237 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

In Exile wrote...

You go to college to make a better future? You are stuck in debt for up to ten years.

Only if you're American. 

Actually, only if you're American and didn't do well on the SAT or ACT.

"Full ride" scholarships or even partial scholarships are common in America.

But I suppose this has nothing to do with anything.

And only if you don't get a graduate degree. 

But now we are truly and completely off-topic.

[Maria Caliban]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Questions of morality, points in the game where you really need to pause and ask "what should I/my character do?" are the hallmarks of great moments in story-driven video games.

Right. I don't recall this ever happening to me in a game.

It seems to me that the sort of moral dilemma you're imagining can only happen for players who:
1) Haven't already developed an ethical system for themselves, and
2) Haven't developed an ethical system for their PC.

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'll cut out the rest, if you don't mind

I don't mind. 

Not at all. I'm simply asking for moral clarification.

Are you making this choice to help these innocents/broker a peace/save the village/what have you because you believe it is the right thing, or because you believe it will result in the best outcomes?

If it is because it has the best outcomes, then does it matter as much? Should "best outcomes" even be an objective result? One player in another thread today said they would just pull up a guide online to figure out how to get the "best outcomes." 

What I suggest is a game where that term doesn't even apply. I'm not talking about making things dark and suffering just because, but to offer choices, REAL choices, where people have to say what they want... at the possible expense of other things, which they may also want.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with you on the basic idea in the bolded portion of your post. The problem is where we start discussing "best outcomes" and what we think of them. The outcomes usually break down into this: (i) everyone lives (ii) some people live, but life is bad for others and (iii) crapsack ****hole. 

Not all choices have to be between paradise, being fisted and being gored. 

Even if choices do amount to a choice between those three positions, the problem comes into how the actual choice is crafted. As I tried to illustrate with the series of leading question I first asked when wading into this topic, players will fight your hypothetical hard when you try and create the kind of dichotomy you want. And they're right to do so, because these "hard choices" are entirely artificial.

Do the strength of Bioware's character-crafting lead people to choose the well-being of those NPCs over the general well being of other entire groups? Do the already-established battle lines that can be seen here on the BSN, such as "pro-Mage," "pro-Dalish," "anti-Andrastian" lead people to take the stances mindlessly, without thought, opinions already formed before they even know the context of the choice? Or will players have to consider that they may have to work with people they wouldn't like in order to ensure that the groups they DO care about (Dalish, Apostates, nugs, whatever) all live to see the end of the conflict somewhat intact?

If there's anything that the werewolf choice illustrates is that players are "pro-reducing suffering" and "pro-helping -the-people-in-front-of-them." And then the choice you want to craft is (i) kill and torture people now or (ii) kill and torture more, different, people later. That's not a meaningful moral choice. That's just throwing it in people's face that they'll have to kill others.

Video games have gotten into a very nasty habit of saying they are offering choices, but really just encouraging pre-made templates to be followed, such that players already know what they are going to do before they even know what doing said choice entails. That, to me, is a real fallacy with people in general in today's world and I would love to see a fictional, interactive setting work to make people question what they really believe and how they really represent their ideals.  

As I illustrated above, what you're advocating is no differnet. I mean, the choice I invented with the Couslands follows exactly the same template. It's a simple morality and a simple binary choice.

"I want to do X or support Y... but can I afford to? Will the cost of doing so be worth it?"

Again, in the abstract, I agree. But in practice all the choices suggested seem to amount to  (i) kill and torture people now or (ii) kill and torture more, different, people later.

Would such a system reveal people to be fanatics about their beliefs, or truly devout? Fair weather fan of an idea, or pragmatist compromiser? Doing what needs to be done to get the job done, or sacrificing lives so that the actual blood won't appear on YOUR hands?

Pragmatist compromises just means kill the least important people now, typically. 

