243 réponses à ce sujet

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Ieldra, I think you'd actually agree with unfettered's meaning.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 28 novembre 2013 - 10:36 .

[Lebanese Dude]

HiroVoid wrote...
Not really ironic.  When you make games that are bought by millions of people, you're going to get many, many different opinions.  It would be hypocritical if someone complained about that for DAO and then complained about DAII for not being about saving the world, but I haven't seen any examples brought up.

I was referring to the general opinion on the narrative, but you have a fair point.

[Ieldra]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Ieldra, I think you'd actually agree with unfettered's meaning.

I know that entry, and the reason I said I don't share your preferences exactly is that all of the points of the definition fit to some degree, but not in the absolute sense which appears to be required. For instance, my typical character isn't completely amoral. Ultimately, yes, smaller evils are of little consequence in the face of bigger goals, but they'll go out of their way to avoid the likes of "burning down an orphanage" even if it costs them additional time and effort. Ultimately, yes, strategic decisions should be made emotionally detached, but if there is an LI involved this will absolutely have an effect.

[Lebanese Dude]

Ieldra2 wrote...
I know that entry, and the reason I said I don't share your preferences exactly is that all of the points of the definition fit to some degree, but not in the absolute sense which appears to be required. For instance, my typical character isn't completely amoral. Ultimately, yes, smaller evils are of little consequence in the face of bigger goals, but they'll go out of their way to avoid the likes of "burning down an orphanage" even if it costs them additional time and effort. Ultimately, yes, strategic decisions should be made emotionally detached, but if there is an LI involved this will absolutely have an effect.

Sometimes I envy people who are capable of playing a game without worrying about everyone's lives.

Not only do I do everything in my power to satisfy my companions and allies, I also go out of my way to find ways to avoid killing enemies sometimes, in order to keep as many clueless mooks alive. 

Empathy is such a downer lol

Modifié par Lebdood, 28 novembre 2013 - 11:29 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Ieldra2 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Ieldra, I think you'd actually agree with unfettered's meaning.

I know that entry, and the reason I said I don't share your preferences exactly is that all of the points of the definition fit to some degree, but not in the absolute sense which appears to be required. For instance, my typical character isn't completely amoral. Ultimately, yes, smaller evils are of little consequence in the face of bigger goals, but they'll go out of their way to avoid the likes of "burning down an orphanage" even if it costs them additional time and effort. Ultimately, yes, strategic decisions should be made emotionally detached, but if there is an LI involved this will absolutely have an effect.

Indeed. I'll avoid needless violence when necessary, but I am willing to do it if and when I have too. Miranda's survival is also of the absolute paramount to my Shepard for example. It is pretty much his primary goal. As I think I've said, she's basically the only thing keeping my Shepard together in the Reaper War. As it is mentioned in the article his goal is to keep Miranda safe at all costs. It just so happens that to do so, it requires the defeat of the Reapers.

[Lebanese Dude]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Indeed. I'll avoid needless violence when necessary, but I am willing to do it if and when I have too. Miranda's survival is also of the absolute paramount to my Shepard for example. It is pretty much his primary goal. As I think I've said, she's basically the only thing keeping my Shepard together in the Reaper War. As it is mentioned in the article his goal is to keep Miranda safe at all costs. It just so happens that to do so, it requires the defeat of the Reapers.

That's actually one of the more realistic stances a player character can have. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Lebdood wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Indeed. I'll avoid needless violence when necessary, but I am willing to do it if and when I have too. Miranda's survival is also of the absolute paramount to my Shepard for example. It is pretty much his primary goal. As I think I've said, she's basically the only thing keeping my Shepard together in the Reaper War. As it is mentioned in the article his goal is to keep Miranda safe at all costs. It just so happens that to do so, it requires the defeat of the Reapers.

That's actually one of the more realistic stances a player character can have. 

See, that emotional investment really only extends to Miranda.

If a whole world has to die to keep her safe, the only thing that Shepard would hesitate on is breathe wasted on a response. The world would be destroyed, with utterly no regret, remorse, or guilt from Shepard.

To be honest, my Shepard really is unfettered in every sense of the description. My Warden is the same way. It's what makes the most sense to me.

As it is, I don't needlessly waste time or energy on something that doesn't help my goal. Utterly no option is off the table, nor do I base any action on ethics or morality, just reason and economics.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 28 novembre 2013 - 11:47 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

I would play a unfettered character who ends up losing the thing they were after the most because of their own ruthlessness. It just makes for a better story when a character reaches a low point where they've lost almost all hope, and then manage to come back from the brink with a new perspective and outlook on life. Classic fall and rise story telling.

[Lebanese Dude]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

See, that emotional investment really only extends to Miranda.

