5087 réponses à ce sujet

[frypan]

delta_vee wrote...

ANOTHER RELUCTANT SNIP.. 

There's a certain disturbing similarity, I find, between the Rannoch decision and the Crucible one, and it extends my problems with Rannoch and with the Sophie's Choice scenario. To wit, its purpose is specifically to elicit a response of guilt and loss no matter which decision is chosen.

As you have so well pointed out, Rannoch has the same issue in that we are not left stating

"I shouldnt have done that", but rather "I couldnt have prevented that but am supposed to feel bad".

I see this as a major issue not just with ME3 but with the Dragon Age series where similar patterns are evident.The Anders moment in DA2 struck me as one where I felt railroaded into a decision by the devs, one that had no bearing on how I had played the game. One way or another, I was going to face off one of my party members, at least if Sebastian was in the party and there was no way to alter some characters' actions no matter how you played the relationships. Same goes for the Mages vs Templars situation wher it all goes bad for all, no matter the choices in game.

Even Tuchanka (to a lesser extent), and of course Virmire in ME1, have this issue, even if they were executed better. DAO, and ME2 are the only one I can think of that allowed you to steer a course through such events, and they were both the better games for it. In particular DAO allowed such negotiation in most of its sub plots including the Werewolves and Redcliffe storylines, although less so in the Deep Roads.

Interesting in retrospect as DAO seems, among rpg types, to be the better received game, which is also evidence that Bioware is ignoring its own precedent in a systematic way. Very odd.  

Oh and I have to say, Fapmaster your campaign sounds both beautiful and terrible, as if Galadriel had failed the test and taken the ring from Frodo. Glad that as part of the reconciliation your players seemed to recognise the exemplary nature of your goals, and they should at least feel proud to have been a part of it.

EDIT: And here I am, top of the page again. Considering how infrequently I post, this is clearly an example of a perverse universe.

Modifié par frypan, 21 mai 2012 - 03:15 .

[Jorji Costava]

@frypan:

Don't apologize for being at the top of the thread. You saved my mess of a post from appearing in that spot.

@delta_vee

I agree with a lot of what you say about Rannoch. It's a story I ultimately enjoyed a lot (I was able to get the peace option), but there's definitely a strong element of contrivance and manipulation in a lot of the story elements. I thought this was most noticeable with the elevated importance of the reaper code in determining the outcome of the war; if the Geth have it, they win, but if not, they lose. To me anyway, it was an implausible way of allowing Shepard to single-handedly determine the outcome of the war. The Terminator, a movie I do like a great deal, is also guilty of this--how can the fate of humanity depend entirely upon the genius, bravery and resolve of one man?

As far as the emotional manipulation in that sequence, I think the developers were trying to drive home the themes of loss and sacrifice (those words again). People have to make hellish decisions in war, and it's natural to feel guilty about them. Perhaps the developers thought that inducing such feelings in the player would increase immersion. It was never paid off in the end; maybe if we were allowed a more conventional victory, we'd be able to reflect back on those decisions and decide that they'd somehow been 'worth it.' Would that justify the narrative technique? I don't really know what to say about this.

1) I actually chose control; I can't bring myself to shoot the red tube. The geth are my favorite alien species in the game, because of all the species, they seem truly alien. I have no idea what it would be like to be a part of the geth consensus, and I think that's awesome.

2) Thanks for the breakdown, Hawk. I couldn't get the Quarians' value above 490 or so. Too lazy.

The last thing I want to say as far as thought experimentation: A major way I conceive of the major value of thought experiments in ethics or philosophy generally is as a way of testing highly abstract philosophical theses. In that context, scenarios can be as artificial and restrictive as one likes--the only constraint is logical possibility. Sometimes, the restrictiveness is necessary; if you construct a scenario with too many 'outs,' your experiment won't function as a genuine test of whatever thesis is in question. If there were a way to save all six people in those trolley cases, they wouldn't get us anywhere as far as learning about theories like utilitarianism.

This is rarely the purpose of literature or other media, however (the only example I can think of is LeGuin's "Ones who walked away from Omelas"). Contrivance and artificiality can affect the quality of a narrative, whereas narrative quality isn't a goal of thought experimentation in theorizing. We both agree that the rhetorical use of "ticking time bomb" scenarios in shows like 24 to justify torture is reprehensible, but I could imagine someone using such a scenario to test some abstract theory, and in that context, these cases are fair game IMO.

As far as the connection between blameworthiness and rightness/wrongness, I treat these as separate issues, such it's possible to act wrongly but not be blameworthy (i.e. due to ignorance and/or coercion). So if you're in a situation where someone else sets the parameters, that can absolve you of blame on grounds of coercion, but it doesn't settle the question of which decision is best. If you find yourself in such a situation, it may be comforting to know that you can't be blamed, but you still want to know what the morally best choice is. Applying this to destroy, we might say that those who choose this option can't be blamed even if it turns out this is a wrong choice, but settling the question of blamelessness doesn't settle the question of rightness/wrongness.

@Taboo-XX

Nice thread. I might post in it later if I think of something (it's a long and slow process for me).

I just noticed that in my previous post, I used the expression "saw the book or read the movie." Instead of fixing it, I'll leave it there for posterity's sake. Feel free to point and laugh.

Modifié par osbornep, 21 mai 2012 - 03:40 .

[Taboo]

delta_vee wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

 "...I remember when I was with Special Forces... seems a thousand centuries ago. We went into a camp to inoculate some children. We left the camp after we had inoculated the children for polio, and this old man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn't see. We went back there, and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile. A pile of little arms. And I remember... I... I... I cried, I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out; I didn't know what I wanted to do! And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it... I never want to forget. And then I realized... like I was shot... like I was shot with a diamond... a diamond bullet right through my forehead..."

I think you misread the text slightly, Taboo. "They" in this case were the Viet Cong, not the villagers themselves. This was a VC terror tactic, intended to create fear of compliance of any sort with Americans.

