237 réponses à ce sujet

[MWImexico]

I didn't played to the Witcher, but if that means to get punished for my choices at every corner, count me out. I'm not against bad consequences though, I just wish thoses consequences to be both interesting and realistic at the same time.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

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.

I completely agree.  If you hold firmly to your moral beliefs, then making moral choices in the world should be a matter of simple arithmetic.

I would then further argue that all those supposedly difficult philosophical examples do is demonstrate to the moral agent that he doesn't understand his own moral positions well.  If he did, the questions wouldn't be difficult.

[Realmzmaster]

I can see certain situations having ambiguous choices that can lead to good/bad consequences. Every situation does not have to be that way. Some situations could have abundant of riches choices where every choice is good and the PC is left deciding which one is best in a given situation but all lead to a good consequence. The flipside of that would be a situation where all the choices are bad and the PC has to decide which is the lesser of the evils. All the choices still lead to a dire consequence. A mixture to me is more preferable than all situational choices being morally ambiguous.

I understand the Connor situation. Bioware decided to leave a good choice (Going to the Circle) (but it was not obvious) that was still dependent on what the PC did in game. If the PC annulled/or accidentally annulled the Circle that option was completely off the table and left the other two.

Also on the first playthrough that option did not appear to be the good one, because the gamer had no way of knowing what might happen. It was a risk. Even on repeated playthroughs if the gamer never took that choice the gamer would not know that was the "good" or best choice for saving everyone.

Only the PC who saves the Circle mages would know eventually that it was the best choice. A lot of gamers only found out through metagaming (walkthroughs, youtube, talking to others who made the choice and the forums).

The third option could have been made less desirable by having Connor go all demonic and destroy everyone in the castle and Reddcliffe before the party got back. The party would then have to deal with demonic Connor.
I assume that Bioware thought that having the first two choices less than desirable having a good option that was contingent on actions in a different quest was enough. Constant ambiuous choice can suck the fun out of the game for some gamers.
I feel a balance is necessary.

[Amirit]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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?

OMG WHY?!
First of all, there was a peaceful solution to Marethari's death.
Second - it's entirely different situation. In case of Zaltan - it would be his decision to remove his curse. And I do believe elven clans respect their Keepers enough to obey their decision. He cursed some humans, was cheating death because of that curse, decided he vent too far and removed the curse. All his own doing. And he left things in order: clan was cured, the place was not haunted anymore and they still had a good Keeper (not to mention Warden did a lot of good things for clan on the way, so everything was fixed).

Now, should we kill Zaltan in the middle of the clan's camp without any explanation - sure, clan would be angry. But the way it was done - an elder made a decision and came through with it. Elves do respect their elders.

Even in case of Marethari while clan was ruined - no halla, no Keeper, the cursed one (Merrill) obviously had something to do with Keeper's death, so - yes, clan had all the rights to be angry. Still they could come up to their senses.

Sorry, Zaltan is a bad example of "no consequences" here. Take DA2 as an example. Literally every quest is nonsense in this regards.

Modifié par Amirit, 19 septembre 2013 - 06:24 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...

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.

I completely agree.  If you hold firmly to your moral beliefs, then making moral choices in the world should be a matter of simple arithmetic.

I would then further argue that all those supposedly difficult philosophical examples do is demonstrate to the moral agent that he doesn't understand his own moral positions well.  If he did, the questions wouldn't be difficult.

I'd disagree. People have very formulated, well thought out concepts of what they believe. However, they are based on underlying assumptions and understandings. If you can present a situation that penetrates that underlying set of fundamentals, then that should require a reevaluation of the supposedly established moral tenets.

For instance, playing a character that values human life is easy. Playing a character that is anti-slavery is also easy. However... your character is on a secret mission and sees slaves being locked in a pen in a dungeon. However, upstairs, you hear some of your friends and allies being attacked, who now have their cover blown and are in grave danger of all being killed without your help.

Does your feelings of anti-slavery trump those of life preservation? Furthermore, is the nature of the life - a friend's over a stranger - enough to affect or change that determination? What if you had some undiscovered grudge against a friend that you never properly aired out... does that make your arithmetic more simple? Does realizing that you care about someone more than you admitted now that you are in the heat of the moment make you turn back and help them?

