I pretty much hate them all, because they either don't affect gameplay in any meaningful way (dragon age), or they force you to take the same option every time the situation arises to get points (ME) or achievments (bioshock).
The 'best' morle choice system.
- Thread starter Fallen-Angel Risen-Demon
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I liked Mass Effect's moral system because it showed you can be a dick and still be the good guy. It wasn't a choice between being good or evil, but more of a choice between being cooperative and empathatic or being individualistic and not putting up with bullshit. The "bad" choice also isn't just simple minded and pointless thuggery, as is the case in so many moral systems. Also, Mass Effect 1 and 2 gives good reasons to be either side. In my Mass Effect 2 game, I really wish I could've pistol whipped the Council for the bullshit they pulled even after all I did for them in ME1.
The good/evil system in Fallout 3 doesn't have much impact, only really decides which companions you can get and some small conversation options.
In agree completely. Most of the chooses aren't "good" or "bad". Most are morally gray. Which I like, a lot. It reminds me of the choice at the end of the Fallout 3 DLC: The Pitt.Fallen-Angel Risen-Demon said:
I've finished Deus Ex recently (about time too I might add, such an awesome game...), and it featured one of the best systems I've seen so far. You make choices, but they don't have any impact on your "karma" or your abilities, rather, you have in-game consequences, and some characters will like you more (and give you more/better stuff). There are few right choices, however. Even the ending was one of those things:
Do you enslave humanity but lead it to a better world, do you hit the "reset button" and watch a new civilization grow out of the ashes that is free of the problems of the past, or do you restore the status quo that will save the lives of billions, but also lead to poverty and further division in society?
Do you enslave humanity but lead it to a better world, do you hit the "reset button" and watch a new civilization grow out of the ashes that is free of the problems of the past, or do you restore the status quo that will save the lives of billions, but also lead to poverty and further division in society?
The thing is though, if done correctly, they become extremly emersive. I havn't got anything wrong with games with a set story, my favorite game is KH2. All I want is for them to be done correctly. The one that has emersed me the best is as I said DA but even it has room for improvement. Like any game with a set story too. But let's not turn this into a flame-war I'd like this to stay an intelligent discusion.spartan231490 said:
There was a of ambiguity in my choices which seemed in keeping with the basic ideas of the game.jeejvebe said:
Personally, I'd say the choice system in the Witcher worked the best. Choices and consequences went hand in hand and often the results of one choice wouldn't be known for hours. Now, if only I wasn't bored to tears by the mechanics of the game I'd probably finish the game and proceed to gush about it for hours. It does make me look forward to the sequel though.
That's good to hear.Fallen-Angel Risen-Demon said:
You're probably right, but I'm pretty sure they referred to it as 'karma' (or maybe town reputation and overall karma were two separate things. Can't remember.)
Anyway, in terms of moral choice systems, I always loved the range Fallout 2 let you take part in. For example, when a thug comes up to you and tries to mug you, it isn't a simple matter of kill or incapacitate: you can intimidate him if you're strong enough, convince him you have nothing he'd want, or even buy/sell drugs off/to him and become friends.
You could go through the whole game without firing a bullet, using only diplomacy to solve conflicts, or you could run around sledgehammering little kids in the crotch. Or anything in between.
Also, they actually had a strong anti-drug message. Jet essentially turned people into zombies, which wandered the streets, giving the game a much more desolate feel. Whereas in Fallout 3, it's just treated as a mild recreational narcotic akin to weed. That really pissed me off.
I think Bethesda has a anti-drug thing in The Elder Scrolls Series. Skooma is baseicly a mix between LSD, Magic Mushrooms and speed.James Joseph Emerald said:
It lowers your inteligance and willpower but it increases Strength and Speed. There was a dark brotherhood quest were you kill a skooma addict and you learn that he lives in a hotel with his 'lover' who he doesn't know half the time and she's given up everything for him. They don't tell you but my theory is that he got behind on some skooma payments and a person hired the dark brotherhood to kill him. Has a not-so-subtle meaning behind it. If you can go through the game without fireing a bullet I'll probably make my first character that. I'm planning on buying or downloading the first 2 fallout and any add-on content they have. I've seen some gameplay footage and it reminded me of baulders gate. (note that both of them are before my time as I'm only 14, but I like some of the more retro stuff like NES RPGs and the original sonic. I belive I've got my N64 hiding somwhere) Which is a good game I still play now and again.
