I personally feel the interactive story medium’s potential is often squandered. Anyway, I think the story experience itself can be reward enough, whether the outcomes are good or bad for whatever action chosen.
Also, a good post.
I personally think that too many game reward the player for doing the “right thing” by giving them a good ending or a new companion even though that is usually not the case for real world scenarios. If I was in a zombie apocalypse and was injured and someone gave me painkillers or medkit I would thank them and get out of there quicker than you could say zoinks because it is what is best for me. He/She gave me something for free, I run away quickly before they ask for something in return and I benefit from it. People are assholes and unlike what games teach you won’t stay by your side till the end and be a loyal companion, at best they will give you something they don’t need anymore, something that is of no use to them and potentially the player since it’s a win/win situation to the injured person. They get free medkit/painkillers, don’t have to give something in return besides a thanks, and the player who gave them the painkillers will will feel like a hero and morally right while he makes a quick getaway. So what i’m trying to get at here is that if you are going for hyper realism then be realistic with it no matter what, even if it unfair or pointless to the player it still is realistic.
I don’t know; I’d have said that many people would try to stick together in the event of an apocalypse-style scenario (especially if one of them is willing to share), and loyal companionship could grow from there.
More generally, I think one way of doing it would be to have a “good end” (MC settles down with his boyfriend) and an “evil end” (MC sacrifices boyfriend but becomes emperor), or something similar to that. This could allow both playstyles to be rewarded in a way that the player would appreciate.
In a zombie apocalypse you have a point but what would be interesting is
what I found on a game called on the death road to Canada where you can
have a buddy to help you fight but you can use them as bait for zombies if
they outlive their usefulness so instead it just being a companion you
could betray then for your own benefit or escape.
MC, confident in his skills, sacrifices lover to become emperor and successfully leads followers through crisis saving many lives and building a prosperous community.
MC abdicates leadership to a less competent person, to be settle down and be happy with lover. The rest of the former group declines and is ultimately butchered.
Which is the good and which is the evil one?
2 Likes
Emperor MC is assassinated two days after coronation; empire falls into ruin. Abdicated MC loses lover on the eve of their wedding; kills self a few weeks later. 
Neither of those are exactly “rewards”, though.
1 Like
Don’t reward them.
Rewards don’t come to you just because you do good things.
It happens because the situation or the people in said situation reward your kindness.
And sometimes people get punished for good things and sometimes bad deeds get rewarded.
And some people will get annoyed cause they’ll feel that your attempting to bias players to a certain path.
4 Likes
Realism is: Sometimes a good deed is rewarded beyond the obvious. Sometimes a bad deed is rewarded beyond the obvious. The rest of the time deeds only are what they are.
4 Likes
Keeping the game realistic is most important but a realistic look at that moral dilemma you said for example is you will attain that injured man’s loyalty
Maybe he could help you out in a situation later
As not helping him would cause the group(if the is one) difficulty trusting you but also leave you open for free loot
So no reward for doing the right thing
I belive you should reward the player realistically and based on their decision no matter right or wrong
" Just don’t leave a big choice like that effectless in the game experience "
I think no matter what choice is made either good or bad there should be a possibility of there being either good or bad consequences or maybe both. So it keeps the readers on their toes and not always assuming that if they are always nice that things will go better. I think what matters most is that players can see the affect of their choices. that’s what makes it interesting.
I think there could be a pragmatic and a moral bar in zombie and horror games. If you act pragmatically your treated that way upon reaction heartless if your acting pragmatic around moral people, and naive white knight around pragmatic people when you act with morals. Horror and zombie games are a ambiguous style place bot extremes are odd behavior that generally clash with someone
Some people will want a choice to help that man because damn it, their character is empathetic. But if the choice is whether to leave the man to die of shock-trauma or give him their precious morphine, if they’re gambling for some reward, let them lose out.
If they give him the painkillers he thanks them, they feel good about themselves, and that’s their only reward. For people who are playing a “good” character it ought to be enough… and if it’s not, why not? Thought-provoking, isn’t it?
7 Likes