5087 réponses à ce sujet

[CulturalGeekGirl]

@delta_vee

I didn't think you were advocating destroy or warmongering, I was just trying to clarify my own statements.

The only place where we disagreed was the use of the word sacrifice, which I believe has been broadened to the point of uselessness in discourse about this subject. Bear in mind that there is a modern reading of the tale of Issac that suggests it was a test that Abraham failed.

I agree that Synthesis was supposed to be self-sacrifice to achieve Space Utopia, Control was supposed to be self-sacrifice for the fewest casualties and a return to the status quo, and destroy was supposed to be hubristic act of devil-may-care rebellion. I think that everyone who doesn't support IT realizes this was what they were supposed to represent - they just failed, so now the current debate is about the ethical considerations of what's on the page rather than their intent.

And in that debate, the destroy advocates often take a position that, because destroy seems to defy the Reapers, it is ethically superior. My only point was to suggest that there is really no reasonable grounds for claiming that particular path is inherently better, since it reinforces the Reapers' worldview in a more direct way, even if, at first glance, it seems defiant.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 19 mai 2012 - 10:36 .

[edisnooM]

Looking over the last few posts it made me think about how I've seen in many threads that the reason people picked destroy was that they got to the ending and they just didn't care anymore. The ending had broken their connection to the story of Mass Effect.

This made me reflect on my two all time favourite games, Chrono Trigger and Earthbound. These are two games I absolutely love and no matter how many times I play them I never get sick of them or care less about them than the first time I played them. I care about the characters, the story, the worlds. I've explored every nook and cranny, I know how to beat every boss, solve every puzzle. I truly care about these games.

And I cared about Mass Effect. I loved the stories, the characters, the universe that I got to explore. Sure there were faults and failings, but it didn't matter, I ignored them and went about my adventuring. Even after playing through ME1 and ME2 multiple times, I still enjoyed them, I still cared about this world. And ME3 was well on its way to the same state, there were failings and gaps but I could ignore them and keep pressing forward because I still cared. Until I got to the end, suddenly everything I had loved sort of faded from view. I was given three awful choices and had to choose what I viewed as the least of three evils.

But I still do want to care, I desperately want BioWare to keep me caring about this game, I mean I'm still talking and thinking about it two months after the fact. If however the EC comes out and we're still pigeonholed into the same three arbitrary choices, if nothings really changed, then I think I'll pick destroy, watch the ending, turn it off and walk away. And I don't think I'll care about Mass Effect anymore.

Which will absolutely suck because it was so close to me adding the trilogy to my all time favourite games list. It would have been another story that I could repeat again and again without getting tired of it.

I really wanted to care.

[Baa Baa]

[Jorji Costava]

One hypothesis worth considering is the possibility that the ending choice is an example of a moral dilemma à la Sophie's Choice, where no matter what one does, one acts wrongly. Whether or not there actually can be such a thing as a moral dilemma of this sort is a matter of some  controversy, but if there can be such things, and if the ending choice is one, then that would explain a lot of the revulsion towards each of the three choices. Every choice seems to have very strong considerations against it, and none of these considerations clearly outweigh the others. I actually haven't even convinced myself of this; just thinking out loud.

Also, I'd actually like to voice some respectful disagreement about the appeal to extremely bizarre scenarios in testing various ethical theses. I actually think a lot of good can come out of reflections on these sorts of scenarios, even if they are completely out of the realm of everyday life. I've never been tied to a violinist, I've never had to return a weapon to a friend in an unsound state of mind, and I've never even walked by a child drowning in a pond. Nonetheless, it seems to me that reflection on these sorts of scenarios has proven profoundly useful in the history of ethics. From the fact that a certain tool or method may be misused, I don't think it follows that the method ought not be used at all. This discussion could conceivably derail this thread, though, so it might be better to PM me if you want to continue with it.

Modifié par osbornep, 19 mai 2012 - 11:58 .

[drayfish]

@ Baa Baa:

Hi Baa Baa, and no.  No one said Spiderman Thread.  At least not that I heard.  But you should have linked to your alternate ending thread.  Impressive work, and much more helpful than the web-slinger.

http://social.biowar...6098/1#12144399

[Fapmaster5000]

Delta-Vee wrote...

[isolating question]

Awesome post is awesome.

I have to ask, though: was it even possible for your group to "win"? To make it through with their souls intact? I think games in general (tabletop and video) have that most useful ability to demand such introspection and existential horror - but the players must be made aware of that potential in advance.

While SkaldFish's excellent post is true of games with a defined "win" state, there are also games, from Tetris to the very recent DayZ, which are predicated on merely putting off losing for as long as possible (much like life, actually). If the inherent impossibility of victory is sufficiently presaged, then players can engage with the work and not feel betrayed when (not if) they finally fail.

Mass Effect, however, is not such a game, so your (wonderfully written) example is quite pertinent.

First, thanks!

Second, it was possible to "win", it was simply too hard.  The goal was to create a meat grinder, with about six definate "stages".  

