266 réponses à ce sujet

[slimgrin]

Bioware doesn't have a clue when it comes to ambiguous morality.

Modifié par slimgrin, 25 février 2012 - 01:27 .

[Nathan Redgrave]

EDIT: Bah, nevermind, that was a pointless post to make.

Modifié par Nathan Redgrave, 25 février 2012 - 01:28 .

[Il Divo]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Meh, Closed Fist was pretty stupid from start to finish.

Renegade had potential, but it became the 'everything that isn't sympathetic' alignment.

Personally, I was okay with Closed Fist by just looking at it as the Jade Empire equivalent of "Dark Side". But at least there, your character was able to give his selfishness as a central motivation.

ME's Renegade is more problematic, because Shepard is actually being given moral dilemmas, where in JE I was just being a ******. When I choose to exterminate the Rachni Queen, I'm able to give an actual motivation; Shepard thinks he's doing the "right" thing. All renegade decisions backfiring means the game is telling us that we were playing the whole thing wrong, essentially. Coincedentally, it's the same problem the suicide mission runs into. The only way a character can die is by the protagonist being incompetent.

Modifié par Il Divo, 25 février 2012 - 01:29 .

[TUHD]

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Cakefish wrote...

Everyone's missing out on a big thing here:

Renegade players can't save Wrex in ME1 from being shot.

Yes you can, you can get your intimedate high enough to talk him out of it.

"Renegades can't save Wrex" is bollocks. All that factors in is getting one of your persuasion scores up and maybe doing the armor mission to make things easier. You can either charm or intimidate him, either way works. In fact, there are a number of seemingly "Paragon" actions that can be accomplished using Intimidate options, such as helping Gianna Parasini arrest Anoleis (you can use Intimidate to blackmail Lorik Qui'in into cooperating; quite a boost to the Renegade score for that one, then a Paragon boost for getting Gianna the testimony she needs).

It's really only in ME2 that things get restrictive, and even then, there are places where you can mix and match. Morinth, for example. Paragons with high enough Charm to resist her to the end still have the option of backstabbing Samara, albeit why any sane Paragon player would want to do so boggles the mind...

*points at self* I had my Paragade backstab Samara
@Slimgrin: kinda agree with you there, it isn't Bioware's strongest suite, they're better in clearly drawed lines then muddy waters, so to say.

Modifié par TUHD, 25 février 2012 - 01:30 .

[Nathan Redgrave]

TUHD wrote...

*points at self* I had my Paragade backstab Samara

I didn't say no one did it, I said no "sane Paragon" would do so. Why, you ask? Because Samara is a Justicar who kills to uphold law and order and Morinth, whatever her inner turmoil may be,  is drug-addicted, sadistic, cold-hearted, manipulative murderer who killed some introverted teen because she literally gets off on it, and has killed many, many others, and will kill more in the future.

Never mind whether or not Samara somehow wanted Morinth to win or whatever convoluted toro-dung you can rationalize it with. Morinth was a monster. Admittedly, a monster who only became such because a genetic disorder screwed her over from the word "go," but nobody disputes the fact that a serial killer is a monster for drowning little boys just because he had deep-seated daddy issues motivating him to do so.

[Dean_the_Young]

slimgrin wrote...

Bioware doesn't have a clue when it comes to ambiguous morality.

They hit it from time to time, even if it seems to be by accident and isn't always handled well.

The Mage issue in DA is pretty good in concept, but the execution has never been able to strike a balance. In DA:O, the mages were entirely sympathetic and the onus was entirely on the Templars, with little establishing the lore-canonical dangers of mage-abominations. There was pretty much no support for the Templar concerns. In DA2, it went too far the other way: all the mages went crazy and the Templars were usually blamed for stressing them out. What really needs to be shown is the danger mages can pose even without Templars to be blamed: abominations are caused by stress, and even without Templars those impetuses will exist in other forms.


Probably the best morally ambiguous issue Bioware has that I can recall is the Genophage plotline. Specifically Mordin and ME2, which balanced real concerns (the Krogan culture and violence) versus the ethics of, well, something we usually consider an absolute non-issue.


