To me

• Freedom and Liberty!
  Do whatever you want in a massive open world with hundreds of locations, characters, and quests. Join multiple factions vying for power or go it alone, the choices are all yours.

Tells me that the they will attempt a morally gray story. I don't think it will be well done but I could be somewhat if they take a lot from FONV.. Hell, I hope to be surprised on this one.

Maybe it's just me but I didn't find The Pitt to be particularly morally grey.

I'm glad The Pitt gets the deserved recognition it receives here, loved that DLC and the story and choices it presented.

Honestly we need choice.

There's a poster here wanting good vs evil so he has a clear bad guy to fight, we have people wanting grey choices for stated reasons ...

And I was going to write about my concerns regarding being totally evil and killing good guys and watching the world burn.

End of the day we need meaningful choice across the spectrum, I like NV due to its independent endings (although the rebellious sounding yesman kinda ruined one of those endings tbh) and if we can have that kind of scope in F4 (albeit with improved writing), that seems best for everyone.

But in your hunt for moral complexities, don't drive out the traditional extremes too cus then that just isolates others.

Dont think they will but if they do it will be very well done.

Regarding The Pitt, which is brought up quite often, I always side with Ashur, kill Wernher and then kill all of Ashur's Captains (the only real problem with his side). I'm not going to steal someone's child, deliver to it's possible suffering and death at the hands of a bitter and angry mob and then allow that same mob to do what I expect, and kill everyone else, essentially becoming Raiders themselves.

There is no choice for me to make in that situation, it's already been made for me by my very angry and bitter "allies". As for killing all of Ashur's Captains, perhaps he should hire some better staff with less drug and deviancy issues. Other than that, he has a plan, the means and the apparent intent to see it through. If this were Star Trek, any involvement would have violated the prime directive, so I'm just making the best of a bad situation.

Both choices were pretty bad, it fails to feel morally grey so much as "irrationally option restricted" like so many "moral choices" in games. I can always think of a better alternative, but evidently that would lead to a better resolution and greater understanding, and that's not what most games go for.

An example of a choice I liked, but still always came to the same decision, was the end of DXHR. I chose the truth, I chose Darrow. If his message even brings another 1 or 2 Jensens to the cause, then it served it's purpose. You can't let people just buy that kind of power through Augmentation. It's a step too far and it jeopardises the safety and stability of society. All that aside (don't really want a 15 page argument on ethics here), I feel it asked a real question of your morals and your values. Far better than 99.999% of games do.

The Skyrim Civil War was clear cut. Stormcloaks have the right. The Imperials are all well and good arguing for the Empire, but the Empire has failed, and the Nords want out. I believe in their sovereignty and their self-determination over the Empire's "rights" to the land. You can argue "strategy" until you're blue in the face, but the Dunmer won't stand for the Aldmeri incursion and neither will the Argonians. The Redguards already have a full resistance going and yet "The Empire" still think the "free world" revolves around them. It's not going happen, and everyone else will band together as free nations to fight a common enemy, it's that straightforward.

Also, as much as people hated it, the only other ending to give me real pause for thought was Mass Effect 3. I choose Destroy every time. I could explain that one too, but this post is long enough already.

Hmm, whereas I picked Destroy because it was the clearly Least Evil of the three bad options. (Control was always championed & symbolized by the Illusive Man & his schemes, which were pretty clearly Not Good. And Synthesize was even worse, since it involved destroying everyone in the galaxy and remaking them into something else, against their will. Mass assault, on a galactic scale. There've been all sorts of Star Trek episodes on the ethics/morality of altering people against their will, I was surprised by how many people - including the ME writers - who seemed to think Synth was the "good" option.)

Agreed about the ME Writers.

I chose Destroy because at the cost of the Geth and EDI, we get a sense of finality, the end of the Reapers and the hope that the same mistakes that brought the Citadel AI into existence, will not happen again in the future. In spite of it's insistence, I don't take the Starchild's word on anything, especially with his allegedly all encompassing knowledge about the inevitable fate of organic life.

I always chose the best hope with freedom of choice at the forefront of my decision.

Well, the question is will they ever attempt a morally grey take on the war. Sure, they will try, and maybe they have in F4. But would it be well executed? Not likely. Maybe in spots, but I don't have high hopes for their ability to make a grey story at all. Their stories, big and small, are always so one-sided that even when they try to make something controversial, it just makes me cringe.

But Ephidel, that's the point those games gave you choices and some of them reflected your own values.

The joy of these games is playing through different choices, realistically I'd probably not join The Legion but it was a damn fun play through regardless.

Games should give us the freedom to be evil killers, heroic defenders and even a distinct shade of grey.

It's having no choice or worse clearly more rewarding options that cause the trouble.