These are what I am striving for. TRUE morality questions. Not just "side with whatever team you want, complete all the side and loyalty quests and run this game on auto-pilot." That's not a riveting experience. That doesn't make the player look at anything with a discerning eye, or walk away with any experience that can't be found in a Mario game. 

Like Maria explains - moral problems aren't difficult. All those problems you see in philosophy, they're not suggested because the answer is hard. They're suggested because they undercut a moral theory. The interesting question is whether or not the theory is still logically sound in front of the example. But the moral choice is not usually hard. 

[Gwydden]

But in practice all the choices suggested seem to amount to (i) kill and torture people now or (ii) kill and torture more, different, people later.

I don't think you really get what I, and aparently also Jimmy, want. What I wish is that we are able decide what is more important to us or to our character, and that can be done in many different ways. Think the Virmire decision in the first Mass Effect game. You could save Kaidan or you could save Ashley. You couldn't save both, no matter how hard you tried. And that, at least for me, made it on of the hardest choices in the game (it also helped that I quite liked both characters, but that's another matter).

My point is that being able to solve every situation perfectly, save the day without sacrifices, is ultimately much less fulfilling than the alternative. The choice resides in to what and how much your character is willing to sacrifce for what he/she believes is the right thing. The problem with Connor and Nature of the Beast is that you're basically told you can save A, save B, or save A and B. The third choice automatically renders the first two inefficient, so to say. People do not question which one is the best choice from a world perspective, and the value of the first and second options considerably diminishes.

Look at this example: if in Inquisition you had to, in order to gain a hostile faction allegiance (let's say Red Templars), hand over one or several of your companions (let's say mage or mages), and said faction's help could greatly improve your chances of getting a better ending for the general population of Thedas, what would you do? It's a matter of going for what means more to you, to what better matches your ideals.

Also, victory shouldn't come at no cost. As ironic as that might sound, that is no near as satisfying as the alternative.

Like Maria explains - moral problems aren't difficult. All those problems you see in philosophy, they're not suggested because the answer is hard. They're suggested because they undercut a moral theory. The interesting question is whether or not the theory is still logically sound in front of the example. But the moral choice is not usually hard.

It may not be hard, but it makes you ponder. Posing a choice that lets you save everyone at no cost against others that don't doesn't.

Modifié par Gwydden, 19 septembre 2013 - 04:47 .

[In Exile]

Gwydden wrote...
Think the Virmire decision in the first Mass Effect game. You could save Kaidan or you could save Ashley. You couldn't save both, no matter how hard you tried. And that, at least for me, made it on of the hardest choices in the game (it also helped that I quite liked both characters, but that's another matter).

But the example offered, with the werewolves, is not between saving A and saving B. It is that if you save A, then by some internal logic C must be struck down by lightning at the end of the game as punishment. 

My point is that being able to solve every situation perfectly, save the day without sacrifices, is ultimately much less fulfilling than the alternative. The choice resides in to what and how much your character is willing to sacrifce for what he/she believes is the right thing.

I don't disagree with you here.

The problem with Connor and Nature of the Beast is that you're basically told you can save A, save B, or save A and B. The third choice automatically renders the first two inefficient, so to say. People do not question which one is the best choice from a world perspective, and the value of the first and second options considerably diminishes.

And I don't disagree with this either. It's when we get to the application that I start to object. 

Let's put it this way: if the option C - save A and B - meant shattering the Dalish belief in immortality and destroying their culture, would it be a "painless" choice? That if instead of sacrificing himself, Zathrian would be forced to admit his lies to his people and face justice for the fact that he mocked their myths? That it would lead to a crisis of belief that could tear the Dalish apart?

That would be a significant cost to the third option. Or with Connor, perhaps Connor murders Teagan and the rest of the castle while you wait to go to Redcliffe. That's a predictable and understandable consequence from your choice.

The problems all arise when the hypotheticals seem to amount to "either let people die" or "suffer deaths in the endgame". That's as artificial and simplistic as the morality we're rallying against. 

