This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Do you think devs should indicate what the good and evil choices in RPGs are?

#11CatToyPosted 12/6/2013 7:03:59 PM
TheC0ndemnedOne posted...
Do you mean the players can already figure out what's good and what's bad without the choices being labeled so?

Personally, I've picked some things in RPGs that I didn't want because I thought the NPCs would react differently. Happens in real life, too.


Generally yeah. It's just context, we've all learned it as we grow. Sure there will be some situations where it doesn't work out as you intend, but for the most part it's pretty clear what you're choosing.

Even back playing Baldur's Gate and Fallout which had no labeling, when I was 13 it was obvious to me whether or not an NPC was going to like my response, and in the case of Fallout 2 which had a perk to label responses, it just told me what I already knew.
---
pon pon way way way ponpon way pon way pon pon, way way ponponpon way way pon way pon way way.
#12DiviDudePosted 12/6/2013 7:06:37 PM
DV8ingSources posted...
Too bad the gameplay made it look like the next splinter cell and through everyone not in the know for a loop.


Very true, I've never seen so many people try to play a game in the "wrong way". But to be fair, I think that's going to be a problem with most RPGs that try to portray action somewhat realistically (as opposed to like, turn based combat or something). It really takes a certain amount of suspension of disbelief mindset in order to accept that, say, someone could survive a point-blank shotgun blast to the skull because your shotgun skills aren't high enough, or swinging a sword at a mudcrab could miss 23 consecutive times.
#13SlaynPosted 12/6/2013 9:47:18 PM
I prefer playing without a good and evil bar. I actually found it limited most of the time, especially in Mass Effect. I want to play the guy how I want, be a nice guy with certain people, and push others off of buildings. I feel good/bad/whatever meters don't add enough to game play to justify their existence. The only exception I found to this was KOTOR, because of the whole light/dark side.
---
ZOMG Pokeyman craze! FC: 2036-7659-0505
#14JavelinPosted 12/6/2013 9:54:44 PM
All of you wanting deeper character development from your RPGs need to go back and play Ultima IV.
---
MSI Z77A-GD55 | Intel Core i7-3770K | Kingston HyperX 8GB | EVGA GeForce GTX 680 4GB
#15Orestes417Posted 12/6/2013 9:57:34 PM
I'd prefer a more amoralist choice where everything is both good and evil depending on who's watching. Think an even darker Witched going towards Altered Carbon territory.
---
I am the mighty thesaurus! RAWR!
#16ggf162Posted 12/6/2013 9:58:02 PM
Stories shouldn't be black and white
---
The Dude abides
#17clowningPosted 12/6/2013 11:35:28 PM
I think it's funny how you guys are confusing moral choice with consequence.

A choice is moral or immoral based solely on it's alignment towards a moral system, not based on the consequences of your choice. The one exception to the latter is if your moral system is based on consequences, which, given the fallibility of humans and the frequency of unintended consequences, means you could only be moral by accident (or by luck, if you prefer).
---
It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. ...one begins to twist facts to suit theories.... Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
#18bluemooglePosted 12/6/2013 11:53:05 PM
clowning posted...
I think it's funny how you guys are confusing moral choice with consequence.

A choice is moral or immoral based solely on it's alignment towards a moral system, not based on the consequences of your choice. The one exception to the latter is if your moral system is based on consequences, which, given the fallibility of humans and the frequency of unintended consequences, means you could only be moral by accident (or by luck, if you prefer).


Well, given that the "one exception" you're alluding to is utilitarianism, I don't think it's as amusing as much as expected that most people here would base their morals on consequences. At least, anecdotally, I think it's very rare to meet someone that is consistently deontological (or otherwise non-consequential) with their morals. There is probably some mixture of human instinct and Western socialization to have at least a partially consequences-based moral system.
---
The statement below is true.
The statement above is false.
#19DiviDudePosted 12/7/2013 12:12:30 AM(edited)
bluemoogle posted...
There is probably some mixture of human instinct and Western socialization to have at least a partially consequences-based moral system.


I think you're right. Most of western civilization was based on the sort of virtue ethics the ancient Greek's derived, and in general a type of virtue ethics seems to be a universal of human culture. It wasn't until the enlightenment that thinkers like Bentham started positing utilitarianism as a foundation for morality - what's good is what has the consequence of making the most people the best off. Utilitarianism isn't really all that intuitive (e.g. "moral dumbfounding") but nonetheless has become a part of the more "rational" society that spawned from Enlightenment principles. Neither extreme seems to capture any thoughtful type of morality, so there's an awkward mixture in most cases. Morality is hard.

tl;dr - trying to divorce morality from consequences is silly.
#20doctoglethorpePosted 12/7/2013 12:34:53 AM
Choices should be beyond good and evil, there should be no karma system but rather simple logical cause and effect system. Any choice should generate both positive and negative consequences to varying degrees. Witcher, Dragon Age and Deus Ex are all great examples. Examples of how not to do it are Mass Effect, Fable and Infamous. (The last not being an rpg but still had a morality system, and by far the worst)