 |
| Drawing courtesy of Curmudgeon Film Talk |
but in the end our choices make us."
- Andrew Ryan.
Well I needed a quote to start this off, and who better than Bioshock's (2006) Andy Ryan? Bioshock may be what the average gamer thinks of when it comes to morality, but franchises have made the concept of moral choice a key component of their identity. Sucker Punch's Infamous (2009), for instance, or Toby Fox's Undertale (2015) and - of course - BioWare's Mass Effect trilogy (2007-2012).
Video games and moral choices have got along better than altruistic peanut butter and murder-rampage chocolate. Not only do they add a stronger sense of consequence, but they bolster a game’s replay value. Played as a genuine human being this time round? Play it all over again as someone who kills anything that talks!
It’s pretty evident why video games, as an interactive medium, compliment moral choices. That said, it’s worth asking: “How do you do it right?”
Join me in exploring how it’s been done and how it could be better...
Morality Meters: Mass Effect & Infamous
Morality meters are a basic way to keep track of your character’s reputation. Sounds simple; you do a good action, you get ‘good’ points, and vice versa for your sadistic other half.
Get enough points, and you can unlock powers to use in-game, or to make you more good/evil.
It’s straightforward, but in a way that’s the problem. Or actually 2 problems.
Problem 1 is, by making them power-based and score-based, you make the goal to be all good or all bad, with nothing worthwhile in between. This is damaging for RPGs like Mass Effect where it becomes less about “what would I do in this situation?” And more “what will get my meter up/get XX power?”
Somewhat immersion-ruining.
It also locks people into certain gameplay styles. Maybe they fare better with the powers of the evil path but are invested enough in the game’s world to want to be good.
Then again, maybe that could be the point. Therin itself lies the choice. Evil choices in games are typically the better short-term options, whether it be through acquiring more EXP, in-game currency or just by making the game easier overall. That road should amplify one’s need to complete the game over one’s need to keep the characters happy/alive.
But for this to work, the evil powers have to be worth it. This was a complaint I had with Infamous 2 (2011); the good powers were actually more useful, both in combat and mobility, than the evil powers, so you’d really have to value mindless destruction and have a hatred of buskers to go that route. H
Here's some Good powers and their Evil equivalent:
Here's some Good powers and their Evil equivalent:
Perhaps the answer lies less in specific abilities, and more in amplifying the abilities you already have. The good path can involve new bonuses but they require more skill and effort to use efficiently, whereas the evil path is the cheaper route (in both senses of the word). This is actually something Infamous does well. It has a range of passive bonuses that unlock as you move up or down the karma scale.
There are 3 levels on each side of the scale:
When you achieve these ranks, you unlock a bonus passive ability. Most of them amplify the actions you will already have been doing for your karma path. If you’re nice, they’ll help you be nicer. If you’re not, they’ll help you be less nice.
Let’s start with some context for Infamous. Since you play as an electric meta-human, you must be aware of civilians becoming collateral damage during your battles. Hurting/killing civilians contributes to your evil meter.
You also have the option to do 3 things for incapacitated enemies/civilians:
These are actions you would naturally do if you were aiming to be good or evil. The passive abilities simply boost these effects, as well as make it easier to get more points for your chosen morality.
These are actions you would naturally do if you were aiming to be good or evil. The passive abilities simply boost these effects, as well as make it easier to get more points for your chosen morality.
For example, 'Guardian' lessens the damage civilians take from your attacks so you can go all out against enemies. 'Champion' makes your Pulse Heal go further, healing multiple injured people at once. 'Hero' replenishes some energy whenever Cole attacks an enemy.
Likewise, 'Thug' gives you a bonus Evil Point whenever you kill a civilian. 'Outlaw' lets you chain lightning to nearby foes. 'Infamous' gives you infinite power for a short period of time after you perform a bio leech.
