308 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

This is exactly what people ask for when they whine and demand 'moral ambiguity.' By definition, it means choices you find repulsive as portrayed just as well as ones you find good.

[Dextro Milk]

Steelcan wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Not really on topic, but the reason why Synthesis is portrayed warmly should be completely obvious.

Because it has to be. If the endings aren't portrayed roughly equally, they aren't 'morally ambiguous.'

Its portrayed warmly because galactic gene rape is so much less endearing

It's portrayed warmly because they want you to choose it over the other two. See pre-EC autodialogue pertaining to it; Shepard didn't voice a word of protest, rather, agreed that it was the "ideal solution" to the premise Shepard wasn't allowed to challenge from the character we have no reason to trust. It's the "artistic" ending (Adam and Eve! Brave New World meets End of the First Matrix!).

.  I wouldnt really know, I waited till EC to beat the game and dont remember the YouTube video of the ending I saw.

Lucky bastage.

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

This is exactly what people ask for when they whine and demand 'moral ambiguity.' By definition, it means choices you find repulsive as portrayed just as well as ones you find good.

Moral ambiguity doesn't mean that at all. That's just silly.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 24 juillet 2013 - 12:17 .

[David7204]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

David7204 wrote...

That just sounds like a plain old anti-hero to me.

Well the problem is most anti-heros tend to be brooding, and angsty, and so very emo at times. At least the majority are who aren't the creme of the crop.

My guys like rooster cogburn from true grit the remake, only not ****** drunk all the time.

They really don't. It's not a very well-used term, even by professional critics who really ought to know a lot better.

[David7204]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

David7204 wrote...

This is exactly what people ask for when they whine and demand 'moral ambiguity.' By definition, it means choices you find repulsive as portrayed just as well as ones you find good.

Moral ambiguity doesn't mean that at all. That's just silly.

Of course it does. How can a choice possibly be ambiguous if one outcome is clearly portrayed as better than the other?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

David7204 wrote...

This is exactly what people ask for when they whine and demand 'moral ambiguity.' By definition, it means choices you find repulsive as portrayed just as well as ones you find good.

Moral ambiguity doesn't mean that at all. That's just silly.

Of course it does. How can a choice possibly be ambiguous if one outcome is clearly portrayed as better than the other?

Because the morality of the action is what is desired to be ambiguous, not the consequence. Externalities happen of course, but that's a different story, and there are frankly, far, far, far too many to account for in any decision, let alone a video game.

You're also using 'moral ambiguity' as an ambiguous middle term; You're making an equivocation fallacy and a definist fallacy in doing so. You're intentionally using a phrase that is broad in its definition so that you can use it to validate your opinion. 

You're not entirely wrong, but you're nowhere near right either.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 24 juillet 2013 - 12:22 .

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

David7204 wrote...

This is exactly what people ask for when they whine and demand 'moral ambiguity.' By definition, it means choices you find repulsive as portrayed just as well as ones you find good.

Moral ambiguity doesn't mean that at all. That's just silly.

Of course it does. How can a choice possibly be ambiguous if one outcome is clearly portrayed as better than the other?

Now you're saying something completely different.


"one outcome is clearly portrayed as better than the other" is not the same as "choices you find repulsive as portrayed just as well as ones you find good."


Make up your mind.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 24 juillet 2013 - 12:23 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

David7204 wrote...

That just sounds like a plain old anti-hero to me.

Well the problem is most anti-heros tend to be brooding, and angsty, and so very emo at times. At least the majority are who aren't the creme of the crop.

My guys like rooster cogburn from true grit the remake, only not ****** drunk all the time.

They really don't. It's not a very well-used term, even by professional critics who really ought to know a lot better.

So professional critics who don't agree with you are wrong. This is interesting...

[David7204]

If the outcomes of a choice must be equal, and the player finds one option repulsive and one good, then logically, the choice the player finds repulsive will be portrayed just as well as the one the player finds good.

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

If the outcomes of a choice must be equal, and the player finds one option repulsive and one good, then logically, the choice the player finds repulsive will be portrayed just as well as the one the player finds good.

.  You should hang out with the IT crowd.

[David7204]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Yes, that's right. It's fairly commonplace. I remember the ads on AMC that touted Walter White from Breaking Bad as "TV's best anti-hero" or something like that.

Modifié par David7204, 24 juillet 2013 - 12:26 .

[David7204]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

"one outcome is clearly portrayed as better than the other" is not the same as "choices you find repulsive as portrayed just as well as ones you find good."

Make up your mind.

Uh, no. The first part was clearly a counter-example. I was saying that's exactly what moral ambiguity wasn't.

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

If the outcomes of a choice must be equal, and the player finds one option repulsive and one good, then logically, the choice the player finds repulsive will be portrayed just as well as the one the player finds good.

Not at all.

The portrayal of a choice is not at all related tot he actual outcome of a choice. They are two completely different things.

Not to mention that "finding an option repulsive" is a completely subjective thing, especially when we're dealing with actually grey choices (and not black-n-white paragon vs renegade or good vs evil bullcrap where the "good" option is always the comfortable option and the "evil" option is always the "repulsive" option).

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

"one outcome is clearly portrayed as better than the other" is not the same as "choices you find repulsive as portrayed just as well as ones you find good."

Make up your mind.

Uh, no. The first part was clearly a counter-example. I was saying that's exactly what moral ambiguity wasn't.

That's not the point. The point is that both statement aren't even related to each other. They're two completely different things.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 24 juillet 2013 - 12:30 .

[David7204]

That is just bickering over semantics. Fine. 'Portrayal,' not 'outcome.'

