1331 réponses à ce sujet

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

This is not the place to get into a debate about it, but it's got  much larger meaning nowadays than just its application to the arts. That's just how it started.  It's now very mixed up in the social sciences as well.  This book among others talks about that.  And it is very much concerned with truth because it's concerned with examining how differences in linguistics and culture change people's interpretation of the world, that is how people determine what "truth" and "reality" are.  Even your defintion says it is rooted "in the deconstruction of conventional (that is traditional) ideas and concepts."  These ideas and concepts include traditional notions of morality.  Postmodernism is very much about relativism and Bioware is totally trying to make all decisions seem morally justifiable relative to the character/culture/etc. of the player character.  

I'm not convinced that presenting issues as not black and white is inherently postmodern, but ok.

Mostly, I'm not sure how useful it is to introduce a difficult-to-grasp concept into a discussion that is already on rocky footing.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 31 octobre 2013 - 08:30 .

[Iakus]

Morocco Mole wrote...

How so? Because certain choices should have no right resolution and should carry both upsides and downsides?

Not in contention.

However, some people's attitutude is to hammer on the "upsides" until it can only be identified through dental records.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

My point is that Bioware shouldn't be making any in game morality determinations at all.  It's not their job to try to present a morally cogent argument for why I should or shouldn't make a particular decision.  It's the players job to come up with motivations.  It's Bioware's job to provide the player with as many choices as possible.  It's not their job to teach me that the world isn't black and white.  

In the case of DA2 is that not exactly what they did?

[dreamgazer]

iakus wrote...

In this case, it fits like a glove

Not really.  

Tossing out "Dark = Deep" and "True Art is Angsty" is a really cheap and fallacious way of deriding the opposite viewpoint.  It's just as bad as claiming certain players only want their rainbows-'n-unicorns Disney ending. 

Modifié par dreamgazer, 31 octobre 2013 - 09:01 .

[crimzontearz]

Morocco Mole wrote...

However, some people's attitutude is to hammer on the "upsides" until it can only be identified through dental records.

One could say the same about those that focus on the downsides until you start to wonder if they may just be too invested in a videogame.

and if they were, what is it to you?

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Makes sense. Thanks for explaining.

Though I do think the fact that the conflict revolved around a single issue, with the entire game dedicated to expounding upon that issue, was the reason for a lot of the 'preachiness'. Not that that is a reason to give it a pass for the aspects you consider negative, but it is what it is. I don't think they're going to do it quite like that again. At the same time though it's a party based RPG which is not exactly a format where you're going to get a distant, god-game stance of the issues. They've already made it clear in interviews that followers will continue to humanize and personalize perspectives on plot conflicts.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 31 octobre 2013 - 09:20 .

[Mr.House]

crimzontearz wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

However, some people's attitutude is to hammer on the "upsides" until it can only be identified through dental records.

One could say the same about those that focus on the downsides until you start to wonder if they may just be too invested in a videogame.

and if they were, what is it to you?

It's not healthy?

[HiroVoid]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

Pseudocognition wrote...

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

My point is that Bioware shouldn't be making any in game morality determinations at all.  It's not their job to try to present a morally cogent argument for why I should or shouldn't make a particular decision.  It's the players job to come up with motivations.  It's Bioware's job to provide the player with as many choices as possible.  It's not their job to teach me that the world isn't black and white.  

In the case of DA2 is that not exactly what they did?

Not really.  They centralized 1 particular moral conundrum in the plot of the story.  They built whole characters (Anders, Fenris) whose job it was to personalize and rationalize a particular side of the debate.  They made your sibling reactionary to whether you were or weren't a mage so you would *always* have a personal stake in the debate.  They are bound and determined to beat you over the head with how *relative* the mage/templar debate is.  DA2 is basically one giant debate club competition followed by a request for the judge, the player, to loudly and solemnly proclaim which side presented the most convincing argument. 

The reason I say DAO was the best attempt thus far an organically and honestly postmodernist (or relatavist, pick your word) game is that they didn't spend half the game trying to persuade me that the situation wasn't black and white.  They just created lots of complex characters with complex motivations in a rich setting and let me work with them, screw them over, and interact with them as I saw fit.  You didn't have to convince me that the world was complex and there was more than one way to do things.  I just instinctively realized it.

I still find it hilarious that the Circle and Redcliffe situations were more grey than anything DA2 attempted to show.  Want proof of dangerous abominations?  *Points at Redcliffe and how if the Warden doesn't help, a single abomination decimates one of the most well known cities in Ferelden*.

Want proof of an annulment that has good reasons behind it?  *Points a Gregaior and how he only calls for the annulment after he and some of the remaining templars have been driven to a defensive position with no way to combat the remaining abominations where the annullment is also calling for reinforcments which would take days and the chances of any mages having not been killed or turned by that point is low*.

[Iakus]

dreamgazer wrote...

iakus wrote...

In this case, it fits like a glove

Not really.  

Tossing out "Dark = Deep" and "True Art is Angsty" is a really cheap and fallacious way of deriding the opposite viewpoint.  It's just as bad as claiming certain players only want their rainbows-'n-unicorns Disney ending. 

Except certain player have been saying that "Shepard's death fits" (regardless of whos Shep is being talked about)  or Shep's clear survival shouldn't be because it would be too happy.   or demanding choices where the only real difference seems to be how many people your chocie gets killed or the names of who dies.

This doesn't apply to all, but there is a definite (and loud) group who don't seem to like the idea of any choice having a "good" outcome.  And who sneer at the idea of a protagonist surviving the conclusion of their story.,

[Iakus]

Morocco Mole wrote...

