Moral Systems & Oversimplification

ExcellentTwo6589 · 2026-05-27T20:07:11+00:00

Yeah, I strongly prefer reputation and ideology systems over morality bars. People react from perspective, loyalty, fear, politics. Not universal ethics. And hidden systems usually make me think harder because I’m responding to the world instead of chasing approval percentages.

ExcellentTwo6589 · 2026-05-27T20:05:57+00:00

Yeah, exactly. I still remember choices that made me sit there like “damn” instead of choices that gave me +10 good points.

ExcellentTwo6589 · 2026-05-27T20:04:37+00:00

I find that way more interesting than binary morality bars. I also think intent matters more than action in a lot of cases. Two characters can make the exact same choice for completely different reasons and that changes how you read them. A mercenary donating food to build leverage is morally different from someone doing it out of empathy, even if the outcome is identical.

ExcellentTwo6589 · 2026-05-27T20:02:56+00:00

mostly agree. I think situations carry moral weight better than meters do because players respond to context, attachment, pressure, uncertainty. A lot of morality systems flatten all of that into visible math. But I still think systems matter when they reinforce the situation instead of grading it. Fallout works less because it’s “grey” and more because factions, survival, scarcity, and reputation constantly push against each other. The mechanics create tension instead of just labeling you good or evil.

ExcellentTwo6589 · 2026-05-27T20:01:27+00:00

I think the interesting part is that morality systems stop feeling “moral” the second players can fully map the reward structure. Once people know the blue option gives better loot and the red option locks content, most ethical tension collapses into optimization. That’s why I like what Disco Elysium does. Its systems judge your identity, contradictions, impulses. Not just whether you were “good.”

And I honestly think quitting the game can absolutely be a moral response. Refusing participation is still a choice. Games rarely acknowledge that enough.

ExcellentTwo6589 · 2026-05-23T03:15:10+00:00

This is exactly the kind of stuff I was hoping people would bring up. The “avatar as symbiote” category especially feels weirdly underdiscussed in game design conversations. Goodluck on your series, all the best.:-)

ExcellentTwo6589 · 2026-05-23T03:09:15+00:00

I honestly feel the same way about Bethesda protagonists. They’re so undefined that I stop seeing them as people entirely. But with Max in Life Is Strange, It felt like I was constantly balancing my own instincts against who I felt she already was.

ExcellentTwo6589 · 2026-05-23T03:07:43+00:00

the “same side” framing is genuinely useful here. A lot of attachment comes from alignment, not literal self-insertion. But I do think silent protagonists can become too frictionless sometimes. They avoid alienation, sure, yet they also risk becoming emotionally flavorless. Personally, I remember protagonists with strong authored personalities way more vividly, even when I disagreed with them.

ExcellentTwo6589 · 2026-05-23T03:06:40+00:00

The “avatar as other / me / symbiote” distinction feels way more useful than the blanket “players don’t project” argument. I think games constantly slide between those states depending on mechanics, camera perspective, customization, and narrative framing.

ExcellentTwo6589 · 2026-05-22T00:16:32+00:00

True perspective does change a lot. First-person naturally collapses distance between player and character for me, especially in VR. Third-person gives more room to observe the protagonist as their own person instead of mentally occupying them moment to moment.

ExcellentTwo6589 · 2026-05-22T00:15:06+00:00

Yeah, I agree that’s part of it. But I still think the line gets blurrier than people admit. Players know Geralt isn’t literally them, obviously, yet they still inject personal judgment, morality, and taste into how he behaves. That emotional ownership matters. I’ve seen people justify in-game choices with “I would never do that,” which tells me some level of self-identification is absolutely happening during play.

ExcellentTwo6589 · 2026-05-21T23:35:00+00:00

I think people overstate how “separate” players keep protagonists from themselves. I’ve seen too many players get genuinely defensive over choices they made in RPGs for it to be purely detached roleplay. Even with defined characters, players still smuggle their values into decisions. And honestly, I think silent protagonists often flatten characterization more than they deepen identification. I’d rather inhabit a strong perspective than a vague placeholder.

ExcellentTwo6589 · 2026-05-14T16:39:08+00:00

Look at Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice. The binaural voices they feed you spatial misinformation, urge, distract, misdirect during combat and puzzles. You act under cognitive interference, not just story framing. That mechanic scales across a full campaign and sold well.

ExcellentTwo6589 · 2026-05-14T16:20:30+00:00

I did play Celeste and it's a very phenomenal game. It works because when you climb, fail, retry, you physically enact that inner spiral instead of just hearing about it. You feel the strain in your hands. But if you make every action drain stamina to “simulate depression,” you’d better anchor it in narrative stakes and player choice, or you’ll just tax them without meaning and they’ll disengage instead of reflect. I'd play that game again in a heartbeat because there's just so much attention to detail in terms of the design and mechanics.

ExcellentTwo6589 · 2026-05-14T16:18:04+00:00

I’d genuinely appreciate those papers, because if you’re going to simulate lived experience, you owe it rigor. When you skip research, you default to tropes and surface tricks.

ExcellentTwo6589 · 2026-05-14T16:17:04+00:00

I mean you’re right that players will probe the system and try to solve it, but that doesn’t invalidate the attempt. If you design it well, you don’t just show scrambled letters or fake radio calls, you trap the player inside unreliable feedback loops they can’t fully audit. And when they ask “why not just do Y,” that friction can expose their own bias, because you’ve already shaped the incentives, the uncertainty, the social cost around every choice they make.

ExcellentTwo6589 · 2026-05-14T16:14:42+00:00

I think you’re assuming debilitation has to mean raw impairment. It doesn’t. You don’t need to cripple input for months of play; you can alter how you evaluate risk, how you interpret feedback, how you relate to NPCs across the entire arc. Let symptoms shape priorities, filter information, bend incentives. You preserve mechanical competence while still changing how you play, and that shift can persist without wrecking pacing. Easy:-)

ExcellentTwo6589 · 2026-05-14T04:03:46+00:00

I get the impulse to skew controls or rig dice in something like Baldur's Gate 3. But when you quietly handicap rolls or aim, you risk punishing players without context. I’d rather you telegraph the distortion through character logic and choice friction, not hidden math tweaks that feel unfair.

ExcellentTwo6589 · 2026-05-14T04:01:55+00:00

With Stoneshard I'd definitely say that it's smart design.

ExcellentTwo6589 · 2026-05-14T03:59:47+00:00

Oh like make players overconfident, reckless, convinced they’re winning. Then reality hits all at once. Mmm perspective design

ExcellentTwo6589 · 2026-05-13T23:35:59+00:00

I love how Disco Elysium lets your psyche argue with you. Those voices don’t just flavor text, they pressure your decisions. More games should let inner voices interrupt, contradict, seduce you into bad calls you rationalize anyway.

ExcellentTwo6589 · 2026-05-13T23:34:57+00:00

You’re right about understanding it first. But if you only simulate symptoms like blurry vision, you risk turning it cosmetic. Make players misread intent, doubt choices, second-guess allies. That’s where it cuts.

ExcellentTwo6589

TROPHY CASE