Poll: Morality Systems Break Games

[s0p0g]

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.

the devs could add additional choices, if they wanted.
also, see neverwinter nights (the first part, i do not know the second); i believe that one of the few things it handled quite well (the dnd morale-scale is one of the best around, imho [link]http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/84/dndcharthf7.png[/link] )
also, play the witcher ^^
also, my Mass Effect Shepards aren't purely renegade or paragon, i'll do the closest thing to what i think my char, or i (depending how i play), would do (no in kotor of course it was very useful to go the full way, i'll give you that)


but really, i don't think it breaks a game. it's part of the mechanic, as everything else, and as every mechanic, depending on the implementation, it is more or less flawed, has its pros and cons, but *breaking* a game? really?

 

[zarix2311]

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

I agree with this guy. I think it limits the experience for the players.

 

[Blackpapa]

Totally agree. I think this was touched upon in a certain Extra Credits episode. On second thought, I'm sure it was.

There are several problems with morality systems.

First of all a good/evil meter is wrong to start with. Banality of evil is the chief argument here as no human willingly commits evil for the explicit purpose of being evil alone. Each act deemed evil can be rationalized by greater good, necessity ect.

This means a good/evil system is worthless. Mass Effect had the Paragon/Renegade which is a much more ambiguous system of idealism vs realism and as we've seen works much better.

The problem with having such a system at all is that it's too often a core element and plays a much more prominent role than it should. Instead of trying to fit existing content into the morality system it's the other way around, content being created with fitting into the system in mind. The designer doesn't come up with varying solutions based only on the circumstances but instead tries to think up solutions that would fit neatly into the framework of the morality system present in the game. Even if this is done subconsciously it's limiting and often results in choices that are stupid or pointless. Yahtzee mentioned this more than once.

The biggest problem here is that morality can't be easily quantifiable. Not real-world morality which is a very subjective thing. Only by making the available choices unrealistic and frankly dumb can a clear and obvious distinction between good and evil be made. And regrettably a lot of games go down this route. In order for the game content to fit into the simple morality framework the choices are unrealistic, between being a psychopath for no good reason to being a sucker-saint.

Bethesda's Fallout 3 is a great example of how NOT to do this.

 

[WanderingFool]

Something else I like to add about Mass Effect. I hate how they did the conversations. I dont mind the wheel, but you can always tell which choice is the Paragon and which is the Renegade, simply from which part of the wheel its on.

My idea to change it for the better (purely my own opinion, of course), would be to have a dialoge wheel that has pursuade and imtimidate options, than you hold down the left shoulder button for Paragon attitude, right shoulder for Renegade, or neither for nutral.

 

[IKWerewolf]

Totally agree. I think this was touched upon in a certain Extra Credits episode. On second thought, I'm sure it was.

If it is please send me a link I think I missed that one.

For those that want to know this came out of a conversation between me and a friend concerning the state of games and we talked about this for a good 20 minutes.

 

[Blackpapa]

Here is my opinion of why:
- 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.

That's the issue with VISIBLE karma meters. Thousands upon thousands of pages have been written about morality, countless books, great minds spent their lives debating this and now here comes a developer who wraps this up all in 4 bytes.

 

[Blackpapa]

Totally agree. I think this was touched upon in a certain Extra Credits episode. On second thought, I'm sure it was.

If it is please send me a link I think I missed that one.

For those that want to know this came out of a conversation between me and a friend concerning the state of games and we talked about this for a good 20 minutes.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1974-Enriching-Lives

 

[Flecchi]

The biggest problem I have with the "Morality Systems" most games impose is they are end up being boiled down to "Bleeding Heart" and "Is a Douche". Take Bio-ware's attempt at the biggest moral grey Jade Empires ambitious misuse of "open hand" and "closed fist", where they ignore the core idea of it that an action is not always as obvious as "good" or "bad". Closed Fist is, usually, using force to make someone overcome their own weakness, while Open Hand is guiding them to it. Instead it ended up as "Bleeding Heart" or "is A Douche".

Mass Effect, a game I love despite it's Good guy/ Bad Guy attempt, still is burdened by the fact that it is in the end a 0 or 1 gate for morality. You are either Good or Bad, you cannot do the wrong thing for the right reason, because reason does not matter. You are either their idea of one thing or another, your decision matter even less, because you aren't even really acting on your own merit, rather your picking from their list of black and white choices, while the rest of the world is allowed to have that moral grey. It makes the game feel even more like a pick a path book that you paid $60 to play.

 

[IKWerewolf]

Another point to add to the starting post:

- It never considers the motivation of the player.

EDITED (note this was written before post 28 but he posted it first and I didn't refresh my web browser before posting to check)

 

[Princess Rose]

- 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.

What you're talking about is a badly implemented morality system. The Extra Credits episode you mentioned demonstrates the fact that, when this system is done well, it can be thought provoking and add depth to the game (and yes, I just rewatched the episode because of your post to make sure I remembered it right - I did).

I've seen games where the morality is badly done. Infamous 1 (haven't played 2 yet) is an example of a badly done one - you have to be Stupidly Evil for any of the Evil options to make sense, and you LOSE good points when you make them, hurting your ability to unlock game features. That's bad design. I hope they fixed that in Infamous 2, but we'll see.

In Mass Effect, Paragon is good, but often short-sighted. Renegade is generally mean, but never truly evil, just overly pragmatic. Plus, on implimentation, there are enough points in the game to fill one whole side and half of the other side, meaning that you are ALLOWED to mix your choices without penalty. Choosing middle neutral options can hurt you, and being totally even will keep you from unlocking dialog later in the game, but you can be a mostly paragon character who makes the occasional Renegade decision without an issue. And because the points are counted separately (you collect both kinds of points, rather than having a meter that swings back and forth), you can make off-alignment decisions without being punished for them.

