Game News Brian Fargo on moral dilemmas in Wasteland 2

[St. Toxic]

Not THAT is a moral dilemma.

Really depends on what the consequences are. Venereal diseases? Stat decrease from the trauma? A "Got raped" trait that just won't rub off no matter how hard you scrub?

 

[Vault Dweller]

VD believes he's good enough at RPGs that he can win any combat. So, for him, if there's any choice that has the downside of putting the player in dangerous combat situations, that downside isn't a downside at all - even if from the "in-character" perspective it should be a more serious dilemma.

Don't make it about me. It's not about my skills as a player. It's about the overall design that makes the player's character(s) too powerful.

In other words, in what universe does the moral dilemma exist - the player's universe ("I CAN KILL ANYTHING IN THIS GAME") or the character's ingame universe?

It's not I - the player - who can stomp on piny raiders like a fucking godzilla. It's my character. Thus, all dilemmas should be tied to my character's abilities. If they aren't, if the game asks my character(s) to do things he (they) can do with ease, it's not much of a dilemma.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Not THAT is a moral dilemma.

Really depends on what the consequences are. Venereal diseases? Stat decrease from the trauma? A "Got raped" trait that just won't rub off no matter how hard you scrub?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B5mAMCytG8

 

[Infinitron]

It should exist in both universes with the situation at hand chalenging both player's and PC's worldview

Unfortunately, due to discrepancies in different players' skill levels, that can be hard to pull off. Maybe a particular area will be designed to be scary and tough but because VD is such a god of powergaming, he'll steamroll it. For him, any choices and consequences in that area might be ruined.

So, Vault Dweller, do you think it's possible to make C&C that is "player skill-proof"? That is, consequences that are equally painful to players of all skill levels? Is that even possible?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Sure, it can be scary when you go into the deathclaw den for the first time not knowing what to expect, but overall, when an NPC asks you to help him solve a problem in a violent way, you know that you up to the task. It's what makes RPGs fun.

If this is what makes RPGs fun, why did you do it differently in AoD? I mean it can easily happen that an NPC asks you to do something and you're not up to the task.

AoD is a mix of different genres (I think) and I'm not saying that that's what RPGs should be like.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Unfortunately, due to discrepancies in different players' skill levels, that can be hard to pull off. Maybe a particular area will be designed to be scary and tough but because VD is such a god of powergaming, he'll steamroll it.

I don't think you get what I'm saying.

So, Vault Dweller, do you think it's possible to make C&C that is "player skill-proof"? That is, consequences that are equally painful to players of all skill levels? Is that even possible?

It's not about the player's skill. Never was. But to answer your question, yes, it's obviously possible.

 

[Infinitron]

Unfortunately, due to discrepancies in different players' skill levels, that can be hard to pull off. Maybe a particular area will be designed to be scary and tough but because VD is such a god of powergaming, he'll steamroll it.

I don't think you get what I'm saying.

Then please explain.

So, Vault Dweller, do you think it's possible to make C&C that is "player skill-proof"? That is, consequences that are equally painful to players of all skill levels? Is that even possible?

It's not about the player's skill. Never was. But to answer your question, yes, it's obviously possible.

Also this.

 

[Mrowak]

It should exist in both universes with the situation at hand chalenging both player's and PC's worldview

Unfortunately, due to discrepancies in different players' skill levels, that can be hard to pull off. Maybe a particular area will be designed to be scary and tough but because VD is such a god of powergaming, he'll steamroll it. For him, any choices and consequences in that area might be ruined.

Wait, we were talking about moral dilemmas here. Scary is something different. Actually it is easier to pull off in the gameworld because you can create status effect called 'panic' or 'morale'. From the gameworld's perspective it's your charactes that are taking real risk, not you so it makes sense that they are more scared than you. To transcribe that into gameplay and by extension onto the player, on the other hand, is very difficult. Look at early Silent Hill games - they do it quite well.

Similar with tough, though here in order to have gameplay the challenge should task the player more, because it's you who have full control over PC(s), right?

 

[St. Toxic]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B5mAMCytG8

Won't play. I'm guessing it's the rape scene? Y'know, some people might get off on the idea of getting raped, in which case they luck out on that third option.

Say, what if you have to rape an innocent woman to save another from being raped? Would that be a moral dilemma?

Let me set the scene, maybe Fargo'll include it in W2? You're out walking in the wasteland, looking for something or someone to rape, when you see two women, walking, on the outskirts of town. You drop your pants and, to your dismay, notice that you only have a single cock with which to rape. That's just typical. Now, if you recruited a rapist earlier you may be able to restrain both of them (for an easter-egg) but if you're alone you can only choose one victim. One of the women is ugly and the other is pretty, but the pretty one is pregnant and the ugly one is not. In addition to that, the ugly one walks with a limp, so the STR-check to subdue her will be a lot easier, but on the other hand the non-limp one will reach town and come back with help faster giving you less time to rape.

