So this is something that has been bothering me a bit? Y'know

>>52847902
>Well how come so many games are able to pull off morality so well

They aren't. Inevitably you end up with retarded situations where you can murder with impunity and get away with it because the 'evil' points you get from killing innocents are cancelled out by the 'good' points from some of your victims inevitably being evil themselves, and that's just one example.

>I'd rather play a game where the game states that killing is always wrong (because it is)

No it's not. For example, if you were to kill yourself, the world would be a better place.

>>52847945
> Inevitably you end up with retarded situations where you can murder with impunity and get away with it because the 'evil' points you get from killing innocents are cancelled out by the 'good' points from some of your victims inevitably being evil themselves, and that's just one example.
As opposed to tabletop games where you can get fucked out of your class abilities because the DM decided to throw a catch 22 that stated that you were going to fall no matter what? Like I said, if I'm going to get fucked by morality, I'd rather it at least be consistent.
>No it's not.
There's a reason why most tribal societies have gone extinct while societies that don't condone killing have been allowed to prosper to what we have today. You can't advance as a society when every other day is like the Purge mixed with Battle Royale.

>>52848006
tribal societies hate killing people

File: comic355_zpse6652604.png (175KB, 650x730px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 650x730px

>>52847945

>>52849125
>tribal societies hate killing their own people
FTFY

Indian tribes in America would routinely have wars and wipe out rival tribes if it suited their needs. They'd also ritually kill anyone they captured, including women and children.

Yet look at where they are now.

Guys we just had a bait thread yesterday with the same guy, please don't respond.
No matter what you say he'll just strawman and purposely misunderstand the same thing over and over, then at the end of the thread he gives an edgy speech about how le rused everyone is.

>>52848006
>You can't advance as a society when every other day is like the Purge mixed with Battle Royale.

Judging from the works mentioned, however, doing it once a year is fine.

>>52849206
In Battle Royale, they took a relatively small sample size of teenagers and put them into a death battle where only one could survive, not even comparable to a war-like society where every day is a struggle.

In the Purge, the entire premise is flawed because eventually, every company in the country would go bankrupt due to the rapid shrinking of their workforce every year after the purge. Think about how many employees a place like 7-11 or Walmart has and then consider how you could walk in and 90% of your work force is either dead or in a hospital. It only works in the movies because the movies don't have to account for logistics.

IRL, a society where the bulk of its citizens are killing themselves and/or others will eventually wipe itself out. It happened to the Indians, the Mayans, the Incans, and every other tribe who didn't evolve to create a sustainable society for themselves.

>>52849177
You fail at elaboration.

Native American tribes are too diverse a group to sum up so simply, when you have everyone from aztek to inuits under the overall grouping. More importantly, they weren't really tribal. Most of them had progressed past simple tribalism to form simple nations, or in the case of central and south america, complex ones. And that's before even examining just how much damage that European disease did to the North American population, where if we assume it killed more than 50% of the population, as it did with the Incas, means that their societies likely had degenerated considerably before widespread European colonization of the continent began.

And yeah, most of them were pretty hardcore when it came to war. Though more often women and children would be absorbed into a tribe, than killed with the fighting age males.

>>52849152
>she
>when in comic the character is supposed to be male

>>52847902
I ALWAYS hated morality meters in video games. They always wrong 30% - 60% of the time Then you got A-holes who want to force the choices to do "evil" or "bad" out of the game. Fallout is a great example. Fallout two we added kids, kill a kid your a child killer. Fallout 3 Kids are unkillable.

>>52852133
Not to mention Fallout 2 punishes you REALLY harshly for doing it. Miss out on quests and have constant threats attacking you, that level up as you do

Probably the game with the best system to make you really think about if you want to kill kids, all those shits in the Den that aggro you and Suljik starts killin them

>>52852133
As stupid as morality meters are in most games, if you're going for objective morality, the game really needs to distinguish between actions that are always good and always evil.

Also, games need to start treating falling as a gradual thing, not as something that happens the moment you do something bad. Even in the worse made morality meters, you'd need to go out of your way to get enough points to be considered totally irredeemable.