242 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

Please don't use that meme. It's responsible for a lot of people misunderstanding what's going on with the Catalyst, to the point that it's used in lieu of critical thinking.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 27 novembre 2013 - 06:17 .

[Killdren88]

If they want tough moral choices I say okay. But I feel that if people want choices that have little to no sacrifice make them work for it. Go the extra mile in situations. Work for your happy ending.

[Fast Jimmy]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Please don't use that meme. It's responsible for a lot of people misunderstanding what's going on with the Catalyst, to the point that it's used in lieu of critical thinking.

That meme IS the Catalyst's logic. When you sum it up in one sentence, its utterly clear how stupid it is. 

[leaguer of one]

Hazegurl wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Hence why the reapers are an example of blind logic and how logic can be a flaw.

In what way is the logic of the reapers a flaw?

The only thing I can say that imo would make their logic flawed is that they have no concept of what it means to be an organic species and approach our survival with the same logic as a Geth would approach their own survival, by being a part of a consensus.  

And also this:



disclaimer: just having some fun, please don't go all BSN on me.

For the last time. That pic is wrong. The reapers are perserving organics, not killing them. This is like saying turning you into a cyborg is killing you. They are just changing you body. The only thing that dies is you and your races indivisuality.

Modifié par leaguer of one, 27 novembre 2013 - 06:25 .

[leaguer of one]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Please don't use that meme. It's responsible for a lot of people misunderstanding what's going on with the Catalyst, to the point that it's used in lieu of critical thinking.

That meme IS the Catalyst's logic. When you sum it up in one sentence, its utterly clear how stupid it is. 

For the last time. That pic is wrong. The reapers are perserving organics, not killing them. This is like saying turning you into a cyborg is killing you. They are just changing your body. The only thing that dies is you and your races indivisuality.

[Hellion Rex]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Please don't use that meme. It's responsible for a lot of people misunderstanding what's going on with the Catalyst, to the point that it's used in lieu of critical thinking.

That meme IS the Catalyst's logic. When you sum it up in one sentence, its utterly clear how stupid it is. 

Ditto.

[Killdren88]

leaguer of one wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Please don't use that meme. It's responsible for a lot of people misunderstanding what's going on with the Catalyst, to the point that it's used in lieu of critical thinking.

That meme IS the Catalyst's logic. When you sum it up in one sentence, its utterly clear how stupid it is. 

For the last time. That pic is wrong. The reapers are perserving organics, not killing them. This is like saying turning you into a cyborg is killing you. They are just changing your body. The only thing that dies is you and your races indivisuality.

Getting off topic guys...

[leaguer of one]

eluvianix wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Please don't use that meme. It's responsible for a lot of people misunderstanding what's going on with the Catalyst, to the point that it's used in lieu of critical thinking.

That meme IS the Catalyst's logic. When you sum it up in one sentence, its utterly clear how stupid it is. 

Ditto.

Read my last post.

[Hazegurl]

*sigh* and I said don't go all BSN on me. lol! Read what I said above that meme. I am perfectly aware that storing organics is what they are doing. But when it's all broken down, that meme is basically what's happening because organics are not machines like the Geth. We are not built to have a consensus.

It's like the debate about Huerta at the hospital in ME3. Just because the man is "alive" in some form doesn't mean he actually is. It's like saying husks are alive, just transformed. They're not.

Back on topic, I do hope DA:I give us consequences for everything. I don't like the idea of being able to save both a village and a Keep.

Modifié par Hazegurl, 27 novembre 2013 - 06:32 .

[leaguer of one]

Hazegurl wrote...

*sigh* and I said don't go all BSN on me. lol! Read what I said above that meme. I am perfectly aware that storing organics is what they are doing. But when it's all broken down, that meme is basically what's happening because organics are not machines like the Geth. We are not built to have a consensus.

It's like the debate about Huerta at the hospital in ME3. Just because the man is "alive" in some form doesn't mean he actually is. It's like saying husks are alive, just transformed.

Joking or not, you should know it 's a huge bomb to put that pic on bsn.
And on that husk it's up to debate. It can be reversed in sysnthesis.

Modifié par leaguer of one, 27 novembre 2013 - 06:34 .

