87 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

Realism and pragmatism aside, how about fun? Personally, I find Dragon Age's companion system more fun because there's more variety in the way your companions can react to the protagonist.

[dreamgazer]

No. Actually, it isn't. Your failing of understanding 'pragmatism' is not really my problem.

Elaborate on the bold, sir, because I have a perfectly fine grasp on the word's meaning.

[Bob from Accounting]

Of course. Would you agree that Mass Effect is about, among other things, 'Idealism vs. Pragmatism?' I'd prefer to talk about it, since I know it much better.

[dreamgazer]

Would you agree that Mass Effect is about, among other things, 'Idealism vs. Pragmatism?'

I would agree, yes. Far more than the "Good vs. Evil" you've tried to force upon it.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 Gotta admit, I do not care for DA:O's companion approval system. It sounded good in theory but it doesn't work (well) IMO after playing a few times.

 

Gift spam is one thing, though if that bothers you, you can choose not to do it, so that's not as big a deal as many people make it out to be. What I disliked was that you had to be a sycophant to be friends with any of your companions. IRL, one of my best friends was someone whose political views were like the polar opposite of my own, but that was also part of the reason we were friends was because we loved to talk politics and argue with each other about it. Companions were also hyper-sensitive. Some completely unassuming options in conversations could get disapproval, like lots of Oghren dialogue in DA:A. Some companions had strangely contradictory approval at times. Sten hates saving Connor through the Circle or doing anything short of killing Jowan, but approves of a blood-magic ritual by a Tevinter slaver to augment the Warden's health and then let him walk free... WTF? And then the increments were often just not sufficient enough to get a meaningful amount of approval from companions that you're not taking along frequently, so establishing meaningful relationships with all in your party is sometimes not doable unless you metagame the ish out of it.

 

DA2 was quite a bit better. Increments were made much more workable (factors of five, typically +/- 5, 10, or 15). You could have rivalries with characters rather than having to suck up or risk losing them (though it's still not quite what I'm looking for). I'd like to see a few things changed yet, but it was an improvement, and Mass Effect would certainly benefit from having something similar.

[KaiserShep]

However far Mass Effect can go really depends on the setting. In the case of Mass Effect, having a potential mutiny is tricky. I can be fun for dramatic effect, but it has to be done well or it'll just look silly.

[dreamgazer]

Then would you explain to me why many of the decisions, indeed nearly all of the decisions, have an option that is purely good? Allows Shepard to be 'idealistic' and yet leads to an outcome as good or even better as the option requiring compromise?

The same could be said for the availability of pragmatic choices, revealing the benefits and supporting the validity of both sides, which works against the idea of "Good vs. Evil". The rachni, the heretic geth, the council ... among others. No matter what, both Paragons and Renegades ultimately achieve the same goals and have the same options available for them. It depends on how the player views the situation's context, and the attitude of a particular Shepard.

[themikefest]

Depending on a playthrough, a paragon Shepard can do a worst playthrough then a renegade Shepard.

[GreyLycanTrope]

No it can't.

 

No matter what, Shepard is not a sociopath. No matter what, he's not out on a mission to kill innocents. A Renegade Shepard doesn't want to kill innocents, he just does so because it's 'justified.'

 

And thus they don't achieve the same goals. Because a Renegade Shepard compromises himself, and a Paragon Shepard does not.

Paragon shep is just as capable of compromising themselves through their ideology if Balak is any indication. In that case they actually let more people die than Renegade shep.

[naddaya]

And if a man saves another man's life, that other man might go on a shooting spree the next day and kill dozens of people. Ideals don't allow us to know the future.

 

Balak was a terrorist. What do you think he's gonna do if let free, sell flowers?

[naddaya]

A thug who got lucky.

 

Of course. But the risk always depends on the situation at hand. Saving a terrorist (usually) poses a greater threat than saving a old lady in trouble.

[GreyLycanTrope]

And if a man saves another man's life, that other man might go on a shooting spree the next day and kill dozens of people. Ideals don't allow us to know the future.

What what you're saying is all those people Shep saved could potentially be murders, as is the case with Elnora. What a hero

[KaiserShep]

And if a man saves another man's life, that other man might go on a shooting spree the next day and kill dozens of people. Ideals don't allow us to know the future.

 

Sure, but if I knew that this man was a murderer who was planning to commit genocide, I would most likely opt out of saving him and let him get run over or die in a fire or whatever calamity should befall him. Anyway, not knowing his plans for the future are not really a sound basis for releasing him anyway, because you aren't saving his life; you are saving his hostages. If he had simply killed everyone on X57 before Shepard got there, the reasons to spare him are nil, because it's not about the future; it's about what he's doing now, which is an attempted act of genocide.

 

In any case, the matter of Balak is actually a very good example of pragmatism on the part of the protagonist, because killing him saves more people than if you were to let him go. It's as simple as that. Even if you can't predict what he will do in the future, you can make a reasonable assumption based on his present actions. That his attempt to drop an asteroid on Terra Nova is a crime of opportunity is irrelevant.

 

This reminds me of that bit with Sideshow Bob.

