'Mass Effect,' 'Wasteland 3,' and the Issue of Binary Morality in Video Games

• while many consider the system integral to the series, there is an argument to be made that such a binary system of morality limits the series in both its narrative and gameplay.
• From the start, players are discouraged from making their choices on a case-by-case basis. If you want to access some of the late-game dialogue choices, you’ll need to have made significantly more decisions that lean heavily into one side of the spectrum or the other. Splitting your decisions to have a more morally balanced Shepard sometimes ends up costing players significant late-game choices.
• when a game offers players a distinct option between being a hero or a villain, more often than not players will gravitate toward what makes more sense in the context of the story. And when the choice is so neatly segregated into purely Good or Bad, you have a much greater tendency for players to lean towards the Good option.
• around 92% of players created Paragon-focused characters. Because most of the decisions basically boil down to “be a nice person” or “be a jackass,” there’s no real thought-provoking framework from which players can approach each decision. When the game literally color codes which option is good and which is bad, there’s no real discussion to be had for each decision. Very few people in life truly view themselves as a bad person. Even the most reprehensible individuals have rationalizations and justifications for why they did the things they did. In Mass Effect, people rarely have to rationalize why their decision was a just one. The game tells you, constantly peeking over your shoulder to let you know what’s right and what’s wrong.
• there is a game that also delves into the complicated web of moral choices, and manages to do so in a much more compelling manner. Wasteland 3
• Wasteland 3 is a top-down strategy RPG set in a post-apocalyptic Colorado. Players control a pair of Rangers, one of the last vestiges of law and order in this new world.
• From this premise, Wasteland 3 wastes no time in tackling a decidedly different approach to morality and story decisions.
• Rather than have a “good” or “evil” meter, players build reputation individually with a number of the factions in Colorado, with decisions positively or negatively affecting each group’s opinion of you.
• From a gameplay perspective, this means rather than basing their decisions on whether or not they’re going to be good or evil, players must consider how their standing in the world at large will be affected by their actions. This may sound as if it carries a similar problem to Mass Effect’s system, as players may decide to just do whatever makes a certain faction happy to boost their reputation and reap the rewards. However, what may please one faction will more often than not deteriorate your relationship with another.
• When the choice is between saving an innocent family who’s been taken hostage or protecting a weapons convoy from cultists, saving the family is undoubtedly the more “Paragon” option. However, when doing so means that innocent marshals from a local town will die, and powerful weapons will fall into the hands of deranged lunatics, is this truly the more moral decision?
• However, the police in question are corrupt to the core
• Is there truly a correct decision to be made?
• Wasteland 3 constantly poses questions for the player, asking them not to choose between good and evil, but rather what they themselves value as their own interpretation of what is moral and what isn’t.
• arguably the most memorable decision of the first game: Choosing to save Kaiden or Ashley was a perfect example of what a good moral decision looks like. There’s no clear-cut answer, and each side can argue or justify why their decision was the best one they could make in the moment. Not all of Mass Effect’s decisions are as black and white as its binary system proposes. However, when each decision is prematurely denigrated or praised as just or immoral by way of a color-coded system, there isn’t much room for discussion within the game itself. 92% of players chose Paragon characters. If every person basically chooses the same thing, you haven’t really given players a choice. You’ve just given them an excuse to play the game twice to see all its content.
• A well-designed moral decision in a game should ideally spark a debate among players about which option was the “right” option, with each side being able to reason out why their decision was the most moral or practical way to resolve a conflict. A decision where every player agrees may be satisfying in the moment, but it does little to actually create discussion.
• games are continuing to grow up and ask deeper, more complicated questions.
• it’s refreshing to see games such as Wasteland 3 attempting to approach moral choices with the gravity and nuance that simply makes them more interesting to discuss and deliberate over. In a galaxy of Paragon-blue and Renegade-red, it’s the shades of grey in between that shine the brightest.