242 réponses à ce sujet

[leaguer of one]

DinoSteve wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Sopa de Gato wrote...

The problem is making something with a suitable emotional punch that also doesn't feel like you're kicking the player in the nuts or insulting their stupidity. I actually like it when there's a third option for people that want to do so (like the Circle solution for Connor, even though I know a lot of people hate it).

As flogged as it gets, ME3 did this well a couple of times.

I don't, third options like the circle for Connor ruins said event and makes the other choices that where grey clearly the worse choices because there's no draw back to going to the circle.

I don't agree the first two choices are easy and the last choice was clearly supposed to be harder because you needed the circle (whether it was hard enough is a different discussion) I think this is best way to resolve issues but the 3rd way should always be the harder and longer way to do it. I hate when you are restricted to two morally grey choices life doesn't work like that. If you are willing to put the time in you should be fit to get an optimal resolution.

But life does work like that. In life you have a bunch of grey choices and more times then not the one you pick may not work out.

[leaguer of one]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

By leaving morality out of the problem. Bring it down to a question of logic and resources.

Sorry,  but no. Not everyone's mind works like that. Blind logic is also flawed.

[Lebanese Dude]

leaguer of one wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

By leaving morality out of the problem. Bring it down to a question of logic and resources.

Sorry,  but no. Not everyone's mind works like that. Blind logic is also flawed.

Example: Reapers

[leaguer of one]

Lebdood wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

By leaving morality out of the problem. Bring it down to a question of logic and resources.

Sorry,  but no. Not everyone's mind works like that. Blind logic is also flawed.

Example: Reapers

You get a gold star. And a Cookie.

[Hazegurl]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Yep...

Those 100 people are dead. 

Ever hear of the unfettered?

lol! I have to admit that I would feel the same way. Tell me I have to sacrifice Kaidan or save 100 people...Kaidan will always live. The only reason I would have to kill him is if he commits suicide or something anyway just to save those 100 ppl which will result in me losing both. But without that piece of meta info I would save Kaidan or attempt to.

On the subject of "blind logic". I agree that even that has it's flaws but it isn't and shouldn't be a flaw every single time. Sometimes pure logic is the best way to approach a situation. A leader can't be going out of their way to make everyone safe and happy every single time a hard choice needs to be made.

Modifié par Hazegurl, 27 novembre 2013 - 04:51 .

[TheKomandorShepard]

I hope rly they will add pragmatic decisions and game will stop assault on me for taking that in da they should give
advantage anti-hero and punish heroes and moral decisions how that should be not opposite if you want have moral learn that they have price if you want job done take pragmatic route and i rly i don't want my character to cry after taken pragmatic decision like they did with leandra in da 2. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

leaguer of one wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

By leaving morality out of the problem. Bring it down to a question of logic and resources.

Sorry,  but no. Not everyone's mind works like that. Blind logic is also flawed.

Not really. 

Blind Logic is an oxymoron. 

Tell me what your problem is. I think the problem is that people don't know how to think critically or in the long-term. Too many are weighed down by idea's of compassion and honor.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 27 novembre 2013 - 04:55 .

[9TailsFox]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Kaiser Arian wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Kaiser Arian wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

By leaving morality out of the problem. Bring it down to a question of logic and resources.

But a decision between sacrificing your waifu or enslaving and cursing 10 people with a magical power for a cause will be motivating!

Well, my waifu's welfare is part of my goal. And an indispensable one. If 10 people have to die for her, they die. I have no remorse.

OK, I make it harder.

I should raise the number to 100 and it requires to deceive them (to come to a feast or something). At the end they will be part of a magical ritual!
This ritual is for a cause and needs blood magic. Those 100 people will turn into some kind of semi-undead.

Or you can sacrifice your waifu companion, because she has enormous power and can be used in the ritual alone, but she will die.

I can guess your answer, but others should get terrified by these options!

Yep...

Those 100 people are dead. 

Ever hear of the unfettered?

