Poll: Morality Systems Break Games

[thethingthatlurks]

Ah, black and white, good and evil, saint or baby eating. I do love those arbitrary choices...

Here's a game that did it superbly well: Deus Ex. There are no real choices, just the way you play. There's no real morality, just how characters react to you based on your actions. There is no impact on the ending, which you can still decide then. It's just a surprisingly well done reaction mechanic. Remember Sam? Yeah, I felt really bad about storming that hotel after the speech he gave me...

Here's a game that did it superbly badly: inFamous. It's the evil/good dichotomy, which actually fits quite well with the comic feel the game is going for. No, it's the consequences of the actions. An evil choice (in the case of Cole, anti-hero and aspiring Satan du jour) is supposed to be reprehensible, but far easier. Similarly, a goody two-shoes choice (ColeJeebus 2.0 - now improved) should be harder or take longer to complete, but is free of that pesky feeling of guilt. inFamous had none of that. Each choice was equally easy, and had equal rewards - some balance issues aside. This in turn made the choices completely meaningless. It's irrelevant whether I am a dick or a saint, I'll get the same benefits, but a different ending. I think Yahtzee made this point as well.

Mass Effect had a nice idea, but ultimately failed as the choices are still labeled as good and evil synonyms. It's nice that Bioware is trying to move away from the annoying good/evil dichotomy with some gray stuff, but sadly ME hasn't quite delivered on that. Still hopeful for ME3 though...

 

[Snotnarok]

In most games no but I liked it in Mass Effect and it's sequel even more.

However Infamous and it's sequel I think it made potentially a great pair of games into mediocre ones.

 

[Jfswift]

I think they work fine if used properly. The problem that games like Mass Effect, Fallout 3 and Alpha Protocol suffer from when employing a morality system isn't so much that they use one but that they assign a sound effect or point value system to your decisions. You shouldn't be able to see so readily how your decisions affect those around you. The only game to date that's done this correctly is the original Deux Ex which only shows the reaction to your comments and not a bar, point system or sound effect (if I remember correctly).

 

[TurboPanda]

The biggest problem is games rewarding players for going all evil all or all good. Whether it's better allies, unique weapons, a better ending or even achievements games need to reward players who choose there own path just as much as the ones who are all evil/good. Moral choices need to be made based on what you think is right, not what is going to make Fawkes the Super Mutant be your sidekick.

It would be better to have a more in depth system than simply Good or bad. Kind of like a dungeons and dragons alignment cart. You could be an evil character that avoids violence and prefers to use bribery and persuasion to get what they want (e.g Rupert Murdoch). You could also have a good character who is emotional unstable and prefers to end arguments with a head shot than democracy.

 

[Scow2]

I disagree with "Morality Systems" breaking games, partially because I do believe in Absolute Morality. Games like Fable, inFamous, and Fallout benefit from them, because they give you a good indication of how the inhabitants of the world perceive you. However, I feel that "Ultimate Rewards" achieved by maxing out on one end of the morality system do break it if it tries going binary.

In linear games like Knights of the Old Republic, Quest For Glory, and even inFamous to a degree I love the implementation of the Moraltiy system. What I don't think people got about KotoR was it told one of two stories: Either Darth Revan's return to power as the Dark Lord of the Sith, or the redemption of Revan, and his ascendance as the shining paragon of the Jedi Order. KotoR II was the same way. (In essence, you are supposed to stick with one direction, with the other side serving as "Temptations" to draw you back from 100% completion). inFamous takes a similar approach, either how Cole was corrupted by the power and fucked the world over, or did the right thing in spite of "himself". In Quest for Glory, it only measures how "Good" you are: You're always a hero.

In sandbox games like Fallout and Fable benefit from them by having only appearance and people's reactions to your character change based on your alignment position: Being in a grey area doesn't deprive you of End-game power. Also, the morality system saves the game the trouble of having to individually shape every NPC's opinion of you: If you're Jesus, sensible people will love you, while corrupt people will hate you. If you're the other guy, everyone's scared of you or hates you, but the corrupt guys might enjoy your company because you're just like them.