Isolated options in a vacuum is nothing more than a personal preference survey. It is only when making the choice costs you something that you begin to truly see where moral priorities lie. 

[Gwydden]

Amirit wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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?

OMG WHY?!
First of all, there was a peaceful solution to Marethari's death.
Second - it's entirely different situation. In case of Zaltan - it would be his decision to remove his curse. And I do believe elven clans respect their Keepers enough to obey their decision. He cursed some humans, was cheating death because of that curse, decided he vent too far and removed the curse. All his own doing. And he left things in order: clan was cured, the place was not haunted anymore and they still had a good Keeper (not to mention Warden did a lot of good things for clan on the way, so everything was fixed).

Now, should we kill Zaltan in the middle of the clan's camp without any explanation - sure, clan would be angry. But the way it was done - an elder made a decision and came through with it. Elves do respect their elders.

Even in case of Marethari while clan was ruined - no halla, no Keeper, the cursed one (Merrill) obviously had something to do with Keeper's death, so - yes, clan had all the rights to be angry. Still they could come up to their senses.

Sorry, Zaltan is a bad example of "no consequences" here. Take DA2 as an example. Literally every quest is nonsense in this regards.

I disagree. Zatrhian didn't explain anything to anyone. All the dalish knew was that he didn't came back while the Warden (who is most likele an outsider) did, and that somehow the curse was lifted. They could have easily assumed that Zathrian cured the cursed and the Warden killed him for it. If the Warden was dalish, I could accept that they were understanding, but people in general, and the dalish even more so, rarely wait to hear/believe the explanations of someone they just met.

[thats1evildude]

The circumstances in "Nature of the Beast" and "A New Path" were different. At least some members of the Dalish clan had already suspected (and in Lanaya's case, already knew) that Zathrian was responsible for the werewolf curse. They would have accepted his death as a sacrifice to help his people, who were suffering.

Merrill's clan only knew that Marethari was dead and Merrill had played a role in killing her. From their perspective, even if Marethari had been possessed and needed to die, she never would have even been in that position if Merrill had not turned to blood magic.

Merrill herself even foreshadows the possibility that the clan will turn on her one day when Hawke asks if Dalish Keepers can be possessed. "It can happen, and when it does, the clan must hunt and kill their own Keeper."

Gwydden wrote...

I disagree. Zatrhian didn't explain anything to anyone. All the dalish knew was that he didn't came back while the Warden (who is most likele an outsider) did, and that somehow the curse was lifted.

Lanaya knew about the connection, as she can use Witherfang's heart to cure the elves if Zathrian dies.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 19 septembre 2013 - 07:07 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Sorry, Zaltan is a bad example of "no consequences" here. Take DA2 as an example. Literally every quest is nonsense in this regards.

LOL Sorry, you keeping saying Zaltan. Which reminds me of the cult leader from Dude, Where's My Car? "ZOLTAN!" The Dalish Keeper's name is actually Zathrian.

But that aside, I don't think DA2 is much of a good example of anything, personally. He limited amount of choices given make DA:O seem like a total masterpiece in terms of offering players choices. So I agree with you.

That being said, it is difficult to pose a scenario from another game, which was designed with one philosophy in mind, and apply it to another philosophy and have things mesh 100%. I don't think the segment should have been done differently, I am merely suggesting a possible way that it could have worked better or how a similar idea might work in a future game.

[Gwydden]

thats1evildude wrote...

The circumstances in "Nature of the Beast" and "A New Path" were different. At least some members of the Dalish clan had already suspected (and in Lanaya's case, already knew) that Zathrian was responsible for the werewolf curse. They would have accepted his death as a sacrifice to help his people, who were suffering.

Merrill's clan only knew that Marethari was dead and Merrill had played a role in killing her. From their perspective, even if Marethari had been possessed and needed to die, she never would have even been in that position if Merrill had not turned to blood magic.

Merrill herself even foreshadows the possibility that the clan will turn on her one day when Hawke asks if Dalish Keepers can be possessed. "It can happen, and when it does, the clan must hunt and kill their own Keeper."

