207 réponses à ce sujet

[Augustei]

superdeathdealer14 wrote...

Wait just wait a sec..... people actually like making good choices in games? whhhaaattt, impossible surely everyone must prefer being a douche then being a nice person.

Yeah bloody weirdos they are, we need to have them trialed for witchcraft and burned on a stake methinks.
I grow suspicious of the writers as well for not including enough options to kill all mages and elves.

As to the legion and slavery, The NCR tots' has its own slaves, they just don't refer to them as such and have convinced them they aren't enslaved.

[BraveVesperia]

Maybe you'll be lucky, OP, and it will be like ME3: everybody will tell you how you have to make hard choices and go for the morally grey if you want to win. But in the end if you play like Jesus, you're much better off than actually going for morally grey/hard decisions, etc.

It got way too predictable, I think. It's much better when you make a choice based on what you think is best, not knowing if it will backfire, or if it was the right choice. Keeps things interesting.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Heh i will do what is beneficial for me morals should make your game a lot harder as in real life for you need pay cost for morality...   

[Angrywolves]

superdeathdealer14 wrote...

"Wait just wait a sec..... people actually like making good choices in games? whhhaaattt, impossible surely everyone must prefer being a douche then being a nice person"

We see enough bad guys in real life.Watch ID Discovery. Watch the local news.Watch the national news.

Don't like being a bad guy in games.

If other players want to then that's their business.

However, I think the consequences stuff in DAI may just bite those guys, but we'll see.:lol:

Modifié par Angrywolves, 08 janvier 2014 - 08:30 .

[Invisible Man]

from what I've experienced from most saga driven stories is this:
taking the low road makes things easier for the short term; however, it makes the long term goal/s or action/s much more difficult, or even impossible in some cases.
where as being "good", seems to make things a little, or a lot more difficult in the short term; but in regards to the long term, things run more smoothly, and options that wouldn't have appeared otherwise seem to be opened.

that's how I see it.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Angrywolves wrote...

superdeathdealer14 wrote...

"Wait just wait a sec..... people actually like making good choices in games? whhhaaattt, impossible surely everyone must prefer being a douche then being a nice person"

We see enough bad guys in real life.Watch ID Discovery. Watch the local news.Watch the national news.

Don't like being a bad guy in games.

If other players want to then that's their business.

However, I think the consequences stuff in DAI may just bite those guys, but we'll see.:lol:

Wasn't decision in dai supposed to be dependent on your morality so you can't define good or evil? I don't see choosing something practical instead moral as good or bad unless we are talking about my good then yes...
I rly hope game will kick straight heroes a** and will left practical protagonist rewarded unlike dao or mass effect it dark fantasy after all...

Modifié par TheKomandorShepard, 08 janvier 2014 - 08:38 .

[Angrywolves]

Well they will have consequences.How those will be defined, based upon moral choices or some other criteria remains to be seen.

Of course there are pragmatists and then there are people who just want to commit murder and mayhem.

rotfl.

[David7204]

You'd do well to discard the fallacy that 'heroism' and 'practicality' are somehow opposed.

Quite the opposite.

Modifié par David7204, 08 janvier 2014 - 08:41 .

[David7204]

Invisible Man wrote...

from what I've experienced from most saga driven stories is this:
taking the low road makes things easier for the short term; however, it makes the long term goal/s or action/s much more difficult, or even impossible in some cases.
where as being "good", seems to make things a little, or a lot more difficult in the short term; but in regards to the long term, things run more smoothly, and options that wouldn't have appeared otherwise seem to be opened.

that's how I see it.

That's a wise perspective.

[lady_v23]

AutumnWitch wrote...

How do you deal with hard moral and ethical choices in the Dragon Age games that you as a person would never do in a similar situation?

I played the quest NIght Terrors in DA2 earlier today and I REALLY REALLY REALLY hate that if you make the "good" ethical choice (to save Feynriel's life) you basically get NOTHING except a silly book only worth 70sp. I find this so frustrating because I feel in this situation the want us to make the "bad" choice so we can get the reward (which is much much more substantial) for making the "bad" ethical choice and selling him out to the demon.

And to rub salt in the wound if you are playing as a mage (who is good) and you make the deal you are basically turning your back on all that you are fighting for just to get a good reward.

