Not talking about being good at video games, but being good (in the ethical sense).

I have a problem with the way a lot of games where you get to make ethical choices, in that games often rewards you better for being good, making it almost a no-brainer. It kind of breaks the dilemma.

For example in I Am Alive, helping victims gets you an extra life, something incredibly valuable, since if you die without an extra life you have to restart all the way at the beginning of a level. The mental balance sheet in helping a victim goes from being 'do I want to give up my valuable medpack or last bullet to be a decent person, or let him/her die?' to 'do I want to exchange my valuable medpack or last bullet for an extra life?', which surely isn't the point. Being good in Fallout 3 gets you a sweet house in Megaton that is one load screen away from fast travel, being evil gets you a similarly sweet house with an admittedly better view but is like three load screens away from fast travel. Choosing to be good in Jedi Academy halves the number of people you have to fight in the difficult final level and an easier final boss. In Human Revolution you get more experience (like 200% more) for incapacitating enemies rather than killing them. Etcetera. So even if you're entirely selfish, it still makes logical sense to be 'good'.

I think Walking Dead is the only game that comes to mind at the moment where the game gives you an ethical choice but doesn't actually reward you for being a decent person.

Any other games do this?

I agree, I think dev's need to make it a much harder choice. Witcher 2 did this well. I can't think of too many other games off the top of my head sadly, but it is also late.

I feel that games should make the difficulty 50/50, and the rewards as such.

I think it should be just as hard to be good as evil, and the rewards be equally great.