311 réponses à ce sujet

[BabyPuncher]

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.

 

This is so absolutely ridiculous. And insulting, even.

 

When I read a book with a truth I don't agree with, does the book magically grow an arm and point a gun at my head, demanding I agree with it's contents?

 

No? Then how on Earth is a work of fiction 'telling' the audience what is true do absolutely anything to surpress the audience thinking about the scenario at hand? Am I somehow prevented from disagreeing? Prevented from thinking this whole thing is stupid? No.

 

Every RPG I've ever played, I pick the 'good' options throughout. And in every single one, there's been at least a few choices and dialogue options I really don't think are 'good' at all. And I pick them anyway. Because they lead to the best story. Insuinating that because I pick those options that I'm 'forced' to agree with them or that I'm somehow 'mindlessly button mashing' is ridiculous.

[BabyPuncher]

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.

 

Why are you even consuming fiction? If you're this contemptous of a work of fiction 'telling' you a truth, what are you consuming it for? Why not just stare at a wall and come up with whimsical moral scenarios in your head and decide what is true?

 

But no, I'm not wrong at all. There's no such thing as a silent narrator. Narrators give their audiences messages whether they intend to or not. This scenario you've suggested yourself comes with a clear and obvious 'truth,' regardless of whether you intended it.

[Steelcan]

ME (and RPGs in general) is in a different place than most fiction as the outcome of the story, the motivations behind the protagonist, and so on are up to determination.  They are not simply stories to be consumed, they are storied to be shaped.

[Han Shot First]

You once again missed the point David.

 

You choose to go that route always because you prefer a protagonist that always does what is righteous. The model you suggest however (i.e. the game only rewarding actions most would deem morally just), would encourage players who normally wouldn't follow your style of play, to always choose the morally just option because the alternative is for their character to consistently fail or be punished. It also renders choice in the game an illusion, because every choice has a predictable outcome. No choice would be accompanied by dramatic tension, because you know how it is going to play out before it plays out.

 

It would render the game boring, quite frankly. It even makes going the morally just route boring, because the character never does anything righteous despite potential consequences.

[KaiserShep]

This makes me wish that we got to see Rana Thanoptis going monkeys*** and shooting up the Presidium or Huerta Memorial or something. That's what you get for sparing her. 

[themikefest]

Every RPG I've ever played, I pick the 'good' options throughout.

Have you ever picked a bad option or at least one you consider to be a bad decision? Have you ever had a squadmate killed aside from the ones that die outside of your control?
 

And in every single one, there's been at least a few choices and dialogue options I really don't think are 'good' at all.

What choices are those?
 

And I pick them anyway. Because they lead to the best story.

For you, sure, for me, no

[BabyPuncher]

First of all, fiction is absolutely filled with various scenarios where the audience is able to 'know' what will happen. That's not good enough.

 

When I go see any a flim, I 'know' for a fact that the action hero advertised on all the trailers and posters is not going to get shot in the head and killed during the first 15 minutes. Does that mean that 95% of all combat is cinema is pointless? Stupid? Should be removed? Should we start having audiences pay $10 for a film and have the character get shot 20 minutes in, and resolve absolutely none of the plot threads? That's certainly 'realistic.'

 

But secondly, no I would not 'punish' evil playthroughs per say. I do not advocate that, because this is a video game, and video games must always first and foremost be fun. I advocate what is basically embracing the silliness. Allow the protagonist be a psychopath who gets away with comically overblown acts of evil. Kill innocent people, send species to extinction, torture at the drop of a hat, blah blah blah. Embrace the 'evil' playthough as basically non-canon. RPGs already do this, obviously. The 'evil' playthrough is always wholly more contrived and nonsensical than the good one.

[dreamgazer]

This makes me wish that we got to see Rana Thanoptis going monkeys*** and shooting up the Presidium or Huerta Memorial or something. That's what you get for sparing her. 

 

Felt like the update on her character conveyed that point fairly well, but actually seeing and interacting with the aftermath would've been interesting. 

