What do you think about "grey" morality in video games?

[ChupathingyX]

Fallout: New Vegas is the same way, but even simpler. Your a character with amnesia out to get revenge on the guy who shot you... Amnesia is a good reason a character has no morals and even a better one for player to make it for them.

*facepalm*

I'm sorry but I've seen this so many times and it just annoys me. The Courier is not[/b[ an amnesiac!

At what point is it said that he/she is an amnesiac? Seriously tell me because I do not know.

Also it isn't that the Courier has no morals, you're deciding what his morals are.

The problem with F3 is that even though you could pick certain things about your character, in the end you're still playing the same storyline with the same characters. I wouldn't call the Lone Wanderer a "blank slate", he/she has room for customisation, but there's just too much history given to consider the LW as a blank slate.

The Courier on the other hand....he/she works for the Mojave and they got shot in the head...then you fill in the many blanks, that is a much more blank slate.

 

[srawcripts]

Fallout: New Vegas is the same way, but even simpler. Your a character with amnesia out to get revenge on the guy who shot you... Amnesia is a good reason a character has no morals and even a better one for player to make it for them.

*facepalm*

I'm sorry but I've seen this so many times and it just annoys me. The Courier is not[/b[ an amnesiac!

At what point is it said that he/she is an amnesiac? Seriously tell me because I do not know.

Also it isn't that the Courier has no morals, you're deciding what his morals are.

The problem with F3 is that even though you could pick certain things about your character, in the end you're still playing the same storyline with the same characters. I wouldn't call the Lone Wanderer a "blank slate", he/she has room for customisation, but there's just too much history given to consider the LW as a blank slate.

The Courier on the other hand....he/she works for the Mojave and they got shot in the head...then you fill in the many blanks, that is a much more blank slate.

First of all... I developed a feeling that you really like Fallout3 and New Vegas... to the point that you can't look at it objectively.

I played the beginning of New Vegas and you are right. There is not mention of amnesia or that the "Courier"(Input name here) is an amnesiac. I just played the selection screens again where I chose everything about him. Even the images he sees in images...

To break it down to the basics. I just made a character. If you look at it without the story all one is doing is making something that a player wants to play.

The moral choices after this point are just used to determine a path for the narrative to follow so there can be an appropriate ending or not if you chose the opposite side at the last minute...

 

[srawcripts]

After reading and responding to this forum for a few days now...
I came to the conclusion that grey morality can't not be used if the game is depending on a moral system to determine the outcome of the story.

Even thou grey morality mimic real life better than a good and bad moral system.
It can not be applied to the story of a game because there are to many variables that would not fit in the story presented.

Choosing to save the apple and not the orange would result in the apple ending.
Choosing to save the orange and not the apple would result in the orange ending.

Or Infamous did this one...
No matter where your moral bar was... For the sake of story...The end result is to make the story make sense.

The Witcher is a story that is set in stone so every moral choice doesn't really matter because it don't change the end result.

Mass Effect has a moral system so that only certain paths are open but the end result is the same. Just the journey is different.

Fallout 3 is an game with a lot to do. But one never opens all the game at the start. So the moral system is used to prevent the player from doing everything.

Grey morality in choosing both good and bad choices, or a neutral choice, or choosing the action that fits in the situation.
There needs to be a game that is built around this principle.

But no game developer would ever make something like that... It would take to much time and money...
So, grey morality is a pipe dream at this point in time.

 

[ChupathingyX]

I played the beginning of New Vegas and you are right. There is not mention of amnesia or that the "Courier"(Input name here) is an amnesiac. I just played the selection screens again where I chose everything about him. Even the images he sees in images...

It's because of Extra Credits, they made an episode where they said that the Courier is an amnesiac and because almost everyone blindly follows them they all now think this is true...it isn't.

The funny thing is that by saying this, almost everything they say afterwards becomes a moot point because their original thesis is not based on fact and is in fact false.

So, grey morality is a pipe dream at this point in time.

Not necessarily, read the conversation between me and Darth.Pixie in this thread and you'll find that there is quite a lot of grey morality in Fallout: New Vegas.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.304265-The-Moral-Values-of-Fallout

Also, I haven't played it yet but apparently The Witcher 2 does grey morality very well, and possibly some other gmes.

