310 réponses à ce sujet

[Zu Long]

ManchesterUnitedFan1 wrote...

David7204, again, please refrain from posting about things you have no idea about.

Maybe you should go and watch the Connor/Isolde/Mages choice in DA:O on youtube, at least so you actually understand what people are going on about.

If I may be so bold as to ask, why are you even active on the forum for DA:I (saying pretty much nothing but complaints and disagreements, I might add) when you have never played the preceding games, nor shown any intention to do so?

My question to you is how is his playing or not playing of DA:O relevant? I agree with much of what he says, and I have played through the game multiple times. You're attacking the person rather than trying to argue his points, which is, I believe, a logical fallacy.

[Reofeir]

If there's to be a hard choice, I want stuff like in ME3's krogan cure choice but not stuff like the quarian/geth choice. No easy way out on hard questions I say.

[Fast Jimmy]

Plaintiff wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Save the Council? Sure, saving three important people is no big deal... when you don't have to look into the faces of the soliders who you just sentenced to die, or their families who they will never come back home to.

The Destiny Ascension has ten thousand crew members, you don't have to look into the faces of the aliens on board that you sentenced to death either.

It may have been easy for you to just choose the Blue option (and apparently easy for Bioware to write the consequences of them), but life is never that easily cut and dry. Being a hero sometimes means making the hard decision and you never learn that lesson in ME because of its lopsidded attempt at dealing with C&C.

Just because metagaming and knowing the consequences makes a choice "too easy" for you doesn't mean the same is true of everyone.

Frankly, this sounds to me like you feel you're bitter because your choices led to negative outcomes, and you think that if you're being "punished" in game for your morals, then everyone else should be too.

Believe it or not, this is the exact opposite of reality. I always chose the blue option because I know how Bioware makes their games. I played a 100% paragon Shep who did every side quest and made every good decision you could make. 

That doesn't mean that offering no hard choices (or a choice that at least makes you think and has relatively balanced outcomes/consequences) isn't bad story-telling and game design. It doesn't have to be all dark, all the time, but when your options are "dark" and "rainbows and butterfiles," then it is insanely easy to pick and identify the rainbows and butterfiles.

[ManchesterUnitedFan1]

@Zu Long, it's relevant because the OP is about the Conor choice, and he discusses all of this as if he has ever played a single one of the DA games.

My point about why he is even active on this forum stands separate.

[ManchesterUnitedFan1]

And no, it's not a logical fallacy, because I'm not trying to argue with his actual points; I don't want to get involved with that.

I am pointing out that he is not really qualified to be speaking in the way that he is, especially in some of his earlier posts in this thread. Which is not, as you are implying, an Ad Hominem.

[Allan Schumacher]

shh you! Why does something bad has to happen? There should be CHOICES with DIFERENT RESULTS. So If I go the extra mile, when there was no need to. I darn well expect something rewarding. Not something slighly less worse than the other horrible results.

The interesting thing is the concept of "reward" and what it means.

For myself, an interesting narrative is often a reward, and the idea that the narrative is progressing in an interesting way as a result of my character's choices, for good or ill, is enjoyable to me.  Obviously, for others, it's more explicitly succeeding at what was attempted.

That said, I *do* still typically like being the hero. While I didn't save Connor (and am not a fan of Connor's implementation), I do like Rannoch scene in ME3, as well as a lot of the genophage stuff. Same with most of ME2's suicide mission (my only gripe being that it was too easy to achieve).

On some level, a balance of "choices with no clear good outcome" mixed with "choices that end up working out the way you expect" and some level of "choices that subvert your expectation" may be an interesting way of approaching this.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 22 août 2013 - 02:00 .

[Zu Long]

Steelcan wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Zu Long wrote..

I vehemently disagree. My past decisions should absolutely factor in to the options available to me. If I was able to recruit more troops, or assign the correct people to the correct missions or made choices that logically would allow me to win a scenario, that choice should ABSOLUTELY be available rather than have me be boxed into a no win scenario because "hard choices" are better for some reason.

These two are not mutually exclusive

I have yet to see that demonstrated. Provide an example, if you would.

The decision on Rannoch.

You have your "hard choice" killing one of the factions, and you also have your "peace" option if you took certain options. 

While EMS wise "Peace" is a better outcome, in the context of the story I find a quarian victory more appelaing.

Um....did you read the post I replied to originally? I was fine with the entire thing, precisely because my prior decisions were factored in and that allowed a good outcome. My arguement was that Rannoch a good way to go, as opposed to the person I responded to, who didn't.

So no, that is not an example of factoring in past decisions leading to a no-win scenario in a satisfying manner. It is an example of past decisions factoring into a viable and legitimate third option, which I am fine with.

Modifié par Zu Long, 22 août 2013 - 01:58 .

[Fast Jimmy]

ManchesterUnitedFan1 wrote...

Yeah fast Jimmy, if you don't save the Destiny Ascension then more Asari die than would have died if you saved it instead of the human fleet.

