1638 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

No, not at all, but any tragic situation someone ends up in is a result of their own actions as well as the actions of others, whether by luck or design (Shepard didn't have to join the Alliance...) However I would claim that any event that results in very serious personal tragedy is never inevitable until very close to the time (even if it's getting very likely before then), particularly for anyone who's ever fallen in war. The larger the scope and the less personal the events the further back you need to go to avoid them. For example, an almost inevitable war that kills millions might require things changing years before to be avoided, but the factors that influence exactly which people those millions are won't be known until not long before they die.

 

If you mean that it would be possible for someone else to be in Shepard's position if Shepard had made different choices, that's true. Maybe everything happens the same, and maybe the Reapers win in ME1. I don't see the relevance, though. We're not going to play a Shepard who isn't in the ME plot.

 

As for the topic, I suppose the fundamental difference between our positions is that your ideal game is a "completely free world game." I don't think that's even a worthwhile ideal, let alone a practical reality. If I thought that was a valuable goal I'd like TES games more than I do. 

[Argolas]

Mass Effect just isn't open world and never tried to be which is fine.

[AlanC9]

3) No, I completely understand your point, it's just very weak. You think that right and wrong solutions are superior, because player agency makes tragedy more tragic and happy endings more happy. Unfortunately, you're ignoring the fact that in scenarios where the player is choosing simply between tragedies, he is still demonstrating player agency (see Kaidan or Ashley). The player can still be made to feel all those exact same emotions, only without the metagame disappointment that Bioware tends to write cop-outs into many of their morally ambiguous scenarios, depriving them of any intellectual consideration. It's like pointing to the trolleys thought experiment, toss the person an easy-mode solution, and then claim it still has the same intellectual integrity.

 

We may want to get away from the term "tragedy." I think it might be adding confusion. In the Aristotelian meaning tragedy would imply that the protagonist is personally responsible for the events; tragic flaw, etc. But we're talking about situations that the PC is not really responsible for. Nothing Shepard could have done would have changed the Crucible's design, or given him a path to victory without the Crucible. (Arguably there are ways Shepard could have got both squadmates out of Virmire, of course)

[Iakus]

If you mean that it would be possible for someone else to be in Shepard's position if Shepard had made different choices, that's true. Maybe everything happens the same, and maybe the Reapers win in ME1. I don't see the relevance, though. We're not going to play a Shepard who isn't in the ME plot.

 

As for the topic, I suppose the fundamental difference between our positions is that your ideal game is a "completely free world game." I don't think that's even a worthwhile ideal, let alone a practical reality. If I thought that was a valuable goal I'd like TES games more than I do. 

 

I love how the only apparent option to ME3's  tragic ending for Shepard is a completely open world game.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

We may want to get away from the term "tragedy." I think it might be adding confusion. In the Aristotelian meaning tragedy would imply that the protagonist is personally responsible for the events; tragic flaw, etc. But we're talking about situations that the PC is not really responsible for. Nothing Shepard could have done would have changed the Crucible's design, or given him a path to victory without the Crucible. (Arguably there are ways Shepard could have got both squadmates out of Virmire, of course)

 

Fair point. I think the critical detail to argue against is the position that any (and all) tragedies can be avoided.

 

Sure, if given an omniscient/all-powerful protagonist, maybe we can. But in the context of any realistic scenario, the idea of the player being able to avoid certain outcomes/negative results years in the making is ludicrous.

[inversevideo]

I'm not as invested in SP as I once was.  I can't complete another play through. But I love playing MP.

 

I never hated ME3, only the last 15min.  I wish ME3 left me feeling like a 'big guddamed' hero. But it is what it is.

[AlanC9]

I love how the only apparent option to ME3's  tragic ending for Shepard is a completely open world game.

Huh? I was quoting Reorte about ideal game design. Hence the, you know, quotation marks.

[Reorte]

If you mean that it would be possible for someone else to be in Shepard's position if Shepard had made different choices, that's true. Maybe everything happens the same, and maybe the Reapers win in ME1. I don't see the relevance, though. We're not going to play a Shepard who isn't in the ME plot.

That is pushing it to the extreme of course, but even within the confines of the Mass Effect plot there's a lot that could turn out differently; at no point until it happens is the final outcome inevitable.

 

 

 

As for the topic, I suppose the fundamental difference between our positions is that your ideal game is a "completely free world game." I don't think that's even a worthwhile ideal, let alone a practical reality. If I thought that was a valuable goal I'd like TES games more than I do.