So, if you rape the ugly woman, the pregnant one gets the town militia and they shoot your junk off. If you rape the pretty one, you get a different ending, where the son takes revenge on you for the rape of his mother just as you complete your final assignment.

 

[Infinitron]

Wait, we were talking about moral dilemmas here. Scary is something different. Actually it is easier to pull off in the gameworld because you can create status effect called 'panic' or 'morale'. From the gameworld's perspective it's your charactes that are taking real risk, not you so it makes sense that they are more scared than you. To transcribe that into gameplay and by extension onto the player, on the other hand, is very difficult. Look at early Silent Hill games - they do it quite well.

Similar with tough, though here in order to have gameplay the challenge should task the player more, because it's you who have full control over them, right?

Get off the moral dilemmas. I'm trying to get to the bottom of why Vault Dweller has developed this highly mechanistic view of RPGs and how he justifies it.

 

[Infinitron]

I think I understand:

It's not I - the player - who can stomp on piny raiders like a fucking godzilla. It's my character. Thus, all dilemmas should be tied to my character's abilities. If they aren't, if the game asks my character(s) to do things he (they) can do with ease, it's not much of a dilemma.

It's not that simple. Your character was able to develop said abilities because of your skill in directing him. The game doesn't play itself! You're the one who built that character. Player skill.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Won't play. I'm guessing it's the rape scene? Y'know, some people might get off on the idea of getting raped, in which case they luck out on that third option.

Say, what if you have to rape an innocent woman to save another from being raped? Would that be a moral dilemma?

It's the post-rape scene.

"Are we ok?"
"No, man. I'm pretty fucking far from ok."

 

[Vault Dweller]

I think I understand:

It's not I - the player - who can stomp on piny raiders like a fucking godzilla. It's my character. Thus, all dilemmas should be tied to my character's abilities. If they aren't, if the game asks my character(s) to do things he (they) can do with ease, it's not much of a dilemma.

It's not that simple. Your character was able to develop said abilities because of your skill in directing him. The game doesn't play itself! You're the one who built that character. Player skill.

To a very small degree, unless you want to tell me that most people struggled blasting raiders and super mutants in Fallout, or progressing through BG2 and killing everything in their path.

 

[St. Toxic]

It's the post-rape scene.

"Are we ok?"
"No, man. I'm pretty fucking far from ok."

Hey, I'd be pissed too if some hillbillies fucked me in the ass, but in the end the only thing that got torn was his pride. I doubt getting pounded by Zed really compared at all to getting run over by Butch, especially as time went on and the ringing in his ears wouldn't go away. Marcellus probably died from internal bleeding before he could even get medieval. I'm sure most would opt for rape if the other choice was getting whacked with a fast moving vehicle.

 

[Infinitron]

To a very small degree, unless you want to tell me that most people struggled blasting raiders and super mutants in Fallout, or progressing through BG2 and killing everything in their path.

How can you hold this opinion when you know that RPGs have become a niche genre? Now that's cognitive dissonance. "RPGs are easy! The publishers aren't putting them out anymore just because they're big meanies!"

My conclusion here is this:

I think most seasoned CRPG players learn to accept a degree of discrepancy between how they are actually doing and the premises of the setting. They learn to accept that the price of their skill level is a bit of cognitive dissonance in service of the atmosphere and story. Within reason, of course - if the player truly is invincible, or he is presented with painfully trivial choices even at a very late stage in the game, that illusion is strained too far and it breaks.

But if I'm still at a low-level, just starting out, and I encounter a choice where the downside is combat, I don't know about you, but I think twice about it. I don't go "ALL COMBAT IS EASY, BRING IT ON", especially not at the beginning of the game when I'm still exploring and getting a feel for things.

 

[St. Toxic]

I remember people used to complain about getting killed by the rats outside the Vault.

 

[Vault Dweller]

To a very small degree, unless you want to tell me that most people struggled blasting raiders and super mutants in Fallout, or progressing through BG2 and killing everything in their path.

How can you hold this opinion when you know that RPGs have become a niche genre?

Yeah. Because they are too fucking difficult.

RPGs are easy! The publishers aren't putting them out anymore just because they're big meanies!"

The publishers aren't putting them out because action sells more and cost less to develop, which is why you either play action games or action games with RPG elements these days.

But if I'm still at a low-level, just starting out, and I encounter a choice where the downside is combat, I don't know about you, but I think twice about it. I don't go "ALL COMBAT IS EASY, BRING IT ON", especially not at the beginning of the game when I'm still exploring and getting a feel for things.

It doesn't have to be easy to be doable with 2-3 reloads.

 

[Infinitron]

The publishers aren't putting them out because action sells more

Why does action sell more?

