Moral Choices In Games

[Hot Heart]

Some ME2 food for thought: http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=9073321

[TheMightyEthan]

Excel if it was any other game from any other developer I'd agree with you. But their MO is pretty much cliche at this point. Coming to the end of the second Mass Effect you know which is the good choice n which is bad.

The fact you get told off right away makes it pretty obvious that it won't pan out so well.

What are you basing this off exactly? It wouldn't be the first time your companions in a BioWare game have been wrong on something.

 

You get renegade points for letting the council die, paragon for saving them. You get renegade points for saving the collector base, paragon for destroying it.

 

I think that makes it pretty clear how Bioware stands on the issue.

 

I agree with you that the actual choices are much greyer than that, but that just goes to show the limitations of the wheel: even with choices that aren't so obviously "good" or "bad" Bioware shoehorned them into those labels and decided which was which.

 

Although I do think "good" and "bad" don't quite capture the paragon/renegade distinction, I think it's closer to lawful/chaotic than good/evil.

[WTF]

I think the problem with moral choices lies within how we study AI and of course Binary Logic. Shades of Gray is pretty hard to define in the scope of a game.

 

Sure we can put a Yes, No and third option and then use three values, make a table corresponding to our actions and their impact on the storyworld and then program it into that, but it's a lot of coding and it won't be satisfactory enough because the outcome of X and Y with Z in consideration varies from person to person. Not all the outcomes will be believable to every player (so they'd just go with the majority). Just like how reviews are opinions and not everyone agrees with opinions.

 

The 3 by 3 grid If Lawful to Chaotic and Good to Evil gives a bit more freedom and sort of makes us appreciate the wider range of choices. However implementing something beyond that in a artificial controlled world isn't that simple. We can implement simpler things like this thing in Disaster Report 4.

http://www.andriasan...ort_4_old_maps/

 

If you don't wish to visit the link, just to be brief it's like you're escaping from a burning building and a fire and then you revisit the place a few months later and see the ruins. You can tell its the same environment (images via the link). Moral choices can represent that but it's a lot of things to consider in design and that makes narrative and design a little more difficult for game devs as has been mentioned in the thread.

 

However, for us to truly face something new, you probably need a game that 'learns' as you play and has a synaptic centre that learns from each decision we make and decides to throw in an X set of parameters programmed in based on how we react in the game. Such a thing can happen eventually I guess if people aren't too scared of an artificial semi-sentience.

 

As for Bioware, Dean and Ethan are pretty right. What Bioware did was introduce a system with KoToR and kept refining at it. However they did sort of discard their BG ethics when creating these games. Now they're trying to fuse the two but are still a bit far to make it unobvious what the meaningful choices are. This I believe is a direct result of player feedback and player interaction. I mean if they packed into their games a feedback mechanism just to see how the players react, what they did in the game, what choices kept them playing instead of reloading old saves and things like that. They are studying the player and instead of actually refining the system trying to make the system more enjoyable to a larger audience that plays their games. I don't think creating true morality crosses their minds as opposed to tailoring experiences for their crowd. I mean they're doctors after all, they'd be more interested to see what makes the player tick as opposed to implementing a ruleset or creating AI. A person's background gives a lot of insight into what kind of stuff they'd like to create.

[TheMightyEthan]

I agree with Johnny that Obsidian was on the right track with Fallout: New Vegas. Rather than having defined morality, you simply make the choices have consequences, and focus on how the people in the world react to the choices. This has the advantage of being more realistic (Faction A may think Action X was good, while Faction B thinks it was bad, jut like real life) and avoiding player disconnect when the player disagrees with the developer's conclusion as to whether a particular action is good or bad.

 

Mass Effect spoilers in my example of player disconnect:

 

Bioware thinks the "good" option is to save the Rachni queen, and the "bad" option is to kill her. There's a decent argument, however, that releasing the Rachni queen is far too dangerous, you'd be putting billions or trillions of lives at risk, and the good option is actually to kill her.

 

 

By avoiding a universal meter of what is "good" or "bad", and basing it instead on people's reactions, you allow a much more interesting and realistic approach to morality.

