182 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiAdamori]

Hi all. Im new here so im going to be limited in my ability to participate in a thread im creating, that being said. I really would like to see what everyone else thinks about the morality system in mass effect and in gaming in general.

 

Because there seems to be a definate dislike in morality systems in games over the last decade. No surprise there really, since I get the feeling that it's never really been done properly. Alot of us gamers feel that morality systems place us on "rails" so to speak and restrict our choices. Add to that poor implementation and I can see why so many have a knee jerk reaction to a developer telling us how we should role play our characters. Nobody likes being told what to do, right? Or is that just me? But I do think that a morallity system, if done well could really add depth and some meaningful reflection into gaming that, to this point hasn't been fuly explored.

 

The problem I see with Mass Effect's morality system is that it is far too simplistic and, quite frankly, inconsistant. I almost always play Paragon, partly, because being a shining beacon of virtue, giving to the poor, tending to the sick and defending the weak just gives me warm feels. But also because, playing a renegade, means I have to be a pshychotic racist with a penchant for inexplicable violence and dispraportionate reactionism. Sure, some of the renegade interrupts in ME2/3 were awesome moments of badassery. But by and large I saw my renshep as an out and out lunatic, who really needed to get some help. Fast.

 

And that is my first gripe with morality systems in general and I think it comes from developers not really knowing how to do or define a renegade/evil character. Maybe there's the wariness of glorifing an "evil" character, no developer wants to be known for creating the next gun totting postal worker. (Because games make people go bad, it has nothing to do with people not knowing the difference between reality and fiction, or having impulse control or what-not. No GTA mad my johnny shoot his classmates! yeah ok) Developers also seem to think that being ren/evil means players want to be knuckle dragging morons who enjoy inflicting pain and suffering for the jollys. Which I think is totally missing the point. The opportunity to explore the human condition, our motivations and justifications and coming to an understanding of the darker side of our natures. Mass effect seemed promising to me with its re-branding of good/evil to paragon/renegade, freeing it from thos abstract ideals for some no-holds barred exploration of our motivations, but somehow completely misses the chance to really explore such things by still implementing the flat and naive, childlike black & white good/evil dynamic. It tries. it just fails.

 

So thats pretty much what I don't want from my ren/evil character. Looking to other games, one can't help but mention the Witcher series, but I feel that, while it does a good job of reflecting reality it does so in a a morally grey fashion. That there is no right or wrong, just choices and consequences but as an intellectual property it doesn't really do much with those consquences. It doesn't ask any questions. Theres no real impact. in world characters still treat you like dirt and the world never changes.

 

When looking back I can think of only one example of a morality system that wasn't entirely rubbish in this regard (although it had elements of it) and that would be SWKOTOR2. (yeah alot of people didn't like it, prefering the "actually finished" original). Ironic in that the SW universe has one of the most lame morality systems in existance with its two dimensional, black & white (read, boring, shallow, unisipid, I could go on) examples one can find.

 

I think perhaps this was down to chris avellone and his stated desire to deconstruct that very morality system of the star wars universe. Of which he did a pretty good job.

 

So what am I looking for?

 

I was one of those people that loved the character of Kreia, she was pretty evil, but not for some abstract, ill defined and amorphous reason. Or because she could, get in line, obey the rules kinda way. Sure, she was ruthless, deceitful but straight up "power behind the throne" bad ass. A mature look at a dark and motivated character that wasn't just about "gggr! smash and break things!" She was a character I felt empathy for. I think developers have trouble creating a believeable and more importantly relateable evil PC. So instead they go the moronic route. Since it's easier and less risky. I want to be kreia for a change!

 

My second gripe is the relationship between a ren/evil character and the world and characters within it. Again Sw:kotor 2 came so close to making a great morailty system with the inclusion of the charcter influence system (think loyalty in mass effect) but it missed the mark there too. I could go all darkside (with the obvious, force grip a nobody for giggles moments) but by gaining the loyalty (influence) with my companions I could also turn my companions dark side too. In earning their respect (very magnificent b*****d style through deciept and manipulation) I could influence them enough to see things my way, a great vehicle for exploring the spread of ideas and such. Sw:kotor2 nearly nailed it but, unfortunately, even having convinced my companions to go dark side their fundamental natures didn't reflect this, they still griped and threatened to walk when I did bad deeds, they didn't change in a meaningful way. I saw so much potential in this games morality system to actually create something interesting and engaging and not restrictive and to be honest, done to death already. Sadly the game was rushed, tanked at sales and nobody seems to have picked up the thread of its morality system and expanded on it. Pity.

 

So. do you think we will ever see a trully engaging, mature (ie not punching everybody that grabs ya goat) morality system in a game? Could Andromeda be the game that approaches a morality system with some maturity? If not Andromeda, do you think we will ever see such a development in gaming in the future? Maybe you just plain don't like the morality system at all, regardless of how it's implemented? I'd love to hear peoples thoughts on the matter.

 

Urm, sorry this wound up so long!

 

[SimonTheFrog]

My problem with ME morality was, that they attached it to the player progression. I was not able to get certain items or conclude certain story elements in a desirable way if i didn't fully commit to either side of the spectrum.

They realised the downside to this system and improved that in ME3 so that giving certain answers or pulling off the interrupt itself gave you general xp, no matter which one, blue or red, you have pulled. So it became a simple QTE during cutscenes, so to speak. Which gave the players the freedom to navigate through the dialog options in any fashion they felt good with.

