220 réponses à ce sujet

[Pitznik]

alsonamedbort wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Why bother to quote my post if you don't even answer to it?

Because it's a point that this entire thread was created to address, and one that I have already addressed in this thread.  You attach personal labels of good/evil based on choices someone makes in a game, which is completely different from real life.  You don't feel the true weight of decisions in a vacuum.  There is (hopefully) a level of detachment in a video game.  Calling someone evil because they try to defend their choice in a video game is beyond silly.

It is not completely different, those are supposed to be the same decisions you would make in real life, filtered by your character's personality. If you didn't notice, many discussions here are done without that "character personality filter", people defend their choices judging them by their own morality, not by "my Shepard's morality". The point of an RPG game is to create the illusion of your choice being real and meaningful, and discussing it makes sense only if you acknowledge it. With your logic we could end each and every arguement by "this is just a game, who cares". Nobody cares, except the people willingly accepting the reality of presented world as the reality for the time of playing and discussing. By discussing here, I assume the people who discuss do the same, ie they try to imagine what would be the impact of their decisions as if they were real.

[Volc19]

ITT:

People who picked Control, Synthesis, or Refuse: Lets all hold hands and be friends!

People who picked Destroy: NOPE.

[MegaSovereign]

Greylycantrope wrote...

I agree with both the Hanar and Asari.

But they're all primitive.

[Richthestampede]

Pitznik wrote...

alsonamedbort wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Why bother to quote my post if you don't even answer to it?

Because it's a point that this entire thread was created to address, and one that I have already addressed in this thread.  You attach personal labels of good/evil based on choices someone makes in a game, which is completely different from real life.  You don't feel the true weight of decisions in a vacuum.  There is (hopefully) a level of detachment in a video game.  Calling someone evil because they try to defend their choice in a video game is beyond silly.

It is not completely different, those are supposed to be the same decisions you would make in real life, filtered by your character's personality. If you didn't notice, many discussions here are done without that "character personality filter", people defend their choices judging them by their own morality, not by "my Shepard's morality". The point of an RPG game is to create the illusion of your choice being real and meaningful, and discussing it makes sense only if you acknowledge it. With your logic we could end each and every arguement by "this is just a game, who cares". Nobody cares, except the people willingly accepting the reality of presented world as the reality for the time of playing and discussing. By discussing here, I assume the people who discuss do the same, ie they try to imagine what would be the impact of their decisions as if they were real.

The point of a roleplaying game is to roleplay a character, actually.  If you model your character's choices after your own and that adds to your enjoyment, then fine, but the character isn't you.  I agree that it's more fun to take the game's story seriously and to think about the consequences of your choices as if the world was real, but real to the character you're playing, not to yourself.  Claiming someone is inherently evil in real life for choosing "Sith" or "Renegade" is a bit of a stretch (although I personally choose to be primarily Paragon in games, which is neither here nor there).

[inko1nsiderate]

Pitznik wrote...

alsonamedbort wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Why bother to quote my post if you don't even answer to it?

Because it's a point that this entire thread was created to address, and one that I have already addressed in this thread.  You attach personal labels of good/evil based on choices someone makes in a game, which is completely different from real life.  You don't feel the true weight of decisions in a vacuum.  There is (hopefully) a level of detachment in a video game.  Calling someone evil because they try to defend their choice in a video game is beyond silly.

It is not completely different, those are supposed to be the same decisions you would make in real life, filtered by your character's personality. If you didn't notice, many discussions here are done without that "character personality filter", people defend their choices judging them by their own morality, not by "my Shepard's morality". The point of an RPG game is to create the illusion of your choice being real and meaningful, and discussing it makes sense only if you acknowledge it. With your logic we could end each and every arguement by "this is just a game, who cares". Nobody cares, except the people willingly accepting the reality of presented world as the reality for the time of playing and discussing. By discussing here, I assume the people who discuss do the same, ie they try to imagine what would be the impact of their decisions as if they were real.

