Poll: Morality Systems Break Games

[IKWerewolf]

Here is my opinion of why:

- It limits the decisions that the developer can ask you of as there must always be one good and one bad decision.

- It doesn't take into account the grey areas and the person's preference(see Extra Credits on the Mass Effect 2 Legion side quest).

- Reality isn't clean cut it makes the game world seem designed through the eyes of a child which reinforces the sterotypical view of gaming is for children.

- You only ever make the choice once, especially where achievements are involved, you only decide once at the start to be good, bad or neutral.

Anyone who wishes me to extend any of these bullet points further let me know.

 

[KILGAZOR]

Could there be an option for: "Doesn't break game, but makes a game worse"?

 

[Gamblerjoe]

Here is my opinion of why:

- It limits the decisions that the developer can ask you of as there must always be one good and one bad decision.

- It doesn't take into account the grey areas and the person's preference(see Extra Credits on the Mass Effect 2 Legion side quest).

- Reality isn't clean cut it makes the game world seem designed through the eyes of a child which reinforces the sterotypical view of gaming is for children.

- You only ever make the choice once, especially where achievements are involved, you only decide once at the start to be good, bad or neutral.

Anyone who wishes me to extend any of these bullet points further let me know.

ok, so there are some reasons why you dont like it. I dont suppose you'd like to list some reasons why it breaks games...

 

[IKWerewolf]

Editing in process.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Could there be an option for: "Doesn't break game, but makes a game worse"?

This. It's hardly a deal-breaker, but it does tend to hurt C&C.

 

[Mr. Google]

Could there be an option for: "Doesn't break game, but makes a game worse"?

Yeah i can't really vote in the poll with these options. Though I agree I don't agree fully. He is giving us no grey area with the polls. Now that is ironic.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

- It limits the decisions that the developer can ask you of as there must always be one good and one bad decision.

- It doesn't take into account the grey areas and the person's preference(see Extra Credits on the Mass Effect 2 Legion side quest).

- Reality isn't clean cut it makes the game world seem designed through the eyes of a child which reinforces the sterotypical view of gaming is for children.

- You only ever make the choice once, especially where achievements are involved, you only decide once at the start to be good, bad or neutral.

This is an atrocity in games where your character is supposed to be a deep and complex being. However it works for inFamous as the developers intend for you to play as either a Hero or Anti-Hero, they aren't out to provide you with deep, thought provoking dilemmas, they're out to provide you with two experiences in one game.

However games such as Mass Effect, Fable, KOTOR and Fallout 3's systems are horrible and while they don't break games, they're worse off for having them.

 

[Flare Phoenix]

Alright, I'm going to have to disagree with the third point... that is overreacting a little bit. I don't think anyone has looked at inFamous, and gone "this is clearly a game for children". But yeah... nothing there that really breaks the game... just reasons why morality systems need to be improved. The opinions are mostly just lifted from Extra Credits' Enriching Lives and Yatzee's inFamous videos anyway.

 

[Gamblerjoe]

Could there be an option for: "Doesn't break game, but makes a game worse"?

Yeah i can't really vote in the poll with these options. Though I agree I don't agree fully. He is giving us no grey area with the polls. Now that is ironic.

hahaha! that didnt even occur to me, but its so true. delicious!

 

[number2301]

If you'd said current implementations of morality systems have some undesirable effects I could have gone for that. But I guess that wouldn't be such a controversial title

For good morality systems just have a look at Fallout New Vegas, ignore the morality of it, just judge on the basis of how various factions react to those actions.

Hell I'd even say Mass Effect has its strengths, talking about paragon vs renegade as opposed to good vs evil which isn't just a semantic difference.

Sure, Fable gets it so so wrong. But it isn't all bad.

Also, the whole X is broken really gets on my wick.

 

[Richardplex]

It can be done well, but it never is. If it just changes how people talk to you, but doesn't affect gameplay, sure. Mass Effect did well with it really, it had little actual impact on gameplay; My main character was about 60:40 renegadearagon, and never had a problem with greyed out options. In Mass Effect 2 however, requiring maxed out P/R to settle the arguments... bad Bioware, bad. I liked the way it affected the scars you had, yet optional for those who didn't want any scars. That was a good way of doing it. And they had decent logical paragon/renegade endings based only on your final actions, not an arbitrary sum of pasts method.

