1007 réponses à ce sujet

[Bionuts]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Is there some better alternate form of behavior you think humanity should emulate realistically? And what are your views on nature and the animal world?

Just curious.

No one is perfect, but people would do good to take a small interest in the well-being of others. Not simply strangers, but perhaps people need to work on themselves much more before taking on higher responsibilities as marriage, or having children. Most people are not ready for the type of selflessness those things demand.

[Bionuts]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

1 trillion dollars eh? Does it come with or without a golden unicorn that farts daimonds? Or maybe a magical leprichan who will dance and sing songs of the old country?

Than there's another question of what will that money be used for? Like say a person uses it to fund aids and cancer research to try and cure those disease, or uses it to fund humanitarian efforts? If the money saves more lives than one, is there a balance that takes place?

None of those things exist. 1 trillion dollars does, however.

There is naught for which I could use the money personally. I would push the button, because I would use it for my family. I could use it to help people get to college. If I knew how to handle that amount of money, then the possibities are high.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Bionuts wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

1 trillion dollars eh? Does it come with or without a golden unicorn that farts daimonds? Or maybe a magical leprichan who will dance and sing songs of the old country?

Than there's another question of what will that money be used for? Like say a person uses it to fund aids and cancer research to try and cure those disease, or uses it to fund humanitarian efforts? If the money saves more lives than one, is there a balance that takes place?

None of those things exist. 1 trillion dollars does, however.

There is naught for which I could use the money personally. I would push the button, because I would use it for my family. I could use it to help people get to college. If I knew how to handle that amount of money, then the possibities are high.

1 trillion dollars isn't an amount of money that one can simply write out ona check, or transfer electronically. It's too big an amount, and physcially having it would require a storage unit worth of space.

For all intensive purposes, 1 trillion dollars might as well be 100 tons of any loose small or loose substance, seeing it all together in a single package would not be something many could realistically imagine.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Bionuts wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Is there some better alternate form of behavior you think humanity should emulate realistically? And what are your views on nature and the animal world?

Just curious.

No one is perfect, but people would do good to take a small interest in the well-being of others. Not simply strangers, but perhaps people need to work on themselves much more before taking on higher responsibilities as marriage, or having children. Most people are not ready for the type of selflessness those things demand.

I find most of those things very vauge and not easy to define examples, with no real clear indication of what a person should do. Basically, it's just saying "people should be better, and the way to do that is to be better". To be perfectly honest, we're the most empathetic species on this planet as far as I have seen, so saying that humanity is so horrible and so monsterous(the vibe I am getting from your post, not a word for word quote), is an over-exageration and a under-appreciation of how much more we are compared to other such species.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Well, this has been fun, but I do need to be getting off soon.

So aloha and sayonara, this talk was very informative, for all the intents and purposes it served.

[Bionuts]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I find most of those things very vauge and not easy to define examples, with no real clear indication of what a person should do. Basically, it's just saying "people should be better, and the way to do that is to be better". To be perfectly honest, we're the most empathetic species on this planet as far as I have seen, so saying that humanity is so horrible and so monsterous(the vibe I am getting from your post, not a word for word quote), is an over-exageration and a under-appreciation of how much more we are compared to other such species.

People should learn how to be more responsible for their actions. People constantly trivialize the things they do even when they have a significant effect on others. People are, for the most, largely selfish. Even when it does have negative effects on the people they claim to love. It would be best for people to learn to live happily with themselves than to drag others into their mess. This is the common situation.

I've been in the middle of it all. In different neighborhoods, churches, schools, families, etc.

However, this is probably not the best place for this kind of conversation,

[Arcian]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Well, this has been fun, but I do need to be getting off soon.

So aloha and sayonara, this talk was very informative, for all the intents and purposes it served.

Hey, Maggie, you forgot adios, ciao and auf wiedersehen.

(kudos to you if you manage to figure that out)

[BaladasDemnevanni]

David7204 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

The problem is that "Renegade" morality essentially bases itself in consequentialism: that whatever action produces the best consequences/state of the world is the best action. But Paragon decisions often lead to better outcomes than Renegade decisions, even though Renegade decisions don't "backfire" necessarily. This leads to - in hindsight - Renegades constantly being wrong. There are a few decisions that go against this - like Tuchanka - but Tuchanka has the benefit of never having to show which moral side was correct.

