First of all, I'm one of those weirdos who actually likes his role playing games to have, you know, role playing, so bare with me. I'll start the discussion.
One of the common complaints about video game morality is that it's too black and white - kill an old lady or save her cat, as a trivial example. Now, I can see how this could draw complaints to some degree, but I don't see what's intrinsically wrong with such a system. It's not unrealistic: You can either be helpful or do something hideously evil. This often applies to real life. No, it doesn't offer a complex moral choice: It clearly isn't meant to do so. No, it doesn't offer a great array of choices: That's par for the course: Grass grows, birds sing, and video games don't offer the freedom of D&D. Get over it. The only thing I don't get is why this particular morality system even exists. What's the point, besides making money? The only idea I have is that it might please those who want to play evil. More on that later.
Now that I've defended a morality system nobody likes, I'll have a go at one people seem to like: The one in Mass Effect and its sequel. I'll be the first to admit I hate Mass Effect, but I'm going to put that aside for now. Maybe I shouldn't have been so quick to assume it was compacted fecal matter disguised as a disc (or two), but what do you want from me? Last time I gave Bioware a chance I got Dragon Age: Origins. Anyway, putting away my Bioware hate for a moment: The morality system in Mass Effect 2 is worse than pointless, it impairs role playing greatly. Players are actively rewarded for picking one type of conversation option consistently. When talking to people, I don't get to think "What would my character do?" I think "What will give me more blue things?" This really, really, sucks. I should be able to role play however I want without my character being gimped for not always picking the conversation option at the top of the wheel. For a game that spends so much time in conversation, it sure seems reluctant to let players have fun conversing. I don't understand this system either: All it does is hurt role playing. I won't even credit it for giving morally ambiguous choices: The same choices could be represented without a morality system. In fact, it would be better if the game didn't tell the player which choice was good and which one was bad: The Garrus mission would have been downright awesome without the stupid morality system making my choices for me. Yes, I did refer to them as good and bad - Paragon is Stupid Good (also a bit Lawful Stupid) and Renegade is Chaotic Neutral. As such, I picked Paragon because evil is for noobs and Chaotic Neutral is for newbs.
The system in Infamous was both similar and dissimilar to the system in Mass Effect: Like the one in Mass Effect, consistency gives a mechanical benefit. Unlike Mass Effect, it doesn't suck. Sure, it demanded consistency and it was pure black and white, but these two elements blended into something that... wasn't pretty, but it was better than a sharp stick in the eye. It's the choice between hero and villain, and you get powers that represent your choice. In Mass Effect, it's the choice between having fun and not, and if you have fun, your end game suffers greatly.
Now that I'm done communicating ideas poorly, I'll ask you to do the same: What do you think about morality systems in video games?
Too long, didn't read version: Strategically insert your best Mass Effect insults in the above text. Also, what do you think about morality systems in video games?
You make a valid point there. But there bloody RPGs. They have the same thing in Fallout 1, 2, and 3, and DnD (unless the DM is a prick but hey he is the DM). If you want to correct these mistakes go make your own RPG with a better morality system.
Now that I'm done communicating ideas poorly, I'll ask you to do the same: What do you think about morality systems in video games?
It's sure as hell better than playing by the fundamental rules of the game. Morality choices allow you to make the choices based on how you feel. It gives you freedom of how you want the events, or the entire game itself in Dragonage's perspective, to turn out. I don't want a vast RPG to end up like a Final Fantasy and play the game how the developers wanted the entire story to be; that ain't me anymore. I'm not saying that in the past these were bad choices that they decided to make, but ever since the morality system was introduced (by Fable?), RPG games really did gain more fame.
If you want to correct these mistakes go make your own RPG with a better morality system.
I never claimed I could make one (I am working on a table-top RPG, but that's beside the point.) To me, that's like saying all movie critics should write movies if they want to complain.
They have the same thing in Fallout 1, 2, and 3, and DnD
I can't speak for Fallout 1 & 2, but I can say this: In both Fallout 3 and D&D, your character is not hurt mechanically for behaving in a certain way (unless you're a paladin or something). In Mass Effect, if I have a character concept that doesn't fit the developers' idea of the character perfectly, too friggin' bad for me. Once again, I have no problem with a binary morality system as an idea, I have a problem with video game developers hurting my character for role playing. For example, let's say my ME2 character is a charismatic gunslinger. He helps people whenever possible and goes out of his way to fight injustice, but he's a tad quick to the trigger and he always tries to stay on everyone's good side, even the krogan. Because of this, he gets both Paragon and Renegade points equally, making him useless at both. I would complain about Infamous for this, but the choices were so binary that I never disagreed with what the game designers thought my character should do.
Have you played The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, yet? That is probably your best bet to make decision and RP at the same time. Tons of options in the vanilla game, and if you want more I'm sure there is a mod (modification) for it. If not, create your own mods!
