4309 réponses à ce sujet

[crimzontearz]

divo, Perfect endingis subjective. The existence of a "third option" influences you solely if THAT is the ending youconsider perfect. if YOUR perfect ending is the result of a A vs B sacrifice then you are allowed to pick that outcome and ignore the 3d option like in DAO. If you end up picking the 3d option then all the difference was about the imposition of choice not the outcome itself.

People like different things and all this is fiction crafted by us according to bioware within certain boundries. As I always say Imposing too much kills replyability

[CoffeeHolic93]

Il Divo wrote...


Let me try a different approach and you might understand better where we're coming from. Maybe you've heard of the Trolleys thought experiment, which is pretty well-known in moral theory.

Ex: A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track  Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?

This is the perfect example of a "hard choice" because there does not exist a "best of all possible worlds" scenario. Leave the switch, five people die. Flip the switch, one person dies and you potentialy feel more responsible for that death.

Now, imagine for a second that a third option exists; you can press a third button, which will magically untie all six people and allow the train to pass them by unharmed. What do you do?

The existence of this third option, by necessity, removes the existence of any "hard choice" on the part of the player because everyone makes it out unharmed. It is the quintessential perfect ending where everyone goes home and sees their loved ones. It can't exist with the Trolley scenario because there is no reason to pick the other two scenarios, assuming you aren't malicious. The "hard choice" is contingent upon something necessarily being sacrificed in the process.  

You're presenting  the issue as if it's melodrama, which is something I'm having trouble comrehending. Character death is something which has existed in fiction long before Greek epics were told. There is absolutely no reason why Bioware should not be allowed to present scenarios either of tragedy or necessary death. Random mook death doesn't meet this threshhold, akin to arguing that Ben Kenobi/Yoda didn't have to die because in Episode IV we watched some rebel fighters get crushed by Vader. That's why we illustrate that death needs to be made personal.

Why don't we want our party members to die? Because we like them and it affects us emotionally, which is exactly why death, suffering, sacrifice, etc, are such an important element in these stories. I don't mind a "happy ending". I mind an ending where everything falls together perfectly, no one dies, Earth is saved, no psychological suffering, Reapers dead, etc, which is similar to the altered trolley scenario, . If you want to argue that the perfect ending is better than "hard decisions", by all means. But you're going to have to demonstrate how/why your scenario gives us both what we want. It doesn't any more than the magical third option can give the Trolley thought experiment meaning.

Well thought-out. The magic switch needs to go. I don't mind hard choice, but give us the option to lessen or redirect the damage - that's all.

[Il Divo]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Il Divo: I would first have to do a quick evaluation on the six people.

If no evaluation - outside of number could be made - one must die. It's not a hard choice.

You have provided only two choices of "possible worlds" - crying about not saving everyone is like crying that I can't be Superman. The choice was never provided.

You'd be surprised at the number of people who disagree. Some do believe that pressing the button makes you more responsible and so is a less appealing option. If you're looking for an even better example, look up the "Fat Man" thought experiment.

But this is besides the point; you still had to make the call, which resulted in sacrifice. The "best of all possible worlds" scenario means no one dies, which does not exist in the Trolley thought experiment as written.

Modifié par Il Divo, 15 octobre 2011 - 03:48 .

[Il Divo]

crimzontearz wrote...

divo, Perfect endingis subjective. The existence of a "third option" influences you solely if THAT is the ending youconsider perfect. if YOUR perfect ending is the result of a A vs B sacrifice then you are allowed to pick that outcome and ignore the 3d option like in DAO. If you end up picking the 3d option then all the difference was about the imposition of choice not the outcome itself.

The perfect ending as defined is not subjective. You're considering perfect in the sense of the ending which provides you the most entertainment value, which I would agree is subjective. I mean it in the sense that it produces the best possible outcome for the species of the galaxy.

Earth is saved is better than Earth is lost.
Squad alive is better than Squad dead.


That sort of thing. If Earth is saved without some other cost added in, how is it not the perfect ending?

As the trolley scenario demonstrates, you cannot have a 3rd option as a way out and still call that decision "difficult" from a player's perspective.

Modifié par Il Divo, 15 octobre 2011 - 03:52 .

[Medhia Nox]

@Il Divo: Have you read Voltaire's work?

Everyone lives would have to be a "possible" world (something Voltaire would likely suggest is not a realistic desire)

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 15 octobre 2011 - 03:59 .