If a whole world has to die to keep her safe, the only thing that Shepard would hesitate on is breathe wasted on a response. The world would be destroyed, with utterly no regret, remorse, or guilt from Shepard.

To be honest, my Shepard really is unfettered in every sense of the description. My Warden is the same way. It's what makes the most sense to me.

As it is, I don't needlessly waste time or energy on something that doesn't help my goal. Utterly no option is off the table, nor do I base any action on ethics or morality, just reason and economics.

Many people in the real world would do the exact same thing. Hell, I can't even count the number of movies where a protagonist kills hundreds of people for the sake of his girl/kid/whatever. Even the audience doesn't care about anyone else.

I, however, would spend an hour debating whether I should save my LI or a bus full of schoolchildren.

It makes the game more memorable, but it also makes my head hurt.

Modifié par Lebdood, 29 novembre 2013 - 12:15 .

[SgtSteel91]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

See, that emotional investment really only extends to Miranda.

If a whole world has to die to keep her safe, the only thing that Shepard would hesitate on is breathe wasted on a response. The world would be destroyed, with utterly no regret, remorse, or guilt from Shepard.

To be honest, my Shepard really is unfettered in every sense of the description. My Warden is the same way. It's what makes the most sense to me.

As it is, I don't needlessly waste time or energy on something that doesn't help my goal. Utterly no option is off the table, nor do I base any action on ethics or morality, just reason and economics.

I'd probably do that too (in this case, for Tali...yeah, yeah go ahead an laugh <_<) but I'd fell super guilty about it and try to work at avoiding that same dilemma in the future.

Then again, I'm a civilian and you're in the army right? That is two completely different lifestyles and views at work when approaching these situations.

Modifié par SgtSteel91, 29 novembre 2013 - 12:17 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

SgtSteel91 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

See, that emotional investment really only extends to Miranda.

If a whole world has to die to keep her safe, the only thing that Shepard would hesitate on is breathe wasted on a response. The world would be destroyed, with utterly no regret, remorse, or guilt from Shepard.

To be honest, my Shepard really is unfettered in every sense of the description. My Warden is the same way. It's what makes the most sense to me.

As it is, I don't needlessly waste time or energy on something that doesn't help my goal. Utterly no option is off the table, nor do I base any action on ethics or morality, just reason and economics.

I'd probably do that too (in this case, for Tali...yeah, yeah go ahead an laugh <_<) but I'd fell super guilty about it and try to work at avoiding that same dilemma in the future.

Then again, I'm a civilian and you're in the army right? That is two completely different lifestyles and views.

It's not even so much to do with being in the military: To be honest, it does come from my own experiences. I believe in a concept of total war, and completely and absolutely devoted to a goal, with the only limitations being what time and biology place on me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I would like to add (and I have mentioned it earlier) that while BioWare does often require that the PC do heroic things, BioWare does not typically (I can't think of a single example, actually) require that the PC actually be heroic.

The PC can do heroic things for entirely unheroic reasons, and BioWare has generally done a really good job of supporting that, even if only by not making explicit what the PC's motives were.

This is, I think, the important element that needs to be preserved.

[Medhia Nox]

@Silfren: Which, is... exactly what I said?

Yes - I was being somewhat insufferable only because I find the term anti-hero to suggest that people don't have much of a clue about the evolution of "heroes" in general and therefore don't have a great base for discussing what is - and is not - "heroic".

But I said exactly what you just corrected me on. I acknowledged that he didn't want, or need, to know it... but the internet being what it was, I was simply scratching an itch.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 29 novembre 2013 - 02:51 .

[Ieldra]

Lebdood wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
I know that entry, and the reason I said I don't share your preferences exactly is that all of the points of the definition fit to some degree, but not in the absolute sense which appears to be required. For instance, my typical character isn't completely amoral. Ultimately, yes, smaller evils are of little consequence in the face of bigger goals, but they'll go out of their way to avoid the likes of "burning down an orphanage" even if it costs them additional time and effort. Ultimately, yes, strategic decisions should be made emotionally detached, but if there is an LI involved this will absolutely have an effect.

Sometimes I envy people who are capable of playing a game without worrying about everyone's lives.

Not only do I do everything in my power to satisfy my companions and allies, I also go out of my way to find ways to avoid killing enemies sometimes, in order to keep as many clueless mooks alive. 

Empathy is such a downer lol

It's just that my typical character's wellbeing doesn't depend on others as a rule. Exceptions like the LI notwithstanding. I try to get the best outcome for everyone, and I put a lot of extra effort into it if necessary, but only as far as it's compatible with my primary goals. For instance, unfortunately, it's one of my characters' goals in ME3 to keep the krogan contained, and again, unfortunately, that requires that I kill an old friend I've come to respect. Don't think I don't feel like sh*t afterwards, but the big picture is more important than one person. Empathy is a good thing, but decisions which affect millions of people need to be made with a cool heart.