A decent moral choice system would be one where you come into such a situation. Does this exist in a game?
A homeless man has an item you require. He is willing to give it to you should you do something for him, in this case, the man wants you to spend some of your money to get him a bottle of Tequila to make him happy.
Your choice:
You can comply with his request, he gives you the item you want and you feel a little better that you made a homeless guy's day a little better.
You can steal it from him, or kill him for it. He is homeless, who is going to care? Removing him from this world and getting what you want is a win-win, right?
Another scenario;
You're searching for someone, may be a suspect, a fugitive etc. A shady gentleman says he knows this person, and has information about him. However he has a request and wants you to do something before he relinquishes such information. In this case, he wants you to 'take care' of someone as they owe him some money/have pissed him off. Do you:
Do his request. You go and do the unpleasant task and then come back, and he gives you the information and a token of his appreciation for solving one of his problems.
Reject his offer. You can surely find this information out without having to kill another being/make another human being's day unpleasant for the sake of another to get what you want.
---
Name me a game with this moral choice system and it'll get my vote.
A homeless man has an item you require. He is willing to give it to you should you do something for him, in this case, the man wants you to spend some of your money to get him a bottle of Tequila to make him happy.
Your choice:
You can comply with his request, he gives you the item you want and you feel a little better that you made a homeless guy's day a little better.
You can steal it from him, or kill him for it. He is homeless, who is going to care? Removing him from this world and getting what you want is a win-win, right?
Another scenario;
You're searching for someone, may be a suspect, a fugitive etc. A shady gentleman says he knows this person, and has information about him. However he has a request and wants you to do something before he relinquishes such information. In this case, he wants you to 'take care' of someone as they owe him some money/have pissed him off. Do you:
Do his request. You go and do the unpleasant task and then come back, and he gives you the information and a token of his appreciation for solving one of his problems.
Reject his offer. You can surely find this information out without having to kill another being/make another human being's day unpleasant for the sake of another to get what you want.
---
Name me a game with this moral choice system and it'll get my vote.
I've already done a tirade [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.209942-Please-define-Good-Evil#7106454] on what I thought about the morality system and why it doesn't work, for me anyways.
The closest that have it right as of late are Alpha Protocol and Dragon Age: Origins. The closest that had it at all would be Fallout 2 -- possibly Red Dead Redemption as well. Mainly how Honor and Fame works, there are a few hiccups I have with it such as "How do they know?" But then I remember a telegraph being around there, what I want to know is how does Mexico know what I've been doing? Or why they care for that matter...
The closest that have it right as of late are Alpha Protocol and Dragon Age: Origins. The closest that had it at all would be Fallout 2 -- possibly Red Dead Redemption as well. Mainly how Honor and Fame works, there are a few hiccups I have with it such as "How do they know?" But then I remember a telegraph being around there, what I want to know is how does Mexico know what I've been doing? Or why they care for that matter...
Well, maybe, but Fallout 2 had a much stronger sense of "taking drugs fucks you up". Like, you could take drugs to get a temporary boost to your stats, but when the effect bottomed out, your character would become even weaker than when you started (and you'd have to rest to recover your stats). Also there was a random chance you'd get addicted, and the cure to addiction was really hard to get, and if you didn't get Jet your stats would start going down, so you really were desperate for it, and would kill anyone just to get a fix. Fun stuff.Fallen-Angel Risen-Demon said:
There were problems with the game too, though. Like, the three skills you pretty much HAVE to get are speech, small arms and lockpicking. Without them, the game can be almost impossible to complete. (Small arms is the skill for almost all guns, and everything else is either underpowered or the ammo weighs too much; Speech is required to access about 40% of the game's content (so many people are suspicious of you, and need to be convinced otherwise to give you quests); and anything worth having/exploring is locked away. Almost all other skills can be leveled through the hundreds of skill books)
Also, there were a LOT of glitches, some of them game-breaking.