They try with other things, but the critical flaws that reoccur is that Bioware confuses idealism for virtue, and grotesque shock or personal hostility for flaws. Take Overlord, for example: crucifyng David served no point to the story, and served no clear purpose in his situation. The horrors, and suffering, could have just as well been done tastefully without relying on an anvil. Jack suffers it as well, since half the crazy of Teltin makes no sense from any perspective. Cerberus as a whole was marked by this.

[Xtreme-Tiramisu]

so you had your fair share of thrills and kills as a badass renegate, now you're question about the consequences thereafter?! The lives you didn't spare and those help you didn't offer when you were given the chance aren't just going away and reward you in the end. A true renegate is to ackownledge the consequences of your choices and not to be regreted. Man up!

[sgtrock]

I wonder why being so mean turns out being bad in the end?

[Dean_the_Young]

?

Accepting/denying missions isn't P/R.

The rest only really applies if the consequences are consistently sensible reactions to what has occured. Not all lives sparred should benefit you: in fact, most lives shouldn't, since the vast majority of times you're in that position in the first place is when you and the other person are already on opposite sides of a situation. Shepard is a professional problem solver: if these weren't problematic people, they wouldn't be in your AO.

Bioware has a strong inclination towards 'mercy' = 'good + person pays you back', which may work as a morality tale but doesn't pan out as well in reality.

[Dean_the_Young]

sgtrock wrote...

I wonder why being so mean turns out being bad in the end?

Who rules the world: nice guys who give everyone second chances, or people willing to be ruthless towards those who cross them?

Besides that 'mean' is subjective, it also isn't universal in Renegades.

[LeonardoLuiz]

I heard that some renegade decisions will prove to be "right" on ME 3.

[silentassassin264]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Bioware doesn't have a clue when it comes to ambiguous morality.

They hit it from time to time, even if it seems to be by accident and isn't always handled well.

The Mage issue in DA is pretty good in concept, but the execution has never been able to strike a balance. In DA:O, the mages were entirely sympathetic and the onus was entirely on the Templars, with little establishing the lore-canonical dangers of mage-abominations. There was pretty much no support for the Templar concerns. In DA2, it went too far the other way: all the mages went crazy and the Templars were usually blamed for stressing them out. What really needs to be shown is the danger mages can pose even without Templars to be blamed: abominations are caused by stress, and even without Templars those impetuses will exist in other forms.


Probably the best morally ambiguous issue Bioware has that I can recall is the Genophage plotline. Specifically Mordin and ME2, which balanced real concerns (the Krogan culture and violence) versus the ethics of, well, something we usually consider an absolute non-issue.


They try with other things, but the critical flaws that reoccur is that Bioware confuses idealism for virtue, and grotesque shock or personal hostility for flaws. Take Overlord, for example: crucifyng David served no point to the story, and served no clear purpose in his situation. The horrors, and suffering, could have just as well been done tastefully without relying on an anvil. Jack suffers it as well, since half the crazy of Teltin makes no sense from any perspective. Cerberus as a whole was marked by this.

I am pretty sure restraining David was to make sure he didn't mess up the equipment/server the connection or hurt himself while the experiment was running.  Dr. Archer seemed to genuinely love his brother and I doubt he would have done something like that without a really good reason.  

As for Teltin, the game specifically says that they went of the rails from the Illusive Man.  That wasn't Cerberus, not really but clearly it was a mistake.  

[Dean_the_Young]

LeonardoLuiz wrote...

I heard that some renegade decisions will prove to be "right" on ME 3.

Going by the script and some other leaks, there will be.

Sorta. Usually there's a Paragon opt-out by being more Paragon.

Like the Renegade Geth thing is the 'better' thing to do, unless you were all Paragon, in which case it isn't, and if you ignore the fact that the Renegade option in Legion's LM is directly counter to all the Renegade dialogue in the mission.

