morality in videogames #1

[segataDC]

"...morality. What is it? Why do we need it? Our ancestors, shortly after discovering fire, build tools to beat each-other over the head and discovered how to make meat to celibrate with afterwards. Then, Columbus came over, shut down the pilgrim disco's. Why? All very confusing if you ask me. And you did. And I asked myself: That is a perfect subject for a region wide discussion show. Which is very lucky, because I happen to host one." Maurice Chavez, VCPR


Morality in videogames seems to be stuck in a dichotomy between good and evil, there is no middle ground. Like Yatzhee said, you're either Madre Theresa or your the embodiment of Antichrist.
The decisions you make, in-game, don't really change the course of the game and don't enhance the experience, they change the final cut-scene. You know, the "good ending" and "bad ending" thingy.

This simplification of morality is something that not only affects gameplay mechanics but it also ruins character development and story progression. It's hard to sympathise with someone that has the charisma and personality of a cardboard box. Personally, I'm sick of 1-dimensional characters and half-assed plots with uninteresting conspiracies and uninteresting villains.


The problem is that most games create moral systems that are too obtuse and don't take into consideration the complexity of human nature and the ambiguity of moral values.
Of course, there are moral values that are widely accepted as "correct", like not killing,stealing,raping,etc...

But aside from that, each individual as a different perspective, outlook on life and has their own moral code. This moral subjectivism assures a wide variety of personalities and makes it difficult to label people. You can say the that the mafioso were evil bastards, but you can deny that they had strong family values and showed genuine love and appreciation for their relatives and community. Then you have men that don't disrupt and good professionals but beat their wife's and kids... and you also have republicans.


Motion Blur, 3-D, slow game-play mechanics, "gritty realism", high-res textures, crap like that isn't going to make your games more immersive and realistic.
There is still room for creative, quirky, fun games with their own unique universe.
The most important think is that you always have to had a human touch to what you do, add a little bit of humanity, even to the odd and bizarre. That is what will make us connect on a higher level.

And writing characters with more complex personalities certainly helps.

Ironically, all I'm giving you is extreme examples, but I think you guys get the point. Right?

 

[Batou667]

Ironically, all I'm giving you is extreme examples, but I think you guys get the point. Right?

You mean there was a point hidden somewhere in that text wall?!

Only kidding.

Maybe.

Basically, I think morality in games is fairly rudimentary, partly due to developer laziness and even more due to the inherent limitations of games. Making moral choices involves choice, and sometimes games won't have much scope for branching storylines or storyline flexibility. If you've got a strong but linear storyline, allowing certain player actions would just seem completely out of place. And, as we've seen, games that try to offer complete freedom often end up just offering a samey, homogenised experienced unless you take your moral actions to cartoony extremes (I'm thinking the Fable series here). The best current games can do is to offer tricky moral decisions (in a "save the hostages or catch the guy who killed your family" vein).

 

[Psychedelic Spartan]

Well, today, video games have no morality. They're just "shoot it because it's not the same as us." So it's essentially racism in video games, not morals.

 

[SonicWaffle]

Well, today, video games have no morality. They're just "shoot it because it's not the same as us." So it's essentially racism in video games, not morals.

I'm...confused about how you reached that conclusion, to say the least. For one thing, how is that a new development in storytelling? For another, I can't think of any games where the objective is to murder the enemy just because he's there. They're usually invading your planet, stealing your wife, engaged in a war against you, doing freaky genetic experiments on innocent people, etc etc. My point is that games provide a reason for you to be murdering all their dudes.

I guess your post might have been a joke, but I'm so used to people posting crazy illogical opinions that I'm losing the ability to tell people making jokes from people being idiots

 

[SonicWaffle]

The decisions you make, in-game, don't really change the course of the game and don't enhance the experience, they change the final cut-scene. You know, the "good ending" and "bad ending" thingy.

Except in games like, say, Fallout where your choices are reflected in how people treat you, which factions you ally with (and ergo which missions you get), and overall the way your game unfolds.

This simplification of morality is something that not only affects gameplay mechanics but it also ruins character development and story progression. It's hard to sympathise with someone that has the charisma and personality of a cardboard box. Personally, I'm sick of 1-dimensional characters and half-assed plots with uninteresting conspiracies and uninteresting villains.