I probably would pick the same if I answer just to question without context. But there is a lot of if. What if waifu will be disposed of you as monster. Can those 10, 100, 1000 people be criminals(even criminals is there crime is big?)
Oh you question is not just logic and resources. Logic and resources would be today do i pick heavy boots or lether. And you meat dragon lether buts you can escape easy.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Lebdood wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

By leaving morality out of the problem. Bring it down to a question of logic and resources.

Sorry,  but no. Not everyone's mind works like that. Blind logic is also flawed.

Example: Reapers

That was the problem of a logic bomb brought about by an improper stipulation of goals and postulated to a purely mechanical intelligence. It was unable to reconcile its two directives due to a paradox in the logic of the Leviathans, and thus led to the Catalyst reaching a dilemma that it first solved by simply killing all organics who achieve a state of technological advancement at level with creating sapient synthetic life, and by preserving a broad genetic example of the species inside a Reaper. Later, it came to the conclusion of merging organic and synthetic life into one form. This in itself is not invalid, but when looking at the stipulated problem, you realize that it wasn't a necessity to begin with, only the solution to a flawed problem.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Why not both? Some missions are moral, others are questions of logic and resources.

What's the problem here?

[9TailsFox]

leaguer of one wrote...

Look at Legion's house divided mission.....Just like that with out the paragon/renegade points.

This is good point. i just picked blue.If it wasn't color coded I don't know what I would have picked.

[leaguer of one]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

By leaving morality out of the problem. Bring it down to a question of logic and resources.

Sorry,  but no. Not everyone's mind works like that. Blind logic is also flawed.

Not really. 

Blind Logic is an oxymoron. 

Tell me what your problem is.

No, Sorry. Blind logic can be a flaw. Read gulliver's travels. It a term meaning leaving total emotion and bias out of the equation. 
Blind logic can lead to things like causing physical conflict trying to impove a people who think is lesser just because you think it better.
Or Making laws that  that are so unbiased that it can harm innocent and guilty alike.

If you really want to see how that's like I suggest watching a show called Psycho Pass.

[Lebanese Dude]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

That was the problem of a logic bomb brought about by an improper stipulation of goals and postulated to a purely mechanical intelligence. It was unable to reconcile its two directives due to a paradox in the logic of the Leviathans, and thus led to the Catalyst reaching a dilemma that it first solved by simply killing all organics who achieve a state of technological advancement at level with creating sapient synthetic life, and by preserving a broad genetic example of the species inside a Reaper. Later, it came to the conclusion of merging organic and synthetic life into one form. This in itself is not invalid, but when looking at the stipulated problem, you realize that it wasn't a necessity to begin with, only the solution to a flawed problem.

This is true. Synthetic AI should be treated differently in this regard.

Modifié par Lebdood, 27 novembre 2013 - 05:00 .

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Mr.House wrote...

Sopa de Gato wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Sopa de Gato wrote...

The problem is making something with a suitable emotional punch that also doesn't feel like you're kicking the player in the nuts or insulting their stupidity. I actually like it when there's a third option for people that want to do so (like the Circle solution for Connor, even though I know a lot of people hate it).

As flogged as it gets, ME3 did this well a couple of times.

I don't, third options like the circle for Connor ruins said event and makes the other choices that where grey cleary the worse choices because there's no draw back to going to the circle.

While I think it should've been limited to someone who's already cleared the Circle, I don't see why it shouldn't be an option. There's no need to force the player into a lose-lose situation.

You have two choices, kill Connor or have Isolde sacerfice herself, how is that a lose-lose? You save Redcliffe, it just comes at a price. Going to the circle, coming back with mages and NOTHING happended is plain stupid and should have never happen. It destroyes the whole event and was there because Biioware was scared gamers would be too afraid to make a really hard choice.

Just because you might kill Connor or sacrfise herself doesn't mean that I WOULD do either if I knew there was a better option. Some people are willing to gamble in order to save 2 lives than take the quick path to just save one life. Also the way I see it the Warden NEEDS the Arl of Redcliffe's help it makes very little sense to me that a man who we are told repeatly really loves his wife and son by several different people would ever help the person who killed one of them and the fact if so kill one of them that Arl Eamon doesn't order the excutions of The Warden and their companions for killing his son or wife makes even less sense than The Warden going to Circle of Magi to get help to me. And if I was in simlar situtlation in the real world I would take do the third option every time (which I do in DA:O anyway) .  