This also illustrates another problem with the Sophie's Choice construction, at least in its original form. When another morally-capable actor (either in the textual sense, as a character, or the metatextual sense, as the author) is the one to delineate the consequences of a choice, is the moral responsiblity on the chooser or the constructor of the scenario? Applications of this question to the particular consequences of Destroy especially should be obvious, and the ambiguity of the source of the Crucible's function (are the options given by the Catalyst, or are they inherent to the device and the Catalyst explains them as an admission of defeat?) further muddies the waters.

"You have to have men who are moral... and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling... without passion... without judgment... without judgment! Because it's judgment that defeats us."

Marlon Brando apparently created this speech on the spot.

If ME3 had been constructed like Apocalypse Now, I'd have an easier time accepting this. But ME3 is all about judgement. As drayfish noted earlier, Shepard is an arbitrator above all else, deciding others' conflicts and tipping the balance. We, as Shepard, judge people and species both over the course of all three games.

It's a good speech, though.

No I didn't hear it incorrectly.... I quoted it incorrectly. IMDB is a bit fishy in that regard... I digress though, because the inference is what was needed, not small information.

You make a good point though, the moral issues are never discussed. Synthesis is never really delgated to be much of anything of consequence. It has no downside, at least in the same sense that Destroy and Control do.

The Catalysy states that Shepard will lose everything he is in Control and will commit genocide in Destroy.

Why is Synthesis so........pleasent? At least in the sense that it is presented as have no moral implications. This is a failure in my eyes.

I believe the people who want Synthesis the most (transhumanists in our case) merely choose the option because it removes an existential fear, that of annihilation by a greater being. I see it as a solution to a problem inherent in all beings.It solves our hypothetical problem but it forces it upon beings, making them into something new, that is to say that it forces understanding between species. That's a big change for me. I wouldn't be human if I wasn't afraid of dying. It's what makes me human. I see no reason to remove that for any reason as it is not my (Shepard) choice to make.

I harken back to the quote about polio. That strenght to resist is what makes us human. That's what so impressed Colonel Kurtz. Our will to hurt ourselves in our humanity. I belive that an AI would not understand this notion and would not accept it and this is why he believes that the only plausible solution is to merge us (however that happens) or destroy us. It's a cold calculated move in the latter, something only a machine (or sociopath) would enact.

But no is really human anymore. Or Turian. Or Asari. Or Krogan.

What does everyone make of that?

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 21 mai 2012 - 03:37 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

I don't have much to contribute as of late, but in relation to what frypan and delta_vee are talking about, I thought I'd offer the following point.

I have to disagree somewhat that blamelessness can arise from coercion. On one hand, you're still making a conscious choice, no matter the circumstances surrounding it. One the other, you can still choose not to participate in the coercion itself.

Pet Shop Boys, in their song "20th Century", said the following, that I think applies here:

"Sometimes, the solution is worse than the problem"

EDIT: 20th, not 21st Century. Stupid me.

Modifié par KitaSaturnyne, 21 mai 2012 - 03:59 .

[frypan]

@osbornep. Thanks, although I think your post is far more worthy.

Another example that is relevant to the argument is the "No Russian" level in Call of Duty. I will admit that even among other reasons, this level alone was enough for me not to play the game, so I havent actually seen or played the sequence. However I do know that the scene has been criticised for being manipulative in a very clumsy way, although some have lauded as an attempt to push game narrative. It seems there is a great deal of similarity between this scene and those in the ME series, along the lines Delta_Vee has mentioned.

I would like to think is just the games industry flexing its narrative wings and trying new things, rather than a cack handed attempt to drag emotion from us. Hopefully the devs in time see that these methods are better suited to narratives with less audience participation,and the distinction between the two forms, and the way we are affected by scenes is recognised.

I personally was much more affected by deaths I had (apparent) control over, such as those at the end of ME2. Even after multiple playthroughs, the death of Tali, Grunt, Mordin and Legion in early run throughs resonate every time I replay the game, and add impetus and emtional intensity to the endgame by providing a clear alternative "fail" condition I am aware of while making the choices.

They still affect me now in ways the deaths I had no control over cannot - for instance I know that Kaidan or Ashley will die, so I shy from engagement with whomever I decide will be sacrificed. I suspect the same will happen now with Mordin or Wrex, Legion or Tali (athough I could never play through the Tali death on Rannoch again, so sorry Legion)

With those I know will be lost, they become less characters I interact with, and more players in a theatrical piece - I watch them as I would watch Boromir in Lord of the Rings, and get sad, but do not feel the same as the ones who feel more "real" in game.

Not quite sure about the narrative principles I'm trying to duscuss here, it feels like there is a dissociation between traditional narrative techniques for engagement, and those required for a game though. Hopefully those with a better understanding of the differences can elaborate on the methods for evoking emotion and the divide that exists here.

[Hawk227]

osbornep wrote...

2) Thanks for the breakdown, Hawk. I couldn't get the Quarians' value above 490 or so. Too lazy.

I think it's interesting that based on that number, I can tell what decisions you made. You re-wrote the heretics in ME2, you saved Zaal Koris in ME3, and you sided with Admiral Raan over Admiral Gerrell in the debate over defending the Heavy Fleet with the Patrol fleet. I think it's a little sad that our choices are so readily broken down into simple math.

Back on topic, I agree there are a lot of contrivances in ME3, but I don't mind most of them. I'm willing to be pretty lenient if there is a payoff. Rannoch is a good example in this. Why are the Quarians going to war now? If they wait the Geth will inhabit the dyson sphere, also they need their forces up to fight the Reapers. The payoff though is in stepping foot on Tali's homeworld. For three games we've been bonding with Tali, and learning about Quarians, the migrant fleet, and the conflict that drove them off their homeworld. I think stepping foot on Rannoch was similar to the Genophage in that it had been brewing for three games, and there was a certain expectation (or at least hope) that we would get to resolve it.

