EntropicAngel wrote...
DeathScepter wrote...
dedciated paragon players should be greatful that I am not a Mass Effect writer. I can be a cyncial ass and I do have bad days.
"Dedicated" paragon players don't care.
We don't do what we do because it doesn't backfire. We do it because we think it's right. We're more than ready to take backlash for it.
The people you're talking about are wannabe Paragons.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
EntropicAngel wrote...
StreetMagic wrote...
I think when they pull stuff like that too much, it makes it no better than one of those cheesy Bible games for fundies, meant to instruct kids in "right morals". Bioware inadvertently gets involved in the business of ethical instruction.
It's only fitting though. They go pretty far in trying to make Synthesis and the singularity as more unquestionable than they really are. So not only do they have a moral agenda, but a religious one too. Read up on transhumanist/futurist literature and it starts coming off like an actual religion. And Bioware uses their game as a vehicle for all of this. I kind of think they themselves didn't take it as seriously and just tried to copy some typical themes with the subject, but the overall message implied still disturbs me.
This is really hilarious, considering Bioware has jumped on every social justice bandwagon that comes along--and you're calling them Biblical? Hardly.
Modifié par StreetMagic, 16 août 2013 - 08:02 .
Astartes Marine wrote...
You're asking the wrong dev I think. Bioware games have always seemed like light/paragon = good while dark/renegade = bad.
To be fair though the ME games there were a fair amount of renegade sequences that were not inherently bad, just more Dirty Harry styled.
Like in KotOR their was light=good and dark=bad where the Obsidian developed KotOR II had grey areas added and even then light "does not always equal" good as Kreia shows you when you give money to a beggar and moments later that same beggar is assaulted and possibly killed for said money. That was a good system as you had to think about your actions more than just "is this a light/dark option" and intstead "is this just the right thing for me to be doing".
I do like that kind of system more and I would certainly like to see BioWare implement more grey areas into the morality system, less black and white.
leslie2233 wrote...
Astartes Marine wrote...
You're asking the wrong dev I think. Bioware games have always seemed like light/paragon = good while dark/renegade = bad.
To be fair though the ME games there were a fair amount of renegade sequences that were not inherently bad, just more Dirty Harry styled.
Like in KotOR their was light=good and dark=bad where the Obsidian developed KotOR II had grey areas added and even then light "does not always equal" good as Kreia shows you when you give money to a beggar and moments later that same beggar is assaulted and possibly killed for said money. That was a good system as you had to think about your actions more than just "is this a light/dark option" and intstead "is this just the right thing for me to be doing".
I do like that kind of system more and I would certainly like to see BioWare implement more grey areas into the morality system, less black and white.
But in KOTOR you could become the sith lord.
David7204 wrote...
If heroism is meaningful, then 'good' choices logically need to lead to the best outcome.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
DeathScepter wrote...
how big of a backlash do you want? I can go quite big.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
StreetMagic wrote...
I didn't say they're biblical. I'm saying it's no different than those biblically themed games that reward certain moral actions.
Being preachy is the same no matter if it's biblilcal or not. I don't care where it comes from. Just that they're doing it all is lame.
EntropicAngel wrote...
Darth Brotarian wrote...
Shouldn't heroism be about doing something, even if the cost is utter destruction for yourself? You know, stadning up for others at your own cost, getting what you want through suffering, dying with your head held high and dignity in tact knowing you fought for what you believed in?
Not just about doing things and getting rewarded for it?
Bingo--this is why I love Destroy so much. It separates the Paragons from the posers.
/hipster
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Bionuts wrote...
Sometimes in life you got to move away from your own pride, ego, self-righteousness, and realize that sacrifices need to be made. Even if they go against your morals.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
EntropicAngel wrote...
StreetMagic wrote...
I didn't say they're biblical. I'm saying it's no different than those biblically themed games that reward certain moral actions.
Being preachy is the same no matter if it's biblilcal or not. I don't care where it comes from. Just that they're doing it all is lame.
And being preachy in the opposite direction, as KotOR II was to a fault, is that any different?
