Just so you know, I'm new to this website, so please go easy on me.
Back on-topic, I remember watching an episode of Extra Credits, called "Choice and Conflict," and it reminds me of myself when I asked myself, "Why bother with moral-choices when they can just give players
tactical-choices instead?"
Think about it. Moral-choices tend to fail because of how powerfully black-and-white they are, as well as how little they affect the gameplay and narrative. Tactical-choices, on the other hand, aren't in any way good or evil, instead just coming down to each player's preferences.
Think about combat and support, the two common team-driven roles, and compare them to the choices between good and evil. Good and evil are just cookie-cutter and generic, like when you take a good look at the Autobots and Decepticons from Transformers. Combat and support, on the other hand, have their own respective strengths and weaknesses that don't make any of them better or worse, just different.
So, why do they toss in half-assed moral-choices, when they can just as easily do what Capcom did when they made Street Fighter 2, which is give players choices based on their respective play-styles?
Posts
So games like Mass Effect that provides choice are nice and refreshing. Of course you could have a whole long argument as to whether or not those choices actually matter in games these days, but it's a start.
As to why they go into moral choices instead of tactical choices? Well, moral choices are easier to program. Beyond that, as I said, everyone understands making moral choices. Some people just aren't tactically inclined and that's not exactly as universal or appealing as choosing whether or not you want to punch someone in the face or let them be.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
So what? Moral-choices aren't that fun anyway, because you can be as evil as you want and the game still play the same as when you choose to be good!
Think about World of Warcraft. Sure, that game has you pick between either the Alliance or the Horde, but (a) both sides almost play the same as each other, and (b) it was more than that. It was also about working together with a huge variety of other players to complete each quest, especially during mid-game with a five-man party, as well as end-game with a 25-man raid. The party-composition normally consists of what most people like to call them "tanks," "DPSers," and "healers," even though I would have just-as-easily merged the tank and DPS roles to form the "combat" role, while renaming the healer-role as the "support" role to go along with the "combat" role. The tank defends his allies to reduce damage, long enough for the DPSers to target and defeat the various enemies and bosses they do battle against, leaving the healer to restore lost health for his allies when they need it. Although, if I were all those WoW players, I would've just said, "combatants fight enemies with melee/ranged weapons, while supporters spell-cast and heal." That's my preference, by the way.
The same can be said for most other team-versus and co-op games such as Left 4 Dead and Team Fortress 2, as they also have you decide between either completing main-objectives while your teammates support you, or support your teammates long enough for them to get to the main-objectives. If every member of the same team were all combatants, they'd die too quickly. If they were all supporters instead, they wouldn't get to the main-objectives either. This is why a balance between combat and support is vital, so that the whole team can survive long enough for them to get to the objectives.
And the best part is that each tactical-choice isn't as black-and-white as your average good/evil moral-choice. Sure, it's difficult to program, as you've implied, but at least it's better than some half-assed attempts at morality!
I would have to say because there are a lot of people who completely disagree with you. They find the moral choices interesting, intriguing, and engaging. Unlike you, they allow themselves to fall into the story and what happens in the moment is just as important, maybe even more important, than how it affects the end game.
There was a thread in here, years ago, about one of us Penny-Arcade forum goes letting his young son play Knights of the Old Republic for the first time. Reading that thread about the son's reaction to the story and how and why he made certain decisions reminded me of why I love the hobby so much.
Also, IMO, tactical choices are boring as all hell. They have no affect what-so-ever on the outcome, story, or way you or your character view the world. They're a puzzle game. And puzzles are boring. Give me the ability to make a choice in a conversation in order to further define my character over another dull MP map any time.
I can't think of any games that offered that kind of choice that didn't end up getting "gamed".
Most times the games that offer these sorts of choices end up forcing you into one extreme or another. Bioware games in particular you are encouraged to either go full Light/Dark - Good/Evil - Open/Closed simply because the rewards for being consistent throughout the entire game far out weigh the rewards for taking each situation on its own merits.
Bravely Default / 3DS Friend Code = 3394-3571-1609
The Witcher.
Cant remember why I stopped playing.
Bravely Default / 3DS Friend Code = 3394-3571-1609
A game that wasn't judgmental about your decisions (no fucking bars) and downplayed reactions (EVERYONE treating you in manner X because you are so pure/wicked) would be more interesting. I'm sure it's been done before.
So, I guess the choices themselves are shallow, but make for deeper gameplay.
The Witcher series is a good example of morality choices affecting gameplay to a drastic degree.
Deus Ex: HR is a good example of a game blending tactical and moral decision-making into one rather seemless system.
Serious Sam is a good example of how your decision to shoot things can make them dead, whereas your decision to not shoot things can make you dead.
Heavy Rain
Bravely Default / 3DS Friend Code = 3394-3571-1609
The Rachni Queen decision in Mass Effect was one off the top of my head that had me stop to think for a while. I honestly had no idea which decision would be considered morally "right" at the time.
Good examples do exist, just not in your hypothetical illustrative points. Rather, in some actual games.
Yeah, wow, that was brutal.
Edit - By the way, can someone dig up this episode of Extra Credits?