 

If they don't go back to a pre-ME3 morality system I'm cool with whatever ends of the spectrum they come up with because i'm free to pick the option that fits to "my" character best in every situation.

 

Unless they don't allow a "refuse" option where one is desparately needed... but that is the story for another day.

[JPVNG]

so, i guess that your criticism is flawed because i played paragon but in some moments gone to renegade...as me a lot of players. So you have enough liberty to personalize your Shepard. Can improve? of course.. but overall Mass Effect even on this aspect was, is, a very good game. Of Course i know the end could be done better, on that we all also agree, but 10 minutes don t define a game.

[Ahriman]

Regardless of topic, you seem like a sane individual, which I welcome on BSN.

 

 

So. do you think we will ever see a trully engaging, mature (ie not punching everybody that grabs ya goat) morality system in a game?

If there is a morality system I expect it to have two things.

1. Consistency

2. Pushing top/bottom options all the time should not be a requirement for unlocking key decisions.

If it's not the case, I'd rather scrap it completely.

[KaiAdamori]

so, i guess that your criticism is flawed because i played paragon but in some moments gone to renegade...as me a lot of players. So you have enough liberty to personalize your Shepard. Can improve? of course.. but overall Mass Effect even on this aspect was, is, a very good game. Of Course i know the end could be done better, on that we all also agree, but 10 minutes don t define a game.

 

Hehe, I'm not critizising the game per-se. I'm trying to get some discussion on morality systems in general. As I said, Mass Effect made a good descision to move away from good/evil to a more paragon/renegade. It removed some of the more dng-esque absolutes. But I stand by my statement that, in ME, the move is half heartedly implemented and inconsistant. I pretty much played as you do describe. Mostly paragon, but choosing the odd ren option when I felt it fitting to my character. But it is the renegade path in general that just seems to be abit all over the place. As Simonthefrog pointed out, in the 1st two installments, in order to gain access to more high level par/ren options one had to "specialize" unless going for multitudes of play throughs.

 

I feel it highlights that developers, by and large, haven't really nailed it, when it comes to portraying a believeable (non pshycotic) renegade character. I can't argue that Mass Effects morality systems is abit more flexible and dynamic than what we've seen in ohter games but, is it ever going to change in this regard, are there examples in other games of elements, or parts of a morality system that might be combined to improve the gaming experience of morality systems? Surely you can't deny that if you go primaraly renegade (even with a seasoning of paragon) shepherd kinda comes across abit, shall we say fractured, in the mental departmant, lurching from seemingly reasonable level-headedness to outright raging lunati,,?

[KaiAdamori]

Regardless of topic, you seem like a sane individual, which I welcome on BSN.

 

If there is a morality system I expect it to have two things.

1. Consistency

2. Pushing top/bottom options all the time should not be a requirement for unlocking key decisions.

If it's not the case, I'd rather scrap it completely.

 

Thank you

I really do feel the consistency is off for the renegade shep.

I do kinda like the top/bottom aspect (in ME atleast) simply because the description on the wheel doesn't always give you a clear impression of exactly how my shep was going to deliver. If you understand what I mean. More than a few times I choose an option that seemed like a general enquiry of an npc, only to have shep, deliver it an a very different fashion to what I was expecting! Atleast I knew that the top option was going to be reasonable shep n the bottom one, well, less predictable.

[PhroXenGold]

The problem I see with Mass Effect's morality system is that it is far too simplistic and, quite frankly, inconsistant. I almost always play Paragon, partly, because being a shining beacon of virtue, giving to the poor, tending to the sick and defending the weak just gives me warm feels. But also because, playing a renegade, means I have to be a pshychotic racist with a penchant for inexplicable violence and dispraportionate reactionism. Sure, some of the renegade interrupts in ME2/3 were awesome moments of badassery. But by and large I saw my renshep as an out and out lunatic, who really needed to get some help. Fast.

 

While there is a lot of good stuff in your post, this bit here really confuses me to the point where I wonder if we even played the same game, as your description simply doesn't describe the Renegade alignment in Mass Effect. OK, there are a couple of dialogues where you can be racist and a few occasions where you can kill for the shits and giggles (which you can always skip if it doesn't fit your character...), but the vast majority of Renegade options are a mix of disrespect for rules and authority in order to get the job done, and doing what serves the greater good instead of taking the "nice" option without any care for the likely consequences.

[Cyonan]

My issue with most morality systems is, like you mention, that they're too black and white. Morality is not a binary system but games so frequently want to portray them as one.

 

If I'm being honest I prefer the way that Dragon Age does things. There is no "this is how good/evil you are" meter, but rather each individual companion likes or dislikes you more based on your choices. The main failing that Origins had was that you could just gift spam to bribe anybody into loving you, but the later games did a better job.

 

If we're insistent on keeping an actual morality bar I would propose the solution that D&D figured out ages ago: Introduce a second axis for honourable vs chaotic(I don't care for the term lawful). That allows for a much wider range of characters than a simple good vs evil bar.

 

I'll also agree with the notion that character progression should not be linked to the paragon/renegade bar. Annoyance at this has resulted in me using save editors every time I play Mass Effect to simply just max out my Paragon and Renegade meters so that I can RP my Shep as I actually want to, rather than feeling punished because I didn't want to go all in for one side.

