[Kurufinwe]

I’ve recently played, for the first time, The Neverhood, Obsidian and Faust, and I’m currently re-playing The 11th hour (which, incidentally, now works great under DOSBox). Now, a similarity has struck me between those games: they all have multiple endings. And another similarity: those multiple endings are very unsatisfying – not the endings themselves, but the fact that there being more than one added nothing to the games (which remain great games nonetheless – the first three, at least). I’d like to examine this dissatisfaction more thoroughly, in this (I’m afraid rather long) post, and hopefully start a discussion on the matter.

I’d first like to clearly explain what it is I am referring to. The endings of those games I’ve mentioned are decided by a moral choice on the player’s part. There are other games where there are various endings, which depend on the player’s success. More often than not, games base that only on the end sequence puzzles; instead of saying ‘You’ve failed, try again’, they say ‘OK, so that’s how the game ends; see, it’s got alternate endings, isn’t that cool?’ Examples of such cheap ways of having several endings include King’s Quest VII, Fate of Atlantis, The Dagger of Amon Ra, or, more recently, The Moment of Silence and Fahrenheit. Of course, this type of gameplay sometimes also works, giving way to satisfying endings, but which can be made better by playing better throughout the game; that’s what King’s Quest VI and Conquests of the Longbow achieved. Anyway, do you see what I’m referring to here? Well, that’s not what I want to discuss today.

What I want to discuss are those other multiple endings, those based, as I said, on a moral choice. I’ve given four examples of unsatisfying uses of such endings above; The Dig, Myst III Exile, Myst IV Revelation, and Gabriel Knight 1 could be added to the list. Once again, those are great games – that’s not the question.

So, why don’t their multiple endings ‘work’ (sc. add anything to the gaming experience)? I see two simultaneous reasons. The first one is that this is the one and only moral choice in the game, occurring at the very end when the story had previously unfolded very linearly, without asking for the player’s opinion: this feels rather awkward. The second one is that that moral choice is basically a no-brainer; frankly, in those eight games I’ve given as examples, did anyone need more than one second to see that one choice was clearly the ‘good’ one, whereas the other was ‘bad’? Then, what’s the point in asking a question, if there’s only one correct answer and it’s obvious which it is?

Those two failings are actually not limited to endings, but rather typical of the way ethical questions are handled in adventure games. A great many adventure games are of course completely morally shallow – and, after all, why not? We can have fun at times too. But there are some games which tried to tackle moral questions, some rather brilliantly (Faust, the Gabriel Knight games...); but they didn’t make use of their interactive nature in order to better tackle those questions, letting the player make choices – or when they did, they failed, as with the multiple endings. So I guess this overlong introduction all boils down to this question, which has been plaguing me for months: why don’t some adventure games make use of their interactive nature to deal with moral problems? I know that’s something I’d love to see in an adventure game.

Actually, I know of one adventure that does it well. It’s The Pandora Directive. In this game, Tex’s actions (as chosen by the player), determine the course of the game, down a brighter of darker road. This is reflected in the game’s ending sequence, which varies greatly depending on your path and past choices, leading to many different endings. I’m very bad at making top-ten lists, but, each time I tried, The Pandora Directive always came up on top; the fact that it’s the only adventure I’ve played that had a truly interactive story (as opposed to a fixed story with gaming elements) amounts for much in that preference. Rather than summing up the way this game works, I’d rather study various points relating to the possibility of adding interactive moral questions in adventure games, drawing on examples from the The Pandora Directive and other games.

[Kurufinwe]

Karma, triggers, the Faustian choice

The first question I see is this: how are those moral choices be worked into the game? There are basically three models. The first one is what I’d call a ‘karma’ system, that is, a system in which the game clearly defines ‘good’ and ‘bad’ (as absolute ideals), and the player’s various actions are counted as good or bad, and weighed at some point. That’s how the adventure-RPG Dragon Lore worked: there were two ‘paths’ (wisdom and war, or something like that), and the way you solved problems (violently or wisely) determined on which path you were aligned, which was of importance at the end of the game. The second model is a ‘triggers’ system, in which most actions are neutral, but some happen to have important consequences, though it’s not always clear they’re going to at the time they’re performed; that’s how The Pandora Directive mostly worked. And, finally, there’s the Faustian choice, the big, universe-shattering decision you have to make at one point, knowing it will change everything.