[deanb]

Excel if it was any other game from any other developer I'd agree with you. But their MO is pretty much cliche at this point. Coming to the end of the second Mass Effect you know which is the good choice n which is bad.

The fact you get told off right away makes it pretty obvious that it won't pan out so well.

What are you basing this off exactly? It wouldn't be the first time your companions in a BioWare game have been wrong on something.

 

You get renegade points for letting the council die, paragon for saving them. You get renegade points for saving the collector base, paragon for destroying it.

 

I think that makes it pretty clear how Bioware stands on the issue.

 

 

See I knew there was something a bit more solid on it but wasn't up for installing n booting up my saves to check.

 

 

It's why I think that these kinds of things shouldn't be called "moral choices" cos it kind of sticks in a immediate thought for the dev to split it between good or bad. If it was just a simple choice it makes it much more flexible on what they can do. I think the faction stuff is good idea. So the game doesn't track any stats based on what the dev's set, but on how people within the world react. making things much more interesting and flexible, easily including the shades of grey fairly easily.

[Johnny]

Although I do think "good" and "bad" don't quite capture the paragon/renegade distinction, I think it's closer to lawful/chaotic than good/evil.

Precisely.

 

In any case, I'm currently installing Dragon Age 2. We'll see how the DA2 implementation of their system will work out.

[excel_excel]

Well that's great Bioware. Way to make desicions basically black and white in their alignment.... >

[Hot Heart]

Did you guys ignore my link above?

 

In that one you get paragon points but the outcome is not necessarily good.

[deanb]

Didn't ignore it. It in fact kinda proves several of our points that attributing a point/stat scale on choices within games is just retarded. Other games would have had you free her, and she turns out to be a killer. And that would be it.

but ME sticks a "scoring" on the action to. Presenting actions, regardless of potential reaction, as black and white, +1/-1.

[Hot Heart]

The scoring aspect may be dumb, but it would indicate that 'paragon' is not based on a universal right/wrong outcome but merely the attitude of the player. Not executing a mercenary would be seen as trusting and optimistic whereas things like killing the Rachni Queen would simply be ruthless; regardless of the final outcome.

 

I'm also basing this on the fact that Jade Empire's way of labelling the choices was the 'open palm' and 'closed fist'.

Edited March 8, 2011 by Hot Heart

[TheMightyEthan]

The ultimate outcome is irrelevant, and I never thought that anyone thought it was outcome based. Bioware obviously considers freeing her the morally good thing to do, and is simply allowing the morally good decision have negative consequences. I would love it if some paragon decisions from the first two games have as yet unseen negative consequences in ME3, but that still doesn't change the fact that Bioware is applying an "ordained by God" type label to which actions are good and bad.

 

*Edit* - Honest question: did people think that what was "paragon" and "renegade" was based on the outcome of the decision? Honestly that had never even occurred to me until just now, I always thought it was simply what appears to be the morally good decision based on the current situation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome may be.

[Hot Heart]

It seemed that way from what Dean said earlier about the Collectors' base and such, but it appears he is thinking differently now.

 

I'm not sure on the 'ordained by God' thing though. There can be different consequences, but in Mass Effect they just tend to look at how a player deals with a situation and then encourage players to follow a set path and keep some sort of consistency in their character. A lot of the 'right' and 'wrong' stuff seems clearer when it's simply viewed as 'optimist' and 'pessimist' but I think there are probably still moments in the game where it gets a little blurry (Legion's loyalty mission perhaps).

 

Wish I could find the interview, but Muzyka and Zeschuk are clearly aware of their own design goals in Mass Effect. Shepard is a character with a backstory and, in a way, the player is reacting to the narrative (rather than more open decisions) and is being given a lot of control over it rather than developing their own blank character as they did in Dragon Age: Origins.

 

And just to be clear, I'm not trying to fanboy Mass Effect or anything (honest!), since it is not perfect in utilising a karma meter. It just appears BioWare are not arbitrarily implementing one as some developers might.

Edited March 8, 2011 by Hot Heart

[TheMightyEthan]

I've played through ME2 like 4 times, and I still can't decide what the morally "right" option is in Legion's loyalty mission.

