Reported Diablo 3 caused death
23 hours 37 mins ago
The ability to make moral choices seems to be in most RPGs these days including blockbusters like Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect 2, and Fallout: New Vegas. Here are three reasons why this feature has no place in video games.
News story attached to:
- Dragon Age II [PC, XBOX360, PS3]
- Fallout: New Vegas [PS3, XBOX360, PC]
- Mass Effect 2 [PS3, PC, XBOX360]
Latest comment:
Most recently commented on by on Mar 25, 2011
Most recently commented on by on Mar 25, 2011
Comments
1. It's called making every playthrough unique, and as for the history thing the guy talked about at the end rarely applies to anybody... in fact im sure it only applies to him. Your also usually given two seperate yet equal rewards. Besides in Fallout 3 it is possible to obtain both of the rewards for the quest your talking about. Think outside the box to do it.
2. Actually a reasonable argument and one that Betheseda is currently working on fixing for the upcoming Skyrim. Givin as in example in an interview such things as "stealing" an apple from a friend will no longer cause them to bludgeon you to death.
3. Once again the author only looked at an argument from one side. Killing the humans in tenpenny towers would grant you negative karma too negating any positive karma you might get at the end of the quest. Hell even with the diplomatic solution the ghouls end up killing the humans putting their blood on your hands (albiet with no drop in karma)
However the authors main issue seems to be a need to stop looking at strategy guides. Thiers no point of even playing games like fallout 3 if your going to ruin all the developments for yourself ahead of time. Disliking moral choices in games is one thing, but saying they have no place in our hobbies future... is plain dumb-dumb-dumb.
Also, I should mention killing the humans in that quest is not an option. It is either allow the ghouls to move in (and they ultimately murder the humans) or kill the ghouls. Allowing the murder to happen does not affect karma. Preventing it lowers your karma. This makes no sense.
Hey if you want to play half a game then perhaps RPGs with moral choices are for you. I'd rather play a full story, however.
And as for half a game you couldnt be more wrong. Fallout NV took a friend of mine around 50 hours to beat on his first playrhough. I dont know about you but 50 hours seems like a full game to me with a full story, and in NV quests close off to you depending on who you side with as you've stated. This means it is almost essential to play through the game 3 games just to even see everything the game has to offer. Even if he cuts his time in half each time my friend is still getting 100 hours of gamplay time and if he decides not to, he sure as hell still got his money's worth.
Once again I'm not saying moral choices are for everybody but in the peamble of your article you mentioned that moral choices had no place in gaming. And that is why others are calling you narrow minded, because you implied through one tiny sentence that your opinion is the only one that counts and as a journalist you simply can't do that.
I like engaging, original experiences in my gaming. Don't get me wrong, however, I do actually feel Black Ops provided this in its single player campaign, which was a refreshing surprise. It just wasn't 100 hours long.
The reason RPGs have been getting shorter is because developers have to do just as much work on a 50 hour game as they did on a 100 hour game because now they have to create alternate plotlines and occurrences etc. If they just took the stupid morality system out, they could make longer and overall better RPGs again.
And I highly doubt it's the writing process that makes games shorter nowadays. It's most definitely the amount of detail put into these games, and the advancements in gaming technology. It's takes a much larger development team much longer to create less content than what a fairly small team could do in previous generations. Personally, however, I would much rather play an engaging, interesting game that spans ≤50 hours, versus sinking 100 hours into drawn out, repetitive gaming. It's a matter of simple quality over quantity.
However, go back through with a different alignment. Now you're playing another 30-50 hour game with new quests, new story, etc. with only about 20-40% of overlapping content, and even that is usually handled differently. You get at least two full, separate game experiences. It remains fresh and exciting, and delivers great gameplay at a great pace. I don't know about you, but I couldn't ask for more than that from my games. I'm not even taking into consideration multiple classes for most of these games, character relationships, etc.
Solid Snake 4 Life is wrong that this article is about Fallout 3, it's not at all. Fallout 3 simply provides for good examples of this happening and allowed me to talk about it in a spoiler-free way. I clearly did not want to give away parts of newer games. As I stated in the article, the moral choice dilemma is also true of other games like Mass Effect, Dragon Age, and even Alpha Protocol!
I also feel that I should mention I have been creating role-playing games for ten years, have published a book on RPG game mechanics, and been quoted as a field expert in two others. Based on my credentials in the genre, I would have to disagree with darklord that I'm just "narrow minded."
Full disclosure, though, I wouldn't argue with being called a Bioware fanboy (though I'm flattered you looked up my comment history). There is a reason for this, however. In my personal opinion, they make some of the best games out there, as I primarily play video games for immersion and storytelling value. In this respect, they're hard to beat. Do I think they can do no wrong, and that Dragon Age II was the best game ever? Of course not, but it was still an awesome game, and few games, if any, deserve that Metacritic/4chan nonsense.