I still believe people expect a lot of understanding from the general NPC public, and from the dalish specifically. This is a fact: the dalish are the most openly hostile people in Thedas towards other cultures, except for maybe the qunari. If you could actually pulled off the whole saving everyone and getting your army only with a dalish character, I'd actually have nothing to say against that choice. It's even good, since the human noble shouldn't have been the only one able to solve a main quest in a distinct manner.

[Xilizhra]

I'm fine with DAO's choices and consequences as they stand. I do not consider it fun to be forced to sacrifice one group or other of allies, so I'm not for most of Jimmy's suggestions.

[MWImexico]

Gwydden wrote...
...
I disagree. Zatrhian didn't explain anything to anyone. All the dalish knew was that he didn't came back while the Warden (who is most likele an outsider) did, and that somehow the curse was lifted. They could have easily assumed that Zathrian cured the cursed and the Warden killed him for it. If the Warden was dalish, I could accept that they were understanding, but people in general, and the dalish even more so, rarely wait to hear/believe the explanations of someone they just met.

Why would the warden kill the man who sent him in the woods to cure the curse in the first place? So, your scenario is : the warden goes to the woods, Zathrian lifts the curse and then, with no real reason and against his own interest (you know, stay in good terms with the elves and get an army) the warden decides abruptly to kill the elves's keeper?

Zathrian : I have waited for you dear warden, now that you are here, I can lift the curse.
Warden : Cool, and now I can avenge those poor former human you have wronged.

Seems farfetched to me

[Fast Jimmy]

Xilizhra wrote...

I'm fine with DAO's choices and consequences as they stand. I do not consider it fun to be forced to sacrifice one group or other of allies, so I'm not for most of Jimmy's suggestions.

...but you are for SOME of them, yes?

Victory for the Forces of Democratic Freedom!

[Gwydden]

MWImexico wrote...

Gwydden wrote...
...
I disagree. Zatrhian didn't explain anything to anyone. All the dalish knew was that he didn't came back while the Warden (who is most likele an outsider) did, and that somehow the curse was lifted. They could have easily assumed that Zathrian cured the cursed and the Warden killed him for it. If the Warden was dalish, I could accept that they were understanding, but people in general, and the dalish even more so, rarely wait to hear/believe the explanations of someone they just met.

Why would the warden kill the man who sent him in the woods to cure the curse in the first place? So, your scenario is : the warden goes to the woods, Zathrian lifts the curse and then, with no real reason and against his own interest (you know, stay in good terms with the elves and get an army) the warden decides abruptly to kill the elves's keeper?

Zathrian : I have waited for you dear warden, now that you are here, I can lift the curse.
Warden : Cool, and now I can avenge those poor former human you have wronged.

Seems farfetched to me

My point is that the dalish profoundly dislike outsiders. Most people are quick to blame when something goes amiss, and they often come up with any number of excuses, some of them ridiculous, to place blame in someone they don't like.

[Dave of Canada]

Every choice should have consequence, it doesn't have to match 1:1 at that exact moment but down the line, both sides should feel like they've sacrificed something.

The player who's too trusting should be betrayed, the player who's too cold should have conspirators working to undermine his authority, the player who waffles between an argument should gain a sub-optimal "happy" result for both sides or end up losing both sides, etc.

For example, kill Werewolves and Zathrian and his elves join you in full force but their xenophobic nature is problematic and it causes problems down the line when they'd kill humans. Meanwhile, curing the Werewolves would result in an incompetent Keeper who indirectly starts getting her people killed and they abandon the clan to strike out on their own. The current Werewolf becoming feral again is already pretty damning.

[Indoctrination]

Let's not kid ourselves here for the 4th time in a row. BioWare is a penny-pinching division of EA, a penny-pinching corporation.

Making our choices have real, unique consequences is too expensive to them, therefore they simply attempt to create the ILLUSION that our choices matter and then hope we don't notice. Nothing we do in Dragon Age III will have a meaningful impact on how the game plays out. They will tell us otherwise just like they did during the marketing of Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age II, and as usual, they will be fibbing.

I would have so much more respect for them if they just came out and said "actually, your choices won't have any meaningful impact on the progression of the main story," instead of constantly trying to sell their games on deception. Just my opinion on the subject.

[MWImexico]

Gwydden wrote...
...
My point is that the dalish profoundly dislike outsiders. Most people are quick to blame when something goes amiss, and they often come up with any number of excuses, some of them ridiculous, to place blame in someone they don't like.

