Dear Reader:
You are viewing
a story from GN Version 4.0.
Time may not have been kind to formatting, integrity of links, images, information, etc.
Ubisoft exploring the 'gray area' and consequences with Watch_Dogs
Coming from a Kotaku interview with senior producer Dominic Guay...
“If I look at the past 15 years, this is the context most games have put us on,” Guay said, unfurling a believable situation possibly plucked from some old classic. “In a very nuanced and subtle situation, we’re offered two kinds of responses. I’ll give you an example. You come up to an orphan boy and basically the game allows you to either give him all your money or kill him. Well, I’m not really interested in those extreme answers to a subtle situation. It’s not relevant and it’s not the thing I would do.
“What we’re really interested in exploring the gray area. So the player is going to be able to make those choices, but it is going to be reflected back to him [through] what [in-game characters] say on social media, what they say to each other and also by the formal media, which is going to start reporting about what Aiden Pearce does in the city and the consequences of those actions.”
Guay also discussed how Watch_Dogs handles moral choices differently from other games.
When you think about morality or moral choices [in games], it should be in your head. It should be going through your own filter of morality. The problem is when you have the game do it for you.
Take the orphan example. If I go and say, ‘Kill him or give him all your money’ I’ve seen this so many times, I feel like [sighs in disgust]… I’ve seen this so many times and I wouldn’t actually do either of them. And, actually, games do this. You go and say, ‘Oh, I give them all my money, which will give me plus-five XP which will give me the next Angel skill. And plus-five bad will give me the new Nuclear Skill. I want the Nuclear skill! It’s got nothing to do with morality. I’ve just made an optimization of a skill-tree like I did when I was a kid playing Dungeons & Dragons.
If we take the example we showed in the demo, there’s something going on here, I can go investigate. This guy is a recidivist rapist and this guy is an honest blue collar guy and he’s going to kill him, because he’s raped his wife. Or did he? Because he actually only sniffed that out in a text [message]. So maybe actually he didn’t. He’s guilty as suspected? That’s a moral question.
On this topic alone on the team, we’ve had arguments. One of the guys was saying it’s too obvious he’s guilty, that’s not fun anymore. I’m like, Why? Because the guy suspects him? He’s necessarily guilty? I don’t agree. And then our writer is like, ‘Even if he is, I would intervene.’ So now we have three different moral stances on an action.
Full interview here
“If I look at the past 15 years, this is the context most games have put us on,” Guay said, unfurling a believable situation possibly plucked from some old classic. “In a very nuanced and subtle situation, we’re offered two kinds of responses. I’ll give you an example. You come up to an orphan boy and basically the game allows you to either give him all your money or kill him. Well, I’m not really interested in those extreme answers to a subtle situation. It’s not relevant and it’s not the thing I would do.
“What we’re really interested in exploring the gray area. So the player is going to be able to make those choices, but it is going to be reflected back to him [through] what [in-game characters] say on social media, what they say to each other and also by the formal media, which is going to start reporting about what Aiden Pearce does in the city and the consequences of those actions.”
Guay also discussed how Watch_Dogs handles moral choices differently from other games.
When you think about morality or moral choices [in games], it should be in your head. It should be going through your own filter of morality. The problem is when you have the game do it for you.
Take the orphan example. If I go and say, ‘Kill him or give him all your money’ I’ve seen this so many times, I feel like [sighs in disgust]… I’ve seen this so many times and I wouldn’t actually do either of them. And, actually, games do this. You go and say, ‘Oh, I give them all my money, which will give me plus-five XP which will give me the next Angel skill. And plus-five bad will give me the new Nuclear Skill. I want the Nuclear skill! It’s got nothing to do with morality. I’ve just made an optimization of a skill-tree like I did when I was a kid playing Dungeons & Dragons.
If we take the example we showed in the demo, there’s something going on here, I can go investigate. This guy is a recidivist rapist and this guy is an honest blue collar guy and he’s going to kill him, because he’s raped his wife. Or did he? Because he actually only sniffed that out in a text [message]. So maybe actually he didn’t. He’s guilty as suspected? That’s a moral question.
On this topic alone on the team, we’ve had arguments. One of the guys was saying it’s too obvious he’s guilty, that’s not fun anymore. I’m like, Why? Because the guy suspects him? He’s necessarily guilty? I don’t agree. And then our writer is like, ‘Even if he is, I would intervene.’ So now we have three different moral stances on an action.