Grey Morality
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 січ 2025
- I talk about grey morality, when you have to choose an option among a set of options that seem neither right or wrong. This happens in games and in life, and I like it in the former.
Some videos for context:
Multiple Quest Solutions: • Multiple Quest Solutions
Why I Left Fallout 2: • Why I Left Fallout 2
Good Team Characteristics: • Good Team Characteristics
imagine if one of these videos started with him saying "hi everyone, its you, tim" and you suddenly merged through the screen and turned into tim
LMAO
Turns out we were the Tims made along the friends.
Hehe. I make the videos, but I stay for the comments.
lmao on a scale of 1-10, how high are you right now brother?
If he doesn't do this on the next episode I'm going to riot
The quote is: "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."
I watched a video of the algorithm for tic tac toe.
It was interesting
"If you choose not to decide you'll still have made a choice" - Freewill by Rush
I was going to add this comment. Great minds, or something like that :D
the thing evil needs to triumph is for good people to do nothing
apathy
you know, what gamers and game developers excel at in this world, perpetuating vapid-morality to keep the masses distracted and not caring about the hedonistic consumeristic materialistic narcissistic lives they live
Tim is an expert on subverting morality
People may hate you regardless of which side you choose, but if you don't pick a side then it is lot less likely that anyone will blame you. Inaction often does effectively free you from responsibility.
@@elio7610 People blame you for doing nothing also.
@@elio7610it can free you from being held accountable, but nothing can free you from responsibility
Remind me to never cross Tim Cain, he’ll keep that grudge forever and one day turn it into a parable about game design
He always writes notes. DO NOT make Tim write bad things about you.
Noted.
Sometimes non-telegraphed bad outcomes are fun. Getting deceived and finding out later is a part of life
That just sounds arbitrarily punitive
Also, a question for a possible follow-up video to this one: I do like the point about the hidden "third option" of walking away -- that we can choose *not* to intervene in any given scenario. But that's more applicable to life than games, yeah., where so many systems are in place to encourage the players *to* intervene -- to earn material rewards, to get experience, or just to more story content instead of less story content. I think it'd be really interesting to see an RPG where walking away from a problem can be seen as equally viable to participating in the resolution of that problem... how would you design an RPG like that?
That’s a good question. A timer would work, so if you ignored a quest too long it would enter a new state, but many players hate timers (and at the same time, hate a static world). I’ll think about it more.
@@CainOnGamesI would say that player agency *requires* that there is always a walk-away option. Even (maybe especially?) in a linear main quest.
Before I watched speedruns I never understood this.
Speedrunners showed me how many encounters where I was sure you have to fight, could be solved by just walking away from it, hide or dash through it.
Now its basicly my default for RPG games to ask myself 'Do i need to engange in that problem?'
A gameplay structure where you can make do without quest rewards is also a plus.
In the Elder Scrolls games you can achieve high power without completing a pre-written quest chain, but in Divine Divinity the map runs out of xp to give, so skipping a side story leaves you weaker.
@@CainOnGames Timed quests would be great, for both worldbuilding and giving player satisfaction in ignoring the quest (I asked you to kill bandits, you took so much time they moved on or I hired someone else).
3:12 valid concern about getting the actors back, as Killian had already started work in Cheyenne Mountain that year
I don’t know how much planning or scripting goes into these, but I really just like listening to you. It’s like you just turn the camera on, talk for 10 minutes about whatever and leave. If that’s the case then that’s one hell of a skill to have.
Since he pauses to think or mentions when he has notes on the side I think you are spot on and its mostly done in free talking.
Only question that remains is , is this the only take he needs or does his neighbours hear ' Hi Tim its... oh wait no... Hi everyone , its me Tim, yestertold.... ah damn... Hi everyone its me Tim' every morning and this is the take where everything worked out :P
Grey morality is GREAT in games!! I always LOVED that siding with Killian has a more negative effect on the town at the end of the game; and that Gizmo is the "better" option for the town. The fact that it wasn't telegraphed was perfect because the Killian ending makes sense given who he is as a person and the nature of Junktown. It felt very "real" and was pretty impactful to me as the game player. I'll always remember that end slide, and how it made me feel when I sided with Killian and learned the result. Super cool.
A person can make the best decision they can in the moment with the facts they have on hand at the time--- but the consequences of that decision, and how other people respond to the decision are not ultimately up to the decision maker. Choices matter, and life ain't fair! I love when that is (sparingly) reflected in games. : )
A big reason I love Tim Cain games is because of grey morality. To me it really reflects human experience which is enjoyable in a CRPG. I like feeling like a powerful character but my actions in the world have real consequences to the people and towns which make the game more realistic. Realistic people in CRPGs make the world way deeper and allow me to care more.
In a few branching stories I've written, I've found the key to writing grey morality is to write the consequences before the choice itself.
