268 réponses à ce sujet

[Zu Long]

Well, that's nice. But are you saying that all choices should be like that?

I'm saying that if the player can't reasonably determine consequences of a choice, the choice is basically meaningless. You might as well have asked the player to flip a coin.

Now, if you're asking if I would prefer badass, heroic, logically foresighted play be rewarded with hidden best third options, my response is HELL yes, I'd love a game like that, because that's how I play. But do I EXPECT it to? No, I merely appreciate it when it comes up, like with Redcliff or ME2's ending.

[Zu Long]

This is my point Leliana is same easy to bring back from dead as Flemeth.
1)Ashes
2)Room full of magic/lyrium
3)Immortal guardian spirit
4)Second wife of the maker
5)Flemeth
6)Same as Wynne was broth from dead random spirit of Faith #26
7)I can do this all day

People don't like what writer did so it means writers don't recognize our choices.

So you're saying that in fact, there WAS a logical reason for Lelianna to come back...which would mean it doesn't violate my rule of logical foresight.

[9TailsFox]

I'm saying that if the player can't reasonably determine consequences of a choice, the choice is basically meaningless. You might as well have asked the player to flip a coin.

Now, if you're asking if I would prefer badass, heroic, logically foresighted play be rewarded with hidden best third options, my response is HELL yes, I'd love a game like that, because that's how I play. But do I EXPECT it to? No, I merely appreciate it when it comes up, like with Redcliff or ME2's ending.

Choice to kill bandits, let bandits go, arrest bandits it's not the same no mater if in the end you still kill bandits. It's not flipping coin It tells a lot who your character is.

[Zu Long]

Choice to kill bandits, let bandits go, arrest bandits it's not the same no mater if in the end you still kill bandits. It's not flipping coin It tells a lot who your character is.

Door 1, 2 or 3. Pick one.

[9TailsFox]

So you're saying that in fact, there WAS a logical reason for Lelianna to come back...which would mean it doesn't violate my rule of logical foresight.

I saying there is no logical reason Flemeth to be alive. I was regretting for killing Flemeth all game because she saved my life. And in DA2 "What? You made me fill guilty for killing you and you alive damet you witch well played."

[9TailsFox]

Door 1, 2 or 3. Pick one.

What place I am?

What colour doors are?

Can i ask advice of my companions? Or I am alone?

Can I first check all doors?

What is my mission in this place?

...

[Zu Long]

What place I am?
What colour doors are?
Can i ask advice of my companions? Or I am alone?
Can I first check all doors?
What is my mission in this place?
...

Too slow. You drown as the chamber fills with water.

Wasn't that a satisfying decision?

[Aimi]

I think their point was closer to "actions which are coded 'good' shouldn't always have beneficial results when compared with decisions which are coded 'practical/logical'", meaning that a saint-playthrough shouldn't be the "Instant access / I win" -button in terms of rewards and content.

 
That's deeply unsatisfying to me, too. It problematically places two things that are not opposites on opposite ends of a spectrum. "Practical/logical" and "good" are not necessarily different things.

An example. In international politics, the framework of "Realism" was popular for a long time. Still kind of is. Realists were apostles of raison d'état: the politicians and diplomats of a given country should look out for their own country's best interests to the exclusion of other things. Allies were untrustworthy. No other country could be allowed to become powerful out of fear that that power would be used to threaten you. Some theoreticians and politicians eventually turned this into a doctrine of "balance of power": no one country could be allowed to become too powerful out of fear that it would, y'know, use this power for evil ends. Or something. It's a very self-interested system, in which cooperation is for schmucks, and allies are only matters of convenience.