 

Regardless of topic, you seem like a sane individual, which I welcome on BSN.

 

Ah yes, "sanity".

 

We have dismissed these claims.

[Innocent Bystander]

First, there's no "proper morality systems" in games because trere's no such a thing as universal "proper morality".

Second, I really hope that BW either won't try to moralize at all, or stick to their usual Paragon - nice to other people, Renegade - punching them in the face.

Third, I agree with Cyonan (and others) that P/R tied to character progression is bad, mostly because my first point.

[KaiAdamori]

While there is a lot of good stuff in your post, this bit here really confuses me to the point where I wonder if we even played the same game, as your description simply doesn't describe the Renegade alignment in Mass Effect. OK, there are a couple of dialogues where you can be racist and a few occasions where you can kill for the shits and giggles (which you can always skip if it doesn't fit your character...), but the vast majority of Renegade options are a mix of disrespect for rules and authority in order to get the job done, and doing what serves the greater good instead of taking the "nice" option without any care for the likely consequences.

 

I can provide examples, one such being the ren interrupt of han'garel in ME3, where shep punches the guy in the gut. or the reporter Al Jhilani. Generally the violence for violence sake. Now I don't have a problem with violence in games but sometimes it just comes off poorly. Maybe it comes from the difficulty inherent in having an actor deliver lines that are for the most part neutral, followed by the sudden shift to hyper aggression, that I find jarring and immersion breaking. I can think of plenty enough examples of mass effect getting it right but it lacks consistency and flow. It introduces somewhat infantile responses too, although I concede that is just my opinion. I should say that I haven't played a femshep to trilogy completion and maybe the femsheps delivery is abit more seamless. I cant say without have played her, so to speak.

 

My issue with most morality systems is, like you mention, that they're too black and white. Morality is not a binary system but games so frequently want to portray them as one.

 

If I'm being honest I prefer the way that Dragon Age does things. There is no "this is how good/evil you are" meter, but rather each individual companion likes or dislikes you more based on your choices. The main failing that Origins had was that you could just gift spam to bribe anybody into loving you, but the later games did a better job.

 

If we're insistent on keeping an actual morality bar I would propose the solution that D&D figured out ages ago: Introduce a second axis for honourable vs chaotic(I don't care for the term lawful). That allows for a much wider range of characters than a simple good vs evil bar.

 

I'll also agree with the notion that character progression should not be linked to the paragon/renegade bar. Annoyance at this has resulted in me using save editors every time I play Mass Effect to simply just max out my Paragon and Renegade meters so that I can RP my Shep as I actually want to, rather than feeling punished because I didn't want to go all in for one side.

 

 

Ah yes, "sanity".

 

We have dismissed these claims.

 

I think it's safe to say that dnd was the birthplace of morality systems, in gaming atleast. I too liked the dnd method, the only thing I didn't like about it was it was pretty rigid and inflexible. I had to stick to my alignment or face penalties in most crpg's that implemented it. Although this could be class dependant.

 

Do you think that the dnd method may infact be too awkward, insofar as implementation in some games? I can't see it fitting in so well with Mass Effect. I could be wrong though.

 

I do think it comes back to developers not really having a good grasp on creating a believeable or relateable "anti-hero" Sure it has been done to great effect in some games, but they are few and far between. Maybe it's the juggling of different character behaviour that is the challenge, which would also come down to writing and the delivery from an actor.

 

I would even be happy with picking an alignment pre-game but then your definately on "rails" unable to act outside of the alignment. I just think it would make it easier for developers to focus on creating a more seamless and coherent narrative.

 

I'm not suggesting that this is the way I want to see ME:A go, I think it would be detrimental. But morality systems seem to have fallen by the wayside and I'm trying to figure if it's because they have lost relevance or if, infact, it's just because no-one has figured out how to implement one in a trully innovate and effective fashion yet.

 

Edit: @innocent bystander. I'm not suggesting there is a proper morality, in life. Everyones got a point of view and their all valid. But games are a medium for self exploration, personal discovery and generally alot of other things, humanity has been telling stories since the dawn of time as a means of understanding ourselves. Sure they are also for fun!! Fun is good.

Morality systems give us a way of gauging our own morality (whatever it might be) they also help to build narrative and tell a story and convey themes, many developers incoperate themes into their games as a matter of course. I like morality systems, for the most part but feel they could be done better and made to be just as much, if not more fun than what we have seen implemented so far.

[vbibbi]

One of the problems is that renegade should in no way equate to "evil." It's a false dichotomy, there should be more than two options, and the ruthless option is still intended to benefit others, albeit through a different method than paragon. We are not supposed to be playing as an evil character in the ME series; we're supposed to be the good guy who either uses his words or his fists to get things done. The main difference is that paragons usually want to help everyone, and renegade wants to help humanity first, but not to the point of harming other races.

 

Besides the morality system being overhauled (which it should be) I think the results of moral choices needs to change.

 

Right now, the majority of the time, there is an equal result to a paragon or renegade choice. We can persuade or threaten someone, but we will still get the desired result. Realistically, most people are motivated by self interest. The renegade options should be the easy options, and the paragon options should be tougher to succeed in, since we're going against basic human instinct.

