310 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

Il Divo wrote...
But what those stories don't do is placing the player ostensibly in a situation where the game presents two different moralities as being viable, but then exclusively favoring one morality, is not likely to win you points on moral complexity or game design. You're not going to be praised for complex scenarios or moral ambiguity. You basically made a game designed around playing smart or an idiot. Let your player base know that from the start, instead of advertising as if both options have merits and/or are viable.

How could a game present choices and morality without portraying them both as being viable, then?

I mean, a lot of the choices in Mass Effect, it's just utterly common sense that one option is better than another. Executing a clearly innocent person, for example. Or saving both the geth and quarians instead of just one. The narrative never attempts to show such choices as equal.

Modifié par David7204, 21 août 2013 - 11:07 .

[Potato Cat]

I always pretend that choosing the Circle's help means the situation only gets worse. That's why I sacrifice Isolde.

It is a get out jail free card, in every sense. Even when you make the decision, the Warden, (and possibly others not sure), voice concerns about the decision to get the Circle's help. But even if you haven't already helped the Circle and solved their demon problem, they come in time and everyone is happy and Connor and his family are safe and sound in time for tea. No bad consequences. Honestly, I think it could have been improved by Teagan's death, (meaning less support later on in the Landsmeet and less Redcliffe soldiers maybe?), or the mages bringing Templar support who swiftly make Connor tranquil.

[Aaleel]

If always looked at the Redcliffe choice as tying back to and being a consequence of your choice during the Broken Circle quest. You side with Templars you have to kill someone, you side with the mages it has an advantage down the road. I honestly do see a problem with it.

Off Topic: Reading this thread I can' t believe how many people do Redcliffe before the Broken Circle. I've played DA:O more times than I can count and though I mixed up the order I'm positive I never did Redcliffe first.

[Nyneve]

David7204 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...
But what those stories don't do is placing the player ostensibly in a situation where the game presents two different moralities as being viable, but then exclusively favoring one morality, is not likely to win you points on moral complexity or game design. You're not going to be praised for complex scenarios or moral ambiguity. You basically made a game designed around playing smart or an idiot. Let your player base know that from the start, instead of advertising as if both options have merits and/or are viable.

How could a game present choices and morality without portraying them both as being viable, then?

I mean, a lot of the choices in Mass Effect, it's just utterly common sense that one option is better than another. Executing a clearly innocent person, for example. Or saving both the geth and quarians instead of just one. The narrative never attempts to show such choices as equal.

But imo that's the problem. As a player I favor a certain morality and set of ethics, but I want to be able to roleplay a character who makes different choices than I would make and has a different morality and not come off as a mustache twirling villain or a complete idiot. Good choices should have positive and negative consequences to both sides.

[Tachio]

The concept of those so called "morale choices"  is probably the most overrated and most ridiculous thing since writers try to convince players that characters that are only crying, suffering and whining combined with an overall depressive atmosphere make a good story.

I never understood why it is so great to have to make a choice, although you know nothing about the problem and therefore are completely unable to make a proper decision. Choosing solely based on your gut feelings is not interesting or engaging at all, it is just annoying if your decion comes back later to bite you in the butt.

In order to take a side you need to know about the problem, you need to know what is at stake and you need to know and understand why the people do, what they do or want, what they want.

The only time this was done properly was at the end in DA2. You knew about the conflict and understood it, because you spent the whole game experiencing it first hand, yet it was still not an easy decision, because both sides actually had good arguments for what they did.


And while I'm at it, I just want to grab the opportunity shamelessly:

Due to the large amount of infos on DA3 recently, I also saw a lot of people who use this as an excuse to mindlessly bash on DA2 again.

So hereby I just want to thank everybody who worked on DA2. It was an incredibly fun game and had the most elaborate story I have seen in a game for a very long time. Every event in this game had its purpose, everything was tailored to support and progress the story and its characters.
It was a pleasure.
It is a shame that so many people don't appreciate it.

[Il Divo]

David7204 wrote...

How could a game present choices and morality without portraying them both as being viable, then?

I mean, a lot of the choices in Mass Effect, it's just utterly common sense that one option is better than another. Executing a clearly innocent person, for example. Or saving both the geth and quarians instead of just one. The narrative never attempts to show such choices as equal.

Well, a better way to put it is that you never saw such narrative attempts as equal. There are plenty who might disagree. Perfect example? Keeping the Cerberus base, but then that all became absolutely pointless. Someone could make the same argument for the Rachni in ME1.

Still, your post illustrates a key problem with Mass Effect: you think that one option is always better than the other. Again, that does not speak well to Bioware's game design. What was ME1's tagline? "Many choices, none of them easy?". Obviously they failed in that regard. I have no interest in playing a moron and by your above response, the moral scenarios were insanely obvious. Why is choosing to player either a Shepard with or without common sense interesting?