It's all a special case of "pick when you get kicked in the balls, player, because all of our choices are designed to cause you personal disconfort until you learn that my value system is the only objectively right one."

Look at this example: if in Inquisition you had to, in order to gain a hostile faction allegiance (let's say Red Templars), hand over one or several of your companions (let's say mage or mages), and said faction's help could greatly improve your chances of getting a better ending for the general population of Thedas, what would you do? It's a matter of going for what means more to you, to what better matches your ideals.

See, this is just the same garbage choice? Either get kicked in the balls now, player, by losing a companion, or get kicked in the balls later, by losing the best ending. Troll-lol-lol. 

Also, victory shouldn't come at no cost. As ironic as that might sound, that is no near as satisfying as the alternative.

But a choice shouldn't be about some kind of self-righteous punishment. All of the hypotheticals offered seem to really be about punishing the player. 

It may not be hard, but it makes you ponder. Posing a choice that lets you save everyone at no cost against others that don't doesn't.

It really doesn't. At least, speaking for myself. I've never had a difficult time making a moral choice in game. 

Modifié par In Exile, 19 septembre 2013 - 04:56 .

[Gwydden]

But the example offered, with the werewolves, is not between saving A and saving B. It is that if you save A, then by some internal logic C must be struck down by lightning at the end of the game as punishment.

In my opening post I just explained what to me seemed the logical consequence of curing the werewolves. Returning to the Dalish with no sign of their keeper, who went right behind the Warden... well, I was rather shocked that they all took it all so calmly and didn't jump to conclusions. Being left without dalish/werewolf support in the endgame was a natural consequence for being the perfect paragon, or so I thought.

And I don't disagree with this either. It's when we get to the application that I start to object. 

Let's put it this way: if the option C - save A and B - meant shattering the Dalish belief in immortality and destroying their culture, would it be a "painless" choice? That if instead of sacrificing himself, Zathrian would be forced to admit his lies to his people and face justice for the fact that he mocked their myths? That it would lead to a crisis of belief that could tear the Dalish apart?

That would be a significant cost to the third option. Or with Connor, perhaps Connor murders Teagan and the rest of the castle while you wait to go to Redcliffe. That's a predictable and understandable consequence from your choice.

The problems all arise when the hypotheticals seem to amount to "either let people die" or "suffer deaths in the endgame". That's as artificial and simplistic as the morality we're rallying against. 

It's all a special case of "pick when you get kicked in the balls, player, because all of our choices are designed to cause you personal disconfort until you learn that my value system is the only objectively right one."

I agree with your Connor example, but I doubt they Dalish, likely the most arrogant race in Thedas, would have their ego severly wounded or hesitate when asserting the validity of their myths simply because one of them punished some shems in a rather brutal way.

I really don't want the player to be punished. Just that there aren't "perfect" choices that invalidate the rest, and that the consequences of important decisions are felt somewhere, to some extent, in the game.

See, this is just the same garbage choice? Either get kicked in the balls now, player, by losing a companion, or get kicked in the balls later, by losing the best ending. Troll-lol-lol.

My point was that you had to give up on something, because you just can't have everything. And I dislike the concept of a best ending. Best for who? For the PC? For his/her companions? For the mages, for the templars? For the people of Thedas? Origins (and yeah, to some extent, also ME3) managed that quite well, so I am not going to say a lot about this.

But a choice shouldn't be about some kind of self-righteous punishment. All of the hypotheticals offered seem to really be about punishing the player. 

What is the actual difference between punishing the player and denying him everything he/she wants in your eyes? I actually want to know, not being dismissive here.

It really doesn't. At least, speaking for myself. I've never had a difficult time making a moral choice in game.

By ponder I referred to things like when I got to the end of DAO, and wasn't sure what to do because there was not a choice I could say about "this is clearly the choice that will let everyone, PC included, out of this happy. Why pick another?". At the very least, I had to wonder which variant I'd rather have. In the end, I didn't even ended up doing what I had originally planned, because later events changed my mind. That's sort of what I want, really.