First, they would be encouraged  to ally with "less bad" enemies to stop "good guy" partisans who were exploiting the chaos of war to prey on civilians.  Second, they would be encouraged to take part in an enemy civil war, pitting one faction against another to weaken all.  Third, they would be encouraged to allow "collateral damage" and accept that sometimes, losses happened, and not to care.  Fourth, they would be encourage to cut deals with amoral third parties with "interests" in order to gain firepower over their direct enemies.  Fifth, their backers "the Good Guys" would be shown as flawed, while the "Evil Empire" was simultaneously humanized.  Sixth, they would be systematically stripped of allies through attrition, "collateral", choices that broke with ally's morality, and occasional betrayal for "a greater good" (varies by NPC).  Seventh, goals that were stated would often be counterproductive, with hurting one enemy faction merely empowering another, encouraging the party to switch factions often.  Eighth, the world would be lethal, with some adventures designed to kill PCs.

The end result was predictable: moral relativity, short term thinking, survival optimization.  The party bounced from target to target without contemplating "how does this end" or "how does this help our long term goal" or even "what was our long term goal".  

At the end, they were slapped in the face with a tally of their sins, with enemies and allies raking them over the coals for every town they couldn't save, every ally they sacrificed, every war crime then enabled, every cruel gambit they'd made for "the greater good".  Finally, numerous of these NPCs decried the idea of "the greater good", with each espousing their own logic and worldview, offering the party their path.

Some of these included:

1.  An allied soldier from a third party advocating that the party embrace the "collateral damage" mentality they'd inflicted on others by writing off the entire region and nuking it into oblvion, only to try and fight this war somewhere else, since this front was already lost.

2.  A "holy" prophet advocating bringing about an edritch horror to "cleanse" the world of all the atrocties the party had been part of.

3.  An amoral arms dealer offering them the opportunity to write it all off and live in luxury on the suffering of others, since they were now so numb to it, and so good as contractors for him.

4.  Numerous enemies offering physical rewards for the party coming to work for them because of their "skills" at being terrible people, joining the enemy side in the larger war.

5.  A third party actor who'd been here before recommending that they simply kill themselves because it's all pointless.

6.  An elder being (godlike-thing) they contacted, who explained that, yes, the game is rigged, and no, they can't fix it, because THE UNIVERSE DEMANDS suffering.  They should simply do what they think they need to, because nothing matters.

7.  The dragon to the main antagonist, who reveals that every action they've taken has benefitted him (stabilizing his power base by weakening his rivals).  He is polite, and earnest, as he explains that he knows how pervese the universe is, and his plan to minimize the suffering by controlling every party in the action, and how he is actually the hero, and they should totally join his team.

8.  A low-level NPC ally they'd already betrayed, who was hopelessly trying to jailbreak a bunch of prisoners.  This would serve no larger goal (they had no real worth), had no chance of success, and was only being advocated by a well-meaning-but-highly-outclassed group of allies.  Pointlessness personified.

The party split among the answers, but no one stuck with the eighth choice once it had been revealed as "hopeless".

The winning scenario had been a trick.  The kicker of the campaign was this: every minor NPC they helped along the way would come back to help them in the end.  Every farmer they saved, every merchant they helped to safety, every soldier they rescued.  The more they were good, the more if would pay off in the end.  There was no cue for this, no obvious metric.  These actions would seem pointless.

This was the "test" of the game.  If they knew it was a test, they'd always pass it, but it was to see, in a way "who they were in the dark".  When an action had no benefit, no gain, no point, would they still do it?  Would they do it again?  Again?  Again?  How long?  

How long would the good man/woman stay good in a cruel universe?

The answer, sadly, was "not long enough", and the party had lost the endgame by the second act, when they focused on the big pieces and game-changers, and not on the little cogs that got burned out along the way.  

It really was kind of "f*ck you" to gamist mentality, and not really what people were expecting.  I couldn't cue them in on the "unwinnable" or "trick ending", because then it wouldn't be a trick.  All I told them was that the campaign would revolve around "faith". 

Faith, as in, the way religious people put stock in an afterlife, even with no proof.  Faith, which drives people to give their money to the poor to chalk up brownie points in heaven.  Faith, which is so illogical, so destructive, and yet so uplifting.  

The wicked and callous parts, I showcased.  That was the test.  They needed faith that the good they did mattered, even when everything in the world said it didn't.

They failed.  The campaign became a meat grinder, and blew up at the end when it became apparent how wrong it had gone.

My fault was multifold: I never put myself in the players' shoes.  I never appreciated how this medium would turn a tragedy into a wound.  I became focused on "art" and not "making a good game".

Was it high-concept.  Yeah.  Was it interesting?  Yeah.  Was it fun?  Not really.  Was it worth it?  Yes, but not how I meant it.  Would I do it again?  Hell no, I hurt people with this.  I've never seen fiction be unethical before, actually hurt the people who partook of it.  It was eye opening.

/sidetrack.

EDIT: Forgot to add the actual winning scenario.  The golden ending was to help enough people (I had a tabulation running) while not drifting too far into moral relativity and enemy-mine, and then choose the hopeless noble fight.  At this point, once enough triggers had been set off (including party deaths, I should add), the karmic cavalry would arrive, in the form of an offensive hinted at early in the game, before the party lost communication with "home".  This would be a series of triumphs for each act they'd performed, a sort of delayed reward in the hour of need.  It would be an amazingly uplifting moment of "you've fought so long, and so hard, for a cause so lost... fight no more, noble soul, the world will carry you home".  With enough good karma and successes, even enemies would rally to their cause, just this once, including the potential over-arching threat (big bad's dragon).  In this way, they would "beat" him, by keeping faith when he never could, and by not falling like he did.  They could never defeat him in battle, but they could surpass and render him irrelevant.