[Hot Heart]

Mass Effect Spoilers

 

Maybe I wasn't thinking too much about it but I always saw it as either 'resetting' the Geth back to before they were infected or just destroying them. Unless you were brainwashing them to how they were with the Quarians?

 

[MasterDex]

I agree with Johnny that Obsidian was on the right track with Fallout: New Vegas. Rather than having defined morality, you simply make the choices have consequences, and focus on how the people in the world react to the choices. This has the advantage of being more realistic (Faction A may think Action X was good, while Faction B thinks it was bad, jut like real life) and avoiding player disconnect when the player disagrees with the developer's conclusion as to whether a particular action is good or bad.

 

Mass Effect spoilers in my example of player disconnect:

 

Bioware thinks the "good" option is to save the Rachni queen, and the "bad" option is to kill her. There's a decent argument, however, that releasing the Rachni queen is far too dangerous, you'd be putting billions or trillions of lives at risk, and the good option is actually to kill her.

 

 

By avoiding a universal meter of what is "good" or "bad", and basing it instead on people's reactions, you allow a much more interesting and realistic approach to morality.

 

I haven't played Fallout: New Vegas so I can't comment on that but the choice-consequence method of dealing with moral decisions that you talk about reminds me of The Witcher. Throughout the game, you're presented with choices and none of them are really black and white. It's unclear whether you're doing the right thing or not. Shit just happens and you have to accept the consequences. The Witcher 2 seems to be upping the ante again but we'll have to wait until it's out to judge it.

 

Anyway, onto my point, the polarising morals that many games present us with are boring to the point of pointlessness. I understand the issues trying to implement a strong moral mechanic can present but the world doesn't work on a good vs evil basis. We make decisions and they have consequences. We have to accept them whether we like the result or not. Games need to go that route. Games aren't just about fun. They're also about experiences. It's ok to throw the player a curveball every now and again.

[TheMightyEthan]

Mass Effect Spoilers

 

Maybe I wasn't thinking too much about it but I always saw it as either 'resetting' the Geth back to before they were infected or just destroying them. Unless you were brainwashing them to how they were with the Quarians?

 

They were never infected by anything. Two factions of Geth had a disagreement, splitting into the Geth and the Heretics. The Heretics wanted to help the Reapers, the Geth didn't. The Heretics got a virus from the Reapers that would allow them to reprogram the Geth to agree with them and help the Reapers. Your options are to reprogram that virus so instead it makes the Heretics agree with the Geth that they shouldn't help the Reapers, or kill all the Heretics.

 

I think the best analogy is either brainwashing a political party to have a different viewpoint, or killing them all.

 

[Hot Heart]

They were never infected by anything. Two factions of Geth had a disagreement, splitting into the Geth and the Heretics. The Heretics wanted to help the Reapers, the Geth didn't. The Heretics got a virus from the Reapers that would allow them to reprogram the Geth to agree with them and help the Reapers. Your options are to reprogram that virus so instead it makes the Heretics agree with the Geth that they shouldn't help the Reapers, or kill all the Heretics.

 

I think the best analogy is either brainwashing a political party to have a different viewpoint, or killing them all.

 

 

 

Ah, I see. I thought you were fighting Geth that had been infected already and were reprogramming them, not taking their own weapon and using it against them. Silly me.

 

[deanb]

It seemed that way from what Dean said earlier about the Collectors' base and such, but it appears he is thinking differently now.

 

 

Hmm?

 

 

Also pessimist/optimist is still a label on the choices and therefore massively flawed by design. Labels on these things are BAD and massively restrict your narrative freedom and can lock you out of certain things.

 

Imagine this scenario.

Geralt is passing through a village and a mother n daughter have some plague thing. He uses his alchemy to rustle up a cure but only enough for one of them. Your choices are as such:

1. Give to daughter

2. Give to mother.

 

(and maybe down the line it'll turn out the mother has info on some dude you want to talk to. Dunno)

 

 

or

 

 

 

Shepard and crew find a colony and a mother n daughter have some plague thing. Normandy synthesize a cure but only have enough time to make one jab. You choice is as such

- Give to Daughter

(o)

-Give to Mother

 

It just doesn't work out as well. You can't really label one as good or bad (or paragon or renegade, chaotic or lawful, etc) They are equal parts of both. (okay there's the third choice of shoot em both but then you'd still have to cram one onto neutral). The system for a black and white, either/or, system is built into the foundation of ME and similar systems by design. It means no matter how morally grey you try to make your choices, your system built into the game stil forces them as being one or another. Sure it makes 90% of the choices you toss into the game pretty simple and obvious to pick for those folks who don't quite get the grasp of making decisions, but it means when you want to try to be fancy you're a bit fucked. And they have no one to blame for that but their shitty initial design decision.