Modifié par Gwydden, 19 septembre 2013 - 05:29 .

[Shadow Fox]

"My point is that being able to solve every situation perfectly, save the day without sacrifices, is ultimately much less fulfilling than the alternative. "

To you maybe to me having every situation be a no win one or punishing players for not playing an amoral **** is a surefire way to get me to avoid your product.

[Fast Jimmy]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

"My point is that being able to solve every situation perfectly, save the day without sacrifices, is ultimately much less fulfilling than the alternative. "

To you maybe to me having every situation be a no win one or punishing players for not playing an amoral **** is a surefire way to get me to avoid your product.

I guess my response here is "have you played any of the DA games?" Obviously you have, so this question rhetorical. But while there are situations like Connor and the Dalish, there are also situations like the Dark Ritual and being forced to choose a side between Mage/Templar in DA2.

You could argue that knowingly knocking someone up with implied consent that said offspring would never have the influence or support of be father just to save your own hide (not to mention bringing the soul of a being that resulted in countless thousands dying and suffering into a new body) is rather immoral. And if you refuse, you pay the price, by having yourself or a companion die. There is no third option where you don't have to enter into a shady agreement with Morrigan and still have everyone live. How is that any different than what we are talking about?

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 19 septembre 2013 - 10:58 .

[Fast Jimmy]

But a choice shouldn't be about some kind of self-righteous punishment. All of the hypotheticals offered seem to really be about punishing the player. 

What is the actual difference between punishing the player and denying him everything he/she wants in your eyes? I actually want to know, not being dismissive here.

I'd echo a similar question.

Your suggestion of "making the Dalish feel really bad" doesn't really sound that effective to me. Yes, it would cause then to lose some of their faith in their ability to restore the old ways or live forever... but what does that mean? Does the player care, at the end of the day, if the Dalish are grumpy? One of the options is to slaughter them to the last man, woman and child. How does making them grumpy compare to that option? There is no equity there. If a player wanted to chose the option with the least amount of harm, it is still very apparent - huge lile of bodies<<<<<<<<hurt feelings.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 19 septembre 2013 - 10:57 .

[Amirit]

The problem of choices in BW games is that they judged for you. What I mean is - YOU might think of some action as a noble one, yet the game (BW) decide to depict it as a horrible act. I'll give an example from SW:TOR. There is a Flashpoint ("dungeon") where at the end you have to choose either to kill a badly wounded dying General or give him to Siths for endless horrible torturing.No other choices - quick clean death or endless pain. And yet killing is a Dark choice here.

Also, there can be only that many choices (not to mention their quality). You, as a gamer, might see a thousand ways to solve the problem but your character could only choose between Very Stupid way, Very Evil and Stupid way, and May-be-good-but-totally-illogical way (in the best case).

As much as I love consequences of my choices, when those choices were forced on me - I would rather not suffer from it.

[Gwydden]

Amirit wrote...

The problem of choices in BW games is that they judged for you. What I mean is - YOU might think of some action as a noble one, yet the game (BW) decide to depict it as a horrible act. I'll give an example from SW:TOR. There is a Flashpoint ("dungeon") where at the end you have to choose either to kill a badly wounded dying General or give him to Siths for endless horrible torturing.No other choices - quick clean death or endless pain. And yet killing is a Dark choice here.
 

Dragon Age doesn't really suffer from this as much as other Bioware games. The game never tells you in a explicit ways what the developers think is the most moral option.

Modifié par Gwydden, 19 septembre 2013 - 02:35 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Gwydden wrote...

Amirit wrote...

