The Morality System in Games Has Outlived Its Usefulness
- Thread starter Chris Rio
- Start date
Really? So there is no such thing as doing a bad thing for the right reasons or "end justifies the means"? With the proper contextual situation I could make any of your "good" actions "bad" and any of your "bad" actions "good". So I would argue that relativistic morality is the only thing that actually exists.Lightknight said:
OT- The article struck me as being very cherry picked. InFamous did have those little derpy moral choices but it had some really big ones too. I think their point was not so much to influence the game but to force the player to examine their own morality. One example is when (spoiler spoiler spoiler) the game makes you choose between saving the woman you love and five random folks. I had to stop and really ask myself what I would do. Bioshock did have a risk involved in letting the girls live. You got less Adam so you made yourself weaker until you got supper buff off of the rewards in late game. It isn't really noticeable until the highest difficulty and no respawns but killing the girls starts to look like a very appealing option early game. It is temptation to take the short term "easy way" versus the long term hardship with your reward not arriving until much later. I will agree that FO and FONV systems were very poorly implemented. As for TT: The Walking Dead it had flaws too. Many times I made a choice and the action didn't line up with the text blurb I had chosen. On top of that most decisions don't change based on your previous decisions. Kenny, anyone? I was his bro for most of the game but the first time I disagreed with him his dialog changed to "You never take my side!" Mass Effect moved away "good" and "bad" and moved toward "lawful" and "renegade". The idea is that Shep is always working to save the galaxy so he has to be a "good" hero, but how does he accomplish those goals?Chris Rio said:
I think KOTOR 2 had one of the best uses of the morality system, a lot of the choices managed to be morally ambigous in spite of the light side/dark side scheme all Star Wars games use. Not to mention the speech Kreia gives you that you could cause misfortune to someone even if you have the best of intentions.gmaverick019 said:
The morality system is just a tool, albeit one that's almost always misused; either via locking up half of a game's quests or powers (like InFamous) or by being too simplistic (like in Bioshock). That's not to say it hasn't being used right, as game like the two KOTORs and Planescape: Torment show; Torment, in particular, made it almost impossible to beat the game being evil, not by making the gameplay more difficult, but by taking the evil choice to its logical conclusion, turning you into a cold uncaring monster.
While I don't think morality systems in games have always been done well, I'd much rather have them than not. I think we've already seen a growth in morality systems away from stuff that can be extremely easily gamed towards something that is more organic. I also feel that Fable is actually a pretty poor example of a good morality system simply because nothing in the core experience or storyline really changes, and that should be the focus of a morality system. Does my avatar end up with a permanent scar because I made a certain choce? Sure, but that doesn't really change anything. The more "obvious" decisions in Mass Effect however do actually make a real alteration in the storyline.
I always found the Metro games to have an interesting system. You simply go through the interactions in the game, with only a slight audio cue or flash occurring after events to signify importance.
In Last Light, you can knock people out or kill them when sneaking up, but I actually varied that based on my situation. During the second captivity escape, I killed everyone because I was pissed. Earlier, I just knocked out people, as I saw no point in killing them. Despite later letting two antagonists live, I still got the "bad" ending because of the bloodbaths of certain sections.
In 2033, there was a moment when I really should have been looting bodies for ammo. However, the environment I was in was incredibly claustrophobic and creepy. As I grabbed some ammo from a corpse, the cue (in 2033, there was no flash, just a Dark One's noise) triggered, causing me to dart around, looking for the enemy, just in time to see Bourbon start freaking out. The distraction from the loot lead me to help him, rather than continue going for parts.
The cue fits thematically as well (especially in the first game), once the player realizes
What I liked about the Metro games is that there's a feeling that comes with the cue, once the player recognizes it. It's a more vague form of the "X will remember this" from Telltale games, and it fit the atmosphere nicely.
When people mention moving from the generic good/evil moral system, I'm surprised at how rarely they are brought up. No, morality isn't the focus, but it does decide the ending and the general experience of surviving the game.