It's certainly not a practical ideal I admit. TES games obviously are a bit closer to it but you need to sacrifice some of that if you want to get the sort of character detail etc. that you can get in ME (although I think TES could do more on that front), so the question is where do you set the line between complete freedom and just making a film. The goal of the game designer is, IMO, to at least create the illusion of freedom (the suspension of disbelief equivalent I mentioned earlier). Too much freedom and our practical limits mean you end up with a pretty shallow game, too little and the illusion is shattered. ME shattered the illusion at the end. If you don't like the openess of TES games then I'd argue that work in making future games should start at ME and push for adding more freedom without dropping the good stuff. That's not easy, of course, but that's the sort of thing that moves game development along.

[mopotter]

As much as I love Mass Effect 2's Suicide Mission, I always felt it was a mistake to have it so that the mission could be completed with no casualties. I could have been better IMO if it had been a little more like Virmire, where some casualties could not be avoided, and the player's choices or actions throughout the mission or the game determined how many and who was lost.

Out of all the ME2 games I've played I have 2 maybe 3 where everyone survived, and I played it a lot I don't even remember how many Shepards I brought over.  And I refuse to accept the idea that it was Shepards fault.  I will accept the idea that BW put a fix in so you had to use specific people for the different jobs.  But I never ever ever send someone to do a job that they are not qualified for and I like this.  I had one game where Tali died and it was very sad, and one where Garrus died.  But I also have those games where everyone survived and really for me that option makes the loses a lot easier to handle.

[Reorte]

Apparently, all those players who do enjoy morally grey territory and moral philosophy, which by the way is an entire subject in itself, are doing it wrong, merely because Reorte has a different emotional reaction to a video game.

If that's your reaction to finding someone with a different opinion to yours then there's no point in bothering to discuss anything further with you.

[Invisible Man]

in me2 I actually liked how everyone survives if you make the right calls. I remember in my very first play-through of the SM, during the running through the seeker swarm section, I lost legion, because I wanted jack's shockwave attack and figured Miranda would be up for the biotic bubble maker. I had legion as my sniper, Miranda dropped the field near the end of the cavern and swarmers killed legion. that didn't seem like a stupid call to me, but I suppose jack is the obvious choice for the biotic bubble bit.

[Reorte]

1) Shepard isn't a time traveler.  A solution to any problem is a combination of time, energy, and resources. Solving one problem means another problem doesn't get solved. Indeed, that's the entire basis for certain morally grey scenarios, since the player can't achieve all possible positive outcomes.

 

Add on top of that, many tragedies are orchestrated long before anyone can feasibly predict its happening. Go tell any one individual person to prevent World War II, during that time period. Or to cure cancer, once discovering a loved one was just diagnosed with it. You'd be laughed at.

WWII is the sort of thing I've already discussed, about the larger tragedies requiring going further back but their individual impacts don't. Cancer boils down to simply bad luck at some point (although obviously influenced by other things).

 

2) If you are capable of making all tragedies simultaneously preventable, then I'd say you should be made Emperor of the World. Unfortunately, most individuals recognize that not all tragedy is preventable, at least not given any technology or resources we currently have available.

 

Because we never have all the information available. If you could metagame life then you probably could.

 

3) No, I completely understand your point, it's just very weak. You think that right and wrong solutions are superior, because player agency makes tragedy more tragic and happy endings more happy. Unfortunately, you're ignoring the fact that in scenarios where the player is choosing simply between tragedies, he is still demonstrating player agency (see Kaidan or Ashley). The player can still be made to feel all those exact same emotions, only without the metagame disappointment that Bioware tends to write cop-outs into many of their morally ambiguous scenarios, depriving them of any intellectual consideration. It's like pointing to the trolleys thought experiment, toss the person an easy-mode solution, and then claim it still has the same intellectual integrity.

Now that is a weak argument.

 

If you've got a morally ambiguous situation that truly is ambiguous then it's no choice. If you think that's what's needed for intellectual consideration then there's no hope at all. The intellectual consideration comes from trying to work out which is the best option, even if none of them are perfect. That's why for me the ME2 Geth Heretics decision was the most interesting in the entire game - it combined consideration of which would have the biggest impact (good or bad) on the rest of the galaxy with which would be considered the worst intrusion on a form of intelligence completely different to ours (does the nature of the geth mean that they're effectively reprogramming themselves fundamentally all the time anyway, so doing so might not be quite as reprehensible as it would be to us?)

 

All this talk about easy cop-out solutions entirely misses the point I've made a few times where I say that they need to be very hard to achieve - just like life. Are you not just shying away from wanting to have to take responsibility for your failures?

 

I'd definitely argue that the player doesn't feel quite the same in Virmire because they know there's nothing they could've done to prevent it. Are you really trying to suggest that there wouldn't be a bigger impact on the player if they were left with a dead squadmate they were responsible for, wondering what they could've done to avoid that?