 

[Saelune]

I like grey morallity, mostly since what is seen as moral irl is so warped anyways.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Grey morality is an "interesting" concept. In that the devs couldn't really decide what direction they wanted the game to go and said "Lets make it grey that way if we keep it ambiguous the players will fill it in for themselves."

 

[ChupathingyX]

Grey morality is an "interesting" concept. In that the devs couldn't really decide what direction they wanted the game to go and said "Lets make it grey that way if we keep it ambiguous the players will fill it in for themselves."

You make it sound like grey morality is a bad thing.

I'd much rather think about the characters and choices in the game instead of the devlopers telling me which ones they think are good and bad and making the characters either knights-in-shining-armour or moustache twirling evil warlords.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

You make it sound like grey morality is a bad thing.

I'd much rather think about the characters and choices in the game instead of the devlopers telling me which ones they think are good and bad and making the characters either knights-in-shining-armour or moustache twirling evil warlords.

There is no grey morality, not really. It'd be like saying its OK to be a rapist, just as long as you volunteered at the soup kitchen for orphaned bunnies on your weekends.

The whole point of the games we play is invariably "red vs blue", one good side one bad side. When you go at it like we are fighting to save the world, but maybe the homicidal child murderer is right that we should recycle more often, then you are only confusing the issue of which side as you the player should be fighting for. Its what we do in games, pick a side and plant our flag on the corpse of the enemy general.

When you start to introduce the "Grey Morality", making the player question themselves and the side they have chosen, you're only poking larger and more prominent holes in your own game's story.

 

[whtkid6969]

I've very happy that they're there because I normally play through the good route but sometimes I need to get some personal benifit out of it... I just don't want to need to eat puppies and kittens to do so.

 

[IBlackKiteI]

Holy snip

Head is has been made asplode.

In other words, you might be overthinking it.

Grey and grey morality, and the whole moral choice thing in games has a lot of potential but is usually poorly (often very much so) implemented, usually due to it being tacked on (Fable 3 for instance) or the centre of everything you do in the game (Mass Effect). The problem with this is that in the Fable 3 instance it feels completely trite and stupid, and in the Mass Effect style instance because there are so many options but they don't actually do anything.
(Feel free to argue, but seriously, they don't. At least not anything other than more dialogue options. ME does have quite a few profound choices, but these ones have little to nothing to do with morality, or at least morality is not really the big picture in the decision. In these cases the decision is more about the player chosing what they think is best, but the game ends up branding you a Messiah or a shithead no matter what you do. Like dooming or saving the flagship and Rachni queen in ME 1, or brainwashing or killing the Geth in ME 2. They can have obvious good and bad consequences no matter what happens, yet the fame ignores that.
Think of it this way, you want to blow up the Geth for fear that they'll come back to haunt the galaxy later, possibly doing a shitton of damage and killing thousands, 'BOOM +20 Bad guy points ya soulless bastard!' You want to preserve and study the one of a kind alien spacestation because it might give you a chance to survive against a horror which has curbstomped the galaxy dozens of times over. Ditto, ya souless bastard.)

Whatever, screw the current approach. There should be no good/evil choices, just choices which the player can decide for themselves and what they stand for and entail. You shouldn't shoot some guy and be rewarded with +5 'Baddude points' and an angry mob trying to kill you because you're now apparently the fucking Antichrist to everyone in the world.
The only example of the whole grey and grey thing being done decently in both moral and gameplay terms that I can currently think of is in Deus Ex, where grey is just everywhere, and the Duty vs Freedom faction war in S.T.A.L.K.E.R, where it's not that prominent and only really there if you want to see it.

-

Overall morality in games has potential which is currently largely untapped.

 

[Fishyash]

There should be another axis for a more dynamic morality system. Obviously a good story is important too... but I liked it in DnD based games with the 'chaotic' and 'lawful' axis as well as the 'good' and 'evil' axis. Planescape torment is a nice example IMO.

And I also believe that you should reward people being neutral. It stops people who go for 100% good or 100% evil just to get the rewards.

EDIT: I forgot to mention something that has already been said I think.

You shouldn't be able to measure your morality. I think even showing your morality on a 'progressive morality' based game (you know, doing the good/evil makes you good/evil and you don't pick your morality from the start) is a bit much. Keeping it hidden is better. Showing your morality and worse, measuring your progress feels rather immersion breaking.