I don't know for sure but I would suspect that their answer to this issue is that if you are good you are doing the deed to save the boy and that is reward in itself. But I find this really unsatisfying because as far as I know, there are no places in the whole game where if you make the good moral choice you actually receive a better reward than that of people playing as bad.

I have played DA2 probably near 20 times by now and I ALWAYS save Feynriel because as a real person I just can't stomach doing something so repugnant just to get a good reward and sometimes even if I am playing a Hawke that isn't a goody-two-shoes. I just can't stomach it.

I know in DAI we are going to have to make some hard choices but I hope the writers/developers make an effort to be a little more fair because it should ok to be the "good guy". I don't know what happened in the West, esp since nine-eleven, but it just seems that trying to do the right thing in the world, even in video games, has become so "uncool". I truly hope that DAI will allow us people who still believe in wearing the "white hat" to have as much fun and be just as rewarded as those who would rather play darker or middle of the road characters. Trust me, I understand the world is grey and not black and white but there are good people who do he right things nearly all the time and if this really is a "role playing game" there should be room for those of us who still want to ride off into the sunset and live happily ever after even as cliché and perhaps boring as it might seem for some people.

Choices are choices.  You pick one and recieve the cosequenses/rewards.  You can't have it both ways.

[Karach_Blade]

I want the option to be pragmatic and NOT viewed as Tevinter PsychoMage evil. My Chaotic Good Warden sacrificed Isolde as he believed it was the most expedient way to solve the problem. Connor was saved, demon got it's ass kicked. Landsmeet: Anora and Alistair rule, Loghain commits Ultimate Sacrifice. I never played that warden as a hero, just a man doing his job.

[TheKomandorShepard]

David7204 wrote...

You'd do well to discard the fallacy that 'heroism' and 'practicality' are somehow opposed.

Quite the opposite.

Heroes are that who take moral option then we have anti-heroes who are less able to take moral option:devil:. Moral choice is rarely parctical mostly that mean taking di*** decision (sacrifice someone for benefit make your hand dirty etc ,unless story is idealistic then moral choices almost every time work or even all time).

So straight hero takes option based on his ideals (which are in story good) when pragmatic person (may vary from grey to black) mostly because hero have standarts and restraints when amoral person will do what is beneficial using any means...

Modifié par TheKomandorShepard, 08 janvier 2014 - 08:53 .

[David7204]

'Moral' choices are absolutely practical. Morals are not in existence as pointless decorations there to pretty up our conscious. They're in existence to apply to the world around us.

How well that truth is portrayed varies from story to story.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

'Moral' choices are absolutely practical. Morals are not in existence as pointless decorations there to pretty up our conscious. They're in existence to apply to the world around us.

How well that truth is portrayed varies from story to story.

Then show me an instance of something that is intrinsically and universally good or bad. Because I don't think you're understanding the contrast between some kind of moral good and a practical good.

Morality is not really about practicality. Practicality is about practicality.

Morals are exactly in existence to be a pointless decoration to pretty your conscious. 

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 08 janvier 2014 - 09:13 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Invisible Man wrote...

from what I've experienced from most saga driven stories is this:
taking the low road makes things easier for the short term; however, it makes the long term goal/s or action/s much more difficult, or even impossible in some cases.
where as being "good", seems to make things a little, or a lot more difficult in the short term; but in regards to the long term, things run more smoothly, and options that wouldn't have appeared otherwise seem to be opened.

that's how I see it.

Is there a practical reason to this?

[Volus Warlord]

David7204 wrote...

'Moral' choices are absolutely practical. Morals are not in existence as pointless decorations there to pretty up our conscious. They're in existence to apply to the world around us.

How well that truth is portrayed varies from story to story.

9/10 of morals instruct to ignore expediency in some form.

[TheKomandorShepard]

David7204 wrote...

'Moral' choices are absolutely practical. Morals are not in existence as pointless decorations there to pretty up our conscious. They're in existence to apply to the world around us.

How well that truth is portrayed varies from story to story.

Rly? Then why peoples in real life often break their morals to do what is convenient and more beneficial... 
As i said moral person have restrains than amoral person moral person will take choice based on their morality (more likley they will will do otherwise to take beneficial option and call that" necessary evil" oh that excuses:whistle: so they won't take moral option) when amoral person will take what is beneficial for him , his organization or society depending on what he is trying to achieve. Of course we can go into place "stupid evil" like doing bad things with poor result just to kick dog... 

