1331 réponses à ce sujet

[Steelcan]

Javik and Loghian should have a beer together

[Xilizhra]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Morally speaking, I would not call Javik any better than Loghain; just because he's not opposing the player doesn't make him not a fairly terrible person.

Neither Loghain nor Javik are terrible people. They're both smart guys.

Look, I can understand you dislike both characters, but thinking they're bot equally TERRIBLE? I don't get that. I just don't get that at all. Especially not with Javik. What did ever do wrong to you?


Loghain is actually my favorite DA:O character, and Javik is my favorite ME3 character.

Loghain's a hypocritical, murderous slaver. Javik never managed to wrong me due to self-imposed impotence, but that doesn't change the fact that he's bigoted, arrogant, utterly cavalier about huge casualties, perfectly happy to crush others under the bootheel of his race, and has no comprehension of the value of diplomacy.

[The Heretic of Time]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I expect to be able to determine 'right' and 'wrong' for myself, thanks.

My party members will never be 'right' when they criticize me. If I thought their opinion had any merit, I would've done what they wanted to begin with.

What if you're wrong? we all are at some point or another.

Don't be silly, it's Plaintiff you're talking to, he is NEVER wrong! He is always RIGHT! And if you disagree with him, you're just factually wrong! Didn't you know that?

Silly EntropicAngel...

[Br3admax]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I expect to be able to determine 'right' and 'wrong' for myself, thanks.

My party members will never be 'right' when they criticize me. If I thought their opinion had any merit, I would've done what they wanted to begin with.

What if you're wrong? we all are at some point or another.

What is morally right and wrong doesn't and logically right and wrong, have nothing to do with anyone but me. Taking advice is one thing, but what my companions think is not how I will solely determine what to do. If I want to side with the Templars and be a blood mage viscount, I'll do it, even if Anders wants to cry about it, and Merrill just cries in general. 

[Estelindis]

Plaintiff wrote...

I expect to be able to determine 'right' and 'wrong' for myself, thanks.

My party members will never be 'right' when they criticize me. If I thought their opinion had any merit, I would've done what they wanted to begin with.

I think that your last comment here is quite correct.  People think or do things, presumably, on the basis that they are right.  Otherwise they would do something else.

But perhaps, either before the decision, if they get the chance, or after it, a companion could give the protagonist a perspective that they hadn't considered.  Maybe that could would lead them to re-evaluate right or wrong.

Ultimately, ethics is a lot more complicated than a lot of people realise.  Everyone has an idea of right and wrong, but most people don't regularly encounter the kinds of dilemmas that lead them to carefully examine right and wrong from dozens of different angles.  RPG protagonists do encounter plenty of moral dilemmas, but many of them are quite impoverished in the level of moral complexity that they represent.  Only a handful of instances per Bioware game do we really encounter a moral problem whose answer is genuinely unclear, that people have to consider for a while before deciding, and which, even then, they can't be 100% sure about. (That's obviously better than games that offer only poor moral choices and no interesting ones at all.)  Maybe greater complexity would lead to more interesting and meaningful lives and deaths in games.

[Plaintiff]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I expect to be able to determine 'right' and 'wrong' for myself, thanks.

My party members will never be 'right' when they criticize me. If I thought their opinion had any merit, I would've done what they wanted to begin with.

What if you're wrong? we all are at some point or another.

You mean wrong in a moral context? All issues of morality are subjective.

Unless my party member is criticizing my math homework, or some other topic where there's a clear, objectively correct answer, they're going to have to work very hard to convince me to change the internal morality I've spent almost a quarter of a century developing.

[crimzontearz]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

iakus wrote...

Because some people seem to think that if a choice doesn't require  someone dying, it's not a "tough" choice.  And the more innocent the better

Billions can die an a war, and whole planets go up in flames.  Races get wiped out.,  But if the main character manages to survive without stooping to the enemy's own methods, then the ending was "rainbows and unicorns"

Unfortunately, and speaking from my own personal experience, faceless deaths are not nearly as personal as the deaths of someone close to me.  I can feel empathy that someone in New York lost a child.  But it'll never make me feel like when I lost my brother.


It's a balancing act between allowing choice with a meaningful consequence, and as this thread shows I don't think it's an easy thing for a game developer to explore, since not only do people appreciate different angles of agency (whether by choices or by consequences, or a combination), but some people simply want different things out of their games.

I like escapism, but for me escapism in games is status quo.  Like literature, there's a split between escapism and interpretative narratives.  My favourite book is Heart of Darkness, because I found it fascinating and really made me think and frankly, I think made me mature and become a better person.

