720 réponses à ce sujet

[DeinonSlayer]

I usually meta-game, and create rational arguments and reason for why I make whatever decision I make. That one is really the only one I didn't have Shepard use reason for. He wanted to bang Ashley, and he had some inklings of feelings for her on Virmire, despite the obvious incompatibility between them.

I usually metagame; I create an expanded backstory to inform the personalities of each of my Shepards and influence their actions throughout. One of my Shepards, for instance, I roleplay as having had a sister who was taken in the raid on Mindoir. He found out what the Batarians did with female slaves on Torfan, and as a consequence was (among other things) somewhat genophobic afterwards. Didn't allow close relationships because he expected to die. His schtick was that he was slowly overcoming these things over the course of the trilogy - you can imagine this Shepard would want Miranda to talk to her sister, and kill Jacob's father without an ounce of remorse.

 

The Shepard I RP'd who was probably most like one of yours was a Colonist/SoleSurvivor who was a member of Cerberus all through the events of ME1. She's the sister of the Shepard I'd just mentioned, in an AU where he was killed instead. Her schtick was that she acted with subdued ruthlessness (for example, allowing Kolyat to succeed in assassinating Joram Talid without getting her hands dirty), but started hitting walls - pangs that stopped her from doing what needed to be done (shoot Mordin with Wreav/EveAlive), and she paid for it.

 

JayneShep, of course, wh0red three laps around the 'verse and screwed up just about everything that could be without intentionally trying.

 

Odd, I know, but I doubt anyone can claim to have perfect moral clarity. I RP them as such.

[CrutchCricket]

The thing is, in desperate times you need people who see things as Massively describes. Maybe you need them even in times that aren't so desperate, as a way to keep them from getting desperate.

 

No one wants to admit it. No one wants to face it. But there's some ugly **** out there and sometimes, the best way to get rid of it is to go uglier.

 

They're never going to be popular. And maybe they shouldn't be. Maybe the less we know of them the better. We like to talk about soldiers heroically giving their lives. But we're not so keen on acknowledging those that very unheroically take lives, towards the same goal.

 

It can be a slippery slope of course. How long before "by any means necessary" becomes "by extreme means automatically"? That's an edge I try to give my Shepard. He's the Butcher of Torfan. He's perfectly capable of giving those orders. When he chose to focus on Sovereign at the expense of the council he went to that cold, dark place and he gave the order. When he activated the Project and doomed 300,000 batarians he went to the cold place and he made it happen. But maybe he's been finding himself going to that place too often. Maybe it's time to pull back. He tells TIM "you sacrificed too much". Maybe that's a thing.

 

And maybe sometimes it's necessary, to go so far you lose yourself. Maybe that's what the "anti-heroes" sacrifice.

 

I don't really know. I can only imagine. What I do imagine is this:

 

-"by any means necessary" does not exclude taking the objectives of others into consideration. You can go into it thinking "only my objective matters, **** everyone else" but I don't think you have to. I think you can still live by "any means necessary" while still subscribing to "I can help others, so long as their needs don't contradict my own"

-the utterly ruthless are a necessity but they can slide too far. I don't consider this an invalidation of the ruthless perspective I consider it an error. They're still human, they still make mistakes. Falling into a pattern of "shortest distance from A to B" when not appropriate is just as much a mistake as applying idealism or any other methodology when it doesn't fit the situation. \

[DeinonSlayer]

Well said, Cricket.

 

I can't and won't pretend to understand everything that goes on out there - but I try. I had a cousin who came back from his first Iraq tour a changed man. More mellow. Something happened, and to this day he refuses to talk about it; that said, he went on several tours since then and remains career military. Most civilians have no concept of what it takes to win a war, because the people out there fighting them make that possible for the rest of us. That's not to say we can't judge if things are clearly going too far, but we lack perspective.

[Invisible Man]

ditto.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

What's your beef with my views? You base yours on moral/ethical validity. I try to base mine on practical economics. It helps immensely in a war when you stop looking at people as a precious gem to be protected, and more as a commodity to be utilized. 

 

For what it's worth, "my" Shepard is similar. I liken him to a robot, where decision-making is concerned: calculating, to levels others would deem insane.

 

I think the Victus quote in my sig sums up his (and perhaps my) mentality best. To others, he may seem reckless. In truth, he's very thoughtful, just not subject to conventional emotions, feelings, or morals, and also open to the unorthodox.

[Fixers0]

Shepard promised to do it. So he does it.

Simple as that. You don't betray your allies. It's not only the height is dishonor, but a generally monumentally idiotic thing to do.

How come that's never brought up?