If the portrayal of a choice must be equal, and the player finds one option repulsive and one good, then logically, the choice the player finds repulsive will be portrayed just as well as the one the player finds good.

For a choice to be ambiguous, the narrative must portray the outcomes as roughly equal.

Modifié par David7204, 24 juillet 2013 - 12:31 .

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

That is just bickering over semantics. Fine. 'Portrayal,' not 'outcome.'

If the portrayal of a choice must be equal, and the player finds one option repulsive and one good, then logically, the choice the player finds repulsive will be portrayed just as well as the one the player finds good.

It's not just semantics David, "outcome" and "portrayal" clearly are COMPLETELY different things.


What do you mean with "portayal" anyway? Can you give an example of a morally grey dilemma in which both options are portrayed equally?

David7204 wrote...

For a choice to be ambiguous, the narrative must portray the outcomes as roughly equal. 

No, this is not true. For a choice to be ambiguous, only the options of the choice need ot be portrayed roughy equal. The outcomes have nothing to do with it. Logically, the outcomes should just be a realistic consequence to the choice made earlier.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 24 juillet 2013 - 12:35 .

[shingara]

He likes boys and girls people, that doesnt mean that what ever he picks first is dabs, sorry to tell you all this but it doesnt work like that. Just get over it, bisexual peeps like both.

Modifié par shingara, 24 juillet 2013 - 12:38 .

[David7204]

'Portrayal' is a narrative's 'opinion' on something through the use of tone, dialogue, music, and other subtle clues. Two outcomes that are functionally identical in-universe can be given completely different portrayals by the narrative.

By definition, a 'morally grey' choice requires roughly equal portrayal.

[Steelcan]

David, I have a question.

Do you think it is possible to play an anti-hero in ME? And if so, how do they differ from a renegade playthrough? You seem to have strict views on what you consider an anti-hero vs a Shepard who picks renegade options.

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

'Portrayal' is a narrative's 'opinion' on something through the use of tone, dialogue, music, and other subtle clues.

Ah, good, now I know what your view on "portrayal" is. And I can roll with that.

So now that we are on the same page, let's continue:

Two outcomes that are functionally identical in-universe can be given completely different portrayals by the narrative.

True. Mass Effect often does this. What is your point though?

By definition, a 'morally grey' choice requires roughly equal portrayal.

The choice itself, yes. But not the outcome, not necessarily.

Of course it all comes down to personal preferences and your own moral compass. A game might try to portay two options as "equal" yet you as a person might still feel that one options is "horrible"  while the other one is "acceptable".


Edit: A good example would be Joel's moral dilemma at the end of The Last of Us, and the choice he made (as opposed to the other choice he COULD have made but DIDN'T).

Of course, you probably haven't played or even seen The Last of Us, so I suppose this example (or any other example outside of Mass Effect) is futile when in a discussion with you...

Honest question: Have you ever played any other game at all outside of the Mass Effect trilogy?

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 24 juillet 2013 - 12:50 .

[DeinonSlayer]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

David7204 wrote...

By definition, a 'morally grey' choice requires roughly equal portrayal.

The choice itself, yes. But not the outcome, not necessarily.

Of course it all comes down to personal preferences and your own moral compass. A game might try to portay two options as "equal" yet you as a person might still feel that one options is "horrible"  while the other one is "acceptable".

Bhelen/Harrowmont.

I'd be curious how David would handle that, played blind.

[David7204]

Anyone questioning what 'moral ambiguity' means should consider the example of a truly outstanding show, the original Law and Order with Sam Waterson as Jack McCoy.

There really are no happy endings on the show, and no heroic characters. Every trial faces complex and mature themes. The defendants are often people with decent reasons for what they did. Very few are complete monsters with no redeeming qualities. The defense lawyers often argue well and have compelling stances. The protagonists sometimes do questionable things, and it's never portrayed as silly or frivolous like other police dramas do.

But despite all of that, the narrative doesn't hesitate to ultimately validate Jack McCoy and portray him as right. The narrative always ultimately validates that humans are creatures of free will and choice - that responsibility is the price of freedom, and a price worth paying.

Never does the narrative shrug it's shoulders in a gesture of helplessness and tell you "We give up. Nobody can be right, so everybody's wrong, including you." It doesn't refuse to be meaningful in an effort to validate every possible theory of morality in existence.

Modifié par David7204, 24 juillet 2013 - 12:54 .

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

Anyone questioning what 'moral ambiguity' means should consider the example of a truly outstanding show, the original Law and Order with Sam Waterson as Jack McCoy.

There really are no happy endings on the show, and no heroic characters. Every trial faces complex and mature themes. The defendants are often people with decent reasons for what they did. Very few are complete monsters with no redeeming qualities. The defense lawyers often argue well and have compelling stances. The protagonists sometimes do questionable things, and it's never portrayed as silly or frivolous like other police dramas do.

But despite all of that, the narrative doesn't hesitate to ultimately validate Jack McCoy and portray him as right. The narrative always ultimately validates that humans are creatures of free will and choice - that responsibility is the price of freedom, and a price worth paying.

Never does the narrative shrug it's shoulders in a gesture of helplessness and tell you "We give up. Nobody can be right, so everybody's wrong, including you."

What is your point with this?

Also, could you kindly answer my previous question?


Which other games outside of Mass Effect have you played and which games did you think were really good and which games did you think were really bad?

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 24 juillet 2013 - 12:57 .

[Steelcan]

No heroic characters? Why do you bother watching it? I thought that stories are just supposed to be conduits for displaying heroism.

[David7204]

That video games with supposed 'moral ambiguity' do so not by enriching their stories, but draining them. By simply sucking out any meaningful themes and feigning helplessness and indicision as maturity and intellect.