The problem of choices in BW games is that they judged for you. What I mean is - YOU might think of some action as a noble one, yet the game (BW) decide to depict it as a horrible act. I'll give an example from SW:TOR. There is a Flashpoint ("dungeon") where at the end you have to choose either to kill a badly wounded dying General or give him to Siths for endless horrible torturing.No other choices - quick clean death or endless pain. And yet killing is a Dark choice here.
 

Dragon Age doesn't really suffer from this as much as other Bioware games. The game never tells you in a explicit ways what the developers think is the most moral option.

Well... I wouldn't say NEVER. Never is a long time. 

But it has been better than Mass Effect, which demonizes Shelhard for more than a few Renegade choices. 

[Taleroth]

Gwydden wrote...

Also, victory shouldn't come at no cost. As ironic as that might sound, that is no near as satisfying as the alternative.

Let's say I accept this as true, whether or not I do is a longer post, the "cost" needs to be equal among choices. But the details need to be tailored to the type of player that makes such a choice and, for the most part, forseeable. That's kind of what agency is about. It's what seperates consequences from "random **** that happens" or "DM thinking your roleplay is wrong."

I don't know if you were saying anything contrary to that, I just feel the need to pipe in with it. I think it's important to say when people talk  about choices having negative consequences.

Modifié par Taleroth, 19 septembre 2013 - 02:45 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Taleroth wrote...

Gwydden wrote...

Also, victory shouldn't come at no cost. As ironic as that might sound, that is no near as satisfying as the alternative.

Let's say I accept this as true, whether or not I do is a longer post, the "cost" needs to be equal among choices. But the details need to be tailored to the type of player that makes such a choice and, for the most part, forseeable. That's kind of what agency is about. It's what seperates consequences from "random **** that happens" or "DM thinking your roleplay is wrong."

I don't know if you were saying anything contrary to that, I just feel the need to pipe in with it. I think it's important to say when people talk  about choices having negative consequences.

Well, I think the Dalish werewolf example that is getting batted around could have easily done that, with maybe one extra line of dialogue from Zathrien. "You think my people will support you if I cure these beasts? My death will cost you your army support and earn you nothing but the gratitude of a small handful of worthless humans. What is your cause worth?"

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 19 septembre 2013 - 02:56 .

[Taleroth]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Well, I think the Dalish werewolf example that is getting batted around could have easily done that, with maybe one extra line of dialogue from Zathrien. "You think my people will support you if I cure these beasts? My death will cost you your army support and earn you nothing but the gratitude of a small handful of worthless humans. What is your cause worth?"

I'm not sure that not getting an army at all would be equal.

Though it does have a certain thematic appeal I can appreciate. Save both peoples, but lose an army. Instead of saving one people and getting an army.

Modifié par Taleroth, 19 septembre 2013 - 03:02 .

[Gwydden]

Taleroth wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Well, I think the Dalish werewolf example that is getting batted around could have easily done that, with maybe one extra line of dialogue from Zathrien. "You think my people will support you if I cure these beasts? My death will cost you your army support and earn you nothing but the gratitude of a small handful of worthless humans. What is your cause worth?"

I'm not sure that not getting an army at all would be equal.

I'm looking at equality from a story perspective. You would be able to save both peoples, but that will mean that further confrontations might be harder and more costly because of it. As I said, I was ready to make the choice of saving both believing that, and I was happy with that. Maybe because anyone can be good when it comes with no tax?

[Gwydden]

Taleroth wrote...

Gwydden wrote...

Also, victory shouldn't come at no cost. As ironic as that might sound, that is no near as satisfying as the alternative.

Let's say I accept this as true, whether or not I do is a longer post, the "cost" needs to be equal among choices. But the details need to be tailored to the type of player that makes such a choice and, for the most part, forseeable. That's kind of what agency is about. It's what seperates consequences from "random **** that happens" or "DM thinking your roleplay is wrong."

I don't know if you were saying anything contrary to that, I just feel the need to pipe in with it. I think it's important to say when people talk  about choices having negative consequences.

