48 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

I've just read a piece of fanfic. It was one epilogue scene and it was beautiful and poignant. And a little cheesy maybe. Even so, it made me smile, and I realized I haven't seen one of those outcomes in Bioware games lately. The last one that affected me that way was sending Dagna to the Circle in DAO, and even that was only a minor sidequest. 

 

Now I agree that having one superior outcome can make a decision pointless, and I agree that choices need to be real choices and meaningful. So I'm not talking about changing the general direction with decision design, but at the same time....well, I'm tired of *every* halfway important decision having only half-satisfactory outcomes, and I miss the occasional outcome that makes me smile.

 

So, what about putting in a decision here and there with several *good* options instead of several half-bad ones? What about letting our characters have their cake and eat it here and there in several different ways? Surely, there's enough darkness in the plots to leave space for such things?

 

What do you think?

[In Exile]

I totally agree with you on this point. At the very least, given a range of quests with outcomes ranging from Bad-Bad-Bad, to Good-Bad-Great and Great-Great-Great makes the world feel less incredibly contrived. 

 

By the fifth, "Oh, I have to pick between hurting a group of people for long-term good or saving them in exchange for long-term harm" the moral choice just gets tuned out (IMO). 

[Bob from Accounting]

The problem is that players get (often very rightfully) angry when what they see as repulsive or ridiculous choices are presented as 'good.'

 

We saw this heavily with Synthesis in ME 3, and to a lesser extent the other choices as well.

 

Superior outcomes don't make decisions pointless.

[jtav]

Well, what's repulsive or ridiculous to one person isn't to another. Choosing between competing goods is also a choice. Destroy, Control, and Synthesis would still lead to very different worlds, even if you took away the deaths. 

[Bob from Accounting]

Yes...that's always true with anything in any story. People can see it differently. I'm not really sure why that would matter.

[Ieldra]

Yes...that's always true with anything in any story. People can see it differently. I'm not really sure why that would matter.

It matters because it means a choice can still be meaningful if you take away the unambiguous bad in every option.

[Bob from Accounting]

Certainly. Such as the choice of who to romance, for example. However, getting rid of what people see as 'unambiguously bad' isn't as simple as it might sound. Again, Synthesis is a good example of this gone wrong.

 

For any big enough choice concerning very important principles players are strongly committed to, I think it's pretty much inevitable that if the choices are significantly different, players are going to see at least some of them as very wrong or very stupid. If you think something is very good, it's unlikely you're going to find it's moral opposite good as well. 

 

This is good for trivial choices, no doubt. But for deeper choices, it's not so simple.

[jtav]

I'm fairly sure Ieldra meant the sacrifice component when he said "unambiguously bad." Strip those away and the trio of ME ending choices become a question of how you want the galaxy to look. Which is still an interesting question with no wrong answer.

[Bob from Accounting]

I don't think you understand. Every choice leading to a good outcome is exactly the problem. I can assure you, even if every choice led to a good outcome, I would still consider some unambiguously bad. If given a choice to execute or spare an innocent person, and both options lead to a good outcome and a happy ending, I would still consider executing her unambiguously bad.

[Xilizhra]

The problem is that players get (often very rightfully) angry when what they see as repulsive or ridiculous choices are presented as 'good.'

 

We saw this heavily with Synthesis in ME 3, and to a lesser extent the other choices as well.

 

Superior outcomes don't make decisions pointless.

Your last line is basically a rather good endorsement of Ieldra's idea. Which I personally am... well, I could see how it could be done well. I actually think that the ME3 endings were a reasonable way to do this, they just weren't presented well for other reasons.

[Bob from Accounting]

Not really. Superior outcomes means one choice is better and one is worse. Ieldra is endorsing equal outcomes. They just all happen to be good.

[Xilizhra]

Not really. Superior outcomes means one choice is better and one is worse. Ieldra is endorsing equal outcomes. They just all happen to be good.

Right... in some decisions, not all of them. Depending on how it was done, I wouldn't see it as a problem.

 

A good example of this might be the various things you can do with Avernus after Soldier's Peak, perhaps.

[Iakus]

I don't think you understand. Every choice leading to a good outcome is exactly the problem. I can assure you, even if every choice led to a good outcome, I would still consider some unambiguously bad. If given a choice to execute or spare an innocent person, and both options lead to a good outcome and a happy ending, I would still consider executing her unambiguously bad.

 

I think Ieldra is talking more about a choice to, say help an innocent person in a number of different ways, all of which lead to positive (but different) outcomes

[Bob from Accounting]

Which would go back to what I said about trivial choices. There's no underlying principle in question. Everyone agrees helping the person is good.

 

Fine for trivial choices, not so fine for the bigger stuff.

[Ieldra]

What I'm talking about are decisions where the defining differences are about things where people are likely to have different preferences, with no unambiguously bad aspects added. In other words, I contest the idea that every option needs a cost, other than what lies in the nature of the option itself. In such a decision, it should be possible to say "Hmm...these are all good, but I prefer X to Y because I personally value it more."

