In some recent games, the strict idea of an objective-based mission structure has been supplanted quite successfully by an open-ended universe in which key events can take place, but there''s no specific "game-winning objective" that dominates the style, structure, and content of the game. Games in which there are jobs to do and fun to have without the constraint of a teleological purpose have, for me, a certain attraction. I like to just play a game, immersing myself in an alternate universe and affecting it as I see fit, rather than adopting a certain designer-determined "destiny" and living it out. I refer to these sorts of games as "moral vaccuums", a term I derived from a thought experiment I studied in school. So, how do you guys feel about such systems? Do you prefer a dyed-in-the-wool character with a predetermined course and personality, or do you like to project yourself into the game on the ethical level, and make decisions that might wind up screwing you over?

I like games with a tight story, but only if the story is good. To clarify that, examples of what I like are Max Payne, Anachronox, Neverwinter Nights, all of which are only storytelling devices. In the end, you have no influence on where the story''s going. Anachronox 2 is also in that category, although I have to say that I don''t like the way it''s meant to sell an addon (that''s not even announced yet). The story has to be concluded on a satisfying level (player wins, bad guys are dead, the world is safe again). It might sound a little narrow-minded, but that''s what I like in a game.

quote: Do you prefer a dyed-in-the-wool character with a predetermined course and personality, or do you like to project yourself into the game on the ethical level, and make decisions that might wind up screwing you over?

Hm, do I like my parents to tell me how to live my life, or do I like to make my life my own? Do I do what I''m being told, or do I do what I want to do?

That''s really what it''s all about. To me, gaming is all about entertainment. The linear type of gaming feels like a movie, and the reason I''ve always prefered gaming over movie (and tv) is that it''s interactive: I have control over what happens. If all the control I have is over time (how fast can I reach the predetermined end of the game), then it''ll be a lot harder for the game to entertain me. Open-ended games seem to entertain me quicker and longer. The sense of freedom that I have makes me want to do things, instead of feeling like everything I do is a chore that I have to do in order to finish the game.

Let me make decisions that screw me over and make me feel stupid, because that means I can also make decisions that do not screw me over and make me feel proud.

I think if it can be made clear what kind of morality the character is following, they should be acknowledged, rewarded and challenged accordingly.

Righteous characters should be praised by who they protect or help, possibly be given access to restricted areas, and have their positions challenged by enemies or be given new tasks to perform in the name of their morality. You know, the kind of stuff righteous characters typically face.

Characters that pursue a life of thievery will likely have to watch their backs, be sought out by fellow thieves and be careful about who they ally with. They themselves will probably change alliances as they see fit, and they can expect the same from those they ally with.

Characters that seek to conquer will have to confront defenses and direct attempts at being destroyed by heroes on quests. They'll have challenges from other conquerors as well, and offers for loose alliances.

Such a dynamic world that sends challenges at a character corresponding to their chosen morality, and alters its dynamic to match their role (example: for a conqueror, the leaders of a central city consider you a primary concern, and you are famous for your notoriety - the city and surrounding region shows their attempts to build up against you), would seem to me to be a very rich environment with a lot of playability. For people who like that sort of thing.


[edited by - Waverider on December 16, 2002 3:36:47 PM]

So, should the design favor one type of person over another? Should people be given access to better gear for doing really noble things, or should they actually just live with the decisions they make?

Scenario 1: You''re Sir Gawain, on your way to meet the Green Knight and have your head chopped off. The merry huntsman walks up to you and says, "Ho there! We''re drinking mead and eating pork, and if you come to our party, we''ll give you the PUSD!" You (nobly) refuse, and continue on the the Green Knight''s castle. After the whole not-chopping-off-your-head thing, and the merry feasting etc., should he give you the PUSD?

Scenario 2: You''re walking through the desert. You spy a man in obvious distress, carrying bags and bags of jewels and gold. You decide, rather than sharing your limited water supply with him, to wait for him to die (maybe even help him along a little bit) and then collect his gear. Take it back to a town where nobody has heard of him, sell all his stuff, and then return to his hometown and give his mother the ring he wore to remember her by, explaining that you found his bones in the desert and thieves had left only this ring, considering it either valuless or too easily recognized. She thanks you for bringing her the news and gives you a few coins, all she has since her son invested the family fortune in the jewel trade, saying he had "something big" planned. Besides your conscience, should you suffer any adverse effects for this act? If you had saved him, maybe he would have given you directions to the jewel cave, or maybe he would have stolen all your water and left YOU to die in the desert.

Scenario 3: A group of travellers, obviously quite poor, are set upon by highwaymen. The brigands are well-armed, and appear to be trained. Do you put yourself in terrific danger to rescue three people, when dozens of people are killed every day on the roads? If you do, and are wounded or break some of your gear in the process, you still get next to nothing in return. Sure, maybe one out of a thousand poor travellers have a family treasure with magical properties, but what are the odds they''ll give it to you, even if you did just rescue them from death?

Should game design reward reckless heroism, or should it encourage a rational introspection, comparing the practical elements of what you need to survive in the game with the personality you want your character to have?

I guess the point I''m trying to make is that I think it should be possible for a player to become jaded in the game, and turn a blind eye to certain types of crime and evil, rather than charging around righting this wrong or that at every moment. Even heroes get tired, and hungry, and poor, and hurt, and if you take the moral highground every time, it''ll turn into your burial mound.

