Moral Choices In Video Games, And Choice Systems In General

Seil · 02-10-2011, 06:08 PM

Now, when I talk about moral choice systems, I'm not talking about games like Infamous. I'm talking about Little Sisters in Bioshock, the Silent Hill V mercy-killings, all that jazz.

But let's start from the beginning - I was playing Dragon Age: Origins and was pleasantly surprised how my actions would affect my team mates opinion of me, and how they wouldn't hesitate to stop me if I, say, defiled the remains of a long dead religious icon. I like that - in some of the games I've played, there's been very little change when I make a choice in game, and to have party members dislike me for trying to help such and such when we're fighting a war against evil demon things is neat.

But there's really no hard choices. Nothing that offends one's morality. I'm on record as saying I dislike Silent Hill V - and I still do - but there's a point where you've got the option of leaving your mother on a stretching rack or kill her out of mercy. Hell, look at Heavy Rain - you've got the bit from the trailer where you have to hurt yourself for the sake of a loved one.

Now, SHV was like Saw: The Video Game even before Saw was a video game. But Bioshock, with the Little Sisters wasn't a big problem for gamers - most people I know who took the Harvester option weren't too perturbed by it.

What I'm wondering is whether this is necessary to tell a story in a game, the hard kinds of moral choices - because I like the reputation system in DA:O, and it had a bearing on how I experienced the game, but SHV was more memorable because of the harder options. What do you guys think?

Aldurin · 02-10-2011, 06:32 PM

Moral choices are cool if they're used as alternate gameplay paths, but they need to be flexible (with Infamous you lost all of your good powers if you turned evil, and vice versa, without xp refund). But moral choices need to be more in depth and varied, unlike Fallout 3 where your choices are 1. Help everybody 2. Kill everybody once you've gotten everything possible out of them 3. Help or kill as it serves you best.

So yeah, moral choices aren't necessary, but they could be awesome if done right.

Mannix · 02-10-2011, 06:40 PM

I generally like being made to make moral decisions in games, but the problem that I have is that those choices are too limited in general. Whenever presented with options in a game I'm usually able to come up with an option that would better serve the situation but to no avail because it isn't one of the three or four options the devs came up with. For instance: In Fable III you're give an option towards the end of the game on how to decorate your castle -good guy motif or bad guy motif. But it turns out there's a war going on and you're trying to scrape up cash to pay for an army, and my first thought before the options were presented was to strip the interior of the castle and sell the goods to the highest bidder. No such luck for the people of Albion, I'm afraid. I can't think of other examples off the top of my head right before work, but I think you guys know what I mean. I'd like to see a system that somehow rewards creativity and resourcefulness, but I'm pretty sure that's asking an awful lot just in terms of lines of code written. Not to mention all of the work that would have to go into the creative end of things.

Krylo · 02-10-2011, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aldurin

Moral choices are cool if they're used as alternate gameplay paths, but they need to be flexible (with Infamous you lost all of your good powers if you turned evil, and vice versa, without xp refund). But moral choices need to be more in depth and varied, unlike Fallout 3 where your choices are 1. Help everybody 2. Kill everybody once you've gotten everything possible out of them 3. Help or kill as it serves you best.

This is pretty much the entire reason I've replayed Dragon Age multiple times but have only played KotoR once. In DA your moral choices are generally justifiable regardless of which way you go depending on whether you prefer a more 'do it right or not at all' or 'the ends justify the means' approach. Such as is it worth making golems if it means enslaving the spirits of dwarves? The golems are going to be much more useful in stopping the blight/clearing the deep roads, and might save far more lives than they could cost, but on the other hand you're enslaving living beings to control rods for, basically, eternity.

On the other hand, KotoR was:
NPC: Get my cat down from a tree!
Option 1: Ok! And don't bother giving me a reward.
Option 2: No.
Option 3: I have eaten your cat, and killed your family, now give me all your money.

It was basically impossible for me to play dark side without feeling like some kind of comical caricature of evil as opposed to actually feeling like anything remotely important or believable.

Kim · 02-10-2011, 06:55 PM

Quote:

It was basically impossible for me to play dark side without feeling like some kind of comical caricature of evil as opposed to actually feeling like anything remotely important or believable.

TBH, this was my favorite thing about playing dark side in KotOR.

Also, <3 the alignment system in SMT games.

Krylo · 02-10-2011, 06:57 PM

If I had played it first it'd probably have been ok, but I did light side first, so doing all the same stuff but as a comical caricature didn't really appeal to me.

The fact that I also did guardian first and consular is much slower to start, with the whole burning through FPs like it's going out of style thing, didn't help either.

Azisien · 02-10-2011, 06:57 PM

I'm sure there would have been more offense taken, or perhaps just creepiness factor, if you were ALLOWED to show the death of children in games head on.

Would you have so easily harvested Adam from the little sisters if you got to watch them get drained into a raisin-y husk as they screamed for you not to harvest them?