That just isn't true at all. Paragon choices are just as concerned about the future as Renegade ones.

Yes, it overall shows that Renegades are wrong.

And this is exactly why I never hope to see you in game design.

I'd rather not have the only role-playing choices presented to my character be whether I want to be a competent hero or an incompetent hero. At the least, it goes against the "Many choices, none of them easy" tagline from ME1's trailer.

The goal of the morality system should be to introduce players to the benefits/negatives associated with blind optimism (Paragon) or Ruthless Efficiency (Renegade).

[BaladasDemnevanni]

EntropicAngel wrote...

wiggles89 wrote...

How is that a negative consequence given that the Reapers acquired rachni thralls irrespective of whether you killed the queen?

Because as far as the game world exists, my decision to save her results in her being captured again. Your point is a metagame point.

Right, but the OP's point is a metagame point, so it still applies. We're not simply characters in an RPG, we are also players and as players can still critique the game's handling of certain aspects.

The Rachni Decision doesn't apply because the best scenario is only available to Paragon Players of ME1.

[Fixers0]

In all honesty I think it's a rather long time ago when the trilogy was still about choice and player freedom.

[Xilizhra]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

David7204 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

The problem is that "Renegade" morality essentially bases itself in consequentialism: that whatever action produces the best consequences/state of the world is the best action. But Paragon decisions often lead to better outcomes than Renegade decisions, even though Renegade decisions don't "backfire" necessarily. This leads to - in hindsight - Renegades constantly being wrong. There are a few decisions that go against this - like Tuchanka - but Tuchanka has the benefit of never having to show which moral side was correct.

That just isn't true at all. Paragon choices are just as concerned about the future as Renegade ones.

Yes, it overall shows that Renegades are wrong.

And this is exactly why I never hope to see you in game design.

I'd rather not have the only role-playing choices presented to my character be whether I want to be a competent hero or an incompetent hero. At the least, it goes against the "Many choices, none of them easy" tagline from ME1's trailer.

The goal of the morality system should be to introduce players to the benefits/negatives associated with blind optimism (Paragon) or Ruthless Efficiency (Renegade).

It's not about blind optimism and never was. It's about measured optimism.

However, one thing that would also work is galactic harmony vs. human dominance.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Xilizhra wrote...

It's not about blind optimism and never was. It's about measured optimism.

However, one thing that would also work is galactic harmony vs. human dominance.

Measured optimism, blind optimism, whichever, etc. Either works, but my point is: the goal should be to demonstrate how Paragon or Renegade can succeed or fail, in various situations.

The Paragon approach relies substantially more on faith in human decency. The flaws of this can be seen by showing the audience what happens when a player's faith/optimism is misused.

The Renegade approach relies on risk mitigation, by pre-emptively removing the problem (consequentialism). The flaws of this can be shown to the audience by demonstrating scenarios where Renegade violence/brutality overlooks the potential for other, optimum solutions.

David's point prevents this. Renegade exists solely to be incompetent, in comparison to Paragon.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 17 août 2013 - 11:15 .

[Xilizhra]

Measured optimism, blind optimism, whichever, etc. Either works, but my point is: the goal should be to demonstrate how Paragon or Renegade can succeed or fail, in various situations.

Paragon fails at creating human supremacy. Does that work?

My preference is for them to both be competent, just aimed at different goals (Paragon being galactic harmony and redemption, Renegade being human supremacy and slaying everyone who's ever crossed you).

[Br3admax]

Why should we be forced to human supremacist? What if we just hate humans? What if we hate everything? And why does this matter when hardly any of the game even affects the Alliance or humans in general?

[Xilizhra]

Then you may wish to request dropping the karma meters completely.

[Br3admax]

We aren't Jedi, so I don't really care. It's a horrible way to set a character's personality anyway. One of the things that I like about DA is the complete lack of a morality system.

[silverexile17s]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

It's not about blind optimism and never was. It's about measured optimism.

However, one thing that would also work is galactic harmony vs. human dominance.