 

e.g.: We have to convince a turian to abandon his post to help a group of humans fight off mercenaries. The paragon option should require us to first find someone to temporarily take the turian's post so that it's not abandoned, maybe help the turian in some way to make him inclined to be friendly, and help arm the humans so the fight will be less one sided.

 

The renegade option should be to threaten the turian or blackmail him to help. It's quicker with less steps, but he's going to be less motivated to help, there could be consequences that his post is abandoned, and the fight will be harder since the humans aren't armed.

 

It takes more work for the paragon option but it yields better results, while it's easier and faster to do the renegade option but has potentially worse results.

 

Right now, it's usually "click blue or red" to get the same result.

[PhroXenGold]

I can provide examples, one such being the ren interrupt of han'garel in ME3, where shep punches the guy in the gut. or the reporter Al Jhilani. Generally the violence for violence sake. Now I don't have a problem with violence in games but sometimes it just comes off poorly. Maybe it comes from the difficulty inherent in having an actor deliver lines that are for the most part neutral, followed by the sudden shift to hyper aggression, that I find jarring and immersion breaking. I can think of plenty enough examples of mass effect getting it right but it lacks consistency and flow. It introduces somewhat infantile responses too, although I concede that is just my opinion. I should say that I haven't played a femshep to trilogy completion and maybe the femsheps delivery is abit more seamless. I cant say without have played her, so to speak.

 

Though Al-Jilani is a bit excessive (though always rather amusing), frankly I'd say a punch to the gut is the least Han'Gerrel deserves given what he'd done, and I never felt it was out of place for a Shep with at least some renegade leanings of either gender to do so.

 

But even so, these are minor events. The overarching gist of being a renegade is not about punching people. It's about serving the greater good.  It's about making sacrifices in order to achieve success. It's about being prepared to do what it takes to stop the Reapers no matter the cost.

[Sanunes]

Spoiler

One of the problems is that renegade should in no way equate to "evil." It's a false dichotomy, there should be more than two options, and the ruthless option is still intended to benefit others, albeit through a different method than paragon. We are not supposed to be playing as an evil character in the ME series; we're supposed to be the good guy who either uses his words or his fists to get things done. The main difference is that paragons usually want to help everyone, and renegade wants to help humanity first, but not to the point of harming other races.

 

Besides the morality system being overhauled (which it should be) I think the results of moral choices needs to change.

 

Right now, the majority of the time, there is an equal result to a paragon or renegade choice. We can persuade or threaten someone, but we will still get the desired result. Realistically, most people are motivated by self interest. The renegade options should be the easy options, and the paragon options should be tougher to succeed in, since we're going against basic human instinct.

 

e.g.: We have to convince a turian to abandon his post to help a group of humans fight off mercenaries. The paragon option should require us to first find someone to temporarily take the turian's post so that it's not abandoned, maybe help the turian in some way to make him inclined to be friendly, and help arm the humans so the fight will be less one sided.

 

The renegade option should be to threaten the turian or blackmail him to help. It's quicker with less steps, but he's going to be less motivated to help, there could be consequences that his post is abandoned, and the fight will be harder since the humans aren't armed.

 

It takes more work for the paragon option but it yields better results, while it's easier and faster to do the renegade option but has potentially worse results.

 

Right now, it's usually "click blue or red" to get the same result.

 

I agree, I think part of the problem with the Paragon/Renegade system is the values we as players have assigned to it.  I don't think BioWare has ever said that Paragon = Good Choices and Renegade = Evil Choices.  They have tried to go down that route because that is what players have been talking about, but looking back at Mass Effect 1 none of the Renegade choices felt Evil or Bad, if anything they felt more forceful in a "my way or the highway" approach, where Paragon was more of a "lets all try to be friends".

 

Right now it doesn't feel like there is a choice for like others have said locking game content to Paragon/Renegade forces people to use that as their defining choice instead of the choice that is in front of them.  For I really disliked how Mass Effect 2 implemented it for unless the majority of your choices were Paragon or Renegade you could loose out later in the game.

 

I would prefer that they scrap the Paragon/Renegade system and look for something new all together and look at the system they used for Dragon Age 2 and Dragon Age: Inquisition, for it seems to have a much better game balance then what they used for Mass Effect.

[Cyonan]

I think it's safe to say that dnd was the birthplace of morality systems, in gaming atleast. I too liked the dnd method, the only thing I didn't like about it was it was pretty rigid and inflexible. I had to stick to my alignment or face penalties in most crpg's that implemented it. Although this could be class dependant.

 

Do you think that the dnd method may infact be too awkward, insofar as implementation in some games? I can't see it fitting in so well with Mass Effect. I could be wrong though.

 

I do think it comes back to developers not really having a good grasp on creating a believeable or relateable "anti-hero" Sure it has been done to great effect in some games, but they are few and far between. Maybe it's the juggling of different character behaviour that is the challenge, which would also come down to writing and the delivery from an actor.

 

I would even be happy with picking an alignment pre-game but then your definately on "rails" unable to act outside of the alignment. I just think it would make it easier for developers to focus on creating a more seamless and coherent narrative.

 

I'm not suggesting that this is the way I want to see ME:A go, I think it would be detrimental. But morality systems seem to have fallen by the wayside and I'm trying to figure if it's because they have lost relevance or if, infact, it's just because no-one has figured out how to implement one in a trully innovate and effective fashion yet.

