How karmic gameplay can be improved

[hoboman29]

Karmic gameplay is a big trend in gaming today but a lot of people say it can be improved to make for a better game so my question to you is how would you fix it.
My opinion is to make it so that there is no obvious choice on what is good and bad so that it doesn't come down to what gets me the best/worst karma and to supplement that no karma meter you should find out as the results unfold not because it had the red text.

 

[War Penguin]

I always thought that it would be a good idea if you don't reveal whether or not you've been good or evil up until the end. Also, never show the slider or whatever. Have it all be subtle hints in gameplay or how NPCs react to you. Also, make it matter. If I do something, I want to see the effects I've made on the world. Plus, give us something more than a different ending. In the end, it's always the same gameplay, but I'm sure that can change.

That's all I got.

 

[StorytellingIsAMust]

Don't have it be good vs evil. Instead, just have two different decisions that change NPC reactions. The only difference should be how NPCs react and how the world changes. And also, actually have the decisions make an impact on the world.

 

[Avatar Roku]

Well, there are a couple ways. You can go with a tweaked Mass Effect system, with 2 independent meters, with the tweak of actually rewarding middle-of-the-road playing as well.

Or you could go a Fallout sort of way (except Fallout 3). In other words, no Karma Meters, but Reputation Meters for each faction instead.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

If you MUST have black and white morality: ALWAYS have the good choice make the game more difficult for the player. Don't have black and white morality be equals. That's not how the world works, unfortunately.

Bioshock botched this up, when it gave you almost as much ADAM through those gift thingies, that you would've gotten by murdering little sisters. That just destroyed the morality issue. Why would you be greedy and selfish if you....didn't need to be greedy and selfish to get every single thing in the world?

 

[Avatar Roku]

If you MUST have black and white morality: ALWAYS have the good choice make the game more difficult for the player. Don't have black and white morality be equals. That's not how the world works, unfortunately.

Bioshock botched this up, when it gave you almost as much ADAM through those gift thingies, that you would've gotten by murdering little sisters. That just destroyed the morality issue. Why would you be greedy and selfish if you....didn't need to be greedy and selfish to get every single thing in the world?

Hell, you actually got MORE Adam for saving them, assuming you saved every single one. That is indeed a botched attempt.

 

[WhiteFangofWhoa]

What Grizzler Borno said.

I think choices on whether to support or neglect characters of various alignments is a more effective way of doing karma. Say you get a very powerful party member, a sorcerer, whose habits and dialogue quickly reveal him to be an extremely nasty sort. You can confront him about it, kick him out entirely (he will probably bear a grudge and attack you at an inconvenient time for doing this) or let it be. But keeping him and other low-alignment people along for the ride has consequences further down the line, such as higher-alignment characters refusing to join you or even attacking you, proclaiming you to be the villains.

Heck, this system almost sounds like what Ogre Battle tried to do. Except there it was possible to change a character's alignment for good or ill if you tried. Even a demon could be turned good with an alignment of 80-100, and anyone could be turned bad if you wanted.

 

[Stall]

Honestly, I think choices have to be very obvious to the player. If the choices aren't clear, then you can descend into moral ambiguity, which really isn't conducive of karma meter mechanics. If you ever have to sit down and try and figure out which one is the good choice or which is the evil choice, then the game hasn't executed its karma system well. The entire point of karma meters is dichotomy: if a designer wants to do something without dichotomy, then they shouldn't bother with a meter.

Basically, if you want to use a karma meter, then be strictly binary: good or evil. If you want to make a game where the grey areas and moral ambiguity rule, then find an alternate way to gauge the player's choices.

 

[DustStorm]

I think that karma meters should be abandoned and instead the players actions should allow them to deduce for themselves whether or not they are evil. For example, in Fallout 3 if you destroy Megaton you are regarded as evil but if you donate money to the church you are suddenly viewed as a good person by everyone. A better way to approach the situation would be to give the player consequences for their actions instead of -500 karma. Such as when he approaches a city he may not be allowed entrance because of what he did to Megaton. The player would than have to solve the problem through speech, gaining the town's trust through a quest or simply shooting their way into town. If they shot their way into town, strangers may open fire at the sight of the player character as they wander the wastes due to both fearing him and hating him for his villainy, raiders may also become friendly out of fear of the player. Through this way the player could deduce their morality themselves and possibly redeem it by the end which would likely tell the player whether they have been good or bad based on their decisions rather than a meter.