[Il Divo]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Il Divo: Have you read Voltaire's work by the same name?

Everyone lives would have to be a "possible" world (something Voltaire would likely suggest is not a realistic desire)

Unfortunately no. I probably should though. Much as I love them, my professors never gave Voltaire much attention. Although at least nominally, I was actually thinking Leibniz with the 'best of all possible worlds' terminology.

[Aumata]

Nothing wrong with saving everybody, but their is something wrong with having to save everybody and everything turns to ****ing rainbows and unicorns. It an ending which nullifies the rest of every decision in Mass Effect 3 because what would be the ****ing point of making decisions when their is always a right way of doing things.

I'm not saying bioware shouldn't let people save everyone, but they shouldn't have to screw the other decisions just to make a perfect galaxy. If you save everyone it should end up with home planets gone, a drastic change in the way the galaxy governments. Yes you saved everyone but it should be at a major cost. That way decisions won't turn into the SM where their is a right way and a wrong.

[crimzontearz]

Divo, All of this is about entertainment. Some people do not like "sadistic choices" to be imposed on them hence the 3d option being offered. Once you can choose the ending you want everyone wins.....unless all you care about is the imposition of the sadistic choice (trolley scenario)

All in all as long as shep, Liara and some 75 percent ofthe team can be saved I am ok with a couple of mandatory deaths

[Il Divo]

crimzontearz wrote...

Divo, All of this is about entertainment. Some people do not like "sadistic choices" to be imposed on them hence the 3d option being offered. Once you can choose the ending you want everyone wins.....unless all you care about is the imposition of the sadistic choice (trolley scenario)

All in all as long as shep, Liara and some 75 percent ofthe team can be saved I am ok with a couple of mandatory deaths

You call it sadistic, many would call it difficult. The point of my argument is quite simply the third choice makes difficult choices impossible, since it offers an "escape".

I am not saying that everyone must obtain more enjoyment from difficult choices than from a happy ending, merely that the two scenarios cannot exist together.

Modifié par Il Divo, 15 octobre 2011 - 04:07 .

[Medhia Nox]

While the two are certainly not mutually exclusive - there is a very palpable difference between art and entertainment (and certainly between philosophy and entertainment)

While it often raises the ire of the audience base - video games are still a form of entertainment often bereft of art (though art does not require dismal imagery to be powerful - I'm looking at you Van Gogh!)

====

Though I am not a proponent of escapism (life is so much better than fiction).

I don't think "good endings" are escapism - I believe they are an appreciation for the ways things "ought" to be - and might be, if we - as a race - could be better. 

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 15 octobre 2011 - 04:13 .

[Il Divo]

Medhia Nox wrote...

While the two are certainly not mutually exclusive - there is a very palpable difference between art and entertainment (and certainly between philosophy and entertainment)

While it often raises the ire of the audience base - video games are still a form of entertainment often bereft of art (though art does not require dismal imagery to be powerful - I'm looking at you Van Gogh!)

Very true. As a huge proponent of the Video Games as art, I really want to push the medium as far as it can go on many levels. The interactive nature of video games allows us even more depth in exploring certain questions.
 

Though I am not a proponent of escapism (life is so much better than fiction).

I don't think "good endings" are escapism - I believe they are an appreciation for the ways things "ought" to be - and might be, if we - as a race - could be better

Also agreed.

Modifié par Il Divo, 15 octobre 2011 - 04:14 .

[Aumata]

crimzontearz wrote...

divo, Perfect endingis subjective. The existence of a "third option" influences you solely if THAT is the ending youconsider perfect. if YOUR perfect ending is the result of a A vs B sacrifice then you are allowed to pick that outcome and ignore the 3d option like in DAO. If you end up picking the 3d option then all the difference was about the imposition of choice not the outcome itself.

People like different things and all this is fiction crafted by us according to bioware within certain boundries. As I always say Imposing too much kills replyability

Dragon Age Origin is a prime example to why having a third option that gives out the best outcome for everybody was bad.  The told you that going to the mages tower would take a week and at that point the risk of the town and people in the dungeon is high.  You choose the tower option knowing the risk and instead of getting that outcome nothing happens.  The consequnce of choosing the idealistic route of saving everybody and making both parties happy should have come with deaths of the others people their waiting for the mages.  Instead nothing happen, and it was a cheap way of getting everything perfect.  That shouldn't exist in Mass Effect 3, it shouldn't even existed in DAO.