Also, the story kind of drops off in the beginning and picks up at the end, and most of the game consists of you running around doing odd jobs.
Also, the main character was kinda goofy and lame, regardless of the choices you make (even though you were encouraged to make up your own character, their dialogue was always kinda odd. Not bad -- even hilarious at times -- but sort of goes against your idea of your own character)
Speaking of gender, female protagonists actually got quite a big advantage, because about 80% of the bad guys were male, and often you could use sex to get out of trouble, or get discounts. You could even become a stripper if you were pretty enough. Kinda creepy.
(There was even a perk which maximised your ability to use sex as a weapon)
The one in Dragon Age was pretty great.
Not because of the lack of bar or how it progressed your character or anything, but the events in which you had to make choices were obviously very grey and you actually had to think about what each choice would lead too.
Whereas Mass Effect and KOTOR and other games that incorporate it make it very clear when you are about to use a good or bad choice rather than letting you work it out yourself.
Not because of the lack of bar or how it progressed your character or anything, but the events in which you had to make choices were obviously very grey and you actually had to think about what each choice would lead too.
Whereas Mass Effect and KOTOR and other games that incorporate it make it very clear when you are about to use a good or bad choice rather than letting you work it out yourself.
I like the way Deus Ex and Dragon Age handled the morality of players actions.
Morality ain't always same thing in people's eyes and thus while questions of morality (especially when comparing shades of gray) are very intriguing it all boils down to what kind of person you are and what do people think of you, not how good or bad you are. It's ying and yang and there ain't a person in the world that's purely good or purely evil. The game industry should therefore drop the whole good/neutral/bad -setting of morality systems and come up other ways to describe your character. I think a great (while it would definitely be more complex) system in an open-world game would take account the reputation of your actions in single locations and wider areas (a rumor system would work the middle-ground in this).
The reputation system could have different types of 'reputation points' and the system could then rank the highest acquired types of reputation points as your main reputation. For example, by rescuing a small village from a group of brutal bandits, the locals would promote you as a savior (you get 'savior points'). If your 'savior points' are then the highest in that area of all other reputation points, NPCs would look up to you as the man or woman who always rides to the rescue. However, if you dislike your reputation as a savior, you could decide to burn down the same village which you saved and let a few of the villagers to escape to a nearby city to correct this issue, thus gaining a large amount of 'scourge points' with the cost of your 'savior points'. Other types of reputation points might include for example 'lawful', 'criminal', 'diplomat' and 'slayer' points. I know it sounds a bit too complex and making it work would need a lot effort, but how cool it would be to be 'a criminal saviour', 'a lawful slayer', 'a cruel diplomat' or just simply 'an inhumane scourge' in a game?
But that's just my two cents for now...
Morality ain't always same thing in people's eyes and thus while questions of morality (especially when comparing shades of gray) are very intriguing it all boils down to what kind of person you are and what do people think of you, not how good or bad you are. It's ying and yang and there ain't a person in the world that's purely good or purely evil. The game industry should therefore drop the whole good/neutral/bad -setting of morality systems and come up other ways to describe your character. I think a great (while it would definitely be more complex) system in an open-world game would take account the reputation of your actions in single locations and wider areas (a rumor system would work the middle-ground in this).