[Hellion Rex]

leaguer of one wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Please don't use that meme. It's responsible for a lot of people misunderstanding what's going on with the Catalyst, to the point that it's used in lieu of critical thinking.

That meme IS the Catalyst's logic. When you sum it up in one sentence, its utterly clear how stupid it is. 

Ditto.

Read my last post.

I am perfectly aware of what it said.

[Hazegurl]

leaguer of one wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

*sigh* and I said don't go all BSN on me. lol! Read what I said above that meme. I am perfectly aware that storing organics is what they are doing. But when it's all broken down, that meme is basically what's happening because organics are not machines like the Geth. We are not built to have a consensus.

It's like the debate about Huerta at the hospital in ME3. Just because the man is "alive" in some form doesn't mean he actually is. It's like saying husks are alive, just transformed.

Joking or not, you should know it 's a huge bomb to put that pic on bsn.

It's only a bomb cause people like you who can't accept it as a joke, opinion, or whatever.
Husks could be reversed in synthesis?? I only saw the synthesis ending once so I don't remember any Husks being made human again.

Modifié par Hazegurl, 27 novembre 2013 - 06:36 .

[leaguer of one]

eluvianix wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Please don't use that meme. It's responsible for a lot of people misunderstanding what's going on with the Catalyst, to the point that it's used in lieu of critical thinking.

That meme IS the Catalyst's logic. When you sum it up in one sentence, its utterly clear how stupid it is. 

Ditto.

Read my last post.

I am perfectly aware of what it said.

Which means you got the catalyst logic wrong.

[leaguer of one]

Hazegurl wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

*sigh* and I said don't go all BSN on me. lol! Read what I said above that meme. I am perfectly aware that storing organics is what they are doing. But when it's all broken down, that meme is basically what's happening because organics are not machines like the Geth. We are not built to have a consensus.

It's like the debate about Huerta at the hospital in ME3. Just because the man is "alive" in some form doesn't mean he actually is. It's like saying husks are alive, just transformed.

Joking or not, you should know it 's a huge bomb to put that pic on bsn.

It's only a bomb cause people like you who can't accept it as a joke, opinion, or whatever.

It a bomb because other out right goes and say it's true as well.

Let just agree to not use it and move on.

[CronoDragoon]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Please don't use that meme. It's responsible for a lot of people misunderstanding what's going on with the Catalyst, to the point that it's used in lieu of critical thinking.

That meme IS the Catalyst's logic. When you sum it up in one sentence, its utterly clear how stupid it is. 

Beyond what the other guy said, the Catalyst doesn't kill all organics every 50k years, which is the contradiction the meme implies. It's stupid and wrong. The Catalyst's logic is flawed in my book, but not for the reason the meme suggests.

[Hazegurl]

leaguer of one wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

*sigh* and I said don't go all BSN on me. lol! Read what I said above that meme. I am perfectly aware that storing organics is what they are doing. But when it's all broken down, that meme is basically what's happening because organics are not machines like the Geth. We are not built to have a consensus.

It's like the debate about Huerta at the hospital in ME3. Just because the man is "alive" in some form doesn't mean he actually is. It's like saying husks are alive, just transformed.

Joking or not, you should know it 's a huge bomb to put that pic on bsn.

It's only a bomb cause people like you who can't accept it as a joke, opinion, or whatever.

It a bomb because other out right goes and say it's true as well.

Let just agree to not use it and move on.

I'll use whatever I like. Get over it.

...so when will this thread get locked now?

Modifié par Hazegurl, 27 novembre 2013 - 06:38 .

[CronoDragoon]

Hazegurl wrote...

It's only a bomb cause people like you who can't accept it as a joke, opinion, or whatever.

Well your joke disclaimer wasn't there when I responded so please forgive me, but you can see from the replies that people clearly do believe the meme is true.

Sorry for the derail.

[Jorji Costava]

CronoDragoon wrote...

The ideal for me is Dragon Age 2, actually. In DA2, I was taught early that my decisions could go REALLY WRONG by bringing Bethany to the Deep Roads (without Anders. This is the one and only decision I've reloaded in a BW game because I thought Bethany had a lot of character potential that I didn't want to miss my first time through). Looking back retrospectively, this informed the rest of my DA2 experience. When Isabella left with the tome I genuinely thought she was gone and not returning, assuming I had done something during the course of my playthrough leading to this. Thus my elation when she returned with the tome. On the other hand, my trust in Anders was rewarded with becoming an unknowing accomplice to mass murder, and I ultimately chose to kill him.

