Possible substitutes for the morality systems in Videogames
- Thread starter Entrophyinateacup
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Open-world sandbox. Let the player judge the morality of their own choices. Just try to make the world alive and the characters important and give actions consequences so that we feel bad when we kill a random civilian. Then let us pick our own path.
For the purposes of making a singular, good story with little branching (imagine if you had to tell the world's best novel writer "Now rewrite the story with these 5 events possibly going different ways")...I would say, make the player mostly doing good deeds (acceptably good, not to the point of being a goody two-shoes), and then grant little matters of choice that don't actually affect much of anything, which the player doesn't realize unless they're doing a second run.
There were even some points in a certain game when it asked you how you wanted to respond. It offered 3 choices, and the end response (all the same one) covered all three bases. Thing is? Until the player goes to GameFAQs to talk about it, there is no noticeable problem here.
The reason I want this is that good storywriters think linearly, and have a certain ending in mind. There is foreshadowing, there are valid, specific progressions in character, there are lines thrown back to, etc. Player choice screws all that up.
There were even some points in a certain game when it asked you how you wanted to respond. It offered 3 choices, and the end response (all the same one) covered all three bases. Thing is? Until the player goes to GameFAQs to talk about it, there is no noticeable problem here.
The reason I want this is that good storywriters think linearly, and have a certain ending in mind. There is foreshadowing, there are valid, specific progressions in character, there are lines thrown back to, etc. Player choice screws all that up.
This. I loved the reputation system in New Vegas. Each factions cares how you treat each faction and your not criticized for how you deal with thier opposition. You could murder the entire Ceasar's Legion in a variety of cruel and unusual ways but NCR only cares you killed them.Dirty Hipsters said:
I think games should provide a dense array of circumstances in which actions have natural consequences. The key here is dense, where such opportunities are plentiful, and few choices (if any) are necessarily correct. And sometimes dickish moves yield better results than kinder or more honorable ones.[footnote]I'm reminded of a discussion in DM of the Rings in which Aragorn was considering force-marching the Rohan refugees to Helm's Deep to avoid the Warg attack. More would survive to reach the keep, albeit few would be happy about it.[/footnote]
I remember the sects and reputations system of Freelancer actually worked fairly well, allowing one to build reputations, usually at the expense of creating enemies. It also made for a diplomacy goal, where one endeavored to get all reputations up to at least neutral, so one could travel through all space in peace. Not an easy thing to do.
In Star Wars: Dark Forces 2: Jedi Knight specific powers had a light or dark alignment to them, and at a certain point you lost all the powers of the side you didn't take. They gave up that crap as early as the expansion, Mysteries of the Sith in which all the powers were neutral. But then again, Luke was grippying Gamorreans in ROTJ.[footnote]From the original movies, I got the impression that The Grip was not so much a combat power, as it appears in games, but a disciplinary power, to keep minions humble and obedient, usually killing one to keep the rest in line.[/footnote] In Jedi Academy, powers were light or dark but all choosing them got you was occasionally praised or admonished, depending. When it came time to make a moral choice, it was clear which did what, and how it would affect the endgame.
Similarly, in the Sims 2 magic expansion nice spells made you more aligned to nice, and wicked spells made you more aligned to wicked, though most of the wicked spells had pretty dickish effects. Still, the array of nice spells were far more useful; I rarely needed to summon a minion to beat someone up, but being able to summon one to clean up the site was very useful indeed.
And Law vs. Chaos tends be an affect of game design: control vs. management; tactical vs. strategy.
There are better spectra out there.
How about:
Duty vs. Pragmatism: Honor vs. Prudence. Fair Play vs. Effectiveness
Also Purity vs. Tolerance: Nobility vs. Equality, Dignity vs. Plurality
There are plenty of game choices that can be weighed between these options, where one isn't obviously the best choice, and both sides have their merits.
238U.
I remember the sects and reputations system of Freelancer actually worked fairly well, allowing one to build reputations, usually at the expense of creating enemies. It also made for a diplomacy goal, where one endeavored to get all reputations up to at least neutral, so one could travel through all space in peace. Not an easy thing to do.