If Bioware's only goal is to remind us that "good guys get happy endings", then might as well go back to the days where dark side players at least got a suitably competent ending.

Modifié par Il Divo, 21 août 2013 - 11:15 .

[Sylvianus]

Aaleel wrote...
Off Topic: Reading this thread I can' t believe how many people do Redcliffe before the Broken Circle. I've played DA:O more times than I can count and though I mixed up the order I'm positive I never did Redcliffe first.

Allistair talked a lot about Eamon after Ostagar especially while discussing with Flemeth,  It seemed logic and more interesting for many people to begin there.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 21 août 2013 - 11:16 .

[Potato Cat]

Aaleel wrote...

If always looked at the Redcliffe choice as tying back to and being a consequence of your choice during the Broken Circle quest. You side with Templars you have to kill someone, you side with the mages it has an advantage down the road. I honestly do see a problem with it.

Off Topic: Reading this thread I can' t believe how many people do Redcliffe before the Broken Circle. I've played DA:O more times than I can count and though I mixed up the order I'm positive I never did Redcliffe first.

I do Redcliffe first because it is, A closer to Lothering than any other objective, B what Alistair suggests we should do first, and C because I usually play as a City Elf, so I'm not invested in any of the other areas as much as a Mage would be in the Circle, or a Dwarf in Orzammar.

[Il Divo]

Sylvianus wrote...

Aaleel wrote...
Off Topic: Reading this thread I can' t believe how many people do Redcliffe before the Broken Circle. I've played DA:O more times than I can count and though I mixed up the order I'm positive I never did Redcliffe first.

Allistair talked a lot about Eamon after Ostagar especially while discussing with Flemeth,  It seemed logic and more interesting for many people to begin there.

There is that. I also thought (from a narrative standpoint) it's more interesting to discover Alistair's identity earlier, as opposed to later.

[Paul E Dangerously]

My problem with this is that there's a fine line between "choices with a real, lasting impact" and "choices that exist only to screw the player over and leave a bad taste in their mouth". Fable tends to be a shining example of the latter, as does Army of Two: The 40th Day. While not an RPG, it had these shoehorned moral choices (that being the in thing at the time) and 90% of the "good" ones wound up in something horrible happening.

And then there's DA2 - and keep in mind I like DA2 - which winds up taking your final choice, yanks it out of your hands, slaps you in the face, and then laughs at you when you're down on the ground.

[David7204]

'Good guys get happy endings' is a rather ridiculous reduction of meaningful heroism. Just a few posts ago you claimed that developers are free to tell whatever story with whatever themes they want. And now you claim to me that Mass Effect not having equal choices is automatically poor game design? Which is it?

Is Mass Effect at fault for having a theme of meaningful heroism, or is it not?

[Fast Jimmy]

I mean, a lot of the choices in Mass Effect, it's just utterly common sense that one option is better than another. Executing a clearly innocent person, for example. 

That's a stupid example. Why? Becasue the game, in no way, penalizes you for it.

Push a mook off a ledge? Shoot a civilian for the lolz? Help your buddy commit a revenge killing? Best the crap out of a suspect to get them to spill the beans? No big deal. It only increases your Renegade score.

But say "maybe this killer species of insect that threatened all galactic life and was a previous tool for the Reapers may be safer to kill than release all willy nilly." "Maybe a cure that rogue Krogan clans have been engaging in hugely unethical research may be safer to destroy rather than keep around, given that the Krogan are the single most dangerous race in the galaxy (even moreso than the above-mentioned insect race)." "Maybe saying 'screw off' to the one guy who has given me the resources, intel and means to save the entire human race isn't the best idea." "Maybe while a giant super robot alien is attacking the Citadel and trying to bring all of his friends in end all galactic life, we shouldn't be worrying about saving three random individuals on the Council and blow the dang thing to bits."

These are purely logical, smart choices. In fact, in terms of the Rachni, the game TELLS you killing them was the best idea... and then still makes doing so the worst choice by introducing a clone.

Being evil for the lolz never hurt you in ME. It is only when you were given a choice and renegade was presented as an actual smart decision was the player punished. That's idiotic.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 21 août 2013 - 11:19 .

[Aaleel]

Sylvianus wrote...

Aaleel wrote...
Off Topic: Reading this thread I can' t believe how many people do Redcliffe before the Broken Circle. I've played DA:O more times than I can count and though I mixed up the order I'm positive I never did Redcliffe first.

Allistair talked a lot about Eamon after Ostagar especially while discussing with Flemeth,  It seemed logic and more interesting for many people to begin there.

I wasn't saying there was something with it, I was just surprised is all.