Also, as far as your third complaint in the article, have you played either Dragon Age? Because they thrive on shades of gray (versus Mass Effect and Fallout 3, which are more defined good/evil scales). Very few, if any, of the moral decisions are clearly defined.
On a more personal level, however, I simply feel that moral decisions, if well done, greatly add to a game's appeal. In Fallout 3, the implementation was a little on the hit or miss side, but I still felt it made the game more enjoyable as a whole. Bioware games, for example, are some of the few that I care enough to replay multiple times. I find the potential characters and varying stories that are built through my actions to be much more appealing than mindless multiplayer games, which I have a hard time playing for more than a couple weeks. I don't particularly care that you brought up Bioware games in your article, but I do enjoy moral choices, and your arguments were not anywhere near strong enough to make me consider otherwise.
You mention Dragon Age, Mass Effect, and Alpha Protocol, but you don't actually use examples from those games, or any others. A good editorial should have solid evidence from multiple sources (especially considering Bethesda isn't the first team that comes to mind when discussing moral decisions in games), and should be strong enough to sway me to your opinion. Unfortunately, your articles tend to state your opinion as fact, with little to no support.
I would love nothing more than to read an article I wholeheartedly disagree with, but it presents an argument strong enough that I question my own opinion.
I would definitely not consider Fallout 3 a clear cut example of a moral system. Maybe of a mediocre moral system, but that's about it. Mass Effect has, by far, the most defined moral system in any game I've come across. Top right, Paragon (Good) choice. Bottom right, Renegade (Evil) choice. Left side, investigate current conversation point. Dragon Age 2 implemented this for basic conversations as well, but they still retained their own gray area mix-up choices, whereas Mass Effect's major decisions still correlated to said position on the conversation wheel.
Fallout 3, on the other hand had a bit more of a sketchy system, as you pointed out in your article, though I felt the Tenpenny Tower thing could be pretty easily justified; the humans were straight up douches that refused to see reason. I can't think of any issues in Mass Effect, however, where you did not know what you were deciding on, and were not given at least an idea of the general outcome.
The Ashley/Kaidan decision had no repercussions other than the loss of your chosen companion. Sure, if you used both of them in your active party for whatever reason, you were partially screwed, but even then it conveyed a sense of loss, which was great for the story. If you ask me, that decision wasn't tough enough, as the odds are that the player didn't invest heavily in both characters (and Kaidan sucked anyway).
Again, any good story certainly involves gray areas. Moral decisions just give the player the opportunity to maneuver through those situations as they see fit.
Fine. Email BioWare and demand they force gamers to go through a million shitty pointless fetch quests, add "gameplay" by having every dungeon have a final room with a collectible in it that requires you be 20 or so levels higher than when you reach that dungeon in the natural progression of the game thus "adding" hours of "gameplay" by making you grind through a dungeon you've already been in to kill a boss or get a collectible.
I'll take out the 50 hours of gameplay from RPGs instead of the extra "gameplay" in JRPGs that are brainless, monotonous, mind numbingly stupid, pointless and absolutely forced just so the developer can say "100+ hours!". Instead, in open world games like Fallout, people get ABOVE the 30-40+ hours of story by BOTH multiple playthroughs in which being good and being evil DO impact the world and your story making the game play different, as well as extra gameplay through exploration of a massive world. Not extra "gameplay" because, in a linear dungeon that takes 20 minutes to grind through that starts at point A and ends at point B, an old man has lost his glasses at point A and makes me go get them at point B. When I get to point B it turns out to open the magical demon portal that protects the old man's lost glasses I need an item that was sealed off in point A that I now have learned how to unseal. so I go back to point A, get the item, go back to point B, make the trip back to point A to give him the glasses, and 30 hours later in the "game" it turns out there's a secret room in point B so I get to make the super awesome trip back.
JRPGs suck. There are high quality ones like Tales of Vesperpia that have a HUGE amount of hours, but even that game got a shit ton of those claimed hours through fetch quests and high leveled monsters in low leveled dungeons that require you to make the trip back, as well as reusing maps.
The morality system is STILL being worked on, and to demand perfect in open world games like Elder Scrolls and Fallout is a little much. Mass Effect seemingly perfected the choice system, but to expect a game to weigh all the choices you have made is a little much at this stage where the only games to truly attempt it are Fallout and Elder Scrolls.
Impatience within Western audience? You know how much dialogue is in Mass Effect, Fallout and Dragon Age, right?