Want to play a Paragon character who doesn't think the Council is worth saving (because they're just people - it's the office that matters)? You can do that. And you are never punished for that decision. That's a well implemented system.

So yes, you do have a point - but only when the system is done badly. A well done morality system can add something to the game, and even give you a real conundrum like the Legion decision (after all, some people would consider the Paragon reprogram option the more Evil of the two options - but again, there are enough points where you aren't forced to make one decision or the other - you have the freedom to choose either option).

 

[Tim Mazzola]

I LOVE Moral choice systems! I just feel like they've never been done right. Literally never. I think they should be for roleplaying purposes, but there shouldn't be "saint" and "dickhead" points awarded for making choices. You make choices and deal with the consequences. Maybe there are points you don't see that effect how your character acts regardless of your control, but there are no points that effect gameplay.

For example, while I know my hopes probably won't be met... I hope in Mass Effect 3 there are still paragon and renegade choices. However, I hope there are no points attached to making said choices, and I hope they just bring the "Charm" and "Intimidate" skills back for players who want to focus on roleplaying those specific sorts of characters.

 

[babinro]

Morality systems add to a games replay value by providing 2+ distinct plays. It allows the developer to make a coherent story line that matches the alignment tendency...rather than keeping everything broad enough to suit all decisions.

I should note that I wish games like inFamous would just allow you to start the game as good or evil and run the story based on that decision.

Morality only ruins the experience when decisions are truly clever and there is no 'right'. Most games fail to provide this with any consistency...and if they did, they should not adopt the morality system to tell their story and take a more Heavy Rain approach for example.

 

[zehydra]

Good points, except this: "- 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."

I've never had a situation where you decide from the get-go whether or not your character was going to be good or evil. Many times my character is overall-good, but has some thieving habits which drop his good-evil ratio.

I think morality systems can work as game mechanics, like when they affect your reputation (Oblivion's fame and infamy system works well like this).

Morality systems don't really work well, however, as story-driving mechanics.

 

[Blackpapa]

My solution to the problem is very, very simple:

1.Completely hide the morality system from the player. Don't give any visual/audio cues on the player's current morality score. Don't create varying "hello" speeches for characters based on the player's morality - after all, it's a paper-thin layer of abstraction above a HUD gauge if you can just keep doing "good stuff" and repeatedly visit a character to see your standing.

2. Whatever your morality system will look like, don't assume that choices can cancel each other out. Even if it makes sense for opposites to cancel themselves out, don't put that on one scale. F:NV went with this idea and the result was pretty good.

3. Since you're hiding the morality system from the player you are now free not to assign any moral values to choices. In fact since you don't have to neatly display anything anymore you can create several state variables that save the outcome of a given situation - or create several secondary meters that measure independently values such as player's vengefulness.

4. Since you're not presenting the morality meters on the player's HUD but went through the trouble of coding all that you have to figure out new ways to give the player feedback on this and create an experience more suited to his/hers playing style.


Good examples of this would be the quest lines for Ganon and Boone in FNV. The game keeps a tally of binary dialogue choices and then expects you to be consistent when choosing the quest's conclusion - if not the character will complain and call you out on this.

 

[Blackpapa]

I LOVE Moral choice systems! I just feel like they've never been done right. Literally never.

No, what you love are moral choices. You're failing to see the distinction between morality systems/frameworks and storyline moral choices. You can have a game that offers you a wide variety of solutions to a situation without keeping track of them. This would be fine in a game where you effectively remain anonymous or don't gain any recognition.

Morality systems add to a games replay value by providing 2+ distinct plays.

The above applies to you too.

 

[No_Remainders]

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.

Alright. You've given some reasons why you think they're bad.

I'd like an example of where a morality system has, in fact, broken a game. Because I sure as hell can't think of one.

Yes, when done badly, they can be infuriating and childish, but when done well I think they're quite enjoyable, especially when they have an outcome on the game.

 

[Sylveria]

-

What you're talking about is a badly implemented morality system. The Extra Credits episode you mentioned demonstrates the fact that, when this system is done well, it can be thought provoking and add depth to the game (and yes, I just rewatched the episode because of your post to make sure I remembered it right - I did).

From what I've seen a lot of them aren't done well. As Yahtzee often says, you just end up with a choice between Mother Teresa and baby-eating and there's really not much difference between the two when all is said and done. But, with everything, there are exceptions.

I think this poll is missing a "Sometimes" option.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Karma systems and the lot suck, something like dragon age: origins on the other hand is much better.

 

[Tim Mazzola]

I LOVE Moral choice systems! I just feel like they've never been done right. Literally never.

No, what you love are moral choices. You're failing to see the distinction between morality systems/frameworks and storyline moral choices. You can have a game that offers you a wide variety of solutions to a situation without keeping track of them. This would be fine in a game where you effectively remain anonymous or don't gain any recognition.

Morality systems add to a games replay value by providing 2+ distinct plays.

The above applies to you too.

Uh, read my post. I said I wanted them to be kept track of, I just don't want "points" getting in the way of moral ambiguity, and I don't want it to effect gameplay in any way (like in KotOR when you made one evil choice and suddenly it takes twice as much force power to use Heal). Also, why would you want to remain anonymous and not gain recognition for your choices? I WANT THAT! Makes the roleplaying so much more fun!