However, some people's attitutude is to hammer on the "upsides" until it can only be identified through dental records.

One could say the same about those that focus on the downsides until you start to wonder if they may just be too invested in a videogame.

That's not a denial

[crimzontearz]

Mr.House wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

However, some people's attitutude is to hammer on the "upsides" until it can only be identified through dental records.

One could say the same about those that focus on the downsides until you start to wonder if they may just be too invested in a videogame.

and if they were, what is it to you?

It's not healthy?

only if we get artistic middle fingers like the ME3 breath scene or artistically shoehorned forced protagonist deaths


 
Otherwise all is well

[Br3admax]

crimzontearz wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

However, some people's attitutude is to hammer on the "upsides" until it can only be identified through dental records.

One could say the same about those that focus on the downsides until you start to wonder if they may just be too invested in a videogame.

and if they were, what is it to you?

It's not healthy?

only if we get artistic middle fingers like the ME3 breath scene or artistically shoehorned forced protagonist deaths


 
Otherwise all is well

No, it really isn't. 

[crimzontearz]

Br3ad wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

However, some people's attitutude is to hammer on the "upsides" until it can only be identified through dental records.

One could say the same about those that focus on the downsides until you start to wonder if they may just be too invested in a videogame.

and if they were, what is it to you?

It's not healthy?

only if we get artistic middle fingers like the ME3 breath scene or artistically shoehorned forced protagonist deaths


 
Otherwise all is well

No, it really isn't. 

it is to me

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I personally don't give much water to the argument of 'It's not healthy to be too invested in a video game", mainly due to the fact that everyone perceives the system differently and has different tastes and attachments. People form attachments to things in different ways. No two relationships (even ones between animate and inanimate objects) are exactly alike, and people have different levels of investment based on their interest and enjoyment.

Honestly, some people here do come off just as rigid and staunch as a poster who has already received a lot of flaming in this thread (and may I say, not unjustly).

[Br3admax]

Having attachments to a story though, is not something that should be done because the story is always changing. Always evolving. When the story doesn't go the way that the attached wants it to, the results can be catastrophic.

[crimzontearz]

Br3ad wrote...

Having attachments to a story though, is not something that should be done because the story is always changing. Always evolving. When the story doesn't go the way that the attached wants it to, the results can be catastrophic.

yep, which leads me to the only lesson ME3 taught me. Always go full spoiler on a game you have emotional investment in before buying it


 
Have been doing such since

[Catastrophy]

DragonKingReborn wrote...

[...]

tl/dr 

 If you could win, and win well, but your character died,would you accept that as a game well written and made?

Definitely, yes. The point is "win well".

You picked up about the ME3 ending. ME3 was quite immersive for lots of people and had a strong protagonist. I already took into account my Shepard would die while saving the galaxy before playing through the last act.

It's not really bad if a protagonist has to sacrifice everything to suceed - that's what hero stuff is made from.

Just it really wasn't the case in the vanilla version. It was like dumping the hero into the trashcan. There was no (always have to look that word up) redemption and that hurt somehow because I grew fond of my Shepards.

People got so into the setting they immediately reflected about the consequences that weren't picked up.
It was easy to conclude that the Reapers had been defeated but the Galaxy and all that you fought for was pretty much screwed anyway.

Another thing was the final scene that imposed the way to solve the situation on the protagonist. All the time we were used to guide Shepard to "get the job done". That last step hit like a hammer, taking away pretty much any heroic initiative reducing me/my Shepard feeling like a rat seeking desperately for a way out.

In the end it didn't even feel like a win. Meh, even thinking it through again makes me feel bad. My poor awesome Sherpard girl wasted.

They did well adding an epilogue with the extended cut. It couldn't take away the strange feeling with the final scene - this stuff sticks like hell from the first playthrough but it put some things into a perspective again and gave a sense of remedy for the protagonist.

tl;dr: In order to not reduce the protagonist to mook level, let them have a meaningful death if you have to kill them. Elaborate on consequences and don't shove players into the dark. They get all kinds of ideas there.

[Estelindis]

DragonKingReborn wrote...

 If you could win, and win well, but your character died,would you accept that as a game well written and made?

I think that "win well" has to include something that really matters to you and/or your character, a victory on a personal level.  Then the character dying can give satisfaction.  Simply killing the character as a cheap "deep and meaningful" button doesn't work.

I do think that the ups and downs of a work up to that point play a part as well.  If things have been unrelentingly grim, it's really understandable to want your character to have some happiness at the end of their suffering.  By contrast, if you've already had some good times, I think it's possible to have a satisfactory sad or bittersweet ending.

Modifié par Estelindis, 01 novembre 2013 - 12:15 .

[crimzontearz]

Estelindis wrote...

DragonKingReborn wrote...

 If you could win, and win well, but your character died,would you accept that as a game well written and made?

I think that "win well" has to include something that really matters to you and/or your character, a victory on a personal level.  Then the character dying can give satisfaction.  Simply killing the character as a cheap "deep and meaningful" button doesn't work.

I do think that the ups and downs of a work up to that point play a part as well.  If things have been unrelentingly grim, it's really understandable to want your character to have some happiness at the end of their suffering.  By contrast, if you've already had some good times, I think it's possible to have a satisfactory sad or bittersweet ending.

it is possible but as always subjectively

[dragonflight288]

Whatever choice I make, I hope it doesn't include anything like this.

At least, meeting an npc like this would freak me out.

Modifié par dragonflight288, 01 novembre 2013 - 12:22 .