Every time today you've talked about Chet Faliszek, I keep thinking about Brad.

Moral choices are this generations open-world.

"In Grand Theft Auto, I'm going around running people over, and guess what, I'm not doing that in real life."

I think I see a solution.

I will say that the way moral choices in videogames are handled make them seem not that important. The only way I guess you could make them feel like actual hard moral choices is to make it impossible to replay the game (so you have to stick with that choice always), but that's an awful idea.

I don't get why moral choices are like a Holy Grail for a lot of videogame designers. Implementing them often results in a decreasing quality of the two or more possible story lines or endings.

I think the problem is that most moral choices in video games are black and white: HELP OLD LADY ACROSS STREET or BEAT HER TO DEATH WITH HER OWN WALKER. There's no middle ground "Ask how her day was" or "Give life advice" or "Make fun of her grandchildren".
And every game treats morality like a balance. Killed five people? Go donate to charity, and you're back to neutral! Right and wrong don't balance out like that, and you shouldn't be able to tell right from wrong so easily in the first place.

I was thinking something like what burned said, what about multiplayer games?

You're clearly not playing with/against the computer, and since the other players are alive somewhere, there has to be some sort of impact "outside the game", even with simple choice like "I'll play this game without cheating or exploits".

This is exactly what suspension if disbelief is for: making these transient bits of fiction worth viewing. You're not really pulling slugs out of little girls in Bioshock, but you accept it as temporarily meaningful so that you enjoy the game. You can't go in with this "well it's all fake so who cares" mentality or there's hardly a point in playing at all. I'm not actually saving humanity, so why play HL2? Just to pretend to shoot a bunch of fake soldiers that I don't actually care about? No, you're going to do it because you're Gordan fucking Freeman and a green, cyclopian lizard guy from another dimension thinks you're the shit.

You flip on the game and play the part, not expect it to change your life for really reals (I'd be a little leery of you if it did). It's a "moral decision" for flavor in the game. "Moral" is just describing it as good/neutral/evil in stead of a strategic sneak in/bust heads.

"save kitty OR cannibalize children"

These are semantics hinging on the definition of terms.

In short, yes, you're not the one with the moral choice. The moral choice is for the character you control. You are given moral choices for the main character to assume, not you, the player.

But in your interactivity with the main character, him being an extension of you, and you being the puppet master with the strings, you do resolve HIS moral choices.

When I hear of the black and white complaint addressed in these comments, I always think back to the original Fallout's questline involving the sheriff and the crimelord vying for power over a town (Junktown? I forget). If you helped the sheriff, which was implied to be the "good" option, he'd end up oppressing the town and the community would flounder. Let the mob boss take over, however, and all the immoral institutions he brought in would vitalize the local economy.

But of course the publisher objected and had the whole situation reversed to be in line with moral expectations, which makes me really wonder if more developers now would have taken a page from that and made some honest-to-God interesting outcomes to your decisions should it have ever made it to the final copy.

(Actually, was that entirely off-topic?)

I never thought of "moral choice" in video games as MY moral choice, only that I decided for the character. To me it's just a means to develop the narrative as necessary. While games are still an interactive experience they're still a story telling device to some extent.

You mean...what happens...in a game..isn't REAL?!?! Next, he'll be telling me that I'm not actually an expert guitar player.

His point is that, within the game space, moral choices aren't true moral choices. They're just game mechanics.

As noted, you're often making a Black or White choice. You are usually punished for picking the bad one or rewarded/not-punished for picking the good one. When they throw in a shade of gray, that usually also follows the punish/not-punish/reward pattern.

Either way, it is a system that causes the gamer to meta game. Because you figure out "Oh, if I pick the good one, I get a reward!" then the gamer starts continually picking the "good" option to get rewards. Most people won't play the "evil" path simply because there is traditionally not rewards for being "evil." And if they are, more often than not, they are bullshit rewards. (I'm looking at you, BioShock)

Now I'll admit I haven't played The Witcher, but I've spoken the Moral Choice debate with many people, some of them who have, and they really liked The Witcher's "morality" because it is different. It is done right. What it does is instead of being a Good vs Bad option, it is an Action vs Consequence choice.

You get the supplies for them because they're starving and poor. But oops! Those crates weren't food, they were weapons. You gave them weapons and they revolted and a bunch of people died.

Then you move on.

Morality in games is such a huuuuuge scope to get right. Because you need to dynamically craft the world to alter based upon what choices the player makes. So it's always scaled down. You can choose this and get something, or choose that and get something different. It's never true morality. It's just picking which dispenser you get the reward (or not-reward) from.

@The-Excel: It's funny you use Persona's Social Links, I would have to agree. What wasn't very well thought out is that you don't project yourself through the character, every person you have a Social Link with has a specific way in which you are supposed to interact with them.

So you are supposed to be super nice with Bunkichi and his wife, because they're really old. But you're not meant to be super nice with everyone. In fact, if you're super nice with Kazushi, you'll make the wrong choices because you're supposed to be really competitive with him. Fuck his physical condition, you need to egg him on to ignore his physical injury and be more competitive with you!

Or there's Chihiro, whom is super shy with boys, but reads manga where the super shy girl wins the boy and they get together. But if you kiss her during the 6th level of the relationship, I believe it is, you reverse the social link. When what you're supposed to do is hold her hand. (At least they tell warn you making the wrong decision will fuck the relationship up, though.)