In the Junktown example, I would've considered the possible outcomes of the conflict when forming my idea for the town, before even thinking of the dialogue or player choice. In this way, it stays truer to causality, and makes it easier to plan out choices that feel real.
i don’t know when, or how you began popping in my feed but you’re very well spoken and i enjoy your insight. appreciate these videos Mr. Cain.
I like how this video about quest options slowly turned into a motivational and philosophical life lesson. Love you, Tim.
What I dislike is when I feel a game is forcing me to make a choice where both sides feel wrong and neither feels like a "lesser evil".
Or that I feel that I have to make a choice now that I can see will have consequences but the game doesn't give me the clues of what these consequences could be so I cannot make a considered choice. (Not that I mind surprises, but a surprise means something happens that goes against your expectations not that you feel having to jump in the dark even though you know that a choice will matter later).
While im not as concerned about the lesser of two evils i do think that in the best of worlds most quests should offer semi good options (except for quests where you work for crime bosses etc but even then it is welcome).
But even worse than lesser of two evils is if the consequences arent telegraphed.
Tim spoke about this in anothet video and i agree with him (like i do in the videos so far like 80% ehich is way higher i thought i would).
@@fredrik3880 Consequences not being telegraphed -- yes I think that's what I mean with not knowing the consequences.
An example of a quest-lines where I refuse to make a choice because I feel both choices are bad is Skyrim, the choice between Empire or Stormcloaks. So I've never progressed the main story line to that point.
Fortunately the good thing about Skyrim is that it still gives you a lot of opportunity for exploration in the world and progressing your character via other quest lines!
@@TimvanderLeeuw well said mate
yeah most writers are garbage
Disco Elysium is the epitome example of this
I'm glad you brought up that feedback from the QAers on the Junktown quest, because one of my least favourite "grey morality" tropes is when there's an obvious good choice and then the game springs an "Aha! But there was a negative consequence you didn't foresee!" on you after you've locked it in. It's one of those things you might be able to defend on the grounds of "realism", but it violates the unwritten contract between the quest designer and the player.
Are there any real decisions that don't have a possibility of a negative consequence? You save the children... but on of them is baby Hitler! Gotcha! You side with the sheriff, and that makes him feel like he can never be wrong. Etc, etc. The game just needs to show that the net good is greater, troubles come, and troubles go, but it was a greater good to do X vs Y.
I really hated the quest from Mass Effect 2 where you have an Eclipse asari that's pretending to surrender. You can either shoot her through a QTE before she's done anything wrong, or be naive and let her go-- no option to temporarily restrain her or drag her along to defer the decision. So when you get to a cheap placement of a voice log where you realize she was absolutely feeding you nonsense, the information is just a stupid "gotcha!"
The one time I really enjoyed this type of mechanic was when it was emergent. The final quest from Deus Ex Human Revolution: The Missing Link and the final quest from Mankind Divided both give you multiple objectives and ten minutes. People will survive, people will die, and the penalty for poorly deciding is that you will not only pick the worst of two options, but you are just as able to solve both problems successfully as you are fail both for the worst outcome.
There was also a great decision in Mars War Logs where you have to save your main companion from an execution. You can either betray his morals and strike a deal with his enemy to have him released, or you can serve the rebels to save him in a daring rescue. But when you pick the latter, you arrive on scene and learn there is absolutely nothing you can do because you backed the wrong side. It felt grounded, it felt like something you should have actually foreseen instead of a cheap gotcha, and it makes the question about survival versus purpose. Then it has a significant impact on who backs you in the final hour of the game.
Those gotcha tricks are supposed to feel like you're playing the hand you're dealt and learned a lesson because of it, but if that hand was rigged it's just cause for frustration.
Hi, Tim! I have a question re: grey morality. How do you ensure that the choices offered to the player don't end up having one choice as the better choice in terms of gameplay? Like for example, if the player chooses A instead of B, they get access to a quest that gives them a super powerful weapon. Whereas if they choose B, they only get the reward of the story consequences. There are quite a lot of gamers who choose the better choice in terms of gameplay/mechanics, with no regards to the actual grey morality. So I want to know how to design morally grey choices keeping this in mind so that no choice comes out as being "optimal".
That’s a tough question, and it’s part of the reason I like to give XP for quests and not for combat and skill use. My best answer is you try to balance out the rewards from different choices, and make the really important rewards not be tied to specific decisions, e.g. the ogre chief has the best crushing weapon in the game, but you can kill him, steal it, buy it, or do a quest for the ogre….all of which leave the clan with a different reaction to you.
This one was great, something I've not thought too much about in games but would love to see more of.
Would love your thoughts on the moral choice systems.
Often you can choose a clearly "good" or altruistic path, or you can do the easy or self-serving path. But I seldom see good arguments for being evil. The benefits from allies or other boons tend to make up for getting less cash or a particular weapon that you would have gotten by being selfish or siding with the "evil" side.