It never happened, because... well... SPECULATION FOR EVERYONE.

Modifié par Fapmaster5000, 20 mai 2012 - 12:19 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

osbornep wrote...

One hypothesis worth considering is the possibility that the ending choice is an example of a moral dilemma à la Sophie's Choice, where no matter what one does, one acts wrongly. Whether or not there actually can be such a thing as a moral dilemma of this sort is a matter of some  controversy, but if there can be such things, and if the ending choice is one, then that would explain a lot of the revulsion towards each of the three choices. Every choice seems to have very strong considerations against it, and none of these considerations clearly outweigh the others. I actually haven't even convinced myself of this; just thinking out loud.

Also, I'd actually like to voice some respectful disagreement about the appeal to extremely bizarre scenarios in testing various ethical theses. I actually think a lot of good can come out of reflections on these sorts of scenarios, even if they are completely out of the realm of everyday life. I've never been tied to a violinist, I've never had to return a weapon to a friend in an unsound state of mind, and I've never even walked by a child drowning in a pond. Nonetheless, it seems to me that reflection on these sorts of scenarios has proven profoundly useful in the history of ethics. From the fact that a certain tool or method may be misused, I don't think it follows that the method ought not be used at all. This discussion could conceivably derail this thread, though, so it might be better to PM me if you want to continue with it.

Just to clarify, I wasn't talking about their usefullness as interesting thought experiments, I was remarking upon their weakness as a rehtorical line of reasoning. The way the rhetorical breakdown goes is typically this:

"If the only way to save the city was to torture someone you knew had the location of the bomb, would you do it?" 
If no, you're an idiot who is "sacrificing" thousands of lives for your "moral" principles.
Thus, torture is acceptable in certain circumstances.
Thus, we should continue a program of torture.

I'm not saying you, or anyone else here,  means to employ this line of reasoning, but when this kind of thinking is incorporated into a narrative, it suffuses the public consciousness. It's why we've gone from a country that thinks torture is deplorable to one that cheers when someone is tortured on 24. It teaches people to tolerate and advocate for pointless, ineffective, outright counterproductive cruelty because popular narrative has taught them it's a "neccesary evil" that "works."

I dislike the straight out "would you feed a bussfull of nuns and schoolkids to an elder god if it meant stopping the sun from going supernova?" questions because, well, when the only tool you have a a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. When the only questions you're ever asked involve this kind of murderous nonsense, when you get in a situation that offers you a chance to commit such an atrocity, you take it, because you've been trained to think it's acceptable, rather than trained to think outside of this structure.

This ending is the ultimate form of that question, the worst qualities of every hypothetical of that kind stripped bare to their most damaging. It's phrased and posed and propped in such a way so as to cause a strong adherence to the principle of the necessity of atrocity, and to induce the denigration of all those who don't cooperate as facile and weak.

I don't think that was the intent of the piece, but that is where it has lead. And that is the saddest thing of all.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 20 mai 2012 - 12:33 .

[drayfish]

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

<Awesome Postingnesses...>

This was the "test" of the game.  If they knew it was a test, they'd always pass it, but it was to see, in a way "who they were in the dark".  When an action had no benefit, no gain, no point, would they still do it?  Would they do it again?  Again?  Again?  How long?  

How long would the good man/woman stay good in a cruel universe?

....

/sidetrack.

Just have to say - needlessly, no doubt - this is in no way a 'sidetrack'.  Your accounts of these scenarios are incredibly compelling and very revealling, Fapmaster5000. 

Thank you.

[Hawk227]

@delta_vee

I really liked your re-write of the end. I find it incredible that so many people have ideas that are so much better than what we got.

[delta_vee]

 @CulturalGeekGirl:

When I hear the word "sacrifice", I think of Isaac, and Iphigenia, and the Aztecs. I think of it as the price, as opposed to the cost. I think of some dark god somewhere profiting from the exchange. Maybe I just use the word differently.

And in this case, the hungry deity is the developers.

@edisnooM:

Agreed, sadly.

@Baa Baa:

Nope, no Spiderman was requested, sorry.

@osbornep:

I'm with CGG on this one. Interesting, unusual theoretical dilemmas can be useful to sort out edge cases or compare normally-separated moral or ethical priorities, but the way it's abused as a rhetorical device involves upping the utilitarian ante until the desired concession is reached - and sadly, this is all too common.

The sad thing is that ME3 did so well at avoiding that trap on Tuchanka, with overlapping and conflicting moral imperatives, and an attention to the subtleties of personality and perspective.

@Fapmaster5000:

Yeah, totally not a sidetrack at all. It's fascinating to me how your scenario is the exact opposite of ME3's arc in every way, yet arrives at the same collapse. Your campaign (hereby YC) has a defined win state, ME3 has essentially an unwinnable scenario (textually - I'm inclined to agree with CGG's view on this). YC seemingly discourages hope and decency at every turn, ME3 encourages it. YC promises the players their choices mean nothing, ME3 shouts loudly about how your choices matter. YC's endgame is a full accounting of every action along the way, ME3 discards almost everything.

