i always try to be the good guy but in skyrim the darkbrotherhood and thieves guild were too tempting i dont have problems with the thieves guild because its ussually just killing ppl who would otherwise kill me but with the dark brotherhood i have to kill innocent ppl and i always feel bad the worst is when i killed some bodies daughter as a part of a contract and the mother committed suicide i had to continuosly remind myself it was just a video game then i killed faendel to help complete another quest and had to load it to before i killed him just because i felt bad
Poll: Am I the only Morally motivated gamer out there?
- Thread starter CpT_x_Killsteal
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Your decisions in a game don't accurately reflect your actual morality. Proper examples would be much better, and giving gold to beggars is akin to charity, which even evil people do so others don't think them so evil, as they do evil things.CpT_x_Killsteal said:
i agree i have only seen two games that put more towards the good guy side than the bad guy side infamous 1 and 2 and thats only because i think the powers are better for the good guy side so its only my opinion
Well within the game, we are suspending our disbelief here and playing make believe. We aren't actually thinking this fictional world is real, but at the same time we aren't pointing out the seams. Consider it like a hypothetical argument, you can't endlessly say "it's just hypothetical" it's still something to consider.Delsana said:
And on morality and ethics. Morality is more towards the "status quo of right and wrong" so what a particular group simply decrees is wrong not necessarily with any rational or objective basis. Like a group might say that being lesbian is "morally wrong" even though they admit it doesn't hurt anyone and they don't call other unnatural things (like processed food) immoral and cannot account for how it is not a personal choice.
Ethics is more rational objective study of fundamental morals, things like "should try to make the world a better place" and think about how they apply to all other circumstances. In hospitals they have an "ethics committee" to debate issues like what percentage of different demographics of poor patients should get what percentage of available funds. Like should more or less go to terminally ill patients? But they are not called a "morality committee" the point is morality isn't really about debate, it's snap judgements or right and wrong society has, ethics are more reasoned and balanced.
It's telling that games call this decision process a "morality system" it is very much the developers putting their own often irrational subjective assessment of what is "right and wrong".
Really a complete psychopath would always give a coin to a beggar as it bribes the beggar not to bother them, and a morally that is right according to the game logic, but is it ethically right to reward a wastrel that accosting people is a reliable way to earn your keep in this world? Perhaps the ethical thing to do is to not give him money, tolerate his pestering and donate money to a works program that recruits low skilled individuals into reliable subsistence work. But is THAT even the right thing to do, you can't really say unless you really think about the outcome and decide for yourself.
In real life you can't check a Morality Meter on your smartphone after you donate to greenpeace, it's ambiguous what your actions did to make things better or worse or futile. Like for example is greenpeace making things worse by opposing new safe nuclear technology like Thorium reactors? You have to stop and think, decide for yourself and you likely can never come to a 100% conclusion to end all further consideration.
I think all a game should keep track of is reputation, like if you launched a nuclear bomb on a city (Fallout 3 Megaton scenario) the game itself wouldn't say if this was good or bad, but people of the wastes would know about it, some would call you a hero for affecting a favourable outcome for them or a larger group, others will consider you guilty of genocide.
None of the poll choices really apply to me. I actually prefer to play both the good and bad route and everything in between, but I'll always pick the "evil" side if the morale choice system is between realistic political ideologies. Or, I'll even try to break the morale choice system like Yahtze tried to do in Fable 3 and when I finished the Caesar's Legion route with the best karma level.
In every game that has had a moral choice system I have always went good first, the first moral choice game I played was on my friends xbox was Fable: Lost Chapters. I played through this game twice first as good then choosing the evil choice. When I went evil I actually hated myself I felt like shit when I sacrificed my sister for the Sword of Aoens. That feeling has always stuck with me, so if there is an option I always choose the right one first. Though tbh moral choice systems definitely have not gotten better, and I haven't felt that way about any other game recently that has had them. Even Fable 2's choices didn't have as much weight for me personally as Fable did and still sits towards the top of my list as one of my personal disappointments in gaming.
In computer games, when given the option, I prefer to play (in initial playthroughs) crafty opportunists who aren't afraid to get their hands dirty. This means, typically, making the "evil" choice more often than not, but I rarely play any character full-tilt moral or amoral. In games like Mass Effect, this typically can get me in trouble as I won't have enough Renegade/Paragon points to win some of the end-game arguments.
Because computer games usually are binary in their representation of good/evil, this has led to some weird situations, too. In Fable 3, I would lower prices in stores (so I could buy more) and have high rent prices (so they'd pay me more) and the end-game treasury needs were just a drop in the bucket, so I ended up just "paying off" the consequences (because, screw Reaver). In the end, the game couldn't seem to decide if I should end up with angel or demon wings.
Because computer games usually are binary in their representation of good/evil, this has led to some weird situations, too. In Fable 3, I would lower prices in stores (so I could buy more) and have high rent prices (so they'd pay me more) and the end-game treasury needs were just a drop in the bucket, so I ended up just "paying off" the consequences (because, screw Reaver). In the end, the game couldn't seem to decide if I should end up with angel or demon wings.
I always tend to stick the the good path, I don't think I've ever played a Mass Effect game as Renegade, because I just feel like a proper dick. Although some of the renegade intterupts are hilarious.
Also in Deus Ex I always chose to be good, but once I just went about Detroit tazing everyone because it was funny. So I suppose that play through was a good guy who just liked to taze people at random.
Also in Deus Ex I always chose to be good, but once I just went about Detroit tazing everyone because it was funny. So I suppose that play through was a good guy who just liked to taze people at random.
I didn't vote because I'm neither. I can be nice at times, and bad at other times. For instance, in heavy rain, when shaun wants his teddy to be able to sleep, you can say no. I did that the first time I played, and then he asked again, and I gave in. Even though his acting is horrible, I just felt too bad to deny him that teddy.
Then there's Fallout 3 where I shoot every single person. I have my personal pile of people in front of megaton as a warning to anyone trying to oppose us. My favorite thing to do in that game is save someone who is captured by a Super Mutant, and then when they run away you shoot them as well.
Then there's Fallout 3 where I shoot every single person. I have my personal pile of people in front of megaton as a warning to anyone trying to oppose us. My favorite thing to do in that game is save someone who is captured by a Super Mutant, and then when they run away you shoot them as well.
Well I'm not quite that moral. But really, if there's plenty of enemy bandits and dragons to kill ala skyrim, I probably won't murder eight families and all of the city guards.CpT_x_Killsteal said:
But then there's GTA. And you know, I can't give a flying shit about the hundreds of people I run over. Why? Because I'm essentially killing the same models over and over again, so I don't feel the need to spare anyone since none are unique and their clones will pop up soon anyways.
In the end, your play style is your play style, and screw anyone who gives you shit for it. You don't need to fit in, you just need to be yourself.