5 mistakes Every Videogame with a morality system makes

kbrickley

kbrickley

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
7,514
http://www.dorkly.com/article/56575/5-mistakes-every-videogame-with-a-morality-system-makes

Dorkly has an interesting article on the mistakes that games with morality systems make. I agree with most of their points. I am not a fan of playing evil myself (even in games I don't like some of the choices that are required to play evil) ... it would definitely be interesting to see some games take a more Zen approach and reward neutrality rather than either extreme (although that would probably be tough to program and unpopular with players who seem to like the extremes).

I have liked how some games approached the whole morality equation though:

Fallout 3 - I didn't like the choices you had to make to be evil but they were definitely there and the game actually had a reward for neutrality (you didn't have the bounty hunters chasing you that the two extremes had)

Bioshock - the choice between "harvesting" or "rescuing" the Little Sisters was stark and actually had game play implications ... "harvesting" gave you a front end bump so you could gain powers quicker ... "rescuing" had a slower progression requiring more care at the beginning (but balancing out eventually) while offering unique rewards and a significantly different end game

What do folks think about videogame morality systems ... Good? ... Bad? ... Ugly? :cool:
 
He left out a big one....It isn't just saint or cartoon villainy....


The Mass Effect run had saint options or....jerk options. That was really it. There wasn't an evil option in dialogue 95% of the time. It was either be a church saint, or be a smartass/jerk. And almost none of the dialogue options sounded like things people would actually say as a result.
 
He lost me at the end. If I want to do something in MY game why the heck should anyone else care? If you don't want to cheat then don't. If someone else does (in a single-player game of course) then good for them. If they are having fun (which is what games are supposed to be right?) why does it make them "entitled little shits"? And I'm pretty much to the point that when I hear anyone use the word "entitled" for anything, I just put them on my mental ignore list.
 
I always play the nice hero first game. If I replay it (which is rare) I go evil. I like games like The Witcher where it’s more morally gray areas.

I like a game to actually make me think about my choice and not just pick the blue option that comes up. :p
 
Also.. the only games that Good vs Evil really mattered was the star wars games like KotoR, Jediknight

Go Dark side and you ge the Choke..

Go Good side and you get.. well something but i wouldn't know :)
 
LeninGHOLA said:
New Vegas, PS:T, Arcanum. Play more games.
Click to expand...

This.

There are a lot more examples of morality based games than what was presented in the article, and in the case of DA:O, using gifts was a choice. Although I think he hits the nail on the head when he says, "Never forget that most gamers are entitled little shits, and they won't care about fucking up the game for themselves as long as Leliana's panties hit the floor."

I'm all for having neutral character bonuses, though I can see it interfering with the storyline of many a game. Most stories boil down to a final confrontation of good vs. evil, where a neutral character who couldn't affilitate with either would be lost and abandoned in the greater story arc.

One game series that comes to mind as offering a neutral play option is Baldur's Gate, where you could rescue the damsel in distress, then threaten to kill the quest provider if they didn't give you more reward. ;)
 
Problem to me is that in games I've played, there weren't bonuses and benefits to being evil, it was basically just harder to play, not different.
 
Kinsaras said:
I always play the nice hero first game. If I replay it (which is rare) I go evil. I like games like The Witcher where it’s more morally gray areas.
Click to expand...

Same here. I did that with KotOR...which is the only RPG I have ever played.
 
New Vegas is especially effective at making your decisions matter and not making everything a caricature. The last 40% of the game is totally different depending on what decisions you make along the way. Not many games have that much on the line.
 
Koolthulu said:
He lost me at the end. If I want to do something in MY game why the heck should anyone else care? If you don't want to cheat then don't. If someone else does (in a single-player game of course) then good for them. If they are having fun (which is what games are supposed to be right?) why does it make them "entitled little shits"? And I'm pretty much to the point that when I hear anyone use the word "entitled" for anything, I just put them on my mental ignore list.
Click to expand...

The problem is, the people he is talking about are, as he said, the majority of gamers. As a result, companies appeal to their lack of taste and make dumbed down games with all these problems. Then the minority that actually likes a somewhat intelligent game does not even have an option to buy one, so the minority actually loses their choice. There is a difference between different tastes and low standards/high standards. The people he is talking about are those with low standards that often try to force their low standards on others.

P.S.