 

D&D did have the issues of penalizing too much for straying from a pre-chosen alignment for certain classes like Paladin, which were already forced into a single alignment choice. If Mass Effect were to have a dual alignment system, then I would say don't penalize players for switching and don't force a class to have limited choices(that doesn't fit the ME lore anyway).

 

I think it could fit Mass Effect provided you disconnect morality/alignment from character progression, but BioWare would really have to focus on dialogue in the game. I imagine a system where your alignment and the reputation you build for yourself affects how people react to you and how willing they are to work with you or give you what you want. If you want to play a Malcolm Reynolds type of guy, you're going to have issues when dealing with the authority types.

 

If Inquisition is any indication then BioWare's solution to the anti-hero issue will be to sidestep the whole thing and just not really let us play as that. In DA:I you're basically stuck as the diplomatic leader of the Inquisition. I like the idea of giving the anti-hero a shot, but again it would require them to really go all in on the game's dialogue as you need to accommodate a large number of character alignments.

 

I'd honestly just suggest switching to Dragon Age's companion approval rating, as even the current Paragon/Renegade system can be detrimental to Mass Effect. Legion's loyalty mission in ME2 is a good example of something that's morally grey, but it can feel kind of ruined when you feel compelled to pick the Paragon or Renegade choice just to get more points to max out that bar.

[MaxQuartiroli]

Finding the right balance is not an easy task. If you totally scrap the morality system you could easy end with a psycothic character which can be nice to anyone and then, one minute later, shoot everyone in the face. While it's up to the player to NOT do such a thing and trying to remaining coherent to their characters behaviours I have always find the opportunity to act in that way a little silly, unless you are truly trying to RPG a psycothic character, which could always happen. But in that case it must have some consequence in the long run!

 

A great improvement imho was made with DA2 and its "shaping personality system" but then you had the opposite problem, and if you played, for example, a sarcastic player after a while you were going to find yourself making jokes even in the most dramatic situation. You know, even the most disrepectful and playful person sometimes will need to act in a serious way.

 

Personally, I didn't dislike ME morality system and I found it working in general,  nevertheless I found 2 big flaws in it:

 

- 2 moralities are not enough. There are too many kind of different reactions which just falls either in PARAGON or RENEGADE bars. I think that shooting a criminal before he tries to make the first move, punching in the face someone who is mocking you AND choosing to heartlessy sacrifice a bunch of civilians in order to reach your goal are not the same thing!

 

- morality shouldn't be mandatory for optimal character/story progression (mostly a ME 2 problem) It could be an option but not the only one. They could add some other perks (i.e. Perusasion/Intimidation/Leadership skills) that can boost your morality traits.

 

 

EDIT. Fixed a lot of typos. Maybe I am drunk without knowing :/

[KaiAdamori]

One of the problems is that renegade should in no way equate to "evil." It's a false dichotomy, there should be more than two options, and the ruthless option is still intended to benefit others, albeit through a different method than paragon. We are not supposed to be playing as an evil character in the ME series; we're supposed to be the good guy who either uses his words or his fists to get things done. The main difference is that paragons usually want to help everyone, and renegade wants to help humanity first, but not to the point of harming other races.

 

Besides the morality system being overhauled (which it should be) I think the results of moral choices needs to change.

 

Right now, the majority of the time, there is an equal result to a paragon or renegade choice. We can persuade or threaten someone, but we will still get the desired result. Realistically, most people are motivated by self interest. The renegade options should be the easy options, and the paragon options should be tougher to succeed in, since we're going against basic human instinct.

 

e.g.: We have to convince a turian to abandon his post to help a group of humans fight off mercenaries. The paragon option should require us to first find someone to temporarily take the turian's post so that it's not abandoned, maybe help the turian in some way to make him inclined to be friendly, and help arm the humans so the fight will be less one sided.

 

The renegade option should be to threaten the turian or blackmail him to help. It's quicker with less steps, but he's going to be less motivated to help, there could be consequences that his post is abandoned, and the fight will be harder since the humans aren't armed.

 

It takes more work for the paragon option but it yields better results, while it's easier and faster to do the renegade option but has potentially worse results.

 

Right now, it's usually "click blue or red" to get the same result.

 

Yeah I have to agree with this. Its why I liked the rebranding of good/evil to paragon/renegade but as you say, it's just taking two seperate paths to the same goal with little to no real consequence to make the decision have weight or impact. It's the approach to morality systems in games that is the norm and I wonder if the hate for ingame morality systems is borne of this, reptitive approach. If it made a more meaningful impact, i suspect that people would start to want to see morality systems within games utilised to higher degree. With Andromeda turning the invader/defender concept on it's head it's the perfect time to really explore this kind of feature and have it be, not just for S**ts n giggles to be the renegade. With that kind of foundation you can branch out and build up some incredible character inter-play, story development and action. It's this that i think game developers shy away from as I don't doubt it would be a complicated affair to implement. Add to that being the first to pioneer it, carries significant risk.

 

Though Al-Jilani is a bit excessive (though always rather amusing), frankly I'd say a punch to the gut is the least Han'Gerrel deserves given what he'd done, and I never felt it was out of place for a Shep with at least some renegade leanings of either gender to do so.