I hated the end slide in Pillars of Eternity where when you free all the souls from the soul machine in Heritage Hill and it tells you it happens again. There was no indication that could or would happen-I assumed they would level this tower now that the way was clear.
Tim is completely right on the morality at work by the way, I had two jobs in which within the second week I was being asked to lie to customers. If they start out that way, just go ahead and start looking for another job because it's only going to get shadier from there
My biggest pet peeve with gray moral choices is when they're written purely on the basis of discouraging either choice and highlighting the "bad consequences", rather than making both choices "good" for different players and/or different characters.
My best example is the Bog Witches from Witcher 3. You get a choice to either slay a dangerous demon for them, or free it and kill the witches, but it also kills some villagers. That choice has absolutely no bearing on your character's quest, or even who Geralt is as a person. There is no benefit to either choice, because the story progresses anyway.
thanks for your insight!
I played Witcher 3 for just about 15 minutes once,
but I think I can get what you're saying - from other media I enjoy...
For instance, I've just re-watched south park "cartoon wars" episode today,
and their critique of family guys "random jokes" (instead of "jokes derived from the plot") resonates with me and with your comment as well, I think...
Best regards from Brazil!
This is something BioWare struggled with so much in their later works. The morality systems in Jade Empire and Mass Effect (2 and 3 mainly) are terrible-- they present Renegade/Closed Fist as a sort of hardline way to live and another style of judgement that's necessary, but in gameplay practice, it actually just means you're short tempered and hurt people for no reason. They write the games for Paragons and punish you for straying from that.
@@anchorlightforge the morality system in Mass Effect might seem simplistic to a veteran of PC roleplaying game. It wasn't being made for those people. It was squarely aimed at console players. They didn't want to throw in a complex system that alienated players with no experience of that in a game. Obviously there are much more complex choices in games but for a typical console player picking up their first "RPG" it was revolutionary. It's the same reason the combat feels more like an Xbox360 FPS game.
@@lrinfi No matter now many overly flowery words you choose to use, the choice of "should a bunch of kids die or a bunch of villagers die" is not one that is interesting nor reflective of anyone's morals. Any sane person's answer would be "I don't want either". If you force them to choose (as the game does), it's an apathetic and disconnected choice. The fact that you cannot trust any side just makes the choice that much less interesting. The writers simply misunderstand the Witcher's writing, as they've been doing since Witcher 1. In the books, Geralt makes poor, gray choices because he wants to save his loved ones. He's a hero at heart under the veil of a cynical stoic. A simpleton like CDPR's writer look at that and say "wow, every choice bad", and then the designer wraps it in a dialogue selection with huge "CHOOSE A OR B" prompts, instead of giving the player agency to decide though game mechanics.
Ironically, a twist on the classic RPG choices of "clearly the good guy choice, but with terrible consequences" and "clearly the bad guy choice, but you're let off the hook" would work way better, both in terms of narrative design & faithfulness to the books, which was built on the concept of "twisting tropes".
@@lrinfi No, I said that the fact you can't trust any of the characters makes this choice meaningless. You're missing the point. No matter how much "additional lore" you put in books and side dialogue, this choice does not reflect on who Geralt is a character. It provides a static choice with two bad outcomes. Moreover, in the context of the main story, it has little consequence. A much better quest is the Baron quest, which a lot of people praise, because it actually gives you something to care about and is more closely tied to the main story.
Primm quest is more of a "solve this problem" side-quest. You have multiple solutions to the same issue, but it doesn't really question you morals much - that's fine. That's still an RPG quest that uses game mechanics to allow you to solve it as you wish. A better example from New Vegas would be one of the big choices, such as the factions, especially when you compare it to Fallout 4. Factions in both of these games actually have some moral overlap (NCR/BoS, Mr House/Institute, Independence/Minutemen), but New Vegas makes a much better job at stating the case for each faction. Fallout 4 is more of "here's why this faction is bad and you should feel bad for supporting it". That's not a "grey choice", that's a bad choice, and multiple bad choices don't make your story "grey", they make it bad.
Its impressive that you can speak this straightforwardly in one take.
??????????????
it's quite basic
are you under 35 and went to public school?
@@lopa-u9f Ah, both ageist and classist in one comment. Nice.
thats a great complement to your "be proactive" video
thank you very much for your time,
and for encouraging this wholesome community!
Reminds me of a Doctor Who quote.
"Sometimes the only choices you have are bad ones, but you still have to choose."
This is why I subscribe to this channel, I have one of these situations at work right now, and you really made me think what I want to do about it Tim, so thank you.
I love how Tim gives us good content almost daily. I hope you will never run out of things to tell us!
An interesting thing to think about is that the consequences of choices are good/bad depending at what point you consider it responsible for the butterfly effect that follows. Like, giving bread to a starving person is clearly good. But what if they go on to murder someone. And what if that person would have done something bad. And so on. History is an endless story like that. It's a bit harder to do in games I know.