Those are really good examples. I agree that outright failure in dialogue or decision trees is an outcome that should potentially come up more often, particularly if you think (as I do) that dialogue is as legitimate and important a part of gameplay as combat, XP, etc. If you can fail combat, you should be able to fail decisions too. The only time I think you really need to worry about achieving a balance between outcomes (whether in the short term or the long term) is when you have those big decisions that pit value systems against each other. Failing a conversation because you weren't attentive enough or didn't gather enough information about the NPC prior to the conversation is one thing; failing it because the game is essentially telling you that deontologists are dummies is another.

Also, that MrBTongue guy did a nice video a while back on the whole concept of Choice and Consequence, for anyone who's interested.

[Ghost43]

Has anyone here played Papers, Please? It does choice and consequence really well, and I think there's a few things bioware could focus on. Past decisons opening up or closing off choices (Thanks Jorgi!), and being able to progress without victory.

I couldn't adopt my niece in that game because I didn't have enough money to do that and buy my son medicine. If I was better at the game, I might have done both. If I was worse, neither. If we could fail missions, or have compromised results, we might have to make do with compromised resources. I know it's harder to do with voice acting and animation, but I still they could do something to that effect.

[Hazegurl]

Yeah I felt the need to add the disclaimer cause I figured things would get a bit testy. Also, it is their opinion to believe it is true, just as it is your opinion to believe it isn't true. Opinions aren't facts.

But yeah about Dragon age....

Modifié par Hazegurl, 27 novembre 2013 - 06:44 .

[leaguer of one]

Hazegurl wrote...




I'll use whatever I like. Get over it.

Fine, then.... Then just don't ask me to not get all"bsn" all over it...

Moving on.

Legion's house divided mission is a good example how to do difficult moral decisions.

Modifié par leaguer of one, 27 novembre 2013 - 06:43 .

[Hellion Rex]

leaguer of one wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...




I'll use whatever I like. Get over it.

Fine, then.... Then just don't ask me to not get all"bsn" all over it...

Moving on.

Legion's house divided mission is a good example how to do difficult moral decisions.

That is a very good quest example. Although I personally had no issues with picking my choice, I can certainly see how it could give others pause. 

[CronoDragoon]

osbornep wrote...
Those are really good examples. I agree that outright failure in dialogue or decision trees is an outcome that should potentially come up more often, particularly if you think (as I do) that dialogue is as legitimate and important a part of gameplay as combat, XP, etc. If you can fail combat, you should be able to fail decisions too. The only time I think you really need to worry about achieving a balance between outcomes (whether in the short term or the long term) is when you have those big decisions that pit value systems against each other. Failing a conversation because you weren't attentive enough or didn't gather enough information about the NPC prior to the conversation is one thing; failing it because the game is essentially telling you that deontologists are dummies is another.

This brings up the question of what it means to fail using deontological preferences, though, and also ties to Refuse - but I've had enough ME discussion of the DA boards so I'll leave that there. I take it what you mean is not success or failure but rather the player feeling rewarded for making certain kinds of choices, which I feel is a slightly different expression of how to balance choice.

In a balanced moral system, I'd posit it's impossible for deontological and consequentialists decisions to parse equally in the long term: you end up with consequentialists unsure why they even bothered when they could have been nice AND gotten what they want. I suppose in this case the key is striking the sweet spot of "failure" and "success" where the deontologist solves the problem but has to give up a little something extra in exchange for their particular brand of moral stand.

[Labrev]

Hazegurl wrote...

It's like the debate about Huerta at the hospital in ME3. Just because the man is "alive" in some form doesn't mean he actually is. It's like saying husks are alive, just transformed. They're not.

Optional dialogue. Subject to opinion.

[Sylvius the Mad]

osbornep wrote...

For instance, he thought that our belief in the existence of objects we're not directly perceiving does not arise from reasoning of any sort, but "custom and habit."

He was right about that.

an act can only be criticized as irrational to the extent that it is based on false or irrational beliefs.

To be irrational, something must depend on poor reasoning.  That makes perfect sense.

Irrational = negation of rational

Rational = of or relating to reason