311 réponses à ce sujet

[Jorji Costava]

I should add, that breaking the pattern in small decisions that affect basically no one will not work. There needs to be a realistic pattern especially in those big decisions that affect a large number of people, because those are the least likely to have a connection between a good action and a good outcome. That's because our morality has evolved for small personal interaction in a tribe-sized community, and will be more likely to lead us astray the bigger our decisions get. This is not an ad-hoc hypothesis, btw. There have been studies on the subject, and the results are unambiguous. When making political decisions, it is far more likely that a decision based exclusively on morality will lead into disaster, and that a decision based on expediency will have at least some benefit.

 

That depends on what you mean by "our morality." Drawing on Daniel Kahneman's dual process theory of mind in Thinking Fast and Slow, Joshua Greene (link to pdf) distinguishes between two general patterns of judgment in moral thinking: There are characteristically deontological judgments (i.e. "Don't push one guy off a bridge to prevent five people from getting hit by an oncoming trolley! That's wrong!!"), which are rooted in fast, intuitive processes, and characteristically consequentialist judgments (i.e. "Push the guy, because five is more than one"), rooted in slower, deliberate processes.

 

Greene agrees with the general idea you're gesturing towards, which is that intuitive moral judgments are more likely to lead us astray as situations become larger, more complex and more removed from everyday life, but the idea that moral judgments underwritten by the slower processes aren't actually moral judgments seems to be a mistake. Even at the pretheoretic level, there's more than one way to think morally.

 

EDIT: Fixed typo.

[AlanC9]

Even then.

So risky and stupid behavior shouldn't be punished because nice behavior needs to always be rewarded? Is this a game for 6-year-olds?

[camphor]

the world may be personally morally grey, but on a societal level its not conform to societal norms or be an outcast, when your trying to rally a galaxy conforming to the good guy aesthetic is more important then personal choice on a realistic level, if mass effect is a game were the object is increased power, no one rises to power by being a dick, look at politicians, one gaf and there career is over, once you have power you can do what you would like but getting it you have to at least act like your on everyone's side

 

if a US officer ordered the killing of civilians even if it were the safest option there would be an uproar and he/she would be imprisoned for the rest of his life

[Indigenous]

We dont just need benefits to 'evil' options we also need consequences to 'good' options. And not just companion dissapproval/approval.

 

That depends on what you mean by "our morality." Drawing on Daniel Kahneman's dual process theory of mind in Thinking Fast and Slow, Joshua Greene (link to pdf) distinguishes between two general patterns of judgment in moral thinking: There are characteristically deontological judgments (i.e. "Don't push one guy off a bridge to prevent five people from hitting the trolley! That's wrong!!"), which are rooted in fast, intuitive processes, and characteristically consequentialist judgments (i.e. "Push the guy, because five is more than one"), rooted in slower, deliberate processes.

 

Greene agrees with the general idea you're gesturing towards, which is that intuitive moral judgments are more likely to lead us astray as situations become larger, more complex and more removed from everyday life, but the idea that moral judgments underwritten by the slower processes aren't actually moral judgments seems to be a mistake. Even at the pretheoretic level, there's more than one way to think morally.

 

EDIT: Fixed typo.

Bioware doesnt need to define morality. They just need to have your decision change your story. The Witcher III gave you many hard choices that didnt really have a good or bad option.

[AlanC9]

if a US officer ordered the killing of civilians even if it were the safest option there would be an uproar and he/she would be imprisoned for the rest of his life

Tell that to the civilians in 1945 Tokyo. I'd say Hiroshima, but we were already barbecuing civilians for months before nukes made it easier.

[jtav]

I think what's needed are reasonable consequences. I like the "good" choice being good in the long term, but no goalpost moving. For example, somehow saving the Destiny Ascension leads to significantly fewer casualties than concentrating on Sovereign despite the fact that if it isn't taken down, we all die. One that somehow one krogan can change an entire culture, despite the fact that in the last game, he goes into some detail about how the only reason the other clans listen to him Is because of the genophage you just cured. Games should neither be cynical for the sake of cynicism nor should they insulate gamers from logical consequences for the sake of a power fantasy. And I would prefer big choices be along the lines of ideology rather than a clear right or wrong answer. DAI did this fairly well.

