hmm, i donno if this answers anything, but when it comes to movies, the only one i''ve ever watched that pulled off moral complexity well was Princess Mononoke (sp?). In this movie, everyone had some good in them and everyone had some bad in them. The only true right person seemed to be the main character... although that may be debatable.

The reason i feel this is an important example is because i still don''t know how the characters were able to be good and evil at the same time and the movie still turned out good. So all i can say is i think option B is way hard to make believable.

I have a theory: children prefer good/evil dichotomies, and adults tend to prefer moral complexity. I know i prefer moral complexity by a lot. I just can''t stand video games (or movies) with well defined good and evil sides anymore, it looks so cliché.

Y.

I do think it depends on what you''re going for. Clear cut morality means you don''t have to think about things too much. This can be a relief sometimes. I deal with moral ambiguity every day. A little break now and then isn''t that bad. This does tend to simplify the plot a lot though, which is probably why it works better in less story intensive games.
If you want to blend the two, try picking a specific flavor of evil. Instead of just using some generic evil, try picking a main vice. Greed tends to work well, as does ambition. It''s easier to apply this to the main villain than the entire enemy force. If the leader commands evil acts, those under them will likely "just follow orders" and carry it out (sad but true). I you want to make an "evil" force, you''ll need a reason.
Take "The Wheel of Time" as an example. The male source of magic was tainted with madness, causing male channelers to become dangerously insane.
Blizzard has done a good job of this in their RTS games. Both WarCraft and StarCraft had clearly defined villains, but each had a distinct set of motives outside of "they did it cause they''re evil".
The Orcs find a resource rich world and decide to conquer it. They are driven by the burning horde, which turns out as evil mainly due to their lack of respect for anything other than themselves. Everything else is either inferior and can be used and and abused as they see fit, or stronger and to be envied and overpowered if possible.
The zerg are trying to acquire as much genetic information as possible to make themselves superior. They blend conquest, species supremacy, and bizarre kind of perfectionism to make something everyone else sees as evil.
In real life, people are rarely purely evil or good. (Getting close to pure evil would probably get you classified as criminally insane.) That''s not to say their actions can''t be called good or evil, just that their motive tend to spring from other things. Some of the most devasting things were done by people believing they were doing good. If they thought it was wrong, they probably wouldn''t be doing it unless other forces were acting on them. Military obedience is one example. Crimes of passion are another. In both cases the person is swayed to do things they''ll admit are wrong, yet they still felt forced to do them.

I like moral complexities where the good/evil distinction becomes subtley apparent. I mean, how great is a badguy who seems morally justified, but his means to an end start showing more of his vicious personality? I forget which movie it was, but there was this line regarding the holocaust delivered by a nazi saying that the only thing harder than killing 100 Jews was to kill the first 1. He was insinuating that evil becomes easier and easier with each taboo you violate. Some of the best villians usually start off that way, not automatically evil, but they grow into it.

I think it depends on the overall purpose of the game. It might surprise some of you, but in general I prefer the simpler "good/evil" dichotomy (or rather "good/bad" since "evil" is a loaded term ). I prefer this because it reduces the amount of thought needed for playing a game, and it seems to me that "play" should be a priority. By "play" I mean that quality of getting "lost" in a game, of losing oneself in the experience.

In contrast, I do prefer moral complexity in drama and literature - but both of those entertainment forms occur at a much more leisurely pace. They both afford time for reflection and growth which a computer game doesn''t necessarily do. However, if that is the overall vision driving a particular game - that is, a vision in which computer games aspire to become the new drama or the new literature - then increasing the moral complexity of characters is a must, imo.

quote: Original post by Wavinator
Do you prefer, in games, clear moral distinctions, such as "good vs. evil" and "right vs. wrong," or do you like more vague and unclear distinctions? I'm generally speaking for all games.

Why can't i have both?

[edited by - infinisearch on April 17, 2004 5:38:10 PM]

I have always appreciated Blizzard''s great "fantasy worlds", but I bever likes the orcs. They were always just too generically evil. They had no motives, they were just crazy. They were savages. If I cannot relate to savages, I cannot be a part of them. Thus, my favorite race has always been (in Warcraft) - the humans.

In Starcraft, it was the Terrans - but for a different reason. Something about the marines (obviously) made me think of them as American soldiers. Given my background of growing up on military bases for most of my life, you could see why I "felt like a part of the marines", wven though they were only "make-believe". They were eas to relate to.

When Warcraft 3 came out and the story progressed, I found that I liked the Orcs more and more. By the end of the game, I was so impressed with their honor, bravery, and strength - not just as individuals, but as a group - and the pain that they had undergone from oppression, that they became my favorite race because I could (and this is how games can be so emotional) feel like I was a part of that honor and strength by becoming a part of their race. Somehow, Blizzard gave the player an emotional payoff by allowing them to feel like they were a part of the group. Maybe that is simply due to the fact that I am a "supreme being" over a particular army, but without a backstory and qualities that I can relate to, it would have been just like Warcraft 2 and all of the other RTS games out there: I pick a team that is "cool" and I use them to kill the "less cool" team.

When I played the undead (rarely), I felt like a tyrrant. I played with hate, and I just didn''t feel the same payoff as the "honorable races". I was told to be evil because they were, but I didn''t have any motivation to want to be evil.

Bioware''s Knights of the Old Republic is a good example of a game that gives a black-and-white view of the situation. However, the game lets you choose which side you follow, giving instant replay value in that everyone will want to play the game twice - just to see how evil or good they can be. However, it''s Star Wars, which is all about comic-book style sortylines. The fact that KotOR, as good as it is, has one of best stories of any game is pretty sad commentary on storytelling in modern games (the same goes for Half-Life - how in the hell did that have a story?).

Right now I''m playing through Beyond Good & Evil , which is a sadly overlooked game. It''s brilliant, to put it plainly. You play a reporter trying to uncover a government conspiracy. However, I was disappointed that there wan''t more moral ambiguity - most of the game''s plot is pretty strightforward, with no shades of gray. The game is still a blast to play, if a little short, but I have this feeling it could have been better; it still draws the good/evil distinction.

What I prefer really depends on the type of game, or the mood I''m in. If it''s an action game, forget the choices - just tell me what to blow up (Call of Duty , Half-Life , Quake ). If it''s a slower-paced adventure/RPG game (Deus Ex , Beyond Good & Evil ) then a little moral abiguity is a good thing if it fits into the game world. I don''t think Mario or Zelda would be any better with the addition of moral dilemmas, for example.

quote: Original post by Wavinator
Do you prefer, in games, clear moral distinctions, such as "good vs. evil" and "right vs. wrong," or do you like more vague and unclear distinctions? I''m generally speaking for all games.

I just realized that this question is different from the one posed in the subject. Having good/evil distinctions does not imply not having moral complexity (nor the other way around). Having good/evil distinctions makes it easier to explore why they are good/evil. I mean this both as in "what caused them to be good/evil" and "why is what they are doing good/evil". Now, it''s not that you can''t do this in a "shades of grey" manner, but having "black and white" can help by keeping things to the point and less ambiguous.

I do prefer distinctive rules about what is right and what is wrong in a game. To clearify things, I''m talking about RPGs now. I like it when there are groups who consider themselves ''good'' and the other groups ''evil'', each with their own issues / commandments / ... and if it''s up to me to decide and I''m not forced into a role, that''s absolutely perfect.
What I do not like is something like ''You are good. The guy over there is bad. Now destroy him!'' in a game that should spell-bind me, for shooters this would be ok



Indeterminatus

--si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses--