308 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

'Ambiguity' is not a theme. Shrugging our shoulders is not a theme. The story basically saying "We're helpless, we can't decide!" is not a theme.

People keep repeating that you make the choice, you make the choice. That's what the story encourages. And it doesn't. What the story encourages is the player to be in a little wonderland of staring up at the sky in slack-jawed indecision. That's clearly what's presented as maturity. As intelligence. Believe in saving the girl? You're wrong. Believe in killing the girl? You're wrong. A smart person should just twirl in circles and vaguely consider things, but never actually make a choice. A smart person just hovers around in indecision for eternity. A smart person should have the choice rolling around their head for weeks. Only a dummy would actually definitely belive in a decision, make it, and be past it.

It tries to present helplessness as maturity and intelligence. That's not something that's going to impress me.

Modifié par David7204, 24 juillet 2013 - 02:13 .

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

'Ambiguity' is not a theme. Shrugging our shoulders is not a theme. The story basically saying "We're helpless, we can't decide." is not a theme.

People keep repeating that you make the choice, you make the choice. That's what the story encourages. And it doesn't. What the story encourages is the player to be in a little wonderland of staring up at the sky in slack-jawed indecision. That's clearly what's presented as maturity. As intelligence. Believe in saving the girl? You're wrong. Believe in killing the girl? You're wrong. A smart person should just twirl in circles and vaguely consider things, but never actually make a choice. A smart person just hovers around in indecision for eternity.

What the hell are you talking about, you literally couldn't come up with an answer because you know your wrong

[Cainhurst Crow]

David7204 wrote...

'Ambiguity' is not a theme. Shrugging our shoulders is not a theme. The story basically saying "We're helpless, we can't decide!" is not a theme.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 24 juillet 2013 - 02:14 .

[Kel Riever]

EntropicAngel wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

They're not going to keep making the games (or DLC) if they're not profitable, and apparently ME3 has been consistently profitable enough---even while dealing with the ending issue---to greenlight another game. It's not really that complicated. 

YOUR LOGIC WHICH INVALIDATES MY PETTY HATE DOES NOT BELONG

this post fails at sarcasm due to not having any relevance to what is being posted.  Unless you are making fun of petty hate, on which case, petty hate is less costly to the consumer than lemming love  

Modifié par Kel Riever, 24 juillet 2013 - 02:17 .

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

'Ambiguity' is not a theme. Shrugging our shoulders is not a theme. The story basically saying "We're helpless, we can't decide!" is not a theme.

People keep repeating that you make the choice, you make the choice. That's what the story encourages. And it doesn't. What the story encourages is the player to be in a little wonderland of staring up at the sky in slack-jawed indecision. That's clearly what's presented as maturity. As intelligence. Believe in saving the girl? You're wrong. Believe in killing the girl? You're wrong. A smart person should just twirl in circles and vaguely consider things, but never actually make a choice. A smart person just hovers around in indecision for eternity. A smart person should have the choice rolling around their head for weeks. Only a dummy would actually definitely belive in a decision, make it, and be past it.

It tries to present helplessness as maturity and intelligence. That's not something that's going to impress me.

This doesn't make any sense.

Please explain how Joel actually making a decision and going with it = the story telling "we're helpless, we can't decide" and encouraging indecision?

Seriously, that doesn't make any sense. I'm looking forward to see you trying to explain this. 


Joel doesn't hover in indecision for eternity, he QUICKLY makes a decision and goes with it! Whether his decision was the RIGHT decision? That's a whole different  thing. That's where the moral ambiguity comes in and that's where the discussion starts.


If there was no moral ambiguity in this scenario with Joel, we would not be able to have a discussion about whether he did the right thing or not. It has however, NOTHING TO DO WITH INDECISION.


Edit: Long story short: Mortal ambiguity is thought-provoking. Not having moral ambiguity is NOT thought-provoking.

Personally I rather read/watch/play a story that encourages me to think than reading/watching/playing a story that doesn't require my intelligent imput at all.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 24 juillet 2013 - 02:23 .

[ruggly]

dreamgazer wrote...



I need a hero.

I'm holding out for a hero!

[wolfhowwl]

Given Joel's development of Paragon wimpitis at the end it seemed right up your alley, David.

[David7204]

That's simple. It goes right back to the crucial importance of presentation.

If the developers chose to, they could have easily portrayed Joel's decision as legitimate and right without changing a single thing in-universe. Alternatively, they could have easily portrayed it as stupid and foolish, again, without changing anything.

The fact that Joel made the decision quickly is irrelevant. What's important is that the narrative never does.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Why invaliate one side of the moral spectrum? Why can't the player decide if something is or isn't moral for themselves witbout the game forcing you to adhere to one single moral compass thst someone else has?

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

The fact that Joel made the decision quickly is irrelevant. What's important is that the narrative never does.

So basically you're saying that the fact that the narrative requires us to THINK and make up our own mind instead of  hamfisting the writer's own moral compass down our throats is a bad thing?

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 24 juillet 2013 - 02:29 .

[David7204]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Why invaliate one side of the moral spectrum? Why can't the player decide if something is or isn't moral for themselves witbout the game forcing you to adhere to one single moral compass thst someone else has?

Look at you.

You're demanding this in the name of thought provoking material, and you do it immediately on the justification that you shouldn't be 'forced to adhere' to someone else's moral compass?

Are you really this mentally weak and helpless? The thought of being exposed to someone else's ideals is so devestating for you?

[David7204]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The fact that Joel made the decision quickly is irrelevant. What's important is that the narrative never does.

So basically you're saying that the fact that the narrative requires us to THINK and make up our own mind instead of  hamfisting the writer's own moral compass down our throats is a bad thing?

I'm suggestion the storytellers presents an ideal, and you decide whether you agree with it or not.

You're suggesting the story presents ambiguitiy...because what? Because you can't handle being exposed to an ideal to may disagree with?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Are you really this mentally weak and helpless? The thought of being exposed to someone else's ideals is so devestating for you?

Reported.

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Why invaliate one side of the moral spectrum? Why can't the player decide if something is or isn't moral for themselves witbout the game forcing you to adhere to one single moral compass thst someone else has?

Look at you.

You're demanding this in the name of thought provoking material, and you do it immediately on the justification that you shouldn't be 'forced to adhere' to someone else's moral compass?

Are you really this mentally weak and helpless? The thought of being exposed to someone else's ideals is so devestating for you?

Not at all.

The only thing he asks is why you think it's necessary for the writer to push his own agenda in his story, rather than ALLOWING the player to make up his own mind by keeping things morally ambiguous?


Also, what if the writer WANTS to keep things morally ambiguous (which is the case with The Last of Us), specifically so that the player can make up his own mind? Is that such a bad thing?

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 24 juillet 2013 - 02:36 .

[shingara]

ruggly wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...



I need a hero.

I'm holding out for a hero!

I'm holding out for a hero 'til the end of the night

He's gotta be strong

And he's gotta be fast

And he's gotta be fresh from the fight

[Dextro Milk]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Are you really this mentally weak and helpless? The thought of being exposed to someone else's ideals is so devestating for you?

Reported.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

shingara wrote...

ruggly wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

I need a hero.

I'm holding out for a hero!

I'm holding out for a hero 'til the end of the night

He's gotta be strong

And he's gotta be fast

And he's gotta be fresh from the fight

Bonnie Tyler. Oh boy.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 24 juillet 2013 - 02:41 .

[Arcian]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Why invaliate one side of the moral spectrum? Why can't the player decide if something is or isn't moral for themselves witbout the game forcing you to adhere to one single moral compass thst someone else has?

Look at you.

You're demanding this in the name of thought provoking material, and you do it immediately on the justification that you shouldn't be 'forced to adhere' to someone else's moral compass?

Are you really this mentally weak and helpless? The thought of being exposed to someone else's ideals is so devestating for you?

Not at all.

The only thing he asks is why you think it's necessary for the writer to push his own agenda in his story, rather than ALLOWING the player to make up his own mind by keeping things morally ambiguous?


Also, what if the writer WANTS to keep things morally ambiguous (which is the case with The Last of Us), specifically so that the player can make up his own mind? Is that such a bad thing?