In Star Wars: Dark Forces 2: Jedi Knight specific powers had a light or dark alignment to them, and at a certain point you lost all the powers of the side you didn't take. They gave up that crap as early as the expansion, Mysteries of the Sith in which all the powers were neutral. But then again, Luke was grippying Gamorreans in ROTJ.[footnote]From the original movies, I got the impression that The Grip was not so much a combat power, as it appears in games, but a disciplinary power, to keep minions humble and obedient, usually killing one to keep the rest in line.[/footnote] In Jedi Academy, powers were light or dark but all choosing them got you was occasionally praised or admonished, depending. When it came time to make a moral choice, it was clear which did what, and how it would affect the endgame.
Similarly, in the Sims 2 magic expansion nice spells made you more aligned to nice, and wicked spells made you more aligned to wicked, though most of the wicked spells had pretty dickish effects. Still, the array of nice spells were far more useful; I rarely needed to summon a minion to beat someone up, but being able to summon one to clean up the site was very useful indeed.
Most games portray good and evil as the pieces on a chessboard: white vs. black. Protoss vs. Zerg. Shiny vs. Spikey.darth gditch said:
And Law vs. Chaos tends be an affect of game design: control vs. management; tactical vs. strategy.
There are better spectra out there.
How about:
Duty vs. Pragmatism: Honor vs. Prudence. Fair Play vs. Effectiveness
Also Purity vs. Tolerance: Nobility vs. Equality, Dignity vs. Plurality
There are plenty of game choices that can be weighed between these options, where one isn't obviously the best choice, and both sides have their merits.
238U.
id like to see the moral choice system go away for a while. it was a cool idea at first but now it just feels stale. its done in almost every game these days and, with the exception of the witcher games, is never done well. its always so black and white and ends up feeling like little more than a cheap way to extend the length of a game
Well, you could always make your actions have, you know, ACTUAL GAMEPLAY CONSEQUENCES.
Example: In a GTA-style sandbox game, you can either buy your own vehicles with money you earn from doing missions and activities, or just constantly jack and steal cars to get around. However, if you choose the latter option, the more frequently you jack and steal cars, the more alert the citizens get. Drivers will start locking their doors as they drive and carrying guns in their glove boxes; try to jack one of these cars and you might not be able to get in, or they might start unloading a .45 ACP on your ass. Also, more car owners would start equipping their vehicles with alarm systems and ignition interlocks; if you try to steal one of these cars then not only will the car fail to start, but the resulting alarm will earn you a wanted level.
You'd also need to have a converse benefit for not stealing cars all the time. Say; if you're a frequent customer at the local dealership, you can earn discounts on car mods, and only by equipping specific mods can you have the most capable ride.
Another example might be that the more frequently you earn wanted levels, the faster your wanted level will rise on subsequent occasions. So the first time you accidentally plow into a pedestrian while speeding through an intersection, you might just get one wanted level, but after accumulating, say, fifty total wanted levels, or perhaps a certain quantity of three-star or four-star wanted levels, the mayor might decide to sic the national guard on you if you so much as plow into a mailbox. Or, your wanted level might just stop going down at all, and you'll have to go into hiding and walk around in a disguise to avoid being caught.
Clearly, having a low propensity to gain wanted levels would be helpful during missions and activities. Also, you should be able to depress the speed with which you gain wanted levels, say, by doing vigilante missions, or running deliveries for the local doughnut shop.
Also you shouldn't have any kind of explicit indicator for your "karma level". As in real life, there should be some degree of uncertainty about how your actions have affected your reputation, though that doesn't mean that the game shouldn't occasionally drop you hints. For example, if people start fleeing for their lives and calling the cops at the merest sight of you, that might be a sign that your illicit and/or murderous activities have not gone unnoticed.
EDIT: I suppose that would also mean that your good deeds might sometimes go unnoticed, offering you no benefits, and that your bad deeds might also go unnoticed, offering you no detriments. Perhaps this would open up an entirely new aspect of gameplay; figuring out how to maximize the exposure of your positive actions while trying to minimize the exposure of your negative actions, to try to get the best of both worlds.
Example: In a GTA-style sandbox game, you can either buy your own vehicles with money you earn from doing missions and activities, or just constantly jack and steal cars to get around. However, if you choose the latter option, the more frequently you jack and steal cars, the more alert the citizens get. Drivers will start locking their doors as they drive and carrying guns in their glove boxes; try to jack one of these cars and you might not be able to get in, or they might start unloading a .45 ACP on your ass. Also, more car owners would start equipping their vehicles with alarm systems and ignition interlocks; if you try to steal one of these cars then not only will the car fail to start, but the resulting alarm will earn you a wanted level.