Question Tim (Loved the video, very informative and 100% agreed)! I looked through the videos, and I couldn't seem to find one that went over Quest Pacing. I saw Quest Implementation, but I felt that was more for the Coding / mechanical side of it. I think that's a very interesting subject that sometimes is not really looked into, and I'd love to hear you're thought process on this, if there's anything u can add!
Just to note, what I mean by quest pacing: The overall ups and downs of a quest, when do you call a quest "Done" and move on (how many steps should the player take until the quest is finished or what steps should the player take during the quest), how do you balance this quest compared to the "Main Quest" of the game (Making it so it doesnt necessarily overshadow it, or take up too much time)?
FO3 had a quest kinda makes me feel off like this. Tranquility Lane quest line was it like bad karma is doing as the Doc wants. But the so/so good karma is using the fail safe. Now both of those dont feel right at all feels like I should he able to release them all. But I do like the grey morality stuff because it does make you think and feel like what is the better choice even if the choices are both equally bad.
As much as I love how engaging grey morality is in RPG quest branches, I still feel like it's important for most titles to include at least some "clearly benevolent" and "clearly malicious" choices -- not just for roleplaying reasons, but also for sake of contextualization. The engaging qualities of grey moral choices are better heightened, in my opinion, by the "in-text" juxtaposition.
That's how fallout new vegas starts, now that I think about it.
Yea constant grey morality kinda feels nihilistic to me, wasteland 2 was full of those and it didn't feel great. New Vegas had a good balance imo (f1 too) where one choice is bad and another one is good, just both might have some pros and cons and the good one might be harder, but it's still good and bad in the end
@@taumil3239 It's genuinely a big part of why I'll probably never be able to finish Wasteland 2.
As a life lesson this is a strong one. If you compromise once on your ethics, it will inevitably get worse. And you will lose the trust of all those who rely on you.
Thanks Tim! This video was much needed at this point in time.
Im in the middle of writing a speech for a class where im talking about the audience siding with evil groups/characters in media and these past couple videos of yours have been perfect. I think im going to quote you saying "Sometimes you have to make a quest that doesn't have the right answer it just has several different wrong answers"
Evil groups are only from one perspective...
Maybe the empire are the good guys....
The Enclave are the good guys...
Junktown is such a great place. Love all the quests there.
One simple mission i really like because the grey morality it has is in the game "Prey".
You only have a audio and two buttons, the audio says that a ship leaved the station and that it could be carrying a great threat to Earth, there was no way of contacting the ship crew and there was no way of confirming if they were still alive, they had the threat in their cargo or not.
You had two options, remotely opening the ship's door, killing the crew and preventing the ship reaching Earth or leave it, if you leave it there is a chance of putting in danger the Earth. There is no confirmation telling you if you did the good thing no matter if you do something or not, the mission is completed anyway.
his beard is morally grey!
With a hint of amoral black for depth
One way to handle gray choices is to use use one's own beliefs as the basis. Atlus used to be really good at posing troubling questions, like in Devil Summoner 2. As the player nears the final confrontation, they're given what amounts to a series of moral questions that have no right or wrong answer. Depending on how these questions are answered it will lead to one of two NPCs becoming a demonic boss. Neither NPC deserves this, as both are victims of circumstance [One was forced to become the bride for monsters, the other her brother who resorts to war to free her from this fate]. The player ends up liking both NPCs by this point, and want to save them, only to have their own sense of morality decide who lives and who dies. It's a really great downer moment, and I remember spending a while trying to answer each question to the best of my ability.
I remember that also deadfire has grey choices, like in poko kohara, you can unfold a scheme and free an accused thief but with the entire island probably dying in starvation or be silent and let both, the "innocent" (still a renown convict) being executed, the real thief to save the seeds of the fruit against their tradition but with a good outcome for the entire island. Remember there was some critique on forum because of these choices but I liked so much
I feel like more often than not game decisions are either black or white or completely grey which is unrealistic. Sure, there are difficult choices in real life but not all of them are like that. I believe having more shades would make games more interesting, sometimes the choice would be a no-brainer based on your alignment (good vs evil), sometimes it would be just a bit more difficult and not necessarily a super balanced dilemma.
I had a dream the other day that Tim decided i would be his game developer protege and took me to a game dev conference in South Africa. I kept trying to tell him, Tim, I'm not a game developer and I have no relevant skills, but no, he kept insisting I was, and he believed in me.
Thanks dream Tim for believing in my game design skills. Maybe it's a sign i should learn to code
Imagine a game with only good consequences. You pick one thing and it's AWESOME, and another and it's STUNNING. That too could be advertised as having ”no right answers”, but it would still totally subvert people's expectations. You find a rusty but functional water chip as you loot a rat ten meters outside the vault, and the overseer can't believe his eyes. That one character that's trying to tell everyone that something is seriously wrong and that life just isn't the same without obstacles and drama is never heard from again. Stunning, awesome.