 

[Kalikin]

How about storing good and bad karma separately, rather than having a single meter. Negative and positive karma would then effect different elements of gameplay.
For instance, if you've stacked up a lot of negative karma, then monsters become more aggressive, or traps are more numerous/hard to disarm/damaging. Similarly, good karma might effect loot or the social end of the game (this is all assuming we're talking about an Elder Scrolls kind of game).
With this, you could balance player decisions in more interesting ways - say the easiest way to accomplishing your goal is just killing someone. You'd get an easier time of it in the short term, but then pay for it later in ways you don't automatically link to specific past actions.
Of course, your karma will decrease as good/bad things happen to you.
Oh, and you don't actually see your karmic values ever.

 

[Arina Love]

i don't think it need to be improved i want to be good or bad. For me, not obvious and grey choices are bad because you don't define how i want to play, so in the end i might end up with ending i don't want and thus spoil whole experience of a game. i don't want to see bad ending because i didn't got through a game and know every choice and what it will do. i like Mass Effect system because i know what choice is bad and what is good.

 

[Togs]

Dont make us go all the way to either extreme, make each choice have no impact on mechanical aspects only on the direction the story takes.
Also weigh each one equally, explaining the costs and benefits of taking each/any side.

 

[Jammy2003]

How about not having huge benefits for sticking to one side or the other, and actually balance the game so you don't have to be a complete Bastard or Mother Teresa.....
Or just stick in things that are actually difficult choices and don't have huge difference in the rewards. So you actually have to decide based on the story, and not on what its going to get you.... (See Nier, which I recently discovered and actually really liked)

Edit:

Dont make us go all the way to either extreme, make each choice have no impact on mechanical aspects only on the direction the story takes.
Also weigh each one equally, explaining the costs and benefits of taking each/any side.

Damn, Ninja'd

 

[Jeran Korak]

I think the best system would be one where you chose the protagonist?s attitude before initiating conversation. An evil person can be nice just as much as a good person, but they can do it for entirely self-serving reasons. Like being buddies with a city guard only so they can later ask him to look the other way while they rob a bank. I would like the ability to predetermine the attitude of my character, so that when he acts in a good manner to lull the opposition into a false sense of security, he won?t gain good ?karma? and only gain good ?reputation? for his perceived goodness instead of actual good intent.

 

[SouthpawFencer]

My suggestions:

Option 1: Don't have binary karma meters at all. I liked Dragon Age's approval meters, where an action that might gain approval from one character might gain disapproval from another character. However, have those reactions weigh in even if a certain character is not in your current party. In DA:O, during any playthrough other than the first one, I'd choose to take characters with me who'd approve of all the actions that I planned on taking during any specific quest. The characters who were back at the campsite should have also had reactions, even if they were less dramatic (hearing "The Grey Warden gutted some apostate in the Arl's Dungeon" will cause less of a reaction than if you actually SAW the Grey Warden do what she should have done to Jowan in the Mage's Tower). Also, no matter what you do in life, there will always be someone who disapproves of your action, and somebody who does not.

Option 2: Don't require certain karma levels to acquire higher-level powers. Doing so requires the player to either be all good or all evil, kills the roleplaying element. This also applies to party members acquiring bonuses. If a character develops bonuses because they really, really like you (as opposed to, oh, I don't know, THE LIFE OF EVERY SINGLE PERSON THEY'VE EVER LIKED, LOVED, OR EVEN MILDLY TOLERATED BEING AT STAKE!), you make decisions based solely on maximizing karma/approval rather than "What would the person that I envision my Player Character to be do in this case?".

Regardless, the following things might improve the gameplay aspect:

Tip 1: Always have the consequences of your decision be a double-edged sword: You go into some inconsequential village and overthrow the tyrannical sheriff? That's nice, but if he and his men were the only people in the village who knew which end of a sword to hold, the village is now at the mercy of raiders who'll happily burn the village to the ground, while the sheriff at least wanted the village to survive in the long-term. You let that Batarian terrorist go in order to save his hostages? He goes on to murder hundreds of humans in his next attack.

Tip 2: When choosing a dialogue response: Have the actual response text be, word for word, what your character is actually going to SAY (cough cough BIOWARE cough cough).