[crimzontearz]

which is is why you are "told" it might take too long so you have a reason to say "no"

de gustibus non disputandum est my friend. I will most enjoy the existence of 3d options in ME (where applicable) since Bioware keeps spouting this is "our" story to craft as we like (minus a few details of course...lol)

[Athayniel]

Il Divo wrote...

Let me try a different approach and you might understand better where we're coming from. Maybe you've heard of the Trolleys thought experiment, which is pretty well-known in moral theory.

Ex: A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track  Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?

This is the perfect example of a "hard choice" because there does not exist a "best of all possible worlds" scenario. Leave the switch, five people die. Flip the switch, one person dies and you potentialy feel more responsible for that death.

Now, imagine for a second that a third option exists; you can press a third button, which will magically untie all six people and allow the train to pass them by unharmed. What do you do?

The existence of this third option, by necessity, removes the existence of any "hard choice" on the part of the player because everyone makes it out unharmed. It is the quintessential perfect ending where everyone goes home and sees their loved ones. It can't exist with the Trolley scenario because there is no reason to pick the other two scenarios, assuming you aren't malicious. The "hard choice" is contingent upon something necessarily being sacrificed in the process.  

Yes, I've seen thought experiments like that before. It doesn't match what would be my preferred situation in the game. My third option wouldn't be a switch that would free everyone. It would be flip the switch to switch the tracks and then run as hard and as fast as I can to try and untie the one person still tied down. It would be hard, it would take skill and precision and the ability to keep a cool head under pressure on my part. Failing would be a very real danger, but there would be the slim chance of success. Does that make sense to you? That's what I've been advocating all through this thread.

Modifié par Athayniel, 15 octobre 2011 - 04:34 .

[CoffeeHolic93]

Athayniel wrote...

Yes, I've seen thought experiments like that before. It doesn't match what would be my preferred situation in the game. My third option wouldn't be a switch that would free everyone. It would be flip the switch to switch the tracks and then run as hard and as fast as I can to try and untie the one person still tied down. It would be hard, it would take skill and precision and the ability to keep a cool head under pressure on my part. Failing would be a very real danger, but there would be the slim chance of success. Does that make sense to you? That's what I've been advocating all through this thread.

I agree with this, but just to play the devil's advocate I'll come with a few notes.
Being able to get ouf of the impossible situation will reduce the tension that the situation to zero the second time you go through. If you know the magic button is there, however hard it might be - the dramatic effect is gone. I don't care about the suicide mission as I know the best choices for each part - it's still great and atmospheric but has no drama/tension.

Virmire on the other hand leaves me with a negative feeling in my gut every. single. time, The fact that a loss is inevitable makes it a superior moment in my book, no matter how hard the loss is. The best part about the loss is that it's not something you can't control like Jenkins. The choice - who do I save is more significant.

Just my 2cents.

/Opinion disclaimer!

[Athayniel]

Mi-Chan wrote...

I agree with this, but just to play the devil's advocate I'll come with a few notes.
Being able to get ouf of the impossible situation will reduce the tension that the situation to zero the second time you go through. If you know the magic button is there, however hard it might be - the dramatic effect is gone. I don't care about the suicide mission as I know the best choices for each part - it's still great and atmospheric but has no drama/tension.

Virmire on the other hand leaves me with a negative feeling in my gut every. single. time, The fact that a loss is inevitable makes it a superior moment in my book, no matter how hard the loss is. The best part about the loss is that it's not something you can't control like Jenkins. The choice - who do I save is more significant.

Just my 2cents.

/Opinion disclaimer!

The same can be said for just about every choice like this in a video game. It's only ever truly suspenseful the first time or until you gain outside knowledge about the possible outcomes. Actually when the choice is presented poorly it can lose the dramatic effect immediately. It did for me.

That's different for everyone. Virmire pissed me off the first time and it has pissed me off every time since. I'm not a fan of the sadistic choice. I think it's cheap storytelling. And in the case of Virmire there isn't even a moral aspect to it, it's just  a popularity contest.

Modifié par Athayniel, 15 octobre 2011 - 05:05 .

[jeweledleah]

Athayniel wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Let me try a different approach and you might understand better where we're coming from. Maybe you've heard of the Trolleys thought experiment, which is pretty well-known in moral theory.

Ex: A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track  Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?