 

Attempted murder? Now honestly, did they give the Nobel Prize for 'attempted chemistry'?

[dreamgazer]

No it can't.
 
No matter what, Shepard is not a sociopath. No matter what, he's not out on a mission to kill innocents. A Renegade Shepard doesn't want to kill innocents, he just does so because it's 'justified.'
 
And thus they don't achieve the same goals. Because a Renegade Shepard compromises himself, and a Paragon Shepard does not.

 

Methinks your viewpoint on renegade Shepards is incredibly narrow. It doesn't say anywhere in the RenegadeHandbooktm that they all want to be sadists, or that it's part of their goal structure.  That's not the case for either of my red-leaning Shepards. Doesn't say in the ParagonHandbooktm that they all want to be no-kill pacifists either, even though that's well within the idealist's belief structure and viciously compromised across the three games.

 

And you moved the goalposts away from pragmatism.  Ultimately, yes, both idealists and pragmatists achieved the same goals in the Mass Effect trilogy, thus justifying---and occasionally weighing down---both viewpoints.  Good vs. Evil? Nope. 

[Jorji Costava]

No. They didn't. If a so-called 'pragmatist,' by your definition, adheres to all his ideals, then what defines him as a pragmatist in the first place? What's the defining feature between him and an 'idealist' at all? If you can't name one, then the words don't even mean anything.

 

The contrast can be explained easily enough in terms of the consequentialism/deontology distinction; a 'pragmatist' (or consequentialist) follows principles that determine the rightness or wrongness of an action solely with reference to the consequences of those actions, and what her principles tell her is what kind of consequences count as good or desirable. So a utilitarian would do whatever she thinks is necessary to produce the best balance of happiness over misery for the greatest number of people possible. An 'idealist' (or deontologist) will instead follow principles that may prohibit certain kinds of action regardless of their consequences, perhaps because of considerations over consistency, the intentions behind the act, etc. So both the idealist and the pragmatist can be principled in their own way; it's just a matter of what kinds of principles they are following.

[dreamgazer]

No. They didn't. If a so-called 'pragmatist,' by your definition, adheres to all his ideals, then what defines him as a pragmatist in the first place? What's the defining feature between him and an 'idealist' at all? If you can't name one, then the words don't even mean anything.

 

Yes, they did.

 

What's your definition of a pragmatist anyway, Bob? Because the thing in bold illustrates that you have a particular, potentially inaccurate outlook on what it means. The nature of pragmatism is built on reason and logic in given scenarios, not unwavering ideals. 

[dreamgazer]

Yes, but as I pointed out, the consequences for the Paragon choices are almost always the same or better than Renegade choices, so the theme doesn't really work. Thankfully.

Depends on the context of the scenario, actually. And it does work. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

[Jorji Costava]

Yes, but as I pointed out, the consequences for the Paragon choices are almost always the same or better than Renegade choices, so the theme doesn't really work. Thankfully. Paragon Shepard follow both tenets.

It's true that paragon choices seem to always work out, but I'm not sure that's relevant to the original question, which is how to draw the distinction between pragmatists and idealists. After all, it isn't possible to know without metagame knowledge that every paragon decision will result in a good outcome.

Speaking of which, what would you call someone who denies any discrepency between idealist principles and practical consequences in the first place?

I don't find this to be a particularly plausible empirical thesis, so I haven't really thought about it much. But that's probably a debate for another day.

[Craig Graff]

May I remind everyone of the actual topic of this conversation?

Hint: it has nothing to do with what has derailed it.

[AlanC9]

In any case, the matter of Balak is actually a very good example of pragmatism on the part of the protagonist, because killing him saves more people than if you were to let him go.

Does this actually happen? Who dies if you save the Terra Nova hostages?

[cap and gown]

Does this actually happen? Who dies if you save the Terra Nova hostages?

 

A bunch of Alliance soldiers on the Citadel.

[KaiserShep]

Does this actually happen? Who dies if you save the Terra Nova hostages?

 

When you do the Batarian Codes side mission on the Citadel, the first terminal has Noles reveal that someone was shutting down life support machines in Huerta Memorial, and the next at the Normandy's docking bay reveals that someone was screwing around with traffic control, causing a ship with a lot of Alliance personnel on board to die.

 

It's kind of amusing how the Citadel has a sieve for internal security.

[cap and gown]

 

It's kind of amusing how the Citadel has a sieve for internal security.

 

 

External, as well. Why there is a Citadel Defense Force I will never understand. They certainly don't defend the Citadel.

[KaiserShep]

The biggest contribution to the Citadel defense force is if you side with the worker at the holding area at the docks and kick the refugee out. The fleeing ship distracts the reapers long enough that they don't inflict as much damage, and Kelly Chambers lives as a result. #headcanonapproved

[AlanC9]

When you do the Batarian Codes side mission on the Citadel, the first terminal has Noles reveal that someone was shutting down life support machines in Huerta Memorial, and the next at the Normandy's docking bay reveals that someone was screwing around with traffic control, causing a ship with a lot of Alliance personnel on board to die.
 
It's kind of amusing how the Citadel has a sieve for internal security.

Hmm.... I thought those things happen whether or not you kill Balak.