[Lebanese Dude]

leaguer of one wrote...
No, Sorry. Blind logic can be a flaw. Read gulliver's travels. It a term meaning leaving total emotion and bias out of the equation. 
Blind logic can lead to things like causing physical conflict trying to impove a people who think is lesser just because you think it better.
Or Making laws that  that are so unbiased that it can harm innocent and guilty alike.

If you really want to see how that's like I suggest watching a show called Psycho Pass.

To reiterate their opinion, they don't care about innocence, guilt, and whatnot in the first place.

I agree with your POV though.

[Joah]

I'll just offer my two cents I guess. Difficult moral decisions are best when there isn't an objectively better choice. Even if all I have presented to me are going to result in negative outcomes I should be able to justify why my character chose to do it. The third option thing that bioware does creates an objectively better outcome that means any justification my character has would have to include that they preferred the outcome where people got hurt over the one where they get to be a hero and everyone is saved.

[leaguer of one]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Lebdood wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

By leaving morality out of the problem. Bring it down to a question of logic and resources.

Sorry,  but no. Not everyone's mind works like that. Blind logic is also flawed.

Example: Reapers

That was the problem of a logic bomb brought about by an improper stipulation of goals and postulated to a purely mechanical intelligence. It was unable to reconcile its two directives due to a paradox in the logic of the Leviathans, and thus led to the Catalyst reaching a dilemma that it first solved by simply killing all organics who achieve a state of technological advancement at level with creating sapient synthetic life, and by preserving a broad genetic example of the species inside a Reaper. Later, it came to the conclusion of merging organic and synthetic life into one form. This in itself is not invalid, but when looking at the stipulated problem, you realize that it wasn't a necessity to begin with, only the solution to a flawed problem.

If the being was not locked into blind logic and was able to learn morals and understand organics, It would of been able to see that the question was flawed from the start.
Sorry, the reapers issue is blind logic and bad users.

[HiroVoid]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Not having clear biases for one choice or another and not providing convenient third options would be a good start.

Hey! It takes a lot of effort to do those side quests that I was probably going to do anyway.

[leaguer of one]

Cyberstrike nTo wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Sopa de Gato wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Sopa de Gato wrote...

The problem is making something with a suitable emotional punch that also doesn't feel like you're kicking the player in the nuts or insulting their stupidity. I actually like it when there's a third option for people that want to do so (like the Circle solution for Connor, even though I know a lot of people hate it).

As flogged as it gets, ME3 did this well a couple of times.

I don't, third options like the circle for Connor ruins said event and makes the other choices that where grey cleary the worse choices because there's no draw back to going to the circle.

While I think it should've been limited to someone who's already cleared the Circle, I don't see why it shouldn't be an option. There's no need to force the player into a lose-lose situation.

You have two choices, kill Connor or have Isolde sacerfice herself, how is that a lose-lose? You save Redcliffe, it just comes at a price. Going to the circle, coming back with mages and NOTHING happended is plain stupid and should have never happen. It destroyes the whole event and was there because Biioware was scared gamers would be too afraid to make a really hard choice.

Just because you might kill Connor or sacrfise herself doesn't mean that I WOULD do either if I knew there was a better option. Some people are willing to gamble in order to save 2 lives than take the quick path to just save one life. Also the way I see it the Warden NEEDS the Arl of Redcliffe's help it makes very little sense to me that a man who we are told repeatly really loves his wife and son by several different people would ever help the person who killed one of them and the fact if so kill one of them that Arl Eamon doesn't order the excutions of The Warden and their companions for killing his son or wife makes even less sense than The Warden going to Circle of Magi to get help to me. And if I was in simlar situtlation in the real world I would take do the third option every time (which I do in DA:O anyway) .  