Morality is such a nebulous thing that it has to be simplified down to the most basic form in order to be a workable gameplay mechanic. Everyone, even those who claim to take their morality part-and-parcel from a "higher power", has a slightly different moral code. There are area some will bend where others will not, some things they'll let slide while being shit-hot on others. How could a game tailor itself to what each person perceives as ethical? This seems to be what you're asking for, but I can't for the life of me imagine how this would be done without developers sending out a 50-page questionnaire to each player and making each individual their own game that reflects their views.

As for making a game boring, I'm not entirely sure why you think a black-and-white moral choice system makes it more boring than none at all. Would you rather have some slight degree of control over your character's personality (which, given that the majority of games with a morality system are RPGs and at heart they revolve around character building, I'm sure most players would) or just play a character someone has already fully created, even if you don't like his views or opinions?

Remember that in a game with a moral choice system, there are two ways to approach it - "what would I do in this situation?" and "what would my character do in this situation?". If the character feels one-dimensional and boring to you, perhaps you're approaching it the wrong way.

 

[segataDC]

my point is that the simplification of morality leads to shallow characters and bad storytelling.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I don't like the idea of being told what is moral and what isn't. I much prefer being given a bunch of options, choosing one, and then being able to decide for myself if I did the wrong thing or not.

 

[Psychedelic Spartan]

Well, today, video games have no morality. They're just "shoot it because it's not the same as us." So it's essentially racism in video games, not morals.

I'm...confused about how you reached that conclusion, to say the least. For one thing, how is that a new development in storytelling? For another, I can't think of any games where the objective is to murder the enemy just because he's there. They're usually invading your planet, stealing your wife, engaged in a war against you, doing freaky genetic experiments on innocent people, etc etc. My point is that games provide a reason for you to be murdering all their dudes.

I guess your post might have been a joke, but I'm so used to people posting crazy illogical opinions that I'm losing the ability to tell people making jokes from people being idiots

No it's not a joke, but I'm not saying it's a new concept either.

 

[Joccaren]

Full on morality in games just wouldn't work. Sure, you could put some interesting moral choices in the game that made people think and changed the game, but they in no way would be balanced, and those that would be balanced would have no effect at all, similar to what most of us have as moral tests IRL. Sure, you might change 1 or 2 peoples opinions, but for the majority of people, has the world changed because of what you have done? No. You made a small moral stand that changed the minds of some but will likely not have too much influence in things play out beyond that. Yes, there are definite changes that WILL happen, but nothing on the meaningful scale that we seem to want in games. In ME, I could argue that it had a meaningful morality system because dependant on what you did, people died and treated you differently. Does it change the game? No. Not at all. Conversely, things that do change the game would have to be that rare (Or else come of as having the story be one big mass of Deus Ex's [Not the game BTW...]) or would have vastly different outcomes that would in no way balance the game whilst maintaining a reasonable level of reason within the story.
From a gameplay perspective, morality should be done as a genre that lets you see how a world is and tells you a story based off your actions, with no overriding goal that must be accomplished, otherwise it simply doesn't work.

 

[Sp3ratus]

If you haven't already, I'd suggest checking out Alpha Protocol. I know the game has gotten a lot of flak for different things, but there are two areas, where the game really shines(I think at least), which are the conversation system and the choices and consequences department. I'm not going to spoil too much, but some of the choices can be really tough, often pitting personal interest versus the practical choice. Also, your decisions during the game affects the end and can alter the ending pretty drastically, depending on how you play the game.

Also, as I mentioned, the conversation system is pretty well done, being time-based, meaning no you don't really have time to mull over every possibility, but rather you have to react quickly to what's being said. I think it adds to the immersiveness(?) of the game.

It's too bad there won't be a sequel or something similar from Obsidian, at least not for the time being, since it didn't do quite as well as Sega had hoped. It had some really interesting ideas, though, but I don't really see being picked up by anyone else than Obsidian(hint, hint, nudge, nudge Bioware), but hopefully I'll be pleasantly surprised.

