242 réponses à ce sujet

[leaguer of one]

Linkenski wrote...

When I want something truly morally ambiguous I go to CDProject's games or Telltale's. I happen to like "bioware choices" ^^

To me it doesn't matter if choices are morally black and white, as long as the dialogue wheel doesn't always indicate which choice leads to the best outcome, which it does in Dragon Age 2 and ME Trilogy.

Dude, you're hating on a game that has a charm feature.....That's in every crpg.

[Hazegurl]

Zatche wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

I think one of the main reasons why the choices in Dragon Age don't seem to matter is because the game just doesn't have that central PC like ME does. The Warden doesn't have to deal with any of the decisions he/she made and neither does Hawke (not like he ever had a choice in anything). I wonder if someone else will have to pick up the pieces of whatever the Inquisitor leaves behind.

Well, I don't see why it couldn't just be that the Inquisitor has to clean up his mess later on in the game, or suffer the consequences of his actions immediately. Come to think of it, Shepherd doesn't really ever have to clean up his own mess either. Certainly not from previous games.

You're right but it does have a sense of it when you free the Rachni queen only for her to show up in ME3 a prisoner again. You sort of wonder if you should have just shot her on Noveria.

Shepard has had some dealings with the Genophage for three games. Dealing with the possibility of Krogan peace after killing Wrex and destroying the data can be sort of a doozy.

What I like about ME is that I have a connection to every choice I made for better or worse. Do I want to make this choice that results in losing someone who has been a companion since the beginning? I think this is a question a player can ask themselves when they make certain choices. It's something I think is missing from DA. Sure we have Varric back as a companion but he's Hawke's companion so I feel I would have to get to know him again from the perspective of my Inquisitor. He may have worked well with my Hawke but he may be a pain in my Inquisitor's **** and if a choice comes up that could have consequences involving him. I might just chuck him to the wolves without much thought.

[Medhia Nox]

To present a player with a difficult choice - I believe you need to hit him/her where it hurts.

To obtain the "best possible outcome" the main character should be required to risk the sacrifice of everything a gamer deems important (appearance, power, control and companions)

A self-satisfying outcome of "win" with companions and power and all the stuff gamers love - should require less risk and an ending that centers around the player's exploits moreso than the world.

This way - the person looking for the best possible world outcome - receives the worst possible personal "win". Likewise - the person seeking the best possible personal outcome - receives the worst possible world "win".

And then people like Fast Jimmy can finally rest at ease knowing that everyone sees the world with as much misery as he wishes it injected with.

Of course - there should be variation in different categories - perhaps the game requires you to sacrifice only one companion to achieve "best possible outcome" - but it also requires you to sacrifice personal power. If you wish to keep your personal power - the game could provide you with the means to sacrifice more companions perhaps.

Morality is less effective in CRPGs than affected a player's ego would be.

[Zatche]

Hazegurl wrote...

Zatche wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

I think one of the main reasons why the choices in Dragon Age don't seem to matter is because the game just doesn't have that central PC like ME does. The Warden doesn't have to deal with any of the decisions he/she made and neither does Hawke (not like he ever had a choice in anything). I wonder if someone else will have to pick up the pieces of whatever the Inquisitor leaves behind.

Well, I don't see why it couldn't just be that the Inquisitor has to clean up his mess later on in the game, or suffer the consequences of his actions immediately. Come to think of it, Shepherd doesn't really ever have to clean up his own mess either. Certainly not from previous games.

You're right but it does have a sense of it when you free the Rachni queen only for her to show up in ME3 a prisoner again. You sort of wonder if you should have just shot her on Noveria.

Shepard has had some dealings with the Genophage for three games. Dealing with the possibility of Krogan peace after killing Wrex and destroying the data can be sort of a doozy.

What I like about ME is that I have a connection to every choice I made for better or worse. Do I want to make this choice that results in losing someone who has been a companion since the beginning? I think this is a question a player can ask themselves when they make certain choices. It's something I think is missing from DA. Sure we have Varric back as a companion but he's Hawke's companion so I feel I would have to get to know him again from the perspective of my Inquisitor. He may have worked well with my Hawke but he may be a pain in my Inquisitor's **** and if a choice comes up that could have consequences involving him. I might just chuck him to the wolves without much thought.