Thinking the Arl will kill the warden because his son and wife died is a huge leap of logic.

[9TailsFox]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Why not both? Some missions are moral, others are questions of logic and resources.

What's the problem here?

For some reason some people hate the others get happy. So they don't want others to get happy ending protagonist riding rainbow on unicorn with LI. And don't forget cace.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Cyberstrike nTo wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Sopa de Gato wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Sopa de Gato wrote...

The problem is making something with a suitable emotional punch that also doesn't feel like you're kicking the player in the nuts or insulting their stupidity. I actually like it when there's a third option for people that want to do so (like the Circle solution for Connor, even though I know a lot of people hate it).

As flogged as it gets, ME3 did this well a couple of times.

I don't, third options like the circle for Connor ruins said event and makes the other choices that where grey cleary the worse choices because there's no draw back to going to the circle.

While I think it should've been limited to someone who's already cleared the Circle, I don't see why it shouldn't be an option. There's no need to force the player into a lose-lose situation.

You have two choices, kill Connor or have Isolde sacerfice herself, how is that a lose-lose? You save Redcliffe, it just comes at a price. Going to the circle, coming back with mages and NOTHING happended is plain stupid and should have never happen. It destroyes the whole event and was there because Biioware was scared gamers would be too afraid to make a really hard choice.

Just because you might kill Connor or sacrfise herself doesn't mean that I WOULD do either if I knew there was a better option. Some people are willing to gamble in order to save 2 lives than take the quick path to just save one life. Also the way I see it the Warden NEEDS the Arl of Redcliffe's help it makes very little sense to me that a man who we are told repeatly really loves his wife and son by several different people would ever help the person who killed one of them and the fact if so kill one of them that Arl Eamon doesn't order the excutions of The Warden and their companions for killing his son or wife makes even less sense than The Warden going to Circle of Magi to get help to me. And if I was in simlar situtlation in the real world I would take do the third option every time (which I do in DA:O anyway) .  

I don't mind third fourth and more option but such stupid option as leave redcliffe should be punished heavily for being idiot and leaving castle on demon mercy heroic option is often most stupid option sometimes it is pragmatic and sane but rarely it should be punished as stupid evil route who killes useful characters and isn't smart enough to handle without them.  

9TailsFox wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Why not both? Some missions are moral, others are questions of logic and resources.

What's the problem here?

For
some reason some people hate the others get happy. So they don't want
others to get happy ending protagonist riding rainbow on unicorn with
LI. And don't forget cace.

Well you can have such endings just go for im in it only for myself but if you want hero wins go for me 1 and 2.

Modifié par TheKomandorShepard, 27 novembre 2013 - 05:10 .

[CronoDragoon]

9TailsFox wrote...

For some reason some people hate the others get happy. So they don't want others to get happy ending protagonist riding rainbow on unicorn with LI. And don't forget cace.

If it only affected your game no one would care, which is why I don't care about MEHEM. But since each player is still trying to choose the best solution, they will pick a "happy ending" even if it undermines the tension and conflict of a choice.

[SerriceIceDandy]

To create a difficult moral problem would require the player to know the consequences of their decision before they make it; the black and white (or Paragon and Renegade) options need to be blurred for the player to stop and think. Ideally, a difficult moral choice should make the player choose between more selfish desires vs 'the greater good' i.e.: Priority: Tuchanka

To force a player to make a difficult decision doesn't necessarily require full knowledge of the situation; it can have some ambiguity to it. Priority: Rannoch did this best, because providing you have no insight into what happens after, letting Legion upload the Reaper code is itself a gamble, although necessary for the ideal resolution. But if the player is blind to the consequences, I personally wouldn't feel it's a moral decision.

[leaguer of one]

9TailsFox wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Why not both? Some missions are moral, others are questions of logic and resources.

What's the problem here?

For some reason some people hate the others get happy. So they don't want others to get happy ending protagonist riding rainbow on unicorn with LI. And don't forget cace.

It's not that people don't want the story to have a happy ending. We just want an ending with meaning with out ending so cliche or by the numbers.