I suppose the system I'm thinking of is simpler because it doesn't need to complement a storyline.

When there is a storyline, I don't think a morality system works. Often, the player is in the role of a world (or universe) saving hero, and to be 'evil' doesn't make sense at all.

With the storyline-less, sandbox, open-world game, the player has and should have freedom to do whatever, and so a morality system has a place.

I suppose the system I'm thinking of is simpler because it doesn't need to complement a storyline.

When there is a storyline, I don't think a morality system works. Often, the player is in the role of a world (or universe) saving hero, and to be 'evil' doesn't make sense at all.

With the storyline-less, sandbox, open-world game, the player has and should have freedom to do whatever, and so a morality system has a place.

If a game is going to include a morality system it has to be designed from the ground up to support it.

You can have a morality system in a game with a storyline, but you have to have multiple storylines to accommodate it. There's no essential conflict between them. Just because a player takes on the role of a person with the power to save the universe doesn't mean he can't choose to use that power to destroy it instead. That's the central theme of Star Wars, after all. If you're going to make a game like this, though, you have to write, at a minimum, two equally compelling story arcs.

Sandbox games can have stories and morality systems, too. They just have to be designed to support them. Morality systems shouldn't be 'tacked on' as extra dialogue options. They're not going to be convincing. Whether or not your game has a morality mechanic is just as important to decide beforehand as whether or not it will be in first or third person, or whether it's a 2d or 3d game. It's fundamental to the design.

I also agree that building a morality system around a story and not the other way around is the big mistake many modern games make.

Multiple story arcs will solve the problem to some degree, by limiting the decision power of the player. The player will have to make some decisions at key points during the story, and that is basically it. The decisions/actions done between them are just fillers with no important role in the story. A game in which this is pretty obvious is The Witcher 2: Assasins of Kings, in which there are four clear key points where the player has to make some decisions, which lead to 16 (4x4) possible endings, but they are not truly different endings as they are basically 4 endings mixed together in various ways to give 16 combinations. I guess because of the budget most of the key decision points were towards the end of the game (I think 3 of 4) so there is not a lot of "parallel" content that must be developed for the multiple story arcs.

I also think that sandbox like games are the ones that truly have the room for a robust morality system. Mount & Blade series comes into mind here. While not an AAA game and not truly a sandbox in which you can do whatever you want, the game offers a lot of "moral" choices in the actions the player takes against various lords of the land, making the player feel in control of their destiny. The players make their own stories in the game. I think if there would have been some kind of story generator like the one in Bastion (even only in written form), it would have added a lot to the already amazing game it is.

One problem is, there are just four arch types of character player strife for.

Innocent Hero:
This guy starts with nothing, is weak and tries to get stronger to save his princess or whatever.
In the end the weakling saves the day and we feel good about it. Truth is, we just love if the weak beats the strong one.

Grieving Anti-Hero:
This guy lost something dear (girlfriend or familiy most times) and now he gets back and punishs all evildoers.
It's noteable that this guy is "cool", unlike the innocent hero, has always a badass punchline, works mostly alone, lets his allies feel how useless they are and that he doesn't need them. Of course that allows him to do evil things, without being evil (see batman interrogating someone).
His character is one-sided, either he is funny or serious, and keeps this profile whatever happens. For a funny Antihero I give Bulletstorm as example.

Sadistic Evil:
This guy is mostly the main atagonist, a brilliant mind, who act as a madman. The thing that makes him special are two things, his plans, which seems crazy and turn out to have a punchline and his way to psychologic corner us, confronting us with our own "human" weaknesses, while he accepts his own weaknesses and does not bound himself to morality or goods like power and money. We try to understand him and he surprises us, he plays a game with us and we are trapped. Surprisingly very honest (does a lot of wordplays though) and shows openly his emotions. Heath Ledger Joker was one great masterpiece, the bank burglary plan, batman's choice to save one of both with swapped locations and the two ships with the bombs. Saw would be another example, but it's not my taste. The dark boss from Night Watch is good example too. The big main problem with this sadistic evil character is, that he's brilliant, means someone brilliant has to write a brilliant story book for him. Therefore Joker is the only good example the mainstream knows, while mostly this character only exist in books.

The silent One:
This protagonist does nearly say anything. He just watches, neither condeming actions as good or evil just strifing to stay alive and finishing his task. Metro 2033 and Bioshock ;). This offers the player to decide for himself and makes him think about event he saw, while he explores dark rooms lonly. Fights occur only from time to time, main point is the world around the player, he's just a small gear in a big machine.

Of course there are other types, like the undefeatable and honest superhero character, which is not that much liked, since he is kinda "boring". Cheers

I also think that sandbox like games are the ones that truly have the room for a robust morality system. Mount & Blade series comes into mind here. While not an AAA game and not truly a sandbox in which you can do whatever you want, the game offers a lot of "moral" choices in the actions the player takes against various lords of the land, making the player feel in control of their destiny. The players make their own stories in the game. I think if there would have been some kind of story generator like the one in Bastion (even only in written form), it would have added a lot to the already amazing game it is.

I think the crux of the morality issue is that there really isn't 'good' and 'evil'. One man's good is another's evil so games that only offer a 'good/neutral/evil' dialogue mechanic with alternate endings always feel cheap.

