Nearly every RPG in the last ten years has had a touted moral choice system in game. That is not to say that it didn’t exist before, but there certainly seemed to be less emphasis on it when compared to the more recent releases. It has become accepted as standard that almost every game should give you the choice to be good or evil in some way shape or form. Even action games like Infamous or FPS’s like Bioshock feel the need to utilise this concept. I want to look at some old and recent releases and see how they compare in their use of a moral choice system and how much they contribute to the immersion and enjoyment of the game.
First I’d like to look at the original Fallout, the first RPG that grabbed me by the throat and stole a large portion of my teenage years. At the time I was sucked in by the storyline and combat mechanics (shotgun to the crotch for massive damage!). In terms of moral choice, it was pretty clear cut; your first few quests were based on you being the noble hero as there was no other way of playing it but once you are able to explore the map then a wider variety of moral choice quests are open to you. You can chose to side with the nefarious fatso Gizmo in his casino to screw over Junktown. Side with Dekker in the Hub to increase the strength of his criminal empire and even side with the Supermutants and screw your own Vault over! It was simple stuff and while it allowed you to experiment with how evil you wanted your character to be whether you were good or evil it had pretty much the same result.
To screw over Junk Town? Or not to screw over Junk Town? That is indeed the question...
It was a similar affair in Fallout 2 though you had greater scope for evil acts it was still very much the same, be a noble soul or an evil arsehole. You still ended up going to the same places and doing the same sort of things main Quest wise as if you were playing a good character. Now Fallout 3…for all my criticisms about this game, it has (after some ‘creative engineering’) improved on its ending. By allowing you to play on based on whether or not you sided with President Eden in his scheme you were able to see the evil fruits of your labours. One of the biggest failings of Fallout 3 was that it didn’t bother with a proper epilogue of your actions like in 1 and 2. This made the player feel insignificant, that their efforts were simply glanced over. It took away an important layer of the fantasy leaving the side quests seeming hollow, where’s the fun in burning Harold the tree if you don’t get to hear Ron Pearlman saying what a sadistic creep you were?
What’s stranger is when genres you wouldn’t expect to have moral choice system used in them, like STALKER: Call of Pripyat and Bioshock. That said, Bioshock’s use of the system is rather crass, either save all the little sister or harvest them, there is no real room for middle ground here, infanticide isn’t something you dabble in. STALKER took a leaf out of Arcanum and Fallout’s books by having your side missions summed up at the end of the game with nice explanations AND the chance to continue playing if you wished (ok not so much Arcanum there…).
While it’s nice that a team can make a moral system work outside of the RPG genre it’s going to be limited in its effectiveness. Don’t get me wrong, the atmosphere of COP is great and while the storyline is simple it acts as a good supplement to the tactical FPS action that the series bases itself around. However, this is a game where you’re hunting or being hunted by various nasty critters, it doesn’t leave much room for bartering, fixing weapons or extra dialogue trees. Dragon Age Origins decided to take a slightly different take on the moral choice system. Possibly influenced by the Witcher before it though more clear cut, your actions aren’t represented on a karma system or, in most cases in a person’s reaction to you, leaving your party members to respond to your actions, what is appropriate to one person is most likely distasteful to another. It’s an interesting twist on the system, although slightly undermined by the fact you can just gift your way back into their good graces if you do something that they disagree with.
Maybe if I give this demon a gift it will like me.....
It’s also worth mentioning the Knights of the Old Republic games where character choice had a much more direct influence on the opinions of your party and your alignment. Again, you had to go all good or all evil to get the benefits. There is a nice part of the game where you have to think like Revan to unlock a plot item, making the player think in a more ethical manner. Especially in the sequel when one character actually subtly turns you evil under the pretence of being altruistic, similar to a certain character in Planetscape Torment (which I still can’t get running!)
But perhaps the most interesting take on a moral system that I’ve encountered is that of The Witcher. The decisions you make are so vague in most cases as to embody moral ambiguity. You’re never sure if helping or hindering one person or another can be considered ‘good’ or ‘evil’. The inhabitants of the word are either living in a world of grey or just different types of assholes. The narrative, while laborious, at least pushed the boat out in terms of challenging plot and story. It also has perhaps my favourite one liner: “The greatest evil in the world is that of moral relativity”. Ok so it’s not too snappy or meme worthy but it’s actually thought provoking and well delivered.
So, what exactly is the point of moral choice systems and why has it become so popular recently? Well, games are a fantasy, escapism from everyday life. Well, every day we take shit in some form or another and want to take revenge in some way or another or just enjoy being the asshole as opposed to being on the receiving end. Or you’re just an asshole anyway. Of course, you can’t always punch someone in the face in reality, but you can in a game, as well as killing their family, stealing everything they own, burn their house and dropping their little dog into a spike pit. But what’s funny in a twisted, black humour kind of way on TV or in a movie, doesn’t translate well to video games.
You would never get the same effect in a video game...
That’s the fundamental problem with the moral choice systems; they don’t usually tie well to good entertainment or to intellectual stimulation. Playing the bad guy usually cuts out a large amount of plot and options in game either because it’s not fitting with the scenario or just very hard to write extra plot for. While it’s fun just to do a GTA and arm up and break shit in game when you’re bored, ‘authorised’ evil acts lose a lot of their appeal. In order to actually make it meaningful, it would require an excellent writer who could create plenty of options and events in reaction to the way you deal with events in game. Games need to start evolving from their mostly juvenile state if they’re to meet their real potential.
-That Bloke In The Beanie