[Jester]

Tell that to the civilians in 1945 Tokyo. I'd say Hiroshima, but we were already barbecuing civilians for months before nukes made it easier.

Tokyo? In 1942 American government imprisoned over 100 000 American citizens of Japanese ancestry, denied them any rights and forcibly removed them from their homes.

That was a Renegade move for sure. 

[saladinbob]

Well, Dragon Age: Origins managed to do this right. 

"Evil" choices gave you usually more benefits - keeping the Anvil gave you powerful golems in final battle, slaughtering the Dalish gave you stronger warewolves. Smuggling and being a criminal, threatening and stealing gave you more gold.

But it generally led to world becoming a worse place. 

 

However, Mass Effect did it wrong - most of the time, Paragon choices lead to better results.

But the worst of all, the whole idea of Paragon/Renagade scores is flawed - because to succeed in diplomacy checks, you need certain amount of either Paragon or Renegade points, This makes the decisions not the matter of morals or results, but a character development choice. It's a bad way to design the game, and I will argue that it was the worst flaw of Mass Effect games. 

 

I'd disagree with this because for as much as I love Origins, each of its missions where, in affect, self contained stories that had no real impact on the overall plot beyond making your final fight slightly easier. Decisions you make in the game should have an impact on the plot, not on the difficulty level of the game.

[Avilan II]

Majority of people choose the good decisions not only because it's good but also because it allows them the best benefits. Decision like killing squadmates or violence  often result in having less characters or in ME3 case, hinder the ability from getting the best ending. I like decisions like Samara and Morinth whereas if you kill the squadmate, you get a different character. Decisions like killing wrex and/or Mordin allow you to have the support of both Salarian and Krogan. I want more of these decisions instead of paragon = best outcome, regenade = worse outcome. 

 

I know I am jumping in late and somebody else has probably said this but...

 

How can anyone, anywhere, seriously expect being a douche at best and a racist murderer at worst somehow should reap equal benefits as being a charismatic negotiator and general swell person???

I saw this coming up after ME2 had landed and it was just as mind-boggling then.

[Indigenous]

I think what's needed are reasonable consequences. I like the "good" choice being good in the long term, but no goalpost moving. For example, somehow saving the Destiny Ascension leads to significantly fewer casualties than concentrating on Sovereign despite the fact that if it isn't taken down, we all die. One that somehow one krogan can change an entire culture, despite the fact that in the last game, he goes into some detail about how the only reason the other clans listen to him Is because of the genophage you just cured. Games should neither be cynical for the sake of cynicism nor should they insulate gamers from logical consequences for the sake of a power fantasy. And I would prefer big choices be along the lines of ideology rather than a clear right or wrong answer. DAI did this fairly well.

I don't think DA I gave you any big choices other than the Mage or Templar choice. Any examples?

[Han Shot First]

I know I am jumping in late and somebody else has probably said this but...

 

How can anyone, anywhere, seriously expect being a douche at best and a racist murderer at worst somehow should reap equal benefits as being a charismatic negotiator and general swell person???

I saw this coming up after ME2 had landed and it was just as mind-boggling then.

 

This.

 

That isn't to say there should be ruthless actions that can be taken by the protagonist at times, some (but not all) of which should yield better results than the alternative. There should be some pragmatic justification for any ruthless action however, and it should fall within the category of ruthlessness in the service of what the character sees as the greater good, rather than just evil for the sake of evil. 

 

When people demand the ability to throw squadmates they don't like out their airlock for example, I can't help but facepalm. That character would be so ridiculous that they couldn't realistically exist. No one would follow that loon, and the Alliance would lock him or her up in a rubber room somewhere.

[rashie]

Bioware seriously needs to learn how to write morality properly first, its far too black and white in most of their scenarios.

 

I want to see more decisions points were there isn't any obvious good or evil.