Yet your reason for doing so is saving the Council. That is, LITERALLY, your dialogue option. "Save the Council" or "Let Them Die."

Granted, the neutral option of "focus on Sovereign" is arguably another example of a magic third option that let's you say "do your best not to die while you save the Council" and has all the benefits of Saving the Council with, I suppose, the added benefit of saying you tried not to get a bunch of people killed. I don't know the exact EMS numbers involved with the three options (since that was, ultimately, all that comes of this decision other than a few random council dialogues afterwards), so maybe one is more punishing than the other. 

But hey... ten minutes of MP and that's a moot point, right?

[Steelcan]

Zu Long wrote...

Um....did you read the post I replied to originally? I was fine with the entire thing, precisely because my prior decisions were factored in and that allowed a good outcome. My arguement was that Rannoch a good way to go, as opposed to the person I responded to, who didn't.

So no, that is not an example of factoring in past decisions leading to a no-win scenario in a satisfying manner. It is an example of past decisions factoring into a viable and legitimate third option, which I am fine with.

Then I must have misunderstood something somehwere....

[Plaintiff]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Save the Council? Sure, saving three important people is no big deal... when you don't have to look into the faces of the soliders who you just sentenced to die, or their families who they will never come back home to.

The Destiny Ascension has ten thousand crew members, you don't have to look into the faces of the aliens on board that you sentenced to death either.

It may have been easy for you to just choose the Blue option (and apparently easy for Bioware to write the consequences of them), but life is never that easily cut and dry. Being a hero sometimes means making the hard decision and you never learn that lesson in ME because of its lopsidded attempt at dealing with C&C.

Just because metagaming and knowing the consequences makes a choice "too easy" for you doesn't mean the same is true of everyone.

Frankly, this sounds to me like you feel you're bitter because your choices led to negative outcomes, and you think that if you're being "punished" in game for your morals, then everyone else should be too.

Believe it or not, this is the exact opposite of reality. I always chose the blue option because I know how Bioware makes their games. I played a 100% paragon Shep who did every side quest and made every good decision you could make. 

That doesn't mean that offering no hard choices (or a choice that at least makes you think and has relatively balanced outcomes/consequences) isn't bad story-telling and game design. It doesn't have to be all dark, all the time, but when your options are "dark" and "rainbows and butterfiles," then it is insanely easy to pick and identify the rainbows and butterfiles.

Well, how you played doesn't necessarily reflect your personal morality. I suppose that was an assumption on my part.

But you're really hammering home the negative consequences of the ostensibly "good" choices of Mass Effect. It really seems like you personally disagree with those choices, and want people to feel bad about making those choices.

[Herr Uhl]

Rorschachinstein wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

They claim that there are going to be "real choices with real consequences". If that constitutes choosing between sunshine and rainbows or kicking puppies, all I have to say is bleh.

One of the mission statements for DA was to have a grey morality. That means a more gritty decision system with a choice beyond following what will fill your morality meter the quickest.

DA:O I would agree with. DA2 I would disagree with.  Define how bad you would want the consequences to be?  Are we looking at "random NPC A" dying or losing all your money and inventory.

Why are you talking about consequences? I was replying to your assertion that there is nothing wrong with black and white morality and choosing between being a jerk or a hero. I agree that there is nothing wrong. But DA is one of the few series Bioware has done where there is more to it than being the big goddamn hero or evil.

Choices that could be used is to actually having to sacrifice something to gain the moral high ground. An easy example would be giving money to the beggar instead of ignoring them. For a larger example, having to weaken your army in order to protect non-combatants. The negative for refusing either of these is readily apparent without slapping you on the wrist further. Beggar has no money and people died so you could save resources. These are a bit cut and dry, but it is 4am and I can't be bothered to think of better scenarios.

[mousestalker]

While I welcome moral dilemmas, I'd just as soon not have any gut wrenching ones. I'm getting older and my digestive system, despite consuming the special yogurt, is no longer as robust as it once was. Any gut wrenching may very well have long term, disgusting and painful consequences.

Thank you.

[Steelcan]

Let me clarify my position,

For certain longstanding issues, having a variety of factors play into their final outcome with additional options opening up based on choices made is fine. (ex. Rannoch)

However not all issues will be so intensively investigated. Sometimes the PC shows up in the middle of a situation and has to make a decision and live with the consequences. (ex. Behlen/Harrowmont, Saving/Killing the Council)

For decisions such as those I believe there should be "wrong" choices. Having the PC infallible is annoying (nobody likes Diomedes over Achilles).

Having "third option" choices in instances similar to the second group of choices is a cheap cop out move IMO.

[Zu Long]

ManchesterUnitedFan1 wrote...

@Zu Long, it's relevant because the OP is about the Conor choice, and he discusses all of this as if he has ever played a single one of the DA games.

My point about why he is even active on this forum stands separate.

The larger point is about decisions in Bioware games in general though, which he has played. The title of the thread is "Gut wrenching decisions." People are bringing examples in from all over the place, Mass Effect and KOTOR as well as Dragon Age. If he can make good points relating to the overall discussion, which he has, why should it matter whether he has played the specific scenario the first poster used?