So....getting back to the topic: What I would like to see in DAI is the ability to play a character with personal goals like the ancient magisters: exploring the mysteries, knowledge, ascension. That's very compatible with "saving the world" since if I don't, all that will be meaningless. However, I won't save the world for "everyone". I'll do it for myself and the few people my Inquisitor will have come to care about. Any "heroism" will be completly accidental. I could play like that in DA2 and to a lesser degree in DAO as well, and I hope DAI will build on that.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 29 novembre 2013 - 09:31 .

[David7204]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I would like to add (and I have mentioned it earlier) that while BioWare does often require that the PC do heroic things, BioWare does not typically (I can't think of a single example, actually) require that the PC actually be heroic.

Lair of the Shadow Broker.

Shepard has no reason or motive to help Liara other than helping a friend. The Broker has actually helped Shepard in the past, and Shepard has no idea Liara becomes the Broker.

Universally regarded as the best or second best Mass Effect DLC.

Modifié par David7204, 29 novembre 2013 - 06:41 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I would like to add (and I have mentioned it earlier) that while BioWare does often require that the PC do heroic things, BioWare does not typically (I can't think of a single example, actually) require that the PC actually be heroic.

Lair of the Shadow Broker.

Shepard has no reason or motive to help Liara other than helping a friend. The Broker has actually helped Shepard in the past, and Shepard has no idea Liara becomes the Broker.

Universally regarded as the best or second best Mass Effect DLC.

I'm sure it's not to do with the rather intriguing story or romance content. It's entirely for the heroism.

This would have been better if we had the option to sell out Liara. 

[Wulfram]

Shadow Broker is working with the Collectors, no? Including wanting to sell Shepard's own body to them.

[David Gaider]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I would like to add (and I have mentioned it earlier) that while BioWare does often require that the PC do heroic things, BioWare does not typically (I can't think of a single example, actually) require that the PC actually be heroic.

The PC can do heroic things for entirely unheroic reasons, and BioWare has generally done a really good job of supporting that, even if only by not making explicit what the PC's motives were.

This is, I think, the important element that needs to be preserved.

Yep. A heroic story need not require heroic motivations. I'm not sure why anyone would assume we'd suddenly start imposing such on the player, but whatever.

[David7204]

Wulfram wrote...

Shadow Broker is working with the Collectors, no? Including wanting to sell Shepard's own body to them.

All the dialogue points to Shepard and Liara wanting to avoid the Broker unless it's necessary. They only confront him to shut off the power and free Feron. No, I don't see any revenge from Shepard there.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

Yep. A heroic story need not require heroic motivations. I'm not sure why anyone would assume we'd suddenly start imposing such on the player, but whatever.

People assume a lot of things.  Rarely are they justified.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David7204 wrote...

Lair of the Shadow Broker.

Shepard has no reason or motive to help Liara other than helping a friend. The Broker has actually helped Shepard in the past, and Shepard has no idea Liara becomes the Broker.

Universally regarded as the best or second best Mass Effect DLC.

No stated reason.

As long as they don't contradict possible headcanon reasons, then we're fine.

[Cainhurst Crow]

David7204 wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Shadow Broker is working with the Collectors, no? Including wanting to sell Shepard's own body to them.

All the dialogue points to Shepard and Liara wanting to avoid the Broker unless it's necessary. They only confront him to shut off the power and free Feron. No, I don't see any revenge from Shepard there.

I remember liara being pretty damn hell bent on getting revenge on the broker, not just freeing feron.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David7204 wrote...

All the dialogue points to Shepard and Liara wanting to avoid the Broker unless it's necessary. They only confront him to shut off the power and free Feron. No, I don't see any revenge from Shepard there.

Would you, necessarily?

That we don't see something doesn't mean it isn't there - it just means it's not being forced upon us.

Did you read what David Gaider just wrote about assuming PC motivations?

[David7204]

It does if Shepard and Liara discuss what they're doing there. Which they do. And discuss how they plan to do it. Which they do. You'd think they'd at least mention revenge if it was on the agenda.

What other motivation could Shepard have aside from helping Liara?

Modifié par David7204, 29 novembre 2013 - 08:23 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

I haven't played LotSB - I thought ME2 was a pretty bad game, and wanted nothing to do with its DLC.

I'm not, however, suggesting that Liara was necessarily aware of Shepard's motives. Shepard doesn't need to talk about his thoughts in order for him to have those thoughts. Especially if he doesn't want Liara to know about them.