For me it worked. The payoff was not in the Priority:Rannoch Mission with the Reaper (although that was good too) but in saving Zaal Koris. When I first stepped on that Desert planet at sunrise, knowing that no organic had been there in 300+ years (and knowing I had Tali with me), I got chills.

So even though the reasons for being there were a bit contrived, I didn't really mind. But there has to be payoff.

[frypan]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

I don't have much to contribute as of late, but in relation to what frypan and delta_vee are talking about, I thought I'd offer the following point.

I have to disagree somewhat that blamelessness can arise from coercion. On one hand, you're still making a conscious choice, no matter the circumstances surrounding it. One the other, you can still choose not to participate in the coercion itself.

Pet Shop Boys, in their song "20th Century", said the following, that I think applies here:

"Sometimes, the solution is worse than the problem"

EDIT: 20th, not 21st Century. Stupid me.

The quote is quite relevant to what Taboo has stated above as well, at least in how I viewed the endgame and synthesis. I ended up choosing the option that would create the least amount of harm or damage. Thus,destroy was out as the deaths of EDI and the Geth were permanent, and synthesis was out as it seemed a permanent and galaxy changing event.

I ended up with control, I think because the only ones affected were the reapers, so even if I was wrong, the consequences seemed limited to them - whom I didnt care about. I even remember at the time thinking something like  "this seems wierd as I oppose control, but the option is blue, so I must be keeping in line with my paragon character."

That decision really flew in the face of my approach to the rest of the game, but seemed the best way to minimise the damage caused. Its interesting, as effectively I was accepting the end conditions were failures, and choosing conditions that allowed the rest of the galaxy to fight on with minimal harm done by myself.

A very bizarre way to end the game and it left me confused. Of course it felt jarring that I then got a "happy" cutscene as well. I played through the end a second time for synthesis, and still didnt feel happy about it - all the signals and warnings the game had given me up to then made it feel "wrong" to choose such an option.

EDIT: This post is a little confused, probably as it reflects a greater confusion about the end. I really should not dislike the end with this level of intensity based on previous game experiences. Maybe "frustration" is a better word as it encapsulates the confusion that stems from the way the game messes with the game's consistency, and my personal lack of closure from the experience. 

Modifié par frypan, 21 mai 2012 - 04:44 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

frypan wrote...

"this seems wierd as I oppose control, but the option is blue, so I must be keeping in line with my paragon character."

This struck me as a powerful statement. Could it have been the product of some kind of denial? Or is it a reflection of the fact that the less you think about the moral and logical inconsistencies within the final choices, the more you can enjoy the ending?

Which of course, would be a massive indicator of its failure to resonate with its audience.

[Jorji Costava]

@KitaSaturnyne:

You shouldn't say you don't have much to contribute; I saw that 'splosions vid you linked, and hey, that's not something to be poo-poohed.

As far as coercion goes, whether or not coercion excuses is going to depend on the strength of the coercion. If I say, "Kill ten people or I'll give you a really bad hangnail," that's not going to be a good excuse for you to kill ten people. On the other hand, I do have a tough time holding holding Sophie Zawitowski responsible for the death of one of her children, given the horrific circumstances in which she finds herself. I don't think she has an option to simply not participate in the coercion.

@frypan:

I just read about the "No Russian" mission, and I think it's a really good example for this discussion. Despite everything I've been saying in this thread, I have to admit that I find the setup of the mission abhorrent and I have no interest in playing the game whatsoever because of it.

Another good example might be "Six Days in Fallujah," a game that was never released due to the controversy surrounding it. From what I understand, the game was an attempt to create the most realistic possible war simulation, one that would be able to depict the realities of war with the same level of seriousness as a movie like "Saving Private Ryan." But too many folks found it tasteless to make a game out of serious business like the Iraq war, probably because of the association with mechanics like 'winning' and 'points.' Francois Truffaut argued that you can't make a war movie with an anti-war message, because you can't depict combat without making it seem exciting. I've never been fully persuaded of this, but if there's a grain of truth to it, the problem seems to be multiplied many times in the case of games.

Interestingly, I think my experience of the various character deaths in the game was largely the opposite of yours. I was more bothered by the deaths that couldn't be avoided, because I knew I couldn't reload from an earlier point and do things better. I couldn't dissociate the avoidable deaths from the meta-level experience of feeling like the game was telling me I wasn't very good at it, or did something wrong, and so it was hard for me to experience them simply as dramatic events. I always think of the bad ending in Rise of the Triad, where we see a primitive animation of the Earth being destroyed while a silly voice intones "You suck!" Perhaps this could be remedied with something like the checkpoint system that delta_vee suggested upthread.

Ebert had this argument that video games couldn't be art because of participation (it's probably been discussed in this thread earlier, but I'm not sure). The analogy he used is that if you could re-read Romeo and Juliet a second time, this time altering the story so that Romeo and Juliet live happily ever after, wouldn't this cheapen the story and deprive it of anything like genuine tragedy? It's a huge leap to go from this to "Games aren't art!", but I have to admit this argument always bothered me, and something like the considerations Ebert gives conditioned my experience of the various deaths in ME. Perhaps this experience is simply due to my own limitations; if anyone can persuade me that I'm simply not appreciating the massive conceptual shift in story telling that video games present us with, I'm certainly open to it.

@Hawk227:

That was actually pretty creepy. Were you also able to figure out my social security number or my PIN? I'm starting to get a little worried. . .

Modifié par osbornep, 21 mai 2012 - 05:34 .

[edisnooM]

The odd thing about Ebert is that people once thought that films could never be art. :-)

I think one thing that kind of bothers me about the ending is that, as has been mentioned, there are some players and Shepards that get to the end and are happy about the choices or at least fine with them, whereas I got there and had to decide: OK do I compromise my Shepard's character in its entirety or just partly, or do I get stuck in some weird Groundhog Day time loop with less Bill Murray and more glowing star-children.

[frypan]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

frypan wrote...