Other than that, I very much agree with Sonic Waffle here:

Morality is such a nebulous thing that it has to be simplified down to the most basic form in order to be a workable gameplay mechanic. Everyone, even those who claim to take their morality part-and-parcel from a "higher power", has a slightly different moral code. There are area some will bend where others will not, some things they'll let slide while being shit-hot on others. How could a game tailor itself to what each person perceives as ethical? This seems to be what you're asking for, but I can't for the life of me imagine how this would be done without developers sending out a 50-page questionnaire to each player and making each individual their own game that reflects their views.

 

[Lilani]

my point is that the simplification of morality leads to shallow characters and bad storytelling.

That's not necessarily true. Let's look at a game that has NO moral choice system. Like, say, Half-Life 2. Gordon Freeman never speaks, but he gets wrapped up into the rebellion and everybody he meets along the way just assumes he's going to help them out. Why is that? Because he does. It's his nature. There are no moral choices, because based on his character there is no "choice" to be made. The only option he sees is to help. The combine try to thwart his efforts, so he kills them or does whatever it takes to get them gone.

And that says a lot about his character. And if he had allowed himself to get distracted or just ignored the problems of others, that would have said something else about his character. So see, there is a lot of character development to be had even from totally mute characters simply by the situations they get themselves into and the basic progression of the game. Even if it's completely linear like HL2, there is still interesting story and character development to be had.

Moral choice situations are more for role-playing games or games where the character you are playing is uncertain as to their own morals. Otherwise, characters who are fairly secure in who they are and what they stand for don't really need to make moral choices. They just happen automatically, based on who they are.

I agree with you that the "good/bad" endings in games usually end up being so polarized it's scary, but real-time moral choices are still a fairly new thing in games (or at least the way we are applying them) so of course that proper mix hasn't been found yet. These sorts of things take time for a new artistic medium to figure out. For example, have you noticed that until the last 10 years or so, superhero movies have generally sucked? I mean there were a few good ones, but they mostly attracted only cult audiences and never reached too many people who weren't already into superheroes. But now they've been farting out great superhero film after great superhero film that reach universal audiences. They've finally found the proper formula for a GOOD superhero movie that lots of people will like (granted, technology advances have helped them quite a bit too, but the same could be said of video games).

So just give it time. At least they're trying. I think those of us who grew up with video games have a habit of forgetting just how new they are, and just how quickly they run into unexplored or unmastered territory.

 

[Xprimentyl]

we still dont have an immersive virtual world yet. its as simple as that.

EXACTLY this. We shouldn't disparage the implementation of staunch moral dichotomy in gaming these days for when all is said and done, the developers are still telling a story. Even in the most open "sandbox" or most dubious choices given us, there have to be barriers, invisible or otherwise, that keep the game on track to one of one, four, ten, however many different endings; the task of truly allowing the gamer to take the reins in an immersive tale is simply too daunting and will likely be so for years to come.

Asking "why" or saying the moral choices lead to shallow story-telling is akin to saying a city planner fucked up because at a T intersection, he/she didn't allow that I might want to go straight! It HAS to be left or right, right or wrong, for better or worse; if not,we invite chaos which I'm sure is a ***** to try and program around!

"Why" morality? Why NOT? It's yet another level at which to engage the player. It's not perfect, no, but it's better than the days of linear gaming when every time I popped Contra inot my NES, I was playing the EXACT same game everytime; the same enemies in the same spots, I knew where allthe good powerups would be, etc. If every game were little more than a series of static, scripted events requiring us to do little more than press buttons to progress to the next cinematic, it would be a step back, IMHO. I like being engaged, even when the choices are heaven and hell; I like having to pause long enough to THINK, at least a little, about the repercussiosn of my actions.

If nothing else, the morality aspect will be improved upon over the years; I don't mind being the guinea pig for future gamers who'll find themselves "jacking into" their PCs and consoles, ala the Matrix, to enjoy game experiences taylored precisely to their brainwave patterns!

