416 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

The Theory of Narrative Causality dictates that in a story with clear heroic themes, they do. Or nearly always do.

Modifié par David7204, 05 juin 2013 - 12:47 .

[Megaton_Hope]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

I think we'd see more informed discussion of such things if people had to pay attention and make up their own minds about what was right or wrong on these points instead of sleepwalking through it, clicking the same spot on the wheel and idly absorbing whatever stance Shepard spouts without thought. As was said earlier in this thread, a lot of discussion like that was spurred by DA:O, which lacked the simplistic paragon/renegade karma system.

It didn't lack a plus/minus polarity on your actions, it just didn't present them in the same way. Morrigan likes it when you bully priests and villagers, act in a greedy or self-serving way, or are generally not very nice. Wynne and Leliana like it when you support the Chantry and are helpful and courteous to people you meet along the way. The main wild cards are Sten, who has a bizarre moral code based around stubbornness, and Shale, who is completely self-serving.

Of course, you can also mollify people for almost all the things they disapprove of through bribery or lying, so there's that.

[DeinonSlayer]

David7204 wrote...

You know, I'd be a lot more willing to hear you out if you weren't continually making a very ridiculous implication that players are somehow doing something wrong for wanting to be 'good' and trusting that the ethics of the narrative will agree with their own.

I play nearly fully Paragon. I play as a 'good' character for pretty much any game I play.

That is not "sleepwalking through it"

That is not "idly absorbing whatever stance Shepard spouts without thought.

I never would have guessed.

People have different definitions of "good." Morality is subjective. Playing as a "good" character isn't sleepwalking if you actively seek out the option which best conforms with your morality. Clicking the same part of the dialogue wheel every single time in full confidence that it won't come back to bite you, however, is.

The narrative would be easier to take seriously if the universe didn't bend over backwards to assure that idealism and blind trust is never misplaced or taken advantage of, 95% of the time.

Scramble the placement of dialogue. Remove the "morality meter," and let the player's judgement of the results speak for whether a decision was right or wrong. Bhelen vs Harrowmont is a classic example - it's contentious to this day. Metagaming says Bhelen produces the best outcome for the dwarves; but in practice the guy is a scumbag.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 05 juin 2013 - 12:57 .

[Kataphrut94]

David7204 wrote...

Kataphrut94 wrote...

The biggest problem for me was how they took what was a fairly unique and interesting idea for a morality system - you are always the hero, but you can either be a generic hero or an anti-hero - and completely bastardized it by tying it into arbitrary faction choices that didn't make sense. Paragon and Renegade didn't mean idealist vs cynic in Mass Effect 1; it meant tolerant vs racist. In Mass Effect 2, it meant pro-Alliance vs pro-Cerberus. In both cases, it made the Renegade look like a moron because they were arguing things that were completely irrational.

Mass Effect 3 was the first game to do it right because it made the sensible decision that you were always tolerant pro-Alliance (as you should be) and could make the choices actually be about what they were always supposed to be. The genophage cure decision is still to my mind the best example of an ideal Renegade decision; ethically dubious, uncomfortable to execute, but ultimately done for the greater good and having the capacity to provide a good (or even best) outcome.

I don't really think you're going to have be able to have a game full of opposite choices and have them both be smart. That sounds like a pretty blatant contradiction. 

Not necessarily. Again, look at the genophage cure situation. They're opposite choices that run on different ideologies, but they are both equally valid and reward consistency. A Paragon player gets the best result from curing the genophage because the choices they made up to that point have made it more viable, while the opposite is true for Renegades. It's only a loss if you flip-flop.

The paragon/renegade system has good potential behind it, but it shouldn't be used if they can't keep it balanced. To do that, they need to stop inserting cruft like the pro-human agenda and simply let it be about how you approach a situation. Mass Effect 3 was the best execution so far, so I'd be willing to give it another go.

[DeinonSlayer]

Megaton_Hope wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

I think we'd see more informed discussion of such things if people had to pay attention and make up their own minds about what was right or wrong on these points instead of sleepwalking through it, clicking the same spot on the wheel and idly absorbing whatever stance Shepard spouts without thought. As was said earlier in this thread, a lot of discussion like that was spurred by DA:O, which lacked the simplistic paragon/renegade karma system.

