One of the most recent trends in gaming (other than motion sensing) is the inclusion of a moral-choice spectrum. It’s a great idea: imprinting your own decisions and values on to a game to make nigh-permanent changes on the game world. If we could recreate this real-life “system” and transfer it into the games, they could become a conduit for the soul instead of mere recreation. Someone would be able to look at the game world and realize that you were a good person based merely off of your in-game world (or, in some cases, how flexible some people’s morals are).
“If we could… it would…” You might be thinking, “John Van Ort, you colossus of mental prowess, what are you talking about? We’ve already got a moral structure in many games that works well! Why are you using words that imply that we haven’t got one yet?” Well, dear admirers, I think that the system doesn’t work well. In fact, it’s downright broken in many games.
Morals are your conscience, your guiding force, your map of Right and Wrong. Unfortunately, on that Map, there are very few areas that a clear black and white. Most of the area is in the grey and that’s where the most important choices are.
The problem is that video game choices are almost always black-and-white affairs. For example, let’s look at inFamous. inFamous’ focus is on Cole, a messenger and delivery boy given a package (secretly a bomb), which explodes, destroys the city, but leaves Cole alive and with electricity based superpowers. Go and look at those “moral choices” the game and it’s creators have boasted about for so long. Turns out that in most situations the choices come down to the equivalents of either baking cookies for terminally-ill children and playing with said children or setting a bag of kittens on fire, while slamming it furiously into a spiked brick wall. No grey, these actions are decidedly heroic or villainous.
Another key problem is the reward system that follows these choices. Both good and evil choices are followed up by upgrades and powers exclusive to that side, allowing individuals to customize their characters with complementary powers. Let’s switch to a different game: Bioshock. Bioshock’s moral choices, while not as shallow as inFamous’, were still rather contrasting, one being heroic, the other villainous. Harvest the Little Sister (a small child kidnapped for the sake of the city’s drug addiction) for ADAM (a substance which genetically modifies the user) or save her by removing most of the ADAM from her system. The key here isn’t the actions themselves, but the reward system behind them. It is broken.
You see, harvesting Little Sisters kills them, but allows you to gain their whole supply of 160 ADAM on the spot. Rescuing them only gives you 80 ADAM, but later on they supply you with even more ADAM as well as ammunition and other supplies. The net gain from harvesting three Little Sisters? 480. From rescuing them? 440. Even though it’s only 40 ADAM, the game is still giving you greater reward for participating in the act of evil. There is no advantage or change to the game world that would push you to participate in acts of good.
Now, there is one exception to this whole sentiment. Mass Effect’s morality system was a damn good system. It gave different rewards based on your actions as well as new narrative options. Often when I made a choice in the game, I felt like I was actually changing the game world. Prime example: on one of the worlds, I was given the option to save or eradicate a dangerous, but beautiful and regretful species from the universe. I sat at my TV and toiled for a good 15 minutes before I decided that my values outweighed the benefits of being a vile commander.
Some people would say, “I don’t want to think about that while I’m trying to escape reality.” Fair enough. However, game developers have only started to include these systems recently and boasting probably because people want them. I can’t say exactly why. I suspect that we just want to have more options. Maybe we want to have a more fleshed-out world where our actions affect everyone and everything. Maybe we just want to push someone down an elevator shaft for funsies.
Regardless of purpose (and I’m fairly certain that most of you intend on the pushing option), none of these can happen until these morality systems are fixed. “John Van Ort, you are the whiniest, most irritating game pundit since Yahtzee Croshaw! What do you propose we do about this ‘broken’ system?”
Well, I just suggest we tell developers’ when we think they did a good job and take an active interest in development processes. Write e-mails suggesting they take a page (pun not intended, but appreciated) from V For Vendetta, Watchmen, any number of graphic novels and books! Look at Mass Effect’s reward system, for God’s sake!
Now, to be quite frank, I don’t think I’ve played some of the best arguments for morality choices. These include: Fallout 3, Fable 2, Knights of the Old Republic
Regardless, when most of the systems remain broken, we need to change these systems for the sake of progress. I want you to think of this in relation to Project Natal, Peter Molyneux’s real person project. If we don’t change black-and-white choices what do you think the result will be? BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN.
Now comment, dammit!
Popularity: 1% [?]
Related posts:
John Van Ort is currently in possession of no current-gen consoles. Instead he sits in his house and whittles his time away on an N64 and PS1 pretending he's playing new games. He tends to avoid social contact as it gets in the way of his cynicism. 
Loading ...
I get your point that most games with morality or choice points in them are still essentially linear down an A or B path (inFamous being either Good or Bad.)
But I think a lot of developers do it deliberately because it’s easier and resource wise you can put all the oomph in one or two endings.