 

But even so, these are minor events. The overarching gist of being a renegade is not about punching people. It's about being prepared to do what it takes to stop the Reaper. At. Any. Cost.

 

Okay I can appreciate what your saying, but it does highlight the pitfull of the current and endemic morality systems within the gaming industry, for even in Mass Effect, there is the inexorable slide into immature and moments that, although for the first time you see it, can be fun, it quickly wears thin. I've been playing games now for nigh 25yrs and this just hasn't changed, or evolved. Sure you can say that most things in life are just rehashings of past methods but eventually there comes a moment of innovation. I'm waiting to see when (or if) that will ever happen in regards to morality systems within gaming.

[PhroXenGold]

One of the problems is that renegade should in no way equate to "evil." It's a false dichotomy, there should be more than two options, and the ruthless option is still intended to benefit others, albeit through a different method than paragon. We are not supposed to be playing as an evil character in the ME series; we're supposed to be the good guy who either uses his words or his fists to get things done. The main difference is that paragons usually want to help everyone, and renegade wants to help humanity first, but not to the point of harming other races.

 

Besides the morality system being overhauled (which it should be) I think the results of moral choices needs to change.

 

Right now, the majority of the time, there is an equal result to a paragon or renegade choice. We can persuade or threaten someone, but we will still get the desired result. Realistically, most people are motivated by self interest. The renegade options should be the easy options, and the paragon options should be tougher to succeed in, since we're going against basic human instinct.

 

e.g.: We have to convince a turian to abandon his post to help a group of humans fight off mercenaries. The paragon option should require us to first find someone to temporarily take the turian's post so that it's not abandoned, maybe help the turian in some way to make him inclined to be friendly, and help arm the humans so the fight will be less one sided.

 

The renegade option should be to threaten the turian or blackmail him to help. It's quicker with less steps, but he's going to be less motivated to help, there could be consequences that his post is abandoned, and the fight will be harder since the humans aren't armed.

 

It takes more work for the paragon option but it yields better results, while it's easier and faster to do the renegade option but has potentially worse results.

 

Right now, it's usually "click blue or red" to get the same result.

 

Yeah, I would like there to be a lot more variety in how it is implemented. From different routes through a quest as you suggest, to the special alignment dialogues not always being the best option, to situations where you have to chose between two options both of which are of the same alignment (for example, in Legion's loyalty mission both choices should've been labelled Renegade).

 

Though of course, outcome's shouldn't always be the same - Paragon shouldn't always give you the "harder but better in the long run" route and Renegade the "easy but worse" one. There should be times when the opposite applies. And there should be times when both are equally easy to do, but the long term consequences are very different - and contrary to the overwhelming majority of BW stuff, the Paragon (aka "nice") option should not always work out best in the end.

[PhroXenGold]

Okay I can appreciate what your saying, but it does highlight the pitfull of the current and endemic morality systems within the gaming industry, for even in Mass Effect, there is the inexorable slide into immature and moments that, although for the first time you see it, can be fun, it quickly wears thin. I've been playing games now for nigh 25yrs and this just hasn't changed, or evolved. Sure you can say that most things in life are just rehashings of past methods but eventually there comes a moment of innovation. I'm waiting to see when (or if) that will ever happen in regards to morality systems within gaming.

 

To be honest, I think you're getting too wrapped in it as a system. Now, admittedly, the first two games, ME2 in particular, did reward you for gaming it as such, but by ME3, how "paragon" or "renegade" your character was didn't matter. Instead, the "alignments" were a guideline as towards the behaviour a particular dialogue or action would represent. There's no need to play "renegade" or "paragon". Play a character and in each situation you face, use the guidelines given by the colour of the dialogue to pick what fits your character's personality.

[KaiAdamori]

Finding the right balance is not an easy task. If you totally scrap the morality system you could easy end with a psycothic character which can be nice to anyone and then, one minute later, shoot everyone in the face. While it's up to the player to NOT do such a thing and trying to remaying coherent to their characters behaviours I have always find the opportunity to act in that way a little silly, unless you are truly trying to RPG a psycothic character, which could always happen. But in that case it must have some consequence in the long run!

 

A great improvement imho was made with DA2 and its "shaping personality system" but then you had the opposite problem, and if you played, for example, a sarcastic player after a while you were going to find yourself making jokes even in the most dramatic situation. You know, even the most disrepectful and playful person sometimes will need to act in a serious way.

 

Personally, I didn't dislike ME morality system and I found it working in general,  nevertheless I found 2 big flaws in it:

 

- 2 moralities are not enough. There are too many kind of different reactions which just falls either in PARAGON or RENEGADE bars. I think that shooting a criminal before he tries to make the first move, punching in the face someone who is mocking you AND choosing to heartlessy sacrifice a bunch of civilians in order to reach your goal are not the same thing!

 

- morality shouldn't be mandatory for optimal character/story progression (mostly a ME 2 problem) It could be an option but not the only one. They could add some other perks (i.e. Perusasion/Intimidation/Leadership skills) that can boost your morality traits.

 

 

EDIT. Fixed a lot of typos. Maybe I am drunk without knowing :/

 

 

Yeah, I would like there to be a lot more variety in how it is implemented. From different routes through a quest as you suggest, to the special alignment dialogues not always being the best option, to situations where you have to chose between two options both of which are of the same alignment (for example, in Legion's loyalty mission both choices should've been labelled Renegade).