It didn't lack a plus/minus polarity on your actions, it just didn't present them in the same way. Morrigan likes it when you bully priests and villagers, act in a greedy or self-serving way, or are generally not very nice. Wynne and Leliana like it when you support the Chantry and are helpful and courteous to people you meet along the way. The main wild cards are Sten, who has a bizarre moral code based around stubbornness, and Shale, who is completely self-serving.

Of course, you can also mollify people for almost all the things they disapprove of through bribery or lying, so there's that.

And there are situations where I find myself agreeing with certain characters more than others. I thought the priestess in Lothering harrassing the merchant was being a shrill pain in the ass (Morrigan approves). That said, I'm not going to torment the guy whose wife was turned into a werewolf (Morrigan disapproves). Morality is still measured in that sense, but roleplaying is enhanced by it - whereas in ME2, for instance, you have to hug one side of the wheel just to be able to pass persuasion checks.

[David7204]

I have absolutely no interest in a story that simply removes any themes of morality under the guise of 'morality is subjective' because someone might disagree. I have absolutely no interest in a story that refuses to have any meaningful content because anything other than neutrality might send the audience a message.

Sending a message doesn't make a story worse. It makes it better. It doesn't surpress discussion, it fosters it. A story is going to have a message, and that's the end of it. Being a video game doesn't change it. If you don't like the message, you aren't obligated to read or watch or play the story. 

Modifié par David7204, 05 juin 2013 - 01:07 .

[David7204]

Kataphrut94 wrote...

Not necessarily. Again, look at the genophage cure situation. They're opposite choices that run on different ideologies, but they are both equally valid and reward consistency. A Paragon player gets the best result from curing the genophage because the choices they made up to that point have made it more viable, while the opposite is true for Renegades. It's only a loss if you flip-flop.

The conclusion for a Paragon arc is much, much warmer than the Renegade arc. Are you so sure the narrative portrays them as 'equally valid'?

Modifié par David7204, 05 juin 2013 - 01:09 .

[Steelcan]

I feel like Im the only person who had no issues with ME2's morality system

[AresKeith]

Steelcan wrote...

I feel like Im the only person who had no issues with ME2's morality system

No your not, I think ME2 did it better out of the three

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

Kataphrut94 wrote...

Not necessarily. Again, look at the genophage cure situation. They're opposite choices that run on different ideologies, but they are both equally valid and reward consistency. A Paragon player gets the best result from curing the genophage because the choices they made up to that point have made it more viable, while the opposite is true for Renegades. It's only a loss if you flip-flop.

The conclusion for a Paragon arc is much, much warmer than the Renegade arc. Are you so sure the narrative portrays them as 'equally valid'?

yeah.  Full on renegade actually gets some nice conversations and gets slightly more war assets.  it just isnt warm and fuzzy

[DeinonSlayer]

David7204 wrote...

I have absolutely no interest in a story that simply removes any themes of morality under the guise of 'morality is subjective' because someone might disagree. I have absolutely no interest in a story that refuses to have any meaningful content because anything other than neutrality might send the audience a message.

Sending a message doesn't make a story worse. It makes it better. It doesn't surpress discussion, it fosters it. A story is going to have a message, and that's the end of it. Being a video game doesn't change it. If you don't like the message, you aren't obligated to read or watch or play the story. 

Morality and meaning isn't "removed." It's presented for discussion without nudging people to any particular side. Not sure if you're into fanfic, but you might find the Uplifted series interesting.

Do you really need a big, blue bar validating your actions (or, rather, validating your adherence to the morality of whoever decided what should be blue), or do you believe yourself capable of making your own decisions unassisted and standing by them? Given your strong adherence to your personal viewpoints, I'd think you'd fit the latter - even if people disagree with you.

I don't think you saw this post earlier in the thread, David, but it's worth looking into. You seem to be taking a different approach to this than many other people here. It's your insistence that those who don't see it as you do are "wrong" which leads to conflict.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 05 juin 2013 - 01:17 .

[David7204]

I'm not talking the bar. I'm not talking about points. I'm talking about much deeper things. Dialogue, music, camerawork. All of that works together to establish a tone. Such as in Mordin's sacrifice. I don't give a damn about the bar, but I sure as hell care about all the other stuff.

Yes, I expect the ethics of the story to agree with my own. It's not about 'need,' it's about spending time with content that appeals to you. Stories do not have an obligation to please everyone. If the stories ethics clash with my own, I'm not going to consider the story well written, and I'll move on to something else.