 

[Lucane]

This would require a lot more programming but I'd say independent Karma meters on every NPC would work the best(This would mean every NPC basically has a name or at least an independent file to catalog your activities)
Say in the town of Ridgefall has 12 villagers outside of vendors and quest givers(They could or couldn't have karma as well) depending on how you treat them all decides your karma whilr some NPCs being more influential say like a Mayor,Town Sheriff or the Priest in a religious town or etc. Can give spread the word of your actions faster(Getting you in good or bad favor with others) Some villagers trust the word of family or friends more than anyone else making it a social net of who'll think your a hero or a heartless monster.

For added effect allowing the the option of killing some/most/all of these non story/quest NPCs could give the chance to prevent news of spreading of your deeds if the death was unnoticed by any witnesses which could work for good or evil.Good:being a bodyguard to a rich tyrant during collections for the payment.Evil:Taking care of an Orphanage in a cottage in the woods and being concerned about being called going soft or weak to certain groups.

Though I'd say the best though trickiest Karma move would by dynamic shifts where you could help out someone or a town a bunch just to later on set it on fire just to watch it burn or joining a crime syndicate to later on have a change of heart and expose them entirely to justice while getting yourself pardoned.

 

[Kiardras]

If you're going to have a karmic meter, then don't penalise "evil" decisions by making it impossible to find shops/repair etc.

So annoying when you try and side with the "raider" faction and are immediatly KOS every time you want to buy ammo.

 

[rhyno435]

This is something small, but I was thinking that, in a game where, like other people have been saying, there are no meters, and there's no CLEAR choice which is good or bad, it's all about morals and perspective, don't ALWAYS have the "good" choice first. Like in inFamous, even though it was painfully obvious which decision was the good and which was the bad, the good wasa always discussed before the bad. Or in Mass Effect, where all the Paragon decision are on the top right of the wheel, and the Renegade is on the bottom right.

In a game where you're not supposed to know which choice is "good" or "bad", knowing that the good choice is going to be discussed first, or higher up in a list of choices, can ruin that. So mix it up, keep people on their toes.

PS. As a side note, I know people who played Mass Effect and just always had the wheel set to the top right, and didn't even read the options. I believe that takes away from the game.

 

[Iron Mal]

I think that karma meters should be abandoned and instead the players actions should allow them to deduce for themselves whether or not they are evil. For example, in Fallout 3 if you destroy Megaton you are regarded as evil but if you donate money to the church you are suddenly viewed as a good person by everyone. A better way to approach the situation would be to give the player consequences for their actions instead of -500 karma. Such as when he approaches a city he may not be allowed entrance because of what he did to Megaton. The player would than have to solve the problem through speech, gaining the town's trust through a quest or simply shooting their way into town. If they shot their way into town, strangers may open fire at the sight of the player character as they wander the wastes due to both fearing him and hating him for his villainy, raiders may also become friendly out of fear of the player. Through this way the player could deduce their morality themselves and possibly redeem it by the end which would likely tell the player whether they have been good or bad based on their decisions rather than a meter.

While this would be an interesting system and probably a better way to have to social impact of your actions be better represented this doesn't result in us seeing the moral implications of our actions so much as whether our actions are well liked and popular.

Another unfortunate problem with a system like this is that it could become very complex with a lot of micromanagement and note keeping on who you've wronged, what the consequences are and how you can remedy them in various ways (and what the consequences of not doing so is). So while a system like this could have the potential for a very interesting way of dealing with various problems it could all too easily become far too complex for most people to actually keep up with (it's hard to enjoy a game and immerse yourself in a world if you need to keep a notepad and pen handy just to remember who you've pissed off).

I think the best system would be one where you chose the protagonist?s attitude before initiating conversation. An evil person can be nice just as much as a good person, but they can do it for entirely self-serving reasons. Like being buddies with a city guard only so they can later ask him to look the other way while they rob a bank. I would like the ability to predetermine the attitude of my character, so that when he acts in a good manner to lull the opposition into a false sense of security, he won?t gain good ?karma? and only gain good ?reputation? for his perceived goodness instead of actual good intent.

As with the above suggestion, this is an interesting suggestion and could result in a lot of interesting roleplaying scenarios and characterisation but it isn't hard to imagine how the complexity of a system like this could easily get out of hand and become far too convoluted and complex for most peple to actually use (nevermind get swept up in and enjoy).