 

[Lilani]

"Why" morality? Why NOT? It's yet another level at which to engage the player. It's not perfect, no, but it's better than the days of linear gaming when every time I popped Contra inot my NES, I was playing the EXACT same game everytime; the same enemies in the same spots, I knew where allthe good powerups would be, etc. If every game were little more than a series of static, scripted events requiring us to do little more than press buttons to progress to the next cinematic, it would be a step back, IMHO. I like being engaged, even when the choices are heaven and hell; I like having to pause long enough to THINK, at least a little, about the repercussiosn of my actions.

If nothing else, the morality aspect will be improved upon over the years; I don't mind being the guinea pig for future gamers who'll find themselves "jacking into" their PCs and consoles, ala the Matrix, to enjoy game experiences taylored precisely to their brainwave patterns!

I think you're right to an extent, but as I said in my other post just above, moral choice systems aren't for every game.

As far as I can tell, there are exactly 2 reasons to employ a moral choice system. Either when it is a role-playing game in which the player is meant to project themselves and their values onto the character, or when it's a game in which the main character is unsure about their own moral code or is unable to follow it consistently. Otherwise, moral choices just water down the character's, well, character.

Again I'll use the example of Gordon Freeman in HL2. In that game, you are never given a choice because, as far as Gordon sees it, there IS no choice. That is his character--he helps people. He never turns anyone away, and he'll travel to hell and back to help them out. Why? Cause he's Gordon Fucking Freeman, that's why. He doesn't screw around wondering if it's alright to be beating those combine soldiers in the face with a crowbar. He has to in order to help his friends, so that's what he does.

Gordon Freeman feels no moral dilemma, so a moral choice system would be ridiculous. If he were the type of guy to get distracted or let down the people he's helping (whether it be intentional or unintentional), that's just what he would do. He knows who he is, so there really is no choice in his mind. When faced with adversity, he sees only one option because he is sure about himself and his moral code.

Sure there's a bit of hyperbole in there, but you get my point, right? Sometimes you just don't need moral choice systems because the character is confident enough in their own moral code to follow it to the ends of the earth. Regardless of how it might screw things up, they'll get out of trouble one way or another.

 

[Engarde]

This simplification of morality is something that not only affects gameplay mechanics but it also ruins character development and story progression. It's hard to sympathise with someone that has the charisma and personality of a cardboard box. Personally, I'm sick of 1-dimensional characters and half-assed plots with uninteresting conspiracies and uninteresting villains.

Mustresistsayingmasseffect, mustresistsayingmasseffect, mustresistsayingmasseffect, mustresistsayingmasseffect.....

...It's hard to sympathise with someone that has the charisma and personality of a cardboard box. Personally, I'm sick of 1-dimensional characters ...

.....Hi, I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite store on the citadel!

Okay, cheap shot aside, god I hate that guy. I do find it interesting to note problems with the good / evil morality and I find it very strange what happens when there isn't such a system. For example, when I played The Witcher, I had alot more fun as I wasn't thinking "what will get me more goody points". I was always going for "whatever felt right" (even / especially when that meant banging elves) and I do like that system alot more. If nothing else, I find it better when morality is hidden and I feel a much more rewarding feeling when I know I've been good and when I go into a village everyone showers me with gifts and praise. I like to believe I know what I should be rewarded with and when the game doesn't make a big deal of pointing out to me how well I am doing it makes me feel much better about it. I cannot think of a specific example from the top of my head, however.

 

[Xprimentyl]

I think you're right to an extent, but as I said in my other post just above, moral choice systems aren't for every game.

As far as I can tell, there are exactly 2 reasons to employ a moral choice system. Either when it is a role-playing game in which the player is meant to project themselves and their values onto the character, or when it's a game in which the main character is unsure about their own moral code or is unable to follow it consistently. Otherwise, moral choices just water down the character's, well, character.

Again I'll use the example of Gordon Freeman in HL2. In that game, you are never given a choice because, as far as Gordon sees it, there IS no choice. That is his character--he helps people. He never turns anyone away, and he'll travel to hell and back to help them out. Why? Cause he's Gordon Fucking Freeman, that's why. He doesn't screw around wondering if it's alright to be beating those combine soldiers in the face with a crowbar. He has to in order to help his friends, so that's what he does.