I do agree however, that especially in recent times, the word "entitled" is often associated with unfounded arguments.
 
KotOR is the only game I've ever played where I feel the good vs evil actually fit. In most other games where there is an 'evil' force threatening all of mankind, it doesn't matter if you're good or evil, a greater enemy unites forces so those dialogue options never really fit.
 
Domingo said:
New Vegas is especially effective at making your decisions matter and not making everything a caricature. The last 40% of the game is totally different depending on what decisions you make along the way. Not many games have that much on the line.
Click to expand...

"Different" as to who you are shooting and who your allies are....not really that different in terms of overall plot in the grand scheme of things. You always end up fighting on Hoover Dam for the same damn reasons no matter who you side with...and your allies are all corrupt or jerks. Oh yea...and the villains suck at being villains in FO:NV harder than in most other RPGs. Though the dialogue options for the player are better.
 
The Suffering did a good job at good/neutral/evil. Better than the games listed in the article.
 
I feel like this article is less mistakes every video game makes and more mistakes bioware (and obsidian sometimes) makes with morality. Neutral play through? I'm forced to play a ADHD psychopath who randomly chooses good or evil things to do since nothing is really neutral. If something appears neutral chances are the alignment modifies are not at all what you expected based on the dialog/actions.
 
Skripka said:
"Different" as to who you are shooting and who your allies are....not really that different in terms of overall plot in the grand scheme of things. You always end up fighting on Hoover Dam for the same damn reasons no matter who you side with...and your allies are all corrupt or jerks. Oh yea...and the villains suck at being villains in FO:NV harder than in most other RPGs. Though the dialogue options for the player are better.
Click to expand...

It is in that each faction has their own completely unique story arc. So, each playthrough can be very dissimilar. That the dam plays a part in the end of each scenario is minor. The game does have to have some kind of story. There are an order of magnitude more faction and side based quests than the main quest has. So, yes, the majority of the game IS different depending on how you choose to play.

As far as villains go - the game doesn't have any. Each has their own legitimate reason for doing what they are doing, based on their unique philosophical ideology.

It doesn't get any more sandbox or any more morally grey. If you're looking for a mustache twirling chaotic evil bad guy, this game does not have it, and that's the point of the thread.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
It is in that each faction has their own completely unique story arc. So, each playthrough can be very dissimilar. That the dam plays a part in the end of each scenario is minor. The game does have to have some kind of story. There are an order of magnitude more faction and side based quests than the main quest has. So, yes, the majority of the game IS different depending on how you choose to play.

As far as villains go - the game doesn't have any. Each has their own legitimate reason for doing what they are doing, based on their unique philosophical ideology.

It doesn't get any more sandbox or any more morally grey. If you're looking for a mustache twirling chaotic evil bad guy, this game does not have it, and that's the point of the thread.
Click to expand...

They might well have their own "reasons"...except they don't. They're all doing the same thing for the same reason....and they all end up being the same in the end. There is no gray because there is no difference really apart from in-name only.

It isn't about being "mustache twirling bad guys"...it is about having depth to character. Being morally ambiguous the infamous "morally gray" and having meat and depth to characters are not mutually exclusive. Because I can't really think of one character in NV that was really fleshed out decently.
 
mavrocket said:
One game series that comes to mind as offering a neutral play option is Baldur's Gate, where you could rescue the damsel in distress, then threaten to kill the quest provider if they didn't give you more reward. ;)
Click to expand...

That's not neutral. That would be an act of evil. Lawful Evil if you want to use old D&D terms. There is no such thing as true neutrality, because a neutral person doesn't care at all and wouldn't do anything. I always hated the neutral alignments in D&D, they were such BS.
 
Pringle said:
Play any of the Fallout games
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, most of the dialogue options in Fallout 2 ranged from good/neutral to 110% sarcastic apathy. The "evil" options consisted of you manually targeting the npc(s) and killing them. That was one of my favorite parts about the game, 99.9% of it was optional side quests, and it was basically just your social playground with a loosely tacked on moral rating (Last, Best Hope for Humanity!).
 
Skripka said:
They might well have their own "reasons"...except they don't. They're all doing the same thing for the same reason....and they all end up being the same in the end. There is no gray because there is no difference really apart from in-name only.