The Social Link system revolves around moral choices (do the right thing with that person!) but it's not exactly intuitive because "the right thing" changes with every person, so no matter who you are (the player) what you think and feel can, and will be, wrong within the relationship of the characters within the game.

I chose poorly at the end of Fable 2, and it really hit me, more than I thought a choice could in a game

my main problem with "moral choices" games that should be addressed is the fact that you are only so evil or only so good- moral choices would be a lot different in games if you could say rape NPCs or piss on corpses and couldn't find anywhere to live and have dregs of humanity wanting to join with you and on and on if you were evil and on the other hand have people want to hang out with you and be able to do social things like elaborately date and talk (not just "hello you need to go to the castle" or some crap) with NPC's, have the ability to gain more skills and education and perform other duties and such if you are playing good- immersion in the character is really what makes moral choices worth it, when you don't get that immersion is when it isn't so important as to hat you do.
Personally I would almost like to see a game that is more sims like in certain respects where everyone really reacts to everyone else- but at the same time you could have your regular story play throughout scenarios that happen in the game whether that game be a sci-fi or fantasy or shooter- I don't think it would matter so much so long as the interactions are worked on

Would Half-Life be better if had moral choices? No.

Valve: You're Slow.

I said this shit atleast 2 weeks ago.

I think he's right, to a degree. Most gamers probably base their decisions on which option is the most fun or "badass," or which will serve them best. It doesn't really amount to a moral decision for anyone but those gamers who choose to take it as such.

That said, when I make decisions in games, I take the decisions as seriously as possible. That's why I have such a hard time making evil choices in games.

In Grand Theft Auto, I'm going around running people over, and guess what, I'm not doing that in real life.

Not unless you are THIS guy, AMIRITE?

Wow, coming from a strong story teller like Valve, that is pretty sad. Moral choices in games shouldn't extend to real-life. If I like making bad moral decisions in a game, yet am a nice guy in real life, that sounds like they did a pretty good job with the moral game choices.

This also depends on the definition of moral choice, do "moral" choices only exist in the "real world". I don't agree with this guy at all.

I prefer the term "Choice-Driven Gameplay"

I'd like to see these outcomes have more of an impact though. Fallout, it didn't relly affect me blowing up megaton because OH WAIT, There were still other shanty cities I could go to that I'd shill my goods upon.

if I made the choice of blowing up Megaton, I'd want a MUCH larger impact, people charging me more outside of tenpenny tower, the occasional renegade trying to stop me for my actions, etc. It just kind of went at "blow up megaton > get reward> keep playing" It didn't really stick with me.

The problem with moral choices is when I play a game I don't necessarily want to be associated with the main character. The character might be an extension of myself, but it is under no obligation to behave like I would in real life.

In Fallout 3 for example, It's role play - If I want to role play as some bastard raider warlord then in order to do that I am required to act in a bastardly way. That means doing evil deeds. I am completely removing my own morality from my character, because if I didn't my character would not work as a bastard raider warlord. Even though I am against stealing in real life, to play as a raider character I am required to rob and steal. My morality is irrelevant.

If I made moral choices based on my own personality, then I (like many others) would always be the "good guy option" in every single morality based game. None of us really want to murder people or commit horrible crimes.

Often in games its a case of working out what route gets the best items. In Fallout an evil route allowed you to get some great guns at the start of the game my stealing them - but this wears thin as you get more into the game as money eventually becomes irrelevant as even as a good guy I had enough money to buy anything.

Evil choices need to have some serious game shattering consequences - like doing something in the game is so massive and permanent that there is absolutely no way to go back on this unless you start a new save. These types of choices can make or break your character and MUST be permanent. Nuking Megaton in Fallout 3 is not enough - I can give beggars 20 bottles of water and suddenly in a good guy - completely remove the simple good/evil slider. Everything MUST be a shade of grey.

@Vanilla Gorilla:
That's why the name of the game is "Persona". You're expected to change your "morals" with each encounter. But that's been described in detail in many articles before this one.

Shin Megami Tensei Nocturne: You can get an ending where you destroy the world and go to war with God, among many others depending on your decisions.

Digital Devil Saga: You spend the game eating everyone else that's not in your gang. Literally.

Persona 3 and 4: While the Social Links isn't really good or evil, it's a good way to project yourself into the game's narrative. Furthermore, lots of choices present themselves to let you better define yourself in the game's world. A lot of them are inconsequential, but it's nice to have the option to have people respond to you in a way that most people would in the real world. It really helps with immersion.

Devil Summoner 2: Your decisions can kinda have an effect on things, between Law, Chaos, or a balance of both. Mind you, this isn't good or evil, but matters of perspective.

Devil Survivor: Depending on your decisions, and who you associate yourself with, can lead to many different endings in the game.

The thing is, with almost every SMT I've played, it isn't boiled down to simple "Good vs. Evil, Black vs. White" dichotomy. They really present these things in a truly mature perspective. The "villains'" perspective is usually sympathetic in some way. It's about the only time I've ever seen any storyline in a game get close to painting the characters in a human light since watching Babylon 5. They're treated as human beings, not just characters in a video game.