[MisterJB]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

Didn't Gaider once say that if there was one thing he would change if he could go back, it was to change the everybody wins-scenario at Redcliffe? Don't quote me on that however, but if somebody has an idea if I'm referring to something real, then please share and prove I'm not dreaming =)

That's great to hear. I hope we won't see more of these third options that solve absolutely everything in the best possible way.
Certainly, the PC should have the option of suggesting going to the tower but we should have had to sacrifice something in this options. Personally, I would have just had the demon regaining control of Connor in the time we're away and either Ser Perth and his knights killed him or he destroyed an ever greater portion of the village.

[Il Divo]

David7204 wrote...

'Good guys get happy endings' is a rather ridiculous reduction of meaningful heroism. Just a few posts ago you claimed that developers are free to tell whatever story with whatever themes they want. And now you claim to me that Mass Effect not having equal choices is automatically poor game design? Which is it?

Is Mass Effect at fault for having a theme of meaningful heroism, or is it not?

What was the entire point of Paragon and Renegade? To break awayfromf the one-dimension morality systems of Light Side/Dark Side and Open Palm/Closed Fist. And yet, it falls back to the same one-dimension result approach where one morality gets everything perfect and the other sucks.

If Bioware wants a good guys get happy endings story, go for it. But then I'd prefer Bioware games be composed simply of cut-scenes, since any other sub-optimal option will only serve to demonstrate why my character is an idiot (as you demonstrated in your view of the ME choices as common sense). Choosing between playing a Shepard with common sense or without common sense is not to me an interesting role-playing option. It sounds more like a waste of time.

In short: if you want heroism and happy endings fine, but don't waste time implementing multiple choices which only serve to demonstrate why one alignment is the best. Instead, might as well make it a linear path where the player only has the option for Paragon. Less expectation for moral complexity at least.

Modifié par Il Divo, 21 août 2013 - 11:25 .

[David7204]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I mean, a lot of the choices in Mass Effect, it's just utterly common sense that one option is better than another. Executing a clearly innocent person, for example. 

That's a stupid example. Why? Becasue the game, in no way, penalizes you for it.

Push a mook off a ledge? Shoot a civilian for the lolz? Help your buddy commit a revenge killing? Best the crap out of a suspect to get them to spill the beans? No big deal. It only increases your Renegade score.

But say "maybe this killer species of insect that threatened all galactic life and was a previous tool for the Reapers may be safer to kill than release all willy nilly." "Maybe a cure that rogue Krogan clans have been engaging in hugely unethical research may be safer to destroy rather than keep around, given that the Krogan are the single most dangerous race in the galaxy (even moreso than the above-mentioned insect race)." "Maybe saying 'screw off' to the one guy who has given me the resources, intel and means to save the entire human race isn't the best idea." "Maybe while a giant super robot alien is attacking the Citadel and trying to bring all of his friends in end all galactic life, we shouldn't be worrying about saving three random individuals on the Council and blow the dang thing to bits."

These are purely logical, smart choices. In fact, in terms of the Rachni, the game TELLS you killing them was the best idea... and then still makes doing so the worst choice by introducing a clone.

Being evil for the lolz never hurt you in ME. It is only when you were given a choice and renegade was presented as an actual smart decision was the player punished. That's idiotic.

First of all, 'the game' does not 'TELL you' that killing the Rachni is the best choice. So let's drop that delusion. Your defences of what's supposedly 'smart' are tenuous at best. I mean, really. Keeping the cure data is dangerous? We have this thing called encryption. Have you never used online banking? There are so many fairly simple ways the data could be very easily secured. It's perfectly safe on the Normandy.

Secondly, you seem to be supporting my argument. I actually agree that pointless Renegade choices should led to more negative consequeces. That being pointlessly rude and hostile to your squadmates should lead to negative consequences.

Modifié par David7204, 21 août 2013 - 11:34 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I never understood why it is so great to have to make a choice, although you know nothing about the problem and therefore are completely unable to make a proper decision. Choosing solely based on your gut feelings is not interesting or engaging at all, it is just annoying if your decion comes back later to bite you in the butt.

In the case of Connor, do you know nothing about the problem?

[Sylvianus]

Aaleel wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

Aaleel wrote...
Off Topic: Reading this thread I can' t believe how many people do Redcliffe before the Broken Circle. I've played DA:O more times than I can count and though I mixed up the order I'm positive I never did Redcliffe first.

Allistair talked a lot about Eamon after Ostagar especially while discussing with Flemeth,  It seemed logic and more interesting for many people to begin there.

I wasn't saying there was something with it, I was just surprised is all.

Well, you seemed surprised so many people chose Redcliff first. I thought some explanations were needed. If you already knew them, then sorry, just wanted to help. Never mind.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 21 août 2013 - 11:30 .

[Neon Rising Winter]

Il Divo wrote...

