Your honest opinion of Moral Choices?

[7777777777444]

Hey, fellow escapists! I got a question; Hows your opinion of Moral Choices in video games, and, if possible, how would you make it better.

Personally, I like Moral Choices, but not the way they are caried out. I think you should be able to actually respond, in your own words. A very small minority of you might remember the 2004 game Lifeline. Basiclly, I kinda want that idea, but allowing you to choose what you say, instead of what you do.

 

[DarkRyter]

It can be done poorly, and it can be done well, as with many things.

Fallout New Vegas has choices, usually more than "good" and "bad", and said choices have an effect on the story, more or less. I have played through New Vegas 3 times.

Shadow the Hedgehog has moral choices, too.

I deeply regret buying Shadow the Hedgehog.

 

[Coffinshaker]

I like the idea, but not when you're given "black and white" outcomes. rarely do you have "very good" or "very bad" in real life. so rather than a 2 ending kinda thing, I'd like to see at least a little more spectrum in there.

otherwise, I do like how choices have consequences. even small ones, like in some rpgs, if you take something, something bad happens to you later.

 

[manythings]

I like them so long as they actually do carry weight but I've never gotten flat out villainy options. A true villain wouldn't care in the first place, rather than trying to save the world they'll find the shortest route to getting them out of the danger zone.

A problem is ones that force a specific path like Infamous where you had to go 100% in either direction or like in the original Fable where, at the very end, all your choices are rendered meaningless by the final choice.

Could you explain what you mean about Lifeline, I'm not getting the difference.

 

[FalloutJack]

No idea. Mostly don't give it much thought.

 

[C117]

I like moral choices, both in action and in dialouge. What I don't like, is how basically every game that implements moral choice includes an ability system, with one set of Good-abilities and another set of Evil-abilities. Unlocking the best stuff from one set often requires you to be 100% Good/Evil, AND you can rarely collect points in both sets at the same time because Good-points negates Evil-points and vice versa. This just makes it pointless to act as you think is appropriate or in-character, instead you have to act the way that gives you the most Good/Evil-points.

I say, keep the moral choices but stop tying in some kind of Good/Evil-abilities stuff. It just keeps us from roleplaying our characters.

 

[NoLevityforAutobots]

Moral choices are good and all, but I most enjoy games that give you a variety of possible responses. Gray area choices are much better, both in building a unique character and for gameplay.

Picking the good or bad option is all well and good, but games where you can help someone if they pay you, or just choose not to get involved are the better of the moral choice designs.

 

[7777777777444]

Could you explain what you mean about Lifeline, I'm not getting the difference.

Yeah, I chose a terrible example, but I couldn't think of much. Basiclly, I was thinking of using your voice in your way to solve your problems, somewhat similar to how you would guide the main character through puzzles using your own ideas and terms.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

So far I think Dragon Age: Oragins has done it best where the only moral backlash you received for your actions, aside from any personal guilt, was from the NPCs and that tended to vary depending on the NPC. For example Morrigan and Sten would chide you for being too compassionate, but Allister and Liliana would get up your ass for being heartless.

 

[Panorama]

No idea. Mostly don't give it much thought.

This, but if it was made better have different amounts of good and evil say mildly evil, quite evil, very evil, and vice versa.

 

[manythings]

Could you explain what you mean about Lifeline, I'm not getting the difference.

Yeah, I chose a terrible example, but I couldn't think of much. Basiclly, I was thinking of using your voice in your way to solve your problems, somewhat similar to how you would guide the main character through puzzles using your own ideas and terms.

Was that the one where you were trapped and wounded in a sort of panic room and you had to guide this blonde chick around so you could both escape?

 

[Kahunaburger]

I don't like how they're tied into morality systems, except in the case of Planescape: Torment*. The Dragon Age way is better, as is the Witcher way.

*And the advantage of that system is that in many cases your dialogue options were not flagged with good/evil/law/chaos points. You were free to engage in philosophical debate without worrying about your alignment. An example of how a morality system can mess this up is Mordin's loyalty mission in ME2 - talking to him about a complex issue of bioweapons research ethics is interesting, but you're essentially hamstrung in that discussion because the game insists on tying your responses to the Paragon/Renegade bar. So you can't truly explore the issue.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I liked the sorta kinda similar stuff in "Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines". You lose humanity for various things, usually for killing an innocent (if you provoke them into shooting first they are fair game though). There are various things you have to do which would involve killing innocents, you decide whether or not you want to do them (or reload the game and come back when you've increase you're social abilities to avoid the issue).