[Ieldra]

That depends on what you mean by "our morality." Drawing on Daniel Kahneman's dual process theory of mind in Thinking Fast and Slow, Joshua Greene (link to pdf) distinguishes between two general patterns of judgment in moral thinking: There are characteristically deontological judgments (i.e. "Don't push one guy off a bridge to prevent five people from getting hit by an oncoming trolley! That's wrong!!"), which are rooted in fast, intuitive processes, and characteristically consequentialist judgments (i.e. "Push the guy, because five is more than one"), rooted in slower, deliberate processes.
 
Greene agrees with the general idea you're gesturing towards, which is that intuitive moral judgments are more likely to lead us astray as situations become larger, more complex and more removed from everyday life, but the idea that moral judgments underwritten by the slower processes aren't actually moral judgments seems to be a mistake. Even at the pretheoretic level, there's more than one way to think morally.

You are correct. I should've said "decisions based on intuitive morality". It is also those decisions - emotional decisions - that the ME games push as the "good" ones which always lead to good outcomes. They seem to be rather opposed to consequentialist thinking at Bioware.

BTW, nice to see someone who has read some relevant texts on the subject. I know some of Greene's work, but I don't think I've read that particular text. Thanks for the link, I'll check it out.

[camphor]

Tokyo? In 1942 American government imprisoned over 100 000 American citizens of Japanese ancestry, denied them any rights and forcibly removed them from their homes.

That was a Renegade move for sure. 

A government and a person are 2 totally separate things, don't believe me?

 

a man shoots up a school kills 5 children its on the news people freak national tragity

a government bombs an outpost and kills 5 children, its collateral damage, 

a gang shooting happens in detroit 6 dead no one cares because they were gang an organization not a person

 

i would quote the joker right now but its too easy

 

thats the point once you have the power you can commit genocide and get away with it Hitler didnt rise to power by pissing people off, he pissed them off after he took power

 

sociopaths do well in business not because they are good people but because they can fake they are. morality isnt black and white but PERCEIVED morality really is

 

a Protagonist taking part in politics will either be a good person to get the best results or act like one,

 

everyone in this thread realizes that Public Relations is something that every major government business and public face has paid cold hard cash for right? do you think people governments give money to charity's for the heck of it? it looks good and looking good is half the battle

[KR96]

This.

 

That isn't to say there should be ruthless actions that can be taken by the protagonist at times, some (but not all) of which should yield better results than the alternative. There should be some pragmatic justification for any ruthless action however, and it should fall within the category of ruthlessness in the service of what the character sees as the greater good, rather than just evil for the sake of evil. 

 

When people demand the ability to throw squadmates they don't like out their airlock for example, I can't help but facepalm. That character would be so ridiculous that they couldn't realistically exist. No one would follow that loon, and the Alliance would lock him or her up in a rubber room somewhere.

 

Definitely some good points in there. On the other hand, I believe a good guy approach should bite people in the ass more often. I just restarted a ME1 playthrough of mine and noticed just how gullible a paragon Shep can be. Major Kyle for instance, if one goes down the paragon path, vows to disband his cult and surrender himself to the alliance if you give him an hour to prepare. In the real big bad world, Major Kyle would've taken this as an opportunity to bail with his cult altogether, no one is going to surrender such a powerful position just because you ask them nicely. Same thing with the Rachni, this should've bitten Shepard in the ass in the sense that the reapers would've gained them as allies only if the queen was released, rather than how they handled it in the end. 

 

Taking this approach I find that renegade options should not be more rewarding, but much rather that paragon options should be more punishing from time to time. 

[themikefest]

That isn't to say there should be ruthless actions that can be taken by the protagonist at times, some (but not all) of which should yield better results than the alternative. There should be some pragmatic justification for any ruthless action however, and it should fall within the category of ruthlessness in the service of what the character sees as the greater good, rather than just evil for the sake of evil.

There were missed opportunities during the Thessia mission that a renegade interrupt would've been justified, and if it led to an evil action, so be it.
 