"this seems wierd as I oppose control, but the option is blue, so I must be keeping in line with my paragon character."

This struck me as a powerful statement. Could it have been the product of some kind of denial? Or is it a reflection of the fact that the less you think about the moral and logical inconsistencies within the final choices, the more you can enjoy the ending?

Which of course, would be a massive indicator of its failure to resonate with its audience.

You are right. Denial at the time seems likely - which is why I didnt have the reaction of others until later. I chose what seemed least offensive in the face of some unpleasant options, in conjunction with the hope that Bioware's colour coded options were the key to what was the best result for my Shepherd. All I got was confused and frustrated trying to build a consistent picture of what happened, still trusting to some extent that Bioware knew what they were doing until I read into it. Even after then, I tested it for myself by going back to try the synthesis ending.

That said, as Delta_Vee and CGG have pointed out, plenty of people have thought through the options and were happy with the results, so it must depend on whether we were bothered by those consequences. I know that a lot of people quote the "war is hell" line in support of that interpretation and thus have no problem with issues like Shepherd or synthetics dying.

(drifts off topic..)

Personally I dont play games to reflect real world problems. I instead prefer to play in a virtual space where real world problems are incorporated in a way that they can be overcome in ways that are part of the fiction. This is also why the Sophie's Choice issues raised in the game, and covered so well above, intrude on my enjoyment as they offer no pleasant solution.

If reality must intrude, I like it stylised in the form of "dark side" opponents who are simpler than real world opponents, or through cartoonish versions of dark milieus such as in Warhammer. As we so often find as well, an evil character can be turned form their ways with a few choice words and a paragon check, totally unrealistic but acceptable in the fictional situation.

The closer a game reflects the horrors of the real world, the less I want to play - hence my distaste for contemporary shooters that make games of horrendous real world situations. As an aside - this becomes a problem for ME3 which shied away from shooting the monstous main villains in favour of killing Cerberus humans, presumably in an attempt to lure gamers who prefer killing people in this types of games.

The main exception to this reality aversion is Sim games. I can play Civ to death and take down that rotten Ghandi every time without remorse. Possibly this is as the game is designed to hit only a certain level of versimilitude and avoids graphic or harsh similation of the real price of empire building. Like RPG villains and situations, it does not feel real but highly stylised. and thus acceptable.

In the end, a game can have reality-mimicry like the payment of a price for victory (as Delta_Vee notes) if it makes sense and has been part of the premise I bought the game under, and I dont mind games with sacrifices if they are coherent and thematic. However I usually avoid the more confrontational of these -so forcing real world no win situations into a game in order to evoke emotion is not a fun experience. 
 
Being in such a situation makes me empathise with any explorer who saw the raw math of survival turn against them - that is to say I feel a bit peeved and would rather be somewhere else.

[KitaSaturnyne]

osbornep wrote...

@KitaSaturnyne:

You shouldn't say you don't have much to contribute; I saw that 'splosions vid you linked, and hey, that's not something to be poo-poohed.

As far as coercion goes, whether or not coercion excuses is going to depend on the strength of the coercion. If I say, "Kill ten people or I'll give you a really bad hangnail," that's not going to be a good excuse for you to kill ten people. On the other hand, I do have a tough time holding holding Sophie Zawitowski responsible for the death of one of her children, given the horrific circumstances in which she finds herself. I don't think she has an option to simply not participate in the coercion.

Well, 'splosions are a very integral part of human development.

In the light of Sophie's choice, what do you think of Kate Bowman's choice to not tell the Batarians about Shepard's presence on Asteroid X57 during Bring Down the Sky? Or Shepard's choice regarding capturing Balak?

"If you don't tell me who's sabotaging us, I'll kill your brother". She chooses not to.

"If you try to kill me, I'll blow up the hostages". Up to each player, but I let Balak go, thinking I could track him down at some point in the future.

[Hawk227]

osbornep wrote...

I just read about the "No Russian" mission, and I think it's a really good example for this discussion. Despite everything I've been saying in this thread, I have to admit that I find the setup of the mission abhorrent and I have no interest in playing the game whatsoever because of it.

Another good example might be "Six Days in Fallujah," a game that was never released due to the controversy surrounding it. From what I understand, the game was an attempt to create the most realistic possible war simulation, one that would be able to depict the realities of war with the same level of seriousness as a movie like "Saving Private Ryan." But too many folks found it tasteless to make a game out of serious business like the Iraq war, probably because of the association with mechanics like 'winning' and 'points.' Francois Truffaut argued that you can't make a war movie with an anti-war message, because you can't depict combat without making it seem exciting. I've never been fully persuaded of this, but if there's a grain of truth to it, the problem seems to be multiplied many times in the case of games.

@Hawk227:

That was actually pretty creepy. Were you also able to figure out my social security number or my PIN? I'm starting to get a little worried. . .

Don't be worried, it was quite simple. The baseline is 600, if you had less than that you re-wrote the Geth. Therefore, subtract 150. If you have more than 450 you saved Koris, less and you didn't. This puts you at 500 or 400. Add 25 for siding with Gerrell, subtract 10 for siding with Raan. All those difficult choices you struggled over, simplified into the equation 600 -150 +50 - 10 = 490.

I played the No Russian level and was left cold. It was so... unnecessary. It didn't really convey anything. COD is not the type of game that is well suited to making political or moral statements, IMO. Add to that, that there is a rather substantial disclaimer that allows you to skip ahead, which puts you (or at least me) into this sort of anxiousness. A premeditated mental flinch divorces you from the moment, and leaves it impossible to feel anything beyond "Why am I doing this?". The few times I've played the game since (I've subsequently learned not to buy COD games, they're short and boring) I always skipped that mission (the game readily allows this).