Until you get to 'Hero' rank, the evil karma bonuses work more efficiently in combat and are easier to get points for, considering all you have to do is electrocute anyone who looks at you funny. The good karma bonuses permit you to go as rampant as you would be if you were going down the road towards Infamous.
Like I said, the good path takes more effort.
However, it still doesn’t solve the issue that there’s no nuance or in-between for morality meters. You’re either Keanu Reeves in a cape or Hitler during no-nut November. For morality meters to work with powers, greater range is a must. As we all know, good and evil mean so many different things. Expanding on those definitions, and the different types of good and evil, could yield more character styles and role-playing opportunities.
The lawful/chaotic/good/neutral/evil grid of D&D would be an ample starting point for video games. Imagine that in Mass Effect - so much more range for your character to evolve and you would be rewarded accordingly. Instead of ‘Ultra-nice’ and ‘Asshole,’ now you’ve got ‘dashing swindler with a heart of gold’ or ‘methodical schemer’ in there. Lawful Evil focuses more on manipulation while Chaotic Good focusses on stealth. Lots of possibilities for role playing there.
That expands the realm of ‘Good,’ ranging from an absolutist paladin to a Robin Hood/Han Solo-esque figure. Likewise, with evil, you can be a calculated, ruthless dictator, a psychopathic murderer, and everything in between.
Little suggestion for the next game, BioWare (if you ever recover from Andromeda (2017) and Anthem (2018)).
Problem 2 is that “unlocking” dialogue based on your reputation means that these choices don’t come naturally through investing in the world or characters. You’re just grinding points, which doesn’t feel as rewarding, especially if the conflicts revolve around character disputes or situations with more nuance to them.
One of the selling points of the Mass Effect Trilogy is how it forces you to make tough decisions. There are character disputes you need to resolve, generation-long tensions to diffuse, dilemmas that need a precise touch to handle.
And what gets you the points to professionally resolve these complex, high-pressure scenarios?
You endorse a shop.
You decide NOT to punch a journalist.
Truly, such decisions make you a qualified diplomat.
In all seriousness, you can see how arbitrary these appear. This is like saying I’d be a great hostage negotiator because I held the door for 100 people. Anything that would help in a crisis should be relevant to that crisis. It would be more rewarding to achieve the best outcome because you took the time to learn about the world. A good example of this is in Interplay Entertainment’s original Fallout (1997) game, when you come face-to-face with the game’s antagonist, the Master.
Not that one...
Yeah, that one.
To add context, the Fallout franchise takes place in a post-apocalyptic America after nuclear war, filled with radiation, destroyed buildings and mutants. The Master’s goal in the first Fallout game is to mutate humanity using a virus, forcing them into a “better” phase of evolution. However, you have the ability to talk him out of it through knowledge you have picked up from the world. In this case, that information is that the mutants he creates will be sterile, therefore the whole species will inevitably die out.
This route requires reasoning, evidence, and above all, effort. You would have had to take the time to discover this and apply it for a pacifist solution, where the Master realizes the flaws of his plan and surrenders. The game rewards you for seeking knowledge of the whole picture and proving capable of using it at the correct time. After all, knowledge of the world is what informs one’s worldview and their moral perspective, meaning the evil path is one of ignorance. We’ve seen this in games like Bioshock or Undertale intended to coerce you down the evil route, as you aren’t given the full picture of the world. Once you are given that full picture, you make the decisions that are right for you, without concerns for powers or filling a meter.
Characters & Factions: Fallout New Vegas & Fallout 4
Another approach, as opposed to the simple good/evil dynamic, is to have your actions affect your relationship with individual characters. Games like Dragon Age Inquisition (2014), Telltale’s The Walking Dead (2012) and even sandboxes like Fallout 4 (2015) go this route.
Regardless of your decision, there will be certain characters who agree, and those who disagree. This solves the first problem with the morality meter, making you go all one way or the other, and gives the player the incentive to interact with the characters of the world. 2 birds one stone.