 

[ms_sunlight]

Morality systems don't break games; they do encourage and reward metagaming, though. If you can only get certain outcomes, or certain reactions from NPCs or companions, through attaining certain scores then the morality system becomes a game in its own right and this can have a serious effect on game immersion.

I prefer games where morality, reputation etc. is invisible to the player save by effects in the game world. I don't like meters or numerical scores, I like just seeing things play out.

 

[viranimus]

Is it that morallity systems are bad.. Or is it that morality systems are the new thing thats cool to pick on.

Seriously since Infamous 2 came out.. theres been at least a dozen different threads about how this is something bad.

Its not morallity systems that are the problem its lazy developers who only give you the choices of do everything for the moron NPCs and protect them from themselves. Or Serve your own interests and be the bad guy.

Good is rarely "good" Evil is something more than just being an obnoxious prick and when it comes down to moral choices more often than not its not a "good" choice or a "bad" choice. Its typically having to make a choice from options that are all bad.

However being critical of this does not make me want this less in games. These are the learning stages for developers. I WANT them to continue making morality based games... because its where I want games to eventually get to, and what we see today in them is little more the baby steps in the infancy of a potentially new genre. The longer they make them, the better they will get at making them. Need proof, Look at how New Vegas handled morality.

 

[ms_sunlight]

I think New Vegas did it quite well. It wasn't a morality system, more a 'choose your side' system, and it worked. You know, besides the glitches.

It's a faction reputation system, similar to the one in Morrowind, not a morality system. It works because your primary means of recognising how you're doing is how characters treat you, not some number or gauge on a menu screen.

 

[Scow2]

Again, Games like Fable, Fallout, and Knights of the Old Republic all benefited from their morality system, albiet different reasons:
Fable allows you to choose where between Superman or The Evil Overlord (From the Overlord games) you fall, and the world is superficial enough that it doesn't need an overly complex system... The games' superficial and frivolous nature makes it a nice selling point.
Fallout benefits because a major theme of that game is how The Vault Dweller, Chosen One, and Lone Wanderer are remembered, and their legacy, combined with localized instances: If you were mostly a decent person, the end would show how you improved the world, and glaze over the small handful of dickish things you might have done (Like Abraham Lincoln), or if you were a scourge of the waste, it shows how you turned the world for the worst, and ignore the few good things you might have done (Like Vlad the Impaler)
... I've already said how KotoR benefitted from the system.

The problems are caused when the writers don't make the intention of the Morality system clear (Infamous was marketed as a sandbox game, not an Urban Superhero/Villain RPG), or have the results be arbitrary in which outcome was which (Yes, I'm looking at you, Fable III).

 

[Sarah Frazier]

One slight hiccough I had with dialogue options was not the good/evil options, but simply not knowing what the intended tone is. I saw an option that I thought was a "Let me get to know you" option, but it turned out to be the option to tell them to buzz off. Sure I wasn't fielding them, but it was still so unexpected that I wondered why there wasn't a note of context about how the question is being asked. I have seen some clips of DA:2 that have different emoticons, which is an improvement, but still somewhat generic.

 

[McNinja]

- 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.

I barely noticed any difference in InFamous, including having other "evil" quests disappear.

Fable's is barely like that. You can't really choose dialogue options, except in three, but let's not talk about that game. I didn't even really notice it in FO3, or KOTOR for that matter. Mass Effect is slightly more clear cut, but if you want to play neutral, you can.

I mean, would you rather you just aren't able to pick what you say? If the answer is yes, games like Mass Effect aren't for you. Games like ME and FO3 have those systems so a player can roleplay the character however they want. That bit about grey areas? Go play some Dragon Age Origins. You can only put so much in a game.

 

[FalloutJack]

Waiting for an "It depends" option. Otherwise, poll is invalid.

 

[DementedSheep]

Well I don't know if they "break" a game but they certainly do allot of damage to some. The only time morality systems work is when the game is going for a childish view of morality with you either being Jesus or a baby eater and not trying to be complex at all. In games which are trying to have some depth like mass effect the morality sytem takes allot away from it. Especaily since they lumped everthing together with speach.
Many games would be better if they just gave you the choices and had things change that are a result of that but didn?t push a system on you or tie it with skills. DA:O handled it well I think. tho the major choices were just followed up in a text scroll at the end.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

I barely noticed any difference in InFamous, including having other "evil" quests disappear.

