Poll: Morality Systems Break Games

[Zantos]

I definitely think moral choice systems are improving. Each try they keep getting better, just not quite there yet. There is always the problem though of those fans of role-playing who would cry out in horror if they were trying to play a "pure good" character (I think that's the correct term for someone who plays entirely good decisions) and they got into a situation where there was no "good" solution and the only way to get out would be to do something "evil".

I do think though that morality systems are getting a bit token now in some games. I would rather a game not try and have a morality system than have a poorly thought out and hastily added one.

 

[Kahunaburger]

There is always the problem though of those fans of role-playing who would cry out in horror if they were trying to play a "pure good" character (I think that's the correct term for someone who plays entirely good decisions) and they got into a situation where there was no "good" solution and the only way to get out would be to do something "evil".

I think it can be done right if it doesn't come off as too contrived. Like in the first Witcher with the whole "choosing the lesser evil" thing.

Spoiler: Spoilers for Witcher 1.

Back side A, side B, or neither, watch chaos ensue in different ways depending on your decision.

Don't want the local witch's death on your conscience? Have fun butchering a mob of angry noncombatants.

And so on.

 

[Doomcat]

Short answer: No, they don't break games, but they really don't make sense in about 90% of them (I'm looking at you Oblivion and Fallout 3 >.>)

 

[weker]

It's also the reason why i think that alpha protocol is the best game i have played for around 2 or 3 years in terms of innovation.

Alpha Protocol doesn't have a morality system, instead it tracks each meaningful choice and changes the world based on which option was chosen.

It does, however, track reputation with individual characters. In a way this could be understood as tracking separate aspects of morality - specifically how much a character is aligned with a given NPC's moral system.

Which is pretty much a distant version of the system I described. Either way it avoids a single scale.

I agree with you, while reputation is recorded it doesn't have the same impact on the gamer. With a morality system it creates issues when things are morally gray but a rep system just tells you if what your saying is woeing the person your talking to, rather working more as a aid rather then a guide.

 

[penguindude42]

You do know Ultima 4 exists, right?

Because if you don't, there is no hope for you.

~Tom

 

[Babitz]

Planescape: Torment did this perfect. And it's the only game that did it flawlessly well.

 

[Baneat]

Dungeons and Dragons?

 

[Zantos]

There is always the problem though of those fans of role-playing who would cry out in horror if they were trying to play a "pure good" character (I think that's the correct term for someone who plays entirely good decisions) and they got into a situation where there was no "good" solution and the only way to get out would be to do something "evil".

I think it can be done right if it doesn't come off as too contrived. Like in the first Witcher with the whole "choosing the lesser evil" thing.

Spoiler: Spoilers for Witcher 1.

Back side A, side B, or neither, watch chaos ensue in different ways depending on your decision.

Don't want the local witch's death on your conscience? Have fun butchering a mob of angry noncombatants.

And so on.

See, I like that idea. I'll have to check it out, if it's like you've made out I'm surprised no one else has taken this on.

 

[Jake0fTrades]

- 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.

I really have mixed views on all of your points. As for their being "One good and one bad" decision, that's not always a bad thing, movies and books like Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter don't suffer from having a definite evil and a definite good, in fact, that's part of their appeal, grand stories of righteousness overcoming wickedness. If you're trying to tell a realistic story (i.e. Fallout) then yes, it would be better to have some gray areas for players to experiment in.

I think a lot of this is your opinion, but that's the point of polls, isn't it? Thank you for the discussion.

 

[Kahunaburger]

There is always the problem though of those fans of role-playing who would cry out in horror if they were trying to play a "pure good" character (I think that's the correct term for someone who plays entirely good decisions) and they got into a situation where there was no "good" solution and the only way to get out would be to do something "evil".

I think it can be done right if it doesn't come off as too contrived. Like in the first Witcher with the whole "choosing the lesser evil" thing.

Spoiler: Spoilers for Witcher 1.

Back side A, side B, or neither, watch chaos ensue in different ways depending on your decision.

Don't want the local witch's death on your conscience? Have fun butchering a mob of angry noncombatants.

And so on.

See, I like that idea. I'll have to check it out, if it's like you've made out I'm surprised no one else has taken this on.

Same here, actually - it seems like more people should be doing this sort of thing. ME2 makes a head fake towards this in Legion's loyalty mission, but the paragon/renegade mechanic causes problems for the actual execution, IMO.

Keep in mind though (if you're planning to check Witcher 1 out) that there are some pretty problematic elements of that game. The combat system is pretty clunky, and there's the whole sexism issue. IMO, though, the things it does well it does very well.

 

[vxicepickxv]

You do know Ultima 4 exists, right?

Because if you don't, there is no hope for you.

~Tom

Ninja'd by Ultima, sweet.

The morality system in the Ultima series is great, because of the fact that it's almost all shades of gray.

"You're returning a large sack of money to a personal friend, and you come upon a beggar. Which of the following do you do?

a)Honorably bring all of the money to your friend.
b)Compassionately slip the beggar a few coins, knowing they won't be missed.

