Valve: Games contain strategic choices, not moral choices

[Gwendo]

Valve writer Chet Faliszek has said that moral choices do not exist in games, despite titles like Fable, BioShock, inFamous, etc. claiming to contain such options.

“There’s never a real moral choice you’re ever making in a game, because you’re never going to have to live with that choice,” he told D’toid. “We do things in our game to get you to behave better, to make you play together, to have this interaction in a game, but I don’t think those are moral choices.

“I don’t think games allow you to make moral choices. Games allow you to be evil, to do bad things. In Grand Theft Auto, I’m going around running people over, and guess what, I’m not doing that in real life.

“So, in the context of games having moral choices, that’s a weird thing to me. I don’t think they have real moral choices when I think of that. They have something else, like strategic choices, choices inside their world, but to me a moral choice is something that would live outside of a game. I don’t see that.”


Source: VG247

 

[Mele ~ on Grayza]

Well thats bullshit seeing that RPG contain ROLE playing, so you assume the role of the character and try to live in his world.

A good RPG gives the kind of immersion that you are one with the (main) character and that you therefore try to make the best moral choices.

So i dont agree.

 

[Murk]

Regardless of how immersive a game is, Faliszek's point remains, the choices you make rarely ever have any effects on you outside the game. I think he's mostly right, I've never been so immersed into a game that I actually started to think with my "heart", and I rarely do any real 'role playing' that isn't forced on me.

I'm curious how he would consider something like kids breaking their legs while attempting moves seen in Mortal Kombat games in all this "it's not moral unless it carries in reality".

 

[Gragt]

I killed a peaceful monster of my alignement too much and my god zapped me, how is that for living with the consequence, faggyvalveboy?

 

[ElectricOtter]

It's a moral choice that affects your character in the game, dipshit.

 

[Murk]

Then explain the tears and razor-cuts on his wrist, you insensitive MONSTER

 

[themadhatter]

How is this worthy of even posting? The moron is arguing semantics, nothing more.

 

[Joe Krow]

To some extent I agree. Even if the choice offered is "evil" and has long term consequences for the character I doubt the game would be able to evoke an emotional state in the player. A truly moral question would require a level of attachment games cannot create. The choice between "good" and "evil" is more a question of curiosity then morality.

 

[MetalCraze]

Valve topic in RPG discussion. Decline.

 

[Secretninja]

 

[Jaesun]

 

[bhlaab]

He's absoloutely right.

Seeing the effects of your moral choice isn't a decent reward/punishment in an of itself.

He's basically talking shit on Bethesda and Bioware's empty moral choices which I would think the codex would be behind 100% but I guess not?

 

[Jaime Lannister]

in before mondblut comes in with an argument the codex has had 100436 times.

 

[Norfleet]

This is largely true. I don't make choices in games based on any specific morality, I make them based on what I think will pay off better. It's basically a strategic decision determined by what I think will pay off better in terms of shinies and amusements. Then again, I do that in real life, too. I don't get this attachment to abstract notions of good and bad. It's like the saying goes: "Good, bad, I'm the one with the gun."

 

[Phelot]

There are a few games that have immersed me enough to feel bad for certain characters, but yeah, for the most part I agree with him. I need to be punished not to do stupid or evil shit.

Speaking of stupid shit, Valve really needs to make their characters react when you jump on their desks and knock shit over or fire off your gun right by their ears.

 

[WholesaleGenocide]

How lofty and philosophical of Mr. Faliszek. I don't think, by his definition, Valve has even successfully created a strategic choice in any of their games, though just by nature the phrase's overt meaning makes it sound as though a valve game could possess such a thing.

 

[spectre]

I think it's a matter of approach. If you always think in metagame terms, then all the choices are in fact strategic. For example if you play BG2 as a good guy to get max shop discount, or try to balance out reputation to keep different alignment guys together.
Heck, it's even possible in Torment - I'm gonna be LG, so that I can use the two +1CON tears.
Same in Fallout - ain't gonna let my karma drop too much, else I'd be in deep shit with the bounty hunters.

It really goes down the drain when it's a game like kotor, where all the choices boil down good guy/asshole/neutral, and you are somewhat expected to max the good/bad meter. (Worse still when you get significant bonuses for it).

It seems that the more you know about the game then, in fact, the more strategic all the choces become. I think in this respect the first, unspoiled run through the game is the purest.

But that's a personal approach and I say fuck it. It is still a piss poor excuse for making games filled with "stupid shit", which also covers inane morality systems in my books.

 

[bhlaab]

How lofty and philosophical of Mr. Faliszek. I don't think, by his definition, Valve has even successfully created a strategic choice in any of their games, though just by nature the phrase's overt meaning makes it sound as though a valve game could possess such a thing.

Well, take a look at Left 4 Dead. It rewards you for playing as a group and punishes you for trying to lone wolf it. If they had just left it up to the players to go "Hey gang, let's work together!" it just would never ever happen

Now look at, for example, Battlefield where they don't enforce that stuff in the gameplay. Unless you're playing on a really really good private server it's just chaos-- people on the same team racing each other for the best vehicles, etc.

Some of the same principals apply to c&c in rpgs. Like the megaton quest in fallout 3, there's no real significant reason to blow up the town other than to revel in the "evil-ness" of it (and get a slightly nicer looking house. boo-ring.) In addition, there's no reason to regret doing it later since the punishment is very very minor (the only npc with a major quest and who is the main shopkeeper is the sole survivor)
The whole thing is built around how the player feels about doing it, which just isn't a reality of game design.

 

[CrimsonAngel]

Hey valve SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!

3 Years ago you Promised us Episodic Content it is now 2000and fucking 9 (2009 in case you are a moron) and we still dont have Episode 3 or even conformation that Gabe "fat fuck" newel is even working on that shit.
Left for Dead 2 IS comming out, but where is Episode 3 FUCKING NOWHERE i bet Fat fuck Newel eat that fucking episode.

You know what Valve can go jam there collective dicks in a light socket i would rather take adivce from Bathesda about making RPG's then listen to the shit that valve spewes!

 

[bhlaab]

i can confirm right now that gabe newell is not working on episode 3

 

[felicity]

This is largely true. I don't make choices in games based on any specific morality, I make them based on what I think will pay off better. It's basically a strategic decision determined by what I think will pay off better in terms of shinies and amusements. Then again, I do that in real life, too. I don't get this attachment to abstract notions of good and bad. It's like the saying goes: "Good, bad, I'm the one with the gun."

Are you the same Norfleet who was on Dominions 2 forum? FYI he was discovered cheating in MP games. I would not be surprise if you and he are one person, since you two share quite the same opinions on what pay off better, especially the gun part.

 

[Mele ~ on Grayza]

but where is Episode 3 FUCKING NOWHERE i bet Fat fuck Newel eat that fucking episode.

 

[themadhatter114]

There are no moral choices in real life, either. We all make different strategic choices about how best to advance ourselves in society and as human beings. It's not 'immoral' to rob and rape and murder people; it's just a different avenue for advancement in society with higher risks.

 

[Mele ~ on Grayza]

Of course it is immoral to rob, rape and kill.

But moral reflects the current societies choices and so it changes.

 

[Hoaxmetal]

True. You can look at medieval times and say "pfft, barbars" but I don't think that human society has been worse several hundred years before. Moral values change - we haven't evolved from apes to cultural humans in thousands of years, only what's normal and not has changed. Oh, where did I put my monocle again...