Moral Choices in Games that never really matter.

[WaderiAAA]

Dragon Age Origins was alright, but there is still some way to go before you get a really inter-active story. I didn't really feel like going through the whole game a second time, because I doubt being an A-hole throughout the campaign would affect the storyline very much. If you want to affect a story, the best way is still to write a book or be the Dungeon Master in a D&D game.

I would like to see a game with more option. Imagine if there was a fantasy war game where you could join the army, join the other army, be a body guard for merchants, be a mercanary, be a diplomat or run away from the whole thing and try to find a different place to live. That would be a story game worth playing through more than once.

 

[Seldon2639]

I think the inherit flaw of any moral choice system is that it is an actual part of the game. By doing so, the developer is required to have some sort of in-game consenquences that come as a result of tilting one way or the other. And since there are numerous possibilities as far as morality is concerned, developers need to intentionally limit the effects in order to be able to actually finish development of the game.

The best way to implement morality in a video game is to....well, not implement it at all. Allow the player several choices as to how to handle a certain situation and then let him/her figure out for himself/herself whether what he/she did was moral or not. The issue of morality is complicated and is at it's best when it can be questioned and debated, not when the game explicitly tells you whether or not what you did is right or wrong.

Simply put, video game developers should follow the traditional rule of any artform of "show, don't tell". A game shouldn't say what it's moral story is. Instead, it should let the player draw his own conclusions.

Perhaps it's my background as a devout JRPG player, but I absolutely hate the "show, don't tell" aspect of most western RPGs. The whole "let the player decide for himself" stuff feels like a lot of a cop out. It ends up feeling, to me, like it's just a fancy, expensive, way for me to play with action figures. Instead of being told a story about a character with a personality, I'm forced to make up a character.

I think this is the difference between JRPGs and Western RPGs, and their fans and detractors. I like the element (a la Persona 4) that says "you have moral choices, as a player, but those choices actually dictate the kinds of choices you have later-on", rather than "well, you can make choices, but you can always just change your choices later". The issue I have is a lack of consistency, where (if there isn't some in-game consequence) there's nothing forcing me to have the character have the same personality from day to day. It kills the immersion for me to realize that even if I was a bastard on every previous world, I can be all sunshine and moonbeams on the world I'm on. My character stops being "Admiel, stalwart hero of Ferelden" or "Admiel, royal jackass", and is just "Admiel, dude who does some stuff, whatever".

I'm sick and god-damned tired of game developers (I'm looking at you Bioware and Bethesda) whose response to "we want personalization of characters" is to say "fine, you want personalization, we can give you personalization. Here, we'll cut out any character development, or independent personality, and make him a hollow shell of whatever you want to do in any given moment. Oh, you want him to have motivations, a complex inner-struggle and feelings? You'd better be willing to play pretend, 'cause we're not giving you any of that".

 

[Stormz]

You know...nearly all the options in Bioware games are pointless, too.

I did each of the six origins in Dragon Age twice. Was a dick all through my origins, and nice through them.

Exactly my point.
Why can't I join the darkspawn?
Moral choices are neat, and give some roleplay flavour, but you're always stuck in the Hero role. Even if it's anti-hero.

To be fair. The Darkspawn want to kill all humans no matter how good or bad you are.

 

[Naheal]

How about Deus Ex? There isn't so much a moral choice system there as there is a "faction choice" system.

 

[CD-R]

It can be done. I think the horror action game The Suffering did a really good job with the whole moral choice aspects.

I talked about it in more detail in another post.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.190169-Games-that-are-art-Whats-your-candidate?page=4#5920086

Anyway the moral choice system is actually pretty simple. Sometimes you'll come across either a prisoner or a corrections Officer and you can help them out some times by keeping them alive. Or just killing them. Depending on your alignment you get a different ending and few different scenes but other than that the game play's exactly the same. And you know what it actually works pretty well.


Since you don't know whether or not the protagonist actually killed his ex wife and children at first, committing the random acts of violence against the inmates and CO's actually makes sense. "Yeah he shot that guy in the head he murdered his wife an kids, he's a violent psychopath" The game does an excellent job of making you really feel evil, and really hate the main character if he commits evil acts. It also makes you feel incredibly sorry for the main character if he commits good acts.