It also does a much better job at achieving what all noteworthy decisions should present: no “right” answer. Knowing the world is less black and white makes your game feel personal. It becomes a battle of ideologies. Those ideologies form groups, they conflict with other groups, fighting ensues over who’s right and then you end up with warring factions.
For sandboxes, factions tend to be the norm rather than a morality gauge, understandably because the ideology of a group will be easier to implement into the scope of the world than the ideology of a person. They’re also substantial enough to influence the overall plot, typically intended for you to side with one and, along that faction’s questline, eliminate the others.
One game that handles the faction morality effectively is Obsidian’s Fallout New Vegas (2010).
FNV revolves around a conflict within the Mojave wasteland between the New California Republic (NCR) and Caesar’s Legion. Caught in the middle is the illustrious city of New Vegas, helmed by the mysterious tycoon Mr House.
Within New Vegas you have 4 options:
- Side with the NCR.
- Caesar’s Legion.
- Work with Mr. House to keep New Vegas independent.
- Kill all of them and take New Vegas for yourself.
Within NV, your morality and choices impact your karma and your reputation.
Karma doesn’t really have much impact; while it could be considered a meter, it isn’t power based. If anything, it's just a description of the ‘atmosphere’ your character gives off, which could be neat for role-playing.
The reputation mechanic is much more potent here. Similar to how you would rank with specific characters in D.A.Inquisition, you rank favourably or unfavourably with both the big and small factions across FNV’s world.
This mechanic works incredibly well - you get a richer portrait of the world and can make informed decisions on who to side with and who to massacre when you’re bored.
The biggest factions that influence the endings are great examples of a moral Catch-22 as each of them have their pros and cons.
Having a preference of which one to go for surely says lots about your own morality, influences the narrative, and isn’t hindered by gameplay stats or buffs. Point being, it expands from Good VS Bad to broader ideas.
Unfortunately, this mechanic has gone wrong in other games, namely the next game in the Fallout franchise, Fallout 4.
Why? Because they gave you a get-out option with no evident drawback.
Why? Because they gave you a get-out option with no evident drawback.
Fallout 4 gives you 4 factions, The Brotherhood of Steel, the Railroad, The Institute and the Minutemen.
See the problem? Want an escape and not have to make hard decisions on the best outcome for this dystopian world? Then side with the Minutemen, those settlements won’t help themselves.
The Minutemen have no real flaw, and you’re more connected with them than the other factions. Siding with the other 3 will naturally put you at odds with the others. Side with the Minutemen, and everyone agrees and you don’t even fight the other factions aside from the Institute.
This is a wasted opportunity and overall dilutes the effect of the game's conflict. It’s also unrealistic in a world like this. Anyone with sense knows that anything, regardless of intent, can be taken too far. You will have to come to terms with ethical decisions and decide whether you will shift your beliefs to fit the most altruistic choice available, or if you believe sacrifices must be made for the greater good.
And this leads to the crux of a morality system.
Every game that tests your morals must demonstrate...
The Necessity of Being a Dick: Infamous
One issue with moral choices is where you are given 2 equally viable options that will take the same amount of time and effort. One will be good while one is evil.
In this situation, taking the evil option is simply done for its own sake as it offers no benefits or time saving, or even bonus abilities.
Let's look at some examples from Infamous 1 & 2.
Cole MacGrath, the electric meta-human (AKA conduit), must reactivate a substation to bring power back to parts of Empire City. However, a man is blackmailed to keep it closed to prevent his wife being killed by the game’s initial antagonists, the reapers. You know that his wife was killed by the reapers despite this.
You are given 2 options:
- Tell Him his wife was killed, giving him no reason to barricade the substation.
- Electrify and kill him.
These take the same amount of time commitment, and neither give a bonus except to your morality meter. Fundamentally, it is a pointless encounter. If there were more implications with the good option, maybe it would be more of a time commitment, or a chance something would go wrong. Then there would be some weight to it.