What really fucking sucks is they ran through it on two games and would have to be fucking retards to have not noticed it's limitations but still went ahead and chose that system over the old in DA2.

[Little Pirate]

Playing Fable made me realize that no matter what choice you choose, the game is going to make you feel like a douchebag.

[Pirandello]

Playing Fable made me realize that no matter what choice you choose, the game is going to make you feel like a douchebag.

I figured "Why stop there?" and went full douchebag.

 

The repercussions were more futile than I thought they were. So my evilness continued.

 

Just about the only game where I actually ended up as Evil instead of Good; because everyone sucks and I don't give a crap about them.

[slatz_grobnik]

ME:

 

One of the things I wish Bioware did more of was the "it's the method" sorts of quests. A lot of the sidequests on the Citadel in ME1 had this. It wasn't a binary "X is good, Y is bad," it was "accomplish X through good or bad means, or accomplish Y through good or bad means." That was when the Paragon/Renegade system shined the most. It was very good cop/bad cop, with the real question of what is the actual grand good being suitably vague.

 

IN GENERAL:

The alignment system that I think is one of the best is - and this is left field - Galactic Civilizations. Evil is the easy route. Evil always provides a quick, big payoff. Good has long, slow, costly payoffs, but more subtle ones in term of reputation.

[Hot Heart]

Hmm?

 

You said things like saving the Collectors base wouldn't pan out because renegade points meant it was evil.

 

Sure it makes 90% of the choices you toss into the game pretty simple and obvious to pick for those folks who don't quite get the grasp of making decisions, but it means when you want to try to be fancy you're a bit fucked. And they have no one to blame for that but their shitty initial design decision.

 

True, it's not perfect, but they knew what they were doing. A lot of the choices are pretty simple and obvious (which is probably what helps make it so popular) and it's only rarely that you get into the sort of grey areas that The Witcher does.

 

Trouble is, I can't ever see them changing it if they wanted to try something a little more mature and complex like The Witcher.

[deanb]

Hmm?

 

You said things like saving the Collectors base wouldn't pan out because renegade points meant it was evil.

 

Yep still confused.

 

 

Sure it makes 90% of the choices you toss into the game pretty simple and obvious to pick for those folks who don't quite get the grasp of making decisions, but it means when you want to try to be fancy you're a bit fucked. And they have no one to blame for that but their shitty initial design decision.

 

True, it's not perfect, but they knew what they were doing. A lot of the choices are pretty simple and obvious (which is probably what helps make it so popular) and it's only rarely that you get into the sort of grey areas that The Witcher does.

 

Trouble is, I can't ever see them changing it if they wanted to try something a little more mature and complex like The Witcher.

 

 

Which is why I'll find Bioware games enjoyable but generally feel they fall short.

 

 

[Hot Heart]

Yep still confused.

 

We are saying that moral choices in Mass Effect are not based on the consequence but the 'attitude' of the player, but earlier you said:

 

Coming to the end of the second Mass Effect you know which is the good choice n which is bad.

The fact you get told off right away makes it pretty obvious that it won't pan out so well.

 

And I don't think BioWare are telling you off (for the most part, they've always been about 'power' to the player).

 

Then, later, you said something contrary to the idea of the consequences being labelled as good/bad, which led me to think you had (rightly) reconsidered.

[Thorgi Duke of Frisbee]

The Witcher has the best moral choices, hands down. Everything is in shades of grey, and the resolution to your choice may not be seen for half the game. Then it hits you like a brick when you made the wrong decision. The choices also affect everything around you. For example, choosing to defend one area instead of the other early on will determine how tough the enemies are later on.