You'd also need to have a converse benefit for not stealing cars all the time. Say; if you're a frequent customer at the local dealership, you can earn discounts on car mods, and only by equipping specific mods can you have the most capable ride.
Another example might be that the more frequently you earn wanted levels, the faster your wanted level will rise on subsequent occasions. So the first time you accidentally plow into a pedestrian while speeding through an intersection, you might just get one wanted level, but after accumulating, say, fifty total wanted levels, or perhaps a certain quantity of three-star or four-star wanted levels, the mayor might decide to sic the national guard on you if you so much as plow into a mailbox. Or, your wanted level might just stop going down at all, and you'll have to go into hiding and walk around in a disguise to avoid being caught.
Clearly, having a low propensity to gain wanted levels would be helpful during missions and activities. Also, you should be able to depress the speed with which you gain wanted levels, say, by doing vigilante missions, or running deliveries for the local doughnut shop.
Also you shouldn't have any kind of explicit indicator for your "karma level". As in real life, there should be some degree of uncertainty about how your actions have affected your reputation, though that doesn't mean that the game shouldn't occasionally drop you hints. For example, if people start fleeing for their lives and calling the cops at the merest sight of you, that might be a sign that your illicit and/or murderous activities have not gone unnoticed.
EDIT: I suppose that would also mean that your good deeds might sometimes go unnoticed, offering you no benefits, and that your bad deeds might also go unnoticed, offering you no detriments. Perhaps this would open up an entirely new aspect of gameplay; figuring out how to maximize the exposure of your positive actions while trying to minimize the exposure of your negative actions, to try to get the best of both worlds.
Morally gray options. An option that doesn't say if your "good" or "evil".
I don't know, maybe a monster is attacking and you could try killing it head on, which will lead to a few innocents killed but many saved, or try to ward it off, saving everyone, but leading the creature into a different team, which could lead to their deaths.
I don't know, maybe a monster is attacking and you could try killing it head on, which will lead to a few innocents killed but many saved, or try to ward it off, saving everyone, but leading the creature into a different team, which could lead to their deaths.
Ever play fallout 3? I went to tenpenny tower, there were some ghouls and racist humans. I spent about an hour going back and forth between the two, trying to work out some kind of deal. Eventually the deal was that if ghouls paid, they could stay. I come back a few days later and there are no humans, I ask the ghoul leader, and he said the humans were being dicks, so he killed all of them. And all the ghouls were cool with it.
Naturally, the writer wanted to convey that people are out for themselves, and that people will do whatever they can to make life good for themselves. But he didn't consider that the player might feel obligated to cap everyone in the tower. Because if you do,the game gives you evil karma points.
The lesson here is that morality in games can cause a disconnect between the player and the narrative. Don't implement one, you don't need a bar telling how evil or how good someone is,that's expressed through actions, and expressed through gameplay.
Naturally, the writer wanted to convey that people are out for themselves, and that people will do whatever they can to make life good for themselves. But he didn't consider that the player might feel obligated to cap everyone in the tower. Because if you do,the game gives you evil karma points.
The lesson here is that morality in games can cause a disconnect between the player and the narrative. Don't implement one, you don't need a bar telling how evil or how good someone is,that's expressed through actions, and expressed through gameplay.
Hopping on the Dragon Age/Witcher bandwagon. No black-and-white decisions, just decisions.
There's no "right" or "wrong" way. There are just different ways.
There's no "right" or "wrong" way. There are just different ways.
I'm sorry for a pointless quote, but I absolutely love reading your posts.Uriel-238 said:
No.. I want moral choices. I just dont want poorly conceived moral choices.
Such as I walk into a town thats being raided by bandits. I am presented with a choice of help the town, or just ignore it. If I help its good, If I ignore it, its bad. Really? Thats what passes for evil these days?!?
Well, what if I want to I dunno, round up and organize the bandits and convince them to start doing more heinous things than just looting and pillaging?! Wheres that choice? Maybe I want to slay all the first borns after forcing them to watch their mothers boiled alive in acid. Why cant I do that?!