[Valkyrja]

But secondly, no I would not 'punish' evil playthroughs per say. I do not advocate that, because this is a video game, and video games must always first and foremost be fun. I advocate what is basically embracing the silliness. Allow the protagonist be a psychopath who gets away with comically overblown acts of evil. Kill innocent people, send species to extinction, torture at the drop of a hat, blah blah blah. Embrace the 'evil' playthough as basically non-canon. RPGs already do this, obviously. The 'evil' playthrough is always wholly more contrived and nonsensical than the good one.

 

Video game storytelling is growing out of such black and white silliness.

 

Why aren't you?

[Han Shot First]

First of all, fiction is absolutely filled with various scenarios where the audience is able to 'know' what will happen. That's not good enough.

 

When I go see any a flim, I 'know' for a fact that the action hero advertised on all the trailers and posters is not going to get shot in the head and killed during the first 15 minutes. Does that mean that 95% of all combat is cinema is pointless? Stupid? Should be removed? Should we start having audiences pay $10 for a film and have the character get shot 20 minutes in, and resolve absolutely none of the plot threads? That's certainly 'realistic.'

 

But secondly, no I would not 'punish' evil playthroughs per say. I do not advocate that, because this is a video game, and video games must always first and foremost be fun. I advocate what is basically embracing the silliness. Allow the protagonist be a psychopath who gets away with comically overblown acts of evil. Kill innocent people, send species to extinction, torture at the drop of a hat, blah blah blah. Embrace the 'evil' playthough as basically non-canon. RPGs already do this, obviously. The 'evil' playthrough is always wholly more contrived and nonsensical than the good one.

 

While some comparisons can be made between film or novels and RPGs, there are also some important differences. Films or books usually don't put you in the driver's seat. Normally you have no control over the actions of any of the characters in that story, unlike RPGs. In RPGs you do have some limited control over the protagonist or depending on the game, even the path the story takes. The only other comparable works of fiction are choose your own adventure books, where choices, much like in RPGs...don't typically come packaged with a message from the author.

[KaiserShep]

The 'evil' playthrough is always wholly more contrived and nonsensical than the good one.

 

This mostly happens when a game piles on a lot of stupid-evil, like some of the off-the-wall options in Dragon Age: Origins, where it can come to the point where it may defy belief that NPC's still want to be around you. I thought Mass Effect 3 had a good balance overall with this, though ME2's was actually pretty funny in places. 

[themikefest]

The 'evil' playthrough is always wholly more contrived and nonsensical than the good one.

For you. 

 

I don't consider it an evil playthrough. I consider it my femshep doing what it takes to defeat the reapers

[PhroXenGold]

For you. 

 

I don't consider it an evil playthrough. I consider it my femshep doing what it takes to defeat the reapers

 

Yeah. There is no such thing as an "evil" path in ME. There's the odd decision where you can be evil but they're few and far between. Most of the time, the choice as presented to you is based around determining what is good - is it good to sacrifice the few to save the many? Unfortunately, after presenting us with great choices like along these lines, BW rather cop out when presenting the consequences of your choices.

[BabyPuncher]

While some comparisons can be made between film or novels and RPGs, there are also some important differences. Films or books usually don't put you in the driver's seat. Normally you have no control over the actions of any of the characters in that story, unlike RPGs. In RPGs you do have some limited control over the protagonist or depending on the game, even the path the story takes. The only other comparable works of fiction are choose your own adventure books, where choices, much like in RPGs...don't typically come packaged with a message from the author.

 

You're mistaken. There is no such thing as a silent narrator. You name an RPG, I can name what the 'truth' is. It can be unintentional, it can be wholly stupid, but it's always there. Saying something is neutral or 'grey' or 'pointless 'is just as much of a truth as saying something is good or evil or powerful or meaningful.

 

It doesn't make the any difference that it's an RPG. The same fundamental rules of narratives apply. The player does not craft the story. The narrator does.

