153 réponses à ce sujet

[Lebanese Dude]

I've always been bothered by the senseless violence in Star Wars games especially. I mean somehow killing those thousands of nameless enemies leading up to the big boss was no big deal and you didn't gain any dark side points for killing them instead of allowing them to surrender, but heavens help you if you choose to kill the boss, then you get dark side points up the wazoo.

So saving countless lives by killing the one person who will without fail go on to murder people if left alive is a dark sided action, but killing thousands of people just so you get a chance to talk to this guy and then walking away once you do and let him continue his murder spree which is actually smaller than yours is a light sided action. It just doesn't work.

The act of killing itself isn't necessarily absolute evil. This is a discussion beyond the scope of this thread, but I'll elaborate.

First, is the attack morally justified to begin with? This is where you consider what is good or not in your setting. Star Wars follows current Western notions of morality so assuming you are attacking a person who is selling slaves, trafficking illegal drugs, or destroying the known universe you are indeed morally justified in attacking.

The second question you ask is: Can they surrender?

If there is no option to surrender, then those nameless enemies made a choice to fight to the death.

There's no theoretical "but maybe they would" because these enemies are programmed to never surrender.

If they are programmed to surrender and/or are not hostile to begin with, then killing them ruthlessly is arguably considered evil. If this is not implemented in the game, then it is a gameplay design choice.

When it came to the big bads and such, they aren't necessarily immediately hostile. They can be programmed to entertain a discussion with main character.

Depending on the context and outcome of the discussion, the morality parameter changes. The enemy is no longer attacking you. You are deciding to attack. Therefore, it's your judgement that counts and consequently your morality.

I don't know the context of the situation you are discussing, but I can assume that you let him go for a reason that the game views as good. This is comparable to ME1 with the batarian Balak. If you kill him, you condemn hostages to die. If you don't, they survive. Of course it is arguable that killing him now saves lives later, but that is an assumption made by you. You are deciding to kill innocent people to "potentially" save others later. It is morally grey, but in the immediate scope of the game, it is obviously ruthless to kill Balak.

TL;DR it is arguably moral to kill in self-defense when your cause is good and when you have no significant input on the hostility of the enemy.

[filetemo]

To satisfy the OP request the game mechanics should be reworked entirely to add a system that made gameplay violence have impact in the character and story. Maybe a meter that fills in regards on how burnt fed up and PTSD'ed the character is, or how ruthless he becomes. Then it would open new dialogue and story choices, or maybe it would led to the PC going bonkers being locked in an asylum and a game over screen.

 

And to have a meaningful impact, the fights should be far and between. Every little fight should be approached as something evitable, with lots of diplomacy, negotiations... and consequences every fight should have deaths, injuries, a trial, an arrest, prison time hospital time, broken families, hate, revenges...

Do we really want a Dragon Age game like this?

 

Or you can take the dumbed down route an get in-game messages that say "you have killed 1000 persons: you are now +5 ruthless, +2 PTSD, +3 depressed and 580 children have been made orphan. You have now a 5%discount at all taverns." 

[Snorka]

Some people get immense satisfaction eating a hamburger, I think that satisfaction would diminish with knowing what part of Daisy,Molly and Clover was in your burger.

 

Ignorance is bliss.   

[filetemo]

In a puzzle game, you make jewels match. In a racing game, you run races.

You can't add extra menaing to that, because it detracts from your main source of fun, which is matching, racing, killing.

Racing feels as gamey as killing. Where are the grudges, the incidents with stewards, the sanctions for crashing, the trials after a failed relationship between a sponsor and a driver?

 

You can't pay attention to all that, because it takes away time to race. 

 

If a game was to be built around the consequences and preludes that lead into a fight, that game would not be a combat RPG. Because combat would be 5% of the game.

 

That is, if you really want to make violence meaningful.

 

Haven't you ever had a fight in high school? It's the build-up before the fight, 20 seconds of trading bitchslaps, and one week of talking about the subject afterwards. Detention, you become popular, the other guy evades you, your mom comes to talk to the principal...

That's not a combat focused experience. (If we can call slaps and pushes "combat")