Does it always have to cost to be good?

[Kapol]

Alright, so I've been playing through Fable 3 recently, and there is something annoying me about it.

Spoiler: Slight Fable 3 spoilers

Alright, so I've finally become the king, and now I have to decide on various subjects ranging from what to do with child labor laws and schools. The thing about these decisions is that the good options always cost money... or at least don't give any benefits. Now, money is very important at this point, as each gold you have in your treasury is another life saved later on. But some of these losses are fairly stupid and show how little choice there is in these games.

For example: You're asked what to do about a drinking limit. It's a small issue that comes up out of nowhere and likely doesn't have long-lasting effects. The options are to ban the drink to commoners completely, remove the limit, or leave it as is. The first is the 'bad' option and gets you a few hundred thousand gold, as the rich would still be allowed to drink and would pay you off for making the law. The second 'remove limit' option is the 'good' option, and loses you I believe about 100,000 gold. The third keeps things normal. Now this makes no sense to me. The second option should increase the economy, which should allow for more taxes to be collected on the alcohol, and therefore give you money. At the very least I can't see how it would make you lose money just for removing the limit. And why can't I put a decent tax on alcohol while making it legal to drink as much as you'd like? That would provide a good bit of gold to help fund the army I need while making things not quite as bad as they were. And why can't I fire that new annoying schedule person who works for me and replace him with John Cleese (Jeeves)?

And just after that you need to decide weather to drain a lake to mine it resources or leave it alone. The leave it alone options (good) cost you somehow when you're not actually doing anything. How does that make sense?

So for those who didn't read all that, my point is why do so many choices in games such as Fable (aka those with 'black and white' moral choice systems) seem to reach so far just to make one option more appealing, to the point where it doesn't make much sense? Why does being 'good' almost always end up costing you something, while the bad options always seem to give you a positive bonus. It's not like there aren't people who just prefer to play the bad guy, so why just punish the good people? And finally, can anyone think of any other examples of this sort of logic stretch or games that do it better?

 

[no oneder]

Why does being 'good' almost always end up costing you something, while the bad options always seem to give you a positive bonus. It's not like there aren't people who just prefer to play the bad guy, so why just punish the good people? And finally, can anyone think of any other examples of this sort of logic stretch or games that do it better?

Tht would be because being good in real life can also cost you badly. It's mainly to show off and say: "Hey, I chose the story with the shittiest rewards because I take the moral high ground". Just like driving a Prius.

The only other game I can think of that does this to the player is Bioshock and it's lousy sequel. Perhaps we are actually being tested by game developers, and all people that make the good choices in games get to travel to Mars when the apocalypse comes in special rockets designed to carry all good gamers.

 

[Chronarch]

Maybe they're trying to show that the bad options are generally easier and may provide more money. This would show that it's easy to become corrupt if you have power. That's my guess on the matter.

 

[D_987]

The game attempts to provide a moral dilemma, if you act in the way we perceive to be "good" then you're likely to loose something - but at the same time they hope you care deep enough about the potential consequences within the game to act based on emotions, rather than logic. It's not a great way to do this sort of thing, simply because, like you say, it becomes a repeated pattern that damages the players perceptions of "good" by taking away gameplay benefits.

One game I felt did the system justice was The Witcher, choices had consequences, yet there didn't always appear, at first glance, to be a "right" choice.

 

[Kapol]

Why does being 'good' almost always end up costing you something, while the bad options always seem to give you a positive bonus. It's not like there aren't people who just prefer to play the bad guy, so why just punish the good people? And finally, can anyone think of any other examples of this sort of logic stretch or games that do it better?

Tht would be because being good in real life can also cost you badly. It's mainly to show off and say: "Hey, I chose the story with the shittiest rewards because I take the moral high ground". Just like driving a Prius.

The only other game I can think of that does this to the player is Bioshock and it's lousy sequel. Perhaps we are actually being tested by game developers, and all people that make the good choices in games get to travel to Mars when the apocalypse comes in special rockets designed to carry all good gamers.

Well I always choose the good options, just because I feel like it. But my main problem in this case is that some of these options just feel like they're reaching so far from logic to actually say 'this is good and this is bad' that it pulls me out of the game. I don't mind it when most good options have negitive consequences, it just annoys me when the negitive outcome makes no sense.

The game attempts to provide a moral dilemma, if you act in the way we perceive to be "good" then you're likely to loose something - but at the same time they hope you care deep enough about the potential consequences within the game to act based on emotions, rather than logic. It's not a great way to do this sort of thing, simply because, like you say, it becomes a repeated pattern that damages the players perceptions of "good" by taking away gameplay benefits.