I think David is a sith, because he seems to deal only in absolutes.

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The fact that Joel made the decision quickly is irrelevant. What's important is that the narrative never does.

So basically you're saying that the fact that the narrative requires us to THINK and make up our own mind instead of  hamfisting the writer's own moral compass down our throats is a bad thing?

I'm suggestion the storytellers presents an ideal, and you decide whether you agree with it or not.

But the story in The Last of US does exactly that. Joel decides to save Ellie and we as the player have to roll with that.

But what does this mean? It means that THE WRITER decided to save Ellie, and we as the player have to roll with that. After all, the writer decides what Joel does in this case.

The writer could just as easily have decided that Joel would sacrifice Ellie for the greater good. But he didn't. For two reasons.

1) Sacrificing Ellie would go against Joel's character.

2) The writer is trying to make us think. Sacrificing Ellie seems like the obvious thing to do. After all, what is one human life in contrast to saving thousands? Yet Joel doesn't do this. He does the opposite. Why?

Yet I woul still say that the story is morally ambiguous enough that is makes us THINK and question ourselves whether Joel did or didn't do the right thing.

You're suggesting the story presents ambiguitiy...because what? Because you can't handle being exposed to an ideal to may disagree with?

I'm not interested in stories that force ideals down my throats, unless the story also shows me the opposite side, the opposite ideal, so I can make up my own mind (The Last of Us does this with Marlene as the "antagonist" who represents the opposite view).

Unlike you, I like it when stories are THOUGHT-PROVOKING and requires me to THINK.

Forcing an ideal down my throat is not something I would consider thought-provoking... not at all...

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 24 juillet 2013 - 02:51 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I don't think David wants to question whether or not he did the right the thing, even if positive circumstances (or negative circumstances) abound from that decision. Same for games that do that even without the players involvement.

Which is really what moral ambiguity is all about.

It doesn't mean ambiguous and even consequences. It means wondering if the means justify the ends.

And he's arguing against that.

Since the player shouldn't be punished for doing what he thinks is right.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 24 juillet 2013 - 02:49 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

Arcian wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Why invaliate one side of the moral spectrum? Why can't the player decide if something is or isn't moral for themselves witbout the game forcing you to adhere to one single moral compass thst someone else has?

Look at you.

You're demanding this in the name of thought provoking material, and you do it immediately on the justification that you shouldn't be 'forced to adhere' to someone else's moral compass?

Are you really this mentally weak and helpless? The thought of being exposed to someone else's ideals is so devestating for you?

Not at all.

The only thing he asks is why you think it's necessary for the writer to push his own agenda in his story, rather than ALLOWING the player to make up his own mind by keeping things morally ambiguous?


Also, what if the writer WANTS to keep things morally ambiguous (which is the case with The Last of Us), specifically so that the player can make up his own mind? Is that such a bad thing?

I think David is a sith, because he seems to deal only in absolutes.

I think he's a badly written jedi, since all he does is play moral high ground while never justifying why his morals are so much better thsn the othersides morals,  outside of because there needs to be a hard right and hard wrong side in the narrative. 

[CronoDragoon]

Goddamn LoU spoilers.

[Iakus]

All this talk about The Last of Us is kind of pointless, as the player cannot in any way affect Joel's choices. And in ME3, they're trying to get the player to make one.

Unfortunately, when all the choices are bad, there's not much ambiguity. There's only what you're willing to permit.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David's argument's on morals rely too much on fallacies.

1. Mind Projection Fallacies

2. Moral High Ground Fallacies

3. Moralistic, or Naturalist Fallacies

Fallacies! Fallacies! Everywhere!

Don't get me wrong, a lot of people, especially the chronically paragon types, and yes, even you iakus (even though you're a bro) makes this one a lot I've noticed.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 24 juillet 2013 - 03:00 .

[Steelcan]

iakus wrote...

All this talk about The Last of Us is kind of pointless, as the player cannot in any way affect Joel's choices. And in ME3, they're trying to get the player to make one.

Unfortunately, when all the choices are bad, there's not much ambiguity. There's only what you're willing to permit.

.  None of the endings are portrayed explicitly as bad, they all have benefits and drawbacks.