If you MUST have black and white morality: ALWAYS have the good choice make the game more difficult for the player. Don't have black and white morality be equals. That's not how the world works, unfortunately.

Bioshock botched this up, when it gave you almost as much ADAM through those gift thingies, that you would've gotten by murdering little sisters. That just destroyed the morality issue. Why would you be greedy and selfish if you....didn't need to be greedy and selfish to get every single thing in the world?

Well for starters the reason why so many morality systems are so binary is more a limitation on the number of variables a narrative can have than anything else (having a story where the protaganist is good or evil already creates enough diverging paths in terms of how a story or characterisation can prgress), imagine trying to write a story where you have to account for the character potentially responding to every situation a vast myriad of ways (hell, just writing linear stories with a single preset character presents challanges for most mediums), the more choices you put in for the player the more and more complex and tangled the plot and continueity will get (something which has it's own downsides).

As for different moral paths being equal in terms of their reward, this is important to ensure that the player isn't unfairly punished based on their choices (if good was made to be vastly harder than evil then you'd find that this would discourage people from taking that course of action). We all subconsciously metagame at times so it's not unreasonable to assume that just making good choices have extra difficulty that a large number of players would just opt for the evil option out of laziness (rather than for moral reasons) or take the good choice for an extra self imposed challange (rather than because it's the right thing to do). Keeping a choice grounded purely in morality rather in gameplay helps ensure that the morality system will be used as intended (namely for making choices on moral grounds) rather than being abused for easy power-ups.

Finally, a lot of people wonder why there is often no bonus for being nuetral. This, again, could be argued as being a way of ensuring balance between the choices of good and evil. Why would you bother making the effort to follow a particular moral path when you can get exactly the same benefit from just opting out of it and saying 'not my problem'? The rewards that are often given for reaching an extreme of a particular morality are supposed to be rewards for showing dedication to a particular path, for being disaplined and sticking with it (or showing how cartoonishly devilish you can be if you opt to be evil).

After all, why take the problems associated with being extremely good or evil when you can just take the middle ground and still reap benefits?

 

[Apocalypse0Child]

I think any time when you give a player a choice in game, it's for the benefit of imersion.
As soon as you start showing them (the player/s) the right/wrong answer, it becomes a monotomy within the game and just a different sort of grinding, because you're no longer trying to roleplay or get really 'in to' your character, you've just realised that you can get better abilities/items/etc by being consistant rather than showing the conflicting morals of a living, thinking person. You become an extra program in the game, rather than say... in a way, making the experience of playing the game an extra piece of your life.

I always thought that it would be a good idea if you don't reveal whether or not you've been good or evil up until the end. Also, never show the slider or whatever. Have it all be subtle hints in gameplay or how NPCs react to you. Also, make it matter. If I do something, I want to see the effects I've made on the world. Plus, give us something more than a different ending. In the end, it's always the same gameplay, but I'm sure that can change.

That's all I got.

Karmic gameplay is a big trend in gaming today but a lot of people say it can be improved to make for a better game so my question to you is how would you fix it.
My opinion is to make it so that there is no obvious choice on what is good and bad so that it doesn't come down to what gets me the best/worst karma and to supplement that no karma meter you should find out as the results unfold not because it had the red text.

I think what you've both said are the best possible suggestions. Make it less obvious which option/s are the good ones and the bad ones, and hide the overall karmatic display meter. Thus leaving the player to question what they've just done, almost like they would in a real life situation.

I think it would greatly improve games that use karmatic options as a main selling point.

Being able to see how you shape the world for example, I like what Fallout: New Vegas tried and failed to do, because as much as I like being able to choose how the world WILL end up, you never get to see it. SO it kind of gets the the last hurdle and trips over it's feet for me.

And for example what happened in Mass Effect with saving the council, I think some choices like that (which would have to be made in a split second on instinct and personality) in real life, shouldn't be given to the player as it means a character that has otherwise been evil the whole game can still try to do the right thing now, which yes, offers a chance for reform within themselves, but personally I think if they've been evil so far in the game, take the final chocie away from them and make them realise what they're actions have lead too in the personality / actions of their character. It might actually be remotely educational as well as more imersive.