I thought the point of an RPG was to play a role you select?  Did you not give your character in Skyrim a backstory that guided your decisions in that game?  Do you ever play Chaotic Evil, Lawful Evil, or True Neutral charactes in D&D based RPGs?  I mean, you don't have to play a character that doesn't reflect your own morality, but when I play an RPG I create a character.  That character might reflect some aspect of what I value, but more often than not my character makes choices I'd never make.  For instance, if Shepard reflected my own morals and values, she probably wouldn't have gone to Ilos, and really tried to find another way to stop Saren.  I certainly wouldn't have blow up the relay in Arrival, and I wouldn't have left Earth.  I also wouldn't have worked with Cerberus if I had learned of them in ME1.

In DA:O I have many characters who make many choices, not all of which I would deem as moral.  What I do is give each of my characters a set of reasoning, a style of decision making, that is simplistic and dumbed down from a real person but is in some sense a model of a human being that is noticably distinct from myself.

I try to imagine the impact of my decisions ingame if they were real, but I try to view them from the lens of the character I've created as opposed to my own lens.

I'd just like to make another point: understanding why someone does something, thinks something, or feels something is not the same as condoning their actions.  I can understand what leads someone to do abhorrent acts, but I will never condone those horrible acts.

Modifié par inko1nsiderate, 22 août 2012 - 06:52 .

[RadicalDisconnect]

Okay, I'm a destroyer (a reluctant one), but you treat destroy as the victimized ending? Also, I'm seeing bullshit sweeping generalizations about destroyers, controllers, synthesizers, and refusers. It's pretty absurd, but after spending some time on BSN, I honestly can't say I'm surprised.

[Hannah Montana]

Synthesis, Control and Destroy are wrong,
You would never accept candy from an old man; you would refuse.

Refusal!

[NPH11]

My favourite ending was the one where I did a thing and stuff happened.

Anyone who disagrees with me is just wrong.

[Pitznik]

Richthestampede wrote...

The point of a roleplaying game is to roleplay a character, actually.  If you model your character's choices after your own and that adds to your enjoyment, then fine, but the character isn't you.  I agree that it's more fun to take the game's story seriously and to think about the consequences of your choices as if the world was real, but real to the character you're playing, not to yourself.  Claiming someone is inherently evil in real life for choosing "Sith" or "Renegade" is a bit of a stretch (although I personally choose to be primarily Paragon in games, which is neither here nor there).

More than a stretch, pure idiocy. But if they defend their choices as a Sith as their own, then there is a problem. There is a level of defending your choices as your character, there is a level of defending your ingame choices as being real, but using your own values and morality, and there is a complete detachment, which just makes discussing pointless, unless you discuss effectiveness, builds, stuff like that, pure metagaming. Please notice tat people defendin g refusal as a valid choice often defend them according to some universal principles, not to principles of that particular Shepard.

inko1nsiderate wrote...

I thought the point of an RPG was
to play a role you select?  Did you not give your character in Skyrim a
backstory that guided your decisions in that game?  Do you ever play
Chaotic Evil, Lawful Evil, or True Neutral charactes in D&D based
RPGs?  I mean, you don't have to play a character that doesn't reflect
your own morality, but when I play an RPG I create a character.  That
character might reflect some aspect of what I value, but more often than
not my character makes choices I'd never make.  For instance, if
Shepard reflected my own morals and values, she probably wouldn't have
gone to Ilos, and really tried to find another way to stop Saren.  I
certainly wouldn't have blow up the relay in Arrival, and I wouldn't
have left Earth.  I also wouldn't have worked with Cerberus if I had
learned of them in ME1.

In DA:O I have many characters who make
many choices, not all of which I would deem as moral.  What I do is give
each of my characters a set of reasoning, a style of decision making,
that is simplistic and dumbed down from a real person but is in some
sense a model of a human being that is noticably distinct from myself.