 

Though of course, outcome's shouldn't always be the same - Paragon shouldn't always give you the "harder but better in the long run" route and Renegade the "easy but worse" one. There should be times when the opposite applies. And there should be times when both are equally easy to do, but the long term consequences are very different - and contrary to the overwhelming majority of BW stuff, the Paragon (aka "nice") option should not always work out best in the end.

 

Now this is what I'm talking about. A greater level of complexity and dynamism. It would really open up BW ability to tell compelling and awesome stories, driven by player choices, with meaningful content and those agonisingly hard descisions. I feel the ability to move back and forth between paragon/renegade was a step in the right direction with ME but it's like the full potential of the system simply hasn't been realised.

[KaiAdamori]

To be honest, I think you're getting too wrapped in it as a system. Now, admittedly, the first two games, ME2 in particular, did reward you for gaming it as such, but by ME3, how "paragon" or "renegade" your character was didn't matter. Instead, the "alignments" were a guideline as towards the behaviour a particular dialogue or action would represent. There's no need to play "renegade" or "paragon". Play a character and in each situation you face, use the guidelines given by the colour of the dialogue to pick what fits your character's personality.

 

I may be at that   I should point out that such discussions in the past on other boards, I've had the topic of morality jumped all over by folks with an axe to grind in regards to morality in general! I kinda go out of my way to use very clear language so as to avoid the inevitable descent into existentialism and arguements over right and wrong, blah blah blah. It quickly becomes circular arguements.

That said implementing alignment or morality in a game requires a clearly defined system of rules and such. I guess I'm looking for the "how" such an alignment system in games can be implemented, making for something that really opens up roleplaying a character as you say, minus the meta gaming that can so easily grow up around it. Can a dynamic or emergent morality system be developed that would become a benchmark for future rpgs, new ways of telling stories and having fun in games.

 

As people in this thread are clearly proving there are plenty of ideas, and surely developers have those same ideas but, why then have we not seen them implemented in some fashion?

[PhroXenGold]

I may be at that   I should point out that such discussions in the past on other boards, I've had the topic of morality jumped all over by folks with an axe to grind in regards to morality in general! I kinda go out of my way to use very clear language so as to avoid the inevitable descent into existentialism and arguements over right and wrong, blah blah blah. It quickly becomes circular arguements.

 

Yeah, which is part of why I like ME splitting it up more into behavioural categories than moral ones. While many people might feel "Paragon" is better than "Renegade" and some indeed feel the opposite, the game doesn't really judge your behaviour, instead settling for categorising it.

 

 

That said implementing alignment or morality in a game requires a clearly defined system of rules and such. I guess I'm looking for the "how" such an alignment system in games can be implemented, making for something that really opens up roleplaying a character as you say, minus the meta gaming that can so easily grow up around it. Can a dynamic or emergent morality system be developed that would become a benchmark for future rpgs, new ways of telling stories and having fun in games.

 

 

To be honest, I feel the best way is simply to describe what your characters behaviour will be and leave it at that. Don't worry too much about morality or alignment, except possibly the latter as a simplification/shorthand for certain behaviours (as ME does - it's not so much presenting Renegade as a detailed moral system but instead, when combined with the context of the decision, letting you know what your charter will do if they pick a particular option).

 

Having a morality system of any form which actually impacts the game beyond acting as guidelines as to behvaiour is, for me, bad design as morality is by nature subjective. Simply have actions and allow people to judge for themselves how moral they are.

 

Now of course, individual characters (or, to keep things more simple, groups) in the game should have their own set of moral beliefs but they should use them as a basis for how they respond to  your actions and not where you are in some system

[The Elcor Spectre]

Imo, I feel that the morality should be removed entirely. In some missions, I would have preferred to speak very carefully for anything I could have said would have backfired and the mission would end in a failure (Not like Critical Mission Failure) like Thessia. Like Fallout 3, they had the good karma and the bad karma system, in Fallout 4 it was removed and it went just fine, I don't see why it wouldn't work here. I don't know for everyone else, but whenever I see a Paragon or a Renegade option, it's imprinted in my mind that I need to take it no matter the situation. That's something that me personally, don't want.

[KaiAdamori]

Yeah, which is part of why I like ME splitting it up more into behavioural categories than moral ones. While many people might feel "Paragon" is better than "Renegade" and some indeed feel the opposite, the game doesn't really judge your behaviour, instead settling for categorising it.

 

 

 

 

To be honest, I feel the best way is simply to describe what your characters behaviour will be and leave it at that. Don't worry too much about morality or alignment, except possibly the latter as a simplification/shorthand for certain behaviours (as ME does - it's not so much presenting Renegade as a detailed moral system but instead, when combined with the context, letting you know what your charter will do if they pick a particular option).

 

Having dynamic or emergent morality systems are, for me, bad design as morality is by nature subjective. Simply have actions and allow people to judge for themselves how moral they are.

 

Now of course, individual characters (or, to keep things more simple, groups) in the game should have their own set of moral beliefs but they should use them as a basis for how they respond to  your actions and not where you are in some system

 

Yeah I see what your saying. I do find myself wondering if a morality system works for ME. I do think that such in other games and settings can be beneficial. But maybe ME isn't one of those instances.