Also, no, it does not break games, merely hurts them.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

The only time I don't like morality in games is when trophies are linked to it. I will never get all the achievements in Mass Effect because I simply can't be renegade. My conscience will tear me apart. Same with InFamous and InFamous 2. Mass Effect 2 did it right in that the morality is not linked to the trophies themselves. They realized that there are people like me who simply won't be evil, even if it means getting that last achievement.

I think the Dragon Age series does the morality thing very well, in that it shoots your character's morality meter in the head. In every choice you're given, both sides have clear downsides and benefits, and what you choose literally comes down to how you as a person feel about the issue. Sure, mages are treated poorly and as second class citizens and that tugs on your heartstrings, but what about all the innocents that are harmed when mages are allowed to run free? The Templars are usually right, as is pointed out several times in Dragon Age II. Harrowmont many be the nicer King, but Orzamar will not benefit under his rule.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

it doesnt break games. it isnt perfected yet. we havent perfected renewable fuels, but it still works. and it eventually gets better and better.

Fallout 3's systems are horrible and while they don't break games, they're worse off for having them.

how was Fallout 3's morality system horrible? you steal-bad karma. you kill people-bad karma. you help people-good karma. it wasnt perfect, and i think it got better with New Vegas (which changed the faction allegiance system).

 

[IKWerewolf]

Could there be an option for: "Doesn't break game, but makes a game worse"?

Yeah i can't really vote in the poll with these options. Though I agree I don't agree fully. He is giving us no grey area with the polls. Now that is ironic.

hahaha! that didnt even occur to me, but its so true. delicious!

It was my first ever poll question that was more complex than yes or no... I think its an ironic example of like some morality systems where it was unnecessary.

 

[WanderingFool]

Here is my opinion of why:

- It limits the decisions that the developer can ask you of as there must always be one good and one bad decision.

- It doesn't take into account the grey areas and the person's preference(see Extra Credits on the Mass Effect 2 Legion side quest).

- Reality isn't clean cut it makes the game world seem designed through the eyes of a child which reinforces the sterotypical view of gaming is for children.

- You only ever make the choice once, especially where achievements are involved, you only decide once at the start to be good, bad or neutral.

Anyone who wishes me to extend any of these bullet points further let me know.

I dont think its game breaking, but I do agree with all those points. I honestly think the best morality system idea is one where you get a score, not a Good/Evil score, but a hidden score that affects the game in different ways. Bas it off of the D&D Lawful/Chaotic-Good/Evil system, with different choices having a combination of these moral axis.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

Fallout 3's systems are horrible and while they don't break games, they're worse off for having them.

how was Fallout 3's morality system horrible? you steal-bad karma. you kill people-bad karma. you help people-good karma. it wasnt perfect, and i think it got better with New Vegas (which changed the faction allegiance system).

Because the game is very fast and loose about when it is okay to steal and who it is okay to kill. I lose karma from stealing from slavers but it's perfectly acceptable for me to murder them in cold blood? It's not that the system is bad it's that it's implemented poorly. Notice how I said only mentioned Fallout 3's as New Vegas seemed to fix a lot of these problems.

 

[sheah1]

Look at Oblivion next to Fallout. In Oblivion, I did everything, because the game never made lines (or at least never made good/bad lines), in Fallout, I did the good, but never the bad and I never started a new file playing it bad because I can't play games that give me a choice as the bad guy, that just doesn't work for me. Therefore I only played half the game, contrary to Oblivion, where I was able to experience all of it.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Doesn't destroy the game but it takes a good chunk out of the feeling.
Unlike items, stories and alignments should feel organic, I should see how the people perceive me by their actions/reactions around me, but developers just slap on a number and their lazy ass job is done.
Simply by not displaying the numbers/bars they would make it alot better.

And worse yet are the new color coded conversation wheels, well if they made the alignments mechanical why not do the same to conversations eh?
Because I'm presumably not playing a robot that has only 2 emotions stored.

For fucks sake developers we are suppose to feel our choice molds the story and character not just hold down the "I R good" button.