Poll: Morality Systems: Good or Bad?

[Scizophrenic Llama]

If a morality system is going to be done it needs to be done right. Frankly I'd prefer to see a morality system tied in with some form of faction system. Generally if you have a morality system in a game you are more than likely tied to certain groups based on what actions you make. So why not go a step further and branch out even more specifically on how your actions would effect relations you have with other people?

Both Mass Effect and Dragon Age suffer from choices being rather grey area. Either way you're still being an ass, but one way apparently makes you less of an ass and therefore more like-able in that sense. That needs to go. Dragon Age had a bit of what I am looking for in the form of how much your party liked you based on your actions. That was mainly so that you could bang them, but it is a start.

From what I've heard, Fallout 3: New Vegas has something similar to this, so I am looking forward to seeing how that works out.

 

[Randomologist]

Morality systems can indeed die in a fire. If I see an NPC with a weapon I like, they're toast. I don't care if everyone loves or loathes me, I just want loot. Don't punish me for playing the game I paid money for in the way I want.
I'm not this mercenary in RL (honest).

 

[elricik]

It depends on how they are used. For the large part I'd say yes because they give me a reason to replay a game.

 

[Agayek]

I voted good on the poll, but with the qualifier that we have yet to see a "good" morality system. Mass Effect kinda gets there, but they need to realize that something as complex as morality can't be simplified down to "where are you on the slider bar?" I think morality systems can be quite good, and add a lot of depth to the gameplay, but I don't think we've seen a good one yet.

 

[randomrob]

I don't like morality systems in games at all. They always make good and bad so cartoonishly obvious that there is no real decision process behind it. You'll go into the game wanting to be good or bad and just make the decisions based on what you want to be. It's what I did in InFamous, Bioshock, Kotor and Fallout 3. I would prefer a game which has a neutral area where you can do either good things or bad things depending on your mood and it doesn't completely fuck up the character development like trying to be neutral does in InFamous.

 

[Admrl Awsum]

I personally am neutral on the matter. If it wasn't as black and white as it is usually now, it'd be better.

 

[Heroic One]

They're never executed properly, Mass Effect comes close but ultimately only in a few situations. It's tired and overdone.

 

[fishfart]

I like them, but I wish they had more of a direct consequence on storylines, as opposed to to a few little differences, but overall the story remaining the same. You look at a game like Red Dead which has a system, and there are benefits to being good, but by the end of the game whether you were good or bad is almost inconsequential.

 

[lukemdizzle]

they work when they are a core part of gameplay and story meshed together to make a more personal meaningful experience ex. mass effect or bioshock. they don't work when they're just there to make you play games over again to unlock new things or are just tacked on. ex. infamous

i disagree. in my opinion, imfamous had one of the better moral choice systems, despite the fact that the evil exclusive ability was much better than the good one, it was more or less balanced.

it didn't really seem tacked on to me. i haven't played mass effect, but bioshock's moral system DID seem a bit tacked on to me. all you get is 2 different endings, and a few different npc conversations. infamous had something like that, but took it farther. the environment and character model change accordingly to whether your good and evil, civilian npc's form mobs to attack you if your evil, and form mobs to fight the gangs if your good.

seemed to me that a lot of work was put into infamous, even though i do really hate the fact that you either jesus or hitler, with no middle ground.

Infamous probably wasn't the best example I personally didn't like the system but I see you points. a better example would probably be something like army of two

 

[Zhukov]

They could be good.

So far they have all been bad.

 

[crudus]

Morality systems are black and white at the moment. They are however more good than harm. It is nice to see a "choose your own adventure" style of conversation if that is all you get.

 

[Frybird]

I think morality systems are going the right way in Games like Mass Effect and Alpha Protocol.

Having to decide between "Good" and "Evil" is kind of stupid and tends to destroy the "shades of grey" that makes stories really interesting and choices really hard.

In above Games, you are automatically some kind of "Good" for the stories sake, but you'll have to decide how you approach situations and people, wich is more like "defining a character" and allows for situations that actually challenge the player's morality instead of letting him choose to be "nice" or "mean" (although it may do that, too)

 

[Lt.Snuffles]

If pulled off well, they can be fun, such as in fallout 3 where you are punished for being a dick, but in games like fable, I had the lowest karma level it is possible to achive but no-one seemed to give two shits

 

[ProfessorLayton]

Bad. There shouldn't be two choices and have a big huge leveling system for all of them. There shouldn't be an Option A or Option B choice system. If they will do it, do it like Heavy Rain. Give you a difficult decision and see what you do and the choice you make affects what else happens in the game. Not like BioShock where it's "Kill or Save?" and the only thing it affects is the ending cutscene.