 

Take Samara for example, the way I see it, she uses renegade-esque approach for paragon motivations. She is the epitome of ruthless justice. When I did a full renegade play through, I couldn't bring myself to recruit morinth, as a character she just wasn't fleshed out in quite the same way as samara who, I felt that she should have been alot more judgemental about my methods, but no, I still earned her loyalty and apparantly she still thought I was top notch. That never really sat well with me. There really does need to be more impact from making one or another choice. As it stands now, the method you take to achieve a goal seems more like window dressing than anything. One could argue that the ME story is about the journey and how you reach that same goal, regardless of what path you take but I would like to see more than that.

 

Edit: That phantom booze is making the rounds, my typing skills are also suffering

[PhroXenGold]

 Yeah I see what your saying. I do find myself wondering if a morality system works for ME. I do think that such in other games and settings can be beneficial. But maybe ME isn't one of those instanses.

 

Take Samara for example, the way I see it, she uses renegade-esque approach for paragon motivations. She is the epitome of ruthless justice. When I did a full renegade play though, I couldn't bring myself to recruit morinth, as a character she just wasn't fleshed out in quite the same way as samara who I felt that she should have been alot more judgemental about my methods, but no, I still earned her loyalty and apparantly she still thought I was top notch. That never really sat well with me. There really does need to be more impact from making one or another choice. As it stands now, the method you take to achieve a goal seems more like window dressing than anything. One could argue that the ME story is about the journey and how you reach that same goal, regardless of what path you take but I would like to see more that.

 

To be fair, no-one sane should recruit Morinth - even if you don't agree with Samara on everything, she's pretty certain to be loyal to you at least until you've stopped the collectors, whereas Morinth is...well.... (Though death by snu-snu should've been canonised as the background for ME:A.)

 

But yeah, I would like to see your actions have a much greater effect on how other characters, party members included, view you in ME:A. Given the circumstances, it never should've gotten to the stage of companions in ME leaving (the stakes are too high), but there should've been the opportunity for more personality clashes (and I've long thought "loyalty" was not quite the right term in ME2 - it's more about them being freed from whatever immediate issues they had and being able to fully commit to the mission than anything else).

[KaiAdamori]

Finding the right balance is not an easy task. If you totally scrap the morality system you could easy end with a psycothic character which can be nice to anyone and then, one minute later, shoot everyone in the face. While it's up to the player to NOT do such a thing and trying to remaying coherent to their characters behaviours I have always find the opportunity to act in that way a little silly, unless you are truly trying to RPG a psycothic character, which could always happen. But in that case it must have some consequence in the long run!

 

A great improvement imho was made with DA2 and its "shaping personality system" but then you had the opposite problem, and if you played, for example, a sarcastic player after a while you were going to find yourself making jokes even in the most dramatic situation. You know, even the most disrepectful and playful person sometimes will need to act in a serious way.

 

Personally, I didn't dislike ME morality system and I found it working in general,  nevertheless I found 2 big flaws in it:

 

- 2 moralities are not enough. There are too many kind of different reactions which just falls either in PARAGON or RENEGADE bars. I think that shooting a criminal before he tries to make the first move, punching in the face someone who is mocking you AND choosing to heartlessy sacrifice a bunch of civilians in order to reach your goal are not the same thing!

 

- morality shouldn't be mandatory for optimal character/story progression (mostly a ME 2 problem) It could be an option but not the only one. They could add some other perks (i.e. Perusasion/Intimidation/Leadership skills) that can boost your morality traits.

 

 

EDIT. Fixed a lot of typos. Maybe I am drunk without knowing :/

 

For all its flaws DA2 did a pretty good job with PC morality. True enough that the joker Hawke could be abit much at times, there was less concern with the right and wrong of the descision and what impact it might have further down the road and it was more about the choices I was making, as I was making them.. It also solved the issue of consistancy once you hit the threshold for cementing your characters archetype. FemHawke made for an awesome aggressive character, I personally couldnt play the bottom option with a malehawke as the guy just came across as a douche. Malehawke suited the joker i think.

 

Might be the way to go in ME, but with some adjustments. I could live with making a demeanour choice during character setup, nothing concrete, just setting the tone for non-critical interactions. Do away with the set-archetype at threshold "x" and allowing players to make choices outside of that demeanour in most situations, have limits be placed based upon prior actions. Say, my aggressive demeanour PC killed a colony of civilians to achieve his objectives in the last mission, have that reflected in future interactions with characters that might dissapprove of such action, regardless of whether it was for the greater good kinda thing.

 

If the NPC in question is the sort that might be swayed in some fashion (like Garrus could be shaped somewhat in ME1 after you recruit him) allow that to be a possibility, but for a NPC like samara, who has firm beliefs in her idea of right and wrong, being completely unswayable.

 

Alot of these things could be tracked to add some real diversity in gameplay on different playthroughs with different approaches. I know alot of games do this to some extent and the more I think about it, the more I think that this is probably the best approach (in regards to an implementable system in-game) for the ME universe.

 

I still want to see more mature content when it comes to alignment choices in games in general (where appropriate) particularly in regards to evil characters not being short sighted idiots!

 

EDIT: @PhroXenGold I think we're leaning in the same direction here. And two thumbs up for death by snu snu! Im on my trilogy playthrough at the moment and when I see Morinth now, I'm gonna have a hard time not thinking that!