Lionhead's imminent announcement...

[Garple]

I don't understand why it's considered a given that having an achievement system in place is going to color my ethical decisions in-game. WHO GIVES, I must ask, WHO GIVES A FUCK ABOUT ACHIEVEMENTS AND GAMERSCORES? And aren't the people who do care about achievements the ones who are less likely to be concerned with how the ethics system is designed? I mean, they're obviously not very immersed in the game as an experience if they are thinking more about a (tangentially related) system implemented by the designers than how their decision will affect the actual gameworld. What ever happened to suspension of disbelief? Are we starting to think, as games get more and more realistic, that there's no work to be done on the player's end in terms of using his imagination?

[toblix]

WHO GIVES, I must ask, WHO GIVES A FUCK ABOUT ACHIEVEMENTS AND GAMERSCORES?

I do, I can't help it. If an RPG has an achievement for maxing out the good/evil scale, I will.

[DanJW]

Whose fault is that though?

(actually a sincere question)

[Nachimir]

WHO GIVES, I must ask, WHO GIVES A FUCK ABOUT ACHIEVEMENTS AND GAMERSCORES?

I design stuff, and think about design a lot. I'm aware of how lame, lazy and cynical metagaming design can be too. Still, when something has 30 or more gamerpoints attached to it, there's a bit of my reptile brain that goes "ooh!" nonetheless.

[DanJW]

There ought to be an equal achievement for not maxing out your karma score in any direction, so that all playstyles are rewarded.

[toblix]

Whose fault is that though?

(actually a sincere question)

And a good question. It's one thing talking about "the player" in terms of what they should do to give the average gamer so and so experience, etc., but when I'm aware of it, I'm no longer the average gamer. It's like in Valve's single player games, where they spend so much time getting the player to look at where shit is going on via subtle cues and stuff. I understand why they do that because everyone I've watched playing the Half-Lives just run through the levels, don't look where they're supposed to, etc (which annoys the living shit out of me), so obviously they have to be controlled in some way, but this doesn't apply to me (I think) because I move at a snail's pace through the levels, inching from trigger to trigger, always looking everywhere to make sure I see all the awesome stuff, catch a glimpse of the G-Man, etc.

Anyway, can I really complain and say that the achievements make me play the game differently? Not really. Are such achievements (i.e. achievements that "make" you play an RPG in a different way than you'd really like just to get it) stupid? I think that's an interesting question. Also, I'm so weak I'd do just about anything for the blup-blip sound of a fresh achievement.

[Chris]

I was about to say that as long as there's a visible meter in place for that kind of stuff, players are going to be gaming it. Then, you pointed out that only hardcore nerds would actually do that, which I immediately agreed to. But then I thought, really? Isn't the paragon/renegade bar just as visible as any other character stat? If the player is expected to look at and care about these, why wouldn't he/she care just as much about the morality/alignment of the character?

With all the stat reporting games are doing these days (at least I know Valve is doing it), and with conventional game testing, I bet the developers know how many players consciously select the stat maximizing lines rather than whatever feels right at the time.

Yeah it's visible, but the only incentive to being a Paragon, for example, is to keep being more of a Paragon. If you just max out that column, then you won't get the Renegade options in conversations, so I don't really see that as a win.

But if you want to "game" it, well, that's fine. I'm not sure specifically what the result of "gaming" in this context would be, but that's your choice as a player for playing that way. Developers shouldn't be hamstrung by having to find ways to suppress tendencies of obsessive-compulsive players at the expense of their game design, unless it's really a game-breaking situation. I'm certainly not playing it that way and I'm a relatively "hardcore" player so it obviously isn't an inevitability.

I'm not saying Mass Effect actually presents an incredible, perfectly subtle, transparent, realistic morality system. Obviously it doesn't. (And of course, morality isn't what's being modeled.) But developers still have to try new things and move forward incrementally (which is the only way games ever progress), it won't just be all or nothing. Mass Effect does it very differently to Fable 2, for example, and just because it isn't the end goal achieved doesn't mean it isn't a different approach on it that's interesting.

(For that matter, there are also a million other parts of game design and development that don't model the way the world actually works in a truly believable way--in this category, I would put every single facet of games--so I think it's pretty fair that developers still haven't nailed the one that's clearly one of the absolute hardest of all. I'm not saying I wouldn't love something far more intricate and subtle, but it's probably going to be a while.)

[toblix]

Yeah it's visible, but the only incentive to being a Paragon, for example, is to keep being more of a Paragon. If you just max out that column, then you won't get the Renegade options in conversations, so I don't really see that as a win.