 

[Smooth Operator]

I see a lot of complaints about morality usually being stuck between 2-3 choices and not being flexible enough, but honestly, I think it's the best system for game morality. Systems with a spectrum would require a heck of a lot more development time, and are much harder to execute properly.

It's called progress, we should aim for it.

The immediate problem is showing us the machanics, the virtual world does not feel organic/real when you show us the grid behind the veil, we don't want to see homany polygons are on a character, or what the textures are plastered over them, or that our response made them like us +10, we want to see objects, we want to see people, reactions, emotion,...

 

[nklshaz]

I'm tired of games integrating morality systems in the first place. Regardless of how nuanced they may be, I don't want to have to account for someone else's idea of what's a "good" or a "bad" decision in a game. I just want to do what i'm going to do without worrying about how I'm going to get my morality bar to look the way I need it to look to accomplish my goals.

I understand the feeling...

But games need the numbers to figure out what you can or can not do in a game based of the history of the actions that you have chosen.

If you don't have this limit. The player would much freedom and the game would lose its flow and get boring fast.

Think of Infamous if you got all the good powers and bad powers... It would break the game. Making it too easy.

I'm thinking more of Oblivion/Fallout. See, Oblivion didn't have a morality system. It had a system whereby I could gain fame for things I was seen doing, or a bounty for getting caught doing certain things, but there wasn't some ever present eye watching me, and delivering information about every action I take to some computer database that, apparently, all of the NPCs can read and judge me based upon. Unlike in Fallout. And that's the thing that annoyed me. In the Fallout games the way that I acted could prevent me from doing things I wanted to do (although it was pretty easy to manipulate). If I wanted to loot everything of even moderate value (and I did) from pretty much every house I visited, then that eye in the sky would tell everyone for miles away, and when I showed up they'd already know what a dick I was because they read the database. Of course, I could find a homeless guy to give water to, an act which seemed to appease the all seeing eye. In fact, the eye loves it so much that you can even make up for killing an entire town by giving a homeless guy water.

I think the point that I'm getting to though, is that in games like Fallout morality systems are pretty stupid. They're just a nuisance that keep me from doing things that are actually fun and that I want to do.

See that's the thing. I don't want a game to have numbers that it can use to decide what I can or can not do. If a game is going to open or close paths for me, I don't want it to be doing so on the basis of how many people did I save or murder, how much shit did I steal, how many bottles of water did I give to the homeless guy, etc...

In Fallout, the morality meter is called your "Karma". Since Karma is an unseen force that affects what happens around you and to you based on your actions and deeds, then technically, it would make sense for it to affect you wherever you go. I'm not saying that it's a good way to do it, I'm just saying that I kinda understand what they where trying to do. (Despite what I said, I prefer Oblivion's morality system over Fallout's)

 

[Mordwyl]

Morality is not objective, which is what a lot of games try to shoehorn for the player. Sure a game may say doing what group A tells you will make you good... But what if said option involves eradicating a town? This very example is directly pulled from a decision made very early on in Tactics Ogre, which would decide your character's alignment (lawful or chaotic, later neutral) and thus story branch.

Frankly, lumping such a metaphysical concept such as this as a sliding scale is horrible mistake and needs to die.

 

[Fishyash]

I've just thought that it's not really worth it, being a nobody in video games.

In the real world, your just a 20 something desk jockey who has never done anything interesting in his life, so why would you be the same in the game?

Games like new Vegas and mass effect 2 give you the chance to be some Jesus like figure of wholesome goodness, or some satanic cross between Mugabe and Hitler. what's the point of occupying the sniveling middle ground AGAIN?

Well, I don't think grey morality=nobody.

And who is saying that if there was a decent middle ground you can't be jesus or hitler?

I think the choice should be there, because that's what these morality systems are all about, choice.

Also... captcha what is this?

 

[spartandude]

I think the best way to do morality is either Dragon age and Withcer style, no good or bad metres, just concequences to your actions and how people regard you
for example if we look at Mass Effect 2 they completely failed the morality at two key points, when regarding the genophage and Legion's loyalty mission, you could easily have an argument at those parts as to what is morrally right or wrong and its very grey area, but the game still puts 'good' and 'bad' in

conversly if we look at Dragon Age Origins

Spoiler

at the end of the dwarf quest when you reach the Anvil of the Void you are given two options.
to keep the Anvil but doing so will mean innocent people will be forced to give up free will and turned into golems but this will make much more affective soldiers and arguably save more lives.