The Six Days in Fallejuh game on the other hand I was a little dissapointed never got published. It wasn't necessarily designed to make war as realistic as possible. I think it was supposed to be this sort of historical documentation of what was a rather remarkable period in the Iraq War, but invisioned through the medium of gaming. The problem was that people don't have a lot of confidence in Video Games as a medium, so when people that were there (or lost loved ones there) heard the concept they imagined mechanics like winning and points and a general trivialization of events. People couldn't see it as a documentary, but rather imagined something like COD or Borderlands. From what I saw, the development team was genuinely aware of these risks and were working with soldiers that had participated in the battle to make it as realistic and respectful as they could. I was really curious to see if it could be successful, but part of me is skeptical that video games can actually tell that kind of story.

I think Ebert is wrong that player participation negates it as Art. Actually, I find that a little ridiculous for reasons I can't articulate at the moment. I imagine that we'll get a few fantastic rebuttals though. I do suspect, however, that player participation limits the scope of what stories can adequately be told. In this respect, I think things like "No Russian"* and "Six Days in Fallujah" are serious enough issues that gaming is probably not ready to take them on.

* I should add that I'm really not sure what the message of "No Russian" was supposed to be, so there may never be a point where it's appropriate.

[frypan]

osbornep wrote...

SNIP - JUST SO I DONT GET TOO CARRIED AWAY WITH THE NEXT POST

Another good example might be "Six Days in Fallujah," a game that was never released due to the controversy surrounding it. From what I understand, the game was an attempt to create the most realistic possible war simulation, one that would be able to depict the realities of war with the same level of seriousness as a movie like "Saving Private Ryan." But too many folks found it tasteless to make a game out of serious business like the Iraq war, probably because of the association with mechanics like 'winning' and 'points.' Francois Truffaut argued that you can't make a war movie with an anti-war message, because you can't depict combat without making it seem exciting. I've never been fully persuaded of this, but if there's a grain of truth to it, the problem seems to be multiplied many times in the case of games.

 

This game is an excellent example, although I wonder if that is why they cancelled the game, seeing as how we are inundated with similar semi-fictional versions of the conflict anyway. Maybe they stated their inspiration too clearly.

The issue of war movies is interesting as I enjoy a good war movie, and like so many of the moviegoing public avoid the more confrontational ones. However I do recognise what a hypocrite this makes me when I claim to hate the realities of real world conflict. 

One movie I can think that get the message across in some form is No Mans Land, where dark comedy and farcical situations often replace combat. By contrast, movies that attempt to mimic the shock and destruction of war are deliberately spectacular, as that puts bums on seats. With Me3, they went for a "war is hell PTSD approach " but still wanted those bums on seats, yet another mixed message we were forced to endure.

And it all just doesnt work. PTSD doesnt just manifest itself as the odd wacky dream like the game suggests, and using it as a gameplay device is another tasteless insertion of real world issues. This is probably in part as it is very much in the public eye at the moment, and thus the talking point of the day with all the current medical research into the matter.

However, it wouldnt look good if Shepherd woke from his dream strangling Liara in bed, so we got a sanitised version that as others have pointed out, failed to engage many of us on the level it was probably intended. Shepherd is up the next day shooting people in the face and leading his ship without any issues, putting paid to any overt manifestation like dissociative berzerk behaviour that would suggest he is experiencing any form of trauma.

A relevant  read by the way is "Achilles in Vietnam" by a doctor who treated PTSD. Its not a laughing matter and like so many of these ham fisted attempts to bring something from reality to the "war is hell" theme, the idea struggled to gain resonance in game. I should say too that I am no expert in this field, and do not wish to offend anyone who has dealt with such issues. All I can say is that it would probably have been best avoided in a game that for the most part is space operatic fiction.

EDIT: Missed your post Hawk. Well said and t covers what I feel about such issues in video games right now. The combination of play and serious messages is a bit discordant at the moment.

Modifié par frypan, 21 mai 2012 - 06:41 .

[delta_vee]

WARNING: OMNIBUS POST AHEAD. COGNITOHAZARD PRECAUTIONS TO BE TAKEN.

[quote]frypan wrote...

[ANOTHER RELUCTANT SNIP]

Even Tuchanka (to a lesser extent), and of course Virmire in ME1, have this issue, even if they were executed better. DAO, and ME2 are the only one I can think of that allowed you to steer a course through such events, and they were both the better games for it. In particular DAO allowed such negotiation in most of its sub plots including the Werewolves and Redcliffe storylines, although less so in the Deep Roads. [/quote]
I will admit to never having played DA:O. My engagement with Bioware is born of Mass Effect, and Mass Effect only. My best friend's father voiced an Elcor in ME1, and I'm from Edmonton, so it seemed like something I should play.

The Virmire "sacrifice" seemed to me just as artificial, so count me in agreement on that score. For a lot of players it boiled down to which character you found more annoying. The scene with Wrex was far more resonant, generally speaking, because it had more variables and was more dependent on your skill and completion within the game itself. Perhaps it should've been harder, as with Tali's trial in ME2, but the basic structure was far more conducive to emotional investment precisely because, as you mention, you have some measure of control over it. More on this below.

[quote]EDIT: And here I am, top of the page again. Considering how infrequently I post, this is clearly an example of a perverse universe.[/quote]
Oh, please. That same universe grants me protection from the head of the table (or top post, they're equivalent). I'm not complaining about others taking the hot seat from me.

[quote]osbornep wrote...

As far as the emotional manipulation in that sequence, I think the developers were trying to drive home the themes of loss and sacrifice (those words again). People have to make hellish decisions in war, and it's natural to feel guilty about them. Perhaps the developers thought that inducing such feelings in the player would increase immersion. It was never paid off in the end; maybe if we were allowed a more conventional victory, we'd be able to reflect back on those decisions and decide that they'd somehow been 'worth it.' Would that justify the narrative technique? I don't really know what to say about this.[/quote]
I think it's the wrong kind of emotional manipulation for a game to take. As frypan mentions, and many of us would agree, the most affecting outcomes are the ones we have control over in some fashion. We have the same reaction, ultimately, to the kid in the intro as we do to the Virmire Survivor. It's out of our hands and in the developer's, and thus we fundamentally cannot have the same attachment. (The main exception I can recall would be Aeris from FFVII, and frankly I'm not sympathetic to those poor souls.)