The Infamous franchise has an issue with this, as there is no nuance or rationale to evil Cole MacGrath except “because he could.”
Not to say Infamous doesn’t have positive examples. Take the first moral choice you make:
The town of Empire City is quarantined and you are feared by all as they deem you responsible for the catastrophe. As food supplies are drawn in, looters seize the lot. You fight them off and are given 2 options: give the food back to the people, or take it all for yourself.
Take the good option, and the townsfolk are still ungrateful and antagonistic towards you, throwing objects at you.
It may not have gameplay or even significant plot implication, but it shows that despite your efforts, you are still feared and shunned. Instant gratification is not the way of the hero. The main message is that the evil choice is good in the short term whereas the righteous path will be hard, maybe inconsequential at times, but it will result in a stronger moral resolution for the characters and the world.
It also makes it more understandable that one would pick the selfish option here, knowing the good option wouldn’t go well. The game would have benefitted from exploring this idea further. If you have 2 options that demand the same time commitment and require the same amount of effort, then your only real reason for doing the evil path is… because you want to see what would happen. The only substantial exception to this is Infamous 2’s ending.
To put as briefly as I can, Infamous 2’s final mission forces you to make a choice between humanity or the conduits that make up 1% of them.
Either you activate a device that kills all conduits, yourself included, to save the rest of humanity from an apocalyptic plague, or you side with the conduits and let humanity die.
What makes this more interesting is you had 2 side characters, both conduits that basically served as the angel and devil on your shoulders. But the roles reverse for this, the angel (Kuo) wants the evil choice and the devil (Nix) wants the good choice.
Cole has witnessed how conduits can be saved from the plague at the cost of hundreds of human lives. Whereas there is no guarantee that the device, the RFI, will cure humanity of the plague. There is a very real possibility you would have killed yourself and all the conduits for nothing.
The good option is based on faith whereas the evil option is based on fact.
As an in-world character dilemma, it sets up everything correctly. Certain characters you’ve grown attached to will die if you take one option but others will die if you take the other. Do you choose to gamble for the best option or take a darker path where you know the outcome?
Unfortunately, not even this is spared from the core problem of the Infamous franchise.
This would have been a good opportunity to incorporate more steps to complete before the good ending goes off without a hitch. However, as it stands, it has the same time commitment and difficulty as the evil path. The evil option does have a weight to it, but it’s nullified knowing the good option will always work. Now, if the good ending would fail unless you filled certain requirements throughout the game that would influence whether the plague would be cured or not, that would have made the weight all the...weightier. But alas...
Don’t get me wrong, Infamous - especially Infamous 2 - makes up for these flaws with spectacular gameplay and a strong story if you take the good path, but it still feels like a missed opportunity as there’s no real incentive to be evil. Pragmatism and absolutes could have been that incentive, as they typically are for unethical actions.
For good or evil they should give you every incentive to be evil; you have nothing but your sheer force of will to be a good person. What games with moral choice mechanics need to focus on is that it should be less about the opportunity to be a dick, and more about the necessity to be a dick.
A game would be interesting to reflect that, showing the true mindset of evil and how they justify it to themselves. There’s more to evil than psychotic rampaging (but that certainly can remain an option).
Undertale does this incredibly well, as it would be much easier to attack all the enemies you encounter, other than repeatedly attempting through trial-and-error (or Googling) to figure out how each of the enemies can be defeated. Given the game’s depth of character interactions and the world, it does feel like a longer but more worthwhile time commitment.
More on that in my Undertale review.
I suppose to execute video game morality effectively, it needs to give you enough implications and investment to take the good option but enough practicality and desperation to take the evil option.
I’d like to end this piece by talking about a near-perfect moral dilemma, a shining exemplar of what a moral choice should be, factions, character relations, catch-22s and the necessity to be a dick. It gives an almost perfect example of the gravity moral choices have.