It doesn't have to be easy to be doable with 2-3 reloads.

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

 

[skuphundaku]

The publishers aren't putting them out because action sells more

Why does action sell more?

Because it requires you to think less.

 

[Lgrayman]

Have you never had a challenging encounter in an RPG then VD? Or are you just saying not after a certain point, like, towards the end? I certainly have, not so much in Fallout 1/2 (though some of the random encounters were extremely hard, guys in power armour with miniguns one-shotting you when you've only got a pistol and some leather armour etc). I remember in Planescape: Torment not being able to beat the demon you unleash from the cube and when fighting Trias for awhile he'd instantly kill my party with cloud kill until I got lucky. When running through Baator to get to the Pillar of Skulls, I had to constantly run from enemies instead of fighting because if I did, I knew I'd be killed very quickly. I also found MoTB harder than you did, but that's perhaps due to the fact I skipped straight to MoTB and had no idea what I was doing. These aren't really rare incidents, I can list many times I've been challenged playing the Codex top 10. I haven't played BG2, but many people seem to think that it's a pretty difficult and brutal game. From the SomethingAwful thread for BG2:

This game is hard. You will face mind flayers, summon armies of high level creatures to defeat them only to have them turned against you along with half your party. You'll fight mages that stop the flow of time while they unload powerful magical attacks on your helpless party. You might use your mages best dispelling magic to bring down the defenses of a lich lord and finally kill him with your warriors only to find that he replaced himself with an illusion and made himself invisible while you wasted your best spells on his fake double.

Maybe you're just much better than me and people like the guy who wrote that, or you think I'm an idiot, but I don't think RPGs are as easy as you make them out to be. Also, could you elaborate on how AoD is a hybrid game? Why is it possible for AoD to be extremely challenging at times but all other RPGs are supposedly easy? In AoD I definitely feel in danger when I'm in combat - I try to solve things peacefully if at all possible.

 

[Infinitron]

The publishers aren't putting them out because action sells more

Why does action sell more?

Because it requires you to think less.

Think about what? Solving a problem, of course. Difficulty.

 

[Mrowak]

The publishers aren't putting them out because action sells more

Why does action sell more?

Because it requires you to think less.

Think about what? Solving a problem, of course. Difficulty.

Difficulty doesn't solve the problem on its own. There can always be "cheap" difficulty (one which doesn't allow gameplay) or "fair" difficulty (which does).

 

[Phelot]

Moral dilemma's like this are kind of lame. There is always a very clear good, bad, with maybe an extra optimal choice.

I'd be much more interested in, say, needing a faction to help me with a quest, but all the factions are about equally gray, morally speaking. Rather than having good vs. bad gangs, it might be a bit more fun to pick and choose among them based on which vices they deal with that I am also comfortable with. For example, working with an old school mafia that doesn't deal with human trafficking or drugs for moral reasons, but will sell guns, does money laundering, loan sharking, etc. To me, that is infinitely more interesting than clear cut good and bad guys. Make characters or factions that have specific reasons for doing what they do rather than having them do good or evil because the player needs a good or evil choice.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

I just hope they don't balance the outcomes out like Bioshock did (having Adam thrown at you for not taking Adam). I like the option of buying back the wife, sacrificing $1,000 that could have spent on armour and ammo in order to save a stranger. As long as the rescued wife doesn't say "Thanks! Here's $2,000 I had hidden down the front of my dress. Those stupid raiders forgot to search/rape me. Take it as reward and leave me and my grateful husband destitute."

Selfish outcomes should profit. Being impossibly noble just makes you better looking. Just ask Sheppard.

Hehe, I just did a Skyrim quest that's supposed to be a moral dilemma - warriors from Hammerfell are searching for a noblewoman, but they're not allowed to enter the town. After you find her, she says they're actually assassins and asks you to kill their leader so they'll have to go back and leave her alone. Once you meet the leader, he says that they're trying to bring her back to Hammerfell to be judged for a crime (surrendering their city to the Aldmeri), and asks you to bring her to him. Since choosing to kill him would imply fighting six or seven soldiers in a cramped cave and I thought her story sounded suspect anyway, I agreed to help him. So he ends up capturing her, gives me half the bounty like he promised (500 gold), and tells me not to believe every pretty face that asks me for a favour. He says he'll bring her back to Hammerfell unharmed, but after that it's not up to him.

I just looked up the wiki, if you kill them all she'll thank you...and pay you 500 gold. Yeah, she's a former noble, but she's been working as a barmaid for months / years. So by helping her you get the money plus the warriors' rare loot. Derp.

(you can also kill them both and get the combined 1000 gold, but that's silly)

 

[St. Toxic]

Killing everyone is always the optimal choice. That's why real moral dilemmas only stem from interactions with unkillable characters.