And as i said how that works depends on how idealistic or cynical story is , dragon age fall to second. 

[David7204]

The two are one and the same. A dissonance arises from a failure to acknowledge both the more subtle aspects and consequences of what's seen as 'morality' and the over-acknowledgement in comparison of less subtle aspects and consequences of what's seen as 'practicality.'

Thus a person who shallowly judges one outcome as better by failing to recognize the subtleties will seem it best and thus 'practical.' In truth, the opposite (moral) outcome will generally be better once such subtleties are considered and is thus also 'practical.'

Modifié par David7204, 08 janvier 2014 - 09:25 .

[David7204]

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

Rly? Then why peoples in real life often break their morals to do what is convenient and more beneficial... 

Weakness. One or way or another, that's what it boils down to.

It's rarely more beneficial. And thus people don't benefit from their weakness - they suffer for it. Most people are not particularly happy and don't have a particularly bright outlook of the world. All they need to do is look in the mirror to discover the reason why.

Modifié par David7204, 08 janvier 2014 - 09:24 .

[Volus Warlord]

David7204 wrote...

The two are one and the same. A dissonance arises from a failure to acknowledge both the more subtle aspects and consequences of what's seen as 'morality' and the over-acknowledgement in comparison of less subtle aspects and consequences of what's seen as 'practicality.'

Thus a person who shallowly judges one outcome as better by failing to recognize the subtleties will seem it best and thus 'practical.' In truth, the opposite (moral) outcome will generally once such subtleties are considered and is thus also 'practical.'

So it's practical to be impractical. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

The two are one and the same. A dissonance arises from a failure to acknowledge both the more subtle aspects and consequences of what's seen as 'morality' and the over-acknowledgement in comparison of less subtle aspects and consequences of what's seen as 'practicality.'

Thus a person who shallowly judges one outcome as better by failing to recognize the subtleties will seem it best and thus 'practical.' In truth, the opposite (moral) outcome will generally once such subtleties are considered and is thus also 'practical.'

And what sort of 'subtle benefits' will materialize with a moral outcome?

Honestly, I simply don't think you've read much philosophy. What you're saying doesn't apply to everyone. It's kind of decried by Nietzche and John Stuart Mill in his work 'Utilitarianism'.

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

Rly? Then why peoples in real life often break their morals to do what is convenient and more beneficial... 

Weakness. One or way or another, that's what it boils down to.

It's rarely more beneficial. And thus people don't benefit from their weakness - they suffer for it. Most people are not particularly happy and don't have a particularly bright outlook of the world.

*facepalm*

It depends on what your end goal is.  If you want power and control, conventional morality is a hindrance.

But that is ignoring that morality is an ever changing state. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

Rly? Then why peoples in real life often break their morals to do what is convenient and more beneficial... 

Weakness. One or way or another, that's what it boils down to.

It's rarely more beneficial. And thus people don't benefit from their weakness - they suffer for it. Most people are not particularly happy and don't have a particularly bright outlook of the world. All they need to do is look in the mirror to discover the reason why.

What kind of weakness is it? 

And what kind of benefits are you judging it by? The ones that you understand to exist? Your weakness isn't somebody elses' weakness.

I think this boils down to terrible anthropocentrism on your part.

[TheKomandorShepard]

David7204 wrote...

The two are one and the same. A dissonance arises from a failure to acknowledge both the more subtle aspects and consequences of what's seen as 'morality' and the over-acknowledgement in comparison of less subtle aspects and consequences of what's seen as 'practicality.'

Thus a person who shallowly judges one outcome as better by failing to recognize the subtleties will seem it best and thus 'practical.' In truth, the opposite (moral) outcome will generally once such subtleties are considered and is thus also 'practical.'

Following morals is following own restraints for example "i won't steal that because it is wrong" or "i won't lie because it is wrong" but what if you need lie to save 100 peoples who will help you latter will you broke your morals and get profit in future or follow your morals and lost peoples gaining nothing? When amoral person won't bother with what is right or not simple will take beneficial option.


 

[David7204]

I'm not sure you have a good grasp of what 'morality' means.

A hero would of course lie to save innocent people. Even if a hero considering lying to be wrong (which I don't, and which thankfully few protagonists do), they would of course put the principle of saving innocents over the principle of being truthful.

Modifié par David7204, 08 janvier 2014 - 09:38 .