If I may offer a suggestion here (and forgive me if you've already considered this), but the common thread between YC and ME3 is how player feedback is handled throughout the game. Again, the two are on opposite sides - YC seemingly dampens the (visible) effects of player actions, where ME3 attempts to inflate effects beyond their true differences. Both, however, are a form of player conditioning in opposition to their ultimate goal. Players need feedback of some sort along the way which aligns with the intended endgame. If you wanted to nourish hope, however subtly, the players need something to give them cause to suspect this as the case - even if it's small.

I grew up religious (Mormon, specifically - I'm very much neither, now), and one of the common things reiterated over and over was the small indicators that God would give to keep His followers' faith alive. Transient joys, knowledge of changed and improved lives, signs and portents and feelings of peace. While I don't think the universe works that way, there's merit in the idea when designing a game (whereby the designer is, for all intents and purposes, a deity). So when you have your eldtrich monstrosities telling the players point-blank that their actions cannot, will not matter, that must be counterbalanced somehow, or they'll believe your lies.

And this is where I think we stand with ME3 - we were told there would be an accounting, and instead we got a choice of atrocities. We feel lied to by the very game.

@Hawk227:

Thanks.

Edit: @CulturalGeekGirl again:

I'm one of those that subscribes to the modern reading of Abraham (spurred on by Kierkegaard's nonsense, frankly) as failing the test. But I'm also a heretical Judas sympathizer, so I'm not sure if I count.

Modifié par delta_vee, 20 mai 2012 - 01:32 .

[Fapmaster5000]

delta_vee wrote...
@Fapmaster5000:

Yeah, totally not a sidetrack at all. It's fascinating to me how your scenario is the exact opposite of ME3's arc in every way, yet arrives at the same collapse. Your campaign (hereby YC) has a defined win state, ME3 has essentially an unwinnable scenario (textually - I'm inclined to agree with CGG's view on this). YC seemingly discourages hope and decency at every turn, ME3 encourages it. YC promises the players their choices mean nothing, ME3 shouts loudly about how your choices matter. YC's endgame is a full accounting of every action along the way, ME3 discards almost everything.

If I may offer a suggestion here (and forgive me if you've already considered this), but the common thread between YC and ME3 is how player feedback is handled throughout the game. Again, the two are on opposite sides - YC seemingly dampens the (visible) effects of player actions, where ME3 attempts to inflate effects beyond their true differences. Both, however, are a form of player conditioning in opposition to their ultimate goal. Players need feedback of some sort along the way which aligns with the intended endgame. If you wanted to nourish hope, however subtly, the players need something to give them cause to suspect this as the case - even if it's small.

I grew up religious (Mormon, specifically - I'm very much neither, now), and one of the common things reiterated over and over was the small indicators that God would give to keep His followers' faith alive. Transient joys, knowledge of changed and improved lives, signs and portents and feelings of peace. While I don't think the universe works that way, there's merit in the idea when designing a game (whereby the designer is, for all intents and purposes, a deity). So when you have your eldtrich monstrosities telling the players point-blank that their actions cannot, will not matter, that must be counterbalanced somehow, or they'll believe your lies.

And this is where I think we stand with ME3 - we were told there would be an accounting, and instead we got a choice of atrocities. We feel lied to by the very game.

I think you're spot on with this.  It was the communications breakdown that killed in both cases.  I think the disconnect cannot be overstated, as well.  In both cases, I feel that there was a critical breach between "what the players expected/wanted" and "what the game designer was intending to create".  In ME3, that disconnect occurred suddenly and violently, in my case it was subtle and pervasive.  Still, the same ills (in mirror, as you mentioned), and the same destructive catalyst (heh) in the silence.

Personally, it was a lesson a learned the hard way, and I now tend to show my a hand a little more; I try and let the game be more honestly collaborative, and I dial back the pain-o-tron to about 80%.  Sure, it's not as "artsy", but the end result is a lot more enjoyable, enduring, and meaningful, and, moreover, it doesn't ruin anyone's relationships.

Again, I never thought I'd see a work of fiction hurt people, much less more than once.  It's a cruel power in the creator's hand, and I've come to believe that interactive mediums must be handled more carefully because of that.  I would never run a game as "rough" as I'll treat characters in a story or novel, because there's a person behind that avatar.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

EDIT: Forgot to add the actual winning scenario.  The golden ending was to help enough people (I had a tabulation running) while not drifting too far into moral relativity and enemy-mine, and then choose the hopeless noble fight.  At this point, once enough triggers had been set off (including party deaths, I should add), the karmic cavalry would arrive, in the form of an offensive hinted at early in the game, before the party lost communication with "home".  This would be a series of triumphs for each act they'd performed, a sort of delayed reward in the hour of need.  It would be an amazingly uplifting moment of "you've fought so long, and so hard, for a cause so lost... fight no more, noble soul, the world will carry you home".  With enough good karma and successes, even enemies would rally to their cause, just this once, including the potential over-arching threat (big bad's dragon).  In this way, they would "beat" him, by keeping faith when he never could, and by not falling like he did.  They could never defeat him in battle, but they could surpass and render him irrelevant.