Why is a rat carrying a water chip around?
I don't know, but it's stunning. Seriously though, I wasn't trying to make any sense. I do not want this game to be made.
Regarding what happened in the workplace: the whole thing is a trust issue.
Maybe the "correct" dialogue option would be to say "If I agreed, how could you trust me, knowing I would be going behind someone else's back."
Whether I would actually have the presence of mind to say that to someone in that position of power - I don't know.
Hopefully I'd at least stew on it and come to the same conclusion.
I would hate working somewhere where I had to hide things from someone or another.
the boss going behind your back and over your head - I remember a new vegas quest involving that, and the results not being what happy little completionists thought it would end up like..
I think that the unforseen consequences of intervention are realistic. I definitely appreciate the grey approach.
Reminds of the practical incarnation in Planescape Torment. Who was a bastard. However, without his previous deeds, TNO would not have been able to complete the quest.
Oskar Schindler is another example. The dude was a conman, drunk, and a womanizer and was basically a war profiteer. But if he had been a moral paragon, he wouldn't have been in a position to save all those people.
I thought the exact same about the Junktown dilemma. I liked the original slides better but I thought there was no indication of indication that it would end that way.
And here there is the Twin skulls quest in Arcanum that makes you regret picking the choice of starting it
Hi Tim, it's me, some of everyone. Great video. Honestly, if a game offers me a choice and there isn't some sort of moral dilemma to consider, I wonder why they offered the choice at all. An example of this is WoW - They try to give some choices in quests, but at the end of the day, it's superficial and doesn't carry over to any other story. Of course, the obvious modern example of doing it right would be BG3 - A masterclass on grey morality.
Personally I think grey morality is now overdone. In most cases there also need to be non-grey options, otherwise the player feels railroaded. Every once in a while a "no good outcome" quest is good. I feel like it has become so common and I suspect it is used as a way of deliberately avoiding having any overall moral position in the entire game / entire story.
One thing I'm curious about and I always internally debate is when a game draws attention to the Grey Morality of their world, is it a big impact because of how sparingly these quests are distributed? Games Ive played where every quest is in that grey area, I think it sometimes starts to blend into a color of its own, rather than have a distinguishable message that the game or quest is trying to relay. When those grey quests come along, when the rest have color (yet fit the world building), the impact it has I feel is much more significant on the World and overall thought process of the player, because in some ways it kind of takes you by surprise and leaves a very lasting impression.
Kind of like Star Trek: NG episodes, sometimes you'll just get the action fillers, and other times you'll get the thought provokers (and I think because of that pace of distribution it helps create a more memorable impact when those grey-stories hit).
I dont know exactly why,
but your comment made me think of San Francisco in Fallout 2
Also one thing either IRL or in a game that grey morality does is it inform you of who you are (or at least who your character is). There's a self knowledge that is much more morally personal from grey morality. In a black and white situation you'll often do what is expected, while in grey morality you will eventually do what you "prefer" or at least go with your conscience.
Grey Choices is why I love the Fallout series so much. It’s my favorite series of all time. Pick a side or Pick “None” ❤👍 I totally agree on choice = Trust, both in game and in IRL.
8:49
I think you just answered your own question about why your co-worker didn't participate in a more active role.
So, someone executing a decision made by a superior has to bear consequences for someone else decision.
If you punish the actual implementers and the managers just get a slap on the wrist at best, then there's surely some demoralizing effects going on.
As for doing the same thing with active approach and getting punished even more by Tim or any other superior sounds even worse.
You basically constructed a case of damned if you do/damned if you don't.
Most workplaces heavily punish going out of your way to show incentive, especially in cases where that incentive causes even the most minor issues. Idk if higher ups see it as a threat to their position, or just are annoyed that they get reports of status quo being disturbed.
If you run a studio that's equal partnership, then obviously everyone should be proactive. If it's hierarchical then responsibility should be on the people leading.
But yeah, I can't know for certain, just if you've been on the side that gets beaten for showing incentive, you at least understand how that could be pushed out of a person that normally is proactive.
It’s Tim everyone, hi me
Schizophrenia be like:
I really enjoy grey choices. There’s a saying, “There are no perfect solutions, only trade offs.” Grey choices feel more weighty and realistic to me rather than the straw-man style good or bad choices. Plus I’m often more compelled to come back and see the other outcomes of the grey choice so I tend to linger longer in games with these types of choices.
Hi Tim, I was listening to your Reboot 2017 talk about 7 game design mistakes and you demonstrated your geometry based skill buy system. This is something you've mentioned in other videos as well and I'm really interested.
I'm playing with game design ideas and in particular want to look for ways to keep the numbers in the game low (both in values and in how crunchy and stat heavy the game is).
Can you expand on your geometric skill system and any other insights you have on keeping mechanical depth and choice high, while lowering the amount of scary, off-putting numbers people have to deal with to access that depth. Thanks!