That quote might not be exact word for word, but it's a sample of the character creation. Morality with no right or wrong answers(unless you're powergaming, then you avoid humility as an answer because you don't get a stat bonus for it)

There are no achievements for the game, there is only the game.

By the way, We're talking late 80s early 90s for the series, with both NPC schedules and time cycles.

 

[Lullabye]

No. It's like saying 'a story is bad for a game because'
-it limits the decisions of the developer because you can only have a set choice.
-it doesn't take into account all the grey areas and persons preference
-- 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.

So by that logic games are better without a single main story yes?
[sub]I love this new capthca[/sub]

 

[Twilight_guy]

I don't think it breaks the game, I just think nobody has created a good morality system yet. The current systems are usually Binary (life isn't as simple as good/bad) have one clear "right" and "wrong" option (kill the puppy or save an orphan with minimal repercussions, the system could easily force you to save one or the other and thus both options have rewards and consequences instead of help someone or be dick) and are far to invasive (see Infamous where the game forces you to be one or the other or Mass Effect where the game always pops up to tell you the karma result of your action). A good morality system would have consequence no matter what option you take, would be tucked away enough to not force your hand, would not have "good" and "bad" since those have preexist connotation, and would not be as obvious as +5 good or -5 bad since then its less your view on the options and more what the developers tell you to view in the actions. Its complicated and not that easy to implement but current systems... well they suck.

 

[Zantos]

Keep in mind though (if you're planning to check Witcher 1 out) that there are some pretty problematic elements of that game. The combat system is pretty clunky, and there's the whole sexism issue. IMO, though, the things it does well it does very well.

Is it a good story? I'm doing a run through all the mythological hack n slashers I've missed over the years, and it's taught me that if I like the story I will put up with bad combat systems (along with things that don't even make sense). Plus this sexism can't be any worse than the racism that seems to have become a requirement of most new releases.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Keep in mind though (if you're planning to check Witcher 1 out) that there are some pretty problematic elements of that game. The combat system is pretty clunky, and there's the whole sexism issue. IMO, though, the things it does well it does very well.

Is it a good story? I'm doing a run through all the mythological hack n slashers I've missed over the years, and it's taught me that if I like the story I will put up with bad combat systems (along with things that don't even make sense). Plus this sexism can't be any worse than the racism that seems to have become a requirement of most new releases.

The story's pretty YMMV - it's very good once it gets going, but takes a long time to get going. I personally like it, but plenty of people don't for equally legitimate reasons. And the sexism is mostly re: the sex card mechanic - the game actually has some really strong female characters. IMO it's definitely there, but it's not as bad as some people say it is. But yeah, by all means check it out - lots of people (myself included) really like it

 

[brighteye]

I like morality to make an impact on the story in a game, but i still hope for some big exspansion on the system.
Not only good vs evil , but perhaps charitable vs greedy, enviromentally sound vs corporate industrialist and so on.
It would have been interesting if Shepard in ME saved a colony and after that donated some money so the colonists could build some laser towers for future defence and for extra security Shepard sold them some weapons ( for a substansial profit ).

Good - charitable - corporate industrialist.

Or the opposite, Shepard convince the colonists that the buildings is a reaper target and they should have a better chance of surviving by going low tech in wood huts in a distant forest, and after that he sell the metal buildings to scrap dealers for a big profit.

Evil - Greedy - enviromentally friendly.

You get the idea, the variables could be 50+ or even more....

 

[Xaio30]

I'm all in for the "Decisions and Consequences" style of play. No Karma or good/evil contrast.

 

[King Toasty]

No. InFamous implemented it ALMOST perfectly. The only flaw was forcing you to be completely evil/completely good. But it doubles replay value, makes the gameplay more interesting and helps build a character.

Now, we're not yet at the point of, "Ohh this question shakes e to the very soul", but we might be. I have faith in this mechanic, if it's done right more.

 

[Dr Jones]

Play The Witcher 1 and 2. Games are full of morality decisions, its all about having to decide which is the greater good or lesser evil.

 

[Xanadu84]

Morality systems don't break games by there nature: They CAN make them worse, but that is in sloppy execution. There are 2 ways that moral choice can be a great addition(Or perhaps I should say at least 2 ways). First, the game can use Morality to add real choice. Rather then blanket good versus evil, it can explore the more grey areas that truly let players explore the concept of morality. Case in point, the HORRIBLE failure of Fable 3. It started out so perfect: rule with an iron fist but save lives, be the benevolent ruler over a dead kingdom. There was some wonderful morality systems to explore here, they just..reverted to a bland, black and white saint versus hitler dichotomy. Alternatively, the simplicity of a games moral choice could bear some metaphorical weight. Bioshock for example, could have used an overly simplified system of good versus evil in contrast with the black and white, uncompromising vision of a battle between Objectivism and Collectivism. Were that to happen, Bioshock would earn some serious artistic points for it's rather bianary system for morality. Sure, that didn't happen, but its easy to see how possible it would have been.