Oh, I wasn't aware. So there's no "reward" for going all-out on any side, other than that you actually lose the ability to chose the other side's lines? I think I was under the impression that you'd open up more interesting dialogue choices as you maxed out a rating, but honestly I don't remember.

Because I've always found dialogue to be by far the most intersting aspects of RPGs, it's always a challenge for me to play games where dialogue options are dynamic, because I'm both doing the regular role playing bit (levelling up, getting better gear, doing quests) and always trying to get all the available lines. For example, when playing the Fallout games, which I've always considered the best games, dialogue-wise, I always start with 8 or 9 in intelligence and make sure to max out INT, CHAR and PER just so I won't miss any dialogue.

I haven't really played any RPG where this conflicted with my lust for achievements, but if I ever do, I am confident I'll go for the dialogue options.

[Chris]

Oh, I wasn't aware. So there's no "reward" for going all-out on any side, other than that you actually lose the ability to chose the other side's lines? I think I was under the impression that you'd open up more interesting dialogue choices as you maxed out a rating, but honestly I don't remember.

Because I've always found dialogue to be by far the most intersting aspects of RPGs, it's always a challenge for me to play games where dialogue options are dynamic, because I'm both doing the regular role playing bit (levelling up, getting better gear, doing quests) and always trying to get all the available lines. For example, when playing the Fallout games, which I've always considered the best games, dialogue-wise, I always start with 8 or 9 in intelligence and make sure to max out INT, CHAR and PER just so I won't miss any dialogue.

I haven't really played any RPG where this conflicted with my lust for achievements, but if I ever do, I am confident I'll go for the dialogue options.

Well there's definitely a reward in that you are the most proficient in that type of conversation, but I think that's fine. It makes sense. It's not like you're just becoming some intangible version of "evil"--you're just becoming more persuasive, or more intimidating, through habit. But yeah, if you just focus on maxing out one side, then you miss out on a bunch of other potential conversation options.

[vimes]

Well there's definitely a reward in that you are the most proficient in that type of conversation, but I think that's fine. It makes sense. It's not like you're just becoming some intangible version of "evil"--you're just becoming more persuasive, or more intimidating, through habit. But yeah, if you just focus on maxing out one side, then you miss out on a bunch of other potential conversation options.

Well you do end up with different endings, only one of which will - thanks to the sequel - be the True one, hence, the others being bad, hence you being Evil for breaking narrative contingency.

But other than that, Chris is right : the dilemnas at the core of the side quests and relations with other characters never smells of the writer's moral stance : your party will comment on your choice, but it's not like the game scolds you for taking a decision rather than another.

Bioware's writers can still get better at the way they present those dilemma though, since in Mass Effect, they are quite apparent and more times than not are bit salomon-esque.

[ThunderPeel2001]

I don't understand why it's considered a given that having an achievement system in place is going to color my ethical decisions in-game.

It's not just an achievement, it's the very fact that you're being monitored at all. That someone has decided for you that your action earns you "-1000 Karma points", or whatever, instead of just letting you live with consequences within the game. Also, for most games, that "Karmic score" (if you will) is often the biggest tangible (and lasting) outcome of your actions... (Lionhead likes to give you devil horns or angel wings, for example.) So the cause and effect of your "ethical" decision is, for the most part, nothing more than a score instead of an actual knock-on effect within the game.

The very presence of your good/evil "score" is enough to alter the way you think about solving an ethical dilemma... at least it is for me a lot of the time. I know I can't help factor it in in a game like Fable, when really I should only be contemplating the dilemma.

How many times have you heard people say, "I'm playing it through again, but this time as an evil character"? People subconsciously acknowledge the way these games are designed, and they're designed to be played as either good or evil without genuinely making you think about anything.

If you haven't already read it, and I know it's the third goddamn time I've linked to it, but I think I did a pretty decent job of explaining my particular issues with the whole "Karma point system" and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts:

http://thunderpeel2001.blogspot.com/2007/03/peter-molyneuxs-emotional-stuff.html

[Chris]

Well you do end up with different endings, only one of which will - thanks to the sequel - be the True one, hence, the others being bad, hence you being Evil for breaking narrative contingency.

Are you sure? I thought I had read that wasn't the case, that a pretty significant component of the sequel is that it just reads your save file and directly continues from the choices you made. I even thought I saw someone specifically ask which ending is "canon" and they said that's an irrelevant question based on how they're doing the sequel.

But other than that, Chris is right : the dilemnas at the core of the side quests and relations with other characters never smells of the writer's moral stance : your party will comment on your choice, but it's not like the game scolds you for taking a decision rather than another.