I
try to imagine the impact of my decisions ingame if they were real, but
I try to view them from the lens of the character I've created as
opposed to my own lens.

I'd just like to make another point:
understanding why someone does something, thinks something, or feels
something is not the same as condoning their actions.  I can understand
what leads someone to do abhorrent acts, but I will never condone those
horrible acts.

There is a difference between understanding and accepting them as equally valid as yours. I don't argue against people presenting choices as "right for their Shepard", but against choices they consider universally right, but they're wrong.

I couldn't care less what ending anyone chooses from pure "suspension of desbelief dropped" perpective, but that also makes whole discussion pointless. Without suspension of disbelief, all choices are meaningless, except for how much fun you had doing them.

[Wifflebottom]

Ugh a love and tolerate thread on the internet? I guess you want the people of the world to hold hands and sing kum ba yah.

[AbnormalJoe]

...once again, the fact that this devolved into fighting about the endings... on a thread that tries to say that we should agree about different points of view of the endings.

[alsonamedbort]

Pitznik wrote...

It is not completely different, those are supposed to be the same decisions you would make in real life, filtered by your character's personality. If you didn't notice, many discussions here are done without that "character personality filter", people defend their choices judging them by their own morality, not by "my Shepard's morality". The point of an RPG game is to create the illusion of your choice being real and meaningful, and discussing it makes sense only if you acknowledge it. With your logic we could end each and every arguement by "this is just a game, who cares". Nobody cares, except the people willingly accepting the reality of presented world as the reality for the time of playing and discussing. By discussing here, I assume the people who discuss do the same, ie they try to imagine what would be the impact of their decisions as if they were real.

Well, here's where we will just have to disagree.  While people may imagine making the decisions as though they are real, there are consequences to every real-life decision that cannot possibly be appreciated fully in the context of a video game.  Even Paragon, or "right" decisions occasionally require a level of sacrifice so great that in real life it would be nearly impossible for the average person to pull the trigger.  Therefore, associating someone's video game decisions with their real-life propensity for good or evil simply is not equivalent, and my entire point is that calling someone evil for a choice they make at the end of Mass Effect 3 is silly because of this.

Clearly, you don't agree with me that it's completely different, so I doubt we'll come to an agreement on the ultimate issue either.

[Reorte]

Pitznik wrote...

Please notice tat people defendin g refusal as a valid choice often defend them according to some universal principles, not to principles of that particular Shepard.

I see that most of the time. Almost all ending discussions carry the tone of what the poster thinks is the right thing to do rather than from the point of view of roleplaying a character who isn't them (something I usually don't bother with, at least on a first playthrough where I generally play as myself, or at least the ludicrously idealised version of myself who wouldn't be hiding under a table hoping the Reapers will go away). And quite frankly it's far more interesting and meaningful discussion that way.

That said I usually make the assumption that very Renegade Shepards aren't reflective of their player, but if you're arguing from the point of view of a character who isn't you then please say so otherwise I'll assume that you're stating your own views.

[Jadebaby]

AbnormalJoe wrote...

...once again, the fact that this devolved into fighting about the endings... on a thread that tries to say that we should agree about different points of view of the endings.

The created will always rebel against the creators...

[Pitznik]

alsonamedbort wrote...

Well, here's where we will just have to disagree.  While people may imagine making the decisions as though they are real, there are consequences to every real-life decision that cannot possibly be appreciated fully in the context of a video game.  Even Paragon, or "right" decisions occasionally require a level of sacrifice so great that in real life it would be nearly impossible for the average person to pull the trigger.  Therefore, associating someone's video game decisions with their real-life propensity for good or evil simply is not equivalent, and my entire point is that calling someone evil for a choice they make at the end of Mass Effect 3 is silly because of this.

Clearly, you don't agree with me that it's completely different, so I doubt we'll come to an agreement on the ultimate issue either.