Or Tali's mission if you didn't let her be exiled her. Unless you did a persuade check.

Or the Rachni Queen's return. Unless you didn't kill the Rachni Queen.



I kid, but not by much. It's far better than the ME2 carryover, but that's not saying much.

[Rulycar]

I've never quite understood Paragon vs Renegade ...
... paragon = perfection
... renegade = traitor to a cause
Yet, when I chose "Humans First!", I still wound up paragon ???
These two words and how they are used ingame aren't exactly opposites.

[Seboist]

LeonardoLuiz wrote...

I heard that some renegade decisions will prove to be "right" on ME 3.

There's two major renegade decisions from past games that are in theory the "better" ones but since you end up with the same outcome as Paragon they're rendered null and void.

[Dean_the_Young]

silentassassin264 wrote...

I am pretty sure restraining David was to make sure he didn't mess up the equipment/server the connection or hurt himself while the experiment was running.  Dr. Archer seemed to genuinely love his brother and I doubt he would have done something like that without a really good reason. 

So why not have David sedated, or respectfully strapped on a table with a tasteful medical gown? No reason was ever given for why impalement was desired, or necessary, so why?


Imagine if David had been a case of those people who undergo surgury paralyzed, but who aren't anesthesiazed? Not even deliberately, but by accident like such things happen? That would have opened up a whole new type of horror compared to what happened, without pointless cruelty.

Heck, why have David be an autistic victim for the purpose of sympathy? What if David were the perpetrator? Fearing for his brother's position and life if Overlord didn't produce results, the loving autistic brother volunteers... and when strapped in, is driven mad by the Geth/overhears a conversation that makes him think that killing all the Cerberus people is the only way to protect his brother? Simply because he overheard someone say that the Illusive Man would have Archer's head, and David took it literally?

The entire Overlord incident could have been a tragedy of brotherly love, not meaningless crucification.

As for Teltin, the game specifically says that they went of the rails from the Illusive Man.  That wasn't Cerberus, not really but clearly it was a mistake. 

Even then, it makes no sense. It was pointlessly stupid sadism.

Take the fights, for example. Cerberus is a pro-Human group, often also called anti-Alien. Why have Jack fight and kill the test subjects who keep her alive by being guinnea pigs... rather than ship in some aliens? Condition her to fight aliens, and hate fighting humans.

If Jack had been conditioned into a xenophobe, that would have been evil with a purpose. It could be explained by 'oh, we wanted a Human Weapon for use against aliens.' No more forgivable: far more understandable.

Unlike, say, the 'let's freeze kids to death because.... because.'

[Dean_the_Young]

Rulycar wrote...

I've never quite understood Paragon vs Renegade ...
... paragon = perfection
... renegade = traitor to a cause
Yet, when I chose "Humans First!", I still wound up paragon ???
These two words and how they are used ingame aren't exactly opposites.

Both of those are flawed definitions.

A Paragon is a model of excellence, but not necessarily perfection. A role model, a symbol for others to follow. A renegade can be a traitor, but can also be a rebel, someone who deserts or subverts a cause for another.

At it's heart, both are standards of conduct. The question to ask is 'whose standards.'


In ME1, the terms weren't relative to Humanity, but the Council. It was the Council's spoken standards that Shepard was measured by.

A Paragon by the Council's standard embraced multi-lateralism, favored consensus and idealism, and most of all respected and believed in the legitimacy and supremacy of the Citadel Council. Kindly put, the Paragon was what the Council claims it wants from people: unkindly put, the Paragon is a tool.

A Renegade rejects the Council's desires: nakedly xeno-nationalistic, aggressive and assertive, and not subserviant to the Council's heirarchy. Unkindly put, the Renegade was a racist and a sociopath: kindly put, the Renegade doesn't put up with the Council's flaws and presumptions.


In ME2, however, the ruberick changed. Paragon was sympathetic and idealistic, Renegade was agressive or ruthlessly pragmatic. The politics dropped.