It isn't about being "mustache twirling bad guys"...it is about having depth to character. Being morally ambiguous the infamous "morally gray" and having meat and depth to characters are not mutually exclusive. Because I can't really think of one character in NV that was really fleshed out decently.
Click to expand...

Uh, no. The factions weren't doing the same things, nor did they all have the same reasons or motivations for doing so.
 
The writer makes a few good points but generalizes too much and they lost all credibility with me when they used the lack of continuity between DA:O and DA:2 as an example of something good.
 
chockomonkey said:
KotOR is the only game I've ever played where I feel the good vs evil actually fit. In most other games where there is an 'evil' force threatening all of mankind, it doesn't matter if you're good or evil, a greater enemy unites forces so those dialogue options never really fit.
Click to expand...

Could not agree more, still one of my favourite RPGs of all time.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
Uh, no. The factions weren't doing the same things, nor did they all have the same reasons or motivations for doing so.
Click to expand...

Uh....All the factions wanted control of Vegas, and all needed the Dam to secure their corrupt power structure(s) and lord it over the locals and bleed them for money...Because let us face it, all the factions were basically the same corrupt militant goons in the end to the citizenry. And all had you run around and kill the other guys to stop the competition. The only difference being whether you went to Camp A or Military Base B.


So how you claim they weren't doing the same things for the same reasons is pretty bizarre to me....because they were.
 
Derangel said:
That's not neutral. That would be an act of evil. Lawful Evil if you want to use old D&D terms. There is no such thing as true neutrality, because a neutral person doesn't care at all and wouldn't do anything. I always hated the neutral alignments in D&D, they were such BS.
Click to expand...

True. I should have said, "remain neutral," because taking a Good (whether it's Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic), then an Evil (whether it's Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic) option would leave you around the Neutral marker.
 
Derangel said:
That's not neutral. That would be an act of evil. Lawful Evil if you want to use old D&D terms. There is no such thing as true neutrality, because a neutral person doesn't care at all and wouldn't do anything. I always hated the neutral alignments in D&D, they were such BS.
Click to expand...

I'd say it's some form of Neutral or Evil, but nothing in the explanation would point me toward Lawful. If anything, it would be more Neutral or Chaotic in the Law-Chaos scale since it's certainly going against law and order and acting in the best interests of the self.

Depending on the motivation for trying to get more money (did he need it to buy something of importance, was it just for shits and giggles, is the quest provider secretly a "bad guy", etc.), I could see that act landing generally anywhere non-Good on the alignment scale, depending on the motivation for the act and the otherwise general actions of the character. That's why a real life role playing game will always be better than a video game. The "goodness" or "evilness" of any isolated act is virtually impossible to determine as the "body of work" is much more relevant. But developing a system to keep track of and adapt to all of those situations as a whole would be ridiculously complicated.

As kind of a side note, I disagree with the dislike of Neutral alignments in D&D. They can make for some very dynamic characters. Not adhering to any particular ideology gives you a certain freedom.
 
Last edited:
Skripka said:
Uh....All the factions wanted control of Vegas, and all needed the Dam to secure their corrupt power structure(s) and lord it over the locals and bleed them for money...Because let us face it, all the factions were basically the same corrupt militant goons in the end to the citizenry. And all had you run around and kill the other guys to stop the competition. The only difference being whether you went to Camp A or Military Base B.


So how you claim they weren't doing the same things for the same reasons is pretty bizarre to me....because they were.
Click to expand...

They were representative of political factions. All had different beliefs, motivations and end goals. Proto-fascist romans, American socialists, conservatives, anarchists, libertarians, capitalists.

If you think that's all the same, I dunno what to say.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
They were representative of political factions. All had different beliefs, motivations and end goals. Proto-fascist romans, American socialists, conservatives, anarchists, libertarians, capitalists.

If you think that's all the same, I dunno what to say.
Click to expand...

But in the end, you did mostly the same stuff, just for a different reason.
 
The article was OK until his last couple of tirade sentences blaming entitled gamers. That never gets old... :rolleyes:
 
Parja said:
But in the end, you did mostly the same stuff, just for a different reason.
Click to expand...

Yea which is quite lazy game design. Devs need to become more comfortable with someone only seeing 20% of the content on a playthrough.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
They were representative of political factions. All had different beliefs, motivations and end goals. Proto-fascist romans, American socialists, conservatives, anarchists, libertarians, capitalists.