This is where scripted and emergent videogame narratives diverge, given present limitations. That which is under player control, either directly or indirectly, is internalized as personal failure or victory, whereas that which is outiside player control resides entirely in the effectiveness of other methods of emotional attachment (through prose, cinematics, music, etc). Games like, say, X-Com create attachment entirely by player-driven means - I put that squaddie out of cover that turn, therefore I am responsible for his death. In Mass Effect that causal relationship is made more distant, and those times where there is some direct (if time-delayed) link are much more effective, emotionally, than those times where death in some fashion is inevitable.

In the case of Rannoch, there's a decision path which allows the player to make peace, and if that path isn't followed, one side or the other is condemned. This evokes a reaction in the player, certainly, but the artifice of both the decision tree and the specific choice node is the developer's construction, and thus is exposed to the player on some level (if it isn't inferred directly, then it's found in paratextual sources, such as the strategy guide (where I must admit I looked when faced with the decision, to see if I could get through (I couldn't))). This reaction demands a level of verisimilitude and grace of execution in whatever narrative technique is employed to overcome the inherent analysis of the game structure itself, since we are playing a game and we want to win it.

To answer your question, then, I think the narrative technique they employed had a very high hurdle of success, and I don't think they quite cleared it on Rannoch.

[quote]The last thing I want to say as far as thought experimentation: A major way I conceive of the major value of thought experiments in ethics or philosophy generally is as a way of testing highly abstract philosophical theses. In that context, scenarios can be as artificial and restrictive as one likes--the only constraint is logical possibility. Sometimes, the restrictiveness is necessary; if you construct a scenario with too many 'outs,' your experiment won't function as a genuine test of whatever thesis is in question. If there were a way to save all six people in those trolley cases, they wouldn't get us anywhere as far as learning about theories like utilitarianism.[/quote]
The ones I personally find interesting are those which compare fundamentally competing imperatives, either moral or ethical, in a situation wherein the answer is not intended to be clear and serves no ulterior agenda. Simple utilitarian number-crunching, such as those trolley cases, aren't useful except in psychological studies wherein the niggling details of exact emotional responses can be tallied in statistically relevant ways, and thereby contribute to our understanding of how our brains actually work (as opposed to how we believe they do).

[quote]This is rarely the purpose of literature or other media, however (the only example I can think of is LeGuin's "Ones who walked away from Omelas"). Contrivance and artificiality can affect the quality of a narrative, whereas narrative quality isn't a goal of thought experimentation in theorizing. We both agree that the rhetorical use of "ticking time bomb" scenarios in shows like 24 to justify torture is reprehensible, but I could imagine someone using such a scenario to test some abstract theory, and in that context, these cases are fair game IMO.[/quote]
And if they're testing something other than strictly utilitarian concerns, I'd agree. So often, though, they're used in service of a rhetorical purpose, which taints the whole category in my eyes.

And to apportioning blame in no-win scenarios:
[quote] osbornep wrote...

As far as the connection between blameworthiness and rightness/wrongness, I treat these as separate issues, such it's possible to act wrongly but not be blameworthy (i.e. due to ignorance and/or coercion). So if you're in a situation where someone else sets the parameters, that can absolve you of blame on grounds of coercion, but it doesn't settle the question of which decision is best. If you find yourself in such a situation, it may be comforting to know that you can't be blamed, but you still want to know what the morally best choice is. Applying this to destroy, we might say that those who choose this option can't be blamed even if it turns out this is a wrong choice, but settling the question of blamelessness doesn't settle the question of rightness/wrongness.
[/quote]
[quote]KitaSaturnyne wrote...

I have to disagree somewhat that blamelessness can arise from coercion. On one hand, you're still making a conscious choice, no matter the circumstances surrounding it. One the other, you can still choose not to participate in the coercion itself.
[/quote]
I'm honestly not going to take sides, because I don't think this particular problem is solvable given current reasoning. It's fascinating to study, but I asked it as a question precisely because I'm not convinced of either answer. Carry on.

[quote]Taboo-XX wrote...

No I didn't hear it incorrectly.... I quoted it incorrectly. IMDB is a bit fishy in that regard... I digress though, because the inference is what was needed, not small information.[/quote]
No, you heard it correctly. I just rewatched the scene to make sure. Kurtz is quite definitely talking about the VC, not the villagers (thus the part about "if I had ten divisions of such men..."). And I don't think that difference is irrelevant, either. (Not that I disagree about Synthesis in general.) The intention of the VC's terror tactic was to impose their will and their vision of the future of Vietnam, ultimately, regardless of the short-term horror they inflicted. That speech sounds like something TIM should have been allowed to say (meta-irony of Martin Sheen's role included), because of its applicability to both TIM's goals and the implications of Control and Synthesis. 

[quote]I believe the people who want Synthesis the most (transhumanists in our case) merely choose the option because it removes an existential fear, that of annihilation by a greater being. I see it as a solution to a problem inherent in all beings.[/quote]
Hey now, let's not lump all transhumanists in with the singularity-rapture-people. I for one am both an eager transhumanist and a staunch opponent of both the singularity's inevitability and its desirability.

[quote]I harken back to the quote about polio. That strenght to resist is what makes us human. That's what so impressed Colonel Kurtz. Our will to hurt ourselves in our humanity. I belive that an AI would not understand this notion and would not accept it and this is why he believes that the only plausible solution is to merge us (however that happens) or destroy us. It's a cold calculated move in the latter, something only a machine (or sociopath) would enact.[/quote]
I'm going to repeat my recommendation of the works of Peter Watts on this subject. He gives a thorough accounting of the implications of cognition divorced from our current, necessarily-restrained notions of machine perspective and sociopaths.

[quote]Hawk227 wrote...

