A big hope for me with Star Wars: The Old Republic was that the game would offer a third faction choice. I’m not sure where the rumor started, but in hushed tones we spoke of the possibility of a “gray” faction; damn dirty “neutrals” if you will. They’d be people who would see the frontlines of battle, but maybe only be on them when it made sense for them rather than for a greater cause. Almost like how the Skaven in Warhammer Online are being implemented, but instead with the ability to just BE that third faction instead of sitting in the wings until you’re called upon.

A lot of times on the podcast, we tout Dark Age of Camelot for offering a third side for the fight. I don’t think we were aware at the initial time of our playing the game just how impactful the “Rule of Three” would really be for a pvp focused game. People who have never played Dark Age might never understand it, but having three sides, each of whom are morally ambiguous, gives the player a sense of loyalty to that realm. Of course you could say, “Well, I played all three sides from time to time,” and yeah, so did I, but while I was playing any one of the three factions, that’s the only one I cared about. The third side also acted as the unknown quantity in battle. So many times you’d be locked in a fight with a group from an opposing realm, victory in sight, and then BAM your whole group is mezzed by some damn Hibby (or other hated realm of choice) and one by one they pick you off. Did it suck when it happened? You bet, but it made the fighting so much more tense and exciting…and memorable.

But the problem with dualing factions (spelled incorrectly with intent) isn’t just rampant in MMO’s. Single player games like Knights of the Old Republic and Mass Effect were amazing in their implementation of a moral compass system. They gave you a choice, and your choices had weight, so much so that it could affect who lived or died in the game. This was a huge change for single player story driven gaming. It was like we were finally getting off the rails and were given a “choose your own adventure” book. With great implementation comes great copying. Now, it seems most big title RPG’s get this good guy/bad guy path option, so much so that it’s already beginning to lose the ground on “role play” that the mechanic was infusing into RPG’s in the first place. I remember starting the first Mass Effect and trying to stay pretty neutral with my decisions. Sometimes I would get gruff with someone I didn’t like. Other times I would handle things more delicately. It all depended on how I felt the situation needed to be dealt with. But I quickly found that the game was only truly rewarding you if you went full on down either path.

I’m not sure if anything I just said made sense, so I’ll get to my point; I think we need more options. We need ambiguity, more choices without huge moral undertones. That’s not to say that the choice doesn’t need a huge consequence. Just like in life, I think we need to have some choices that may not have an outcome which can immediately be presumed. We need that “third side” that we can’t see or predict. Maybe it needs to come in the way of choice in a single player game, or maybe as a third faction in a competitive online title. I want the future of games to have more gray areas, more neutrals, and more unknowns. I just want the games to keep me on my toes.