If you're going to do the whole be Hitler or Mother Teresa route then go all the way with it. Make the player really feel like Hitler or Mother Teresa.

 

[Aptspire]

Dante's infernio. No matter how many souls you save or damn, there is still only one ending...

 

[syndicated44]

Fallout 3 probably had the worse moral system in this list primarily because it was useless. but the game. The only thing that came of it was whether or not you could get a follower or not and if either mercs attacked you or Wasteland PD. There was no real gamechange out of it hell there werent even perks that based themselves on how evil or good you were. It was tacked on and completely useless.



Want to know how to make moral systems work? Dont implement them. If there is a moral system let it run silently in the back and change subtle things because in the end their the ones with exclamation marks over their head and your the one with the big sword (or gun) and they will ALWAYS need you.

See this I find a little odd. I liked Fallout 3 and enjoyed that the moral system was basically tucked away. I didn't want to suddenly gain extra magical powers just because I was particularly nice and patted some dogs or that I was particularly nasty and kicked them. It was just a register that ticked away quietly in the background. Adding game mechanics would have taken some of that away.

Which leads me to your next statement. You say that you didn't think it had enough impact but then later that you prefer there was no impact at all?

I edited that like 3 times so I am sure I screwed up.

Let me explain my last statement better. I like the idea if a moral choice doesnt show up at all such as you dont know if you are being considered good or evil but change small things such as how people react to you. Do they avoid you and are tight lipped when your around or are your good actions better known so people come to you knowing that you will help them. Close off quests if your evil and open up new avenues etc.

What comes to mind is Deus Ex. Depending upon your actions people will open up to you more or not. In the beginning your fighting a terrorist group. If you kill the terrorists the soldiers your helping open up to you more and give you more information. On the other hand the people that are more sympathetic to their plight are less interested in helping you. There is no obvious moral choice such as your not told your being good or evil and the game ultimately goes to the same place however it changes subtle things along the way.

On to Fallout. My problem with the moral choices in it is that they matter so very little so why even put it in? The game yells at you for being evil (thank you three dog) or tells everyone your here to help (again thank you three dog) however it just doesnt change anything about it. The only thing that does change is whether or not a follower will join up with you or if your attacked by one of the two factions and even then they only attack if your either far to the right or left.

But even then it really doesnt matter because say you want to recruit Paladin Cross but you just blew up Megaton so your on the evil side of the spectrum. All you really need to do now is give some water to some beggers and she will join you. The moral choices are so lightly taken its almost funny. I mean I just blew up an entire city yet by giving water to some beggars I am now truly a good person. But now I am good and Paladin Cross sucks and Clover is looking like a good choice. Lets just go kill some people and then I can fire Cross and get Clover. Your choices dont change the game in the absolute least (beyond the fact that megaton is a smoldering hole) but even then they still allow you to finish the biggest quest out of that city.

I should also mention what I meant by tieing your moral choices to perks. Perks are probably one of my favorite things out of the Fallout games. There are so many prequisets to perks in Fallout 3 but their mostly tied to your stats (which is perfectly fine and makes sense) but why not tie two of the perks to being good or evil. For example night person would be available if your evil and solar powered good (just what popped into me mind). The only perk that is tied to the moral choice system promotes you to be neutral. What is the point in having the moral choice system if your going to be neutral? Plus being neutral in that game is damn near impossible.

Fallout treats the moral system like a math equation and makes it a science then it is a choice. Lets look at bombing Megaton again. You can blow it up and you get X amount of bad points. Now you can figure out how many water bottles you need to hand out get your neutrality. It no longer makes morals a choice it simply makes it a barrier to get something you want (a very small barrier). So in the end there is really no point to have it in there beyond saying I am being evil or good and then listen to other people tell you your or good evil yet still hand you a big wad of caps and the same quest no matter what side of the spectrum your on.

 

[R4ptur3]

When i think about it, Fable has to be one of the worst ones for this. i played both as good and evil and at the start where you have to either help the bandits raid the barn or protect the goods, i was hoping as the evil choice the bandits would then become your allies in the woods near it and attack any passes by with you, but that didnt happen. Fable 2 failed in that aspect as well, as the end. why do you have a choice of being good or evil all through the game, only to be able to pick your ideal world card thing at the end, that should of been automatic depending on how good/bad you were, and even then theres a problem becuase it was at the end of the game. Rawr.

