Hazegurl wrote...
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.
eluvianix wrote...
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.
Modifié par Hazegurl, 27 novembre 2013 - 06:58 .
Funny. I did the reverse.Hazegurl wrote...
eluvianix wrote...
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.
I also had no problems picking my choice. The moment the option was given to me to destroy them I took it.
eluvianix wrote...
Funny. I did the reverse.Hazegurl wrote...
eluvianix wrote...
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.
I also had no problems picking my choice. The moment the option was given to me to destroy them I took it.
So on point subjective morality works. But waht I really like about the mission is how vastly different the opinions of the squad mates are on the issue. Even more so that Garrus out of all of them was the most understanding on the issues. Added, that Tali made her choice out of hate and fear.Hazegurl wrote...
eluvianix wrote...
Funny. I did the reverse.Hazegurl wrote...
eluvianix wrote...
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.
I also had no problems picking my choice. The moment the option was given to me to destroy them I took it.
lol!! I wondered if you picked rewriting them.
Modifié par leaguer of one, 27 novembre 2013 - 07:03 .
Modifié par DrunkShepardFTW, 27 novembre 2013 - 07:08 .
Ethically speaking it's really subjective.You're missing a key point to the arguement made from Legion from the start. The one you are making the judgement on may not see it as being morally wrong. The issue on hand is that doing this warps indivisuality and doing that is wrong...But the Geth on the other hand don't value indivisuality to the point that the concept death is vastly different. Death to them just means becaoming less intellegent, death to use mean losing an indivisual. Mordin and even Garris point this out, it may not be morally wrong to a synthetic.DrunkShepardFTW wrote...
Using 'A House Divided' as an example to look at paragon not necessarily meaning 'good': Rewriting the heretics is actually kind of messed up, forcibly brainwashing someone/thing infringes on personal freedoms and such. Ethically speaking, it is probably on par with with destroying them.
But the way the game presents the option to you as a preferential choice over destroying them, leads me to believe that the trend is for paragon to be synonymous with 'good'. I'm not saying that a paragon option is always the right or best choice, but they tend to be presented as the most morally upstanding choice.
Modifié par leaguer of one, 27 novembre 2013 - 07:18 .
How does brain washing them side with the geth who want to help us make them dangerous? None that makes it stupid choices.TheKomandorShepard wrote...
Legion loyalty mission choice sucked and wasn't hard choice well it was because both options were stupid practically destroy useful machines and "brainwash" them into dangerous for us machines where was option to "brainwash" them to serve shepard and obey his every order this is example "stupidity is only option" in video games.
Every have own vision of "hard choice" i don't see killing children if it is useful as hard choice only obvious.however playing hero should have heavy and negative consequences simple because that how worlds work and often you have crush someone to get job done if you are too soft your choice.
Modifié par leaguer of one, 27 novembre 2013 - 07:30 .
leaguer of one wrote...
Ethically speaking it's really subjective.You're missing a key point to the arguement made from Legion from the start. The one you are making the judgement on may not see it as being morally wrong. The issue on hand is that doing this warps indivisuality and doing that is wrong...But the Geth on the other hand don't value indivisuality to the point that the concept death is vastly different. Death to them just means becaoming less intellegent, death to use mean losing an indivisual. Mordin and even Garris point this out, it may not be morally wrong to a synthetic.
That can also be used with the dark spawn in dragon age.
Modifié par DrunkShepardFTW, 27 novembre 2013 - 07:34 .
leaguer of one wrote...
How does brain washing them side with the geth who want to help us make them dangerous? None that makes it stupid choices.TheKomandorShepard wrote...
Legion loyalty mission choice sucked and wasn't hard choice well it was because both options were stupid practically destroy useful machines and "brainwash" them into dangerous for us machines where was option to "brainwash" them to serve shepard and obey his every order this is example "stupidity is only option" in video games.
Every have own vision of "hard choice" i don't see killing children if it is useful as hard choice only obvious.however playing hero should have heavy and negative consequences simple because that how worlds work and often you have crush someone to get job done if you are too soft your choice.
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. 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.
9TailsFox 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. 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.
So don't simple I don't understand why people don't want to let other people have choice. It's like If I pick my save everyone it diminish your choice to save only one. Trust me it's not.
9TailsFox 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. 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[/b].
So don't simple I don't understand why people don't want to let other people have choice. It's like If I pick my save everyone it diminish your choice to save only one. Trust me it's not.
Modifié par Hazegurl, 27 novembre 2013 - 08:10 .
In Exile wrote...
One tradition that DA:O/ME really kicked off the ground for Bioware was the idea of difficult, grey moral choices. Not necessarily in execution - I would argue that most of their choice are still pretty black/white - but at least in intention. It became a design philosophy to try and have moral quandries.
Given that we've seen that DA:I will feature this type of choice - exemplified in the Keep vs. Village choice in the video (with the sub issue of what to do about the injured troops) - I thought it would be interesting to discuss structurally what makes a choice difficult and how a choice like that should work in the series.
My favourite choice in DA - as a difficult one - is the Anvil of the Void. It's absolutely a horiffic thing that's done to dwarves to make them golems. That they are volunteers - if they actually know what sacrifice they're making - makes it mildly palpable, but the things they experience are still horrid. Still, extinction is the looming threat. I thought it was a very interesting choice. To me, that's the sort of ends-justifies-the-means type of choice that I think we should see more of, rather than things like the werewolves vs. Dalish choices (which, IMO, was morally wonky in how the Warden could pitch it and had all sorts of holes in terms of how it would even work out with the coalition you were building even *if* werewolves were somehow better than elves as troops).
