Every video game I’ve played that claims to feature free moral choices, doesn’t quite work out that way. In most cases, gamers will take every “good” option first, complete the game, and then complete the game taking the “bad” options.
I was thinking about this and had the following ideas. I expect that there will be game(s) out there already like this of which I am currently unaware…but good, I’d love to hear about such games
Moral choices during core gameplay
You shouldn’t be able to blast mooks with impunity, then have a moral choice at the end. In the middle of a firefight there may be non-combatants, say.
Being good (or evil) should generally not have long-term repercussions
Maybe you get a medikit. Or maybe nothing happens at all. But many of your choices shouldn’t affect the rest of your game.
Just so you don’t get the phenomenon of having to make consistently good or evil choices.
Sometimes being good should be bad
e.g. You figure an old lady must be a civilian and then she fires on your troops.
The good or bad option shouldn’t always be obvious
It’s not always obvious what the right thing to do is.
These two, as described, contradict each other. If there are no long term repercussions actions you make in core gameplay, then it’s just as if the core gameplay moral decisions didn’t happen.
What I think you mean is that doing good or evil shouldn’t always matter. It’s got to be one of those things where you don’t know. That establishes all of your points. Maybe killing a non-combatant will turn out to be really bad. Or maybe it will have no consequences whatsoever. You just don’t know.
But there has to be something, or else you can’t really say there’s any morality in the game. Sure, I could choose to play Mario as a PETA activist who won’t kill anything, but that hardly makes the game a moral game.
Well, I remember this French-made oldie, Dark Earth. You played a post-apocalyptic warrior and you could actually kill innocent townspeople, or your friends. Sometimes you would be forced to do morally awful things to make the plot move, like killing an unsuspecting prison guard to free your girl, that sort of stuff.
I don’t really agree; it’s almost as though you’re defining morality as “things that can have long term repercussions”.
Sure in the real world, you can make poor decisions that sit with you for a lifetime. But video games can ignore realism where it would spoil the game.
If you make the choice as vivid as possible (e.g. scared child sheltering right next to the bad guy’s HQ), I’m sure that gamers will feel that sense of right and wrong. If they blow up the HQ, and kill the kid, they may regret it.
If people can care about the long-term consequences, they can care about the immediate ones.
Oh yeah, of course.
I hadn’t yet looked at the reviews for that, mainly because I couldn’t take the title seriously (it reminds me of “Chubby Rain”, the film they’re making in Bowfinger).
But yeah, looks excellent.
Army of Two: 40th Day has this as a minor feature that works almost exactly as you describe. The choices are generally ambiguous and their outcomes and affect the outcome of the overall game at all. During the actual gameplay situations arise where the bad guys are using human shields and you have the option to use tactics to save the civilians or just kill everyone.
My problem with morality in games is that the developers tend to treat good and evil as pretty much equivalent. What developers should be doing, in my opinion, is really try to tempt the player into being evil. Basically, I think being evil should be the easy mode and being good should be the hard mode. Years and years of games (primarily RPGs) have instilled a particular mindset into players: if you do the nice thing, you get a better reward in the end. When that old lady asks you to help her cross the road, you may get an option to push her over and take her purse for some quick cash, but more likely than not if you help her across the road you’ll get her enchanted walking stick which is way better than the money. We’ve been so conditioned to expect the best reward from being a goodie goodie that the evil option just seems counter-productive. Unless I just want to be a jerk for the laughs, I’m better off being a good guy.
I think the evil option should really tempt me. Offer me stat gains, cash, and bright shiny baubles for compromising my morality. If the local crime lord offers me a permanent stat upgrade to kill some innocents, well, that’s hard to refuse. When the poor family asks for my help, have my reward be a heartfelt thank you, not some random heirloom they happen to have that just happens to be magical. And then when the ending comes, remind me what I did. If I sacrificed a lot to do the right thing, then I’ll feel like I really earned the good ending. If I screwed over everyone I met for the rewards, remind me what I jerk I was while I sit in my golden flying chariot wielding a world destroying sword.
I’m going to echo what Garula. Usually, the good option has far, far better consequences than the evil option, so why would anyone play evil, except for the replay value? I’d love to see some quests and items ONLY available to evil characters, without an alternative for good characters. For instance, in Arcanum, there’s frequently at least two ways to complete a quest, one evil and one good, and sometimes just a neutral way. Sometimes, though, there’s only really a good way. However, this is somewhat balanced out by the fact that a player who becomes a member of the Thieves’ Guild gets quests and items that are only obtainable by playing a thief, but the character’s alignment isn’t affected by being a thief…as long as one isn’t caught at pickpocketing or lockpicking or whatever. I think that every time a character steals, it should have a negative impact on alignment or karma or whatever the game calls it, and the character should get a reputation/status as a thief, and the NPCs’ reactions should reflect that. Similarly, in Fallout and Fallout 2, the character can pick pockets and locks all day, and his karma will not change, unless someone catches him at it (and then a fight starts). As it is now, though, there’s no reason for a gamer to RP an evil character, except to see what the evil choices do in the game.