Almost…
The Rannoch Ultimatum: Mass Effect 3
I gave Mass Effect some shit regarding morality meters and unlocking dialogue choices through it. However, there is one moral choice in Mass Effect 3 (2012) that holds one of the most emotionally impactful choices in gaming.
Before we begin, what stops this from being a perfect example is that there is a get-out, provided you did some objectives in Mass Effect 2 (2010) & 3. Despite that, this conflict is much more poignant and impactful as a zero sum game. It stands to this day as one of my personal favourites.
Let's set the scene: in Mass Effect 3, you are essentially resolving the biggest conflicts that have built up over the trilogy. One such is the conflict between the Quarians and the Geth. The Quarians were the inhabitants of the planet Rannoch, but they were driven from it after they created an AI race called the Geth that, in typical sci-fi fashion, gained sentience and a war broke out. The Quarians were forced to flee their planet and have been scavengers ever since. This is a conflict that has grown across the Mass Effect Trilogy and it concludes in the third. You must retake Rannoch from the Geth, who have been possessed by the franchise’s ultimate antagonists, the Reapers (different from Infamous’s).
During the trilogy you encounter 2 particular allies:
Tali, a Quarian tech expert and potential love interest,
and Legion, a single unit that contains the joint consciousness of over 1000 Geth. It’s the closest thing to an organic being that the Geth has.
Both are good and likeable characters and all 3 of you work together to defeat the Reaper’s influence on Rannoch. They are defeated, the Geth are free from possession and there is peace. Hooray!
Or it would have been…
The Geth have been left vulnerable and the Quarians decide, “you know what, why not just kill them now?”
You, Tali & Legion are too far from the battleground to do anything - the Geth will surely be annihilated. Legion suggests using positive upgrades from the Reapers to help the Geth survive, and will also grant them full sentience and free will. But if you do that, the Quarians won’t survive the counter-attack.
Your options:
- Let Legion use the code - the Quarians get wiped out and Tali commits suicide.
- Stop Legion - you’re forced to kill it and the Geth are wiped out, forever losing the chance to become a true species.
One way or another, a species is going extinct today.
And you must choose which one.
Within this lies the ultimate moral decision.
Fuck!
Again, I know those of you who’ve played the game are yelling at me “YOU CAN SAVE BOTH!” But playing this for the first time, I couldn’t, and it embodies everything I’ve talked about here: Character relationships, catch-22s, factions and the necessity of being a dick. No amount of points for my morality meter would sway me to make one choice over the other!
I felt like the weight of the universe was on me at that point. And it was great!
Everything on that simple decision summed up my true personality; what I would do in that situation.
I learned I would save those closest to me rather than do the ‘objectively’ right thing.
That’s what moral dilemmas can do - they force you to make the decisions you don’t want to make. In doing so, you realise a bit about yourself. You’re going to have to make them for whatever reason you justify, and now you have to live with it.
I’m sorry Legion.
Conclusion:
How do you do moral choices right?
To conclude, moral choices can enhance the experience of a video game, and present you with scenarios that push you and your avatar to their limits. But they need some elements to work most effectively.
- Linking morality to points and powers lessens the role playing aspect.
- If you absolutely have to, make the bonuses passive and help you boost your current morality/play style.
- It should be done via character/group relationships.
- They require more nuance than Good/Evil, otherwise you’re forcing the player to adhere to their chosen path rather than what they would ideally do in that situation.
- There shouldn’t be a perfect solution. Or at least if there is, you’re gonna have to bloody work for it.
- The evil option must be preferable in some way, either by saving you time and effort or by being more pragmatic.
Thank you for reading. Share, comment and subscribe for future content.
Here's a moral choice for you:
Will you check out The Curmudgeon's 'Porco Rosso - DISTANCE'?
Or peruse through the rest of Green Ornstein's content?
The choice is yours.
Comments
Post a Comment