These Western RPGs allow the gamer to actually take a role and shape it. But who needs that in a... what does RPG stand for? Really purple girdles? Rampant purple giraffes? Why do I keep using purple? Wait, it's role playing games. Weird, because in JRPGs, I take the role of a character that makes the choices for me and is propelled through a linear story that I have no real impact on; I'm just viewing it as a third party. In games like Mass Effect and Dragon Age? I form the story to how I want it to be. Not to an ultimate level, but one certainly satisfying. And in Fallout... I can put the main storyline aside for as long as I want. Those are real roles you can play, ones that you actually want.
By your stated basis, Halo is more is a more immersive, and more "rpg" than any modern wrpg.
As for JRPGs dying, I think people are just looking at Square and thinking that that company is the sole provider of the genre. Atlus and NIS(though NIS does go that whole loli route, their characters are all genre savvy smartasses who continually mock the norms of the genre) still make plenty of great titles, special mention going to most of the Shin Megami Tensei series which I believe continually outperforms the Final Fantasy franchise in just about every way possible.
And you know what SMT tends to have? A branching plot and a protagonist who's choices are the players because that's giving them a role in the work itself and they still manage to get each play through to be well above 100 hours. Not telling the player to sit back and watch someone else do, say and choose everything, most likely complaining and exaggerating minor issues the whole time.
JRPGs' general pacing doesn't help much either, there's usually a gigantic wall between gameplay and story when it comes to them with giant exposition dumps between battles. That's not how you immerse a player.
Plus your claim that JRPG's are the "real rpgs" do not help your argument. It makes you sound like one of those "elite gamers". RPG means roleplaying games. I'm pretty sure dressing up your girlfriend as a nurse while your the handsome doctor is roleplaying. So is pretending to be a badass wasteland survivor who just so happens to not wait for his opponent to attack before retaliating.
I don't mean to come off as an "elite gamer" but as I previously mentioned, I've built my career thus far on RPGs. I've considered an expert in the field and have been quoted in books alongside guys like Gary Gygax! (It was surreal to see my name in the index for the first time).
As an established RPG expert, I would say that games like Dragon Age 2 and Fallout: New Vegas aren't really RPGs. They are action games which happen to include a few RPG elements. JRPGs like the ones I have already mentioned, THOSE are the real RPGs. Unfortunately, as you or someone else already mentioned, they are a dying breed. As a die-hard RPG fan, I am very sad to say this.
However we are discussing morality and we've veered off topic. Choices allow replayability enticing fans to play through a game a second or even third time when it would of just ended up collecting dust along time ago. My friend who completed NV is by no means a completionist, and I highly doubt he attempted to do everything he possibly could of in the game. Now I said lets assume tht he cuts his playtime in half each time, but you could easily assume that his playtime increased each time as Fallout has that kind of depth. Just google hours put into fallout 3 and I've read people putting over 400-500 into the game. Moral choices don't give you half a game, they simply give you more options and more incentive to go through it again, and again, and again.
Moral choices in video games can really only be compared to those choose your own adventure books you might've read as a kid. Each time through no matter what your actions you were given a conclusion to the story and if you didnt like how shit turned out you were allowed to start over and try again. You werent given "half of a story", rather the plot played out according to the decisions you made. In an earlier post you claim that your not playing an RPG because your playing as yourself. Well when the hell are you evergonna get to decide whether a town is eradicated or not? In real life your not going to be given the choice of whether a group of people live or die, and your not gonna be a wasteland survivor (hopefully). All moral choices do in video games is allow you to play through a situation as you feel is best. Moral choices in video games can really only be compared to those choose your own adventure books you might've read as a kid. Each time through no matter what your actions you were given a conclusion to the story and if you didnt like how shit turned out you were allowed to start over and try again. You werent given "half of a story", rather the plot played out according to the decisions you made. In an earlier post you claim that your not playing an RPG because your playing as yourself. Well when the hell are you evergonna get to decide whether a town is eradicated or not? In real life your not going to be given the choice of whether a group of people live or die, and your not gonna be a wasteland survivor (hopefully). All moral choices do in video games is allow you to play through a situation as you feel is best.
Stop caring about the 100 percent mark and just enjoy the ride. You'de be enjoying yourself alot more if you stopped making your decisions based off loot therefore spoiling it for yourself ahead of time. And FYI Chrono Trigger one of the classic RPGs of the SNES was among the earlier pioneers in how gameplay could influence future events. But if the internet hadnt been in it's infancy at the time of your release you would of ruined it for yourself.
Even Exevier has admitted that you are getting half the game (by saying if you play through again as another alignment you basically get a new game and new story).
As for whether or not I would ever have to decide whether to eradicate a town in real life is irrelevant to what genre the game is. I'm also never going to have to defend the United States against a North Korea invasion but doing so in a video game does not make Homefront any more of an RPG.