Problematically, though, "realism" was and is neither descriptive nor predictive. Nobody can define what an objective "balance of power" is, and whenever anybody asks a diplomat for a given country, her response would always be along the lines of "everybody weak except for my country". That's just an excuse for personal power accumulation, not a recipe for peace. And, in fact, interventions to "save the balance of power" resulted in more war, not less. The periods of time when "balance of power" thought has been most influential - the late eighteenth century, the early twentieth century - were some of the most violent and unstable in world history. Explicitly looking out only for number one, abandoning allies when most convenient to do so, snatching up slices of territory wherever and whenever possible...these were all moves that embittered countries' leaders against each other and made wars more likely and frequent. It's no accident that the greatest practitioners of Realist diplomacy were Hitler and Napoleon.

What made peace and prosperity possible was the abandonment of these ideas and the recognition that international relations would have to be founded on a balance of satisfactions and security, while subordinating other interests to the peaceful whole. The Congress of Vienna, and the subsequent "Congress system" of European politics, did this beautifully. It was deeply pragmatic, but it was also founded on what most people would consider to be high moral principles and "good" moral outcomes. It resulted in vastly fewer wars, vastly reduced international strife, vastly increased commerce and trade, and other side benefits like the end of the slave trade. Yay?

See, "pragmatism" is kind of an instant-win button in and of itself. It's quite explicitly the "best" choice by the word's very definition. And that's why I don't consider it to be a desirable alternative to "good" or "bad". Renegade in Mass Effect was often marketed as a pragmatic option: making the hard, but correct, choices for the greater good. I'm glad it didn't turn out that way, because that both creates the misapprehension that "bad" is "better" and also because of the "I win" button thing. If the game had to have Paragon and Renegade options, then spreading out the "good" and "bad" consequences between them is the best way for it to have worked.

But with Dragon Age, the bizarre explicit morality coding doesn't exist. There are choices, and there are consequences. They can be interpreted according to personal morality, or they can not. I'm not entirely sure what the issue is. Like I said earlier, not everybody in this thread even agrees on what many of the "good" choices in these games might be. How can there even be a discussion - let alone an argument - without some basic common ground?
 

I'm saying that if the player can't reasonably determine consequences of a choice, the choice is basically meaningless. You might as well have asked the player to flip a coin.

I'm telling you. Monkey's Paw choices.

"So if I understand the question, the choice is either to leave the world - the universe, reality, whatever - as it is, in all its darkness and disrepair, or to make, ah, mmm...one thing...happen the way I wish it had happened. Knowing in advance that any consequences, for good or ill or otherwise, are wholly inconceivable. [...] I only want to know if it's real. If it's true. If I choose to...to take it back...will it happen? That's all. All I want to know. All I need to know. If I decide to change it, will it change?"

"Maybe."

"Maybe? That's...all? After all this? All you can give me is maybe?"

"Duncan...I thought I was being clear. I guess I wasn't. It's not the change whose consequences are unknowable. It's the choice. One possible consequence of the choice is...might be...that your change can happen. That's all I can give you. That's all there is."

"So you're telling me my choice might destroy the universe...for nothing?"

[9TailsFox]

Too slow. You drown as the chamber fills with water.

Wasn't that a satisfying decision?

There water come from?

Game would never kill main character.

Ok lets say character is in the Fade with now information with just 3 door. I would pick right door so 3. If number is not in correct order example

Spoiler

Then it will be 1 door. My character always pick right path. Sometimes I can have exemptions if door is dark blue.

And I don't get your point?

[Zu Long]

That's deeply unsatisfying to me, too. It problematically places two things that are not opposites on opposite ends of a spectrum. "Practical/logical" and "good" are not necessarily different things.

An example. In international politics, the framework of "Realism" was popular for a long time. Still kind of is. Realists were apostles of raison d'état: the politicians and diplomats of a given country should look out for their own country's best interests to the exclusion of other things. Allies were untrustworthy. No other country could be allowed to become powerful out of fear that that power would be used to threaten you. Some theoreticians and politicians eventually turned this into a doctrine of "balance of power": no one country could be allowed to become too powerful out of fear that it would, y'know, use this power for evil ends. Or something. It's a very self-interested system, in which cooperation is for schmucks, and allies are only matters of convenience.