Interpretive stories in games are rarer, which innately makes them novel for me and it's the type of thing that gets me excited for a game because it's novel.  I feel oversaturation with escapism, so while I can still enjoy it, I like it when a game can make me think/reflect.  If the majority of game narratives were interpretive, I'd predict a preference for just making a game more escapist.

I may have biases because I'm a pretty prolific gamer and play a lot of games.  If you're someone that ONLY plays BioWare games (or at least games similar), then we're coming at this from different contexts.


As for the "tough choices," I think people gravitate towards death because death is an easy example of something that has a lasting consequence and many understand is painful for people.  It may be becoming cliched though, and you could have examples were a group will face clear financial hardship, deportation/relocation, or even just the loss of a friendship.

I actually think it'd be really interesting if a companion that I really like questions a decision I make at one point, and despite getting along if I make a particular choice (that I think is the best choices to make) it may be an ultimate deal breaker for my friend.  How do I reconcile supporting a friend that has been with me through a lot, yet ultimately wants me to choose something that I think may not be the best decision.

I find those interesting because they also talk to me as a person.  It makes Allan Schumacher pause and go "Hmmmmm" and few games do that for me, and it's an experience that I really enjoy.


NOTE: My thought experiment is a hypothetical, and I'd like to point out that I'm not actually in charge of the narrative direction of the game, AND I -do- feel I understand perspectives such as yours, which is where "Developer Allan" comes in, even if "Gamer Allan" wants different things from games.

so...wait


 
Are you saying that I "should" treat each future Bioware game with suspicion and not buy it until I get full spoilers because I might incur in interpretive narrative?

Sigh, I miss the pre ME3 times when I could put $$$ on a Bioware preorder and be 100% sure I was getting delightful escapist fun.

[Estelindis]

Xilizhra wrote...

Well, how many times is a reasonable number for the player to be able to make a blatantly wrong decision?

This is a difficult question for me to answer, partially because of competing concerns.  At one level, I'd like it to be possible for the player to make a blatantly wrong decision every time a choice comes up.  At another level, I feel like offering a blatantly wrong option just means that most people won't take it and it's more interesting to offer genuine dilemmas with no clear answer.  Maybe a compromise would be to offer three options, one awful, two competing, but in terms of game designing efficiency this would probably be a waste of zots.  

I would add that I don't think this means there shouldn't be morally good options.  There should be lots of them.  But they should be written in a way that the decision offers other things that could appeal to players too, selfish benefits, strategic objectives, etc.  As it stands, it's often too easy to just pick the morally right option and have everything turn out perfectly.  Sometimes, choosing the right thing should lead to a perfect outcome.  Other times, it should make enemies of some people and cause difficulties down the line.

Honestly, it's looking like this is what DA:I is going to offer, so I'm very hopeful at present.

[Wulfram]

EntropicAngel wrote...

What if you're wrong? we all are at some point or another.

Well, you're unlikely to be convinced of your wrongness by a few extra bits of argument from a companion.  Though it'd be different if we really had to make these choices quickly, perhaps.


Though I will sometimes have my PC make decisions that I think are wrong.

[The Heretic of Time]

Xilizhra wrote...

Loghain's a hypocritical, murderous slaver.

I don't think he is, but please, elaborate. Tell me why you think so.

Xilizhra wrote...

Javik never managed to wrong me due to self-imposed impotence, but that doesn't change the fact that he's bigoted, arrogant, utterly cavalier about huge casualties, perfectly happy to crush others under the bootheel of his race, and has no comprehension of the value of diplomacy.

Javik is simply the product of his environment, you can't blame him for that. If you're actually nice to Javik with your Shepard and actually listen to him, you'll notice that he does have a valid point very often. Javik's attitude is the attitude you need when you're up against an enemy with the most impossible odds ever.

But if you're nice to Javik, he'll actually listen to you and he'll eventually come around and try to see it your way. But that's obviously not gonna happen if you're a douchebag towards him all the time.

And Javik does very much comprehend the value of diplomacy, he also understand that diplomacy doesn't mean jack when you're up against the bloody reapers. The reapers are trashing our galaxy and instead of uniting as one army out of common-friggin-sense we're playing Mr. Nice Guy and doing stupid favors for stupid favors before the other incompetent races of our galaxy (most specifically the damn asari, idiots they are) are willing to cooperate.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 01 novembre 2013 - 01:11 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Plaintiff wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I expect to be able to determine 'right' and 'wrong' for myself, thanks.