Or destroy the Anvil, you will not get more golems and as such you are stuck with regular soldier who die easier and massively reduces the chances of the Dwarves reclaiming thier empire, but no body is forced against their will to essentially give up free will and their lives.

'good' and 'evil' are rather blurred here and instead the game has characters opinions of you change depending on your choice and has different concequences, something which happens in real life and is the best way to deal with these complex grey ares.

 

[Kpt._Rob]

I'm tired of games integrating morality systems in the first place. Regardless of how nuanced they may be, I don't want to have to account for someone else's idea of what's a "good" or a "bad" decision in a game. I just want to do what i'm going to do without worrying about how I'm going to get my morality bar to look the way I need it to look to accomplish my goals.

I understand the feeling...

But games need the numbers to figure out what you can or can not do in a game based of the history of the actions that you have chosen.

If you don't have this limit. The player would much freedom and the game would lose its flow and get boring fast.

Think of Infamous if you got all the good powers and bad powers... It would break the game. Making it too easy.

I'm thinking more of Oblivion/Fallout. See, Oblivion didn't have a morality system. It had a system whereby I could gain fame for things I was seen doing, or a bounty for getting caught doing certain things, but there wasn't some ever present eye watching me, and delivering information about every action I take to some computer database that, apparently, all of the NPCs can read and judge me based upon. Unlike in Fallout. And that's the thing that annoyed me. In the Fallout games the way that I acted could prevent me from doing things I wanted to do (although it was pretty easy to manipulate). If I wanted to loot everything of even moderate value (and I did) from pretty much every house I visited, then that eye in the sky would tell everyone for miles away, and when I showed up they'd already know what a dick I was because they read the database. Of course, I could find a homeless guy to give water to, an act which seemed to appease the all seeing eye. In fact, the eye loves it so much that you can even make up for killing an entire town by giving a homeless guy water.

I think the point that I'm getting to though, is that in games like Fallout morality systems are pretty stupid. They're just a nuisance that keep me from doing things that are actually fun and that I want to do.

See that's the thing. I don't want a game to have numbers that it can use to decide what I can or can not do. If a game is going to open or close paths for me, I don't want it to be doing so on the basis of how many people did I save or murder, how much shit did I steal, how many bottles of water did I give to the homeless guy, etc...

In Fallout, the morality meter is called your "Karma". Since Karma is an unseen force that affects what happens around you and to you based on your actions and deeds, then technically, it would make sense for it to affect you wherever you go. I'm not saying that it's a good way to do it, I'm just saying that I kinda understand what they where trying to do. (Despite what I said, I prefer Oblivion's morality system over Fallout's)

You're right, that that is the common Western misconception of what Karma is (though I would urge anyone who thinks that's actually what Karma is to take an Eastern philosophy course). And regardless, it's not something I want in a video game. Especially considering that the video game can't take account of intent. Like I said, my intent in giving the homeless guy water was never genuinely good. I never wanted to see him happier, or see him live a better life. In fact, I knew that his life wouldn't change a bit. I could hunt down and find every last bottle of water in the game, and give it to him, and he'd still just be sitting there outside the city gates waiting for more. Even under the Western conception of Karma, I'm not doing good by giving him the water. It's a blatantly transparent attempt to get people to treat me like a good guy despite the fact that I once murdered everyone in the Brotherhood of Steel citadel for no reason other than that I wanted to take their armor and get other NPC's to wear it. And I kind of feel like after you've murdered every killable NPC in the Brotherhood of Steel citadel, you can't really make up for it by giving a homeless guy water that won't help him. That's a big part of why morality systems in video games will probably never work, they can't take into account intent, just action.

 

[HazelrahFiver]

I agree with Vault101 that F:NV has some of the best morality decisions. No matter what you are screwing one or more groups over and NONE of them seem all that great. Which is lifelike by the way. The groups we back in real life, the countries and religions we support, are all based on our limited scope of the world, and life itself. Standing back from any situation, ANY, will reveal that no organization is actually all that much better than another. It's all about survival and making a choice.

I wish more games understood this. I'm actually fairly tired of having to go ultimate savior or devilish bastard. People are undoubtedly grey, because we are human. It's especially bothersome in gaming because usually you cannot select to be somewhere in the middle ground without missing out on important pieces of story or abilities.