If you think that's all the same, I dunno what to say.
Click to expand...

For whatever the factions may or may not claim to believe...when they all end up doing the same exact thing, namely trying to seize power and control of the town and its riches (citizenry and electricity) to no one's real gain but their own, and to hell with the citizenry "they're better off with us than with ______".....

.
.
.
You're damn right I have a hard time seeing the difference.


Parja said:
But in the end, you did mostly the same stuff, just for a different reason.
Click to expand...

Well...not even a different strategic or tactical reason, just different professed beliefs....that IRL amount to "drive the other guys out".

chockomonkey said:
Yea which is quite lazy game design. Devs need to become more comfortable with someone only seeing 20% of the content on a playthrough.
Click to expand...

Yup devs seem to have forgotten the value of multiple playthroughs and the depth needed to make the aforesaid interesting. Instead obsessing over eye-candy and buzzwords. I can only think of a small handful of games released in the last 5 years that I wanted to play through more than a handful of times. And the more I read about a game being a 1-shot wonder, the odds of my purchasing it approach 0 rapidly.

Hell...I currently have the old KOTOR from 10 years ago downloading off of Steam to explore it again. The graphics are complete and utter shit by any recent standard, but damn (all) the characters and who/where they came from had depth.
 
I'm sorry but KotOR had nowhere near the depth and scope that NV has. Nor the writing chops. Agree to disagree I guess.
 
Most great games have at least a passable story, and most passable stories contain a protagonist and an antagonist of some sort as the basis of the narrative. Some nuance is good, but to satisfy the lowest common denominator demands a certain easily identifiable simplicity to the characters and their choices. Look at action movies. No nuance, and they make multi-millions. It's what the people want.
 
This is endemic to the video game industry. The stories conveyed within video games are pithy, tame and cliche in contrast of that of written materials and even the film industry. Take for instance a novel from Dostoevsky that deals with the existential chaos of life. Yes, literature has far more room for displaying it's story. However, that's no reason for the horrendous story lines that are in games such as Metal Gear Rising 'Revengeance'. I've beaten every MGS game that was on a non-portable system; the stories were usually interesting and brought up ideas not commonly discussed amongst the lowly masses. Then, take a look at the drivel that this latest MGS game is. At least some games like the original Deus Ex and Indigo Prophecy depict story through atmosphere and ambiance.
 
med1kl said:
This is endemic to the video game industry. The stories conveyed within video games are pithy, tame and cliche in contrast of that of written materials and even the film industry. Take for instance a novel from Dostoevsky that deals with the existential chaos of life. Yes, literature has far more room for displaying it's story. However, that's no reason for the horrendous story lines that are in games such as Metal Gear Rising 'Revengeance'. I've beaten every MGS game that was on a non-portable system; the stories were usually interesting and brought up ideas not commonly discussed amongst the lowly masses. Then, take a look at the drivel that this latest MGS game is. At least some games like the original Deus Ex and Indigo Prophecy depict story through atmosphere and ambiance.
Click to expand...

Story is a whole different question entirely ... that has always been a weakness of many games (especially the shooters or action ones) ... some have done reasonably well with story (Bioshock 1, System Shock, Baldur's Gate series, Fallout, Elder Scrolls) while others barely have enough game story to hold their games together (Doom, Quake, Diablo, Warcraft) ... it would be nice if we could keep the action and challenge going while still maintaining action and gameplay ... I am hopeful that as more indie developers become successful with Steam or KS projects that we will see much better stories in our games in the future
 
kbrickley said:
Story is a whole different question entirely ... that has always been a weakness of many games (especially the shooters or action ones) ... some have done reasonably well with story (Bioshock 1, System Shock, Baldur's Gate series, Fallout, Elder Scrolls) while others barely have enough game story to hold their games together (Doom, Quake, Diablo, Warcraft) ... it would be nice if we could keep the action and challenge going while still maintaining action and gameplay ... I am hopeful that as more indie developers become successful with Steam or KS projects that we will see much better stories in our games in the future
Click to expand...
I don't need a story for every game I play; especially multiplayer games where the focus is competition, raw talent and intelligence like Counter-Strike or DOTA2. If I'm playing an RPG I want an uber strong story; that's why skyrim , oblivion and fallout bore me too quickly. I'd much rather play Final Fantasy 7-12 (excluding 11) where there is direction and not this sense of disconnect in Bethesda's games. I enjoy Bethesda's games but when it comes to Western RPG's I prefer the Mass Effect series and the Witcher series. Also, doesn't anyone else think virtually all these games are mild?
 
mavrocket said:
One game series that comes to mind as offering a neutral play option is Baldur's Gate, where you could rescue the damsel in distress, then threaten to kill the quest provider if they didn't give you more reward. ;)
Click to expand...