 

[ANIM4L M0TH3R]

Developers often put moral choices in theur game to make it feel more "immersive". I find that unless you lead an extremely exciting life, you rarely have to make moral choices. Most people already have a "moral code" of what they think is right/wrong and they go by that code 99% of the time. I think games would benefit much more from making practical choices, like where to send troops in a battle, where to take somebody on a date, or what equipment to bring on a quest. Real life is just a series of practical choices one after the other, and I would like to see a game that is like this.

 

[Pokedude1013]

ALL OF THEM
bc its a game
hahah dick answer

 

[RnAoDm]

Though the actions to complete the game were still the same whether good or evil in Fable 2, at the very least most of the time there was a noticable difference among the citizens. When good, everyone loves you and follows you round, when evil they will scream and run away.

I do agree i'd like to fully fit into a bastard role however i think that to have a complete opposite to the good role would be same as developing two games to make your actions fully impact the world and the decision of which path to go down would need to be selected early on. As a game where you could pick and choose at any time with every judgement affecting everything would lead to too many possibilities, with time and money limits there would just be a crap release in the end maybe with a good moral system as its only selling point.

 

[Kimarous]

I think one of the weakest examples of moral choice is in "Mount and Blade". There is an honor system wherein you can gain honor by refusing mission rewards or lose it by refusing to accept ransom money for generals you captured. Either way, you more or less just lose money and resources. Why? So that a select few individuals like you slightly better. No thank you; I'd rather marry the lord's daughter who DOESN'T require me to be of "moral fiber", or in realistic terms, require me to starve my army because I wouldn't accept the rescued village's reward of bread, cabbage, and pork! Sorry, Lord Knuddar, but your niece is less of an idiot than your daughter...

Still, what bugs me the most is in "Sacred 2: Fallen Angel". The opening cutscene has a narrator asking you if you will save Ancaria or plunge it into the firey abyss. Here's the problem... this cutscene is played after character creation, which includes a PRE-DETERMINED MORAL ALIGNMENT! It presents it like there ARE moral choices when your character is already set on a particular path!

 

[TheEngineer]

I played Fallout 3, Oblivion, Fable, and Fable 2 not giving a shit what my choices were. It really doesnt matter because at the end of the day it made no real difference and i just finished some bad as games.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

The Dark Side ending for Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic is an exception, but definitely a rarity. Have your friends murder one another, destroy the Republic fleet, conquer the galaxy, and get a smexy Sith apprentice... yep, good times.

It really did the best job of a true morality system. You couldn't really be the big bad until the big reveal about 3/4s in, but still screwing with people up until then was always fun.

Fallout 3 was a big disappointment (morality, the game itself is pretty fun), I wanted to join the Enclave when I played through as an evil. Always wondered; What would Broken Steel have been like if you joined the Enclave instead of the Brotherhood?

 

[Caiti Voltaire]

snip

I ... find it disingenuous or perhaps misinformed to say characterise it in such a way that JRPGs have the story/character development and such and western RPGs do not. These labels as it were refer to styles of storytelling and the societal influences that work their way into these stories.

There are plenty of western RPGs that are linear and fashion stories with solid character development around them. Planescape: Torment is an excellent example of this that a lot of people will probably chant the moment I say this, but other examples include Eye of the Beholder, and my personal favourite, Bloodlines. And there are plenty of RPGs made in Japan that ape the 'western' approach as well, Demon's Souls being the most prominent in my mind.

I personally don't think there's anything wrong with linear storytelling in a game. Look at Half-Life and Half-Life 2 which tell excellent stories and yet are entirely linear with a protagonaist that never speaks.

[edit]: I meant western, not sandbox.

 

[Seldon2639]

I ... find it disingenuous or perhaps misinformed to say characterise it in such a way that JRPGs have the story/character development and such and western RPGs do not. These labels as it were refer to styles of storytelling and the societal influences that work their way into these stories.

No, it refers for the tendency of Western RPGs in general (and Bioware games in particular) to get so hung-up on the idea of making sure the player has choices and can 'influence' the game, that they make characters without any sense of self. I can't name a Bioware game (and I would challenge you to), where the main character isn't just an avatar for the player's choices.