It never happened, because... well... SPECULATION FOR EVERYONE.

Two questions: had no one in the party died yet? Had any PCs earlier in the campaign tried to do the right thing, and failed?

It might not surprise you to hear that I've been in scenarios like this roleplay wise, and in most cases where I was not playing a character with heavy amoral tendencies from the start as part of my charcter concept, I have reached the point where I said "you know what? No. I'm just going to do absolutely what I think is right no matter how suicidal it may seem, in the next thing I get to."

That is to say, during the campaign, did they ever make the right choice at the wrong time? Did they try to rebel against your machinations before they reached your intended catharsis? I've done that before, a few times, with... varying results.

One of my strongest roleplaying memories is of an "impossible scenario" decision to do the right thing, absent any hope of victory.  Strangely, the situation in question was created by another player rather than set up by the DM. I had a leader I was honor-bound to serve, in a setting reminiscent of Feudal Japan. I was from a minor clan, trying to gain honor and respect for the clan as a whole. That was primary goal in all things.

The DM had set up a scenario where the seven of us would defend a town from assault by a gang of bandits. This... might sound familiar to you. After a long, hard-fought battle, we won. We drove the bandits off. They were retreating, even though there were still dozens of them, possibly hundreds. We were in our well-fortified town, safe and victorious. It seemed all was going according to plan.

Then, my leader, another PC... charged. He wanted every last bandit dead, and he was leaving the safety of our town, with our snipers and enchantments, to run out in the open. It was suicide.

I was honor-bound to follow.

And I did.

The rest of the tale requires too much backstory to relate event-by-event. I saved the day, but I lost everything. My leader lost nothing, but I upheld my honor. The last words I said to him were this: "Duty goes both ways, and you have failed in your duty to me. I have not failed in mine. "

And that was enough. The DM did a nice job wrapping things up - after the story of my heroism spread, people spoke of the fox clan in whispers, and they were no longer resigned to the fringes of society.

I'm not going to say I'm happy when I think about what happened to her, but I also don't regret her decision.

That's the sweet spot you're aiming for with bittersweet, and it is very, very hard to hit.

Also, it has to be in a world where it feels... necessary. The world of Mass Effect never really constructed that structure. In feudal japan, the idea that one may have to die to preserve one's honor is everywhere. When standing in that starchamber, the sacrifice in front of you didn't seem necessary, it didn't seem like you had somehow gotten into a situation that required a real choice, rather it felt like the story had been stopped, and an irrational choice set before you.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 20 mai 2012 - 02:59 .

[Fapmaster5000]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

EDIT: Forgot to add the actual winning scenario.  The golden ending was to help enough people (I had a tabulation running) while not drifting too far into moral relativity and enemy-mine, and then choose the hopeless noble fight.  At this point, once enough triggers had been set off (including party deaths, I should add), the karmic cavalry would arrive, in the form of an offensive hinted at early in the game, before the party lost communication with "home".  This would be a series of triumphs for each act they'd performed, a sort of delayed reward in the hour of need.  It would be an amazingly uplifting moment of "you've fought so long, and so hard, for a cause so lost... fight no more, noble soul, the world will carry you home".  With enough good karma and successes, even enemies would rally to their cause, just this once, including the potential over-arching threat (big bad's dragon).  In this way, they would "beat" him, by keeping faith when he never could, and by not falling like he did.  They could never defeat him in battle, but they could surpass and render him irrelevant.

It never happened, because... well... SPECULATION FOR EVERYONE.

Two questions: had no one in the party died yet? Had any PCs earlier in the campaign tried to do the right thing, and failed?

It might not surprise you to hear that I've been in scenarios like this roleplay wise, and in most cases where I was not playing a character with heavy amoral tendencies from the start as part of my charcter concept, I have reached the point where I said "you know what? No. I'm just going to do absolutely what I think is right no matter how suicidal it may seem, in the next thing I get to."

That is to say, during the campaign, did they ever make the right choice at the wrong time? Did they try to rebel against your machinations before they reached your intended catharsis? I've done that before, a few times, with... varying results.

One of my strongest roleplaying memories is of an "impossible scenario" decision to do the right thing, absent any hope of victory.  Strangely, the situation in question was created by another player rather than set up by the DM. I had a leader I was honor-bound to serve, in a setting reminiscent of Feudal Japan. I was from a minor clan, trying to gain honor and respect for the clan as a whole. That was primary goal in all things.

The DM had set up a scenario where the seven of us would defend a town from assault by a gang of bandits. This... might sound familiar to you. After a long, hard-fought battle, we won. We drove the bandits off. They were retreating, even though there were still dozens of them, possibly hundreds. We were in our well-fortified town, safe and victorious. It seemed all was going according to plan.

Then, my leader, another PC... charged. He wanted every last bandit dead, and he was leaving the safety of our town, with our snipers and enchantments, to run out in the open. It was suicide.

I was honor-bound to follow.

And I did.

The rest of the tale requires too much backstory to relate event-by-event. I saved the day, but I lost everything. My leader lost nothing, but I upheld my honor. The last words I said to him were this: "Duty goes both ways, and you have failed in your duty to me. I have not failed in mine. "

And that was enough. The DM did a nice job wrapping things up - after the story of my heroism spread, people spoke of the fox clan in whispers, and they were no longer resigned to the fringes of society.