Modifié par StreetMagic, 16 août 2013 - 08:17 .
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
AlanC9 wrote...
You sure you don't mean Refuse?
EntropicAngel wrote...
Definitely not. Refuse is condemning the galaxy to repeat the cycle over and over again.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
CronoDragoon wrote...
That may be so, but Darth's description definitely sounds more like a Refuser than a Destroyer to me.
EntropicAngel wrote...
This is always the question, though--do they need to be made?
Do you NEED to kill Fist, a two-bit criminal? Why?
That's the problem with a statement like "need"--it can be awfully hard to justify.
That said, I do agree about the ned of the series, and I believe any true Paragon will realize that the cost of one species to end the cycle--the eternal cycle--is truly a necessity.
EntropicAngel wrote...
I wouldn't agree--there's a difference between blind idealism and being idealistic yet understanding reality.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Bionuts wrote...
It depends on your goal. Are prisons really NEEDED? If there is no goal, then no, but if you want to minimize criminal behaviour, and keep the area safe? Yes.
Fist set a trap for Tali, was trying to kill you, and is considered to be a somewhat dangerous person. I don't know what happens if you let him live, but that's really besides the point. He's a murderer, criminal, and tried to kill you (an alliance soldier). If your goal is to minimize crime, then his life should be forfeit, or in bars for the rest of his life.
CronoDragoon wrote...
EntropicAngel wrote...
I wouldn't agree--there's a difference between blind idealism and being idealistic yet understanding reality.
Then ultimately Darth's statement will apply to any ending equally, depending to what degree the player believes in choosing it. If I decide that losing my humanity to prevent both current and future mass destruction is worth the cost, then Control is as heroic as any other ending. If I decide that autonomy must be preserved at any cost, then Destroy is. Etc.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
Darth Brotarian wrote...
CronoDragoon wrote...
EntropicAngel wrote...
I wouldn't agree--there's a difference between blind idealism and being idealistic yet understanding reality.
Then ultimately Darth's statement will apply to any ending equally, depending to what degree the player believes in choosing it. If I decide that losing my humanity to prevent both current and future mass destruction is worth the cost, then Control is as heroic as any other ending. If I decide that autonomy must be preserved at any cost, then Destroy is. Etc.
Pretty much. But heroism is not a game of doing good things to get good rewards. There's a reason it's called the road less traveled, and that shouldn't be forgotten.
I feel david does a diservice to heroism whenever he tries to push his views of it on others as if he knows the one true way in which all heros should be and act.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
CronoDragoon wrote...
Then ultimately Darth's statement will apply to any ending equally, depending to what degree the player believes in choosing it. If I decide that losing my humanity to prevent both current and future mass destruction is worth the cost, then Control is as heroic as any other ending. If I decide that autonomy must be preserved at any cost, then Destroy is. Etc.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Darth Brotarian wrote...
Pretty much. But heroism is not a game of doing good things to get good rewards. There's a reason it's called the road less traveled, and that shouldn't be forgotten.
I feel david does a diservice to heroism whenever he tries to push his views of it on others as if he knows the one true way in which all heros should be and act.
Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 16 août 2013 - 08:46 .
EntropicAngel wrote...
Part of the problem is that we can't really send people to prison in ME (barring Brooks). It's either end their life irreversably (death is final, something that gives me pause) or let them roam the galaxy free.
Bionuts wrote...
EntropicAngel wrote...
Part of the problem is that we can't really send people to prison in ME (barring Brooks). It's either end their life irreversably (death is final, something that gives me pause) or let them roam the galaxy free.
But would you really let a serial criminal, and murderer go free? This is what separates Paragons and Renegades. A Renegade realizes that (barring tooth fairies, and angels chaning peoples morals) that criminal will more than likely continue their crimes. Why allow the murderer to go free? What reason is there for it?
Renegades do not value the lives of rapists, murderers, criminals, etc. Their actions have forfeited that value, unless they can be of some use to your goal. A Paragon values their lives. Why? I do not know.
Retour en haut