[LeonardoLuiz]

Really great,
I understand that since Geths are cool-looking and everything some people are touch with them saying that they deserve to live, have a soul, have a family, mamageth, babygeth.
I Disagree,but okay, they are cool.

Now Cerberus is a Terrorist Group since its foundation, When **** hits the fan its pretty easy to just say "Well...they went of the rails."

[GodWood]

Yakko77 wrote...
There was nothing pragmatic about wiping out the colony on Feros.

You're out numbered. The bombs are untested and the person who gave them to you only heard about the thorian (from you) literally seconds prior. And you had no knowledge of how long the concussion lasts.

When you're trapped in that little hall way on the way to the thorian they could all have woken up and stormed you.

Killing the Rachni out of fear of what they MIGHT become is a genocidal act, nothing "pragmatic" about that.

The rachni are a race of bugs that threatened the entire galaxy, have had no evidence of being peaceful or negotiable, can literally colonize a planet in days and still have extreme tensions with the races of today.

If you assume that they're nice now there's still the extreme risk that they could be indoctrinated and turned against you. Now before you Hurr and spew the typical "But every can be indoctrinated so by your logic everyone should be killed [hurrdurr]" remember that if ONE queen becomes indoctrinated ALL of it's drones and so on become indoctrinated as well.

Have fun with with galactic readiness in ME3 without the Destiny Ascension (sure, the Council is annoying but that carrier/dreadnought I KNEW would come in handy in a later game).

Yes, well at the time the choice was let the DA die to focus on Sovereign or risk the entire galaxy and all life within it to save one ship.

Of course in ME2 it is revealed that there were tensions between the turians and the new human led council and thus an arms race of sorts was happening. MEANING destroying the DA would give you a larger fleet.

Unfortunately that advantage was retconned in a Cerberus news story by having paragons get the extra forces too. For some reason... >.>

[GodWood]

Hunter of Legends wrote...

Carnage752 wrote...
L destroyingf a Collector base full of tech to use against Reapers is rather stupid.

That also indoctrinates anyone who goes near it.

Have you forgotten our little discussion?

We don't know if it indoctrinates people. It may, but we have no solid evidence to prove that.

And again, even if it did, all the other things that have helped Shepard beat the Reapers have come from Reaper technology that indoctrinates.

Plus for all itents and purposes that was just a simple research base. Not a military one.

You speak if that some how makes it useless?

[XLegioX]

Pure renegade screw themselves.

[Dean_the_Young]

LeonardoLuiz wrote...

Really great,
I understand that since Geths are cool-looking and everything some people are touch with them saying that they deserve to live, have a soul, have a family, mamageth, babygeth.
I Disagree,but okay, they are cool.

The Geth are a pretty good case of a huge missed opportunity for a morally ambiguous subplot. Instead of hitting us with the sympathy stick by having the Geth be childlike wannabe-peaceniks with no personality flaws, which was the intent, Bioware could have focused a great deal more on the un-spoken but horrific flaws that do exist.

Like why the Geth never tried to contact anyone with their peaceful intent.
Or why everyone who's tried to contact them in person has been ignorred (if by com) or killed (if intruding in Geth space).
Or why the Geth stood by and didn't give so much as a warning when the Heretics attempted a liberal dose of omnicide.
Or why the Geth still stand by and don't make contact with other governments about the Reapers.


The Geth have plenty of flaws, but Bioware has made them by accident, not focused on them with any intent or purpose.

Now Cerberus is a Terrorist Group since its foundation, When **** hits the fan its pretty easy to just say "Well...they went of the rails."

Sad, but true. It doesn't help that every project we see is a failue: while that's actually reasonable from both a reality view (no one knows about covert agency projects that do succede) and a game-play view (stories demand drama and problems), it did a major hit on implied credibility.

Not, mind you, that Cerberus ever really lived up to the stated intent of 'good and bad' very well, since pretty much all we had to work with was one hand-picked, sympathetic ship.

[Dean_the_Young]

XLegioX wrote...

Pure renegade screw themselves.

That's like saying too much water kills you. True, but practically meaningless.