My party members will never be 'right' when they criticize me. If I thought their opinion had any merit, I would've done what they wanted to begin with.

What if you're wrong? we all are at some point or another.

You mean wrong in a moral context? All issues of morality are subjective.

Unless my party member is criticizing my math homework, or some other topic where there's a clear, objectively correct answer, they're going to have to work very hard to convince me to change the internal morality I've spent almost a quarter of a century developing.

In other words, you're a very close-minded person who can't, or doesn't want to see things from a different perspective? Is that right?

Do you never question your own beliefs and world-views? I do that so many times, especially if someone with opposing world-views comes with very compelling arguments why I should question mine. I think that's a sign of being a healthy, intelligent and open-minded individual. I might not always change my world-views after such an encounter, but I might adjust them after such an encounter.

For example: I wanted to let the rachni queen free in Mass Effect 1, but then Wrex reminded me of what happened in the past, and I figured; Wrex is right, and so I destroyed the rachni queen instead.

[Steelcan]

Javik had the right idea for fighting the reapers, powerful and plentiful firearms. Diplomacy isn't going to go anywhere with the Reapers.

Diplomacy might be necessary to get the races to agree and such, but I am also sympathetic to his "Don't indulge their selfish requests"

[crimzontearz]

Steelcan wrote...

Javik had the right idea for fighting the reapers, powerful and plentiful firearms. Diplomacy isn't going to go anywhere with the Reapers.

Diplomacy might be necessary to get the races to agree and such, but I am also sympathetic to his "Don't indulge their selfish requests"

to a point I agree.

God only knows how sucky life is going to be for the Raloi after the destroy ending

[JWvonGoethe]

crimzontearz wrote...

JWvonGoethe wrote...
There's another way to do it that I prefer: throw caution to the wind on your first playthrough and just see what happens. Then make one of your subsequent playthroughs the 'definitive' version and rely on meta-knowledge to shape the story in the way you see fit.

That way you avoid spoilers while still getting the satisfaction of getting the story you want to get (which, in my case, is usually a bittersweet story). Also, if you wait long enough, it means you can play all the DLC during your 'definitive' playthrough

that would NOT have helped me in a game like ME3 now would it?

I wouldn't know - I'm only around halfway through my first run of ME3. I'm guessing your point is that no amount of meta-gaming would allow you to shape its story in an emotionally satisfying way?

Modifié par JWvonGoethe, 01 novembre 2013 - 01:35 .

[Plaintiff]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
In other words, you're a very close-minded person who can't, or doesn't want to see things from a different perspective? Is that right?

That's not what I said at all.

I'm perfectly capable of sympathising with and understanding many conflicting points of view. I'm also capable of seeing that those points of view, while sympathetic, are wrong.

Do you never question your own beliefs and world-views? I do that so many times, especially if someone with opposing world-views comes with very compelling arguments why I should question mine.

No, I don't often question my own beliefs and world-views. I have yet to meet anyone, least of all a poster on the BSN, who was able to sway me away from my most fundamental opinions. Far from being compelling, the arguments are often nonsensical.

I have I think that's a sign of being a healthy, intelligent and open-minded individual. I might not always change my world-views after such an encounter, but I might adjust them after such an encounter.

I've had the same encounters over and over and over again, with the same sorts of people giving me the same terrible arguments. Not only do I already know when I enter most arguments that I'm not going to change my mind, I also know exactly what the other person is going to say. I've done the dance a million times. The steps are the same, even if my partner is different.

For example: I wanted to let the rachni queen free in Mass Effect 1, but then Wrex reminded me of what happened in the past, and I figured; Wrex is right, and so I destroyed the rachni queen instead.

Well I don't punish people for the actions of their ancestors, and I don't waste time thinking about a future that I can't predict. I do what I consider to be right at that particular moment, because that particular moment is all that matters.

I freed the Rachni Queen, and even if she had gone on to devour the entire galaxy, I would still stand by that decision.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 01 novembre 2013 - 01:41 .

[KainD]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Do you never question your own beliefs and world-views? I do that so many times, especially if someone with opposing world-views comes with very compelling arguments why I should question mine. I think that's a sign of being a healthy, intelligent and open-minded individual. I might not always change my world-views after such an encounter, but I might adjust them after such an encounter.

It doesn't matter what you believe. No point of view is superior to another. You can change your world view from time to time if that's your idea of a good time, but that doesn't mean that you improve. 

[crimzontearz]

JWvonGoethe wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

JWvonGoethe wrote...
There's another way to do it that I prefer: throw caution to the wind on your first playthrough and just see what happens. Then make one of your subsequent playthroughs the 'definitive' version and rely on meta-knowledge to shape the story in the way you see fit.