 

4) Sorry, but you're doing a bad job of stating whatever it is you think you're stating. If for some reason, you think good and bad outcomes make your tragedies more tragic, it's not place to tell you what to enjoy. But your point seems to go beyond that. Apparently, all those players who do enjoy morally grey territory and moral philosophy, which by the way is an entire subject in itself, are doing it wrong, merely because Reorte has a different emotional reaction to a video game.

If all you can do is to start to sneer at someone who doesn't share your opinion ("are doing it wrong, merely because Reorte has a different emotional reaction") then there's little point in discussing anything further with you.

As I've stated several times, you have an extremely limited understanding of the potential for the gaming medium, whose strengths are simultaneously to make a player feel powerful or powerless, in addition to other functions. What you're suggesting is more akin to saying that films shouldn't implement music, because it's a different medium, which most would say is ridiculous.

 

You've stated it numerous times whilst being incredibly guilty of it yourself. A game is a fictional medium where a player can take responsibility for their actions and the consequences of them. That is it's huge strength and one that you are for some reason blinding yourself to.

[Reorte]

Fair point. I think the critical detail to argue against is the position that any (and all) tragedies can be avoided.

 

Sure, if given an omniscient/all-powerful protagonist, maybe we can. But in the context of any realistic scenario, the idea of the player being able to avoid certain outcomes/negative results years in the making is ludicrous.

Avoiding the general negatives (lots of people dead) is. It's possible but so utterly wildly implausible that seeing as you have to script something to make the game it's not worth considering. The fates of individuals however are far more unpredictable.

[AlanC9]

That is pushing it to the extreme of course, but even within the confines of the Mass Effect plot there's a lot that could turn out differently; at no point until it happens is the final outcome inevitable.
 

What could change? Specifically, what could Shepard have changed?

The goal of the game designer is, IMO, to at least create the illusion of freedom (the suspension of disbelief equivalent I mentioned earlier). Too much freedom and our practical limits mean you end up with a pretty shallow game, too little and the illusion is shattered. ME shattered the illusion at the end. If you don't like the openess of TES games then I'd argue that work in making future games should start at ME and push for adding more freedom without dropping the good stuff. That's not easy, of course, but that's the sort of thing that moves game development along.

Again, I don't agree with this premise. Perhaps it's because I don't buy into the illusion in the same way you want to?

[CronoDragoon]

If you've got a morally ambiguous situation that truly is ambiguous then it's no choice.

 

I think statements like these make a lot more sense if it were qualified with, as you stated earlier, "in my ideal game." Note that this is different from "in my opinion" as it's possible to have an opinion that you believe apply to others. If you simply don't like moral choices then fair enough, but I don't see any of your statements sticking when extended beyond yourself.

[Reorte]

What could change? Specifically, what could Shepard have changed?
 

On the overall plot? Probably not a great deal (despite the fact that he does on some other areas, like the genophage), but quite a bit that'll change on a personal level for the various characters.

 

Again, I don't agree with this premise. Perhaps it's because I don't buy into the illusion in the same way you want to?

What don't you agree with about it? Or perhaps I should instead ask what you think the game should be.

[Reorte]

I think statements like these make a lot more sense if it were qualified with, as you stated earlier, "in my ideal game." Note that this is different from "in my opinion" as it's possible to have an opinion that you believe apply to others. If you simply don't like moral choices then fair enough, but I don't see any of your statements sticking when extended beyond yourself.

Up to a point that's true of everything, because there will always be someone somewhere happy with whatever is produced.

 

What do you think the value is in the type of choices you keep calling moral? If no option is better than any other option then there's no moral issue invovled - whatever the outcome you can just shrug and say anything else would've been just as bad. Now you might argue for ages about which is the best choice, but that's different from what you seem to be claiming, that none of them should be.

 

You also appear to be arguing that everything should be a no win situation.

[AlanC9]

What don't you agree with about it? Or perhaps I should instead ask what you think the game should be.

ME3 in particular? I have no problem with Bio's vision for the game, including the ending. I've got a couple of problems with the execution -- somewhat similar to Ieldra2's, although he's far more bothered by those things than I am -- but nothing relevant to the current topic. If that's the story they want to put us in, I'm fine with it.

[AlanC9]

.
 
You also appear to be arguing that everything should be a no win situation.

Where did anyone say that "everything" should work that way?

[Reorte]

ME3 in particular? I have no problem with Bio's vision for the game, including the ending. I've got a couple of problems with the execution -- somewhat similar to Ieldra2's, although he's far more bothered by those things than I am -- but nothing relevant to the current topic. If that's the story they want to put us in, I'm fine with it.

No, not ME3 in particular, RPGs in general.

[Reorte]

Where did anyone say that "everything" should work that way?