Yes, there are definitely advantages for a series to have the same protagonist across games. Especially, as you stated, with the connections you have with your companions. And I hadn't considered what you said about Shepard's dealings with the Genophage.

But given that the ship has sailed for DAI, I'll argue (or maybe hope is a better word) that these moments and the connections to the choices can still be made within a single game just as well as with an entire series. It will just require a lot of build up to create the connections with the characters and the world so that the choices matter and feel personal.

[Paul E Dangerously]

Medhia Nox wrote...
This way - the person looking for the best possible world outcome - receives the worst possible personal "win". Likewise - the person seeking the best possible personal outcome - receives the worst possible world "win".

These are the kinds of choices Fable tried to do, albeit a bit hamhandedly. The problem lies in that either way the player feels like they've lost and it leaves a sour taste in their mouth. I think the problem with these choices is that a lot of people feel like it's less "choice with cosnequence" and more "choice where something bad always happens to the player/someone else."

Modifié par Sopa de Gato, 28 novembre 2013 - 03:17 .

[MrMrPendragon]

Sopa de Gato wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...
This way - the person looking for the best possible world outcome - receives the worst possible personal "win". Likewise - the person seeking the best possible personal outcome - receives the worst possible world "win".

These are the kinds of choices Fable tried to do, albeit a bit hamhandedly. The problem lies in that either way the player feels like they've lost and it leaves a sour taste in their mouth. I think the problem with these choices is that a lot of people feel like it's less "choice with cosnequence" and more "choice where something bad always happens to the player/someone else."

I agree on your take of the given "formula" of the decision making.

Anyway, the problem with the proposed structure of choices/decisions is that while it does make the decision making hard, it also almost makes it feel like a bother - like a point in the story the player doesn't want to cross - because you lose either way.

In this story, you are a hero, meaning, whatever happens or however many casualties - you- the hero always makes it to the other side, along with your supporting characters. I mean, who hear doubts that the good guys will win in Inquistion? Are we supposed to believe that the bad guys will win at the end?

A "loss-loss" situation doesn't have to be an integral part of a "difficult moral decision", in fact, it shouldn't be even part of it. That kind of situation makes it difficult - but not in a way that you have to weigh your options or see if you have to compromise your beliefs - it just makes the decision a troublesome part of the game.

Yes, you have to hit it where it hurts - but you can't take it all the way. Meaning, the player has to want to make that decision and not just forced into it because the plot demands it. The player has to have a chance to do everything in his power to get the resolution that he/she wants.

Now when I say "do everything he can" I don't mean a perfect playthrough with no sacrifices. I mean going the extra mile, like perhaps sacrificing a really good incentive he has to get a good outcome, or in the worst case scenario (for the player) - he has to give up a companion or do something that he won't actually do if given an alternative. But that's as far as you should go.

In the end, the player still wins - happy ending with your LI beside you - the ideal ending. But the challenge that comes with that is making the happy ending make sense.

You don't change the formula of "hero always wins" just for the sake of "being unique", instead you fix the bulk of the plot so that when the happy ending comes it feels more like an achievement that you worked towards, instead of a mere "you won because you always win" kind of deal.

Modifié par ArcherTactlenecks, 28 novembre 2013 - 03:49 .

[L. Han]

Borrowing some tricks from books. A great way to crate conflict for the reader is to provide a fair amount of suspense and also reveal some form of empathy surrounding the character that is in conflict with the protagonist (or his/her allies).

A simple list would be:

-Having the protagonist working against the clock.
-Having a fair amount of suspense for the characters on the opposite side. (Not too much or else people will get bored from it).
-Element of surprise. (Though this must be managed well. There is a difference between surprise from gaining knowledge and just random inconsistencies. You all know which one is preferable.
-Foreshadowing. This may seem to conflict with the surprise part. But foreshadowing can help crate conflict for readers (players) begin to think about the upcoming problem. Adding into the immersion and investment.