As to your other point...maybe he plans to play this game? Is that possible?

I find your arguments for why this isn't ad hominem to be wanting.

[ManchesterUnitedFan1]

Jimmy, true the game presented the choice as something different, but I've grown used to that particular downside of paraphrasing.

I read behind that script, and I view it more a choice of 'Do you value human lives more than alien lives'.

[Plaintiff]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

ManchesterUnitedFan1 wrote...

Yeah fast Jimmy, if you don't save the Destiny Ascension then more Asari die than would have died if you saved it instead of the human fleet.

Yet your reason for doing so is saving the Council. That is, LITERALLY, your dialogue option. "Save the Council" or "Let Them Die."

I'll grant you that choices are sometimes represented poorly. That one in particular is one I have gripes with.

[AresKeith]

Zu Long wrote...

As to your other point...maybe he plans to play this game? Is that possible?

No he isn't

[Allan Schumacher]

Having two choices and then having only ONE of those choices have anything negative tied to them at all, while the other choice is rainbows and sunshine IS moronic, idiotic, stupid and the simplest form of narrative attempt possible.

There is quite the implication in your choice of words here, Jimmy, given you appeared to be using content from both DA and ME as examples....

[Fast Jimmy]

Plaintiff wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Save the Council? Sure, saving three important people is no big deal... when you don't have to look into the faces of the soliders who you just sentenced to die, or their families who they will never come back home to.

The Destiny Ascension has ten thousand crew members, you don't have to look into the faces of the aliens on board that you sentenced to death either.

It may have been easy for you to just choose the Blue option (and apparently easy for Bioware to write the consequences of them), but life is never that easily cut and dry. Being a hero sometimes means making the hard decision and you never learn that lesson in ME because of its lopsidded attempt at dealing with C&C.

Just because metagaming and knowing the consequences makes a choice "too easy" for you doesn't mean the same is true of everyone.

Frankly, this sounds to me like you feel you're bitter because your choices led to negative outcomes, and you think that if you're being "punished" in game for your morals, then everyone else should be too.

Believe it or not, this is the exact opposite of reality. I always chose the blue option because I know how Bioware makes their games. I played a 100% paragon Shep who did every side quest and made every good decision you could make. 

That doesn't mean that offering no hard choices (or a choice that at least makes you think and has relatively balanced outcomes/consequences) isn't bad story-telling and game design. It doesn't have to be all dark, all the time, but when your options are "dark" and "rainbows and butterfiles," then it is insanely easy to pick and identify the rainbows and butterfiles.

Well, how you played doesn't necessarily reflect your personal morality. I suppose that was an assumption on my part.

But you're really hammering home the negative consequences of the ostensibly "good" choices of Mass Effect. It really seems like you personally disagree with those choices, and want people to feel bad about making those choices.

I don't. But I think BIoware made it far too easy to choose what looked like the goody-two-shoes options in the ME series and never have to think twice about things. 

Again, blue, blue BLUE. Coupled with a pretty liberal use of side quest completion and that will give you the biggest armies, the most LI's, the happiest crewmates and the biggest intergalactic love fest this galactic cylce has ever seen. 

Think of my entire persona as one big Devil's Advocate. Gaming has been giving us the "Save the Princess" reward for decades and people think that getting a version of choice that says "Save the Princess or set Toad on fire" is a great breakthrough in story-telling and narrative. It's still just the same old sugary rhetoric of Mario, just jazzed up with pop culture. People still discuss what actions and circimstances were right and wrong in stories like The Great Gatsby, Citizen Kane, The Heart of Darkness and Crime and Punishment because the circumstances are not black and white. The choices are not right and wrong. They are dilemas that have pros and cons and therefore can be viewed by many different people with many different viewpoints and people don't have to be wrong. 

That's what video games should aspire to if they want to graduate from the movie industry's little dweeb brother.

[ManchesterUnitedFan1]

It's not ad hominem because I was never even arguing with him to begin with. In fact, I agree with lots of what he is saying here.

So no, it's not a personal attack in an attempt to bring down his argument. It's genuinely asking whether he can truly profess to know about this stuff (as he does on the very first page of this thread.)

The reason he became involved in this discussion at all is because he spoke about the connor choice on the first page as if he knew about it.

And from him being on these forums for a while and several people pointing it out to him, I have my doubts that he plans to play the games.



I even suggested that he watch this particular choice on youtube, to get a feel of where we are coming from, but he ignored that evidently.

[ManchesterUnitedFan1]

In addition, I think David said a while back that he isn't planning the games, as Ares has just said. But I may be wrong on that (heck, he may even deny that now even if it's true just to try and make us look foolish.)

[Sylvianus]

I think choices need to be relevant, complex, with different outcomes and consequences, relevant, and complex too, not necessarily equal but with implications that give an importance to the choice of the player on its own.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 22 août 2013 - 02:09 .