Poll: Moral choices
- Thread starter Arkhangelsk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I tend to play good.
I think the lack of paths in between or being able to mix it up is due to societal pressure since going into the gray areas is likely to offend someone out there.
Take Fallout 3's "The Pitt" expansion for example. People have talked quite a bit about the moral quandary in that one.
Now let's say your playing a game that let's you effectively take on the role of Ashur as one role among many. Here you are, forcing people into lethal slavery, and experimenting on your own child because of the possibility that her DNA could end mutation and save humanity.
It's one thing to have a protaganist run into something like this from the outside, but yet another if you run a game that say allows you to have your own gruesome slave trade/factory and engage in child experimentation and yet not be considered evil... because well... you are doing the right thing overall under the circumstances in the messed up world you exist in.
If you were to say introduce something that could end up this way into like the Kingdom management aspects of Baldur's Gate 2 (Or Neverwinter Nights 2), people would start screaming about Auschwicz as you march conquered serfs off to be worked to death "for the greater good" and toss in a bit of Doctor Mengele (the science aspects) for good measure.
By putting the great big "EEEEVVVIIILLL" sign on things like that, or keeping them to the backround (far more common) crticism about any kind of relative morality is avoided.
In games you don't make tough desicians and have to worry about concepts like morality by the numbers (and how hard it gets to argue against it when the numbers are big enough). All you do is choose between comic book extremes, because honestly it's safer for the producers that way.
I'd like to see this change, but let's be honest, they won't even produce 'M' rated games with true 'M' rated content (such as well... sex). God forbid they actually create a game that involves actually making hard desicians and having to do the wrong thing for the
greater good. That might interfere with people's naive, forward thinking liberal mentality.
I think the lack of paths in between or being able to mix it up is due to societal pressure since going into the gray areas is likely to offend someone out there.
Take Fallout 3's "The Pitt" expansion for example. People have talked quite a bit about the moral quandary in that one.
Now let's say your playing a game that let's you effectively take on the role of Ashur as one role among many. Here you are, forcing people into lethal slavery, and experimenting on your own child because of the possibility that her DNA could end mutation and save humanity.
It's one thing to have a protaganist run into something like this from the outside, but yet another if you run a game that say allows you to have your own gruesome slave trade/factory and engage in child experimentation and yet not be considered evil... because well... you are doing the right thing overall under the circumstances in the messed up world you exist in.
If you were to say introduce something that could end up this way into like the Kingdom management aspects of Baldur's Gate 2 (Or Neverwinter Nights 2), people would start screaming about Auschwicz as you march conquered serfs off to be worked to death "for the greater good" and toss in a bit of Doctor Mengele (the science aspects) for good measure.
By putting the great big "EEEEVVVIIILLL" sign on things like that, or keeping them to the backround (far more common) crticism about any kind of relative morality is avoided.
In games you don't make tough desicians and have to worry about concepts like morality by the numbers (and how hard it gets to argue against it when the numbers are big enough). All you do is choose between comic book extremes, because honestly it's safer for the producers that way.
I'd like to see this change, but let's be honest, they won't even produce 'M' rated games with true 'M' rated content (such as well... sex). God forbid they actually create a game that involves actually making hard desicians and having to do the wrong thing for the
greater good. That might interfere with people's naive, forward thinking liberal mentality.
I try to stay good but god save em' some of these NPC's deserve to die. Like Dave in the Republic of Dave in Fallout 3
It really does frustrate me that games don't have a system of Good becomes evil, Evil becomes good, evil tries to be good but fails miserably and is even more evil because of it.
It would make choices all the more interesting that C.J. decides to spare the poor Ballas and just kill cops. No. You have to hate the ballas because they hate you, because one sided views are easier to program than a complex system of real world choices.
Even in fallout, there are ways to easily go from being the harbinger of death, to the fluffy jesus doll thing, to Harbinger of death again. simply by giving water to beggars and knicking all of their crap from people houses!
And even the system of Neutral chaffs my ass. Because that means, noone hates you, no one wants to kill you, you're ok in ALL their books! Bullcrap, I'd rather have Zapp Brannigan hunting me down in the Nimbus because I take no sides than not to kill anything because they don't like me.
It really does frustrate me that games don't have a system of Good becomes evil, Evil becomes good, evil tries to be good but fails miserably and is even more evil because of it.
It would make choices all the more interesting that C.J. decides to spare the poor Ballas and just kill cops. No. You have to hate the ballas because they hate you, because one sided views are easier to program than a complex system of real world choices.
Even in fallout, there are ways to easily go from being the harbinger of death, to the fluffy jesus doll thing, to Harbinger of death again. simply by giving water to beggars and knicking all of their crap from people houses!
And even the system of Neutral chaffs my ass. Because that means, noone hates you, no one wants to kill you, you're ok in ALL their books! Bullcrap, I'd rather have Zapp Brannigan hunting me down in the Nimbus because I take no sides than not to kill anything because they don't like me.
Both, usually good first then evil to see if I missed out on anything. Depends on the game though; e.g. in the Knights of the Old Republic games you're rewarded for being extreme light or extreme dark, so one has more incentive to be those things, but in the Neverwinter Nights series some classes have to remain within certain alignments to continue levelling as that class.