I'm not going to say I'm happy when I think about what happened to her, but I also don't regret her decision.

That's the sweet spot you're aiming for with bittersweet, and it is very, very hard to hit.

Also, it has to be in a world where it feels... necessary. The world of Mass Effect never really constructed that structure. In feudal japan, the idea that one may have to die to preserve one's honor is everywhere. When standing in that starchamber, the sacrifice in front of you didn't seem necessary, it didn't seem like you had somehow gotten into a situation that required a real choice, rather it felt like the story had been stopped, and an irrational choice set before you.

Had anyone died yet?  Yes.  This was part of the grinder.

I'm a huge believer in player agency.  Part of that, though, is that the player is also free to fail.  It's not a stunning triumph if the DM just hands out victory.  I stage encounters to range from moderate to challenging, with certain major clutch moments being tiered from tought to brutal, and the occasional cheese thrown in for fun.  This also means that I run things in the open, with relatively open rolls.  So, if things go horribly wrong in combat, and then I drop that natural twenty on the table from the combat monstrosity that's been pumping out thirty to forty damage a hit... well, someone's gonna explode.  If I neutered that, it wouldn't be a game, it would be story-time-with-friends.

Because of this, and some REALLY bad rolls early on, the party of eight people had turned over six characters, one of those characters three times (poor guy, he just kept dying).

Tying to this, there had been one character who'd been locked onto "I will be the hero" mode.  Unfortunately, he also wasn't the brightest, and got the party into a lot of trouble, and then got killed when he decided to stare down a monster with a nasty gaze attack... twice.  This might have biased the party to listen to the more mercenary "survive at all costs" PCs in the group.

Since then, I've made sure to stack the deck, player wise, making sure at least one "leader" type player is running a good character, and rigging the alignments to be more good-dominant.  It's like chemistry!  With personalities!

Some of them went out in blazes of glory, blowing out one of the massive soul traps.  Some of them died like ****es, when dice went cold.  One even got his head blown by an NPC "ally" he'd been tormenting, and instead of the party starting a fight over cold blooded murder, they all just shrugged and said "Yeah, he had that coming for a while"... even that PC's player.  I should have been worried RIGHT THEN, but I didn't know how bad it had gotten.

As for being appropriate to the world, I think you're right.  ME3 never put the player into the position of "lose a little or lose a lot" hard choices, no "Asian Flu" framing issues, no "no right choice" options.  The ME series was always a series where with a little bit of work (completionist) and a solid playthrough, the player COULD win everything.

I would accept a "screw off, you win by losing" in a game with a more brutal tone, but ME had always been space opera, with a solid dose of hope and "we can unite to save the day" and "your choices matter"... right up until you lose all hope, destroy/control/blenderize the galactic races without regard to your choices.  It was a completely different ending, and I just don't get it.

I can see pieces of a mind screw in there, but that might be shadows of my old campaign, and I have to wonder if this was simple failure, or if they tried something similar, reaching so far for high art that they forgot the player, and the reason that we play.

There's a quote I enjoy from Robert Browning, "Man's reach should exceed his grasp".  In creative works, the "reach" is the artistic drive, but knowing the limits of your grasp is the integrity.

Modifié par Fapmaster5000, 20 mai 2012 - 04:57 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

I honestly wish I had something to contribute to all the beautiful words you guys have put forth. So all I will say is that I hope drayfish liked my explosive gift to him.

I have a question though. What themes brought up by the overall narrative of the ME trilogy need to be addressed in the ending? Is it just a matter of heroism, honor, friendship and sacrifice? Or is there more that needs to be addressed?

Modifié par KitaSaturnyne, 20 mai 2012 - 05:17 .

[edisnooM]

"Or what's a heaven for?" I too like that quote.

It seems weird also that both the previous games had sacrifice built into the end game, but in both you could come out feeling victorious and get a "Happy Ending" (especially the A New Hope medal ceremony of ME1. Also the hero pose, egads was that cheesy).

And I can get that they were maybe intending Synthesis to be that happy ending what with Joker and EDI at the end, and also with Mike Gamble saying that now there is "just life". But it flew in the face of everything that we had done and seen so far: "Does this unit have a soul", talking with EDI as she discovers her humanity, etc.

I had been thinking maybe it should have come down to Earth (maybe the entire Sol system) vs the rest of the galaxy. Destroy Earth and spare the rest of the galaxy or save it and inflict heavy losses elsewhere. I mean that sacrifice is still pretty high, but it would have fit with Humanity First vs Galactic Unity themes posed at the end of the previous two games.

[KitaSaturnyne]

edisnooM wrote...

"Or what's a heaven for?" I too like that quote.

It seems weird also that both the previous games had sacrifice built into the end game, but in both you could come out feeling victorious and get a "Happy Ending" (especially the A New Hope medal ceremony of ME1. Also the hero pose, egads was that cheesy).

And I can get that they were maybe intending Synthesis to be that happy ending what with Joker and EDI at the end, and also with Mike Gamble saying that now there is "just life". But it flew in the face of everything that we had done and seen so far: "Does this unit have a soul", talking with EDI as she discovers her humanity, etc.