That isn't a good "neutral" option at all. The neutral option would simply be to rescue the damsel and accept the reward...

Lawful Good rescues the damsel and gives the reward to their church, the city council, the local magistrate, etc.
Neutral Good rescues the damsel and turns down the reward.
Chaotic Good rescues the damsel and gives the reward to the poor in the area, or possibly to a church, or possible turns down the reward. Depends on the overall circumstances... Basically whatever Robin Hood would do in that situation.
Lawful Neutral rescues the damsel and spends the reward to further his/her cause or belief system, which may include spending it on himself.
Neutral rescues the damsel and accepts the reward for himself.
Chaotic Neutral does whatever he feels like, but whatever it is, it probably isn't what you would expect.
Lawful Evil rescues the damsel and then waits for the quest giver to acknowledge receipt, then turns down the reward and explains how a little known law of the kingdom results in him now owning all the quest givers property and the quest giver and damsel being beholden to him for the rest of their lives. They now work for him like serfs and must give him half of all they produce from now on. He will set up an account with the local banker who will audit them monthly to ensure they are complying, and if they fail to comply he will sell them into slavery, as is his right.
Neutral Evil kills the quest giver and takes the reward, then rescues the damsel and sells her into slavery as a virgin to maximize profit (Whether she is a virgin or not).
Chaotic Evil kills the quest giver and takes the reward, then rescues the girl, does unspeakable things to her, keeps her as a personal slave until tired of her, then cuts out her tongue, gouges her eyes out, pours melted lead into her ears, and lets her go... Or something equally vicious and evil.


...Well, that escalated quickly. What were we talking about again?
 
In D&D, at least traditional pen and paper variety, there is a reward for following your alignment, some spells and abilities are based on them, and penalties if you veer to far off.
 
kbrickley said:
http://www.dorkly.com/article/56575/5-mistakes-every-videogame-with-a-morality-system-makes

Dorkly has an interesting article on the mistakes that games with morality systems make. I agree with most of their points. I am not a fan of playing evil myself (even in games I don't like some of the choices that are required to play evil) ... it would definitely be interesting to see some games take a more Zen approach and reward neutrality rather than either extreme (although that would probably be tough to program and unpopular with players who seem to like the extremes).

I have liked how some games approached the whole morality equation though:

Fallout 3 - I didn't like the choices you had to make to be evil but they were definitely there and the game actually had a reward for neutrality (you didn't have the bounty hunters chasing you that the two extremes had)

Bioshock - the choice between "harvesting" or "rescuing" the Little Sisters was stark and actually had game play implications ... "harvesting" gave you a front end bump so you could gain powers quicker ... "rescuing" had a slower progression requiring more care at the beginning (but balancing out eventually) while offering unique rewards and a significantly different end game

What do folks think about videogame morality systems ... Good? ... Bad? ... Ugly? :cool:
Click to expand...

I am split on morality systems and here is why:

On one hand, they add to a game by giving you the illusion of choice. Take Mass Effect for example, you can play good or asshole (Renegade isn't Evil) and it gives the player some replay-ability.

On the flip side though, MOST OF THE TIME, the choice is total illusion that basically makes little real contribution to your game goals, making me wish the developers just dumped the idea and provided a linear path that was more exciting.

Now Mass Effect and Fallout 3 are two games that do it right, but even in Mass Effect, does the choice of Paragon/Renegade really make the game better? I don't think so.

I think the game WOULD be better if they had a more static script, dropped the "illusion of choice" and put that extra resource into a better story or a few more exciting missions overall.

You know what I mean? I don't make games so I don't know if cutting X amount of Dialogue Crap will result in Y amount of dollars being freed up to spend in Z amount of missions, but if it was possible, I would prefer that.

Then again, that is my opinion. Its entirely possibly if I played ME1-3 without the choice, I would be complaining we didn't have it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top