next »

[shinn497]

I'm thinking of ways of putting a spin on morality and choice within video games and I just came up with an idea. Instead of the enemies being nameless and souless, give each one a backstory that the player can discover. The backstory would require the player to possibly learn about and even befriend the character to go further into. By doing this, the player could learn about a secret or item in the game to be discovered. However, the character could still function as an enemy guarding another secret. Thus, the player must make a choice. Do they kill the character to get one reward or spare them to discover another.

I think this could put a spin on the common morality system in games and also tackle the option of using violence to get through a level. There would be real implications for violence including how you experence the game. However, I would not like to punish or reward the character. So the secrets would be things that are more narrative or cosmetic.

Thoughts?

[Jordgubben]

When given the explicit choice to kill or not kill a character in a game I always go for the non-kill option. So I'd love getting that option in more games so that I can play the way I like.

That also means that the kill/not-kill binary would be a non-choice to me. Having less extremely opposite options would make it more interesting.

An example: More games should let us shove enemies into garbage bins.

[oahda]

I wouldn't be inclined to kill a character either way. Make something new already, devs. Show me some imagination.

[shinn497]

Here is the thing. The No-Kill option in games is often incentivised. I.E. games will give grades, award points, or judge your performance based on how few enemies you kill. So it is kind of skewed. I'm wondering if there is another way to express the ramifications of your choice. I.E. instead of having a little meter at the end of the level that ranks your kills, characters could genuinely express remorse or regret that a certain character is gone.

[ThemsAllTook]

characters could genuinely express remorse or regret that a certain character is gone.

This is probably fine for NPC dialogue, but be mindful when applying it to the player character. Players don't like to be told how they're feeling (relevant part starts at 3:39):

[Jordgubben]

There could be a point later in the game where the player is introduced to his/her victims families. The may want revenge and the player may be at their mercy. They could also not know that the player is the murderer and express their sorrow to him/her.

[JWK5]

Don't force the player to mourn the dead, have the world around them mourn the dead. It's like walking into a room where everyone is looking somber, you immediately sense something is wrong even without a word being spoken.

Make the loss of life matter. Who is connected to the character (family, friends, business partners, etc.) and how would they act in response to their death (rage, revenge, forgiveness, sorrow, etc.)? What impact did the character have on the world around them and what does the world lose with their absence?

Rather than (just) giving the character a bonus or penalty mechanically the actual consequences and subsequent events should provide that. Generally, the more a character is connected to the world the more the player will consider them. This is why the NPCs in Fallout 3 are pretty much cannon fodder, they are indifferent of one another and they have no real impact on the environment and setting they are placed in. Nothing is really lost when they die, nobody will miss them, the world largely stays the same without them.

If the designers and writers didn't care that much about the characters why should the player?

[RoboticPotato]

Without knowing anything about the game you might be using to implement this system, I think this is a really interesting idea.

Regardless of the idea of morality or how the world responds to the death or life of these characters, I think I would enjoy the opportunity to learn more about them if their stories were intriguing enough. So to answer your question, I would be less inclined to kill.

If their backgrounds are redundant or offer little in the way value, I may not care about them enough to put in the effort to avoid killing them.

Example: One of my favorite games, Dishonored gives the kill/no-kill choice value by changing the state of the world you play in based on your choice, much like JWK5 is saying.

This also adds a lot to the replay value of the game, encouraging you to test and see how different characters react to you, and how the levels change. Adding stories that can be discovered through those characters as well, only increases the fun and depth, in my opinion.

-Tom

[Muz]

If the main option of the game is killing, I'd choose the non-kill option (e.g. GTA)
If the main option of the game is not killing, I'd choose the kill option (e.g. Fallout, Unreal World).
I'm edgy that way.

If you tell me that all the characters give this cool item or level if I don't kill them, I'm going to do a kill run on the game.