Bioware's writers can still get better at the way they present those dilemma though, since in Mass Effect, they are quite apparent and more times than not are bit salomon-esque.

Yeah, there's definitely a lot of room for the writing to grow, but there are a lot of great bits. This isn't a particularly mindblowing example or anything, but there's one where you can smuggle a shipment to a merchant past customs (thus avoid tariffs), using the higher level of access your character has. You can refuse, you can bring him the thing, you can tell him you're bringing him the thing and then not do it, you can tell him you're bringing him the thing and then report him, etc. And even if you do choose to bring it to him, you can do so agreeably or disagreeably, you can withhold it until you get more payment than you'd initially stipulated, and so on.

And what's also cool is that some choices you make can cause you to connect that whole situation to a seemingly totally unrelated character whom you would otherwise have had no reason to approach. When I played through the game the first time, my character never became aware of that link, but the second time she did. (Not deliberately--I don't really remember the intricacies of how I dealt with the situation the first time.)

There's no real aspect of it that's any more morally exaggerated than the same choices would basically be if you were making them in real life. Neither major choice is "right" or "wrong" -- the guy who runs the facility you're smuggling it into is kind of as asshole, but then again the guy who you're doing the task for is basically just an opportunist. The only "judgment" passed on you is how much you're skirting the law, or disregarding the previous agreements you already personally made. It has nothing really to do with whether you did a good or evil thing.

Anyway I love stuff like that, and Mass Effect has a bunch of great examples of it.

[toblix]

I'm quite sure your save game will be the "canon", however you ended the game.

[OssK]

The dilemma here is that you can hardly present a dilemma to a player.

If a game offers you two choices to pick from and none of them seem to satisfy you, you'll have to think it through. At the same time that will be a real dilemma and will probably be a game breaker :

When fable 2 presents you with a choice, you just stick to you alignment and go on with your choice. That is not a decision, you don't have to think, you just do what you're supposed to do in a systemic decision : you do need 20 evil points to purchase your new spell.

A dilema was presented to me a little while ago, playing oblivion, I wanted to stick to my "be a good guy" creed so I had to.

Then I went throught the arena and got throught the gray prince questline.

All you had to do is help him find out about his ancestry, you then discover that he is a vampire and bring him the news. He kind of takes it badly and when I entered the arena to fight him, he just stood there and asked me to kill him. I was so shocked that I could not get out of the arena, I could have loaded my game but I did not, I found out that you can have dilemmas in game I didn't want to spoil it.

So what you have to do in my opinion is not let the player choose his alignment, rather you should give him the spide man choice "hey, you fucked me, I let the thief get away" and then "oh damn he killed my uncle!".

Give people these kind of choices, give them a character to be, strengthen this bond and THEN give them hard choices like "do you help him or him knowing that one will make you feel good and the other one will give you money".

[Chris]

I'm quite sure your save game will be the "canon", however you ended the game.

Okay yeah, that's what I thought.

[Garple]

It's not just an achievement, it's the very fact that you're being monitored at all. That someone has decided for you that your action earns you "-1000 Karma points", or whatever, instead of just letting you live with consequences within the game. Also, for most games, that "Karmic score" (if you will) is often the biggest tangible (and lasting) outcome of your actions... (Lionhead likes to give you devil horns or angel wings, for example.) So the cause and effect of your "ethical" decision is, for the most part, nothing more than a score instead of an actual knock-on effect within the game.

The very presence of your good/evil "score" is enough to alter the way you think about solving an ethical dilemma... at least it is for me a lot of the time. I know I can't help factor it in in a game like Fable, when really I should only be contemplating the dilemma.

How many times have you heard people say, "I'm playing it through again, but this time as an evil character"? People subconsciously acknowledge the way these games are designed, and they're designed to be played as either good or evil without genuinely making you think about anything.

If you haven't already read it, and I know it's the third goddamn time I've linked to it, but I think I did a pretty decent job of explaining my particular issues with the whole "Karma point system" and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts:

http://thunderpeel2001.blogspot.com/2007/03/peter-molyneuxs-emotional-stuff.html

As they say: Individual results may vary. I tend to make the decisions based on either, what I feel I should do based on the narrative context, or if I'm trying to roleplay I do what I think my character would do. The only thing about the karma systems that really and truly bothers me is that they assign points to my actions even when nobody was around to witness them, so it's like the game itself is making the judgements. However, in Fallout 3, since they actually use the term "karma", it makes more sense, since karma, at least according to the religion(s) of which it is a feature, witnesses are irrelevant, or are replaced by a spiritual force, so in that case, the game acting as the omniscient divinity is not so jarring.