I personally favour the second model over the first, as it better suits my vision of the world. I have little patience for all the dualistic constructions, with two sides (good and evil) clearly marked and Man having to choose which way to go; the idea that we try to do as we can, and that some things we do change our lives, even though we’re not always aware of it, suits me much better. But, actually, anything would be better than nothing... The question of the Faustian choice is interesting; it makes great story material anyway (and it is true that we can be faced with literally crucial choices at times). But one thing is crucial, I think: its importance must be clear, and that choice must be presented as the focal point of the story. It could be argued that The Pandora Directive has one such element (that evening with Regan). And I think one of the reason the choice in Faust didn’t work for me is that the big decision I’d been expecting for all the game was suddenly removed and replaced by a choice whose importance and significance had not been made clear in the least.

Facing the consequences

A choice that has no consequence, or is not envisioned as having any, can’t be a moral choice – obviously. Which of course raises one of the major problems for designers trying to put moral choices in their games: the game must clearly make the player feel that his decisions will influence the development of the story. And that shouldn’t only be a feeling, but something real. This is where Fahrenheit fails, in a way: the game offers you many decisions, many of them of a seemingly moral nature – but in the end, that’s all an illusion, as the story will mostly follow its appointed course, whatever the choices you make. I have argued previously that that illusion was good enough to dramatically enhance the story-telling; but, morally, Fahrenheit has little to say.

When I first started playing The Pandora Directive, I hated it – because it lacked the cool sax of Under a killing moon, because the story was so damn confused and slow to pick up at first. By the time I finished it, I quite liked it. But it was only several years later, when, replaying it, I decided to go down the boulevard of broken dreams, that I really started understanding its greatness. The most impressive consequence your choices have is that, depending on the triggers you’ve used, one of the major characters will live or die. Yes, that’s what responsibility is about. And, of course, such a major thing induces differences throughout the game: the puzzles mostly remain the same, but the overall mood, as well as many events and conversations, differ.

Of course, this may explain why so few games have actually tried doing this: it’s expensive. Letting the player make moral choices means having a fairly plastic story, with alternate scenes and paths. Which means more writing, more acting, possibly more locations and puzzles. Is there currently any publisher willing to afford this?

The necessity of good character development

What I mean to say here is absolutely obvious, and yet I’m afraid it still needs emphasising. The basis of all morals is empathy towards other beings. In a gaming context, this requires good character development; if the player doesn’t know, and care about, the characters, then nothing that may happen to them will matter. A game that utterly fails there is Conquests of Camelot; at one point, you (King Arthur) are given the possibility to set free or leave imprisoned Launcelot (your friend, and also your wife’s lover): this is obviously meant to be a taxing moral decision. But the game failed to convey all the complexity and emotional strength of that triangle, and the choice boils down to ‘what does the game want me to do to get more “good guy” points?’, which is possibly not what Christy Marx intended. Games that are released nowadays seem to have made considerable progress in making the player feel concerned about the characters; this is good, and is an absolute must if they ever want to go further.

The morals of an ageless faceless gender-neutral culturally-ambiguous adventure person [TM]

In the previous section, I only referred to ‘characters’ in general. The question of the hero is slightly more problematic. I strongly believe that, for moral choices to work, the hero should be affected by them too, and therefore have a personality of his own. The Stranger in Myst may perhaps have to make one big decision at the end of Exile, but I’m not certain you could have moral choices spread throughout the game (and affecting it) without even knowing who the Stranger is.

But if the main character is better-defined, a problem appears: where to put the cursor between giving freedom to the player and building a strong character? I stated above that the choice at the end of Gabriel Knight didn’t work for me, and I gave two reasons for it. I’d like to add another: Gabriel, as we came to know him, would never have made the ‘bad’ choice; that’s simply not him. Of course, you can still have a lot of freedom, while remaining within the boundaries of the character’s personality (which is exactly what The Pandora Directive did). Maybe it could also be possible to see the character strongly evolve, in response to the player’s choice. My thoughts are not really fixed on that matter.

It’s a game, silly!

A thing that game designers should not forget, is that situations that may be heart-wrenching in real life are not always so in games. This may of course be because of bad characterisation, but not only that. At the end of The 11th Hour, you have to choose between three women. One of them, the sexy Marie (yup, French spelling; that’s to remind the players she’s a tramp ) offers you endless pleasures, ‘whenever you want, wherever you want’; she also happens to be the daughter of the Devil, or something similar. Maybe if I had been faced with the situation in real life (in flesh, so to speak) (and if I had been straight...), I might have been tempted to choose her. But in a game, her appeal was rather lessened, as she had little to offer to me (as a player – and I didn’t want to please Carl (the hero), who’s one of the most annoying characters ever). Think also of Conquests of Camelot. At one point, you have to choose between leaving a wounded Gawaine to die or give him your horse and go on on foot. Once again, maybe in real life I’d have hesitated, but in a game context, I thought ‘well, let Arthur walk, what do I care? For me, it’s still about clicking on where I want him to go.’