I've always really liked that Fallout quest and often pointed to it as a good example of how to handle Choice & Consequences in games -- I think it's absolutely *crucial* that the moral dimensions of any decision players have be independent of the consequences of that decision -- all that matters is what the player knows, or *can know*, at the moment of decision. I really don't think that quest needed more "clues" to the outcome, as I think it makes sense for the player/player-character not to be acting with perfect knowledge of the situation, or any situation.
A big part of "Consequence" is that some consequences are unintended.
There's another quest in KOTOR2, kind of, where you get a scripted encounter with a beggar when you arrive on a planet, presenting you with the usual choice: give the beggar some money or not. Then when you leave the planet, there's the "twist:" if you gave the beggar money, he gets beaten and bugged for it, making you (the player character) the agent of the the NPCs misfortune through your misplaced desire to "do good" without considering the consequences. (Tellingly, the character presenting these consequences and framing the situation thusly is, in fact, the villain of the game... but that opens up an entirely new conversation).
Anyway, the point is, I think it's good when games give us outcomes to decisions that we cannot predict before we make them. The great big CRPG du jour right now, or maybe année or décennie, given its sheer size, is *Baldur's Gate 3.* And while it's been really lovely seeing so many new people introduced to this, the *best* genre of video game, it's also been kind of... annoying? Irritating? Concerning? Seeing so many people talk about pausing the game at every decision point, to look up what the consequences will be, thereby basing their decision on what will happen rather than what *is happening* at those moments of decision.
Hi, Tim. I'm so happy it's you, not some one else :)
For April fool's, I hope he will have some one saying that it's Tim...
_You can make all the explanations you want for how you act but don't pretend you made the right choice_ 6:28
Problems with trust are real. I've recently been loosing trust in our QA person, because tickets are not being picked up for days, and the edge-cases end up being untested. They had 3 days to test something and found no bugs - I decided to check and found 2 bugs within 20 minutes. And even worse, they see no problem with this and are finding excuses rather than admitting there's a problem. How can I trust them from now on?
Hi Tim, as a fan of your work since the 90's I've really loved watching these videos. Here's my question: In recent years, I've noticed more and more games have questionnaires for the players, either available in-game or online in some format. These are almost like the post-visit surveys you get from doctor's offices. These will ask players about what things they like/dislike and how well they rate certain aspects of a game. Has any game you've worked on used these in some form, and if so, how big of an impact do player's post-launch feedback have on future development or concerns within the company? What is your take on this practice?
@@lrinfi I agree with you that I find it pretty gross, especially when you realize that things like this are often used as performance metrics for the workers you interacted with, and anything less than a 10 out of 10 is regarded as a failure and may reflect on their job. The first time I saw this on a game was on a live service title, and it’s part of why I quit playing the game.
It says something about me that my solution to Junktown was to side with Gizmo, tell Killian I'd sided with Gizmo and betray Gizmo, Gizmo dies, I kill Killian, I clean out Killian's shop for as much as I could carry, leave Junktown and never return
In fallout 3 I play very good, but in new Vegas I am neutral I love the faction system. A lotta folk do not like karma because they feel it’s very black n white or people shouldn’t be judged as entirely good or entirely evil, personally I am one to believe do good things cuz u like to not because u think it’s gonna win u brownie points with god. You’ll just enharitly do as u want and sometimes slapping the players hand with a spoon n saying ur evil everytime they pick up a soda can it can make players shy away from even the most juvenile of things but when u can truly make a game that has very ambiguous moral Dilemmas where ultimately your character has some heavy weight to they’re actions I often find the best choice is being the middle ground the balance extremist of any kind very good or very evil leads to some very drastic and crazy ideology’s so often more then not having that middle ground but making it stand out and not some run of the mill option is hard so I appreciate the advice. It would be like if I where a super hero sometimes I use my powers when it’s necessary but there r certain instances you getting involved can lead to way more heart break and devastation but yah Morley grey stories are hard to write but super important stuff that no matter what option u pick you can just sit on it
I’d given anything to get Tim into rockstar, this man would make gta the ultimate rpg
Shoutout to Witcher 3's first quest with the dwarven blacksmith... 😂
How then should a game track and show good vs bad choices in gray situations? Where the player may not agree with the devs if an action is good or bad.
E.g. in Fallout 2 how freeing the “servants”/slaves from Vault City by killing the guards loses you karma, even though there really isn’t a clear right or wrong there.
And I’m sure there are other situations where the devs genuinely see a choice not as gray but clearly good or bad, but a player from another culture, political views, religion etc see it as the opposite.
Should karma (or its equivalent) be shown to the player?
Only in stats? Or also each time a good or bad action is made (“you gain 5 karma for killing bandit” etc)?
Should there be something special done for more gray choices than for more clear good/bad ones?
What I personally disliked in the Junktown quests is how many unique items you get that you in 99% of the cases never need or can use again.