I had been thinking maybe it should have come down to Earth (maybe the entire Sol system) vs the rest of the galaxy. Destroy Earth and spare the rest of the galaxy or save it and inflict heavy losses elsewhere. I mean that sacrifice is still pretty high, but it would have fit with Humanity First vs Galactic Unity themes posed at the end of the previous two games.

There might be some way to avoid this, but it seems like that kind of 'sacrifice' wouldn't ethically be Shepard's to make. Something Shepard might realize and refuse to do.

Well, unless he has some kind of galactic intercom and could tally votes or something like Helios at the end of DX: Invisible War.

[edisnooM]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

edisnooM wrote...

[selfsnip]

I had been thinking maybe it should have come down to Earth (maybe the entire Sol system) vs the rest of the galaxy. Destroy Earth and spare the rest of the galaxy or save it and inflict heavy losses elsewhere. I mean that sacrifice is still pretty high, but it would have fit with Humanity First vs Galactic Unity themes posed at the end of the previous two games.

There might be some way to avoid this, but it seems like that kind of 'sacrifice' wouldn't ethically be Shepard's to make. Something Shepard might realize and refuse to do.

Well, unless he has some kind of galactic intercom and could tally votes or something like Helios at the end of DX: Invisible War.

Yeah and I can see that, the problem is though that no matter what Shepard does the choices don't seem ethically his/hers to make, like with saving the council and the Destiny Ascension vs letting them die, and saving the Collector base vs destroying it. Both these choices had large scale implications that seem kind of beyond one soldier making the call.

Mainly I was just thinking of a way that the decision would come back to the "Where does humanity stand?" theme that seemed to figure importantly in the end of the previous two games.

Also did they actually take a vote at the end of DX: IW? That sounds kind of anti-climatic.

"Alright everyone just hold on while I count these ballots."

Edit: If it was Helios counting it might be something more like:

"You will stand there while I count these ballots. Yesss, Count."

Modifié par edisnooM, 20 mai 2012 - 05:44 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

Hmm, is it possible the ME3 final choices are in a realm unto themselves compared to the Destiny Ascension and Collector base? I can see your point as far as the Destiny Ascension, but isn't the Collector Base a different story? Shepard would be leaving it in the hands of Cerberus, and is the only one at the center of the galaxy who can make the call at that time. I think it might be on a different level than the Destiny Ascension somehow. I'm probably wrong, though.

As for DX: IW, the vote occurs as part of the ending cinematic, not as the climax to the story. It certainly lends itself to ME3's Synthesis in that the ending chosen requires everyone to be imbued with nanomachines, without a chance to refuse. However, its consequences are explained, and while most would still disagree with it, I think it turns out to be for the better. Especially since the other endings involve all humans dying off, except for the Omar, or a bunch of anti-technology people (don't know the term for that) killing all those enhanced by nanotechnology.

[edisnooM]

No you're right it's not an exact comparison, and is a different type of choice. And yeah there wasn't really time to ask the galaxy at large,

"EDI patch me into Alliance comms, we're holding a referendum". :-)

I was just meaning that it's a pretty big decision that falls to Shepard to make it then and there, that maybe wasn't necessarily his/hers to make.

Maybe a better option would have been save it, check in with Hackett and then destroy it later if need be, why exactly it "had" to go to Cerberus is beyond me. I mean if you destroy it you walk away from Cerberus entirely, why couldn't you do that with saving it as well?

Modifié par edisnooM, 20 mai 2012 - 06:05 .

[drayfish]

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

'It's like chemistry! With personalities!'

@ Fapmaster5000:

I like the Browning reference, but your quote could now be one of my favourites for the nature of all storytelling in general, let alone roleplaying. Lovely. I shall gather it to myself and pretend it was mine...


@ KitaSaturnyne:

Thank you for 'splosions! Hilarious. (Although I think that clip had a little more narrative in it than a traditional Bay film.)  And sorry I didn't mention it before - I had meant to send my thanks earlier, but was sidetracked by a Spiderman. They do tend to do that.


and @ edisnooM:

When did Mike Gamble say that now there is 'just life' in the Synthesis ending? And what in the name of several varieties of Earth does that even mean?

Modifié par drayfish, 20 mai 2012 - 06:21 .

[Fapmaster5000]

drayfish wrote...

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

'It's like chemistry! With personalities!'

@ Fapmaster5000:

I like the Browning reference, but your quote could now be one of my favourites for the nature of all storytelling in general, let alone roleplaying. Lovely. I shall gather it to myself and pretend it was mine...

Blast!  

@ KitaSaturnyne:

Thank you for 'splosions! Hilarious. (Although I think that clip had a little more narrative in it than a traditional Bay film.)  And sorry I didn't mention it before - I had meant to send my thanks earlier, but was sidetracked by a Spiderman. They do tend to do that.

SPLOSIONS!

and @ edisnooM:

When did Mike Gamble say that now there is 'just life' in the Synthesis ending? And what in the name of several varieties of Earth does that even mean?

Twitter.  Like much of this game, it was delivered via paratext, in 160 characters or less.