Blame autodialogue, it's not the player's fault that game forces you to an ideological stance but then later gives you the option to back down.

Also under certain circumstances sabotaging the cure nets more war assets, not very idiotic at all, to me

[SporkFu]

I've never failed to hit all the entertaining renegade interrupts in ME2, no matter how paragon-y I was playing it.

[Bob from Accounting]

Yeah, it's when you talk about things like nuking Kaidan and keeping Ashley for the express short-term purpose of banging her (when you don't even like her), then discarding her as well without a second glance, which ought to make people leery of Shepard's judgement. People generally don't like to be treated as disposable for such fickle reasons (though I have no doubt it continues to happen in the real world).

 

Gotta wonder whether you're joking half the time.

 

In a sense, yes. The overwhelmingly majority of people who advocate 'evil' and 'Renegade' decisions in games should be considered 'joking.' Although it's far less pretty than that.

 

As I said on another thread, It's a mindset that can only survive in an enviroment with no requirements for competence and no consequences for failure. In other words, video games and internet forums. It collapses anywhere else.

 

A bit of contemplation should be all it takes to confirm this. We have countless people gleefully advocating no end of murder, torture, genocide, enslavement, betrayal, and violence online. On video games. But what happens?

 

They log off, and they go right back to overwhelmingly being mild, law-abiding, 18-35 year old males. Most of whom would tremble at the threat of so much as a fistfight.

 

You know this is true. So what does such a thing tell us?

[von uber]

Nope, because women make up nearly 50% of gamers, and the age range is much greater too.

Your other point is right though.

[themikefest]

In a sense, yes. The overwhelmingly majority of people who advocate 'evil' and 'Renegade' decisions in games should be considered 'joking.' Although it's far less pretty than that.

 

As I said on another thread, It's a mindset that can only survive in an enviroment with no requirements for competence and no consequences for failure. In other words, video games and internet forums. It collapses anywhere else.

 

A bit of contemplation should be all it takes to confirm this. We have countless people gleefully advocating no end of murder, torture, genocide, enslavement, betrayal, and violence online. On video games. But what happens?

 

They log off, and they go right back to overwhelmingly being mild, law-abiding, 18-35 year old males. Most of whom would tremble at the threat of so much as a fistfight.

 

You know this is true. So what does such a thing tell us?

I'm glad I'm not in that age group.

 

 I didn't tremble in combat why would I tremble in front of a couple of punks?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

In a sense, yes. The overwhelmingly majority of people who advocate 'evil' and 'Renegade' decisions in games should be considered 'joking.' Although it's far less pretty than that.

 

As I said on another thread, It's a mindset that can only survive in an enviroment with no requirements for competence and no consequences for failure. In other words, video games and internet forums. It collapses anywhere else.

 

A bit of contemplation should be all it takes to confirm this. We have countless people gleefully advocating no end of murder, torture, genocide, enslavement, betrayal, and violence online. On video games. But what happens?

 

They log off, and they go right back to overwhelmingly being mild, law-abiding, 18-35 year old males. Most of whom would tremble at the threat of so much as a fistfight.

 

You know this is true. So what does such a thing tell us?

 

That you're a twisting around an argument you despise because it advocates the exact opposite of what gets you off and isn't at all like the heroic fantastical delusion you've built up around your view and determined to believe no matter how clouded and irrational it becomes, to a point where you can't do anything but perform an insultingly weak psychoanalysis of others based on your very heavily biased and narrow perspective that is about as far removed from the word vicarious as possible in an attempt to seem like he's an edgy person. But you're right about one thing. You are the person who does tremble at so much as a fistfight. You use an invalid argument designed purely to be as self-inflating towards yourself and your view while being as insultingly critical of an opponent as possible, and you use judgmental language and strong claims to assert as such, always retreating or dismissing others when pressed for evidence for your claims. So I'm thinking you count yourself among the very people you claim to describe.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I'm glad I'm not in that age group.

 

 I didn't tremble in combat why would I tremble in front of a couple of punks?

 

I'll admit, I did tremble a bit when we had in country for 2 weeks, and the HHC Humvee hit an IED. No one was killed or seriously hurt, but the Commander had to ride in our Humvee from then on. And HUMINT Collectors like me had death marks on our heads from the Taliban. That's something to tell people.

[Bob from Accounting]

'Twisting'?

 

I'm merely stating two simple facts.

 

- There are countless people online, such as yourself, who strongly advocate murder, genocide, slavery, torture, etc.

 

- When they return to their lives, they are overwhelmingly mild and law-abiding. They aren't murderers, revolutionaries, torturers. They aren't violent. They make no attempts to overthrow society into whatever ideal they imagine. They rarely take any significant risks.