The little microphone and Gizmos Gun come to my mind immediatly , I dont think you can get extra ammo for the gun nor use the microphone again.
Also it felt very short compared to other locations and I always had the feeling there was stuff missing but thats just my opinion.
I have the player mentality that a quest must be finished, never even thought I could just walk away. :D
And actually.. I have always sided with Killian. On every play through 😅
Personally, love grey morality, i feel like the Outer Worlds really kicked ya with that a few times. It’s also great because that grey area usually means you have to work harder to achieve a good ending. But God Bless games which let you be Henry Fonda from Once Upon a Time in the West.
i've felt ick for some of the things i have done in Fallout. Others, I have not cared. Like sleeping with the mobster's wife, or being a fluffer.
I think that the "leaving Junktown as it is" argument is flawed in the context of RPGs. By not participating, you actually loose experience points and equipment, which impacts the progression and may make the next stops (likely Hub) hard. So you are motivated, maybe even pushed by the game mechanics to be involved.
Yes if you are min/maxing. Doesn't mean you have to engage with every activity. Flawed, as in doesn't suit your play style or? Because i saw it for what it was, and participated on that premise.
"Grey morality. I love it in my games as long as it telegraphs the consequences. I don't like it in life, but its unavoidable." - Tim Cain (Philosophies for Life and Game Development)
Next book idea perhaps?
Choice between Gizmo and Killian being not telegraphed enough, I am okay with that because things do take time to happen and show their true colours. That's what ending slides are for, showing us what happens much later.
The way you implemented morality in your video game affected how I view the world today.
I'm playing FONV again, and am just amazed at the Grey Morality, case in point the confrontation between the Kings and the NCR. Ugh, love it.
The gravity of the end slides have to match what info the average player encounters & remembers from morality choices when the end-slides eventually play
Neither the original or changed Junktown endings feel like they match the Killian vs. Gizmo choice you experience which to me felt like 'Concerned citizen cop mayor' vs. 'over-indulgent mob boss'
I had no reason to believe Junktown would economically suffer because of a stiff-strict lawman nor that it would boom under immoral rule when it survives off trading
Maybe I missed too much in-game info or tended to choose Killian (iirc you get way more XP)
Hi Tim, after reading one of the top comments here it gave me an idea. Can you talk bout status effects, potions and things like drugs and poison and how they are handled in games? They often have an effect on the players movement, vision or abilities etc. How much is too much or too little in your opinion?
have you ever play This War Of Mine?
So you are saying working in game dev is morally grey?..
The difference between walking out of moral choices in real life and in the game is that in real life you are usually not missing out that much by doing that. You can usually just forget about the whole situation. In the game however you incentive is to see as much content as possibly. So to just leave the quest be means you are getting less of the experience. So most people will do something even if the choice is hard for them. That is also one of the reason why so many RPG players will save just before the choice, try all the options to see the outcomes, and then stick with the one they see as the best. It is a pretty interesting topic though and I enjoyed the video and your insights:)
Casinos entertain people, but the odds are always for the House. Gambling addiction is real and it ruins lives. I think in real life you'll find much more negative examples than good ones. What happened to Atlantic City with all the casinos?
What is happening in CA where you can "rob stores legally" up to 950$?
Those are real functioning societys where in Fallout most social consequences of addiction dont exist and many personal problems outweigh it.
Like a addicted shack dweller might ruin his life or even attempts to steal or something just to get killed or worse as literally everyone is packing or has guards.
And to stay with the dweller, he is pribably without addiction already in trouble finding food and shelter.
So I think honestly , most negative problems from a casino are non issues in a more or less state and law-less world
@@malik740 I see your point and I think it's valid. However, I still think a casino would only make matters worse.
My point was maybe more that the consequences were forced by the game designers and were not actually simulated by the game mechanics, because of course it would be quite complicated to do so.
It's a bit like a having an African Viking on Netflix, because that's how they felt.
not choosing is only viable from a player's perspective if it is a choice actually presented by the game. Otherwise as you mentioned the need to get involved (so as not to miss part of the game) will be too great. The player does not know the design of the game, maybe picking one of the sides is necessary to continue the story? The developer knows how the quests progress and which can be ignored, but often the player doesn't. If you want to present a non-choice ("walking away"), you NEED to make it explict (dialog, showdown...), or no one playing the game without guides will choose to walk away.
When people talk about "the right choice" i always think "how right does a choice have to be, to be THE right choice"... there is an infinite number of choices... Imagine a cave man, who needs to move his log-canoe, rolling it on smaller logs is a great solution but THE right solution... Inventing the truck?!? Get a solution that works, be open to the fact that there are many right ways and many wrong ways....
I wish Outer Worlds was a bit more grey, more like Disco Elysium.
Would it really have mattered? To me it was mediocre at best. It cant hope to become legend like Fallout. Cut your losses.