A few weeks later, you get some free time and start a new game.
"Holy shit, I get all that, AGAIN!?"
What more does a game require to be considered a "full" game?
If you are now playing another game with new quests and new story, it stands to reason that you only played half the game in your first playthrough.
Your second playthrough, while within the same overarching story, contains entirely new content and perspective. Yet, it also fills out an entire experience that is, at the very least, equal to what you might get with another game.
I'm not sure how familiar you may be with forms of literary criticism, but it's like taking a deconstructive approach to a piece of literature. Simply because you can form and undermine multiple arguments and interpretations, does that mean your initial take deems it only half a piece of literature?
You are confusing a complete story arc with a full game. Yes you have completed the main story and in that sense you could say you have completed the full game, but you haven't done EVERYTHING you could have possibly done in just one playthrough so technically you haven't played the full game.
In life, am I forced to go back and relive every potential outcome of my decisions in order to live a full life? Of course not, but it'd be pretty interesting if I could.
Like a choose your own adventure novel, going through an RPG that has moral decisions one time isn't a full game.
Again, you're pulling yourself back to that 100% argument. If you don't care about achieving 100% in a video game, why should you care if you've read every page? If you've gotten a full story that the book, or game, intends to give you, what have you lost? If you're insistent on getting 100% or reading every page, there's nothing stopping you from going back and doing so. If you don't want to, these books and games are designed so that one serving tells one entire story, as intended.
What is one full game? Is it every single item, line of dialogue, individual character model, side quest (however relevant), and piece of data contained on the disc? What about my original Mass Effect game save? On it, I have completed a satisfactory number of side quests, built my character up enough to make me happy, become a Spectre, learned about the Reapers, stopped Saren, and saved the Citadel from Sovereign's attack.
At this point, if I so choose, I may go back and experience all that from the other side of the spectrum and get a whole "game's" worth of content all over again. If I choose not to, however, have I missed out on anything? Am I truly at a loss, and have I truly not gotten my money's worth? Personally, I feel that the one playthrough is plenty to get a full game out of it.
Most of these decision-based entertainments have one full plot. They're going to begin similarly, and they're going to end similarly. The biggest differences will be in how you get there, and many details at the end. The story still moves forward, and your decisions will still affect Mass Effect 3. However, will Mass Effect 3 abruptly end halfway through the intended overall story because of a decision you made in Mass Effect 1? Highly unlikely.
Reading the first chapter of a book and stopping would be more akin to playing the tutorial of a game and stopping. You're not getting closure, you're getting the exposition for the rest of the book.
But yes, you're right. I'm a kid living with my parents, and you are the James Cameron of video games. What was I thinking?
Need to remind myself not to read anymore of your crap articles in the future, esp after your extremly arrogant remarks to people who disagree with you...
I'm sorry no one likes your favorite genre anymore. Weird how the exact same thing for years and years and years can grow tiring.
and the random copy paste stuff was an accident.
I would hardly consider making forum-based RPGs since you were 14 under the e-mail of "vegeta2k1alex" remotely noteworthy.
As for the difference between "regular" people and "experts," I used to be a manager at a Gamestop, and I saw a wide variety of gamer audiences. Believe me when I say that, from what I've seen of you so far, you fall into a very large category of frustratingly close-minded individuals that do no good to any of the gaming industry. So you may want to get off your high horse there, friend.
Why I insist on beating this dead horse, I couldn't begin to say.
People that work at Gamestop are usually know-it-all gamers which is probably why you and I are butting heads. When you run into someone that actually makes games for a living and knows what they are talking about, you can't hold up a conversation.
Since I was about 14, I have taken an avid interest in video game writing. I'm currently pursuing my bachelor's in English with a Writing specialization and double minor in Writing/Japanese. With this degree, I would ideally like to write for video games, and ideally push my hopes that gaming will eventually move toward a higher art form with greater literary influence. If that doesn't work out, I'll get a job wherever I can in the media/literature/journalism world.
My point here is that, yes; I am, at the very least, informed when it comes to video games and writing.
so if you want to keep telling yourself you are an RPG expert, go right ahead. that STILL doesnt mean your opinion can be taken as a fact. there are plenty of RPG gamers that are not in the least bit put off by the whole moral choice system in most RPGs now. you stated your opinion that you dont like it. fine. but dont go around acting like moral choices should no longer be put into games only because YOU, in all your "expertise" say so. you could say "i would prefer it if they didnt continue to include moral decision making into RPG games because i personally dont like them." that would be perfectly ok and you would not get much backlash from that because you are simply stating that you dont care for it.
"I wanna read a book not search for pages dammit"
This news story is archived and is closed to comments now.