Problematically, though, "realism" was and is neither descriptive nor predictive. Nobody can define what an objective "balance of power" is, and whenever anybody asks a diplomat for a given country, her response would always be along the lines of "everybody weak except for my country". That's just an excuse for personal power accumulation, not a recipe for peace. And, in fact, interventions to "save the balance of power" resulted in more war, not less. The periods of time when "balance of power" thought has been most influential - the late eighteenth century, the early twentieth century - were some of the most violent and unstable in world history. Explicitly looking out only for number one, abandoning allies when most convenient to do so, snatching up slices of territory wherever and whenever possible...these were all moves that embittered countries' leaders against each other and made wars more likely and frequent. It's no accident that the greatest practitioners of Realist diplomacy were Hitler and Napoleon.

What made peace and prosperity possible was the abandonment of these ideas and the recognition that international relations would have to be founded on a balance of satisfactions and security, while subordinating other interests to the peaceful whole. The Congress of Vienna, and the subsequent "Congress system" of European politics, did this beautifully. It was deeply pragmatic, but it was also founded on what most people would consider to be high moral principles and "good" moral outcomes. It resulted in vastly fewer wars, vastly reduced international strife, vastly increased commerce and trade, and other side benefits like the end of the slave trade. Yay?

See, "pragmatism" is kind of an instant-win button in and of itself. It's quite explicitly the "best" choice by the word's very definition. And that's why I don't consider it to be a desirable alternative to "good" or "bad". Renegade in Mass Effect was often marketed as a pragmatic option: making the hard, but correct, choices for the greater good. I'm glad it didn't turn out that way, because that both creates the misapprehension that "bad" is "better" and also because of the "I win" button thing. If the game had to have Paragon and Renegade options, then spreading out the "good" and "bad" consequences between them is the best way for it to have worked.

But with Dragon Age, the bizarre explicit morality coding doesn't exist. There are choices, and there are consequences. They can be interpreted according to personal morality, or they can not. I'm not entirely sure what the issue is. Like I said earlier, not everybody in this thread even agrees on what many of the "good" choices in these games might be. How can there even be a discussion - let alone an argument - without some basic common ground?


I'm telling you. Monkey's Paw choices.

"So if I understand the question, the choice is either to leave the world - the universe, reality, whatever - as it is, in all its darkness and disrepair, or to make, ah, mmm...one thing...happen the way I wish it had happened. Knowing in advance that any consequences, for good or ill or otherwise, are wholly inconceivable. [...] I only want to know if it's real. If it's true. If I choose to...to take it back...will it happen? That's all. All I want to know. All I need to know. If I decide to change it, will it change?"

"Maybe."

"Maybe? That's...all? After all this? All you can give me is maybe?"

"Duncan...I thought I was being clear. I guess I wasn't. It's not the change whose consequences are unknowable. It's the choice. One possible consequence of the choice is...might be...that your change can happen. That's all I can give you. That's all there is."

"So you're telling me my choice might destroy the universe...for nothing?"

"In that case, your wish is useless. Keep it."

[Zu Long]

There water come from?
Game would never kill main character.
Ok lets say character is in the Fade with now information with just 3 door. I would pick right door so 3. If number is not in correct order example

Spoiler

Then it will be 1 door. My character always pick right path. Sometimes I can have exemptions if door is dark blue.
And I don't get your point?

The point is you had no information with which to make a good choice, and so seem unsatisfied with the results of your decision. Which is what my theory of logical outcomes predicts. Some games do kill main characters. I'm not fond of them.

[Quercus]

There shouldn't be any "good" or "bad" choices. That's just lazy and can't even be called choices, since you're just following a path.

Mass Effect is the best example of it, if you want to be good, keep picking the upper choice, don't even have to read it.

 

A real choice is a choice that makes you stop and think, Do I save the puppy or the kitten? Picking one of these 2 will result in a choice you made, not a path you follow.