I think that, in this case, that would have been an inappropriate type of consequence that could have misled the player about the Dalish. They are more subtle than that, less black & white in their way of thinking.

[Fast Jimmy]

MWImexico wrote...

Gwydden wrote...
...
My point is that the dalish profoundly dislike outsiders. Most people are quick to blame when something goes amiss, and they often come up with any number of excuses, some of them ridiculous, to place blame in someone they don't like.

I think that, in this case, that would have been an inappropriate type of consequence that could have misled the player about the Dalish. They are more subtle than that, less black & white in their way of thinking.

Greeting all visitors at arrow point and telling them to leave, no matter what... is subtle? 

Hmmmm. I guess I need to get myself a thesaurus because I had a TOTALLY different concept of subtle. 

[Xilizhra]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

MWImexico wrote...

Gwydden wrote...
...
My point is that the dalish profoundly dislike outsiders. Most people are quick to blame when something goes amiss, and they often come up with any number of excuses, some of them ridiculous, to place blame in someone they don't like.

I think that, in this case, that would have been an inappropriate type of consequence that could have misled the player about the Dalish. They are more subtle than that, less black & white in their way of thinking.

Greeting all visitors at arrow point and telling them to leave, no matter what... is subtle? 

Hmmmm. I guess I need to get myself a thesaurus because I had a TOTALLY different concept of subtle. 

It wasn't "no matter what," clearly. And they have good reason; they're hounded by templars and others.

As for the rest... how would you handle consequence assuming that you won't be forced to sacrifice allies?

[Fast Jimmy]

As for the rest... how would you handle consequence assuming that you won't be forced to sacrifice allies?

None of my suggestions require sacrificing allies. They simply all required equal cost. In the Nature of the Beast quest, there is the option of killing all the Dalish, killing all the Werewolves or during everyone with no one dying except Zathrian.

I suppose I could have gone the opposite direction and found a way to offer a solution where the cure was an equal option with siding with the Werewolves or the Dalish... I'm just straining to find a way to make that work. Maybe you side with the Dalish and convince the Werewolves to leave the area (or vice versa)? That would still leave the werewolves in extreme pain because of the curse, as well as all the infected Dalish up a creek without a paddle.

Other than re-writing the setup of the lore and story involved for the game, I don't see how you could make doing the cure not the best option without resorting to adding negative consequences to doing the cure.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 19 septembre 2013 - 08:32 .

[Xilizhra]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

As for the rest... how would you handle consequence assuming that you won't be forced to sacrifice allies?

None of my suggestions require sacrificing allies. They simply all required equal cost. In the Nature of the Beast quest, there is the option of killing all the Dalish, killing all the Werewolves or during everyone with no one dying except Zathrian.

I suppose I could have gone the opposite direction and found a way to offer a solution where the cure was an equal option with siding with the Werewolves or the Dalish... I'm just straining to find a way to make that work. Maybe you side with the Dalish and convince the Werewolves to leave the area (or vice versa)? That would still leave the werewolves in extreme pain because of the curse, as well as all the infected Dalish up a creek without a paddle.

Other than re-writing the setup of the lore and story involved for the game, I don't see how you could make doing the cure not the best option without resorting to adding negative consequences to doing the cure.

I don't consider this necessary. I'm fine with the cure being as it is.

[Giggles_Manically]

Honestly as long as I can say:
"I can logically see this as a result of my choices"

Then I will be happy.
However it should be something more then one or two lines here or there.

Like from the demo, that town should always be burned to the ground to remind you, that was your choice about that.

Honestly make a consequence have real weight to it, to make a choice have meaning.
Why choose anything about the Rachni for example if nothing at all changes besides some lines of dialogue and abstract point value?

I really hope Bioware abandons that whole "we dont want people to miss content" thing they said during ME development.
People should miss content and say "Wow I never even saw that!"

Gives more reason to replay if nothing else.

[Maria Caliban]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...

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.

I completely agree.  If you hold firmly to your moral beliefs, then making moral choices in the world should be a matter of simple arithmetic.

I would then further argue that all those supposedly difficult philosophical examples do is demonstrate to the moral agent that he doesn't understand his own moral positions well.  If he did, the questions wouldn't be difficult.