Disco Elysium is not grey, it's nihilist
learn the difference
I wish more games had more pronounced grey morality in general. No choices that lead to overall the best outcome. Instead every choice being the one where somebody wins and somebody loses. It might feel less satisfying, but it is more believable I think.
This, and the "everyone 'wins'" choice, if it makes sense to be available, being a difficult compromise that still requires sacrifices.
The “right” choice is the one that gives the most experience
To be honest, this kind of moral dilemma was a bit too ambitious for a game of the scale and scope of Fallout. There should have been several precursive quests to show the players how these parties operate, what their ideals are. Junktown denizens would have to be a bit more opinionated on the issue. Still a great quest, I intuitively sided with Gizmo the first time I played and was just a bit disappointed about the game punishing me for my choice. Killian has an obvious totalitarian fluor.
Hi everyone, it's him, Tim.
Hi Tim! It's me, everyone.
Could maybe shed some light on optimizing your games during development? It feels as though recently before I can even ask myself if the actual content of a game is any good I have to ask. Does this even run? Games are launching with larger on disk sizes and more game breaking bugs and it seems to always be with this idea that they can fix everything "later".
Optimization: ua-cam.com/video/QWAetn0Ch9I/v-deo.html
One of the things I wish more games would do is move away from some kind of morality score, and more towards what was promised but not so much delivered on in the Telltale Games; you make choices, and some NPCs will be good with it, some will not be good with it, and sometimes you'll burn a bridge along the way.
That said, as you mentioned, one of the things that's key is some kind of telegraphing or flagging the player what sort of outcomes are possibly at stake. This isn't so bad when a game is very short and you can simply replay and choose differently very easily, but if the game is long, people might not decide it's worth a second trip, especially if the game hits you with "gotchas" of where outcomes are extremely unforeseeable.
Also, the other point is... if folks want to put morality questions in their games, it's worth thinking it through because sometimes you can have things come out with unintended, negative messages.
I think what can also work better than having several different “wrong” answers, where no one really wins, is a quest/story with several different “right” answers. What I mean is in a game like Fallout New Vegas, there are multiple different groups vying for the Hoover Dam, and depending on the player’s philosophy, one may seem like the best choice, but there is technically no absolute right answer.
There is a book series I love: Legend of Galactic Heroes. Everyone should read it.
Here's an appropriate quote:
"In human history, there had been no battles of Armageddon between absolute good and absolute evil. What had occurred was strife between one subjective good and another subjective good-conflicts
conflicts between one side and another, both equally convinced of their rightness. Even in cases of unilateral wars of aggression, the aggressor always believed it was in the right. Thus, humanity was in a constant state of warfare. So long as human beings kept believing in God and justice, there was no chance of strife disappearing."
Tanaka, Yoshiki. Legend of the Galactic Heroes, Vol.2: Ambition . Haikasoru. Kindle Edition.
I agree about grey morality and, if we're being honest, I probably learned to think about things with this sort of nuance after listening to Obsidian and Black Isle designers talk about problems. But when I am making adventures for my TTRPG groups, I always try to include an interesting choice at the centre of all of those adventures. Which is to say that there is no easy right answer and people actually have to think about what they want to do and the consequences for their actions. Like, people complain online about this idea of making the players rethink their actions, but I think grey morality is sort of the cornerstone of what makes roleplaying games such a good genre. It's ... Star Trek. People wander into an area. There is a problem. They listen to each side as they make their arguments and then the players have to decide what to do. The players make a statement on the moral arguments they've been presented with. I love it. And yes, sometimes my players are like "I don't want to side with any of these people." To which I have to remind them that it's a TTRPG and they can literally just go somewhere else. "But we want X from here" Then side with a faction. Or sneak and steal it. Or kill everyone. Or find a replacement somewhere else.
I love this idea that narrative in games is a conversation with the players. I love that the dynamic quality of the world is the players engaging (indirectly) with philosophy and debating (metaphorically) to arrive at some version of a truth. A moral philosophy that their characters define and exemplify by nature of their existing.
Maybe the choice he made was the bug was put there on purpose. 1, the boss wouldnt ask him no more. 2, he told you about it. 🤯
«//My hope is that this code is so awful I'm never allowed to write UI code again.»
(c) unknown programmer from Valve.
I thought it said "gay morality" at a quick glance and thought, oh snap this is going to go deep. Thanks for all you do!
See this is why i prefer bioware for real life quests obsidian and troika are cruel 😄
wonderful take
You are art
GREAT! Using it. :D
I was playing the Lovecraftian game The Sinking City, and there would have been great chance to have some grey morality, if the player would have been given chance to join forces with the Ku Klux Klan against the inhuman terrors that plagued the city (similar how in the first Thief game Garrett joined forces with fanatic Hammerites against the beast-men of the Trickster). Alas, you can only be hostile towards them.
Hey Tim!
I think I mentioned this in a comment yesterday lol