[virtus753]

I'm saying that if the player can't reasonably determine consequences of a choice, the choice is basically meaningless. You might as well have asked the player to flip a coin.

 

I think the devs' hint about DA:I is that there may very well be two sets of consequences, if you will: the immediate one, which you should be able to determine or at least infer with reasonable forethought/observational skills, and potential long-term consequences down the road that you absolutely couldn't see coming. That's what I get out of their distinction between "good" and "right" -- "good" being what's good right now/in the situation, "right" being the overall better or more moral outcome when all's said and done (like endgame or post-game). Examples have been given above, I think, but consider something like "saving these 30 people means you sacrifice 2 agents". Prima facie the question is: are 2 Inquisition agents worth 30 "civilians"? But it wouldn't stop there, since that would be a Trolley variant. The twist would come in later, where those 2 agents could make a difference somewhere down the line. You couldn't know that (unless you meta-game) in the moment, but that doesn't make your decision meaningless -- it makes it realistic. (We get that proverb "the path to hell is paved with good intentions" from somewhere!)

 

I do agree that you should absolutely be able to get a feel for the most immediate consequences of your decisions, and I think the DA series has generally been good about providing clues (either overt and in-your-face or hidden in the Investigate or other optional dialogue options). Otherwise people who operate with an "ends justify the means" mentality (or who use the ends even just as one factor in their decision-making, which I suspect includes many of us) have too little to go on to make an informed decision, and then the decision is arguably, as you say, a coin-toss.

 

I'm also not clear on what people have been referring to in saying that we can remove the "clues". In the first place, I think there are two sets of things we could mean by "clues": 1) the mood/tone of the Inquisitor's dialogue; 2) the caption that specifies/clarifies the immediate consequences of your actions. In the case of #1, I suspect that BioWare will still have to keep the same responses in the same places on the dialogue wheel, so that if you've played DAII you'll already know that the top is diplomatic, the middle sarcastic, and the bottom aggressive. Moreover, the paraphrase itself should make that pretty clear even if you've no experience with the DA series. (For example, saying "I am no one's Herald" definitely comes off as direct/aggressive to me, regardless of whether the angry red fist icon is there to spell it out. Similarly, answering "I'm fine" to Cassandra's question about your feelings in the first Skyhold/war table video is the essential stoic response -- I don't need the arms-folded icon to understand that. That said, I'm used to them from DAII and will almost certainly let the default option stand.) In the case of #2, I think this was a decision simply to clarify what should already be able to be inferred based on the paraphrases offered. Again, hiding the "tooltip" shouldn't mean you're totally blind to what your choice of dialogue will lead to. At least in the examples I've seen in gameplay videos that information just confirmed what I thought; it didn't surprise me or make me re-think my options. It strikes me as a failsafe for those who want it spelled out beyond doubt.

 

Either way, I don't see how removing either set of "clues" should be all that significant in terms of your decision-making. (It might, however, make your screen less cluttered.) I understand why being able to remove them makes the whole process seem more realistic and less artificial, since the information isn't quite so obvious, but unless you find the paraphrases particularly obscure it really shouldn't have a tremendous impact in terms of making choices.

[MissOuJ]

 [snipped for lenght]

 

I 100% agree with you.

 

My main problem with the dual morality systems (renegade/paragon etc.) as we have them at present is that first they establish an arbitrary, dual morality system, after which they reward both extremes and boot the centrists out of the airlock.

 

What we need, like you said, is just choices and consequences. Let our followers and characters (and us) have opinions about them and debate about them - but a system where I can piously brainwash a race or evilly kill them so I can later either piously convince my two crewmates to get along or evilly yell them that they'll get along or else is a system which is just full of problems.