Sorry for the lengthy list, but this is what I think creates a tense and interesting book and it should apply well to games and movies.
.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sopa de Gato wrote...
I really don't think so. Assuming the Knights are still alive and the militia is both well-equipped and reinforced, they should be able to hold. The Warden took out the majority of the undead, and they wouldn't be caught unaware.

It an abomination.
That idea that no one will die is redicolous...ya know, especially since it can mind-control and raise more dead.

[Fredward]

They should use companions more often as the vocal points for Tough Moral Decisions instead of the cut & paste sacrifice the few to save the many that's so common these days. It'd be more personal. Plus the ramfications can be as limited or as far reaching as the writers want.

[InvincibleHero]

The problem is with multiple solutions there is one that can always be proven better outcomes. It could vary based on perspective such as more gold (loot their bodies) with more casualties (who cares about them anyway ) vs. no reward and everyone alive. You might prize less civilian death so that would be the better ending for you. The problem is everyone wants more reward for what they view as the right or correct action. It is usually thus and developers seem to reward heroism more unless you outright refuse any reward which is I guess a roleplaying option but not optimal.

There are few really grey moral dilemmas but a great one is a father steals money for medicine for his children and you are tasked with bringing him in. The sentence for thievery is death by beheading in that town. What do you do?

[Fast Jimmy]

InvincibleHero wrote...

The problem is with multiple solutions there is one that can always be proven better outcomes. It could vary based on perspective such as more gold (loot their bodies) with more casualties (who cares about them anyway ) vs. no reward and everyone alive. You might prize less civilian death so that would be the better ending for you. The problem is everyone wants more reward for what they view as the right or correct action. It is usually thus and developers seem to reward heroism more unless you outright refuse any reward which is I guess a roleplaying option but not optimal.

There are few really grey moral dilemmas but a great one is a father steals money for medicine for his children and you are tasked with bringing him in. The sentence for thievery is death by beheading in that town. What do you do?

I'm sorry, but that is a TERRIBLE "moral" dilemma, because it is obvious that you should show mercy and let the guy leave with the medicine, and give him money for his familg to eat during their escape, to boot. This will result in the man giving the player a great item, or help the hero past a certain tough section, or vouch for the hero's character in some type of trial, etc., because that's what video games ALWAYS do. 

There is no video game in history that will honestly reaard the player more for keeping the tenets of an unbalanced, heavy handed law that punishes a man for stealing to save his family. If you up the ante and say he has to kill people, or maybe even here is some weird ritual going on that tortures souls so that he can save his family's life, we'd be talking something APPROACHING tough. But this example? So clearly an instance where the developers are practically waving a giant flag that says "white knight and save the day for this obviously mistreated common man, who is just trying to save his family!!!" That's neither grey, nor hard, nor even truly a moral choice - mostly since you can read from a mile away what the game is clearly hinting is the "true" moral being presented. 

[Wulfram]

Rather than upping the ante by saying he needs to kill people or something, I'd rather lower the ante by getting rid of the excessively harsh penalty.

You could just switch things around so they stole the medicine - that's in short supply - for their children directly, and the question is whether you take it back. Maybe add some questions about whether it's being distributed fairly.

[HiroVoid]

Or it turned out the guy was lying and he's just an addict.

[Reznore57]

The best moral dilemma I had in a video game was with Anders.
I spend some time pacing back and forth .
For example , I killed the crazy dude who was murdering elven children.I think the guy was insane , and his place was in some padded room far away from society.
Sadly the only way to keep him from doing any harm in the future was knifing him on the spot.

Anders , at least for me , is also a case of insane in the membrane .In the end , I acted just like the father of the serial killer .I let him go , knowing he would probably keep on causing harm in the future.

I really enjoyed finding out how easy it can be to act all righteous , when you're not too involved .

[eroeru]

Happiness isn't a choice.

You have no choice but to be happy.

Or was it that you don't have a choice for being happy?



Either way, I'm happy to see people didn't see through Fast Jimmy's sarcastic yet sadly common arguments of "gimme happyy!".

