To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?
- Hamlet
That seems to be the question that I seem to be faced with every time I pick up a game with the slightest RPG element. Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Fallout 3 Oblivion, etc. etc. etc.
But there is a subtle key to the moral system that is oh so implemented in games.
Firstly you have mechanical consequences which is used to describe Newton's law in games. E.g. blow up Megaton and you will no longer have access to that area.
Then you have moral consequences, by blowing up Megaton anyone who had relatives living in Megaton will hate your guts for the duration of the game.
It's generally not a good idea to try and mix the two together outright. Bioshock is the biggest and easiest game to point the finger to in this matter. Quite frankly, I didn't care less whether the little sister lived or died, cause all it really does is change a few lines of dialogue at the end...that and the rewards you receive. Kill the sister, u get more Adam, save them and u get less Adam, but periodically will be given gifts to compensate for this.
On paper it looks like a nice idea, but the reality is that the gamers didn't feel any urge to save these people. Neither did they like the black & white morality system. Kill even one sister and you magically become the devil incarnation.
Oh joy.
You have to understand that moral choices can be placed in a bell curve, the majority of the people will be in the grey area, choosing to what they seem to benefit them more.
Having both moral and mechanical consequences at the same time in a game will make it seem like a nasty way to try and add more useless game play hours.
Instead of trying to bribe a player to make moral choices based on the fact that they will get chocolate or vanilla ice cream depending on how much of a dick they act in game. Emotional investment is how you truly get moral choices happening in game.
So please stop trying to shove moral choices down my throat, most of the time it feels like your trying to make me replay the game so i can see the two different endings. If you want me to re-play the game, then make me give half-a-crap about the characters.
This should be enough explanation.
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?
- Hamlet
That seems to be the question that I seem to be faced with every time I pick up a game with the slightest RPG element. Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Fallout 3 Oblivion, etc. etc. etc.
But there is a subtle key to the moral system that is oh so implemented in games.
Firstly you have mechanical consequences which is used to describe Newton's law in games. E.g. blow up Megaton and you will no longer have access to that area.
Then you have moral consequences, by blowing up Megaton anyone who had relatives living in Megaton will hate your guts for the duration of the game.
It's generally not a good idea to try and mix the two together outright. Bioshock is the biggest and easiest game to point the finger to in this matter. Quite frankly, I didn't care less whether the little sister lived or died, cause all it really does is change a few lines of dialogue at the end...that and the rewards you receive. Kill the sister, u get more Adam, save them and u get less Adam, but periodically will be given gifts to compensate for this.
On paper it looks like a nice idea, but the reality is that the gamers didn't feel any urge to save these people. Neither did they like the black & white morality system. Kill even one sister and you magically become the devil incarnation.
Oh joy.You have to understand that moral choices can be placed in a bell curve, the majority of the people will be in the grey area, choosing to what they seem to benefit them more.
Having both moral and mechanical consequences at the same time in a game will make it seem like a nasty way to try and add more useless game play hours.
Instead of trying to bribe a player to make moral choices based on the fact that they will get chocolate or vanilla ice cream depending on how much of a dick they act in game. Emotional investment is how you truly get moral choices happening in game.
So please stop trying to shove moral choices down my throat, most of the time it feels like your trying to make me replay the game so i can see the two different endings. If you want me to re-play the game, then make me give half-a-crap about the characters.
This should be enough explanation.
No comments:
Post a Comment