 

Having said that, one interesting way to implement morality mechanics would be to tie them into the game world directly, and have your reputation / affinity reflect that either negatively or positively. You're upholding the community's values, no matter how screwed up and backwards they are? Good for you! These NPCs over here approve. Not doing so / trying to implement your own morality into the game world? ... Sorry, no dice.

[Aimi]

"In that case, your wish is useless. Keep it."

It's not about that.

---

"Before you answer, I need to tell you that it's not just about you. You follow? Sure, trade your hope of Heaven for eternal torments in Hell, whatever. That's your business. But it's not just you. Or even mostly you."

"I am professionally skeptical of the prospects of an afterlife."

"It's just a metaphor, right? Or maybe it isn't. The choice you make might rip open the lives of millions of people who never get a choice of their own. The price might be bad for you, sure. It might be far worse for everybody else. If you were wrong about the afterlife, you might be sending, say, a billion children to burn forever in a lake of fire. Or screw the afterlife, and just say those billion kids are instead afflicted with hallucinations of being tortured by demons so they tear at their own flesh until they claw their eyes out and die screaming of brain infections."

"I don't envy your imagination."

"Yeah. Imagination. That's what it is. How about a new strain of, say, vaccine-resistant HRVP? Or, say, your disease. Turn every one of them into an erratic nutjob who'll die trapped in a rotting body, festering in a puddle of his own sh*t."

[...]

"I still can't seem to make this make sense. Are these people at risk if I say yes, or if I say no?"

"Both. Either. That's the point."

"Then how am I supposed to decide?"

"Flip a coin. How the f*ck should I know?"

"So your billion children example is..."

"It's a nice round number. Take the worst thing you can think of and cube it. That's what might happen."

"Might. Not will. If the potential consequences are the same either way-"

"They're not. The only thing they have in common is that we don't know sh*t about what any of them are. We can't know. You might destroy the universe. You might send every living being to an eternal playdate on the Big Rock Candy f*cking Mountain. Or you might not do much at all, and we're going through all this sh*t for nothing. Or anything in between. And I mean anything."

"Choice as an absolute, then. Choice as a thing-in-itself. The Law of Unknowable Consequences."

"More or less."

[Fast Jimmy]

I'm saying that if the player can't reasonably determine consequences of a choice, the choice is basically meaningless. You might as well have asked the player to flip a coin.

Now, if you're asking if I would prefer badass, heroic, logically foresighted play be rewarded with hidden best third options, my response is HELL yes, I'd love a game like that, because that's how I play. But do I EXPECT it to? No, I merely appreciate it when it comes up, like with Redcliff or ME2's ending.

I found nothing particularly amazing about ME2's ending, at least from a morally-grey-choice perspective. Complete all loyalty missions, purchase all upgrades, assign tech specialist to tech jobs, leaders to leaderships jobs, etc. I kept everyone alive on my first run by adhering to basic video game principles that most gamers know by heart.

Now... if you could only complete X number of loyalty missions due to time constraints (making at least a few characters at risk), or only upgrade your ship Y number of times (making some part of your ship vulnerable), or not being able to paid certain team members together (Jack objecting to serve under "Cereberus Barbie," as an example) without negative backlashes... this would have made the mission more interesting, as it would have exposed the player to real choices, not just be a measure of how closely they followed the mission checklist.


This is a big problem in gaming - how do you reward players who go the extra mile? I say you reward them with content and outcomes, but not magical Third Options. Give them extra scenes with companions, or endings/follow up that explore characters, lore or the world itself a little deeper. But don't make the rainbows-and-sunshine outcomes hinge on these things. Rainbows-and-sunshine should be occasionally (or even often) possible, but contrast it with other rainbows-and-sunshine outcomes, not grim-dark outcomes. Similarly, don't pair grim-dark together with clearly superior outcomes, or you simply make the question a moot point.

[9TailsFox]

The point is you had no information with which to make a good choice, and so seem unsatisfied with the results of your decision. Which is what my theory of logical outcomes predicts. Some games do kill main characters. I'm not fond of them.