Another problem with those two examples (and many others) is that the game makes you clearly understand what the ‘good’ decision and the ‘bad’ one are; you know it’s a game, and you expect the game to ‘punish’ you for making the wrong choice – and that’s exactly what it does. Thus, that freedom of choice is illusory, and the moral depth disappears. Of course, game designers may choose to favour this or that option, to show what they want to show, but should still leave the player free to explore the other options, even if they may lead to a sadder, or less satisfying, end. They should escape from the basics of gaming, that is, rules according to which some things are rewarded and other punished. I’m not in favour of complete freedom; I believe that the designer should be free to define his world and defend this of that moral thesis within it, but it is this freedom of exploring the consequences of choices that gives weight to the moral discussion; if the game just says ‘no, that’s wrong’, it has little moral weight; if it shows that the story goes on and ends up quite differently, perhaps a darker shade of grey, then it may become the source of a deep moral reflection. And this is precisely what I am looking for!

Whither now?

Does the future have anything good in store concerning moral choices? Possibly. Fahrenheit, even if it failed on that part, is very encouraging. Dreamfall, which, according to his creator, will be ‘about choices’ could be exactly the right thing, if Mr. Tørnquist took the time to think about the various points I touched in this post, and had to means to build the game he wanted to build. And then, we’ll see. Maybe one day publishers will stop being cheapskates and realise that spending more on games to fully use their interactivity to deal with ethical questions is worth it, as there clearly is an audience for it – though possibly not the usual gamers.

And, while waiting, we can still all replay The Pandora Directive!


Phew... That was long. OK, that's off my chest. Now, discuss.

[MdaG]

How about Shadow of Memories? I never cared much for the puzzles of that game, but I thought that in some way I had some control over the outcome. No?

[Karmillo]

Erm im in work so i dont have time to read those 2 full posts there

but from the first few lines...If you want a game where the multiple endings add to the experience then pick up Shadow Of Memories/Shadow Of Destiny, each ending gives you more clues about what the real ending is

[Ninth]

Shadow of Memories is tricky, because in the end if you complete the entire game, there's only one ending. The others are just partial endings.

I don't think Fate of Atlantis's two endings are artificial, and I find both of them satisfying. One is sad, and very Indy-like, and the other is more of a happy ending. I felt like they were realistic, and the "bad" ending isn't a failure;

Spoiler:

Sophia's fate is her own fault, not the player's.

I'm not sure whether I'm clear or not here...

I can't think of other adventure games where there really are multiple endings, but I feel like there's at least one I can't put my finger on.

[Karmillo]

Perhaps you should spoiler tag that ninth? now I know

Spoiler:

That sophia dies at the end of FOA, well either that or she gets knocked up

guess thats one ending ruined for me

[Fien]

I think I've said this before (not sure, maybe at another forum), but there was another game called Fahrenheit: an ancient text adventure, based on Ray Bradbury's story. I liked it for two reasons. The many literary quotes, rare in an adventure game. And the two endings, both sad. Not simply good or bad, imo.

Spoiler:

You either save the books and die with your lover or you both live and the books will be banned forever.

Is that a moral choice? Yes and no. It's the human condition.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Karmillo

Perhaps you should spoiler tag that ninth? now I know

Spoiler:

That sophia dies at the end of FOA, well either that or she gets knocked up

guess thats one ending ruined for me

Nah. It's not that simple, really, which is why I didn't think it was worth a spoiler.

Play it, and you'll find out. (spoilerized anyway, just in case)

[MoriartyL]

Thanks for a good read.

I don't exactly understand your distinction between a "Faustian choice" and "triggers". Is a Faustian choice not simply a trigger, albeit on a larger scale?

Regarding Marie in 11th Hour: Unfortunately, I have not played this game, but I think this scenario is an excellent excuse for me to go into a rant about how player control should be broken. The more you allow the player to decide for the character, the less personality of his own the character will have. If you want to depict a player character as being attracted to this Marie, then you should make the player struggle with the controls to keep the character from choosing to go with her.