You made certain choices in the Tex Murphy games and it basically determined what femme fatale you slept with by the end of the game. That's it, but by God, that decision was permanent. If you wanted to sleep with the daughter of your client and didn't get it? You had to play the game again.
Now, vis a vi Bioware - your choices mean precisely nothing. Doesn't really change the ending.
To me, this reads as
"why implement moral choices poorly?"
And the answer is obvious, you shouldn't implement moral choices poorly, but people like moral choices implemented well, and developers/designers are lazy and/or not actually good at designing moral choices that matter.
So developers see demand for moral choices and then implement them poorly because its hard to do.
How did I know?
I want to second 'The Witcher' though i haven't gotten around to playing the second one yet (waiting until it goes on sale).
And an example from Deus Ex: HR
This of course has obvious parallels to the gun control debate. It makes sense to allow rifles and shotguns but do people really need 50 caliber machine guns? Probably not.
Anyway, at one point in the game you're asked by a doctor who knows some "less than savory characters" who have gone off the grid. They're highly augmented, highly dangerous, and have supposedly flat out murdered before.
So you go and get there and talk to the guy and the guy describes his situation thusly "So, we got turned into killing machines, even to the point where we installed chips into our brains that would erase memories so that we couldn't reveal company secrets after a job. But eventually we found out that these jobs we were doing were way less than savory even for the fact that we worked for a mercenary company. The augs weren't just deleting our memory, but inhibiting our moral functions. So we got together and got them to shut the system down, and now we are hunting the heads of the companies that did this to us and others, so that they won't ever do it to anyone else again (and maybe they'll be made an example of within their community)"
And you are given a straight up moral choice to deal with that ties into the game. These are the good guys, they are acting essentially as you have been the entire game (except they might be killing people if you've been nice). But they're also dangerous, each one the equivalent of a walking tank. And they also have stated, clear, and willing intent to kill.
So, do you let them go? Do you fight them? Do you convince them to stop(or do you even try)?
This is a good example of a moral choice done well, because there is no clear answer and even though it doesn't have game consequences(iirc you get the same reward no matter what you do), it put me well into the character and the story, solidified what was going on, and made me think about my character and what I was doing. What if someone came up to me and told me to stop? Would I? If it came down to it, as a non-lethal character would I kill? I had already killed twice by that point(two bosses). Am I any better because I didn't set out to kill? What if i subsequently change my mind when i find the bastard who killed my girl?
I think this may be the one the person meant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_KU3lUx3u0
a) giving you essentially the standard bioware morality ("You can either save this puppy or kill the kid and his whole family") system
then
b) brutally berating you late in the game if you went with the wrong morality for being such a useless, unthinking psychopath who totally played the game wrong what the fuck is wrong with you?
But yeah, the Witcher shows how you can do moral choice in games without having it be dry and dull.
- You must always choose between "good" and "evil", with no alternative;
- Rather than being made to question the morality of your actions, you are forced to accept the game's concept of morality as absolute;
- Your choices ultimately have little to no impact upon the game itself.
Mass Effect handles this better in that choices are not split between "good" and "evil", and there are a number of points where a choice will affect the game world in some way. However, there still is a binary distinction between the two extremes ("Paragon", corresponding with "lawful" actions, and "Renegade", corresponding with "chaotic" actions) and while you can at least decide for yourself whether a given course of action is "good" or "evil", you are still forced to accept the game's definition of "morality" instead of adopting your own.tl;dr "morality" in video games tends to be a misnomer: you aren't allowed to question it, you aren't allowed to choose an alternative, and you cannot affect the setting in any meaningful way, unless this particular choice affects the ending...regardless of alignment.
This is the second Extra Credits episode I've seen. These guys are REALLY good at this sorta thing.
Baldurs Gate series
Planescape Torment
Dragon Age (The original one, had some pretty good choices, but maybe not THE BEST example, but a good more recent one, so much better than DA2.)
The Witcher 1 & 2 both
Fallout Series
Elder Scrolls series
Deus Ex series
And...who can forget... the Ultima series.
It pulled a bioshock and playing a "bad" character was ultimately less rewarding in terms of gameplay
That's a gameplay integration problem or a ludic one, not a problem with the choice itself.
This thread premise seems ridiculous to me, Manicheanism aside. Comparing "moral" and "tactical" choices is like saying why do people argue about philosophy when they could argue about where to eat for lunch.
Because moral dilemmas make interactive narratives slightly more interesting than the ability to scream "haduoken!" and throw a fireball at someone does.
Also, Alpha Protocol and Fallout: New Vegas are some other, non-Witcher examples of offering player choices that are not quite as blatantly telegraphed in their moral merit as, say, BioWare games.
As would I. I love stories about PA'ers kids and games.
But in the neoclassical system, what is the meaning of "Carls Jr." as opposed to "Hardees"?
In the Aquinine system, we can say with assurance our natural impulses have value, allowing us to consider In N Out as a better option than McDonalds, but then total depravity suggests we have no real concept of value. If true, would this not leave the statement "McDonalds kind of sucks" entirely without objective meaning?
And who gives a shit when we're getting pizza anyway?
Why I fear the ocean.