In Last Light, you can knock people out or kill them when sneaking up, but I actually varied that based on my situation. During the second captivity escape, I killed everyone because I was pissed. Earlier, I just knocked out people, as I saw no point in killing them. Despite later letting two antagonists live, I still got the "bad" ending because of the bloodbaths of certain sections.
In 2033, there was a moment when I really should have been looting bodies for ammo. However, the environment I was in was incredibly claustrophobic and creepy. As I grabbed some ammo from a corpse, the cue (in 2033, there was no flash, just a Dark One's noise) triggered, causing me to dart around, looking for the enemy, just in time to see Bourbon start freaking out. The distraction from the loot lead me to help him, rather than continue going for parts.
The cue fits thematically as well (especially in the first game), once the player realizes
The Dark Ones are trying to communicate with him.
When people mention moving from the generic good/evil moral system, I'm surprised at how rarely they are brought up. No, morality isn't the focus, but it does decide the ending and the general experience of surviving the game.
yeah, and I agree with that, I just felt like the article was semi-cherry picking what it wanted to to fit the argument. And as I mentioned, there isn't necessarily one "right" way to do it, I have no problem with games trying different things, or having options in the menu to turn things on or off (like seeing the effects of your choices, such as paragon or renegade, etc..) and kotor 2 is one great way to bring importance to party members and to give difficulty to making choices.Two-A said:
Some games have done some interesting things weaving morality into the story, but I wouldn't consider that a morality "system". I like what those guys are doing, but if everybody's going to muck it up with save puppy/stomp puppy style choices I'd rather they not bother. The more I hear about infamous' system, the more it annoys me, its either go all-dark or all-light or gimp your character, is that right? That's not a choice.
I liked how Kotor did it, sometimes the dark choices were a bit...mindless, but at least it fits better in that context, sith lords are allowed to be a little crazy, right? You could make a few compromises to your alignment for items/credits, at the expense of delaying you max dark/light bonus. Kinda pointless but at least you felt like you were making choices.
And the author is kinda clueless on a couple details, fallout 3 only gave you karma for killing named bad guys like burke and paradise falls slavers. Fallout New Vegas did give you Karma for killing Feral Ghouls and Fiends, but I think that was just to give you a way to fill your good bar besides all the one-time NPC reactions. And killing Legionnaires didn't give you karma. Not sure why you bring fallout into it, karma levels made very little difference(3 had some dumb stuff attached to karma, mostly companions, Vegas phased alot of that out and focused mainly on the reputation system), so you were free to do what you wanted. Thanks for pretending to research my favorite game so you could ***** about infamous tho.
But yeah, joining the legion as a woman was just stupid, they wouldn't even acknowledge you were a woman unless you tried to enter the arena. I assume they had to cheap out and couldn't redo the whole questline for different genders.
I liked how Kotor did it, sometimes the dark choices were a bit...mindless, but at least it fits better in that context, sith lords are allowed to be a little crazy, right? You could make a few compromises to your alignment for items/credits, at the expense of delaying you max dark/light bonus. Kinda pointless but at least you felt like you were making choices.
And the author is kinda clueless on a couple details, fallout 3 only gave you karma for killing named bad guys like burke and paradise falls slavers. Fallout New Vegas did give you Karma for killing Feral Ghouls and Fiends, but I think that was just to give you a way to fill your good bar besides all the one-time NPC reactions. And killing Legionnaires didn't give you karma. Not sure why you bring fallout into it, karma levels made very little difference(3 had some dumb stuff attached to karma, mostly companions, Vegas phased alot of that out and focused mainly on the reputation system), so you were free to do what you wanted. Thanks for pretending to research my favorite game so you could ***** about infamous tho.
But yeah, joining the legion as a woman was just stupid, they wouldn't even acknowledge you were a woman unless you tried to enter the arena. I assume they had to cheap out and couldn't redo the whole questline for different genders.