I can't really "feel" those decisions as real, that is obvious. But I can at least try to. And again, I do not call anyone evil basing on what they picked on at the end. But I call them wrong and misguided if they defend their evil decision as their own and right. I have no problem with someone making an evil decision when realizing it was evil (even if it was right and in character for their Shepard). You can do all the evil you want to in game, as long as you realize it is just a game. When you do something evil and you think it is right, then system failed somewhere.

[Pitznik]

Reorte wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Please notice tat people defendin g refusal as a valid choice often defend them according to some universal principles, not to principles of that particular Shepard.

I see that most of the time. Almost all ending discussions carry the tone of what the poster thinks is the right thing to do rather than from the point of view of roleplaying a character who isn't them (something I usually don't bother with, at least on a first playthrough where I generally play as myself, or at least the ludicrously idealised version of myself who wouldn't be hiding under a table hoping the Reapers will go away). And quite frankly it's far more interesting and meaningful discussion that way.

That said I usually make the assumption that very Renegade Shepards aren't reflective of their player, but if you're arguing from the point of view of a character who isn't you then please say so otherwise I'll assume that you're stating your own views.

Agreed in full.

[Necrotron]

No, this is the internet, a hive for scum and villainy to complain about how wretched everyone with different opinions are.

[Zaidra]

Pitznik wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Please notice tat people defendin g refusal as a valid choice often defend them according to some universal principles, not to principles of that particular Shepard.

I see that most of the time. Almost all ending discussions carry the tone of what the poster thinks is the right thing to do rather than from the point of view of roleplaying a character who isn't them (something I usually don't bother with, at least on a first playthrough where I generally play as myself, or at least the ludicrously idealised version of myself who wouldn't be hiding under a table hoping the Reapers will go away). And quite frankly it's far more interesting and meaningful discussion that way.

That said I usually make the assumption that very Renegade Shepards aren't reflective of their player, but if you're arguing from the point of view of a character who isn't you then please say so otherwise I'll assume that you're stating your own views.

Agreed in full.

+1

[AbnormalJoe]

I know this is a repost of mine, but I do believe it has relevence to the conversation here.

think about it, it's a war in which survival is the only paramount thing to go by. like Garrus says: 10 billion die so 20 billion can live. it's not right and it's not ideal but it's survival. By Destorying the reapers, you Genocide the Geth and kill off Edi, By Controling (and to some extent Synthesyzing with) the reapers ends the reaper threat, but doesn't end the fact that there are still Reapers out there and have a chance to go crazy again or start another conflict. and by refusal, you are wasting the lives of Trillions just because of the refusal of action of one man/woman.

None of the endings are Right or Ideal, but they make the galaxy survive, regardless of what you choose.

[inko1nsiderate]

Reorte wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Please notice tat people defendin g refusal as a valid choice often defend them according to some universal principles, not to principles of that particular Shepard.

I see that most of the time. Almost all ending discussions carry the tone of what the poster thinks is the right thing to do rather than from the point of view of roleplaying a character who isn't them (something I usually don't bother with, at least on a first playthrough where I generally play as myself, or at least the ludicrously idealised version of myself who wouldn't be hiding under a table hoping the Reapers will go away). And quite frankly it's far more interesting and meaningful discussion that way.

That said I usually make the assumption that very Renegade Shepards aren't reflective of their player, but if you're arguing from the point of view of a character who isn't you then please say so otherwise I'll assume that you're stating your own views.

How does assuming the ingame decisions reflect your actual morality produce interesting and 'more full' discussion?  It always ends up as a moral judging fest where one side dismisses the other as 'evil' and 'immoral'. Instead of debating these topics in the abstract, people make it personal and make it 'us vs them'.  That strikes me as the opposite of a meaningful conversation.  A meaningful conversation is discussing the morality of the endings, but not necessarily making moral judgments about the person you are discussing it with.  And that is precisely the opposite of what does happen on the BSN and is what is happening in this thread.