I agree. You should at the very least be warned about the possible negative effects of a choice before making it. That's sort of where the Bhelen/Harrowmont one failed. I think a few NPC comments and ambient dialogue should have told you about what kind of ruler each one of them would be, if not more.

Modifié par Gwydden, 19 septembre 2013 - 03:16 .

[Jaulen]

Why should you get warning about the negative outcome of a choice before making it?

Why should a player be omnicient (with it being a first playthrough or not using a cheat guide) as to the outcomes of actions/choices? That's silly.

Modifié par Jaulen, 19 septembre 2013 - 04:26 .

[Amirit]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Well, I think the Dalish werewolf example that is getting batted around could have easily done that, with maybe one extra line of dialogue from Zathrien. "You think my people will support you if I cure these beasts? My death will cost you your army support and earn you nothing but the gratitude of a small handful of worthless humans. What is your cause worth?"

This is exactly the choice I would like to avoid. But as long as we have another one (as it was done in DAO) - I would support consequences. The third one was to convince Zaltan he is wrong. We did it and get support of elves and humans.

If we leave it at the step either werwolves or elves (while THERE IS an option to solve the problem bloodless (almost)) - than we get unsatisfying dual system of ME/SWTOR with forced "all-bad" choices.

[Fast Jimmy]

Amirit wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Well, I think the Dalish werewolf example that is getting batted around could have easily done that, with maybe one extra line of dialogue from Zathrien. "You think my people will support you if I cure these beasts? My death will cost you your army support and earn you nothing but the gratitude of a small handful of worthless humans. What is your cause worth?"

This is exactly the choice I would like to avoid. But as long as we have another one (as it was done in DAO) - I would support consequences. The third one was to convince Zaltan he is wrong. We did it and get support of elves and humans.

If we leave it at the step either werwolves or elves (while THERE IS an option to solve the problem bloodless (almost)) - than we get unsatisfying dual system of ME/SWTOR with forced "all-bad" choices.

The solution to have the Keeper of a Dalish clan sacrifice himself should have made the clan angry. Merril's clan will fight to the death when Maeretheri dies... why shouldn't the Dalish clan at least CARE that the hero caused their leader to die so that a few beasts could regain their humanity? Especially when killing the werewolves would have provided the same cure to the Dalish, while also saving their leader?

It doesn't match what we know of the Dalish, how they hold up their keepers as being integral to their lives and gives the player a solution that doesn't require even one hard choice. Asking the player to make a hard (but informed) choice is not always "all bad." Sometimes two different choices can be "all good" to two different players, despite making opposite choices. 

[Navasha]

Honestly though if your intent is to have no "good" consequences then there also needs to be a serious rehashing of consequences for "evil" actions too. Using blood magic? Immediate abandonment of the Templar and mage factions. Hunted continuously by the Templars and yes they still have your phylactery. Demons should have a possibility to appear next to the mage after casting any blood magic spell and attempt to dominate the mage.

Lets be honest... the consequences for playing an evil dolt are pretty minimal as well. My "evil" warden murdered 3 people at Ostagar in full sight of everyone and no one seemed to mind.

[MWImexico]

I think the Dalish are not as cruel as some people may think. Usually, the most rageful are the one who were personally hurted by humans (Zathrian, the daughter of Danyla, the random elves we can find in the forest after the werewolfs are cured,..).
Here, after the quest, (to put it simply) I think Lanaya says that globally her people understood Zathrian's responsability in all of what happened to them. Also after Zathrian's death, the elves in the camp who were wounded are healing suddenly, the elves can easily understand that the death of Zathrian is somehow related to the curse and their fresh recovery (or at least be grateful to the warden for that).

Edit : Also, the treaty still apply, the elves are supposed to help the wardens, no?

Modifié par MWImexico, 19 septembre 2013 - 05:30 .

[Han Shot First]

I'd love to see the DA series go the Witcher route in terms of choice and consequence.