 

[Captain Pancake]

I like them, but not if they have no effect on things. Like the fame/infamy system in Oblivion, that just didn't work. But the morality system in Fable was good, because you could see how your actions effected you.

 

[luckshot]

when done right they're great, as in you don't even think about your decisions in respect to them.
done wrong the player is constantly checking what decision will get them what reward

i personally find them a bit amusing in the sense that i already have a morality system, why would i want to use that of a game designer i've never met and no nothing about and who knows nothing about me.

but of course the actual point in a game's morality system is to give you a different path in a game

 

[Awake-]

Only if they're done well. That said, I think EVERY RPG should have a good morality system. Let's check.

Mass Effect - You get either Pargon or Renegade scores for choosing one or the other. Most of the times there are always these two options. The writing in Mass Effect is excellent. It can also make me feel bad, or good. There was this once where I electrocuted this mercenary with his own omni-tool. It made me felt bad because he had his back to me, and was polite to me before. However, I did that so I could have a easier time with the gunship, and I did. Your decisions also carry on to the next game.

I don't know much about other games. I know DA: O has a like/dislike system with your teammates. You do something they don't like they might leave. That's all I know. Fallout 3 has the karma system, but most of your decisions affect little else, other than your victims. Other than the bomb-this-town-option. But I will say Fable has a simple and weak morality system. All your decisions affect are your victims, or your face.

 

[Kagim]

I just think people are expecting to much from them.

I think Infamous had a really good system, mostly because for me it wasn't really good or evil but rather how you went about things. If you were self serving and cared only for yourself you got powers that obliterated everything around you with little care for human life. On the other side if you tried to protect the citizens you got powers that showed more restraint and focused attacks, as well as non lethal grenades. Not only that but defending over destroying made citizens help you out by tossing rocks and grappling enemies for you.

For the endings they made sense to. Going the self-serving route Cole wasn't trying to save the town, just take it over for himself. Where as the defender Cole did end up freeing and cleaning up the town.

What bugs me is how people complain about the 'black and white' of options. The thing is that is really how life is like.

Your options on taking a test, Cheat or study. The third option? Do nothing.
You see a person getting mugged, Call the police or try and help her yourself. Or do nothing.
You find money on the ground, Take it to lost and found or keep it. Or do nothing.

The gray area is usually quite honestly, do nothing. So I wonder if tons of people want to play a game where instead of going off to save the world they just stay at home and have a cup of tea while reading the paper. You could have an ATE where you have to turn the page while stirring milk into your earl gray.

As well the only way to give you more choice would be to give you varying degrees of the same options. Do you study the whole night, study for only three hours, two, one. Do you call the cops on your cellphone or call on a pay phone. Do you keep all the money or do you turn half of it in to the lost and found. What you end up getting is a mountain of options the buries the players is decisions that more or less do nothing different.

A lot of choice in life don't really make much of a difference. Take the money thing. If you decide to keep it, turn it in, or a little of both the only thing that changes is how much money you have. No ones opinion of you changes. Whether you feel good or bad about it is up to you. Take the cheating thing. If you cheat and don't get caught there is no difference then if you were to study. So do people want to do the bad thing then get punished for it?

Imagine a grand theft auto where if you get caught you go to prison and have to start the game over again because for the next 60 years of game play all you can do is sit in a cell, walk around the prison yard, and play a mini game where you try not to drop the soap.

I'm going to toss out some situations you might find in a video game.

Your tasked with killing someone, You can either let them live or fulfill your contract.
You need to rescue someone. When you find them the kidnapper offers you three times any reward to let the kidnapped person stay, You can either take the person with you or leave them there.
A nuke is counting down that will obliterate a small town, You can either disarm the weapon or leave it alone.

Now, what i want is four more different options that are entirely distinct from the two i have given. Do nothing doesn't count unless you really are the type that wants a virtual tea and newspaper simulator. Small changes do not count since the same overall effect will happen.

Have fun.