I think it's interesting that based on that number, I can tell what decisions you made. You re-wrote the heretics in ME2, you saved Zaal Koris in ME3, and you sided with Admiral Raan over Admiral Gerrell in the debate over defending the Heavy Fleet with the Patrol fleet. I think it's a little sad that our choices are so readily broken down into simple math.[/quote]
I don't think it's the math so much as how lossy the conversion from choice to consequence is. To make this kind of narrative work, I think, you have to present enough information to the player beforehand so that they don't feel like they're choosing blindly, and then present the consequences in a clear enough manner that they can understand the path from point A to point B.

[quote]Back on topic, I agree there are a lot of contrivances in ME3, but I don't mind most of them. I'm willing to be pretty lenient if there is a payoff.

[Snip without prejudice]

So even though the reasons for being there were a bit contrived, I didn't really mind. But there has to be payoff.
[/quote]
The payoff's the thing, and we didn't get it. lt is, I believe, partly a larger version of our general reaction to the relative meaninglessness of the council decision in ME1. I remember people saying at the time that they felt it didn't have enough impact on ME2, but were hoping it would pay off in ME3 somehow. Much of our investment (and suspension of both disbelief and immediate criticism) was predicated on the promise of delayed gratification. The dissatisfaction many of us feel can, I think, be traced to a failure of the game to deliver on said promise.

[quote]frypan wrote...

Another example that is relevant to the argument is the "No Russian" level in Call of Duty. I will admit that even among other reasons, this level alone was enough for me not to play the game, so I havent actually seen or played the sequence. However I do know that the scene has been criticised for being manipulative in a very clumsy way, although some have lauded as an attempt to push game narrative. It seems there is a great deal of similarity between this scene and those in the ME series, along the lines Delta_Vee has mentioned.[/quote]
Gods above and below, that fscking level. The worst part was the very next level was a romping vehicle section. Mood whiplash, anyone? (Bear in mind, I haven't played it myself either, but am quite familiar with it. Several versions are on Youtube if anyone feels the need to catch up without giving Activision money for it.)

At least you have the option to not participate in the slaughter, though. You can't kill the ones responsible, thus preventing the slaughter, but you don't have to fire on civilians yourself. Cold comfort.

[quote]Not quite sure about the narrative principles I'm trying to duscuss here, it feels like there is a dissociation between traditional narrative techniques for engagement, and those required for a game though. Hopefully those with a better understanding of the differences can elaborate on the methods for evoking emotion and the divide that exists here.[/quote]
It's not dissociation so much as reliance, I think. ME is, after all, a thorougly cinematic thing in the ways that count. Choice and the Savegame Problem both complicate things, though, and we don't have the tech to bridge the gap. This leaves us with some form of conventional narrative, be it prose or dialogue or cinematics or what have you, to provide at least the seeds of emotional engagement. How well those things succeed, of course, depends on how well they're integrated (which is such a uselessly general statement, I know).

[quote]osbornep wrote...

Interestingly, I think my experience of the various character deaths in the game was largely the opposite of yours. I was more bothered by the deaths that couldn't be avoided, because I knew I couldn't reload from an earlier point and do things better. I couldn't dissociate the avoidable deaths from the meta-level experience of feeling like the game was telling me I wasn't very good at it, or did something wrong, and so it was hard for me to experience them simply as dramatic events. I always think of the bad ending in Rise of the Triad, where we see a primitive animation of the Earth being destroyed while a silly voice intones "You suck!" Perhaps this could be remedied with something like the checkpoint system that delta_vee suggested upthread.
[/quote]
Ah, ROTT. So many memories, so horribly overlooked. Drunk missiles for the win.

This is actually a really valuable question. How much should the narrative be shaped by player skill or lack thereof? On the one hand, one's own failure is far more potent than any developer-contrived scenario (and this goes back to Fapmaster5000's campaign and the potential thereof, however unrealized). On the other hand, games are about mastery of systems, and not everyone will be deft enough in their traversal to fully entrust the narrative itself to their skill. There's a balance somewhere, I'm sure, but damned if I know where it is.

What I can say, however, is that ME tends towards either ignoring choices almost entirely (I'm looking at you, Destiny Ascension) or distancing the relevant decisions far enough back to dissuade the quickload solution (I'm looking at you, Rannoch). This strategy worked best on Tuchanka, and didn't seem to work out nearly as well anywhere else, though that might be just a matter of execution.

[quote]Hawk227 wrote...

The Six Days in Fallujah game on the other hand I was a little dissapointed never got published. It wasn't necessarily designed to make war as realistic as possible. I think it was supposed to be this sort of historical documentation of what was a rather remarkable period in the Iraq War, but invisioned through the medium of gaming. The problem was that people don't have a lot of confidence in Video Games as a medium, so when people that were there (or lost loved ones there) heard the concept they imagined mechanics like winning and points and a general trivialization of events. People couldn't see it as a documentary, but rather imagined something like COD or Borderlands. From what I saw, the development team was genuinely aware of these risks and were working with soldiers that had participated in the battle to make it as realistic and respectful as they could. I was really curious to see if it could be successful, but part of me is skeptical that video games can actually tell that kind of story. [/quote]
Oh, I dearly, dearly wish SDiF would have been released. I really respected what they were trying to accomplish. I don't know how it would have played out given the Savegame Problem, but it was such an applaudable approach to both wargames and interactive historical documentation. I think it's a pity that it got shelved, as much because of wartime sentiment (for, against, or confused) as its nature as a game.

Apropos of nothing, the best war movie I ever saw was 84 Charlie Mopic. I have no idea how to find it nowadays, but it used the cinema verite approach long before it was cool, and was thoroughly ambiguous in its treatment of its subject matter.

Also, for Kita and drayfish: 'SPLOSIONS!

Modifié par delta_vee, 21 mai 2012 - 06:49 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

delta_vee wrote...