I'd disagree. People have very formulated, well thought out concepts of what they believe. However, they are based on underlying assumptions and understandings. If you can present a situation that penetrates that underlying set of fundamentals, then that should require a reevaluation of the supposedly established moral tenets.

As someone who has interacted with In Exile and Sylvius for 5+ years, I am comfortable saying this doesn't apply to them.

I don't think we represent the 'average gamer' but when we're saying that we don't find choices morally difficult in RPGs, we are being accurate.

For instance, playing a character that values human life is easy. Playing a character that is anti-slavery is also easy. However... your character is on a secret mission and sees slaves being locked in a pen in a dungeon. However, upstairs, you hear some of your friends and allies being attacked, who now have their cover blown and are in grave danger of all being killed without your help.

Does your feelings of anti-slavery trump those of life preservation? Furthermore, is the nature of the life - a friend's over a stranger - enough to affect or change that determination? What if you had some undiscovered grudge against a friend that you never properly aired out... does that make your arithmetic more simple? Does realizing that you care about someone more than you admitted now that you are in the heat of the moment make you turn back and help them?

Right. I might play a PC who struggles with this problem, but that's because I've defined them as someone who hasn't decided what she really values yet. The majority of my PCs don't fall into this position.

As a player, it's not much of a moral quandary.

[Amirit]

 

Fast Jimmy wrote...

LOL Sorry, you keeping saying Zaltan. Which reminds me of the cult leader from Dude, Where's My Car? "ZOLTAN!" The Dalish Keeper's name is actually Zathrian. 

But that aside, I don't think DA2 is much of a good example of anything, personally. He limited amount of choices given make DA:O seem like a total masterpiece in terms of offering players choices. So I agree with you.

That being said, it is difficult to pose a scenario from another game, which was designed with one philosophy in mind, and apply it to another philosophy and have things mesh 100%. I don't think the segment should have been done differently, I am merely suggesting a possible way that it could have worked better or how a similar idea might work in a future game.

 

There are moral choices but zero consequences. My favorite is Fenrise's final quest, though anything regarding companions can be used as an example.

You are turning in a companion, who asked you for help. The one who shared all your adventures (and - no, the argument "I never had him in my party" does not work, the way they discuss things is that they are all with you all the time, but only 3 are visible). A companion, who saved your life, who trusted you, who you could blindly trust, etc. And when you do it, what happens with your relationship with other companions standing right here? You get 5 rivalry points at best. This is it. All consequences.

But then again, the whole game is designed this way.

Gwydden wrote...

I disagree. Zatrhian didn't explain anything to anyone. All the dalish knew was that he didn't came back while the Warden (who is most likele an outsider) did, and that somehow the curse was lifted. They could have easily assumed that Zathrian cured the cursed and the Warden killed him for it. If the Warden was dalish, I could accept that they were understanding, but people in general, and the dalish even more so, rarely wait to hear/believe the explanations of someone they just met.

Made a long response about Keepers magic, dalish bond with nature and so on, but deleted it. It's not important. Same with the Hawke - if PC, our hero, said something - NPCs are supposed to believe. In a well designed games you have some kind of influence check, in not-so-good games it goes without saying. It's a player-centric world after all. Everyone believes us unless script requires otherwise, in which case nobody believes his own eyes. So if you honestly said Zathrian killed himself - so it was and clan respect his choice.

Modifié par Amirit, 19 septembre 2013 - 08:45 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Right. I might play a PC who struggles with this problem, but that's because I've defined them as someone who hasn't decided what she really values yet. The majority of my PCs don't fall into this position. 

As a player, it's not much of a moral quandary.

If you don't mind me asking... what would the choice be? Friends? Or slaves?

Because either way, I can raise the ante.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 19 septembre 2013 - 08:46 .

[Xilizhra]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Right. I might play a PC who struggles with this problem, but that's because I've defined them as someone who hasn't decided what she really values yet. The majority of my PCs don't fall into this position. 

As a player, it's not much of a moral quandary.

If you don't mind me asking... what would the choice be? Friends? Or slaves?

Because either way, I can raise the ante.

And there's the problem: the constant desire to raise the ante. You don't have to have every major decision be partially horrible, nor should you. Fewer people will find that fun.