If you''re an invincible warrior, then by all means Lancelot your way through every scenario, but if you''re just trying to get by, maybe you should have to compromise your principles now and again. Take that shady job, skim a little off the company payroll, slay the dragon and return 85% of his hoard to the rightful owner. Spy a little, steal a little, maybe even rob a little. Get rich and tough by beating on peasants and travelers, then turn that wealth and strength toward doing good. Defeat the robbers, then keep their booty. Kidnap a princess, and demand a ransom. Provided that they pay rather than sending a hero to get her, you can buy yourself a PUSD and rescue a dozen princesses. That king would never have financed you willingly, but his money went to a good cause, and nobody was hurt. Where''s the harm in that?

There could be an element of "divine reward", otherwise the player might get frustrated if they aren't fortunate enough to encounter others than can assist before they lose their life.

On the other hand, a player could avoid danger until he reaches a civilized area where he might be able to assemble allies and have a temporary base of operations from which to build up strength. Then the character is more likely to be able to handle themselves, and in the meantime has acquired some associations and familiarity with the surrounding land.

A singular character that decides to be a conqueror could be tempted by a dark force to gain more strength and be more independent, but then again, would the dark forces want to recruit a single individual, or one that has a hold on some power already, with allies to support him?

A singular character that decides to be righteous could be healed or protected until he reaches a populated area. After all, being righteous doesn't really count if you aren't impacting things for the good of others. At least, I think that's how it works.

A player that makes decisions for his own benefit all the time (be good a little, steal a little, harm a little, when the opportunities, need, and mood present themselves, etc.) might not get any of the "absolute" rewards that someone staying devoted to one particular way might gain. Access to special weapons, information, quests, opportunities, devotions, etc. may only come to those that follow a consistent path with little deviation. At some point a player has to realize that the way he wants to be requires at least some work and sacrifice. Those that make other decisions for the sake of convenience would miss out on those rewards.

Your example about obtaining that PUSD(a weapon?) could be a bonus situation, that if the character wants the risk, and wants to suffer the change in their morality to gain the weapon, that's up to them. The character could just as easily go to civilization, gain strength, and hunt down the weapon at a later time if the game design permits.


[edited by - Waverider on December 16, 2002 4:37:18 PM]

My PUSD (Platinum Uber-Sword of Doom) example was meant to represent something that could never be obtained through any other means.

"This is it, if you don''t get it now, you''ll never have another chance. You get to decide whether you''ll be proud of yourself or have a really bitchin'' weapon, and there''s no going back. Honor doesn''t seem quite so fancy when it''s held up next to the PUSD, does it?"

If there''s always a chance of "just getting it later", then there''s no temptation. There need to be permanent side-effects of any decision you make. I remember in Fallout, there were certain towns that I couldn''t go back to, because one or more of the local factions were out to get me. There weere allies and services and gear in those towns that I could never have. Actually, I could get the gear by just killing everyone and stealing it, but the other things were forever lost.

That''s sort of what I want to capture here, but on a more abstract level. The idea of including cosmic beings and aligning yourself with one or more of them is neat. Follow the path of one deity or another, and gain favor in various forms. The magic system could be tied into this, as well as the reputation system. Priests or seers could meet you and determine your alignment, and then either help you, turn you away, or try to stab you in the eye, as was appropriate.

At first, it could be a simple matter of doing what you think is right and best for you, but as you progress, you could be faced with other problems. Maybe, in order to garner additional favor from your chosen god, you''ll have to wage holy war on followers of another god. perhaps you think that that''s a little bit too much religion for you, and you refuse. you''ll never get that eighth level spell or that total protection from fire magic, but neither will you stab little kids for worshipping the wrong idol.

This could turn into a sort of inverse Black & White, living as a mortal in a world governed by the whims of gods. Neat idea. Any reasons why it wouldn''t work?

Only that it might be TOO immersive and the player will choose to live in that world instead of his own

Typically, I think the idea behind something working or not working has more to do with whether or not following one particular way is always the BEST way. Strategy games can fall into this trap, where one particular combination of units outclasses all others, so that''s all that is used and there is no variety anymore.

A successful RPG, I think, caters to what the player wants to be and makes them pay prices or take responsibility in ways that is agreeable to them without making only ONE way the most convenient or have the best chance for success. Eventually, they learn the rules of your world and play the game on its terms, making discoveries about other ways of doing things, even playing one character while in the back of their mind saving doing things another way for the next character they will make.

I personally feel that games should include some element of, for want of a better term, Karma - if you go around doing nasty things, yeah, sure, you get the PUSD, and the armour of invulnerability, but the entire world is set against you (good guys ''cause you''re evil, bad guys ''cause you''re too powerful). Meanwhile a good guy is weaker in isolation, but has a lot of friends, cheaper goods and services, and doesn''t have to watch his own back at night... If you really want to get funky, and have the programming power to spare, you could set it up so that the player''s attitude affects the world''s attitude - if the player goes round being a complete SOB, then the NPCs start back-stabbing, moneygrubbing and generally making everyone''s life miserable. If the player is a plaster saint, then NPCs tend to be kindly, generous, honest, hardworking... there are surpluses of nearly everything... and eventually the player dies of boredom

After all, in the real world, there are fundamental mechanisms that reward behaving nicely until given reason otherwise. Experimentally, tit-for-tat wins prisoner''s dilemma tournaments even when the environment includes theoretically superior variants. Of course, these mechanisms usually operate on reputation and individual memory, two things not often implemented in computer games...

Oh, and my actual preference in game-playing: I prefer games where there is some sense of achieving goals - if I want to wander around aimlessly, I''ve always got real life

How rigidly the game chooses your path to those goals is another matter. If the game has a good enough plot, then I''ll cheerfully go along for the ride. If a game has no real plot, then I''ll chafe at being herded.