Morality is better implemented in open worlds because it allows you to engage in real morality: deciding which faction to support, how far you're willing to go to support them, etc. Then you don't even need a 'morality meter'. Your morality is evident in how far you are willing to go to advance your own aggenda, and the aggendas of any factions you support. NPCs then just need to react reasonably about your behavior. If you steal from someone, assault them, murder a family member, etc., they should consider you 'evil'. Your own faction may feel that your actions were justified and therefore good and support you. A robust faction mechanic and sensible AI will go a long way toward establishing organic morality in an open world.

If a game is going to include a morality system it has to be designed from the ground up to support it.

You can have a morality system in a game with a storyline, but you have to have multiple storylines to accommodate it. There's no essential conflict between them. Just because a player takes on the role of a person with the power to save the universe doesn't mean he can't choose to use that power to destroy it instead. That's the central theme of Star Wars, after all. If you're going to make a game like this, though, you have to write, at a minimum, two equally compelling story arcs.

Sandbox games can have stories and morality systems, too. They just have to be designed to support them. Morality systems shouldn't be 'tacked on' as extra dialogue options. They're not going to be convincing. Whether or not your game has a morality mechanic is just as important to decide beforehand as whether or not it will be in first or third person, or whether it's a 2d or 3d game. It's fundamental to the design.

The multiple story arcs is a great point. This points to what I really want to see in a game: stories generated by the game, not just 2 preset stories.

I think the crux of the morality issue is that there really isn't 'good' and 'evil'. One man's good is another's evil so games that only offer a 'good/neutral/evil' dialogue mechanic with alternate endings always feel cheap.

Morality is better implemented in open worlds because it allows you to engage in real morality: deciding which faction to support, how far you're willing to go to support them, etc. Then you don't even need a 'morality meter'. Your morality is evident in how far you are willing to go to advance your own aggenda, and the aggendas of any factions you support. NPCs then just need to react reasonably about your behavior. If you steal from someone, assault them, murder a family member, etc., they should consider you 'evil'. Your own faction may feel that your actions were justified and therefore good and support you. A robust faction mechanic and sensible AI will go a long way toward establishing organic morality in an open world.

Totally agree! But then the system isn't really a morality system. I think it improves on a 'morality' mechanic, though.
And it's agenda*

I think the crux of the morality issue is that there really isn't 'good' and 'evil'. One man's good is another's evil so games that only offer a 'good/neutral/evil' dialogue mechanic with alternate endings always feel cheap.

Is that not why designers feel they need a morality system in the first place? If you are somehow going to change the character dependent on their response (looking more evil if they do evil deeds etc etc) you have to make clear what is and what is not considered evil, since everyone will view it differently to some extent then it's up to the designer to dictate which is which. That is probably also the reason for such simplistic options appearing in a game, people tend to think killing an unarmed civilian is bad whereas giving them money is good. [Not saying it's good thing but that there may be a reason for it]

[quote name='truant' timestamp='1325458792' post='4898790']
If a game is going to include a morality system it has to be designed from the ground up to support it.

You can have a morality system in a game with a storyline, but you have to have multiple storylines to accommodate it. There's no essential conflict between them. Just because a player takes on the role of a person with the power to save the universe doesn't mean he can't choose to use that power to destroy it instead. That's the central theme of Star Wars, after all. If you're going to make a game like this, though, you have to write, at a minimum, two equally compelling story arcs.

Sandbox games can have stories and morality systems, too. They just have to be designed to support them. Morality systems shouldn't be 'tacked on' as extra dialogue options. They're not going to be convincing. Whether or not your game has a morality mechanic is just as important to decide beforehand as whether or not it will be in first or third person, or whether it's a 2d or 3d game. It's fundamental to the design.

The multiple story arcs is a great point. This points to what I really want to see in a game: stories generated by the game, not just 2 preset stories.

I think the crux of the morality issue is that there really isn't 'good' and 'evil'. One man's good is another's evil so games that only offer a 'good/neutral/evil' dialogue mechanic with alternate endings always feel cheap.

Morality is better implemented in open worlds because it allows you to engage in real morality: deciding which faction to support, how far you're willing to go to support them, etc. Then you don't even need a 'morality meter'. Your morality is evident in how far you are willing to go to advance your own aggenda, and the aggendas of any factions you support. NPCs then just need to react reasonably about your behavior. If you steal from someone, assault them, murder a family member, etc., they should consider you 'evil'. Your own faction may feel that your actions were justified and therefore good and support you. A robust faction mechanic and sensible AI will go a long way toward establishing organic morality in an open world.

Totally agree! But then the system isn't really a morality system. I think it improves on a 'morality' mechanic, though.
And it's agenda*
[/quote]

The thing is that you are trading the complexity for variance. Having arcs means having more stories which takes more time and more money so each story gets less attention. Each change is a tradeoff.

"The thing is that you are trading the complexity for variance. Having arcs means having more stories which takes more time and more money so each story gets less attention. Each change is a tradeoff."

Por que no los dos?

Just because you add complexity doesn't inherintly mean you sacrifice quality.

"The thing is that you are trading the complexity for variance. Having arcs means having more stories which takes more time and more money so each story gets less attention. Each change is a tradeoff."

Por que no los dos?

Just because you add complexity doesn't inherintly mean you sacrifice quality.

It does if you have to write more stories to go with the different decisions.
I guess you could shell out more money for more writers or spend more time in development.
There is still a tradeoff.