One game I felt did the system justice was The Witcher, choices had consequences, yet there didn't always appear, at first glance, to be a "right" choice.

I've never played The Witcher, but that sounds better. It honestly seems like any game that comes out and tells you 'this is the good option and this is the bad option' (such as in Fable 3, which has good options as using the A button and have light around them while bad options are X and have fire) are making the entire game less immersive because of it. Instead of having your morals questioned by asking 'what would you do' in a situation where each option has it's ups and downs and then forces you to live with the consequences, these games just tell you the 'right' and 'wrong' answer.

 

[Jaidenator]

I just beat it, it was SOOOOOO annoying that I was trying to be good but I needed money. I ended up saving half of the lives, about 3 million. I was kinda pissed.

 

[D_987]

I've never played The Witcher, but that sounds better. It honestly seems like any game that comes out and tells you 'this is the good option and this is the bad option' (such as in Fable 3, which has good options as using the A button and have light around them while bad options are X and have fire) are making the entire game less immersive because of it. Instead of having your morals questioned by asking 'what would you do' in a situation where each option has it's ups and downs and then forces you to live with the consequences, these games just tell you the 'right' and 'wrong' answer.

I attempted to search for a good example and found this post on Giant Bomb that sums it up nicely:

"I had heard that The Witcher had moral choices, like so many games of the day had. They were also supposedly, in a term I find tiresome, "in shades of gray instead of black and white." I didn't believe that for one second, because this had been promised of so many games before, from Fable to Mass Effect to Fallout 3. As we all know, the choices from those games ended up being hilariously obvious, with the shining example being Fallout's "should I nuke this entire city, killing everyone in it, or not? Brain scratcher!" I'm not saying any of those games are bad, and they in fact number among my favorites, but definitely not because of any moral complexity.

Along came The Witcher, and I did my usual shtick of choosing if I want to be a good guy or bad guy before the game begins. As always, I decided to be a good guy on my first run through, always protecting the innocent wherever I go like a true hero. I very quickly realized that this archetype would not fit at all. For the first time, I discovered moral choices that were truly difficult to make, ones that boiled down to more than the obvious good choice or bad choice. They made me ask myself what I thought was right, made me think. I'll give you an example. Beware, for minor early game spoilers lurk below, enter at your own risk.

In one of the first small villages you come to, the main quest line is to gain the trust of the prominent villagers and defeat an almighty "Beast" which has awakened in the town. The villagers seem to believe the local witch was the one who summoned the Beast, and this eventually leads to them taking up arms against her. You also find that the Beast was summoned because of the sins of the local townsfolk. At this point you get the choice between saving the witch from the angry mob by slaughtering practically the entire village, or join the attack on the witch. The townsfolk have raped and murdered, but most of these actions were enabled by the witch. So who do you help? I chose the witch, because she seemed to have committed less sin, but the choice uniquely comes down to your personal view, instead of deciding to be nice or evil. That is what sets The Witcher apart from other RPGs, and why I'll continue playing it."

http://www.giantbomb.com/the-witcher/61-10473/surprising-moral-complexity-in-the-witcher/35-434231/

 

[RatRace123]

Even playing as a good guy I kinda feel like I can't do the "good" option in your example, mainly because the majority of my Ablbion suddenly became drunk all the time, even the damn shopkeepers were too busy slouching around and vomiting to sell me stuff.

About the topic at hand: It's supposed to be hard to be good so it becomes easier to slip up and give in to corruption.

 

[mindlesspuppet]

snip...

Agreed. The Witcher has what is by far and away the best moral choice system of any game.

Not only are they real choices to be made not simply "I want to be a good guy/I want to be a bad guy", but they actually have immediate and lasting impact on the game, unlike most games where you decisions merely effect the ending... or nothing at all... looking at you Mass Effect.

 

[WolfEdge]

I see where you're coming from, but Fable 3's big moral dilemma didn't really effect me. I owned every single house, landmark and business in the entirety of that fucking game by the time it was time to make that choice, so I was all, "What? You need how much? Six Million? You people still count in single gold increments? Man, I stopped doing that once I hit a jillion."

The big beef I had with Fable, (aside from only being able to marry worthless npc trash) was the sheer disappointment involved with most of the quests. Every time the game lead me to believe that shit was FINALLY going to get real, the boss would be a cardboard cut out, or would sick balvarines on me and run away like a *****, or take over a friend and that's the final god damn fight, so have fun. I would have enjoyed a serious, non-standard confrontation with a major villain just ONCE, but every fucking time I got excited, the game would pull the god damn rug out from under me.

It was just so disappointing.

 

[Kapol]

The Witcher sounds interesting. It's too bad I don't care too much for PC controls, otherwise I'd likely check it out. But I hope that more games start using the actually difficult moral choice systems in the future.