I don't know about everybody else, but for me morality systems in games haven't outlived their usefulness, far from it in fact. Actually, I'd say due to both the effective story that they tend to have and the replayability that it offers, games with morality systems are one of the few where I feel that the content I get out of it is enough that I can really justify shelling out $60 for them (the rest being RPGs with really good stories and gameplay, like the Tales series) instead of just renting it or waiting for a sale to cut the price down. Even blatantly obvious black and white morality systems with extreme choices are better than not having them at all.
I'd say the game that does morality systems best would be Shadow The Hedgehog, which is the reason it's my favorite Sonic game. This is not because of the choices made, which are pretty clear cut if unclear as to what to do if one doesn't go out of their way to find out, but in the results of them. For all the undeserved flak that game gets, the one thing it undeniably has going for it is it's one of the few games with morality systems that actually change what happens depending on the choices made. If you make an evil choice, the next level and the eventual ending will be VERY different than if you had made a good or neutral choice, which is how all mortality systems should work. It's one of the few games that can actually genuinely have the tagline "no two playthroughs will be the same" (at least for a while) even if the canonical story is fixed in the end.
I'd say the game that does morality systems best would be Shadow The Hedgehog, which is the reason it's my favorite Sonic game. This is not because of the choices made, which are pretty clear cut if unclear as to what to do if one doesn't go out of their way to find out, but in the results of them. For all the undeserved flak that game gets, the one thing it undeniably has going for it is it's one of the few games with morality systems that actually change what happens depending on the choices made. If you make an evil choice, the next level and the eventual ending will be VERY different than if you had made a good or neutral choice, which is how all mortality systems should work. It's one of the few games that can actually genuinely have the tagline "no two playthroughs will be the same" (at least for a while) even if the canonical story is fixed in the end.
This.mjharper said:Another interesting take on morality systems was in Spec Ops: The Line, I feel. Though hardly an RPG, the choices you make at various points of the story do actually reflect on the kind of person you (the character and/or player) are, and there is a cost to not acting. And then the game turns that on its head, and the decisions you made are revealed to not be what you thought they were. Trying to avoid spoilers, here
Whether that approach can be extended to other games, or whether it's just something else that makes Spec Ops: The Line distinctive, is open to debate. But it's certainly a different approach, an one far better integrated into the game, than the accumulation of red and blue points.
I think the main issue people have with morality systems is that really poorly implemented ones allows for writers to get away with mediocre plot and storyline by boiling down parts of games to overly simplistic Good-Evil choices.
As everyone has said before me, welldone morality systems make for some good plots.
I think the article author's opinion is too clouded by being too immersed in a 'Good" upbringing.
Punching the reporter in the face is one of the best moments available in the game as a Renegade Shepard, and giving her a thorough beatdown in the third game was even better... as was letting the council die.
My least favorite part about Mass Effect's moral system, though, would have been when trying to give the Paragon dialogue option for why I let the Council die in the first place - that there was no way he could justify demanding the destruction of dozens of ships and sacrifice of half the citadel to save a single ship, no matter how self-important the passengers on that ship were. Instead, my guy started going off about how it was an opportunity to put Humanity at the helm of the galaxy, making me say "What!?"
As for Fallout 3 - Civilization is slowly rebuilding. Being a 'messiah of the wasteland' makes the healing process go faster, and allows your character to be given the respect/fear he deserves for his actions: WHen there are few people in the world, their actions matter. The only valid complaint I saw was how killing Feral Ghouls gives Good Karma.
Yes, being a Good person is Easy in games - that's largely because games strip away the disincentives to be bad: Security(you never have to worry about putting your life on the line because you can reload) - Money (Adventurers make lots of money through killing people and taking their life savings, but the world is full of people who deserve to die. I imagine the situation would be different if all those raider outposts were armed communities trying to get by with more moral ambiguity), comfort (You don't feel anything your character does, so giving doesn't cost you anything), and opportunity cost (You can only play what the game has to offer, so might as well see what those offerings are). The biggest reason Good is easy is because the character is empowered and proactive.