I have to assume it means that he believed that there was an impassible divide between organic and synthetic life, and that synthesis was the last hope for a peaceful universe where the two sides even understood that the other had the right to exist.  I'm really not sure what game he was playing, because I never got that message from Mass Effect.  Maybe I was playing the wrong game?

Modifié par Fapmaster5000, 20 mai 2012 - 06:32 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

@Mani Mani

I agree that the decisions are a little too big for just Shepard to make them. Although I think as far as the Destiny Ascension goes, I think it's more a matter of giving the council a chance to survive, rather than deciding whether they live or die. If the fleets beyond the relay can't join the battle quickly enough, they simply don't get the opportunity to save the Destiny Ascension. I have the feeling that it's a bit more complex than that though.

Hehe, I like that referendum. "Do we HAVE to vote? Can't we just keep shooting?"

@drayfish

Indeed, those damn Spider-Men. I'm glad I relinquished my spider powers a few years back. I'm glad you liked your asplosions, and I agree. It certainly has more of a story than any Bay film. On a side note, is Bay known for his on set tantrums? I never heard those kinds of stories from any of the cast or crew when the Transformers films were being made.

[drayfish]

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

I have to assume it means that he believed that there was an impassible divide between organic and synthetic life, and that synthesis was the last hope for a peaceful universe where the two sides even understood that the other had the right to exist.  I'm really not sure what game he was playing, because I never got that message from Mass Effect.  Maybe I was playing the wrong game?

Does the man not have relatives?  I'm related to people who share my DNA and it doesn't help me understand them.  Having an i-Pod grafted to my central cortex is not going to make any difference.

[Fapmaster5000]

drayfish wrote...

Fapmaster5000 wrote...

I have to assume it means that he believed that there was an impassible divide between organic and synthetic life, and that synthesis was the last hope for a peaceful universe where the two sides even understood that the other had the right to exist.  I'm really not sure what game he was playing, because I never got that message from Mass Effect.  Maybe I was playing the wrong game?

Does the man not have relatives?  I'm related to people who share my DNA and it doesn't help me understand them.  Having an i-Pod grafted to my central cortex is not going to make any difference.

Yeah, it's this kind of statement that makes me think something broke in the finale creation process, and the endings we played were not the endings they intended.  They may be similar, but something got lost or distorted coming through the cognitive filter.

[Jorji Costava]

@CulturalGeekGirl

These are really good thoughts. I'm not sure we're having an actual disagreement. I completely agree with you that it's a horrible idea to make one's literary diet consist substantially of stories in which some kind of utilitarian calculus is exploited to make us endorse an otherwise abhorrent action. I also agree with you that a moral decision of this sort has no place in ME. My only point is that counterfactual thinking about scenarios unlikely to ever occur in the course of actual life is an important way of generating coherence in one's overall moral outlook. It's worth noting that in practice, the thinkers who are most fond of appealing to strange scenarios also tend to be the ones most resistant to the 'ends justify the means' mentality encouraged by shows like 24, as examination of the gallons of ink poured on "trolleyology" will attest to.

I personally wouldn't like the idea of having to profile and study criminally deviant minds, or parasitic organisms. These tasks strike me as very 'icky' and unpleasant; it would probably be bad for me as a person to have to do these things. But it's very important that someone or other do them. Similarly, it's probably bad for people to expose themselves to scenarios like "Torture X or millions of innocent people will die" (imagine that last part intoned by Keith David) on a consistent basis, for just the reasons you give. Nonetheless, I think it's useful at least for somebody or other to reflect on these scenarios and come to a reasonably informed and coherent view about what the right thing to do in such circumstances would be.

@delta_vee:

I'm with CGG on this one. Interesting, unusual theoretical dilemmas can
be useful to sort out edge cases or compare normally-separated moral or
ethical priorities, but the way it's abused as a rhetorical device
involves upping the utilitarian ante until the desired concession is
reached - and sadly, this is all too common.

Unfortunately, I'm not quite sure I understand this (almost certainly my fault). Is your objection directed against the use of theoretical dilemmas in narratives specifically, or to their use more generally? If the former, I agree; if the latter, I disagree. But I can't say why precisely, because I'm not sure I understand your argument. It seems you object to these dilemmas because you think they can persuade people of things you don't believe are true, but I'm not sure how it's an objection to an argument to say that it is persuasive. Maybe your objection that some of these scenarios appeal to emotions in ways that are unlikely to generate reliable judgment. That's a good point, and I don't think I could do justice to it without taking us woefully off-course. Again, I'm probably missing the point - my apologies in advance.

@drayfish:

There's an older thread discussing the Gamble tweet here:

http://social.biowar...ndex/11695346/1

@edisnooM:

I agree that with your point that it's a bit odd they dropped the "humanity first/galactic unity" conflict that carried the day in ME1 and ME2. In the first two games, this conflict seemed built into the paragon/renegade system itself (although that always struck me as quite strange, and is actually the major reason I generally resist playing straight renegade--why is "the ultimate badass" more likely to be a speciesist?). But perhaps they had to de-emphasize it by necessity, since the whole point of ME3 is galactic unity. There's probably plenty of good ways to reconcile these two competing strands, but due to my stunning lack of creativity, I can't think of any. Also, it's getting late and this post is way too long already. Good night everyone!