Modifié par inko1nsiderate, 22 août 2012 - 07:57 .

[alsonamedbort]

AbnormalJoe wrote...

I know this is a repost of mine, but I do believe it has relevence to the conversation here.

think about it, it's a war in which survival is the only paramount thing to go by. like Garrus says: 10 billion die so 20 billion can live. it's not right and it's not ideal but it's survival. By Destorying the reapers, you Genocide the Geth and kill off Edi, By Controling (and to some extent Synthesyzing with) the reapers ends the reaper threat, but doesn't end the fact that there are still Reapers out there and have a chance to go crazy again or start another conflict. and by refusal, you are wasting the lives of Trillions just because of the refusal of action of one man/woman.

None of the endings are Right or Ideal, but they make the galaxy survive, regardless of what you choose.

Alas, if only that were true, but no.  There is only one right answer, and the others are morally abhorrent/evil, and if you defend the other answers as right, then you, by proxy, are also morally abhorrent/evil.

Now doesn't that sound silly?

[Bill Casey]

alsonamedbort wrote...

Alas, if only that were true, but no.  There is only one right answer, and the others are morally abhorrent/evil, and if you defend the other answers as right, then you, by proxy, are also morally abhorrent/evil.

Now doesn't that sound silly?

Not if you've seen the choices...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 22 août 2012 - 08:08 .

[AbnormalJoe]

alsonamedbort wrote...

AbnormalJoe wrote...

I know this is a repost of mine, but I do believe it has relevence to the conversation here.

think about it, it's a war in which survival is the only paramount thing to go by. like Garrus says: 10 billion die so 20 billion can live. it's not right and it's not ideal but it's survival. By Destorying the reapers, you Genocide the Geth and kill off Edi, By Controling (and to some extent Synthesyzing with) the reapers ends the reaper threat, but doesn't end the fact that there are still Reapers out there and have a chance to go crazy again or start another conflict. and by refusal, you are wasting the lives of Trillions just because of the refusal of action of one man/woman.

None of the endings are Right or Ideal, but they make the galaxy survive, regardless of what you choose.

Alas, if only that were true, but no.  There is only one right answer, and the others are morally abhorrent/evil, and if you defend the other answers as right, then you, by proxy, are also morally abhorrent/evil.

Now doesn't that sound silly?

yes, that does sound silly, but this is an agruement for the thread's sake, and not just infighting.

however it does raise a really good question: is it evil to survive, no matter the odds? is abhorrent to run away, knowing that if you may've fought, some might've stayed alive? but this is for another thread.

each ending has it's merits, and I'd happily debate them all.

Modifié par AbnormalJoe, 22 août 2012 - 08:12 .

[V-rcingetorix]

Probably not. Remember Samara in ME2? "When three humans are in a room, there will be six opinions."

It's the way we are, especially in a hyper-literate culture.

Argue if you want. Or put another way; make your voice heard if you want to make a difference.

[Pitznik]

inko1nsiderate wrote...

How does assuming the ingame decisions reflect your actual morality produce interesting and 'more full' discussion?  It always ends up as a moral judging fest where one side dismisses the other as 'evil' and 'immoral'. Instead of debating these topics in the abstract, people make it personal and make it 'us vs them'.  That strikes me as the opposite of a meaningful conversation.  A meaningful conversation is discussing the morality of the endings, but not necessarily making moral judgments about the person you are discussing it with.  And that is precisely the opposite of what does happen on the BSN and is what is happening in this thread.

Because there is a lot of more thought and experience behind them - it is easier to think "what I would do" than "what evil me would do". Of course there is judging involved, that is what morals are about. You can't debate morals in the abstract you have to assume some viewpoint. It becomes meaningful when you find some common ground with your opponent, something you both consider right or wrong, and you can evaluate the choice according to that common principle. Without this common principle, there is only enforcement. We all here come from similar background, we all are subject to similar law, so assuming there are some common principles isn't really unlikely.