Measured optimism, blind optimism, whichever, etc. Either works, but my point is: the goal should be to demonstrate how Paragon or Renegade can succeed or fail, in various situations.

The Paragon approach relies substantially more on faith in human decency. The flaws of this can be seen by showing the audience what happens when a player's faith/optimism is misused.

The Renegade approach relies on risk mitigation, by pre-emptively removing the problem (consequentialism). The flaws of this can be shown to the audience by demonstrating scenarios where Renegade violence/brutality overlooks the potential for other, optimum solutions.

David's point prevents this. Renegade exists solely to be incompetent, in comparison to Paragon.

The above view on Paragons should be especaly true since most of the time, we aren't dealing with other humans. Mordin Solus gives exposition on this during his loyalty mission in ME2 -- expecting human nature-based responces from aliens with completely different cultural and sociatal backgrounds, like the Krogan, or Turians, or Asari isn't always a good ideal, as cultural misconceptions can potentally cause a massive backfire. You need to apeal to their different cultures and remember that human nature isn't always translated exactally the same between species, as some evolved to be more strict (turian), leaniant (asari), logical (salarian), or selfish (krogan) then the avarage human. A balance of paragon and renagade is needed to either repel, stand firm or mituagte the emotional factors of each individual race.

[Red Panda]

EntropicAngel wrote...

So Rana Thanoptis did NOT, in fact, turn out to be indoctrinated? And Balak did NOT, in fact, end up hurting other people? And my decision to let the Rachni go did NOT result in them being turned again by the Reapers?


I hate this topic. Sorry Darth, not blaming you, but it's old, old, old.

The war assets disagree.

[Xilizhra]

The above view on Paragons should be especaly true since most of the time, we aren't dealing with other humans. Mordin Solus gives exposition on this during his loyalty mission in ME2 -- expecting human nature-based responces from aliens with completely different cultural and sociatal backgrounds, like the Krogan, or Turians, or Asari isn't always a good ideal, as cultural misconceptions can potentally cause a massive backfire. You need to apeal to their different cultures and remember that human nature isn't always translated exactally the same between species, as some evolved to be more strict (turian), leaniant (asari), logical (salarian), or selfish (krogan) then the avarage human. A balance of paragon and renagade is needed to either repel, stand firm or mituagte the emotional factors of each individual race.

They can adapt, or at least Paragon does. A Paragon response to a despondent krogan is basically insulting him until he's angry enough to prove you wrong.

[AlanC9]

Xilizhra wrote...

Measured optimism, blind optimism, whichever, etc. Either works, but my point is: the goal should be to demonstrate how Paragon or Renegade can succeed or fail, in various situations.

Paragon fails at creating human supremacy. Does that work?

My preference is for them to both be competent, just aimed at different goals (Paragon being galactic harmony and redemption, Renegade being human supremacy and slaying everyone who's ever crossed you).

A lot of the existing P/R options don't fit that scheme. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, but that would mean less P/R points awarded. I don't care since I don't like karma meters in the first place.

Modifié par AlanC9, 18 août 2013 - 12:08 .

[David7204]

I've stated this before, and I think it's time to re-iterate.

Removing the Paragon and Renegade meters would do very little to remove the narrative's portrayal of choices as 'good' and 'bad.' Most of that is done with subtle cues through dialogue, music, camerawork, and other clues. All of that would (and should) still be completely intact.

[Xilizhra]

David7204 wrote...

I've stated this before, and I think it's time to re-iterate.

Removing the Paragon and Renegade meters would do very little to remove the narrative's portrayal of choices as 'good' and 'bad.' Most of that is done with subtle cues through dialogue, music, camerawork, and other clues. All of that would (and should) still be completely intact.

I don't disagree, but it would remove complaints about philosophical inconsistency.

[CynicalShep]

David7204 wrote...

I've stated this before, and I think it's time to re-iterate.

Removing the Paragon and Renegade meters would do very little to remove the narrative's portrayal of choices as 'good' and 'bad.' Most of that is done with subtle cues through dialogue, music, camerawork, and other clues. All of that would (and should) still be completely intact.

Just making sure: are you talking about the ME1&ME2 paragon/system or the ME3 one?