As to a more serious comment - I think that logic is a good game-mechanic, the only really "fun" one, whilst morality is something that you metagame or "feel", whether aesthetically or rationally (or is rationality maybe aesthetic?). Anyway, it's easy to make a game feel unnatural when having a rigorous moral "system", giving obvious "you're a good guy" choices and outcomes and points or whatnot. Rather think FTL. Lots of choice, none of it affected by morality (though some of it having a moral hue so to speak). Splendid game.
Though would maybe be even better if we occasionally saw those space pirates cry. Stories are best when with detailed descriptions (also of the moral kind). But they always need more mastery and crafting behind them than logically built fun. Lest people don't feel it natural and rather see your game('s moral framework) as stupidly naive and simplistic.

Give us rather some randomization. Make us feel every playthrough unique. Make the world feel alive and make it have something aesthetical to say. Overall, morality and immorality *and* logic are all preferred when taken as elegant.

As to the rationality of self-interest. Well, there's none I think. If you're rational you look at things objectively. Objectively there's no difference if the harm or good is done to you or others. It should be taken as is, objectively. Harm is, as is, bad. Things that *are* indeed bad are not so because you feel that way, but they rather depend and are based on the objective world. Pretty unchangeable stuff. (that's not to say every situation is not unique... which is why rigorous and detailed moral systems that try their best to be formal fail horribly)

Morals are most rational.

Btw, http://plato.stanfor...ity-definition/

Modifié par eroeru, 28 novembre 2013 - 01:41 .

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

A "good" morally difficult choice is one where you can see both benefits and drawbacks to each situation.  And you have to make a choice between which one feels "best"

It does not have to mean deciding the lesser evil.  Or picking between two options that suck.  A difficult choice is one where you have a hard time deciding what to pick.  That too often gets mixed up with making a choice you don't want to pick.  "Sophie's Choice" is not the only kind of hard choice.

Not sure how much substance there is to this point though.

Accepting of course that different moral choices will feel differently to different people (Ex: Someone who hates Ashley probably won't mind killing her on Virmire), it's not clear from your post what's considered acceptable.

By necessity, if you're choosing between different lesser evils, then there likely is going to be some benefit or drawback to each one. I didn't want to shoot Mordin in the back in my Renegade playthrough, but regarded it as necessary to get what I needed.

[David7204]

The overwhelmingly majority of 'difficult' decisions presented to me in games have been poorly done.

Generally there's either a course of action or an argument that I as a player can think of, but the player character is unable to. The character becomes helpless and/or the choice is contrived. I certainly saw that in the first spidode of the Walking Dead, which was a factor in having no interest at all in the subsequent eipsodes. Or the choice arises because an otherwise decent character just decides to be a jerk. Looking at you, New Vegas.

The best done I can think of is the Pitt DLC in Fallout 3. And even that had it's share of problems.

Modifié par David7204, 28 novembre 2013 - 01:47 .

[Il Divo]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Sopa de Gato wrote...
I really don't think so. Assuming the Knights are still alive and the militia is both well-equipped and reinforced, they should be able to hold. The Warden took out the majority of the undead, and they wouldn't be caught unaware.

It an abomination.
That idea that no one will die is redicolous...ya know, especially since it can mind-control and raise more dead.

Pretty much. Given how dangerous everyone emphasizes Desire Demons can be, deal or no deal, Redcliffe's Happy Ending is nonsensical.

[leaguer of one]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

InvincibleHero wrote...

The problem is with multiple solutions there is one that can always be proven better outcomes. It could vary based on perspective such as more gold (loot their bodies) with more casualties (who cares about them anyway ) vs. no reward and everyone alive. You might prize less civilian death so that would be the better ending for you. The problem is everyone wants more reward for what they view as the right or correct action. It is usually thus and developers seem to reward heroism more unless you outright refuse any reward which is I guess a roleplaying option but not optimal.

There are few really grey moral dilemmas but a great one is a father steals money for medicine for his children and you are tasked with bringing him in. The sentence for thievery is death by beheading in that town. What do you do?