This is even more of an issue when dealing with morality. I don't like the idea of giving only choices whose consequences are uncertain- generally, a character will have an opinion one way or the other. But what if the character and the player have different ideas about morality? Here's a solution I first came up with a few seconds ago. What if, when faced with a tough decision, the player is unable to make the choice at all, but is instead given points to let the character think about?

Let me spell it out: The PC is faced with a life-altering choice. The camera faces the character, and now the player is put into a dialogue with the character, representing the inner dialogue he is going through. The player is given a dialogue tree of all the things it might occur to the character to consider. When clicking on one of them, the character will voice his agreement, which will steer the deliberations in a new direction, or disagreement, which will either steer the dialogue in the opposite direction or leave the same dialogue options, depending on what type of attitude he's taking. (As you can imagine, there is a tremendous amount of character development not just allowed, but demanded by this format.) By choosing which of the arguments to run past the character, the player can indirectly control the outcome. If he really really wants something, it will be very hard (though not impossible) to talk him out of it, because he'll keep rationalizing it.

Now let's say the player remembers something the character wasn't told earlier but has unfortunately forgotten. The player is not allowed to shout out, "Hey! Remember this!", because it would break the integrity of the game. Instead, the player is given choices which are very loosely connected to the subject, and by choosing them the player can steer the dialogue in the direction of the forgotten item, so that he keeps getting more closely related questions until he is given the question, "Wait a minute! I was supposed to remember X!". This does not break the game, because there is a simple explanation for this within the context of the story: The PC knew there was something he was supposed to remember, and it kept nagging on his mind until he remembered it.

I think you can all see the elegance of this format. The downside is of course that it will demand very complex dialogue trees, which while insightful can't be very fun to write. But I imagine the game would be littered with little, barely relevant internal dialogues, which are easier for the writers to deal with, and only a few really earth-shaking choices.

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Kurufinwe

why don’t some adventure games make use of their interactive nature to deal with moral problems?

Not to sound dismissive to your question in general (which is a good one), but it does have a simple answer. In fact, you gave it yourself:

When I first started playing The Pandora Directive, I hated it – because it lacked the cool sax of Under a killing moon, because the story was so damn confused and slow to pick up at first. By the time I finished it, I quite liked it. But it was only several years later, when, replaying it, I decided to go down the boulevard of broken dreams, that I really started understanding its greatness.

I bolded the relevant parts. It's not just about money but about appeal. Are players really seeking this degree of investment in their games? Or is this one of those (many) things we think we want but really wouldn't if presented with it?

For myself, while I'm totally in favour of moral issues and even choices in games, I really don't care to replay anything. Given my (real life) time considerations, I'm very content to have my interactivity propel a single story, not shape many possible outcomes. That's just me, but I doubt I'm alone.

We've talked a lot about the string of pearls design philosophy, which I totally support, but I probably still wouldn't see most alternatives most games provided, unless it was so compelling I couldn't resist (I don't think that's ever happened).

About moral choices in games, one that did it well, although not to the kind of game-shaping degree you're talking about, is Shannara. Sorry to do this, but I'll quote a review I did (not on this site):

Originally Posted by Jack, pretentiously quoting himself

Shannara is a game with a conscience. I genuinely found myself CARING about each of the party members, which became all the more important as the game wore on, because I was required to make choices that affected them personally. Not only that, but my decisions were called into question – this is no click and forget game. I was accountable; as the leader, I NEEDED to make the best choices for the greater good, and to take care of my friends as best I could. There are subtle branching paths depending on the most important decisions, should you want to replay the latter part of the game for alternate experiences. Ultimately, though, you'll discover that your motives are what is truly important. This level of character development gave Shannara a depth that few other games can rival.

You should check it out.

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by Jackal

You should check it out.

The game or your review of it?

[Jackal]

The game. I'm not THAT pretentious.

Robert, whose head should be becoming pan shaped by now

[RLacey]

Jackal's 2000th post! I am honoured to have been panned by you, my lord!

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Jackal

The game. I'm not THAT pretentious.

I thought Shannara was a bit too simple that way. That is, that it was trying too hard to have a conscience (as you put it) but didn't exactly manage it. Still a very good game, though.

And your avatar is great.

[Jackal]

It was certainly a very attempt, yes. But at least it tried, and as this thread suggests, it hasn't been trumped by much since.

And your avatar is great.

Courtesy of Emily. I think she really wants a real dog she can dress up, and has to settle for me.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Jackal

It was certainly a very attempt, yes. But at least it tried, and as this thread suggests, it hasn't been trumped by much since.