Punching the reporter in the face is one of the best moments available in the game as a Renegade Shepard, and giving her a thorough beatdown in the third game was even better... as was letting the council die.
My least favorite part about Mass Effect's moral system, though, would have been when trying to give the Paragon dialogue option for why I let the Council die in the first place - that there was no way he could justify demanding the destruction of dozens of ships and sacrifice of half the citadel to save a single ship, no matter how self-important the passengers on that ship were. Instead, my guy started going off about how it was an opportunity to put Humanity at the helm of the galaxy, making me say "What!?"
As for Fallout 3 - Civilization is slowly rebuilding. Being a 'messiah of the wasteland' makes the healing process go faster, and allows your character to be given the respect/fear he deserves for his actions: WHen there are few people in the world, their actions matter. The only valid complaint I saw was how killing Feral Ghouls gives Good Karma.
Yes, being a Good person is Easy in games - that's largely because games strip away the disincentives to be bad: Security(you never have to worry about putting your life on the line because you can reload) - Money (Adventurers make lots of money through killing people and taking their life savings, but the world is full of people who deserve to die. I imagine the situation would be different if all those raider outposts were armed communities trying to get by with more moral ambiguity), comfort (You don't feel anything your character does, so giving doesn't cost you anything), and opportunity cost (You can only play what the game has to offer, so might as well see what those offerings are). The biggest reason Good is easy is because the character is empowered and proactive.
People have often talked up Bioware games for the "moral choices" but I've always found them a bit shallow. In KOTOR I still remember a dialogue option where the obvious evil choice was basically a juvenile insult.
Skyrim did quite well, in that rather than good or bad, killing some NPCs would simply result in people coming after you for it. More subtle, along the lines of Do what you want but there may be consequences.
Skyrim did quite well, in that rather than good or bad, killing some NPCs would simply result in people coming after you for it. More subtle, along the lines of Do what you want but there may be consequences.
"Though even Molyneux couldn't resist including the traditional black and white good/evil structure. "
Uh, what did you expect from the guy who made TWO games called "Black&White" just before he made Fable? :O
Anyway, I like that the bad options are always so extreme. That at least makes them INTERESTING.
Because as you say, the good options are always so very, very bland.
Uh, what did you expect from the guy who made TWO games called "Black&White" just before he made Fable? :O
Anyway, I like that the bad options are always so extreme. That at least makes them INTERESTING.
Because as you say, the good options are always so very, very bland.
I think straight forward morality metres work fine in a world where it makes sense for them to exist. In a fantasy world with a Godlike entity who would keep track of you (and even then it'd basically be a "pious" or "heretical" divide)
I think the problem is that in a video game world (excluding MMOs) it is perfectly appropriate to be a psychopath because it is actually the case that only you matter. The other people don't have feelings so even a good decision is a selfish egocentric one.
I think the problem is that in a video game world (excluding MMOs) it is perfectly appropriate to be a psychopath because it is actually the case that only you matter. The other people don't have feelings so even a good decision is a selfish egocentric one.
For a morality system done right, look at Dishonored.
It's mostly based around, "How many people did you literally murder this level?" As the bodies pile up, the plague gets worse and worse, rats start hunting in giant packs, and the last level is completely different based on whether your companions think you're ultimately a hero or a monster.
It's mostly based around, "How many people did you literally murder this level?" As the bodies pile up, the plague gets worse and worse, rats start hunting in giant packs, and the last level is completely different based on whether your companions think you're ultimately a hero or a monster.
[quote ="CHRIS RIO"]The civilians should be directly in your way. Make them clog up the roads when you're trying to get by. Make them rely on you for everything, to the point that they become entitled and arrogant. Make some of them turn on you, and then you have to decide if you want to fry one as an example to the others (they toy with this a little, but it doesn't go far enough). That's the superhero game I want to see.[/quote]
Oh god, no. That would be a horrible morality system. Sure, make being evil easier, but don't make being good just a pain in the butt. If you save people they should be grateful. Maybe the boss has more HP, or you have to avoid taking advantage of him when you could attack him through some civilians or something, but adopting the marvel universe "civilians are dicks" model would just make it never feel worth it.