I make my choices according to the rewards I foresee. Hence I vote evil--not that I usually pick the evil choice. It's just my intention is certainly not purely philanthropic. Usually I end up on the side of good though, as those tends to yield longer term rewards.
Also, the "good" choices usually lead to messier fights. Bad guys want you to go shove around some pushovers. But the good guys? They ARE the pushovers--and they want you to go get rid of the big bad wizards for them. Which one do you think will put up a better fight, eh?
Also, the "good" choices usually lead to messier fights. Bad guys want you to go shove around some pushovers. But the good guys? They ARE the pushovers--and they want you to go get rid of the big bad wizards for them. Which one do you think will put up a better fight, eh?
There should be an option for just choosing whichever paths appeal to you at the time. Morality isn't black and white, you know, there are grey areas; this is something games should learn. If it has to be good or evil, I usually attempt to be evil, but end up begin good.
Good, because I like the characters I meet in videogames and being good usually means things end up better for them. Also, being good is usually more of a challenge (i.e. save the hostages over consider them acceptable casualties and don't worry about them).
"The Witcher" attempted this, with mixed but generally good results. Sometimes the good/evil choice was extremely blatant (sometimes it was a bit unclear, but then the game resorted to stereotypes to clean the boundary to you). Sometimes all the choices would resolve poorly and the best you could do was "lesser evil". But there was one masterfully done choice in the game, which I will always remember, because I made what I honestly believed to be a good decision, which a long time into the game resulted in all the bad consequences.Branches said:
And I usually play good. As other people mentioned, the gameworld is not real, but my conscience is.
Generally I go for Lawful Good... I find it usually has better rewards, and is easier.
As a side note, i want to see more games like Deus Ex where the moral choices are integral to the game, but are less gimmicky and less clear cut. (Eg, kill Agent Navarre or just chase her away? or let her kill the "terrorist" leader?)
As a further side note, I want to see a Dues Ex movie starring Christian Bale.
As a side note, i want to see more games like Deus Ex where the moral choices are integral to the game, but are less gimmicky and less clear cut. (Eg, kill Agent Navarre or just chase her away? or let her kill the "terrorist" leader?)
As a further side note, I want to see a Dues Ex movie starring Christian Bale.
I tend to be good...with a pension for pickpocketing and exploring any thing I can.
But moral choices tend to be dumb, see Yahtzee rant in the infamous review.
I'd like to see more depth in a morality system, like people having to see you doing something in order for rumors to spread, if you can distract or knock them out without them knowing it.
Karma meters can be used as a gauge but gauging needs to be overhauled..... no more wizard in the sky watching your every movement.... this means you can use far more interesting scenarios like people disappearing while you are around this can lead to negative karma that you can fight again by doing good deeds, or make your karma and appearance to the world worse.
But moral choices tend to be dumb, see Yahtzee rant in the infamous review.
I'd like to see more depth in a morality system, like people having to see you doing something in order for rumors to spread, if you can distract or knock them out without them knowing it.
Karma meters can be used as a gauge but gauging needs to be overhauled..... no more wizard in the sky watching your every movement.... this means you can use far more interesting scenarios like people disappearing while you are around this can lead to negative karma that you can fight again by doing good deeds, or make your karma and appearance to the world worse.
Depends on the game if evil is fun like most Star Wars games then it is an easy choice. If it is just about being a douchebag I tend to be good because while I am a dick by nature I can only be so much of one before I feel bad. Also Fallout 3 has permanently made me hate Moral Systems after I didn't snatch the baby in The Pitt DLC and got full evil karma I said fuck you to Fallout 3 and haven't played it since. I fail to see how not stealing a baby to give them to some random slaves is evil oh well fuck Bethesda.
I tend to choose the option that feels most natural to me and wind up good more often than not. I also feel like if I do the evil thing I'm cutting myself off, and that I will ultimately have a richer, fuller gameplay experience if I do good things. This is generally not true - for instance by being good I never did the Strictly Business slavery sidequest in Fallout 3 and had to do a deliberately evil playthrough to get the achievement.
Maybe years of Star Wars philosophy have addled my brain and I feel like evilness is the 'quick easy path'. It's not that I don't want to be evil, it's just that I prefer to work hard for a big reward.
Maybe years of Star Wars philosophy have addled my brain and I feel like evilness is the 'quick easy path'. It's not that I don't want to be evil, it's just that I prefer to work hard for a big reward.
Well sometimes moral choice isn't really a choice. Take this for example
You see a rich old man about to be murderd. What do you do?
Good Option: Save him and receive lot's of goodies
Evil Option: Kill the man and take some cash
That isn't a real choice, it is a problem because there is a well defined solution that is better than the other. Choice would be something that you pick but can't see the rewards of down the road until you get there
You see a rich old man about to be murderd. What do you do?
Good Option: Save him and receive lot's of goodies
Evil Option: Kill the man and take some cash
That isn't a real choice, it is a problem because there is a well defined solution that is better than the other. Choice would be something that you pick but can't see the rewards of down the road until you get there