 

I also contest that every important decision needs an ethical dilemma. It's enough that the options are based on different ideologies. 

[Iakus]

Which would go back to what I said about trivial choices. There's no underlying principle in question. Everyone agrees helping the person is good.

 

Fine for trivial choices, not so fine for the bigger stuff.

 

Well, the purpose here isn't for every chocie to be like that.  Just to put one in every once in a while that isn't "pick which puppy to eat"

[Ieldra]

Certainly. Such as the choice of who to romance, for example. However, getting rid of what people see as 'unambiguously bad' isn't as simple as it might sound. Again, Synthesis is a good example of this gone wrong.

 

For any big enough choice concerning very important principles players are strongly committed to, I think it's pretty much inevitable that if the choices are significantly different, players are going to see at least some of them as very wrong or very stupid. If you think something is very good, it's unlikely you're going to find it's moral opposite good as well. 

 

This is good for trivial choices, no doubt. But for deeper choices, it's not so simple.

When I'm speaking of unambiguously bad, I mean bad from any reasonable viewpoint, things that a huge majority of players will likely find undesirable. Take any one outcome and look at what's in it that its supporters would rather not have, those things. Occasionally, I think we should really get "our" good without the bad. That another player's good is different from mine is not a problem, as long as neither has a significant cost from the viewpoint of those who support it.

[Bob from Accounting]

What I'm talking about are decisions where the defining differences are about things where people are likely to have different preferences, with no unambiguously bad aspects added. In other words, I contest the idea that every option needs a cost, other than what lies in the nature of the option itself. In such a decision, it should be possible to say "Hmm...these are all good, but I prefer X to Y because I personally value it more."

 

I also contest that every important decision needs an ethical dilemma. It's enough that the options are based on different ideologies. 

 

That depends on what you mean by 'preferences.'

 

For trivial decisions, yes, it's possible to have no 'bad' outcome.

 

But anytime underlying principles are involved, it doesn't matter if both choices are good, the lesser one is going to be considered wrong by comparison.

 

Consider an example where the player advises a younger character considering going adventuring or something, which his family disapproves of out of concern for his safety. You can tell him to honor his family, which causes him to settle down and be happy, or follow his heart, which causes him to go off adventuring and be happy. Both good outcomes.

 

Those good outcomes don't absolve the choice of the underlying principles. Since this would be a very minor choice, I doubt anyone would much care, but the developers could very easily anger people with something similar on a larger scale.
 

[Xilizhra]

That depends on what you mean by 'preferences.'

 

For trivial decisions, yes, it's possible to have no 'bad' outcome.

 

But anytime underlying principles are involved, it doesn't matter if both choices are good, the lesser one is going to be considered wrong by comparison.

 

Consider an example where the player advises a younger character considering going adventuring or something, which his family disapproves of out of concern for his safety. You can tell him to honor his family, which causes him to settle down and be happy, or follow his heart, which causes him to go off adventuring and be happy. Both good outcomes.

 

Those good outcomes don't absolve the choice of the underlying principles. Since this would be a very minor choice, I doubt anyone would much care, but the developers could very easily anger people with something similar on a larger scale.
 

What sorts of things are you thinking about? As a future scenario, not just examples from ME that enraged people.

[Bob from Accounting]

That another player's good is different from mine is not a problem, as long as neither has a significant cost from the viewpoint of those who support it.

 

It's very much a problem. 

 

[Darth Krytie]

Could you posit an example of what you think would be a scenario that followed this?

[Ieldra]

It's very much a problem. 

Why?

[Bob from Accounting]

Perhaps a scenario where the player has the choice of making a society very authoritarian and controlling as opposed to individualistic. And both lead to very happy endings. The authoritarian society is prosperous and just. Everyone's smiling. Warm music. Maybe a monologue as to how great things are now that everyone has given up their freedom.

 

Yeah, I can see something that like being a big problem.

[Ieldra]

Could you posit an example of what you think would be a scenario that followed this?

Let's take ME3's ending. Look at what Destroy supporters don't like about their ending: the ambiguity about the fate of the protagonist and the death of the synthetics. Synthesis: the death of the protagonist and the forced biological change. Ask: can any of that be changed without compromising the nature of the decision, given that the decision is about how you want civilization to develop? I'd say at least in the case of the protagonist's fate, that is definitely possible, and personally I think also in the other case.

 

Note that things like this, applied to very important decisions, can change the tone of the story, so there may be other considerations that prevent such a design from being realized in any particular case. That's not the point though. My point is that even if the general tone of the story is grey, it is desirable to have *some* decisions where we can have our good without the bad.

 

Also: in this example, there would still be intrinsic differences people are likely to passionately disagree about. It's definitely not a meaningless decision, even with the artificial costs removed. 

[Bob from Accounting]

Why?

 

Because the concept of evil exists alongside good.