Yes, a more nuanced system would be nice, but making it so being good sucks is not the way to do it.
The better way to handle it is "hey, on your way to save the day, there is a puppy about to be burned in a huge oven, wanna climb through it to get the puppy out"? Good stops being the default and evil can be justified. Bioshock could have done something similar: make it so you do not kill little sisters but instead just harvest some ADAM when you pick the bad option, messing up the little girl mentally a bit but not killing them. Each time you choose either to free or reap them you have to kill the Big Daddy. Then make the vita chambers cost ADAM. You get a worse and worse ending the more you farm the little sisters, but you can get literally every power and have infinity lives. You just have to be a bastard.
Oh god, no. That would be a horrible morality system. Sure, make being evil easier, but don't make being good just a pain in the butt. If you save people they should be grateful. Maybe the boss has more HP, or you have to avoid taking advantage of him when you could attack him through some civilians or something, but adopting the marvel universe "civilians are dicks" model would just make it never feel worth it.
Yes, a more nuanced system would be nice, but making it so being good sucks is not the way to do it.
The better way to handle it is "hey, on your way to save the day, there is a puppy about to be burned in a huge oven, wanna climb through it to get the puppy out"? Good stops being the default and evil can be justified. Bioshock could have done something similar: make it so you do not kill little sisters but instead just harvest some ADAM when you pick the bad option, messing up the little girl mentally a bit but not killing them. Each time you choose either to free or reap them you have to kill the Big Daddy. Then make the vita chambers cost ADAM. You get a worse and worse ending the more you farm the little sisters, but you can get literally every power and have infinity lives. You just have to be a bastard.
The best part about Dishonored's morality system is that it doesn't really measures how "good" or "evil" you were, but how much chaos you caused to the city around you as you completed your objectives. It never really judges Corvo as a villain because he chose to kill a whole lot of people, or because he got detected while being loud killing everyone. Instead, you are always a hero, no matter your ending, but the consequences of your action in the city determine if it will be a peaceful, plague free city, or a chaotic, plague ridden city.Azuaron said:
I say this mostly because of how many different choices you have on how to interact with your objectives. A lot of them are not "good" or "bad" choices. Like when you have to kill the High Overseer, you can change the poisoned glass and watch him die from afar (Or not watch at all, just leave and get the blackbook later), or use it to kill both him and the witness, or spill the glasses and kill him in other way. And even then, just to make the choice of killing him with your own hands for revenge's sake (my thoughs when I killed him"), or doing it in a safe way, from afar or any other choice.
Every single choice you make in Dishonored, even if it's not highlighted as one, counts to what kind of characther you believe Corvo is, and how much you care about the consequences of your action.
Yahtzee complained about Corvo being a silent protagonist, but the truth is that with so many option to mold him, it would be too hard to make all the different possible personalities Corvo could had in the game.
This is what CD Project understands better than other developers. It's not about morality, it's about choices and consequences. No one goes around doing evil things because they like being evil. Making a consciously evil choice when a better alternative is obvious to you is something that doesn't happen in life and shouldn't happen in video games either. People do evil things for two reasons: because they are not aware that they're doing something evil and because they don't care as long as they get what they want.
I've been gaming on Xbox Live for quite a while now (I was a beta tester on the original Xbox) and what I have experienced there leads me to believe that there probably are gamers out there who would murder an actual real-world puppy if (1) it could be done with no actual effort on their part (say, by a button press); (2) it could be done anonymously; and (3) there were no personal consequences.
But I'm a cynical bastard.
(Heh: Captcha is "Switch to Time Warner Cable." Can you blame me for being cynical?)
But I'm a cynical bastard.
(Heh: Captcha is "Switch to Time Warner Cable." Can you blame me for being cynical?)