I'm sorry, but that is a TERRIBLE "moral" dilemma, because it is obvious that you should show mercy and let the guy leave with the medicine, and give him money for his familg to eat during their escape, to boot. This will result in the man giving the player a great item, or help the hero past a certain tough section, or vouch for the hero's character in some type of trial, etc., because that's what video games ALWAYS do. 

There is no video game in history that will honestly reaard the player more for keeping the tenets of an unbalanced, heavy handed law that punishes a man for stealing to save his family. If you up the ante and say he has to kill people, or maybe even here is some weird ritual going on that tortures souls so that he can save his family's life, we'd be talking something APPROACHING tough. But this example? So clearly an instance where the developers are practically waving a giant flag that says "white knight and save the day for this obviously mistreated common man, who is just trying to save his family!!!" That's neither grey, nor hard, nor even truly a moral choice - mostly since you can read from a mile away what the game is clearly hinting is the "true" moral being presented. 

You clearly hacve not played swotor. There's a mission similar to that for the Bounty Hunter class.

[Wulfram]

SWtOR imperial missions are a bit of an unusual case since you're by default playing the bad guy.

[Hazegurl]

I think that the only good idea is to simply have consequences as a part of each choice and those consequences should be seen sometime during the game, either right away or down the line. Let the player choose which consequence and reward they can live with. After a while of this happening a player will be forced to think more carefully about the choices they make in the story so
if they do come across a man who murdered people for his family it would no longer be a case of making the "morally good" choice but the choice they can handle later. What if the man murders again? What if he's lying and has no family? What if he's speaking the truth but now the villagers don't feel safe nor trust your leadership if you let him go which means they won't aid you in certain ways when you need it? What if your enemy deals with the man better than you and that village belongs to them? What if that seemingly innocent villager turns out to be evil? But what if he is a truly good man? What if the villagers will riot because of your decision and although you've chosen to save them over your keep you end up having to put them down anyway?

[David7204]

Storytellers cannot only consider what makes sense within the world. They also must consider what makes sense thematically.

[Enigmatick]

Wulfram wrote...

SWtOR imperial missions are a bit of an unusual case since you're by default playing the bad guy.

No it isn't, not for the sith warrior atleast. They write every Jedi in that class story as being an unlikable overzealous dick who just wants to unreasonably kill you at all costs.

Modifié par Enigmatick, 28 novembre 2013 - 02:20 .

[Maria Caliban]

Wulfram wrote...

SWtOR imperial missions are a bit of an unusual case since you're by default playing the bad guy.

I'd suggest that none of the Imperial class quest lines make you a bad guy by default. Even the Sith Warrior quests, which are all variations of kill-kill-kill, has you acting for the greater good of the Empire. They're on the brink of war and you're tasked with destroying the Republic's most valuable military assets.

While you can be evil, the story doesn't assume you are. 'Honorable warrior defending her Empire' works just as well 'Ruthless killer attaining prestige and power by climbing over the bodies of his foes.'

The Imperial Agent and Bounty Hunter are morally neutral as default. I haven't played through the Sith Inquisitor storyline, but you start out as a slave whose won their freedom by showing great strength in the force - I'd class that as a heroic beginning.

leaguer of one wrote...

You clearly hacve not played swotor. There's a mission similar to that for the Bounty Hunter class.

The Imperial Agent story line has you making a dark side choice that leads to the death of millions, but not only do you get far more content, you get a better reward and there's a very strong argument for you having done the right thing.

Wulfram wrote...

Rather than upping the ante by saying he needs to kill people or something, I'd rather lower the ante by getting rid of the excessively harsh penalty.

You could just switch things around so they stole the medicine - that's in short supply - for their children directly, and the question is whether you take it back. Maybe add some questions about whether it's being distributed fairly.

I agree that lowering the ante is often more useful when it comes to creating a moral dilemma.

Here's a man who loves his children and wants them to be well, but his selfish actions mean that others are going to remain sick. If he isn't punished at all, I suspect more people are going to start stealing medicine. If he is punished, then his family is going to suffer more.

He's broken the law and harmed others with his actions, but he did so for a compelling reason.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 28 novembre 2013 - 02:46 .