 

[nklshaz]

I'm tired of games integrating morality systems in the first place. Regardless of how nuanced they may be, I don't want to have to account for someone else's idea of what's a "good" or a "bad" decision in a game. I just want to do what i'm going to do without worrying about how I'm going to get my morality bar to look the way I need it to look to accomplish my goals.

I understand the feeling...

But games need the numbers to figure out what you can or can not do in a game based of the history of the actions that you have chosen.

If you don't have this limit. The player would much freedom and the game would lose its flow and get boring fast.

Think of Infamous if you got all the good powers and bad powers... It would break the game. Making it too easy.

I'm thinking more of Oblivion/Fallout. See, Oblivion didn't have a morality system. It had a system whereby I could gain fame for things I was seen doing, or a bounty for getting caught doing certain things, but there wasn't some ever present eye watching me, and delivering information about every action I take to some computer database that, apparently, all of the NPCs can read and judge me based upon. Unlike in Fallout. And that's the thing that annoyed me. In the Fallout games the way that I acted could prevent me from doing things I wanted to do (although it was pretty easy to manipulate). If I wanted to loot everything of even moderate value (and I did) from pretty much every house I visited, then that eye in the sky would tell everyone for miles away, and when I showed up they'd already know what a dick I was because they read the database. Of course, I could find a homeless guy to give water to, an act which seemed to appease the all seeing eye. In fact, the eye loves it so much that you can even make up for killing an entire town by giving a homeless guy water.

I think the point that I'm getting to though, is that in games like Fallout morality systems are pretty stupid. They're just a nuisance that keep me from doing things that are actually fun and that I want to do.

See that's the thing. I don't want a game to have numbers that it can use to decide what I can or can not do. If a game is going to open or close paths for me, I don't want it to be doing so on the basis of how many people did I save or murder, how much shit did I steal, how many bottles of water did I give to the homeless guy, etc...

In Fallout, the morality meter is called your "Karma". Since Karma is an unseen force that affects what happens around you and to you based on your actions and deeds, then technically, it would make sense for it to affect you wherever you go. I'm not saying that it's a good way to do it, I'm just saying that I kinda understand what they where trying to do. (Despite what I said, I prefer Oblivion's morality system over Fallout's)

You're right, that that is the common Western misconception of what Karma is (though I would urge anyone who thinks that's actually what Karma is to take an Eastern philosophy course). And regardless, it's not something I want in a video game. Especially considering that the video game can't take account of intent. Like I said, my intent in giving the homeless guy water was never genuinely good. I never wanted to see him happier, or see him live a better life. In fact, I knew that his life wouldn't change a bit. I could hunt down and find every last bottle of water in the game, and give it to him, and he'd still just be sitting there outside the city gates waiting for more. Even under the Western conception of Karma, I'm not doing good by giving him the water. It's a blatantly transparent attempt to get people to treat me like a good guy despite the fact that I once murdered everyone in the Brotherhood of Steel citadel for no reason other than that I wanted to take their armor and get other NPC's to wear it. And I kind of feel like after you've murdered every killable NPC in the Brotherhood of Steel citadel, you can't really make up for it by giving a homeless guy water that won't help him. That's a big part of why morality systems in video games will probably never work, they can't take into account intent, just action.

I don't think the NCR will mind the murder of the Brotherhood of Steel too much ;P That's one thing I really liked about New Vegas; I couldn't be everyones' hero. Someone always gets screwed over. (Though I still prefer the morality in Oblivion) At least it's better than the Mass Effect Morality. It's a big galaxy, it's not like everyone everywhere has a dipstick that they put in my ear to know how good I've been.

 

[dyre]

Grey morality is nice and all, but usually it seems either forced or not very grey. Bioware makes an effort at it, but it's hampered by their "this is the good option; this is the bad option" morality system. As much as I dislike Obsidian, I admit they're much better in that regard, though sometimes their morality seems forced too, like when House absolutely forces you to destroy the Brotherhood, and you never get to respond the way you actually want to (as in, "look here, I like you, but if you want me to go down this path, I'm siding with the NCR").

CD Projekt kicks ass at grey morality though. I've never done so many morally questionable things in a game(Witcher 2, that is) while still convinced that I was really trying my best to do the right thing.