Even playing as a good guy I kinda feel like I can't do the "good" option in your example, mainly because the majority of my Ablbion suddenly became drunk all the time, even the damn shopkeepers were too busy slouching around and vomiting to sell me stuff.

About the topic at hand: It's supposed to be hard to be good so it becomes easier to slip up and give in to corruption.

Honestly, I noticed that after I beat the game. The number of people just vomiting all over the place is just stupid. I doubt the entire population drinks that much. Otherwise, I think it'd be smarter to be a boozemaker rather then trying to be the king.

And I know that it's supposed to be harder, but it's just stupid sometimes, as in the case mentioned above. That's my big beef with some of these moral choice systems, stupid choices that you can tell were designed to punish the good and benefit the bad.

I see where you're coming from, but Fable 3's big moral dilemma didn't really effect me. I owned every single house, landmark and business in the entirety of that fucking game by the time it was time to make that choice, so I was all, "What? You need how much? Six Million? You people still count in single gold increments? Man, I stopped doing that once I hit a jillion."

The big beef I had with Fable, (aside from only being able to marry worthless npc trash) was the sheer disappointment involved with most of the quests. Every time the game lead me to believe that shit was FINALLY going to get real, the boss would be a cardboard cut out, or would sick balvarines on me and run away like a *****, or take over a friend and that's the final god damn fight, so have fun. I would have enjoyed a serious, non-standard confrontation with a major villain just ONCE, but every fucking time I got excited, the game would pull the god damn rug out from under me.

It was just so disappointing.

I know what you mean. Getting money is very easy in Fable 3 if you know how to do it. The best way I found once I knew I needed money is that I bought every shop (houses have a bad effect in that they need to be repaired once in a while), set the price to highest, and then go to the road to rule and just wait till you have enough. Any negative impact the prices would have are shot out the window by how 'good' your actions are.

Though I should mention that you can marry and have children with other players in Fable 3, so you aren't only able to marry the dumb-ass NPCs.

 

[iLikeHippos]

Well, if there is a message over-all, is that Communism is totally the way to go!

I bet that's what they truly wished to say.

OT; Albeit that the moral choices were more that obvious, I usually just picked the corrupt choice, just for Reavers snarky tone and constant glued smirk. It pretty much convinced me over the ungrateful assholes called 'the People of Albion'...

 

[D_987]

Holy shit, I'm buying that game. (No, Ephraim, you've bought too many games! Play those first!) STFU MONEY SAVER SIDE!

I highly recommend it if you choose to buy it. That and The Witcher 2 comes out soon, and carries save data over from the original.

 

[IronMaidenLeigh]

I guess the idea is that the "evil" path is supposed to be the easier, quicker way. In Fable 3, they were trying to force you to decide if you wanted to take the "good" path & honor your promises yet risk the lives of the people, or take the "evil" path & break your promises yet save more people. (Of course this is negated by just buying all the property in the world, so you're basically just being evil to be evil).

 

[vxicepickxv]

I wracked up 20 hours of game time waiting for enough money to save everybody, get everything right, only to find something else out.

Spoiler: Fable 3 royal choice kick

So, not only do you get money for enslaving the Aurorans, but you can also unlock another weapon(brining the total number of unique weapons up to a possible 27 instead of 26) after solving a flit switch puzzle that you can't get by going the good route.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Why does being 'good' almost always end up costing you something, while the bad options always seem to give you a positive bonus. It's not like there aren't people who just prefer to play the bad guy, so why just punish the good people? And finally, can anyone think of any other examples of this sort of logic stretch or games that do it better?

Tht would be because being good in real life can also cost you badly. It's mainly to show off and say: "Hey, I chose the story with the shittiest rewards because I take the moral high ground". Just like driving a Prius.

The only other game I can think of that does this to the player is Bioshock and it's lousy sequel. Perhaps we are actually being tested by game developers, and all people that make the good choices in games get to travel to Mars when the apocalypse comes in special rockets designed to carry all good gamers.

Well shit. I guess I haven't got a hope then.

 

[Veylon]

I guess the problem here is that most games pose moral dilemmas when they should be giving ethical dilemmas. The choices shouldn't so much be good or bad or hidden, but have consequences that are a blend of both.

It's like deciding whether to save a town from a dragon. A moral dilemma would let you slay the beast or let the town burn. An ethical dilemma would allow you also to bargain with it or figure a way to lure it to the Evil Empire's villages, making it their problem.

And if the town in question had feuds and quarrels, there are those who'd pat you on the back and buy you a beer if you helped the dragon burn it down. It makes the game more interesting if there are multiple viewpoints.