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?

#21bluemooglePosted 12/7/2013 1:49:20 AM
DiviDude posted...
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.


Yea, completely agree on morality is hard, and that we're stuck with awkward mixtures most of the time. Which I guess is why everyone in academia is nihilist, absurdist, or totally bonkers, hahaha.
---
The statement below is true.
The statement above is false.
#22Saga3Posted 12/7/2013 2:18:30 AM
If the average IQ of a RPG player is 80 then yeah, sure why not..
#23clowningPosted 12/7/2013 8:45:23 AM
DiviDude posted...


tl;dr - trying to divorce morality from consequences is silly.


Utilitarianism...one of the great failures in practical morality, because it is impossible to determine all consequences, just like it is impossible to know what is the best for the most people. Case in point: every single political policy ever created that had good intentions and disastrous consequences.

I never said one should "divorce" morality and consequences. What I said is that morality is based on moral systems, not on consequences, unless consequence is the basis for good and evil. What amused me is how everyone here assumed that this was the de-facto moral system of the universe.

Of course, it is impossible to be moral if you use consequences as your yardstick, because you can never know what the consequences will be.... You can only hope you are lucky more often than not (assuming you want to be moral). This is the cause of so-called "gray areas". Gray areas are merely a code phrase for: "I have no idea what is the moral choice in this situation, because my moral system is useless." Consequence based moral systems only work in reverse, that is, upon looking back at our choices, only then do we have any hope of knowing that, given the particulars of said circumstance, was the choice moral or immoral.

Morality more often than not these days is simply convenience and emotion based nonsense, anyway (nihilism, as mentioned, or some quasi- or bastardized utilitarianism). Then there are those who confuse legalities with morality. It's fascinating how a supposedly scientific minded populace, where the universe functions according to laws, has mostly embraced emotionalism and personal preference as morality, while simultaneously playing with notions that genetics/evolution makes us behave as we do. Instead of trying to discern some sort of behavioral laws of human nature and building societies from that, we are terribly mystical instead.

At times like these I start missing Hobbes.
---
It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. ...one begins to twist facts to suit theories.... Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
#24clowningPosted 12/7/2013 8:50:47 AM
Anyway, to the topic at hand....

NO

Players should be free to determine their characters' moral systems and choose based on that. What may be an evil to you, might be good to someone else (take suicide bombers, for instance, they believe they are doing something holy).
---
It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. ...one begins to twist facts to suit theories.... Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
#25xanthan1Posted 12/7/2013 9:13:15 AM(edited)
No, no they shouldn't. Good and evil are relative and dependent on the setting, WHY you did something, and a variety of other things. Take Robin Hood for example, a thief. In a binary system of good and evil despite having good reasons to steal he would be evil. For a setting based example lets say you have 2 countries, in one creating the undead is seen as some unholy abomination, in the other it's a way to let people remain useful even after death. Which is good or evil there? Neither. They just have opposing views on a subject.

Something closure to lawful of chaotic would be a bit better, IE do you try to follow the law to the letter even when it just means things are much harder or do you only pay attention to them when they aren't being obtrusive. Not perfect, but a lot less excessively dependent on the situation and things the programmers can't account for.
#26mjc0961Posted 12/7/2013 9:40:55 AM(edited)
DiviDude posted...
Alpha Protocol has the best and most interesting moral choice system to date, and that's mostly because you really can't tell what the consequences of your actions will be in the long run, much less whether they're good or evil. The decisions are difficult, and you just have to go with your gut.

Save the girl or save a large number of innocent strangers? I had to stop and think about that one for longer than any other video game choice I've had.


That's actually why it was the worst. You get a one word description and have absolutely no idea what the character is going to do if you pick it. Forget not being able to tell what the consequences of my actions will be in the long run, I can't even what those actions are about to be in the moment. And then crap happens later in the game because the character did something I didn't want him to because of how poorly the choices were presented. Alpha Protocol was terrible.

doctoglethorpe posted...
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)


Yeah, inFamous was insanely bad too. Most of the choices result in the same result which just makes the whole thing completely pointless. That one near the end of the game is the biggest piss taker I've ever seen in a game claiming to offer moral choices and unique consequences based on said choices. Do you save all the doctors and your girlfriend dies or do you save your girlfriend but HAHAHA that wasn't actually your girlfriend so your girlfriend dies. Really glad the bad guy was psychic and knew what you'd do in advance so he could make sure your girlfriend dies no matter what. Oh wait, he wasn't psychic and it was just utterly terrible writing.
---
sirtonne posted...
This topic is so stupid I had to slap my wife.
#27happyscrub1Posted 12/7/2013 9:35:16 AM
clowning posted...
DiviDude posted...


tl;dr - trying to divorce morality from consequences is silly.


Utilitarianism...one of the great failures in practical morality, because ....


Philosophy trolls... just one step away from grammar trolls.
---
Never forget.... Building #7
#28DiviDudePosted 12/7/2013 10:02:02 AM
mjc0961 posted...
You get a one word description and have absolutely no idea what the character is going to do if you pick it. Forget not being able to tell what the consequences of my actions will be in the long run, I can't even what those actions are about to be in the moment. And then crap happens later in the game because the character did something I didn't want him to because of how poorly the choices were presented.


It's almost as if, in extreme and highly unnatural situations, there comes an extremely high degree of uncertainty about how things will play out! And that people behave unpredictably! It's the most realistic sort of choice system in a game yet. That doesn't mean you have to like it - realism in games sometimes sucks hard - but that's how it works in real life in crazy circumstances.
#29BlueRamzaPosted 12/7/2013 10:56:49 AM
Infamous 1 and 2 did the same with the obvious blue and red choice boxes. (Even though Infamous 1 and 2 are not a PC games, I still consider them 2 of the best modern RPG sandbox games ever made, which actually sucks a lot that you can't play them on the PC.)

However, my point is that Infamous 1 and 2 had both great gameplay along with moral choices that actually mattered.
---
Snake: There's no happiness found in death, no peace either; I'm leaving here alive, because a strong man doesn't need to read the future, he makes his own.
#30_GRIM_FANDANGO_Posted 12/7/2013 2:29:50 PM
I remember when games with this feature just came out. I thought it was great, and it was fun to play around and try the different options just to so how it mattered.

By now, this game-design has become pretty stale. Mostly because it rarely (never?) delivered on the promise that your actions have consequences and shape the way the game plays out. Few developers are really committed to the idea of free choice and all that in involves. I think a game like Skyrim did it quite well, but still, if this is the extent to which we will see this feature being implemented, then I can honestly say I do not care about it too much.
---
I5 3570 | GTX 760 | FILCO Majestouch 2 tenkeyless | Zowie FK | Asus Xonar DGX | Kingston 120 GB SSD | Sennheiser HD 518 | Samsung S24A350H