When people demand the ability to throw squadmates they don't like out their airlock for example, I can't help but facepalm. That character would be so ridiculous that they couldn't realistically exist. No one would follow that loon, and the Alliance would lock him or her up in a rubber room somewhere.

I wouldn't have a problem with that. I mean if the squadmates don't care about me, why should I care about them? If I don't throw them out the airlock, I would kicked them off my ship

[Han Shot First]

Definitely some good points in there. On the other hand, I believe a good guy approach should bite people in the ass more often. I just restarted a ME1 playthrough of mine and noticed just how gullible a paragon Shep can be. Major Kyle for instance, if one goes down the paragon path, vows to disband his cult and surrender himself to the alliance if you give him an hour to prepare. In the real big bad world, Major Kyle would've taken this as an opportunity to bail with his cult altogether, no one is going to surrender such a powerful position just because you ask them nicely. Same thing with the Rachni, this should've bitten Shepard in the ass in the sense that the reapers would've gained them as allies only if the queen was released, rather than how they handled it in the end. 

 

Taking this approach I find that renegade options should not be more rewarding, but much rather that paragon options should be more punishing from time to time. 

 

I think there should be a roughly equal split with decisions. Some of the more diplomatic or morally good options should work out better, while other times the more ruthless or aggressive options should get the better outcome. With both it should depend entirely on the circumstances, and the player should be forced to think strategically rather than being conditioned to consistently choose one morality path to get the better results.

[jtav]

I don't think DA I gave you any big choices other than the Mage or Templar choice. Any examples?

Who rules Orlais and who's Divine (even though that isn't a choice as such). None of the options is clearly better than the others. It depends on what the player prioritizes. I would also put Bring down the Sky in this category.

[BabyPuncher]

Ah, i see one of my pet peeves has resurfaced... well, here we go again.

 

My observation is that the ME games present us with a consistent pattern of decisions and outcomes that follow the principle "Follow your heart and everything will be ok". I've called that a "feel-good morality", and I object to it because it's most emphatically not how the world works. it presents a fairy-tale world where "it makes me feel uncomfortable" always equals "wrong" and where this is an almost 100% certain indicator of the kind of outcomes you will get. It's childish, delusionary, and it can be, given that we tend to take something away from our favorite stories into the real life, outright damaging to people's perception of reality.

 

A plausible pattern of decisions and outcomes is one where the "comfortable" choice *sometimes* works, but not always. It is one where in order to get the highest benefit, we must *sometimes* do bad stuff, and where we have to decide, based on our own personal ideologies and the traits we ascribe to our characters,  if the outcome is worth what we have to do to get them. It is also a pattern where some problems are intractable and nothing will work to solve them, while others will peter away on their own with no intervention at all. There is, I repeat, for any decision where the benefit does not already lie in the decision itself, no necessary connection at all between a good action and a good outcome. To believe anything else is being delusional. I do not want my stories to promote delusional mindsets, and I want my stories to reflect a more plausible pattern.

 

is that right? And what are some examples of Paragon decisions in Mass Effect that boil down to 'following your heart' in the face of evidence otherwise? The Collector base obviously stands out, I agree that was poorly written. There are some lines of dialogue I certainly don't like.

[BabyPuncher]

With both it should depend entirely on the circumstances, and the player should be forced to think strategically rather than being conditioned to consistently choose one morality path to get the better results.

 

See, here we go yet again.

 

We have this little idea here of the player 'forced to think strategically.' if you're a 'smart' player, who 'thinks strategically' instead of 'blinding clinging to an ideal,' you make 'smarter decisions' and get the best outcome. 

 

I'm going to repeat myself for the upteenth time. This is a mass produced product deliberately and carefully designed to be beatable with a reasonable minimum of frustration by players as young as 12 or so and of not only average, but considerably below average intelligence and skill.

 

This is a not a notion that stands up to scrutiny.

[Han Shot First]

See, here we go yet again.

 

We have this little idea here of the player 'forced to think strategically.' if you're a 'smart' player, who 'thinks strategically' instead of 'blinding clinging to an ideal,' you make 'smarter decisions' and get the best outcome. 