The answer is yes. Damn kids.

Krylo · 02-10-2011, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azisien

I'm sure there would have been more offense taken, or perhaps just creepiness factor, if you were ALLOWED to show the death of children in games head on.

Would you have so easily harvested Adam from the little sisters if you got to watch them get drained into a raisin-y husk as they screamed for you not to harvest them?

The answer is yes. Damn kids.

It also might have been better if you didn't end up getting more Adam by not killing them.

There's no actual moral choice if the 'good' response is also the 'tactically best' response.

Kim · 02-10-2011, 06:59 PM

Quote:

If I had played it first it'd probably have been ok, but I did light side first, so doing all the same stuff but as a comical caricature didn't really appeal to me.

Yeah, I didn't even hesitate to go after the evil options and see how horrible things could get.

Azisien · 02-10-2011, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krylo

It also might have been better if you didn't end up getting more Adam by not killing them.

There's no actual moral choice if the 'good' response is also the 'tactically best' response.

Or even some game play change...like you have the scent of dead little sister on you, so all Big Daddies aggro on detection.

I mean I know that's still not morality, and more tactics, but it would have been something.

02-10-2011, 06:08 PM	#1
Seil Super stressed! Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: British Columbia Posts: 8,081	Moral Choices In Video Games, And Choice Systems In General Now, when I talk about moral choice systems, I'm not talking about games like Infamous. I'm talking about Little Sisters in Bioshock, the Silent Hill V mercy-killings, all that jazz. But let's start from the beginning - I was playing Dragon Age: Origins and was pleasantly surprised how my actions would affect my team mates opinion of me, and how they wouldn't hesitate to stop me if I, say, defiled the remains of a long dead religious icon. I like that - in some of the games I've played, there's been very little change when I make a choice in game, and to have party members dislike me for trying to help such and such when we're fighting a war against evil demon things is neat. But there's really no hard choices. Nothing that offends one's morality. I'm on record as saying I dislike Silent Hill V - and I still do - but there's a point where you've got the option of leaving your mother on a stretching rack or kill her out of mercy. Hell, look at Heavy Rain - you've got the bit from the trailer where you have to hurt yourself for the sake of a loved one. Now, SHV was like Saw: The Video Game even before Saw was a video game. But Bioshock, with the Little Sisters wasn't a big problem for gamers - most people I know who took the Harvester option weren't too perturbed by it. What I'm wondering is whether this is necessary to tell a story in a game, the hard kinds of moral choices - because I like the reputation system in DA:O, and it had a bearing on how I experienced the game, but SHV was more memorable because of the harder options. What do you guys think?

02-10-2011, 06:40 PM	#3
Mannix Tenacious C Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 991	I generally like being made to make moral decisions in games, but the problem that I have is that those choices are too limited in general. Whenever presented with options in a game I'm usually able to come up with an option that would better serve the situation but to no avail because it isn't one of the three or four options the devs came up with. For instance: In Fable III you're give an option towards the end of the game on how to decorate your castle -good guy motif or bad guy motif. But it turns out there's a war going on and you're trying to scrape up cash to pay for an army, and my first thought before the options were presented was to strip the interior of the castle and sell the goods to the highest bidder. No such luck for the people of Albion, I'm afraid. I can't think of other examples off the top of my head right before work, but I think you guys know what I mean. I'd like to see a system that somehow rewards creativity and resourcefulness, but I'm pretty sure that's asking an awful lot just in terms of lines of code written. Not to mention all of the work that would have to go into the creative end of things. __________________ Dangerous, mute lunatic.

02-10-2011, 06:57 PM	#6
Krylo The Straightest Shota Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: It's a secret to everybody. Posts: 17,789	If I had played it first it'd probably have been ok, but I did light side first, so doing all the same stuff but as a comical caricature didn't really appeal to me. The fact that I also did guardian first and consular is much slower to start, with the whole burning through FPs like it's going out of style thing, didn't help either. __________________ I am very tired.

02-10-2011, 06:32 PM	#2
Aldurin Lakitu Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 4,648	Moral choices are cool if they're used as alternate gameplay paths, but they need to be flexible (with Infamous you lost all of your good powers if you turned evil, and vice versa, without xp refund). But moral choices need to be more in depth and varied, unlike Fallout 3 where your choices are 1. Help everybody 2. Kill everybody once you've gotten everything possible out of them 3. Help or kill as it serves you best. So yeah, moral choices aren't necessary, but they could be awesome if done right.

02-10-2011, 06:57 PM	#7
Azisien wat Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,177	I'm sure there would have been more offense taken, or perhaps just creepiness factor, if you were ALLOWED to show the death of children in games head on. Would you have so easily harvested Adam from the little sisters if you got to watch them get drained into a raisin-y husk as they screamed for you not to harvest them? The answer is yes. Damn kids.