What was the entire point of Paragon and Renegade? To break awayfromf the one-dimension morality systems of Light Side/Dark Side and Open Palm/Closed Fist. And yet, it falls back to the same one-dimension result approach where one morality gets everything perfect and the other sucks.

 

Light Side/Dark Side and Open Palm/Closed Fist I agree. You genuinely puzzle me with Paragon and Renegade though as when I played through choosing the best options for my character without regard to what colour I was pressing, I'd always end up with a mix of both, and one did not appear inherently superior to the other.

[Aaleel]

Sylvianus wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

Aaleel wrote...
Off Topic: Reading this thread I can' t believe how many people do Redcliffe before the Broken Circle. I've played DA:O more times than I can count and though I mixed up the order I'm positive I never did Redcliffe first.

Allistair talked a lot about Eamon after Ostagar especially while discussing with Flemeth,  It seemed logic and more interesting for many people to begin there.

I wasn't saying there was something with it, I was just surprised is all.

Well, you seemed surprised so many people chose Redcliff first. I thought some explanations was needed. If you already knew it, then sorry, just wanted to help. Never mind.

No need to apologize.  I posted it, a bunch of people quoted it and I couldn't tell if people were explaining or defending so I just wanted to make sure people knew I wasn't downing the decision to go to Redcliffe first.

My first playthrough I was a mage so it made sense to me to go to people friendly to me since I didn't really know anyone else yet.  It turned out to be my least favorite mission so I think I subconsciously went there first after that to get it out the way

Modifié par Aaleel, 21 août 2013 - 11:33 .

[Maria Caliban]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Yes. What's the problem with a hero earning an outcome with no downsides?

Because it, essentially, says other choices were wrong.

They were wrong.

The problem with ME wasn't that it gave you options that were wrong, it was that 99.9999% of the options were right.

You cannot have meaningful choices if all possible consequences must be equal to one another.

Dues Ex: HR lets you install a new biochip that will remove all your augmented abilities at a specific points. Why? Because sometimes a choice should lead to a seriously good outcome and sometimes a choice should lead to a kick in the teeth.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 21 août 2013 - 11:35 .

[Il Divo]

Narrow Margin wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

What was the entire point of Paragon and Renegade? To break awayfromf the one-dimension morality systems of Light Side/Dark Side and Open Palm/Closed Fist. And yet, it falls back to the same one-dimension result approach where one morality gets everything perfect and the other sucks.

 

Light Side/Dark Side and Open Palm/Closed Fist I agree. You genuinely puzzle me with Paragon and Renegade though as when I played through choosing the best options for my character without regard to what colour I was pressing, I'd always end up with a mix of both, and one did not appear inherently superior to the other.

Should be more clear:

when I say one-dimensional, I mean in the sense that one alignment (typically Paragon) would result in superior moral consequences, almost every time. In terms of how choices were often presented (as opposed to their consequences) I thought ME did a good job of giving both Paragon and Renegade the spot light.

In comparison to KotOR, I will say that I felt a bit more comfortable with creating a character who chose different Paragon and Renegade combinations. Your character didn't have quite the same bipolar element as light side and dark side where you flip-flop between murdering wookies and donating money to the poor.

[David7204]

Maria Caliban wrote...

They were wrong.

The problem with ME wasn't that it gave you options that were wrong, it was that 99.9999% of the options were right.

You cannot have meaningful choices if all possible consequences must be equal to one another.

Dead on.

[Sol Downer]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I never understood why it is so great to have to make a choice, although you know nothing about the problem and therefore are completely unable to make a proper decision. Choosing solely based on your gut feelings is not interesting or engaging at all, it is just annoying if your decion comes back later to bite you in the butt.

In the case of Connor, do you know nothing about the problem?

Isn't it more like...on a first playthrough, you're making a gamble since you don't know if Redcliffe will be destroyed by time you return? I remember everybody stressing that time was of the essence, so on my first run through the game I had to go with the fastest choice and rely on Jowen. After you learn the outcomes of the problem, it becomes less difficult to deal with.

[Ianamus]

I took issue with the Redicliffe quest, but I had no issue with the werewolf quest. The conor issue just seemed to be resolved far too easily. You went and spoke to the circle, they had no issue coming to help despite what had happened, and all it took was one quick and relatively easy fight with a desire demon to free him.

The werewolf quest on the other hand still involved a challenging fight even if you went on to persuade Zathrian to remove the curse, and both he and the Lady of the forest died in the process. I was sad to see the lady go after everything she had done to help the werewolves, but happy that they were now free. The loss of Zathrian also felt like it would have repercussions for the Dalish clan.

Small differences, but they made one feel like a "too simple and easy" solution and one feel like a realistic and meaningful solution. 

Modifié par EJ107, 21 août 2013 - 11:39 .