These are things the player doesn't know at the time. It isn't necessarily about how it plays out, but about the choice that has to be made on the spot. The Tree Spirit makes a good initial pitch, and the point is that the player is forced to think a little. This is more of a case of choosing the lesser evil, I'll concede that. But the player had no way of knowing what you know now, so the point is invalid. Also, there are changes reflected in-game depending on what you choose, which is actually nice.

If you're going to call the Bloody Baron a generic character, then I hope you would also be able to do the same for every single character in Skyrim. He stands heads and shoulders above literally any of those NPCs in terms of complexity, and his storyline is has moments of genuine shock emotion. He's a fantastic character, and Bethesda would benefit from making more people like him. Also, he's a great example of a character firmly in the moral grey,which is part of what makes him compelling.

Also (since we've debated each other a few times heatedly and I'd like to keep it friendly) what is it about Bethesda games that you find compelling? I'd just like to understand your point of view here.

I think you kinda didn't get the point in my post.

It's not a case of that they shouldn't try, but rather that the "great examples" of morally grey choices in past games weren't really very great or morally grey.

And regarding ME3 and DXHR, they actually gave me pause for thought, which is a sight more than Skyrim or Fallout 3 ever did.

And speaking of Skyrim, if you killed Paarthurnax, you were morally wrong to do so. Just putting that out there. The Blades are dead and I will not kill that Dragon for your stupid order, and if you try to do it, I'll end every, single one of you. Stupid Esbern.

He never said. He pretty much only bashes NV and other games but nearly never addresses the flaws in Bethesda titles.

All with a condescending tone.

You are told the spirit is evil and can find a book explaining the spirit is evil before even reaching the spirit. You know beforehand its evil, so you know beforehand its "pitch" is all bull. And the only "change" that is made in game is that it removes the NPCs of the town, something even Skyrim and NV managed to do in events like the civil war, and taking over Nelson. Beyond that, in both cases, the Baron leaves the game, as does his wife, his daughter, the kids, the witches, and is second is made the new leader and is a bad one at that. Its exactly the same either way. So much for your choices meaning SO MUCH!

I would say the same of Skyrim's characters yes. And I honestly didn't get the "shock" emotion in his storyline, it all played out exactly like every other "drunken dad" plot plays out.

->Dad is a angry violent drunk

->His wife/child leave him

->Tasks some guy to find them

->Wife/Child: "BUT WE DON'T WANNA GO BACK TO THAT GUY!"

->Drunk: "BUT ILL GIVE UP LE DRINK I SWEAR IT!"

->Wife/child: "WE FORGIVE YOU NOWZ!"

The lore and worlds mostly. TES probably has the most complex lore of any video game not based on a pre-existing product like the D&D and Star Wars games are, and they have fairly interesting places to explore.

I personally prefer the Control ending actually, where Shepard sacrifices him/herself to save all life, be it organic or synthetic while stopping the Reaper threat. The Reapers were still there but under Shepard's control. And as someone whose choices have already affected the galaxy enough as it is, I see Shepard's morality to be perfect in taking on such a significant role. Of course the idea of control would seem like a bad idea coming from the Illusive Man, he is farthest from being a saint, but with Shepard it seems ideal. So with no destruction of life and someone like Shepard controlling the Reapers, I saw nothing bad coming out of control. If anything, I don't see how one would be against Synthesize if it's a "mass assault" when Destroy is just as bad, only you're making an exception for one specific life form as if they're less significant. Of course you can make the usual "they're robots, they're not alive" argument, but after Legion, the Geth becoming true individuals (if you made that choice), and EDI, I don't see how anyone can use that as an excuse to kill them. And I purposely use the term "kill".

But yadda yadda, Mass Effect stuff.

As for the topic at hand, I personally like grey stories. They leave it to the player to interpret what is good and what is bad themselves, without the story directly labelling one side as such. And Bethesda has done it well at one point with the Pitt, one of Fallout 3's few good moments in writing. However, we've also seen other examples such Skyrim's Civil War which was significantly less well done. In general, it's well known Bethesda isn't good at writing stories for their games, so I remain rather doubtful. We'll just have to see if this is one of those times Bethesda excels in such an area.

i used to think that, TES does have some real good lore then i read HALO lore yeah was not prepared for that much the setting is very good too point that the games up until now have bin doing it a huge huge disservice .

bais talking but i will always find warhammer lore great as well.

Because is the hallmark of the franchise?

Moral ambiguity and change aren't mutually exclusive.

As much as I'd hope you read my post at the bottom of the first page, that aside, I have to take issue with your ME3 opinions.

Firstly, you're hinging the future safety of the entire galaxy on Shepard's disembodied consciousness against the collective AI of millions of years worth of Reaper-ised civilisations. Forever.