Modifié par David7204, 05 juin 2013 - 01:20 .

[DeinonSlayer]

David7204 wrote...

I'm not talking the bar. I'm not talking about points. I'm talking about much deeper things. Dialogue, music, camerawork. All of that works together to establish a tone. Such as in Mordin's sacrifice. I don't give a damn about the bar, but I sure as hell care about all the other stuff.

And I'm not suggesting that that be removed. Only the aspect of outside judgement. Leave all the options the same for all I care - just hide the bar and make people look for what they want to say on the dialogue wheel. Don't let people coast on autopilot, clicking the same part of the wheel again and again. Make them pay attention and think about the story.

I guarantee there would be fewer people turning Wreav loose on the galaxy.

...and, as much as I disagree with it, more people punching Gerrel.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 05 juin 2013 - 01:23 .

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

I'm not talking the bar. I'm not talking about points. I'm talking about much deeper things. Dialogue, music, camerawork. All of that works together to establish a tone. Such as in Mordin's sacrifice. I don't give a damn about the bar, but I sure as hell care about all the other stuff.  

.  Mordin being shot is a much more powerful scene IMO.

[Nole]

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

I'm not talking the bar. I'm not talking about points. I'm talking about much deeper things. Dialogue, music, camerawork. All of that works together to establish a tone. Such as in Mordin's sacrifice. I don't give a damn about the bar, but I sure as hell care about all the other stuff.  

.  Mordin being shot is a much more powerful scene IMO.

WTF are you insane?

[David7204]

No, that's exactly what you're suggesting. Making accusations that the story 'bends over backwards' for 'good' players? The implication is clear: Good choices need to lead to worse outcomes.

[xlegionx]

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

I'm not talking the bar. I'm not talking about points. I'm talking about much deeper things. Dialogue, music, camerawork. All of that works together to establish a tone. Such as in Mordin's sacrifice. I don't give a damn about the bar, but I sure as hell care about all the other stuff.  

.  Mordin being shot is a much more powerful scene IMO.

Tali killing Legion or Tali commiting suicide were also much more powerful scenes than the peace scene

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

No, that's exactly what you're suggesting. Making accusations that the story 'bends over backwards' for 'good' players? The implication is clear: Good choices need to lead to worse outcomes.

itd be nice for that naivete to bite down the road.

[David7204]

No, it wouldn't.

I'm amazed that people can talk up Citadel and MEHEM all day long and then argue this.

Modifié par David7204, 05 juin 2013 - 01:30 .

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

No, it wouldn't.

I'm amazed that people can talk up Citadel and MEHEM all day long and then argue this.

[DeinonSlayer]

David7204 wrote...

No, that's exactly what you're suggesting. Making accusations that the story 'bends over backwards' for 'good' players? The implication is clear: Good choices need to lead to worse outcomes.

It's a more compelling moral question for the player when they know blind faith won't consistently be rewarded.

For example, in DA:O, there's a "third option" at the end of the Redcliffe quest. You can kill Connor, sacrifice Isolde, or if you saved the mages, take a week to ride to the Circle Tower and back to recruit their aid instead.

What would you say if taking this third option led to Redcliffe Village once again came under assault by undead, thanks to the Warden's compulsive need to save everyone overriding expediency in a time-sensitive situation?

Catch-22's are more interesting than floating along, confident in the knowledge that nothing bad will ever come of doing the same thing every time. One of my most interesting ME2 playthroughs had Shepard sacrifice half of the Normandy crew to prevent the Batarian bombing of Watson - stopping the immediate threat of the missiles and saving the colony took priority over an immediate rescue of the crew. Likewise, one of my most interesting ME3 playthroughs of the Genophage arc had both Wreav and Eve alive.

Both situations are avoidable, but (IMO) it's more interesting when such things happen than when they don't.

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

No, it wouldn't.

I'm amazed that people can talk up Citadel and MEHEM all day long and then argue this.

.  How so?

[David7204]

You don't see any contradiction in people praising MEHEM because it gives them a happy ending because 'Shepard deserved better' and then arguing that doing that right thing should lead to worse outcomes?

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

You don't see any contradiction in people praising MEHEM because it gives them a happy ending because 'Shepard deserved better' and then arguing that doing that right thing should lead to worse outcomes?

.  Ive never seen it, I avoid MEHEM threads.  but it seemed to me like you'd like it, it is all about heroism