It's not dissociation so much as reliance, I think. ME is, after all, a thorougly cinematic thing in the ways that count. Choice and the Savegame Problem both complicate things, though, and we don't have the tech to bridge the gap. This leaves us with some form of conventional narrative, be it prose or dialogue or cinematics or what have you, to provide at least the seeds of emotional engagement. How well those things succeed, of course, depends on how well they're integrated (which is such a uselessly general statement, I know).

"Save Game Problem"? Are you saying that games shouldn't be replayable at all when a character dies or something? A game, after all stripping away any and all storytelling elements, is still fundamentally a game.

This is actually a really valuable question. How much should the narrative be shaped by player skill or lack thereof? On the one hand, one's own failure is far more potent than any developer-contrived scenario (and this goes back to Fapmaster5000's campaign and the potential thereof, however unrealized). On the other hand, games are about mastery of systems, and not everyone will be deft enough in their traversal to fully entrust the narrative itself to their skill. There's a balance somewhere, I'm sure, but damned if I know where it is.

I don't even know how a game narrative could be based on a player's skill. I don't even know how to ask how it would work, or anything.

EDIT: Splosions!

Modifié par KitaSaturnyne, 21 mai 2012 - 07:09 .

[delta_vee]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

"Save Game Problem"? Are you saying that games shouldn't be replayable at all when a character dies or something? A game, after all stripping away any and all storytelling elements, is still fundamentally a game.

There was actually a flash game called One Chance, essentially an adventure game in structure, which allowed you a single playthrough. To get another you'd have to cheat and clear your cookies. It was interesting, and heartbreaking.

But in general, no, it's not the impossibility of replays per se so much as the ability to quickly countermand poor choices or imperfectly played sections via the savegame mechanism. It's the pervasive allowance for redoing a section if you find the outcome disappointing. It fits in some places and not in others; it's a useful tool to allow for skill-based failure without prematurely ending the narrative (think of how early you die for the first time in just about any game), but generally erodes choice-based gameplay from choice-and-consequence into expression-of-preference in regards to outcomes (see my much earlier post, way back in the day). It's a delicate balance to be struck, between subverting player frustration while still maintaining narrative weight to decisions. It's a hard problem, whose solutions depends greatly on the nature of the game.

[frypan]

Having just walked the dog, cool air has moderated my above view somewhat, and my above post may be a bit too harsh regarding Shepherds dreams, or if they are even meant to address PTSD.

Bioware should be lauded for attempts to push the boundaries of storytelling in games and for trying to address real issues, as they have in so many cases. I just played the part in ME1 last night where Shepherd talks the ex slave into returning for treatment, and while stylised for gameplay it is quite moving.

In this case too many conflicting factors inherent in game design created the problems in addressing the costs of war in any detail. Enough was achieved by Palavan burning, Reapers descending on Thessia and the like.

Ooh - Delta_Vee has a long post, back to reading!

Modifié par frypan, 21 mai 2012 - 07:24 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

Ah, okay. I was thinking of that in terms of gameplay, rather than the choices. My thought was, 'If you die while fighting on Eden Prime, why shouldn't you be allowed to restart from the last checkpoint?'

I do see it being a problem in terms of being able to take back bad choices made during relevant segments. For the record, I made my choices and stuck with them, but I imagine people who play Mass Effect to get the best records/ scores/ whatever reload often after accidentally clicking the wrong choice or whatever. Then again, it is still a game and there's no reason why anyone can't play it that way if they want to.

On a related note, if I made a choice I didn't want to (most often by clicking to make the dialogue wheel appear, but ending up clicking on a choice instead), I wasn't bright enough to just reload the game. I played through to the end, then played the game all over again, making sure to make all the choices I wanted to.

[frypan]

Without savegames, I could not have erased what happened to Tali on Rannoch first time through. Tali would have stayed dead on Rannoch, I would be in therapy right now and would have missed this wonderful thread.

On the plus side, I may never have made it to the ending.

EDIT: forgot to add

Modifié par frypan, 21 mai 2012 - 07:32 .

[delta_vee]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

I do see it being a problem in terms of being able to take back bad choices made during relevant segments. For the record, I made my choices and stuck with them, but I imagine people who play Mass Effect to get the best records/ scores/ whatever reload often after accidentally clicking the wrong choice or whatever. Then again, it is still a game and there's no reason why anyone can't play it that way if they want to.

I'm more referring to non-combat checkpoints. Combat in Mass Effect is quite incidental. Nothing you ever do in combat affects anything. Checkpoints in combat, therefore, have no narrative weighting.

In non-combat gameplay, however, it allows you to go back and redo sections according to preference. As a shameful example, the first time I played through Tali's trial I presented the evidence of her father's guilt - I thought her protestations to bear her father's shame were, well, silly. Once it was done, and I realized I'd failed to secure her loyalty, I immediately reloaded and replayed the sequence. Kind of cheating, in a way - I'd made a judgement based on my interpretation of the scenario, which proved to be incorrect, and rather than live with it I chose to replay and get a more desirable outcome.

There are those with the self-control to never do so, to always stick with the decision they'd made, but a game designed to disallow even the possibility of revisiting choices without a full playthrough removes that safety net, and is played in a different way.

[Jawsomebob]

Love this thread and everything it stands for

[KitaSaturnyne]

It seems like it's more a preference on the part of the player, rather than a requirement on the part of the developer.

[frypan]

Jawsomebob wrote...

Love this thread and everything it stands for

Love the name "Jawsomebob" A worthy story there methinks.

[delta_vee]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

It seems like it's more a preference on the part of the player, rather than a requirement on the part of the developer.

But the developer shapes the player's possibilities, and by doing so reveals their intentions to how the game can and/or should be played (and sometimes those things are very different). In this case, by allowing non-combat-related savegames, narrative outcomes can be selected by the player, which to some degree (and this varies by player) degrades the choice-consequence loop. It's not a bad thing per se, but it's something to account for.

Also, to bed with me. All shall be read on the morn. Responses may be delayed on account of road trip to the beach.