But I have all information when I play game. Warden, Alistair, Morrigan and dog is on bridge. We stopped by bandits ( I think it was 5 or 6 bandits)want my money and they say "collect taxis".

With your 3 doors if I see only 3 doors I answer your question. It still say something about my character.

[Zu Long]

I think the devs' hint about DA:I is that there may very well be two sets of consequences, if you will: the immediate one, which you should be able to determine or at least infer with reasonable forethought/observational skills, and potential long-term consequences down the road that you absolutely couldn't see coming. That's what I get out of their distinction between "good" and "right" -- "good" being what's good right now/in the situation, "right" being the overall better or more moral outcome when all's said and done (like endgame or post-game). Examples have been given above, I think, but consider something like "saving these 30 people means you sacrifice 2 agents". Prima facie the question is: are 2 Inquisition agents worth 30 "civilians"? But it wouldn't stop there, since that would be a Trolley variant. The twist would come in later, where those 2 agents could make a difference somewhere down the line. You couldn't know that (unless you meta-game) in the moment, but that doesn't make your decision meaningless -- it makes it realistic. (We get that proverb "the path to hell is paved with good intentions" from somewhere!)

I do agree that you should absolutely be able to get a feel for the most immediate consequences of your decisions, and I think the DA series has generally been good about providing clues (either overt and in-your-face or hidden in the Investigate or other optional dialogue options). Otherwise people who operate with an "ends justify the means" mentality (or who use the ends even just as one factor in their decision-making, which I suspect includes many of us) have too little to go on to make an informed decision, and then the decision is arguably, as you say, a coin-toss.

I'm also not clear on what people have been referring to in saying that we can remove the "clues". In the first place, I think there are two sets of things we could mean by "clues": 1) the mood/tone of the Inquisitor's dialogue; 2) the caption that specifies/clarifies the immediate consequences of your actions. In the case of #1, I suspect that BioWare will still have to keep the same responses in the same places on the dialogue wheel, so that if you've played DAII you'll already know that the top is diplomatic, the middle sarcastic, and the bottom aggressive. Moreover, the paraphrase itself should make that pretty clear even if you've no experience with the DA series. (For example, saying "I am no one's Herald" definitely comes off as direct/aggressive to me, regardless of whether the angry red fist icon is there to spell it out. Similarly, answering "I'm fine" to Cassandra's question about your feelings in the first Skyhold/war table video is the essential stoic response -- I don't need the arms-folded icon to understand that. That said, I'm used to them from DAII and will almost certainly let the default option stand.) In the case of #2, I think this was a decision simply to clarify what should already be able to be inferred based on the paraphrases offered. Again, hiding the "tooltip" shouldn't mean you're totally blind to what your choice of dialogue will lead to. At least in the examples I've seen in gameplay videos that information just confirmed what I thought; it didn't surprise me or make me re-think my options. It strikes me as a failsafe for those who want it spelled out beyond doubt.

Either way, I don't see how removing either set of "clues" should be all that significant in terms of your decision-making. (It might, however, make your screen less cluttered.) I understand why being able to remove them makes the whole process seem more realistic and less artificial, since the information isn't quite so obvious, but unless you find the paraphrases particularly obscure it really shouldn't have a tremendous impact in terms of making choices.

See, and this I'm fine with. Like the choice to save the Quarian Admiral or his civilians in ME3, asking the player to make the hard call between the long tern resource and the immediate question of number of lives saved, is totally legitimate. Especially if you hint, as ME3 did, what the long term consequences of either choice might be.

[JudgeOverdose]

These games point out, pretty repeatedly, that the terms 'good' and 'bad' are subjective.

 

Any choice has some level of impact in previous games, and sometimes you are punished for being a diplomat. Not putting down the peasant rebellion in Awakening is a good example of diplomacy blowing up in your face. But, beyond that, the choices you make impact the people around you. Want to poison the Urn? Some of your companions dislike that so much that they will attack you. Want to help some people that are in need and not gain anything? Morrigan disapproves -20.