Fable's is barely like that. You can't really choose dialogue options, except in three, but let's not talk about that game. I didn't even really notice it in FO3, or KOTOR for that matter. Mass Effect is slightly more clear cut, but if you want to play neutral, you can.

I mean, would you rather you just aren't able to pick what you say? If the answer is yes, games like Mass Effect aren't for you. Games like ME and FO3 have those systems so a player can roleplay the character however they want. That bit about grey areas? Go play some Dragon Age Origins. You can only put so much in a game.

But it's an allure with the promise of complex decision making that pisses me off, especially when it turns out to be a basic choice between two ends of a scale. Take Fallout 3's karma system and stand it next to Oblivion's Fame/Infamy system. Both keep track of my 'good' and 'bad' deeds, but one puts it on a scale and the other simply puts it on a tally. I can rack up as much fame as I can infamy, but my karma slider will only accept one or the other.

Fable's isn't as bad in the first game, at least when strutting around people will openly applaud me for saving the day recently whilst equally fearing me for the reckless destruction I've unleashed upon Albion before then. It's not the morality system I'm saying is bad, it's having it on a visible scale that deducts from the experience.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

I feel that they can be improved but at least this way we have options and we actually affect the game world other then killing a few things.

 

[ChupathingyX]

nature makes it a nice selling point.
Fallout benefits because a major theme of that game is how The Vault Dweller, Chosen One, and Lone Wanderer are remembered, and their legacy, combined with localized instances: If you were mostly a decent person, the end would show how you improved the world, and glaze over the small handful of dickish things you might have done (Like Abraham Lincoln), or if you were a scourge of the waste, it shows how you turned the world for the worst, and ignore the few good things you might have done

What about the Courier in New Vegas?

New Vegas probably has the most grey morality in the Fallout series, along with Fallout 1. Look at the ending of Honest Hearts, you can't really say either is better or worse than the other, they both have their pros and cons and it comes down to personal opinion. The game doesn't tell you which is good or bad and that is what makes it a grey morality choice.

 

[McNinja]

-snip snip sni- MOTHRA WTF ARE YOU DOIN- AAAAAAAAAAAUGH-

But it's an allure with the promise of complex decision making that pisses me off, especially when it turns out to be a basic choice between two ends of a scale. Take Fallout 3's karma system and stand it next to Oblivion's Fame/Infamy system. Both keep track of my 'good' and 'bad' deeds, but one puts it on a scale and the other simply puts it on a tally. I can rack up as much fame as I can infamy, but my karma slider will only accept one or the other.

Fable's isn't as bad in the first game, at least when strutting around people will openly applaud me for saving the day recently whilst equally fearing me for the reckless destruction I've unleashed upon Albion before then. It's not the morality system I'm saying is bad, it's having it on a visible scale that deducts from the experience.

I see what you mean. That's why I like Dragon Age: Origins system. No scale (only the team-mates, but you can buy/find their happiness, so they don't count). Fable 1 was pretty good, although there was a slider for your morality, the game also took into account your appearance and level of fame as well.

Anyway, The Witcher had a pretty good system. Not for morality, but it allowed the payer to make decisions that impacted the game severely.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

Anyway, The Witcher had a pretty good system. Not for morality, but it allowed the payer to make decisions that impacted the game severely.

Yeah when I played I never felt that I was making a straight cut bad or good decision. Some offered short term advantages while others showed their usefulness in later chapters.

 

[Araksardet]

They don't break games, and they would even be a positive good, in a very different form, if implemented properly. The problem is that they generally only favor one extreme or the other, which is pretty lame.

Instead, morality systems ought to be about different people reacting differently to your choices based on consequences, and about presenting the player with choices that test a player's moral sensibilities.

Morality is rarely about good and evil - it's about priorities. What's more important, the common good or individual integrity? Revenge for past ills, or forgiveness in the hopes of future healing? Freedom of expression, or respect and harmony? These are real moral problems that people stand and fall for, and these are the kinds of things that should be reflected in games. Not "Kill teh kittenz or give teh kittenz warm milks!!".