This is the perfect example of a "hard choice" because there does not exist a "best of all possible worlds" scenario. Leave the switch, five people die. Flip the switch, one person dies and you potentialy feel more responsible for that death.

Now, imagine for a second that a third option exists; you can press a third button, which will magically untie all six people and allow the train to pass them by unharmed. What do you do?

The existence of this third option, by necessity, removes the existence of any "hard choice" on the part of the player because everyone makes it out unharmed. It is the quintessential perfect ending where everyone goes home and sees their loved ones. It can't exist with the Trolley scenario because there is no reason to pick the other two scenarios, assuming you aren't malicious. The "hard choice" is contingent upon something necessarily being sacrificed in the process.  

Yes, I've seen thought experiments like that before. It doesn't match what would be my preferred situation in the game. My third option wouldn't be a switch that would free everyone. It would be flip the switch to switch the tracks and then run as hard and as fast as I can to try and untie the one person still tied down. It would be hard, it would take skill and precision and the ability to keep a cool head under pressure on my part. Failing would be a very real danger, but there would be the slim chance of success. Does that make sense to you? That's what I've been advocating all through this thread.

and maybe while you are freeing that person on the tracks, you yourself get injured.  or because you were trying to save the personon a tracks instead of moving on - you missed a meeting somewhere, and now you'll have much harder time trying to convince the people you were supposed to have met to help you.. or maybe you won't be able to convince them at all -and lose their help.  and without their help, something else becomes more difficult.. but  you got to save the person and if it makes your life much harder down the road?  its YOUR choice to make.

[CoffeeHolic93]

Athayniel wrote...


The same can be said for just about every choice like this in a video game. It's only ever truly suspenseful the first time or until you gain outside knowledge about the possible outcomes. Actually when the choice is presented poorly it can lose the dramatic effect immediately. It did for me.

That's different for everyone. Virmire pissed me off the first time and it has pissed me off every time since. I'm not a fan of the sadistic choice. I think it's cheap storytelling. And in the case of Virmire there isn't even a moral aspect to it, it's just  a popularity contest.

Each to his own, just remember not to claw each other's face off because of your different opinions.

[Athayniel]

Mi-Chan wrote...
Each to his own, just remember not to claw each other's face off because of your different opinions.

Absolutely not. I'm an advocate of everyone getting the ending they want.

[Lotion Soronarr]

crimzontearz wrote...

divo, Perfect endingis subjective. The existence of a "third option" influences you solely if THAT is the ending youconsider perfect. if YOUR perfect ending is the result of a A vs B sacrifice then you are allowed to pick that outcome and ignore the 3d option like in DAO. If you end up picking the 3d option then all the difference was about the imposition of choice not the outcome itself.

People like different things and all this is fiction crafted by us according to bioware within certain boundries. As I always say Imposing too much kills replyability

In other words I have to roleplay Sheapprd that too stupid or cruel to see/take option number 3?

So basicly the only way to get my ending it to NOT roleplay how I want and to deliberately ignore options and hand my shep the idiot ball.
And then you use the wrods "imposing" and "killing replayability". This is hillarious.


How about another alternative? Instead of me pretending option 3 doesn't exist, how abotu you pretend squaddie A is still alive?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Athayniel wrote...
The same can be said for just about every choice like this in a video game. It's only ever truly suspenseful the first time or until you gain outside knowledge about the possible outcomes. Actually when the choice is presented poorly it can lose the dramatic effect immediately. It did for me.

That's different for everyone. Virmire pissed me off the first time and it has pissed me off every time since. I'm not a fan of the sadistic choice. I think it's cheap storytelling. And in the case of Virmire there isn't even a moral aspect to it, it's just  a popularity contest.

How is it a popularity contest?

One squad member is holding the nuke (which is mission critical), one is making a diversion.
Is that how you'd think in a real situation? Popularity? No strategic/tactical consideration?

[CoffeeHolic93]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

How is it a popularity contest?

One squad member is holding the nuke (which is mission critical), one is making a diversion.
Is that how you'd think in a real situation? Popularity? No strategic/tactical consideration?

Heh. There's a thread saying "Who did you save at Virmire" or something similar. Around half of them saved one because the other one annoyed them.

[CoffeeHolic93]

Double post.

Modifié par Mi-Chan, 15 octobre 2011 - 05:52 .

[CoffeeHolic93]

Edit: nvm

Modifié par Mi-Chan, 15 octobre 2011 - 05:54 .