I know, it would be nice if they didn't have to get all "meta" about it. But it would also be nice if we didn't have things like: "MISSION: Destroy all ten fuel tanks with the rocket launcher" (complemented by a little fuel tank icon in the upper right-hand corner with a 7/10 indicator to tell you how many fuel tanks are left). But the games industry is a toddler compared to other entertainment mediums, if it's even that old. If developers only released games that contained no philosophically objectionable content, video games would not exist or they'd each take 25 years to make.

Granted, I know ethics systems in games are not very good right now, but I'm sure there's a very concrete reason (financial, temporal...) why they don't make better ones. It's probably important to consider the fact that we have any simulation of ethics in games at all a huge step forward.

[DanJW]

Yes, I can see that in some situations a choice between two "evils" could be genuinely upsetting for someone to play through. On the other hand if you make sure they are aware that this is that kind of game, then all should be good (but knowing consumers there would still be bitching and complaints). Plus there's the argument that all real art should be potentially upsetting, and they might actually learn something from experiencing that ie sometimes life throws you choices where there is no correct decision.

[MrHoatzin]

Personally, if I am not playing in one of the extremes (and have horns or ethereal glow, or the golden retriever or the hyena that go along with either) I feel like I am doing a middling job of playing the game.

If I play without paying attention to the sliders, I tend to end up smack in the middle, because I like compensation for services rendered, but am not a psychopath.

[Nevsky]

Sorry to break up this chat (seriously, I think this is awesome), but the announcement has just broken. And, it's... Fable 3.

Here are some tweets from one of the UK Inside Xbox guys:

--

- Pete talking about the challenges of making the third in a series - Fable 3 will be 'bold with the game mechanics' and 'bold with the story'

- 'What is the key foundation stone of role playing games'? Whatever it is it doesn't matter because he's THROWING IT AWAY.

- Teaser vid now - in Fable 3 you will be the ruler of Albion

- So choices and consequences effect not just your character but the whole kingdom

- Concept art showing a rubbish Al Bundy king getting yelled at by his wife and badass queen using dude as footstool

- So, your character will be the son or daughter of your character from fable 2 - so your fable 2 game will resonate in fable 3

- Albion much bigger and more industrialised - decisions change the course of the whole land, so I imagine it's possible to REALLY screw it up

- Pete says go and look up the history of Oman for the last 100 years, as it's exactly what he wants to do in Fable 3

- They got actors to act out the entire story like a play, to see how it worked and what needed to be changed.

- Judgments sound fun, people come in and present you with cases, like food theft. So you can go and investigate the crime yourself

- Or just go 'DEATH!'. Which is way easier.

- Touch is important in te game, replacing the expresions from Fable 2. Pete says no 'cupping' though...

- 2010 is all he'll say for a release date. Not too early in 2010 either. And they're still working hard on Milo and Kate.

--

I'm a bit disappointed, really. Simply because teasing a mysterious new announcement, just for it to be a new installment in a franchise is pretty boring. But it's early days yet.

[elmuerte]

Too bad, I was hoping for something new. But apparently the Molyneux trains has left the station.

[toblix]

I'm already annoyed with myself for buying this when it comes out, as it'll inevitably end up failing to deliver on all these grand promises.

I think it's interesting that he says "I think there's something fundamentally wrong with RPGs like Fable. It's a mechanic that's been there since the eighties. I'm going to take that foundation stone and throw it away." while still marketing future Fable 2 DLC and announcing Fable 2 in episodic format.

[DanJW]

Also the Fable games are incredibly RPG Lite, and don't really resemble other RPGs all that much. So what he's saying is that there's something wrong with Fable. Yeah.

[thl]

I'm already annoyed with myself for buying this when it comes out, as it'll inevitably end up failing to deliver on all these grand promises.

I think it's interesting that he says "I think there's something fundamentally wrong with RPGs like Fable. It's a mechanic that's been there since the eighties. I'm going to take that foundation stone and throw it away." while still marketing future Fable 2 DLC and announcing Fable 2 in episodic format.

Maybe next year he'll tell us that there's something fundamentally wrong with video games and that he hates them so his next video game will be nothing like any other video game (except that you play it by looking at video and using a controller and there's a doofy british dude with a comedic sidekick and the last level is timed and there will always be better swords out in dungeons that you can find). that will be awesome.

[elmuerte]

Or maybe Molyneux will admit that there's something fundamentally wrong with him.

[Patters]

Or maybe Molyneux will admit that there's something fundamentally wrong with him.

NEVER.