First of all, I'm one of those weirdos who actually likes his role playing games to have, you know, role playing
*hugs*
I love people who do that. I find myself role playing in just about everything, for some reason. I actually found ways to role play in Call of Duty. xD
Anyways, more to the thread. Morality systems are flawed and quite often pointless. I don't even bother with them most of the time. Sometimes, although a bit rarely, a game comes along that doesn't even tell you what the hell is going to come out of the conversation. Reading the responses is pretty clear, but still, it varies.
But most of the time, I just pick which answer I like the best. I pick whatever works for the time.
Hrmmm.... I have to agree & disagree with you, think about it this way:
There are many ways you can tackle a situation, on Mass Effect 2 the way you can say some of these things could mean the life of Daniel, and the lives of his captures. In the end you can't have it entirely free, besides, there's a fair excuse (be it intentional or not) that you could use for ME2 - his character. Sounds stupid, kind of, but think about it, the way he even TALKS and what words he use can define someones character (to a degree), you see the words "No one needs to get hurt." He would say "Put your guns down, it doesn't have to go down like this". You see? If he spoke the words YOU chose, and how you expected it, he would be you, it's basically translating your character, then mixing it with his. O.o
I feel like the morality system in ME2 is far better than the one in ME1, because you don't have to waste points on charm and intimidate. Instead, you getting better at paragon actions by performing paragon actions. Which makes sense... on paper. In reality it tends to play out like you said here:
In Mass Effect, it's the choice between having fun and not, and if you have fun, your end game suffers greatly.
I enojoyed pitting Jack and Miranda against each other for most of the duration of the game. I figured by the ending of the game, my paragon would be high enough to get them both loyal to me (i had already done both of their missions). Didn't exactly work out that way. Same thing with tali: I choose to be truthful about her father, because I thought I would be able to win her over later. Turns out you can't even talk to her if you choose that option. So no special power, no alternate uniform.
I love people who do that. I find myself role playing in just about everything, for some reason. I actually found ways to role play in Call of Duty. xD
Me too! I add personalities to characters who lack them, even if I end up having a conversation with myself as Private Xzeno and Major Xzeno in an online shooter.
Have you played The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, yet?
I've played way too much Oblivion. The getting to role play was one of the best features.
If he spoke the words YOU chose, and how you expected it, he would be you, it's basically translating your character, then mixing it with his.
But all of the words are pre-selected anyway. That's something else I hated about conversation in Mass Effect: When you pick an option, Shepard might say something completely different. For example, I once chose an option that said "I'm sorry", presumably indicating that Shepard would apologize. She asked the guy if his arm was alright. The only connection between what she says and what I tell her to say is whether it's mean, nice, or in between. This begs the question: Why were word-based options necessary in the first place? Wouldn't Mean, Nice, and Meh option have done the trick?
Having reflected on this more, I think my main grip is the pointlessness of video game morality systems. I don't have a problem with moral choices and I certainly don't have a problem with actions being labeled good or evil, but I have yet to see a morality system that's done something more than bug me. Infamous was alright, but that was mostly because it stayed out of the way. D&D has a fine morality system because it's just a label the player chooses. If I want to be good, I say I'm good and everyone is happy.* Video games, however, tend to have morality mechanics. In D&D, I make a decision and play that decision. In video games, I make a choice and the game makes a decision for me and then has the gull to tell me I can't have neat powers because I picked wrong. I'm thinking the entire concept of a morality mechanic is seriously flawed.
*D&D is a whole different ball game. The players don't have an incentive to do abstract things like explore duologue trees because they don't exist. I could go on about the differences, but that might shape up to be a whole different thread.
In D&D things are a bit more fluid because there are no limitations in the way of code. That is, there's more opportunity for morality to become a figure of role-playing as opposed to roll-playing.
IMO, what you're asking for from a morality system is probably too complex, because human interaction in itself is a complex thing. We cannot expect to map out every choice we have and its consequences, much less a computer with limitations of memory and processing.
I really liked eveything about the Mass Effect series except for the Mako and the morality system. The progressive rewards for acting the same way are annoying and impede the plot as a whole. But the rest of the game is awesome.
Black and White morality can be good in some cases, but most of the time, I'm not huge on having the two choices. It's only because when it's black or white like that, I feel they're pushing the story.
Has anyone ever play KotOR 1 or 2? Those games had a huge variety of moral choices in just about every conversation, unless it was something trivial. You could be really good, pretty good, kind of good, neutral, rude, cranky, bad, kind of evil, pretty evil and pure evil. I don't think all video game morality mechanics are broken, but rather the newer games are geared toward a more simple-minded audience. Less thinking and more shooting. Because new games are for nubs. That's just my theory though.