That way you avoid spoilers while still getting the satisfaction of getting the story you want to get (which, in my case, is usually a bittersweet story). Also, if you wait long enough, it means you can play all the DLC during your 'definitive' playthrough

that would NOT have helped me in a game like ME3 now would it?

I wouldn't know - I'm only around halfway through my first run of ME3. I'm guessing your point is that no amount of meta-gaming would allow you to shape its story in an emotionally satisfying way?

indeed

[KainD]

Steelcan wrote...

I can't think of one reasonable person who would condone the mindset that allowed for gladtiatorial games to be thrown, or the sacrifice of prisoners by the Aztecs, or the Hindu practice of Sati.

There are just some practices that need to be eradicated.  There is nothing subjectice about thinking humans deserve basic dignity.

My god.. different people have different standards for reasonable and dignity.

[Steelcan]

crimzontearz wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

KainD wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

KainD wrote...


It doesn't matter what you believe. No point of view is superior to another. You can change your world view from time to time if that's your idea of a good time, but that doesn't mean that you improve. 

False.

There are numerous ideologies and "points of view" that are reprehensible on every level and should be eradicated.

That's just your subjective point of view. 

I can't think of one reasonable person who would condone the mindset that allowed for gladtiatorial games to be thrown, or the sacrifice of prisoners by the Aztecs, or the Hindu practice of Sati.

There are just some practices that need to be eradicated.  There is nothing subjectice about thinking humans deserve basic dignity.

Panem et Circenses. Ludi existed because they entertained the masses. On a purely pragmatic point of view it made sense.

According to some ideologies my predilection for pancetta will land me a place in hell....I am not exactly worried tho

They made sense and were very succesful, that doesn't mean they were a good thing.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Redbelle wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

Heroic sacrifice or get hawke ending even my villain protagonists would take first option.  


On other hand if you want do for thedas i will tell that thedas isn't worth sacrifice because thedas is rotten so only someone naive would take that.

There's a point in the Patriot with Mel Gibson where the British force is routed and the Director talks in the commentary about how the hero has been defeated, but the army he is a part of runs ahead to win the war.

Then the hero ducks the decapitation strike. Spins around, and runs the villain through.

One scene that could have gone two ways and had two different set's of consequences from the hero's burial to the hero joining in later celebrations.

My point was if hero is stupid or puppet to sacrifice himself for thedas which is crapsack world sure but for me it is meaningless better just save himself than die for bunch of di*** so US in da was very naive and stupid because there is no reason outside being naive i can bet most player took DR because US was stupid choice.   

[Estelindis]

While, from my perspective, I can't see any justification for human sacrifice or any of those other things you mentioned, we don't have the cultural context to see what these things really meant to the people involved at the time. Human beings rarely do things that they see as wholly bad. There must have been some things about these practices that appealed to the people at the time for some reason. That doesn't mean they were "right" in a grand, universal sense accessible to all people at all times, just that, at the time, in some ways, they felt right. If we look at our world today (though, to avoid breaking the forum rules, I mention nothing in particular), many conflicts seem less black and white than the mistakes we condemn in historical cultures.

An understanding that different things seem right to different people for different reasons, but all views still have the potential to be interrogated and improved or worsened, seems to me to underlie the design of Thedas. If the Dragon Age conflicts led all players to believe that a single side was right, it wouldn't be as interesting or particularly similar to real life.

Edit: Would it kill you to trim your quote pyramids, folks?

Modifié par Estelindis, 01 novembre 2013 - 01:56 .

[Estelindis]

Steelcan wrote...

Human rights are an objective good, not subjective.

Particular human rights are still the subject of many disputes, though.  This is the case in Dragon Age, e.g. individual right to freedom of mages held against the right of the general population to be safe from harmful magic.

[Steelcan]

Estelindis wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Human rights are an objective good, not subjective.

Particular human rights are still the subject of many disputes, though.  This is the case in Dragon Age, e.g. individual right to freedom of mages held against the right of the general population to be safe from harmful magic.

Simple, mages aren't the same as non-mages

[Estelindis]

Steelcan wrote...

Simple, mages aren't the same as non-mages

And here we have it.  So objective human rights isn't the same as universal human rights?  Mages are human, after all.  (And, in the context of Thedas, let's say that, when we talk about human rights, we mean the rights of all people, rather than the specific human race.)

Modifié par Estelindis, 01 novembre 2013 - 02:03 .