 

I'm going to repeat myself for the upteenth time. This is a mass produced product deliberately and carefully designed to be beatable with a reasonable minimum of frustration by players as young as 12 or so and of not only average, but considerably below average intelligence and skill.

 

This is a not a notion that stands up to scrutiny.

 

You completely misunderstood.

 

I'm not saying that these decisions should be difficult in the sense that a teenager couldn't pick up the game and get the best outcome. I'm saying that it shouldn't be designed in such a way that one morality path is always the correct one. Besides being boring, making choice and consequences meaningless, and eliminating any dramatic tension that might otherwise be attached to these decisions...it encourages mindless button-mashing to achieve the best outcome. Rather than the player thinking about what the best course of action might be, or what choice is more appropriate for his or her character, the game is instead guiding them towards repetitively choosing the same narrow path so as not to be punished.

 

In short it would be detrimental to role playing. 

[Indigenous]

Who rules Orlais and who's Divine (even though that isn't a choice as such). None of the options is clearly better than the others. It depends on what the player prioritizes. I would also put Bring down the Sky in this category.

I would disagree with the first point as it is a quest and the best possible outcome seems to be getting them (ruler candidates) to work together. I don't really see that as a choice to be honest with you.

 

I think all of DA I's quests had a 'good ending'.

 

Cant remember what happened in Bring down the Sky.

[BabyPuncher]

You completely misunderstood.

 

I'm not saying that these decisions should be difficult in the sense that a teenager couldn't pick up the game and get the best outcome. I'm saying that it shouldn't be designed in such a way that one morality path is always the correct one. Besides being boring, making choice and consequences meaningless, and eliminating any dramatic tension that might otherwise be attached to these decisions...it encourages mindless button-mashing to achieve the best outcome. Rather than the player thinking about what the best course of action might be, or what choice is more appropriate for his or her character, the game is instead guiding them towards repetitively choosing the same narrow path so as not to be punished.

 

In short it would be detrimental to role playing. 

 

It seems to be that there's very few people in this thread who understand why choices are actually in games.

 

The fundamental purpose of stories is to enunciate truths. That's the reason why they exist. They reason they carry meaning. Do you understand that?

 

By enunciating those truths, the story - and all great stories do this - 'tell' the audience what the truth is. And you seem to be carrying contempt for that fundamental fact. You say the story should not 'guide' the player. The story should not 'tell' the player what is true.

 

That's stupid. That's pointless. It invalidates the entire purpose of stories. A story has no purpose otherwise.

 

In fact, it's not just stupid and pointless, but impossible. There's no such as a silent narrator.

 

Take a look at any great movie or film. Every one has a 'truth.' They don't ask the audience to decide what the truth is. They tell them. And if you're in the audience and you disagree, you're wrong.

[Fixers0]

All consequences should be realistic* simulations of their causes. Morality, Good or Evil, paragon or renegade, shouldn't have to come in play.

 

 

 

*Realistic as in in-universe realistic, being consistent with lore and characters, as well as adhearance to basic logic and santiy, cause and effect, etc.

[Han Shot First]

It seems to be that there's very few people in this thread who understand why choices are actually in games.

 

The fundamental purpose of stories is to enunciate truths. That's the reason why they exist. They reason they carry meaning. Do you understand that?

 

By enunciating those truths, the story - and all great stories do this - 'tell' the audience what the truth is. And you seem to be carrying contempt for that fundamental fact. You say the story should not 'guide' the player. The story should not 'tell' the player what is true.

 

That's stupid. That's pointless. It invalidates the entire purpose of stories. A story has no purpose otherwise.

 

In fact, it's not just stupid and pointless, but impossible. There's no such as a silent narrator.

 

Take a look at any great movie or film. Every one has a 'truth.' They don't ask the audience to decide what the truth is. They tell them. And if you're in the audience and you disagree, you're wrong.

 

You're wrong.

 

Not every choice in an RPG is the writers ham-handedly battering the player with a message. 

 

That isn't to say that you can't have some choices with some deeper meaning or message behind it, but certainly not all.