Gordon Freeman feels no moral dilemma, so a moral choice system would be ridiculous. If he were the type of guy to get distracted or let down the people he's helping (whether it be intentional or unintentional), that's just what he would do. He knows who he is, so there really is no choice in his mind. When faced with adversity, he sees only one option because he is sure about himself and his moral code.

Sure there's a bit of hyperbole in there, but you get my point, right? Sometimes you just don't need moral choice systems because the character is confident enough in their own moral code to follow it to the ends of the earth. Regardless of how it might screw things up, they'll get out of trouble one way or another.

Of course, I agree 100%; I didn't mean to imply EVERY game should have moral choices. Some games are meant to be interactive stories wherein you play a role and there have been more than a few instances wherein morality was shoe-horned into games like this for the gimmick's sake and it comes off all wrong. As you say, in games that expect you to project yourself into a character, THAT'S where morailtiy has a place and I'm completely fine with the choices like "grab a fire hose and douse the burning orphanage -or- double-check the padlocks on the exit doors are secure before tossing another molotov cocktail through the window." It's the most basic way for developers to build a rudimentary psychological profile of each gamer to determine which way their story should branch. It IS a gameplay mechanic afterall...

So far, my experiences with more dubious, games that are more in-line with the true shades of grey surrounding the decision-making process, games like Dragon Age Origins where frequently seemingly small, meaningless decisions had far-reaching and severe consequences, I found them to be a bit... unfair? I missed knowing what my decisions meant because honestly, what no game has yet to give me back for my moral investment is a true "gut" feeling for where things are going which is a large part of a true-to-life moral process. Back to Dragon Age, I'd like to think in traveling with my party that I would get a "feeling" for deception behind the eyes of my teammates or maybe in a casual conversation I might be able to insert something reassuring to convince someone to behave a certain way for me; maintain a dynamic balance, not decide to screw this while I nurture that. Bioware did a great job of smearing the black and white into a grey paste, but it never changed the fact that in computer-speak, everything boiled down to a 1 or a 0, true or false. People turned on me for a "false" decision I made 10 hours ago; people denied me quest for they read a "1" where I thought I typed a "0" two towns over, etc. It's all too dynamic and too much to expect from a development team to fully realize "morality."

 

[Ixal]

Basically, I think morality in games is fairly rudimentary, partly due to developer laziness and even more due to the inherent limitations of games.

I think it has more to do with the "limitations" of the target group. The masses of gamers don't want to make choices or think about things. They want to shoot people and level up, thats all.

 

[Batou667]

I think it has more to do with the "limitations" of the target group. The masses of gamers don't want to make choices or think about things. They want to shoot people and level up, thats all.

I think you're doing gamers a disservice here by invoking the stereotype of some pimply adolescent button-mashing on a Playstation game. Of course people, gamers included, want to see fresh things that involve them, make them think and perhaps even challenge them. The people who play games are the same people who read books and go to the cinema, after all. In fact, you could say that playing games is at least interactive, and not just the linear, passive experience that books and movies provide, so in theory gamers should be MORE receptive to the idea of novel uses of story and morality in the gameplay.

 

[Stew Coard]

I had a cool idea for this and have been waiting for a good thread for it. Instead of having one red and blue bar that measures how close you are to good or bad, how about showing several bars that each measure your compatibly with conflicting moral philosophies. For example, the first bar would measure whether you are more Machiavellian or idealistic. The second could measure whether you are more conservative or liberal etc, etc. Nothing defined as strictly black or white, merely differing ideas.

 

[Xprimentyl]

I had a cool idea for this and have been waiting for a good thread for it. Instead of having one red and blue bar that measures how close you are to good or bad, how about showing several bars that each measure your compatibly with conflicting moral philosophies. For example, the first bar would measure whether you are more Machiavellian or idealistic. The second could measure whether you are more conservative or liberal etc, etc. Nothing defined as strictly black or white, merely differing ideas.

Sounds like a great idea actually, but again, you'd inevitably run into the daunting issue of tayloring a unique enough experience for enough possible combinations of those sliders to merit the level of attention paid to the details. A game as you suggest would have to be HUGE in size and scope, take YEARS of development and excellent writers to do justice, but in a perfect world, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.