On Morality and Decision Making
Don’t worry – this post is much less intellectually adept than the title may suggest. It is, of course, about morality and decision making in video games, not in the (terrifying) real-world.
Games often present us with difficult life-or-death decisions, often forcing us to make them quickly – when trying to pick somebody to save in Telltale’s The Walking Dead, waiting too long will result in everybody dying. Decisions in some games are more mundane, or lack far-reaching consequences; though I’m speaking strictly from a narrative standpoint. When it comes down to it, all games are essentially about decisions and decision making; choosing what structure to build in Animal Crossing is as much a decision as choosing when to reload in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive. But this post is focusing on narrative decisions, made famous by games such as Fable and Fallout (and some earlier than that).
On the whole, I consider these to be a colossal failure. Fable’s always had more fun with these decisions, making them black-and-white evil or good, rather than trying to introduce complex morality. Unfortunately, this renders all decisions moot (a problem with almost all morality systems, which I’ll talk about more in another post) – you essentially make a single decision at the beginning of the game, and that’s it. How many players decided to be ‘good’, and as such never once chose an evil decision?
These games often literally show you which decision to make, by colouring decisions as either blue (good) or red (evil). As such, these games boil down to two real options; good or evil. Players are basically making one decision before they play, and that’s it. This is made worse by systems found in games such as Knights of the Old Republic, where you gain or lose powers based on your “morality score”, discouraging any decisions that step outside your chosen path.
In the unhealthy amount of games I’ve played over my life, I only consider a handful to have any kind of interesting narrative decision making, one of which I just recently got around to finishing; The Witcher 2. By the end of that game, I wasn’t sure if I’d ever made the right decision at any point. I’d ended up killing one of the only characters I considered to be righteous, while letting all the awful people go – and that’s not a spoiler, because none of those moments are predetermined. There were solid reasons for this, but I’ve been tossing each decision around in my head ever since. CD Projekt Red has really realised the concept of “grey” choices.
An interesting example is Spec Ops: The Line, though I do have some problems with the choices the player makes in that game; mainly that you don’t really know what the decisions mean until you’ve played through it once, but the game chastises you for it anyway. It’s hard to talk about without spoiling what makes the game so great, but while your decisions do have impact, it’s not in the way you think – which makes it feel less like real decision making and more like random bullshit.
Decisions are imperative to games, because they’re what separates this form of media from books, television and movies. You can decide to stop watching a book or punch your TV, but all you’re really doing is putting a premature end to the story. In games, you’re constantly faced with decisions that affect the narrative and as such, affect your experience – an experience you paid for (unless you’re a jerk).
This is partly why I think developers try to steer clear of decisions that affect the story too much. A lot of care is taken to craft the experience of the player and I can say from experience that we try to do as much as possible to mitigate freedom. I know how that sounds, and it certainly isn’t always true – but even in the most open-ended games, the developers have tried to craft a specific experience.
Each path and area in Morrowind has loads of crap to do and see, but they’re all been designed with a specific path in mind. It’s true that the player can randomly stumble upon and explore some of this stuff, but they can only do so because the game has been designed that way.
So maybe it isn’t fair to say we try to mitigate freedom, but we do try to optimise the experience of each player. Unfortunately, players have “free will”, which fucks up everything. Throwing in world-changing decisions is a nightmare on top of what you bastards are doing normally.
There’s also the cost of developing extra content that comes with these decisions, which I believe to be another huge turn off. If you have a story that can go in two completely different directions (as The Witcher 2 can), it means that you have to essentially make each path half as long, or double up on the project budget. What makes this worse is that players tend to only play once and not give a flying shit if the other half of your game was incredible, because they didn’t and never will see it.
It’s a huge amount of effort, time and money to add interesting decision making. I’ve met many players who ask me why they’re so bad in game X, and I usually just punch them in the face. Making games is hard, it’s expensive and it makes everybody involved violently angry (so I guess games do make people violent). So when you ask them why they didn’t just add amazing decisions and double the length of the game, I imagine it’s a bit like asking cancer researchers why they don’t just up and cure it.