If your humanity drops, you become more of an inhuman monster, dialogue options change and you run the risk of going mad and attacking people at random.

 

[Moontouched-Moogle]

I think if executed well, moral choices are a good idea, but most moral choice systems tend to fall into the trap of "Good vs Bad."

I probably use it as an example too much (especially considering I haven't even completed the game yet), but Shin Megami Tensei has a very good moral choice system. Instead of Good or Evil, there are two distinct theologies present: The Gaians (Chaos), who believe in absolute freedom and anarchy, and the Messians (Law), who believe in absolute law by word of God. There's also the path of being neutral. Depending on your personal viewpoint, both sides could be good or evil. The Gaians are a bunch of wild, lawless anarchists who worship power. They're also people who believe in freedom and achievement through strength. The Messians are a religious order that wants to bring order and peace to the people. They're also a group of zealots who will leave you to die if you don't accept their God.

Your alignment has practical benefits and downsides, too. If you follow Chaos, the Gaians will welcome you, but the Messians will try to kill you will be unable to use Law demons. If you follow Law, the Messians will treat you well, but the Gaians will hate you and Chaos demons will be restricted. If you go neutral, all demons can be used, but everyone will be out to get you. There's also no obvious "Chaos" or "Law" choice a lot of the time, and the lack of any sort of gauge or indicator (besides finding out you can't summon a certain demon) forces you to really think about your choices.

In the end, it comes down to your own personal values and view of the world. If more moral choice systems were like this, it would probably make for much better games.

 

[Woodsey]

Personal favourite example is in The Witcher 2. Its best summed up as "grey as fuck": decisions usually either lead to shit, or bigger shit, and they're rarely sign-posted, yet you still feel the consequences of the things you've done.

Dragon Age: Origins did it well too, especially with its epilogue.

I do like them, but not in places they don't belong (ignoring how shit a character Niko is, or how poor the GTA IV story is, the choice stuffed in at the end was completely unnecessary when the character's been making his own retarded decisions for 25 hours already). If its implemented and it makes sense, then it doesn't have to be the most diverse thing in the world. For instance, inFamous 2's is fairly black and white (its a little grey towards the end though, I must admit) but the whole point is that he's a comic book-y hero, so it fits.

 

[badgersprite]

Moral choices are fine, but they shouldn't be done by assigning points, and there should be actual consequences as to the decisions you make. If all decisions in all choices result in you getting an equally favourable outcome, and if you're doing them to accumulate "good points" or "evil points" then the choice has no weight, because a) you're going to select the option that gives you the points you want without thinking about it, most of the time, and b) you know that even if you select a stupid option that nothing bad is going to happen to you because game devs aren't willing to risk making choices hard for the player.

So, yeah, in other words, moral choices are fine, but the way they're usually implemented with karma systems and with no real consequences is definitely not the best way to go about it, especially since it's so easily exploited, and since it results in you just being told your character is good/evil regardless of whether you think the "evil" choice is morally right, or whether you picked the "good" option because you thought it sounded evil.

 

[sms_117b]

A moral choice is best when you're not told if it's good or bad by the standards of the writers, a la Dragon Age.

A choice should be need to made a "good" choice normally is harder whereas an "evil" one easier, Mass Effects Feros mission with the Thorian controlled population is a ok example, easier to kill them, but that's "evil".

Ultimately the choice must be a different means to the same end, or at least an end that's better overall.

well, that's my 2 cents

 

[King Toasty]

They can seriously improve a game, if made well. InFamous was a very good example of how morality systems should work- doubles replay value, gives the user many choices, and rewards users for those choices. The only problem was that you had to be totally evil, or totally good, to get the best upgrades.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

I like them, but the time I hate them is when certain parts in a game are locked out unless you're all the way good or all the way evil.

Example: inFamous and Mass Effect

 

[MrMrAwesom]

think it should be something like:
bad = ez mode like stealing cars & stuff
good = hard mode like run threw waves & waves of bad guys to get to the same place...
then on the final stage you kill the boss then the corresponding ending to your choices...
bad = boss kills you in some brutal as hell way
good = gta sandbox mode where you do what ever the hell you want consequence free

there could be more to it but that's the short version.