It had its problems, but the morality system is Galactic Civilizations 2 did a good job of highlighting the difficulty of doing the right thing. For instance, when settling a planet, you might come across an indigenous race of people. The good choice would be to let them live in peace, but you would suffer a pretty precipitous drop in the amount of land available to use. The neutral choice would be to consolidate their living space, while the evil choice would be to use them as slave labor, and receive a MASSIVE gain to productivity. Being a tyrant is really attractive, because you can quickly become the most powerful player, with few repercussions. Making a planet-wide Trail of Tears the neutral option really highlights the Manifest Destiny mindset of most strategy gamers and games.
Nah, Goombas are mushrooms. PETA can eat and kill those, it the Koopas they can’t touch.
I like this kind of choice:
It shouldn’t necessarily be obvious what the result will be. So many games make your moral choice obvious (Push A to give flowers to puppies, push B to rape the orphan). Some even color the text blue and red or something in order to make it even easier.
On the other hand, I don’t really replay games, unless they’re really short, or I come back years later. Too much choice often causes me either to miss a bunch or use a FAQ.
I think the game some of you are looking for is GTA IV. The “bad” choices lead to upgraded cars and weapons, money, etc. The “good” choices all involve driving Roman’s cab for hours on end looking for some friend in need, a lot of relatively aimless walking around, and a relatively sedentary life full of respect for the law.
The second Fallout 3 add-on, The Pitt, might be of interest to the OP.
None of the outcomes are particularly “Good” and it’s really up to the individual player’s interpretation as to which of the endings is the least “not good”.
It’s certainly a departure from the usual “Save the Helpless Villagers And Be The Hero” or “Nuke The Kittens And Take Their Gold Whilst Laughing Evilly” morality options, at any rate.
Fallout 3 is one of those cases where the ‘Good vs. Evil’ thing really falls flat when you try to be evil. Especially when the ‘good’ radio station host calls you a douche (or a hero if you are good) for your actions while the ‘evil’ radio station has bad music and is nothing but pre-recorded tracks that say nothing of your actions.
hmph!
The Pitt, as Martini Enfield pointed out, is much more ambiguous, but that just splashes the canvas with a big shade of gray.
From what I hear, the moral code in New Vegas will work somewhat like more classic RPGs in that it will have Karma but also a second meter, the name of which I can’t remember at the moment. The second meter sounds like it will track your character’s legal status, making an Evil/Evil Paladin theoretically possible. NPCs will have consistently appropriate reactions to both meters.
Moral decisions don’t have a place in games because players don’t really make decisions based on morality because they’re more interested in making decisions based on their character’s progression (ie. KotoR) and video games aren’t real (ie. GTA). Nobody cares about some virtual character unless they’re insane. Even if you did want to make a decision based on morality and you genuinely cared about those affected, it still isn’t appropriate because you’re limited in your actions by the mechanics of the game (ie. Project Ego).
I forget what game made moral choices popular (probably Baldur’s Gate or something else Black Isle had a hand in), but it’s been a decade of these titles coming out and no one has done it well, as seen by the gripes in this thread and the inability to cite a good example. That’s because it is impossible. It’s contrary to the nature of video games.
I’m not trying to dump here, but it sure seems that way. What I’m saying is that the right way to handle morality in a video game is to leave it out. Focus on giving players interesting ways to develop their characters, like what Deus Ex or The Elder Scrolls did.
If you do think morality can work in a game, consider trying The Witcher. I haven’t played it 'cause RPGs aren’t my thing and I think European games are always buggy messes, but it is often hyped as having the premier morality mechanics.
[spoiler]Do you say so because either outcome ends in a massacre?
In the context of the game though, slavery=bad, and ending it is the good option. Killing slaves lowers karma, killing slavers either raises it or has no effect. I do like that the head slaver is a proud dad and cares about his slaves, in the sort of paternalistic way. It does add some subtlety.[/spoiler]
I assume you are talking about if you kill Three Dog, someone else replaces him, and she’s not a very good DJ. There’s no reason to kill him from a plot point of view. If you do, it is not necessarily and evil act as must as psychopathic. A realistic evil person may kill for money or because it suits them, but not just for laughs. Some of the older Fallouts have FAQs for “Evil” and “Homicidal” playthroughs.
Yeah, it’s often “well I’ve been a saint so far, but this faq says I get a cool sword if I slaughter this family.”
Bioware games probably popularized morality, and perhaps oversimplified it, but the concept in gaming is a bit older. D&D probably inspired it some, although most earlier D&D games had you choose your alignment at start. I think only Planescape let you change through your actions. Even Mass Effect has what is essentially a Good/Evil vs. Law/Chaos matrix.
I can’t really agree – or at least, I should say I can’t agree in principle. It should be possible to create virtual characters who are well realized and easy to care about; that precious few game designers do this (or even seem to try) is unfortunate, but not a reflection of any limitation in the medium. Any game with a story to it should at least aspire to some level of literary merit; and if you’re going to tell me that it’s crazy to care about a character in a book, well, let’s save some time and take this outside right now, shall we?