The same goes for good. Same scenario... Why is it I am forced to help the town when 3 quests earlier I helped the mayor secure control over a nearby mine. A mine that was acting as a base for bandits (as the primary enemy fought was... Bandits). Bandits I basically started slaying unprovoked to earn the Mayors favor by handing him this mine. So given that even though the game does not spell this connection out, why should I get good points for helping a town of douchenozzles who bit off more than they could chew. How is it good to come to their rescue when they cant fight their own fights?
I love having moral choice in games, So I do not want that to go away. However, I do not, nor have I ever understood why a game would give me the chance to be good or evil, and yet leave me with the option of being "preachy or pious" or "just a dick" What is the point of laying out these extremes if your only going to explore them to a half assed level?
Such as I walk into a town thats being raided by bandits. I am presented with a choice of help the town, or just ignore it. If I help its good, If I ignore it, its bad. Really? Thats what passes for evil these days?!?
Well, what if I want to I dunno, round up and organize the bandits and convince them to start doing more heinous things than just looting and pillaging?! Wheres that choice? Maybe I want to slay all the first borns after forcing them to watch their mothers boiled alive in acid. Why cant I do that?!
The same goes for good. Same scenario... Why is it I am forced to help the town when 3 quests earlier I helped the mayor secure control over a nearby mine. A mine that was acting as a base for bandits (as the primary enemy fought was... Bandits). Bandits I basically started slaying unprovoked to earn the Mayors favor by handing him this mine. So given that even though the game does not spell this connection out, why should I get good points for helping a town of douchenozzles who bit off more than they could chew. How is it good to come to their rescue when they cant fight their own fights?
I love having moral choice in games, So I do not want that to go away. However, I do not, nor have I ever understood why a game would give me the chance to be good or evil, and yet leave me with the option of being "preachy or pious" or "just a dick" What is the point of laying out these extremes if your only going to explore them to a half assed level?
Moral bars need to go away and instead just have choices that are reflected by the people you meet and comments they make, or just how you personally feel about it. Also blac and white needs to go away also, none of that blow up megaton crap and instead have more gray choices.
Also the reputation/faction system in New Vegas and Mercenaries: Playground of Dsetruction is very good and makes you choose who you side with, offering both advantages and disadvantages.
Also the reputation/faction system in New Vegas and Mercenaries: Playground of Dsetruction is very good and makes you choose who you side with, offering both advantages and disadvantages.
I don't know if this falls into what we're looking for, but I've had this idea for sometime and it goes as thus:
So there's two playable characters in the game, the protagonist, and the antagonist. As the game progresses you get a feel for both for why they're doing the things they're doing, and you know, get to understand both of their reasonings. At the climax of the game, they have a final confrontation that will decide who wins and who doesn't. At this point you get to choose which character you wish to win, like which character you liked the most.
This seems like a good idea to me anyway.
So there's two playable characters in the game, the protagonist, and the antagonist. As the game progresses you get a feel for both for why they're doing the things they're doing, and you know, get to understand both of their reasonings. At the climax of the game, they have a final confrontation that will decide who wins and who doesn't. At this point you get to choose which character you wish to win, like which character you liked the most.
This seems like a good idea to me anyway.
Friend speaks my mind!Irridium said:
Dragon Age dealt with it pretty nicely as well. Actions don't make you grow horns or halos, they just make certain people in the game like you more while those who disagree like you less. You know, like LIFE.
Seconding these two as they are exactly what I was aiming for.Kryzantine said:
Having intangible rewards/punishments (ie no bar/numbers) and for any mates you hang about with a lot a relationship system, doesn't need to be polar, can work on two axes if it wants.
I really liked the way Fallout: New Vegas, even if it was slightly undermined and botched by the engine and it's karma system. It asks you a question of which government/social system is better to rule a post-war wasteland. The free, but flawed democracy of the NCR, the strict autocracy of House, the homogenous ruthless empire of Caesar, or The total anarchy of Yes Man. And this has been talked about to death every which where for the game so I'm not gonna argue the merits of flaws beyond that. But the game was very good at having you pick over the main and smaller conflicts at a stance of "which do YOU prefer" as opposed to Good/Evil like F3, except the Powder Gangers, they're straight up dicks.Witty Name Here said: