events in an RPG.

 

[nik3daz]

I wonder when this sort of thing started. Maybe it was back in the days of DnD when treasure chests were a simple symbol for "You want what's in here, trust me" and locked treasure chests screamed "What I have in here is so good, I DARE you try to open me".

I guess some gaming symbols are so obvious and ingrained that we don't realize how appalling some behavior is in real life. (Wouldn't be so bad if an RPG let you start up a "Support Your Legendary Hero" charity)

 

[LewsTherin]

As someone who is recently gushing over Dragon Age, I can understand what you mean. I find the choices have a lot more depth than those of lets say Oblivion. Sometimes the "evil" choice is the only one you can accomplish, no matter what you wanted to do. Choices that actually influence how things play out. Instead of the world just being just one big bag of swag, sometimes breaking into peoples house in search of phat lewt will lead to them taking offence. I'll echo the previous sentiments that the morality bar may just have outlived it's time. The more depth and ambiguity that a game decides to add to the story just makes it more believable, and the characters more human, instead of cardboard cutouts that are painted with a black and white morality.

Looting itself is an interesting point. I think it would depend more on what character you are playing. My paladin might respect his opponent enough not to desecrate his corpse, but the rogue following him might decide that the recently deceased no longer need that Broadsword of Flaming Badassery +3. But, what about bandits or goblins? Bandits surely didn't come by their inventories honestly, and I hardly think people would object to you stealing from common goblins. That selfsame paladin might decide the situation is dire enough to take those potions off a fallen enemy.

Oh, and yes, I do like roleplaying. And Bioware. They go well together, for the most part.

 

[WillyDJ]

I play good because I'm a social being and I like being a 'hero' in my games. That and the evil option doesn't open up any real game-play options in my experience. The game should 'reward' your choices with actual fun options.

Take for example Civilization IV. You can play nice and run a small but beautiful enlightened empire and the rewards are prosperous, large cities and buckets of trade turning into high technology and the goodies that come with it. At the other end you can be a genocidal, all conquering warlord with a massive army that crushes all and extorts developments out of cowering vassals. And the game rewards you with giving you control of a massive empire, interesting combat options the benefits of highly experienced units, and cities that pump out crack legions rather than incompetant noobs. This is why half my Civ games look like 'what Subotai did on his holidays' and the other half 'Ghandi's big day out'. Both styles of play are rewarding

What does KOTOR give the advanced Jedi or Sith? Discounts on casting spells. Whooee. Colour me unimpressed. Fallout 3? Here's a bonus companion (with the instincts of a depressed lemming). Oh my stars and garters, I'm sooo excited. It was more fun maxing Big Guns and taking Bloody Mess.

Gameplay rewards is where it's at. I won't even care if a disgruntled minion throws me down the bottlemless pit in the final cut scene if I get some 'Ultimate Powah!' options the good guys will never see even if they hit level 50.

D&D 3rd edition had this thingy called prestige classes. High powered options for PCs that really went down one path or another. Computer RPG designers would do well to look that up.

 

[copycatalyst]

I always found the Grand Theft Auto games to have an amusing disconnection between the "story" player character and the "game" player character. While the story character was typically set up as a wronged man who is forced to commit acts of violence out of necessity, the game character casually runs over a dozen old ladies on his way to the store.

Generally I can overlook such concessions to gameplay (although I certainly notice them). My hope is that more games will offer more interesting choices, choices that aren't obvious good and evil, but simply different value judgements. The Mass Effect and Fallout series' are the best at this that I've played, but there's still so much room for more.

 

[Lionsfan]

One hundred percent on the mark. Sometimes I would wonder why so and so is a hero. He's killed hundreds if not thousands of people, all while corpse robbing, home invasion, or just plain robbing. Meanwhile, the guy who robs to earn a quick buck is so evil. That's why when I play games, I try to give my characters personalities and then play the game as they would live it