Thoughts?
Modifié par Gravisanimi, 27 novembre 2013 - 08:35 .
aS Legion said may time. They just want there on furture and the only time organic will be involved is if we involve our selves. Say it dumb to trust them to fight on our is a base less point and counters trying to get them on our side. Thinking and acting like the geth will turn on us will really let that happen. Extending an invatation and trying to work with them increases the chances of that happening. Seeing all as enemies will make them enemies. It not a short term solution, being that both the geth and organics do not want to be controlled by the reapers, it smart to consider it. This is like saying having the choice curing the genophage is stupid because the Krogan may turn on us later on.TheKomandorShepard wrote...
leaguer of one wrote...
How does brain washing them side with the geth who want to help us make them dangerous? None that makes it stupid choices.TheKomandorShepard wrote...
Legion loyalty mission choice sucked and wasn't hard choice well it was because both options were stupid practically destroy useful machines and "brainwash" them into dangerous for us machines where was option to "brainwash" them to serve shepard and obey his every order this is example "stupidity is only option" in video games.
Every have own vision of "hard choice" i don't see killing children if it is useful as hard choice only obvious.however playing hero should have heavy and negative consequences simple because that how worlds work and often you have crush someone to get job done if you are too soft your choice.
Well that short-term thinking and you asume that geth actually will or is on our side.So basically you are giving army to a robot we don't know , don't know we can trust and don't know his goals and frkinging tried kill us for entire first game and second giving him resources is just naive and stupid when we could just get resources for us and well we can't betray ourselves.
Fast Jimmy wrote...
I think there is a really fine line between giving bad outcomes and offering the player choices.
For instance, ME3 dictated the exact order you went about the missions at hand, to the point where you could never get to Thessia on time. This gave us a forced defeat that we have no way of averting, which our character is forced to feel bad about, despite what the player may desire to their character to roleplay. If, instead, we could choose the order of planets we choose to help, with a forced defeat happening on the last planet we visited, this could serve to be more palatable and make the player truly FEEL as if it is their fault that the planet was lost.
As an example, if you could visit Thessia and Tuchanka first, you'd be forced to visit Rannoch and see those forces fall to the Reapers. Players could still wind up choosing Tuchanka and Rannoch first, because, say, Krogans and the combined might of the Quarians and Geth are worth more than Asari commandos in terms of the war effort. But, on the other hand, maybe a player that wants to not cure the genophage leaves Tuchanka for last, such that the loss of the Krogan is not nearly as big of deal to them, philosphically (but that may mean the overall war effort may suffer).
This is, to me, excellent choice and consequence, since it gives the player hard choices, it offers dark outcomes regardless, but a player can instill their character's morality and philosphy into those choices and, at the end of the day, be comfortable with the "dark" outcomes. And, of course, there will always be the "I'll do what is best for the war effort" approach, securing the strongest and best forces and putting their own feelings of morality aside... that would be the true distiallation of the Renegade concept.
Now... whether or not the resources exist to pull this off is a different question. But I think it is a good goal to aim for, if possible.
Fast Jimmy wrote...
Bioware shouldn't try to make any morally complex situations. Just give us the option to win and save everyone, every time. That's what people want.
Modifié par Maria Caliban, 27 novembre 2013 - 10:14 .
iakus wrote...
In Exile wrote...
One tradition that DA:O/ME really kicked off the ground for Bioware was the idea of difficult, grey moral choices. Not necessarily in execution - I would argue that most of their choice are still pretty black/white - but at least in intention. It became a design philosophy to try and have moral quandries.
Given that we've seen that DA:I will feature this type of choice - exemplified in the Keep vs. Village choice in the video (with the sub issue of what to do about the injured troops) - I thought it would be interesting to discuss structurally what makes a choice difficult and how a choice like that should work in the series.
My favourite choice in DA - as a difficult one - is the Anvil of the Void. It's absolutely a horiffic thing that's done to dwarves to make them golems. That they are volunteers - if they actually know what sacrifice they're making - makes it mildly palpable, but the things they experience are still horrid. Still, extinction is the looming threat. I thought it was a very interesting choice. To me, that's the sort of ends-justifies-the-means type of choice that I think we should see more of, rather than things like the werewolves vs. Dalish choices (which, IMO, was morally wonky in how the Warden could pitch it and had all sorts of holes in terms of how it would even work out with the coalition you were building even *if* werewolves were somehow better than elves as troops).
Thoughts?
A "good" morally difficult choice is one where you can see both benefits and drawbacks to each situation. And you have to make a choice between which one feels "best"
It does not have to mean deciding the lesser evil. Or picking between two options that suck. A difficult choice is one where you have a hard time deciding what to pick. That too often gets mixed up with making a choice you don't want to pick. "Sophie's Choice" is not the only kind of hard choice.
A difficult moral decision can be interesting. Really what are the non-difficult moral choice used that are interesting?Maria Caliban wrote...
The idea shouldn't be to craft a difficult moral decision but to craft an interesting one.
Whether to kill Watcher X or not.leaguer of one wrote...
A difficult moral decision can be interesting. Really what are the non-difficult moral choice used that are interesting?Maria Caliban wrote...
The idea shouldn't be to craft a difficult moral decision but to craft an interesting one.
Retour en haut