 

That said, it makes quite a bit of sense that going out of your way to ensure the diplomatic outcome will land you in a place where the most people are happy. I'm not sure if the request is that 'shoot first, ask questions later' ends with the happiest outcome, but it is generally not a tactic that solicits love from the masses. Charismatic leaders are loved by their followers and are followed by choice; those that rule with an iron fist are also followed, but they are generally followed out of fear of consequence, thereby affording little other choice. I believe the game allows you to take either extreme path or a mix of both, but you have to deal with the consequences of your actions either way. Who knows how deep those consequences will run? Isn't finding out part of the fun of playing the game?

[Zu Long]

I found nothing particularly amazing about ME2's ending, at least from a morally-grey-choice perspective. Complete all loyalty missions, purchase all upgrades, assign tech specialist to tech jobs, leaders to leaderships jobs, etc. I kept everyone alive on my first run by adhering to basic video game principles that most gamers know by heart.

Now... if you could only complete X number of loyalty missions due to time constraints (making at least a few characters at risk), or only upgrade your ship Y number of times (making some part of your ship vulnerable), or not being able to paid certain team members together (Jack objecting to serve under "Cereberus Barbie," as an example) without negative backlashes... this would have made the mission more interesting, as it would have exposed the player to real choices, not just be a measure of how closely they followed the mission checklist.


This is a big problem in gaming - how do you reward players who go the extra mile? I say you reward them with content and outcomes, but not magical Third Options. Give them extra scenes with companions, or endings/follow up that explore characters, lore or the world itself a little deeper. But don't make the rainbows-and-sunshine outcomes hinge on these things. Rainbows-and-sunshine should be occasionally (or even often) possible, but contrast it with other rainbows-and-sunshine outcomes, not grim-dark outcomes. Similarly, don't pair grim-dark together with clearly superior outcomes, or you simply make the question a moot point.

To me, it isn't moot. The option to fail gives the choice weight. I dislike being a jerk, even in a game, and so will almost never choose the option to be a jerk...but the fact that I COULD have lends weight to my choice to be nice. By the same token, failing or non optimal outcomes are not rendered moot by an optimal one. Rather, they give the decision weight, even if most people make one choice over the others.

[Zu Long]

But I have all information when I play game. Warden, Alistair, Morrigan and dog is on bridge. We stopped by bandits ( I think it was 5 or 6 bandits)want my money and they say "collect taxis".
With your 3 doors if I see only 3 doors I answer your question. It still say something about my character.

But the outcome of that decision is logically foreseeable. o_O

[Medhia_Nox]

@Quercus:  I have literally never had a choice in my life where things were so incredibly dire.  I chalk it up to preemptive wisdom to avoid such ludicrous situations - mixed with a dash of luck.

 

My life choices are usually: 

- Do I play games or go out with friends.

- Do I finish writing out my bills or take out the garbage.

 

The tough ones are usually: 

 

- Do I embrace my career in visual arts, as a novelist or my business in horticulture. 

- Do I move to Seattle or stay near family.

 

Seriously - this notion, and I'm not actually saying you're suggesting it, that choices have to be between two horrible choices is rather preposterous.  So few people live like that - and even less live like that more than once. 

 

The very idea of asking for your choices to "mean something" means a value of some sort is required "good/evil" "positive/negative" "creative/destructive" "+/-"

[Fast Jimmy]

Door 1, 2 or 3. Pick one.

No, really... pick 1. You can try opening the other doors, but only 1 will actually open and move things forward.

[9TailsFox]

But the outcome of that decision is logically foreseeable. o_O

I bullied bandits into giving me all their money because their pant full in fear of me, and when they asked to go I said no I will arrest you. Logical outcome I expected they surrender. But I get not outcome I expect. It still don't make my choice invalid. It shows my character use violence only if forced.