155 réponses à ce sujet

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

That implies that heroism and pragmatism are somehow opposed. I see no basis for that.

. Heroism tends toward idealism, trust, cooperation, and acceptance, pragmatism tends towards cynicism, Maciavellianism, suspicion, and "greater good" mentality

[Shaftell]

It's a dangerous thing to implement in games because it can ****** off the player. I think it's more effective in not as important positions in games. But when you factor this out in to the important decisions it'll throw people off negatively. Choices and consequences have to make sense for the most part. If everything gets too non linear then it'll confuse the player in my opinion.

[David7204]

I don't buy that for a moment. If two equal leaders opposed each other with compassion and trust on one end and Maciavellianism on the other on the basis to see who personally benefits the most, the former would win.

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

I don't buy that for a moment. If two equal leaders opposed each other with compassion and trust on one end and Maciavellianism on the other on the basis to see who personally benefits the most, the former would win.

.  Not in reality and not in good fiction.  

[David7204]

Oh yes. In reality. Have you studied economics? Experiments in game theory have consistently shown that compassion and trust are far more beneficial (self-serving) than Maciavellianism. Simple programs based on trust thrive, and programs that lack trust fail.

Modifié par David7204, 26 juin 2013 - 11:15 .

[AresKeith]

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

I don't buy that for a moment. If two equal leaders opposed each other with compassion and trust on one end and Maciavellianism on the other on the basis to see who personally benefits the most, the former would win.

.  Not in reality and not in good fiction.  

And that's not the case when it came to the Bhelen vs Harrowmont choice either

[Wulfram]

I think the most effective leader is one who can be ruthless and machiavellian, but only very occasionally.

If people think your word means nothing and have no confidence in your justice, then you're in trouble. And if they think you're a nasty tyrant, they'll bring you down the moment you show weakness.

Bhelen would be an utter disaster.  Someone like Anora could do OK, though.

Modifié par Wulfram, 26 juin 2013 - 11:18 .

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

Oh yes. In reality. Have you studied economics? Experiments in game theory have consistently shown that compassion and trust are far more beneficial than Maciavellianism.

.  Have you ever heard of an empire that has been succesful based on cooperation?  Look no further than Ancient Rome.  Their supreme military skills and forceful assimilation of native cultures founded an empire that lasted from 753BC to 1453AD.  They disnt get there by playing nice.

[David7204]

That's stupid. First of all, heroism does not mean that everyone has to be treated with a hug and and a smile. Shepard kills far, far, far more people than she brings together as squadmates. Because she can choose. Because you get to choose.

Obviously, not everyone in this world is a hero. Or anywhere close to anyone. The question is not whether everyone is heroic. The question is whether anyone is.

Modifié par David7204, 26 juin 2013 - 11:23 .

[Steelcan]

The British founded the largest empire ever by military conquest, colonialism, monopolistic economic exploitation, and playing their rivals on each other.

[David7204]

Don't give me that utter rubbish. The British were not evil white men coming to bestow nothing but atrocities on the poor, compassionate, loving natives of the world.

[SlottsMachine]

Can someone give me an update on Bhelen vs. Harrowmont? Why was it well done? I don't remember much about it.

NVM. I got the gist of it from the last paragraph in the OP. 

Modifié par General Slotts, 26 juin 2013 - 11:28 .

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

That's stupid. First of all, heroism does not mean that everyone has to be treated with a hug and and a smile. Shepard kills far, far, far more people than she brings together as squadmates. Because she can choose. Because you get to choose.

Obviously, not everyone in this world is a hero. Or anywhere close to anyone.

.  I dont get to choose whether I want to fight Cerberus in ME3, despite working very closely with them, even expressing a desire to have joined them earlier.

In DA your choices actually impact the support you get.  No anvil no golems.

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

Don't give me that utter rubbish. The British were not evil white men coming to bestow nothing but atrocities on the poor, compassionate, loving natives of the world.

.  I never said they were.  But they werent exactly nice guys either.  They were no better or worse than any other power such as France or America.

[David7204]

Even the most Paragon Shepard kills a great deal of people, hurts people, threatens people, manipulates people, lies to people. Being good doesn't mean you gotta be stupid and powerless.

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

Even the most Paragon Shepard kills a great deal of people, hurts people, threatens people, manipulates people, lies to people. Being good doesn't mean you gotta be stupid and powerless.

. Most of those are not paragon options.  They are renegade options.  For example, ME2 the arms dealer and Conrad Verner.  The paragon option tells Conrad the truth, the renegade option maintains the facade.

[GreyLycanTrope]

I didn't find the outcomes that surprising tbh, you had a cutthroat reformer vs a honorable traditionalist, outcome seemed fairly straight forward. Still I'm in favor of more such outcomes.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 26 juin 2013 - 11:32 .

[David7204]

Let me put it to you this way.

'Maciavellianism' means you treat every person like garbage.

'Heroism' means you treat some people like garbage.

Simple as that. Heroism does not claim that compassion and trust are always prudent. Only that compassion and trust are sometimes prudent.

Modifié par David7204, 26 juin 2013 - 11:35 .

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

Let me put it to you this way.

'Maciavellianism' means you treat every person like garbage.

'Heroism' means you treat some people like garbage.

Simple as that.

.  Machiavellian means you treat people as assets.  Have you even read the Prince?

[David7204]

Have you?

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

Have you?

.  Several times.  Nowhere in the Prince does ot say to treat everyone like garbage.  It recommends the opposite so that the people are not angry with the ruler.  Cunning and political savy are the focus, not depravity or despotism.

[Medhia Nox]

Steelcan is right about Machiavelli.

Machiavelli and Sun Tsu - the two most abused and misused thinkers by modern "thinkers".

===

Though Steelcan, I would disagree about Rome.

The fact that they allowed religion and culture to remain largely intact was a key reason why they held the vast lands that they did for so long.

Ultimately - some form of "nice" - was employed.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 26 juin 2013 - 11:46 .

[David7204]

Perhaps you shouldn't have lumped in it with 'cyancism and suspicion' instead of 'trust and cooperation' at the top of the page. Because treating people well necessitates trust and cooperation instead of cyancism and suspicion. Unless you keep your suspicion completely private and not let it affect your outward actions, I suppose. But that kind of defeats the purpose.

Modifié par David7204, 26 juin 2013 - 11:47 .

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

Perhaps you shouldn't have lumped in it with 'cyancism and suspicion' instead of 'trust and cooperation' at the top of the page. Because treating people well necessitates trust and cooperation instead of cyancism and suspicion. Unless you keep your suspicion completely private, I suppose.

 Treating people wrll does not require trust or cooperation at all.  

[David7204]

You don't think people can tell when their colleges don't trust them and become irritated or resentful? Or can tell when their colleges are unwilling to cooperate?

Modifié par David7204, 26 juin 2013 - 11:50 .