Poll: Morality Systems Break Games

[Kryzantine]

I think morality systems are amazing for video games, it's just that linear, black and white morality systems break them.

People have already mentioned the Witcher series as an example of a series that does morality right - this is mostly achieved through not having a morality meter. Your choices do not build up to some arbitrary reward for leaning one way or the other, nor do they shift the character's personality. Shades of grey everywhere, nothing in the game telling you that Choice A gives you +5 on the karma scale and Choice B gives you -5 on the karma scale. There is no karma scale, really, it's just you. That's a morality system done right.

But let me cite a 2nd example that has gone unnoticed - Alpha Protocol has something similar to The Witcher, in that it's not so cut-and-dry. However, all your choices have consequences. There is never a choice that dominates another choice, and that's the beauty of the game. I can't really explain why, but AP made me think at a lot of points. Even if I was trying to follow a path, some choices were just very difficult.

 

[Bostur]

Point based morality systems often artificially limits games in ways that isn't needed. It's probably an old relic from AD&D based games that developers forgot to re-examine.

Morality in games in general is a huge subject that can be implemented with varying degrees of success. There are so many ways to do it that it all depends on the specifics.

I think its cool when past actions come back to bite me in the backside. Its also cool when past actions return to give me a warm fuzzy feeling. It's not so cool when I feel I need to powergame morale to get +1 awesomeness.

 

[Kair]

I think grey areas happen more in some video games than in reality. Examples are the Witcher games.

In reality I see clearly what is good and what is bad, because actions are not limited to the whim of a developer.

 

[StormShaun]

I love the mortality systems if you check out my profile it says im independent good (Good but if the Govt is evil, screw them) the morality systems made me discover my true self, and also it makes me feel good eith myself thinking that I can do good in everything.

Im all good people.

 

[violent_quiche]

I agree with "not a breaker, but not always an improver"

Having replayed ME1 and 2 back to back recently, the morality system in 1 was better implemented than 2. Dialogue choices in 1 were a product of the Charm/Intimidate talents, not Paragon Renegade which made sense to me- you could theoretically be a charming renegade or an intimidating paragon. Tying the two together in ME2 locked you into one style of play or the other, leaving little room to explore the middle ground.

Legion's mission aside, Mordin's arc was another example:

The paragon route wanted to Shepard to completely condemn the genophage however, it seemed equally reasonable to me that Shepard would agree or at least keep a neutral stance given all the variables- prolific Krogan breeding, long life, warlike demeanour, etc. In choosing the pointless "neutral" option, the game docked points for playing the role as I saw it- potentially leaving me short on paragon percentage for crucial moments like the crew fights.


Also

Impossible to believe a renegade Shepard would kill Samara in favour of her sick, psychotic daughter. That wasn't a renegade choice, that was just plain old evil


As much as I loved ME2, forcing players into Paragon or Renegade paths eliminated many of the grey areas that made the original story compelling, so here's hoping they at least separate them in ME3. The basic problem is not that I disagreed with the writers; it's that my choice wasn't informed by consideration of the story but by "will this net me enough points?". Whatever video game role playing means, that isn't it.

 

[Vault101]

I dont mind them, if the game is good then it doesnt ruin the game

the only thing that kinda annoys me is when you have to be ALL good or ALL evil...when you cant mix things up a bit, for osme reaosn it makes me feel like Im playing it wrong

like DAl:O or the fallout games (more or less) you had more depth to the whole morality thing

 

[silasbufu]

I have no idea what you're on about, I hardly even notice morality systems. You know why? Because I play RPG's as they're supposed to be played. You have some choices, you choose what you would do if you were in the character's shoes. So you don't have to be good or bad, sometimes I save some puppies from zombies, but sometimes I bash someones head for talking shit too much. So I never got an achievement for finishing a game being almost entirely good or bad, that's just bullcrap.

Except for inFamous, I really don't think there are many games where you are FORCED to be good or evil from beggining to end (also, I find this to be pretty well implemented in inFamous and it adds more replayability).

 

[putowtin]

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.

- 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 disagree, and in pretty words will explain why...
I think one of the best examples of a morality systems has to be Mass Effect, you give someone 10 credits, you get paragon points, then you kick someone in the nuts, you get renegade points
you don't lose good points for doing evil or vis versa.

It's a system that accepts that yes I'm generally a good person that helps little old ladies get their cats out of trees, but will on occasion set fire to the tree!

 

[Xanrae]

I played with this a bit while developing an RPG mod/map for Starcraft 2 beta. It never got off the ground because the release version irrepairably broke it, but there are some things I wish other games would implement.

Firstly, it has more than two alignments. Aside from the two main alignments (Khalai and Nerazim, the two Protoss factions) there is a Prophet alignment for people who do their own thing with conviction, a Free Spirit alignment for people who just choose whatever, and a Pirate alignment for people who simply pick the easiest options and/or the ones that would yield the most phat loot (eg. searching the cargo deck of the battlecruiser you're on for artifacts while said battlecruiser is bombarding your home planet).

Secondly, the factional alignments reward roleplay much more than words. Claiming to be a Khalai is worth almost nothing. But at one point you acquire a scripture that amounts to the Khalai holy bible. It says every Khalai should strive to read from it at least once a day. There is an ingame calendar. A little roleplay earns you a lot of points. Another one: being a spirit summoner you have a large list of Protoss heroes to summon and incarnate, but if you're a Khalai or Nerazim there are some heroes you hate and would never willingly bond with, not even for pragmatic reasons because your dogma considers them weaklings.

Most people would not roleplay and end up being a Prophet or Free Spirit (or Pirate), which is fine, but if you do choose to act like a Khalai or Nerazim the game would treat you as such.

......

Good old times. I wish I continued with this project.