There seems to be an active dislike from some people of being able to do a good enough job to avoid them from some people.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Up to a point that's true of everything, because there will always be someone somewhere happy with whatever is produced.

 

What do you think the value is in the type of choices you keep calling moral? If no option is better than any other option then there's no moral issue invovled - whatever the outcome you can just shrug and say anything else would've been just as bad. Now you might argue for ages about which is the best choice, but that's different from what you seem to be claiming, that none of them should be.

 

You also appear to be arguing that everything should be a no win situation.

 

No, you're taking his argument and upping it to the tenth level. He is demonstrating that there is some value in morally grey scenarios, not that their value means they must be exclusively implemented.

 

And you've also demonstrated a lack of understanding into one of the prime purposes of moral philosophy. Your argument is a gross simplification by stating that because two options don't present a perfect solution, there is no morality. That is the exact kind of question that morality has been asking for quite some time.

 

Is there a difference between killing someone and letting someone die? Is it better to sacrifice one to save ten? Does the life of someone you love mean more to you than a world? These are the sorts of questions which morality brings up and answers. That everyone has a different "best choice" doesn't negate the critical nature of the discussion.

 

There seems to be an active dislike from some people of being able to do a good enough job to avoid them from some people.

 

Try again by reading earlier posts. No one, including myself, has said each and every choice needs to be morally grey. Simply that your concept of "good vs. bad outcomes are always superior" is utter garbage.
 

[themikefest]

If I hated the game I wouldn't have as many playthroughs that I have. I can say I got my money's worth 10x over. That doesn't mean I like everything in the game. There are parts that I get a little frustrated about, but I get over it and continue the playthrough.

[CronoDragoon]

Up to a point that's true of everything, because there will always be someone somewhere happy with whatever is produced.

 

Yes, but that doesn't mean their unhappiness has any correlation with the quality of the product, or more relevantly whether the product succeeds in what it sets out to do. An example would be Elder Scrolls, which I consider to be largely mediocre games. But the ways in which I would improve Elder Scrolls games would mean marginalizing many things which are intended by the game design, and which many other people enjoy. Therefore, while my ideal Elder Scrolls game is very different than the ones we get, I really have no grounds by which to criticize what it's trying to do, because it does what it's trying to do very well.

 

 

 

What do you think the value is in the type of choices you keep calling moral?

 

Besides the idea that it makes it relevant to our world where any conflict has within it an embedded moral conflict? Ethical quandaries force me to examine my beliefs and find solid ground for them. If no logical foundation can be discovered, then it may require me to admit bias or and re-examine why it is I feel this way. Doing so I may discover something about what priorities I have and whether I'm an emotional or logical creature. Many players feel that choice-based games are useful for expressing their morality, but I also find them useful for self-reflection, or even just reflection on the justification for action in general. Such is usually the usefulness of fictional tensions in any medium.

 

 

 

If no option is better than any other option then there's no moral issue invovled - whatever the outcome you can just shrug and say anything else would've been just as bad. Now you might argue for ages about which is the best choice, but that's different from what you seem to be claiming, that none of them should be.

 

Well, except for what I wrote about this subject two pages ago:

 

"That is what ethical choices do, though. Doing what you believe to be the right answer, but seeing merit in both choices both before and after the fact. "

 

I'm no extreme relativist that says each choice is equally valid. Whenever I make a moral choice I'm choosing what I believe to be the best one, as any moral action entails.

 

 

 

You also appear to be arguing that everything should be a no win situation.

 

Note that no-win situations are not simply a result of the difficulty of a moral choice. An example that illustrates this is the geth heretic mission: you unquestionably "win" no matter what you choose, but destroy or rewrite brings up interesting ethical questions that add nuance and debate to the topic.

 

I also in a post a page or so back said ideally games incorporate both moral and varied-result choices to keep the player guessing.

[Reorte]

And you've also demonstrated a lack of understanding into one of the prime purposes of moral philosophy. Your argument is a gross simplification by stating that because two options don't present a perfect solution, there is no morality. That is the exact kind of question that morality has been asking for quite some time.

 

Then you have failed to understand most of what I've written due to over-simplifying yourself. I said if two options present equally unpleasant outcomes then there is no morality, NOT if there wasn't a perfect option. What I have argued about is the liklihood and (from a game point of view) the desirability of ending up in a situation where all of the choices look bad.

 

 

Try again by reading earlier posts. No one, including myself, has said each and every choice needs to be morally grey. Simply that your concept of "good vs. bad outcomes are always superior" is utter garbage.

It sound like you're taking it far too literally by labelling "good" as "perfect" and "bad" as "awful". "Good and bad" don't have to be "perfect" and "awful", just not entirely equal. I have read the earlier posts where you were being rather dismissive of any choice that could offer a better solution if you made the right one.