So Shepard is supposed to just lead the Reapers, milling around in darkspace for eternity, assuming their mind holds out. Even ghosts want to die at some point, I imagine Shepard would reach that point or go insane or become overpowered by the others. Ultimately, if Shepard still had some sense of moral duty, they'd probably crash the Reapers into a sun or Black Hole. There's still the possibility that Shepard won't hold out though, and then we have the whole Reaper issue all over again.

So, Synthesis. All life mixes together. Great, that doesn't affect the sanctity of life and free will one bit. And Shepard decides that future for everyone, in the whole galaxy, forever. Thanks, Obama. It's a terrible idea.

Or you can fight and die trying. Doesn't really resolve anything though.

Then consider Destroy. You sacrifice EDI and the Geth and save the entire rest of the universe. It's the least worst option by far. Yes, the Geth die, but everyone else survives. Looking at the options, it's not much of a choice to make.

And let's just go over those options one last time : Fight and die trying (Galaxy get harvested again), forced shared consciousness for the whole galaxy, Shepard becoming the dominant Reaper mind (which may very well fail over time, I don't think anyone can win against infinity. Reapers could very well return later) or sacrifice the Geth and EDI to put an end to it, there and then (Reapers die, galaxy can rebuild).

Destroy is the only real solution to the issue. All others allow the Reapers with the potential to return, only the details change. There is no inevitability that organic life will create superior AIs and cause the Reapers all over again, that's the Citadel AI's core programming speaking.

Like I've said before, I choose the path where life continues to have a choice in how their future unfolds. The Geth were victims of war, but I can't condemn everyone else for just one race, no matter who it was.

Since when?

The badguys of Fo1, 2, and Tactics were as black as they came. New Vegas was the only game with moral grey in it.

Hell, Fallout 3 actually made the Enclave more grey then they were in Fallout 2 by introducing Autumn, who wasn't a crazed genocidal madman like Eden and Richardson.

I'm hoping they can pull another Pitt. That was Grey Morality done so well that some people confused it for Black and White Morality due to how strongly they felt about it.

I want it to be so ambiguous that you can't distinguish where on a moral spectrum the decisions lie; perhaps it's not even relevant. I want people to be able to argue over what they think the best choice is; feeling confident in their own answer while others can feel confident in theirs. I don't want it to be Good vs. Evil, though I don't want it to be Evil vs. Lesser Evil either. In a sense, I want exclusively "good" endings, where "good" depends on who you ask. There's no such thing as evil; just different perspectives. That's what I want the choices to be like.

I think the Pitt did that well, and Skyrim's Civil War did it decently as well. Hopefully that means Bethesda can pull it off.

And as for Mass Effect, I chose the Refusal Ending. I felt that, thematically, it fit best with my characters story. Upholding your ideals and principles at ANY cost; that felt like what Shepard would've done. It was bittersweet, as it had that glimmer of hope at the end of it. We might not have won, but we didn't settle for less either, dying free - and in doing so we allowed the next cycle to have a better chance. There's a line of dialogue with EDI where she has an epiphany regarding what it means to be human and delves into concepts of self sacrifice and standing up for what you believe in. It resonated with me. I also liked Control prior to this ending becoming available.

"The Reapers are revolting; dedicated to nothing but self-preservation."

I hated how in Skyrim both sides were garbage. Made it so I didn't even care who I joined.

I choose destroy over the other two because they are the ideas of Saren and the Illusive man(as you said). The first two games and most of the third spend the entire time telling us that their ideas won't work but at the end the ME writers decided to say "nah they was right all along".

As someone said already the reason I don't touch the civil war is how grey it is(that and the writing is bad). On Issues like that I tend to just let it sort itself out.

I just want a reason to care about the factions and setting. That was New Vegas's biggest problem; Obsidian made it abundantly clear that no matter who I sided with, the Mojave would still svck. They did that deliberately so that the choices each felt like they had equal weight, and because downsides are just natural, but the end result was that I was just completely apathetic to the whole main quest. The funny thing is, when they wrote all of the minor factions like the Great Khans or the Boomers, Obsidian didn't worry about them being equally good and bad, so they just focused on writing good factions.

With the Civil War, there were still plenty of downsides to each choice, but you could still feel like you were doing the right thing. And with the Pitt, both endings both had hope, but you had to decide who to trust to deliver that hope.

In games they are, hence why no game has actually done it.

I;d say skyrim had plenty of gray moments in it. The Civil war and the Companions are good points.


No, New Vegas had the factions being gray but you can work to make them better throughout the game. For instance in one ending due to your actions you open up trade with the Boomers and the NCR or Gun Runners. You can have the Great Khans join the side of Caesar or have them flee during the war making a mass exodus to the great plains. With gray factions you can make them better or worse, you have the ability to shape them through your actions.

They don't all end the same, they only do if the writers do a poor job for instance The Pitt was a poorly done attempt at a gray storyline yet New Vegas was a good attempt at one. I'd also say the civil war and the companions held up as gray questlines.