The reputation system could have different types of 'reputation points' and the system could then rank the highest acquired types of reputation points as your main reputation. For example, by rescuing a small village from a group of brutal bandits, the locals would promote you as a savior (you get 'savior points'). If your 'savior points' are then the highest in that area of all other reputation points, NPCs would look up to you as the man or woman who always rides to the rescue. However, if you dislike your reputation as a savior, you could decide to burn down the same village which you saved and let a few of the villagers to escape to a nearby city to correct this issue, thus gaining a large amount of 'scourge points' with the cost of your 'savior points'. Other types of reputation points might include for example 'lawful', 'criminal', 'diplomat' and 'slayer' points. I know it sounds a bit too complex and making it work would need a lot effort, but how cool it would be to be 'a criminal saviour', 'a lawful slayer', 'a cruel diplomat' or just simply 'an inhumane scourge' in a game?
But that's just my two cents for now...
You've beat me to the punch. Though it cannot be called a "morale choice" system in comparison to the ones discussed above. It doesn't actually influence the world around you to an extend where it matters what you do. It's not really a part of the mechanics, but a tool to help with the narrative and lend Artyom another level of depth, while at the same time tying him to the player a little more.ICanBreakTheseCuffs said:
... Mpfh. I luv' this game a bit too much.
And why would you say no one played the game? It's not as unknown as you seem to think.
... Anyway. OT. Having said that Metro 2033's morale choice system is done well (but also that it's not really a significant part of the game mechanics), I'll have to side with Mass Effect 2 and Alpha Protocol.
Mass Effect 2 for the interrupts and consequences (as well as the carrying over of decisions) and Alpha Protocol for the impact of your decisions and the timer attached to each conversation.
I prefer it when characters react to only the things they know about. If NPCs are in social (or business) contact with each other, it's reasonable to expect them to share information between them. If they're not, why do they assume what I'm going to do, beyond their own original thoughts?
Not played Fallout much, but if you're stealing/killing and people don't know it is you, then I don't think your rating should change... but if they suspect you it should...
Not played Fallout much, but if you're stealing/killing and people don't know it is you, then I don't think your rating should change... but if they suspect you it should...
Fallout 3 (in some parts, in others it was just kinda shit). The side-quest I am referring to is when you have to track down the synthetic human (android).
When you are confronted by that lady in Rivet City, who claims to be an "android rights (?)" activist. She tells you to take a part of the android, and give it to this man who is looking for it. She explains that even though it is a machine, it looks human and can feel emotion, and it deserves human rights. I gave the part to the man, at which part he was a bit upset that the machine was dead (or so he thought) but gave me some caps for my "troubles". I felt like I was doing good.
My friend was talking to me about how good that mission was the other day, and I was like, "I just gave the part to the man.", to which he replied, "You're a fucking idiot, you missed out on alot."
I dunno, I think you can still track down the android, so I might do that. I just won't turn it into the guy... I suppose.
My friend was talking to me about how good that mission was the other day, and I was like, "I just gave the part to the man.", to which he replied, "You're a fucking idiot, you missed out on alot."
I dunno, I think you can still track down the android, so I might do that. I just won't turn it into the guy... I suppose.
Well, as in every RPG or any other game that let you choose anything, my first playthrough is how I would react in those situations, and then I play as total asshole/angel etc. so DA: O was no different... Except I didn't like it at all, so there was no second playthrough for me.Fallen-Angel Risen-Demon said:
The moral system in DA:O while taking the correct line of thought of erasing those stupid Light/Dark side meters of Paragon/Renegade bullshit, the creators missed the fact, that in game like DA, the respect system could (and did) backfired horribly. I played like myself, and to battle things I used myself (mage), Morrigan, Alistair and Zevran (yeah I know he's weak, but I don't care he's actually one of... 2 likable characters in this game? Others were just very usueless in combat and had occasional great lines). And all was fine, until it led to the situation where I had to stop making 'what would I do?' decisions and started thinking 'what should I choose so Morrigan won't abandon me'. Argh, that was so frustrating, and not practically not letting you play with certain companions due to your dialog playsytle turned me off horribly.
You got stealth and pistols, you should've easily breeze through every boss possible. Wear down the endurance bar, maximum chainshot in the face, shadow operative, sneak behind the back, and blast with whatever secondary weapon you have. Rince, repeat if necessary.