Character development requires a character. Western RPGs don't make main characters, they make player stand-ins.

There are plenty of western RPGs that are linear and fashion stories with solid character development around them. Planescape: Torment is an excellent example of this that a lot of people will probably chant the moment I say this, but other examples include Eye of the Beholder, and my personal favourite, Bloodlines. And there are plenty of RPGs made in Japan that ape the 'western' approach as well, Demon's Souls being the most prominent in my mind.

You mean the part of Planescape: Torment where the Nameless One has no independent personality? Or the part where any "development" is on the part of the player, and thrust upon the character? The problem with dialogue-based solutions is the same as in Mass Effect: you have to make each conversation independent from every other conversation. If you played Mass Effect, you realize that you can be a royal bastard in one conversation, and sweet as pecan pie in the next, and no one bats an eyebrow.

Any character or development is done by the player, not by the game.

I've not played Eye of the Beholder, but from what I saw on wikipedia, it doesn't seem to be that good about character arcs or development.

I personally don't think there's anything wrong with linear storytelling in a game. Look at Half-Life and Half-Life 2 which tell excellent stories and yet are entirely linear with a protagonaist that never speaks.

[edit]: I meant western, not sandbox.

I have no problem with linear storytelling, just a problem with a lack of true personality for the character you play. Mass Effect 2 was terribly linear. But Shepherd is static. His personality is non-existent until I decide what to do. There's no consistency, no baseline, so there's no change. Any moment I can decide he's an angel, or satan, a pragmatist, or an idealist. I, as a player, have to make the game.

That's just bad storytelling. It's like a make-your-own adventure book.

You're confusing what I hate about Western RPGs (the lack of independent personality for the Main Character, the lack of character development or change in personality of same), with a completely different issue.

I don't mind linear games, or sandbox games. I mind games that force me to invent a character. I'm paying to be told a story about a person, I don't want to have to fill in the blanks myself

 

[AmayaOnnaOtaku]

Dammit Ninja'd.

I was going to say the suffering as well.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

I'm paying to be told a story about a person, I don't want to have to fill in the blanks myself

Well, to be fair, the entire point of a game is the interactivity between you and the game itself. Sure, games like Final Fantasy XIII are great for telling a story, and giving you.. more or less well thought out characters, but it feels more like a movie than anything else. The entire basis of being able to choose your characters thoughts, feelings, and actions is pivotal for many people, as you actually have a say in how the world and people develop around you, and how you as a character develop in turn.

Basically, from my personal view - If you want to watch a story unfold before you, and fleshed out character concepts already given to you.. Just watch a movie. If you want to be involved in an unfolding story, where you flesh out your character as he interacts with the world around him.. play a video game.

 

[Seldon2639]

Well, to be fair, the entire point of a game is the interactivity between you and the game itself. Sure, games like Final Fantasy XIII are great for telling a story, and giving you.. more or less well thought out characters, but it feels more like a movie than anything else. The entire basis of being able to choose your characters thoughts, feelings, and actions is pivotal for many people, as you actually have a say in how the world and people develop around you, and how you as a character develop in turn.

Basically, from my personal view - If you want to watch a story unfold before you, and fleshed out character concepts already given to you.. Just watch a movie. If you want to be involved in an unfolding story, where you flesh out your character as he interacts with the world around him.. play a video game.

That's why I began my little rant by talking about it being a basic difference in philosophy. But, I don't consider what you do when you play Mass Effect to really be "fleshing out a character". If I wanted to do that, I'd write terrible fanfiction. Instead, what you're doing is basically just making up a basic personality and running with it. No deep backstory, no internal conflicts, no hand-wringing drama. Just you, and whatever the hell you want to make Slappy McMainCharacter do at any given moment.

Maybe I'm just bad at playing video games, but If I wanted to make up my own character to go on adventures, can't I write a book, or play with action figures, and save myself sixty bucks? Fundamentally, if the story is about the character, then what Bioware does is write a brilliant space-opera, then cut out half of the content. And that's why moral choice systems in Western RPGs (in my opinion) always fall short: because no matter what you do, each event is isolated. There's no personality to the main character, so every single event can have a different "person" playing it.