Moral choices

Sisko

ShadowHearth nailed it. I only ever played the Witcher 2 but so far, for me the "moral choices" in that game are best I've seen. Because there is no right answer. Each choices is almost as equally good and bad at the same time.

You didn't pick one and think "oh I wanna be the good/bad guy." As its not like that at all. Each choice when it comes up you'd be like "oh bollocks" as its genuinely a tough call. It's brilliant done tbh. I highly recommend it those who've not played it to try it out for this reason!

The ending of ME2 was interesting as imo what some may see as the "renegade" ending was largely the most logical , and reasonable choice. Where as the "good guy" choice was completely Disneyland "everything is good and will always work out perfectly no matter what."

A lot of people didn't even seem to notice this, but ultimately the "good guy" choice is pretty nuts in that it gambles with the lives trillions of people.

I didnt see a lot of the choices in ME2 as pure good guy or bad guy, one is a lot of time way too goodie too shoes and unrealistic and the others were more gritty but sometimes went way too nuts in that no one would follow you anywhere in the galaxy if you did that ****.

I played it to be as gritty yet believable as possible which largely meant a lot of renegade choices a decent amount of middle ground choices and a decent few paragon choices.

Temptamperu

I play good then bad then thats the game for me.

I really like I am Alives system, where there is no scale just your own decisions.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

witcher 1 for me.. was very early in the game and I ran into a situation (wont say for spoilers). it seemed .. not innocent enough, but it seemed harmless enough. nothing with any consequences later on so I made a choice and walked away.
a chapter or two later in the game I was in a bar fighting someone and after the fight I overheard a snippet of conversation about a farmer who had been murdered as a result of the decision i'd made earlier in the game (indirectly). Now it wasn't a major plot point, i never met the farmer and I dont think I ever met the people from the earlier event again either.. but it really made me stop for a minute and realise that my actions in the game had consequences and that really goes through the entire witcher series.
more than a few times in witcher 1 and 2 i'd be presented with a moral dilemna and walk away from the computer to make a cup of tea while I tried to think what I oughta do. I spent 20 minutes in witcher 2 over one particular decision, mulling it over. even after I made my tea and finished it I was staring at the screen thinking... it was just so... unbioware

unbioware is now a compliment.

SeantheMan

This has just sealed the deal on my own dilemma , that witcher /2 will be the next single player games I play.
Was only debating it in the other "too many games" thread, that I've never given them a chance.

J. Marston

Temptamperu wrote: »

I play good then bad then thats the game for me.

I really like I am Alives system, where there is no scale just your own decisions.

Same here. A goody two shoes playthrough and an unmerciful prick playthrough. Fairly basic way of playing it but I don't really like sitting on the moral fence.

SeantheMan

Most games aren't worth 2 full playthroughs though, especially if they are long, and definitely not straight after completing it first time

Hercule Poirot

Fable 3 has decent choices, at the very start you have to make one of the toughest desicions I've ever had to make in any game ever. A friend of mine who also had that desicion delayed a bit too long and the desicion was made for him, which is a new one for me.

pixelburp

My problem with moral choices is that they're nearly always tied in with some sort of reward/punishment system against the player's stats or inventory, which simply neuters any sense of actual morality; turning it into a pragmatic decision on profit and loss, rather than good vs. evil, or even a decision based on an emotional engagement. Of course the average player is going to play the douchebag if you tell him/her they'll get a bigger lasersword as a result.

A perfect example was the much-touted (back in '07 anyway) morality of Bioshock 1. Gamers were asked to kill or save the Little Sisters, with a reward to your stats depending on the choice. Saving them gave a lesser reward in the short-term, but you gained long-term gifts. Killing the Sister had an opposite result. So as great as the writing was in trying to form an emotional connection with the residents of Rapture - and still to do this day it's a classic of its kind - by coupling a reward system with the morality one, I found the Little Sister segments simply became a gameplay choice, not a one of emotion.

The Bethesda RPGs suffer the same problem. After a while playing Skyrim, I stopped 'being' a human as such, and simply became a pragmatic quest-whore who dipped into every quest line, no matter how contradictory (in terms of morality) they appeared to the last one. So when I last left the game, I was the Master Thief picking pockets, Merciless Assassin in worship to a God of Death, Defender of the Empire, and no matter how psychotically I behaved, eventually asked to save the world. I also appeared to be a great prospect for marriage. Why did I do all this? Because any appeals to my sense of morality were weighed against a material gain. Perform Hideous-Act-X to get a better sword? Sure, it's not like anything I do has any real effect. Bounties could be squashed, town guards bribed. Jesus, the crimes against Humanity I committed for the Daedric lords...

The Witcher was certainly a good example of how to do a morality system properly. There didn't seem to be any material gain to my decisions, but they all had ramifications to the world & its citizens. And unlike the above examples, all my choices were emotional ones, born from (sometimes) sketchy information. Whilst I didn't finish the game & can't comment too much, I liked how most choices felt spur of the moment - that I merely made a passing choice in a small context, not always having all the facts; and I certainly wasn't told the outcomes either. A stark contrast to most games where they tend to give you - in detail - the background & results of every possible choice (yes Deus Ex: Human Revolution, I'm looking at you).

Ultimately, what defines the morality of a game is not the choices you're asked to make, but the outcome and consequences you're forced to live by. And this doesn't happen via a different cutscene or an alternative reward to your inventory for being the nice-guy: a proper 'moral' game should be about creating an emotional connection with the player so that if they make a 'bad' choice - going against their gut or their conscience - that the game has the balls & maturity to make you feel ashamed for taking that path. It shouldn't be about increasing or decreasing a gameplay mechanic, it should be deeper than that. And that's where the traditional formats of good scripting and good characterisation should come in.

ShadowHearth

i think the moral of the story - go get witcher games ya peasants!!!

PC gamers have no excuse!
Console gamers will get witcher 2 in april!

ghostchant

I normally play as a good character, except in fable 2, where I went around slaughtering everyone. Anyone who hung around long enough still enjoyed my farting marathons though. Then they had to die.