Aha! I smell a great opportunity to pimp my dear Legend games.
Deathgate, Gateway 1 and 2, Mission Critical, all of them have the same kind of moral questions than Shannara (only, in my eyes, more convincing).

[Jackal]

Well, they deserve the pimping. I played Death Gate and Mission Critical, but their choices didn't leave any impression on me (meaning, I don't remember). Then again, Shannara's probably wouldn't either, if I hadn't reviewed it.

[Karmillo]

Originally Posted by Ninth

Nah. It's not that simple, really, which is why I didn't think it was worth a spoiler.

Play it, and you'll find out. (spoilerized anyway, just in case)

I did but the game wouldnt let me past the stone ring puzzle even tried all the walkthroughs i could find and it still wouldnt work

[stuboy]

A lot of interesting issues... and a well written essay, Kurufinwe. Some responses;

Endings affected by the player's moral actions throughout the game are all well and good, but I do think that the "Triggers" (or red-herring / minor triggers) ought to be quite clearly labelled (which is completely different from making them morally unambiguous; the ambiguity is very important) and largely found in the latter part of the game so people can replay easily; a good example of multiple endings in a morally deep game which didn't really appeal to me was in Silent Hill 2, a psychological survival horror game I finished recently. In the game there are four endings; but I've only seen one, because they rely on choices made throughout the entirety of the game, none of which are clearly marked; some of which don't really make sense within a game context; and I couldn't be **sed to go back and wade through the tedious combat and silly puzzles to get there. Neither does it help that the plot ditches all realism in the end to become a Lynch-inspired reflection of your character's mental state. For instance, to get a particular ending, with the rather cool sounding title of "In Water", one of the factors is apparently that you keep your health as low as possible throughout. WTF? In real life, that might be some sort of reflection on your character's internal feelings of guilt (there's a rather good plot twist in this game) and need for redemption, but in a computer game; who would ever actually do that on purpose? If the game expects you to make realistic choices, the game should be pseudo-realistic (e.g Fahrenheit) and should signpost choices clearly.

Also; the game should be prepared to smack you on the hand for making the "good" choice, or else it is not really a choice. For instance; if you want to save an NPC, you should be prepared to sacrifice that extra cool ship; or even better, make the player choose between saving two equally deserving NPC's. If the designer wants to put a clever moral spin on the first example, they could make the player make a big sacrifice immediately, but have the NPC come back to save/assist the player at the game's end.

A comment on the "Stranger" in Myst; It was always meant to be my impression that the player is meant to be the AFGNC or whatever the silly acronym is, putting you directly in the game. I always made choices in the Myst games based on what I felt right about, what I would have really done. The choice at the end of Myst 3 was clever, I thought, and not as clear cut as you suggest;

Spoiler:

although Atrus condemns the "bad" choice, a player with a punitive streak might have thought that the villain should be made to pay for his scheming.

Games in which you play a definite character making moral choices can only work well if the character's ethics are hanging in the balance; they need to be ambiguous and world weary enough realistically make the self-motivated choices; Rick in Casablanca is the perfect example; I've never played the Pandora Directive; (too expensive on eBay!) but I assume Tex is in that sort of mould.

As for Shadow of Memories; it's another morally influenced game from Konami, and pretty interesting; unfortunately, the game has weaknesses; It's full of endless, badly voiced cutscenes; sometimes the plot doesn't hold together under the weight of so many choices; and of course the good old Japanese "boyfriend who looks like a girlfriend". Bless them and their obsession with androgyny. Seriously, though I will probably revisit this game and try and get the different endings; I think I got D; I'm not sure if that's good or bad? It was a bit bittersweet. But it wasn't a good enough game for me to jump straight back in; unlike Fahrenheit, which will get replayed as soon as I get it back from everyone I promised to lend it to!

Incidentally, I think that the choice in Fahrenheit

Spoiler:

with the drowning kid was a great example of short term "sacrifice" (you risk getting caught) for a reward directly linked to your morality (the cop lets you go). Highlight of the game, for me.

[NemelChelovek]

Spoiler:

Spoiler:
Sophia's fate is her own fault, not the player's.

Spoiler:

Spoiler:
I have to argue with that. There were two ways for Sophia to die, and they were both Indy's fault. One, he left her behind in the cell, the other, he didn't destroy her necklace, he just left her to deal with it. They always struck me as player-faulted.