 

Do you deny either of these facts?

[themikefest]

I'll admit, I did tremble a bit when we had in country for 2 weeks, and the HHC Humvee hit an IED. No one was killed or seriously hurt, but the Commander had to ride in our Humvee from then on. And HUMINT Collectors like me had death marks on our heads from the Taliban. That's something to tell people.

For me my biggest concern was if I would ever see my family again.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

'Twisting'?

 

I'm merely stating two simple facts.

 

- There are countless people online, such as yourself, who strongly advocate murder, genocide, slavery, torture, etc.

 

- When they return to their lives, they are overwhelmingly mild and law-abiding. They aren't murders, revolutionaries, torturers. They aren't violent. They make no attempts to overthrow society into whatever ideal they imagine. They rarely take any significant risks.

 

Do you deny either of these facts?

 

Yes, I very much do. Because they're not facts. They're very specific fabrications that you've created as a means to discredit others with views beyond the norm. You provide no argument except, 'gosh they must certainly not believe what they say' and when pressed, you use inflammatory language to appeal to others for the supposed ridiculousness of their views (which is unwarranted without an actual deconstruction of their point with an actual argument). And you've completely made a complete red herring statement on what people claim to do without providing context on what they do or why they feel the way they do. When you say that people advocate murder and genocide, you provide no cause for who and why, and fail to take into account the understanding of why they are making such a claim about a video game that gives them the power to do so. You provide no context on slavery or torture, simply mentioning them and then disappearing. Your just playing the part of the intentionally obtuse and un-interpretive psychologist that is out more to decry anything that's not in line with your own warped ideal.

[Bob from Accounting]

So you deny that there are a great deal of people online who advocate murder, torture, genocide, and slavery in video games?

 

You deny that such people are overwhelmingly mild and law-abiding in real life?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

So you deny that there are a great deal of people online who advocate murder, torture, genocide, and slavery in video games?

 

You deny that such people are overwhelmingly mild and law-abiding in real life?

 

David, you've changed your argument. You've tacked on the 'in video games' part. This isn't an argument. This is you desperately trying to win by arguing a point that's already been deconstructed.

 

Yes. There people who advocate such things. In video games.

 

No I don't deny said people are mild and law-abiding in real life. Which is not in video games.

 

And there is a reason for it. Because not only are video games fictional with the ability to provide power fantasy's to people, they're also different in their presentation of conflict and characters. They provide entire groups that can be based around entire concepts or philosophies that we agree or don't agree with, and they come into conflict with opposing philosophies of other factions in many ways. From a fish-out-of-water foreigner in a new city, to a full scale world war. And it presents you with philosophies of conflict which cannot be resolved by simply labeling oneself a hero and the other a villain. And said games allow you to explore other philosophies and role-play to be something else to stop the conflict. It's a video game. That's what they do. Do you deny that?

[von uber]

I've never not filled the fish tank on the Normandy.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I've never not filled the fish tank on the Normandy.

 

I've only ever killed the fish... 3 times in a single playthrough. That's the lowest. I swear!

[Bob from Accounting]

I don't deny that at all.

 

That seems to be precisly what I suggested earlier. A 'philosophy' which may only survive within video games and similar avenues. Too weak and fragile to bear the weight of reality. And so video games and forums is where we see it...but not in the real world.

[von uber]

I've also never used a sniper rifle as a primary weapon in the game.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I don't deny that at all.

 

That seems to be precisly what I suggested earlier. A 'philosophy' which may only survive within video games and similar avenues. Too weak and fragile to bear the weight of reality. And so video games and forums is where we see it...but not in the real world.

 

No, it isn't what you suggested earlier. What you suggested earlier implies that people all want to exist in some neoanarchist state that somehow breaks the spectrum into rolling into totalitarianism. I don't even know how that's possible, but there it is. That's what you're suggesting.

 

Can you make an argument for why such a philosophy could never exist? Not to the extremes a video game such as Mass Effect allows, but it's by no means categorically impossible for such idealism to survive and thrive as history has proved under the right circumstances. Can you give me an example where your ideal philosophy has thrived? Can you tell me why my theory is inherently wrong in all aspects and would never be taken by decent human beings? 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I've also never used a sniper rifle as a primary weapon in the game.

 

I play as a Soldier. Every weapon is my primary weapon.

[Bob from Accounting]

Why doesn't it?

 

Why are the streets not filled with people demanding and practicing the kind of life and society they deem to be moral here on these forums? A life of violence, murder, high risk and high rewards? Demands for power and respect? Obidience?