I sit calmly, as I do every morning, sipping my milk and chewing on some oh so delicious cereal. Later that day, I realize I'm all out of milk
and cereal; what a bitch. Because I'm desperate, I head on down to my local grocery store. Inside I grab some milk, some cereal, and maybe a tub of ice cream or something for good measure. Approaching the clerk, I realize I don't have my wallet with me; it's out in the car.
But wait, here's an idea: I could go out to my car and grab my wallet, come back inside, and pay. Or I could head down to the kitchen utensil's aisle, grab a cleaver, head back up front, slit the throat of the cashier and leave with a
free meal, plus dessert. Quite the black and white decision.
In another event, perhaps I'm driving and a kid jumps out in front of my car. I could hit the kid, killing him, but keeping me in my lane, or I could swerve into the other lane, causing a wreck, killing more souls than just one. Now, imagine this situation, but time pauses. Then, words in a red-colored font pop up saying "swerve," with words in bright blue saying "hit the kid." Kind of loses any sense of right and wrong when those two things are being dictated to you by something that
thinks it knows the answer.
In games it appears we've not evolved past this issue of morality. We're trying to use it as a gimmick, as a selling point. Not many games have taken the idea of morality and made it into something truly reminiscent of choices in everyday life. In the majority of games, you can be an asshole, a decent guy, or a saint. Make your choice.
Inherently, interactivity allows for much more varied exploration in this area. We're not restricted to black and white decisions, though you would never know that at a glance of the industry thus far. It's almost too pretentious to tack on the 'right and wrong' choices that many games flaunt. This whole thing might not be so painful if, for one second, games could just simplify what they're trying to do a bit.
inFAMOUS sports an incredibly black and white morality system, hardly a soul could deny that. But I'd argue that the choices you must make could be far more impressing upon the player if there wasn't that blue and red text stating which action is justifiably holy, and which one the devil himself would choose. Mass Effect falls victim to nearly the same idea.
On the horizon, we can only hope for a brighter tomorrow; morality can evolve. It can be something that is subtle, that you won't acknowledge till you feel for the actions you're making. Games won't need to pause and allow you to read the "good" and "bad" text. When you see that kid in the middle of the road, the game needs not to tell you it's a choice that will affect your morality, you'll simply either plow on through the poor child, or swerve.
There still remains a delicate balancing act to this all. With Bioshock, you're not told explicitly which action is right and which is wrong. However, inherently in the choice of slaughtering a child or saving one, there is a problem. The decision you make in that situation is such that you know which choice is the "wrong" one. There's just something too predictable about a game that pauses to allow a decision like that. If it's not obvious, subtlety works nicely for morality.
I want to wonder, when I run over the kid, if I did the right thing. I want to wonder if killing a man is justified in a certain situation. These things should affect the player on an emotional level, and so far, most games have fallen utterly flat. It's a shame, but one that I feel will not go without experimentation. There is no doubt in my mind that morality will soon evolve, and perhaps not into the ideal form I'm describing, but a game will come along that paves the way for others to tread.
That's what's so amazing. Do you trust the voice of reason or do you hope for more?
Seaman actually did something of this nature as well. After you raised him to his final evolution, based off all the answers you gave to him while raising him, he profiled you, almost to a T if your answers were honest ones. The "blond-haired young man" of Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Summoner 2 also does this.
And old RPGs and MUDs would do this at times as well, mostly as a means of creating a job class and skill set for you, which was sort of neat if not always what you hoped it would be.
There are methods that step beyond just doing the Black and White thing, its just the Black/White approach is easier to program around. I always liked the games that let me play both sides against each other or supplied more options than "good" or "bad."
I'd love to see a world where all choices have clear consequences. What you buy from a shop would cause people around you to react differently. Not just a handful of choices per game, but a new choice every minute. I hope Heavy Rain tackles this properly.
With Bioshock it's clear that the choice being made is definitely a harder one than you'll find in inFAMOUS, and yes, it can derive it's outcome from your own actual morality. But there is something incredibly disconnecting about pausing a game and proposing merely two solutions for the life of a child. Too, the repetition with which this is done surprisingly hampers the impact.
The Silent Hill franchise has always dabbled with subtle choices that effect the ending to each game. In Silent Hill 2, you make choices, however unknowingly, and it will affect how James Sunderland concludes his journey. It's a nice little touch, but doesn't do anything to move morality forward, yet I still appreciate the subtlety with which it's executed.
And to conclude, with Sama's comment, there is a total lack of scope, I agree. It's absurd to say that a game could present a completely accurate portrayal of human emotion and morality, currently, but it's not an outlandish thought to think that, with what we have, it's possible to do much better. I can't expect to have hundreds of options for one simple choice, but I demand to have more than a "good" one and a "bad" one, which is something many developers don't acknowledge.
One of the things that astounded me the most with this game is that there's never a choice that will make everyone happy; no "metagaming" feedback is given to tell you if it was the "right" choice or not, as it's mostly about the player's personnal value system. One exemple: Your friend does something your professional order forbids, but it could be a morally justifiable to you the player. However, your responsabilities ask you to denounce him to the higher ups. What do you do?
I will be sure to check it out as soon as possible!
Maybe in a game opposing equally morally-questionnable factions, say a clan of werewolves VS a clan of vampires (LULZ!). Your interactions would either make you a friend to one or the other, but that's just going back to World of Warcraft's reputation meters and not morality. Reprenting morality visually is something I still haven't seen done right.=S
Another notable problem is that these choices only pop up at specific times, and they are seemingly disconnected from the rest of the game; they're very obviously a chance at determining morality, yet never achieve their emotionally affecting goal. It's a large task to actually bear a morality system and execute in an admirable way, but that's the mountain you're apparently willing to scale when you decide to make that addition.
What I'm after is a morality system that doesn't pause the game at all, you go right on through and make the decision using normal gameplay mechanics. Only after you have performed an action do you wonder about whether it was of just reasons or not. That's powerful, and perhaps not the best way it could be done, but it's a possible way just from looking at morality's status in the industry currently.