[Dovahzeymahlkey]

By definition, arent "evil" options bad? Why would you expect anything good to come out from them? Id rather have Duck and Rabbit morality. You know the one about the picture where it looks both like a duck AND a rabbit? Where your impressions paint what is or isnt good.

[Drone223]

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.

Agreed removing the morality system would also encourage players to make choices based on their own judgement rather than an arbitrary/simplistic morality system.

 

Your also right regarding ruthless choices, they shouldn't be done for the sake of being ruthless but because they'll achieve something beneficial. Diplomatic choices shouldn't always work because there will be times were a more aggressive approach will be more better to deal the situation at hand.

 

Edit: grammar fix

[Steelcan]

You're mistaken. There is no such thing as a silent narrator. You name an RPG, I can name what the 'truth' is. It can be unintentional, it can be wholly stupid, but it's always there. Saying something is neutral or 'grey' or 'pointless 'is just as much of a truth as saying something is good or evil or powerful or meaningful.

 

It doesn't make the any difference that it's an RPG. The same fundamental rules of narratives apply. The player does not craft the story. The narrator does.

the player does craft the story in RPG's, especially if there's a divergent path ala TW2's Iorveth/Roche decision, that one changes up half of the second act and its based on the decision the player makes.

 

Its a fork in the road and you pick the path, not the game

[Master Warder Z_]

Roche is much better truth be told

[Joseph Warrick]

In my opinion everything is fair game as long as you feel like you had it coming afterwards. That you could have expected something like that would happen. Or at least make it apparent that you're making a risky gamble. I'm not against harsh decisions having a greater price. It's part of the renegade way to have ghosts haunting the character years later. I would only complain about this if it made a playthrough significantly shorter.

 

Still, take Ned Stark's fate. He had a document that proved he was right. He gave it to his opponent, who tore it apart in front of him with a smirk. That's a good story. To make a game in which the honorable and just always get the optimal outcome misses opportunities to tell cool stories.

[JoeTheQuarian]

When I'm playing renegade I always choose the bad a options to push a mere out a window or head butt a rogan but I never kill any of my squadmates. I'll risk that little bit of paragon points to keep some of my favorite characters alive like Wrex.

[Seboist]

In my opinion everything is fair game as long as you feel like you had it coming afterwards. That you could have expected something like that would happen. Or at least make it apparent that you're making a risky gamble.

 

Case in point Ned Stark's fate. He had a document that proved he was right. He gave it to his opponent, who tore it apart in front of him with a smirk.

 

Such acts are what make my girl Cersei such an endearing and lovable character. Ned thought he could get away with endangering a mother and her children and that by *suggesting* that they should pack their bags and flee like a bunch of criminals beforehand that he was wiping his hands clean of any wrong doing, he thought wrong.

[AlanC9]

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

This is a really silly response to a post about the US interning citizens of Japanese ancestry. That policy may have been immoral, but it wasn't unpopular.

[Vicex]

I'm really surprised on how many people on here have such childish and naive understandings of ethics and morality.

 

Movies and games with that are melodramatic are dull and boring. Put simply, the good guy doesn't always win and we should see this reflected in-game. To a very, very small extent, we have in Mass Effect. For example, in Mass Effect 3 allowing extra refugees to dock hurts you and sinking the overcrowded boat (albeit, it's but a slap on the wrist). 

 

But this isn't enough. A great example of how well this could have been done is with Arrival DLC. You could either blow the relay, killing millions, or you could evacuate people which may let a handful of reapers thru the relay before you can blow it.. or prevent you from blowing it all together.

 

In this situation, it's not 'good' or 'even'. It's a much harder ethical decision to make which will have a significant impact.

 

Choosing the arbitrarily labeled 'renegade' decision leads to millions dead, quite a few people angry with you... but months to prepare/more resources. 

 

Choosing the 'paragon' would lead you to save many people, most would probably be glad you didn't just commit genocide, but suddenly the reapers are everywhere and have caught the galaxy even more off-guard than had you blown it and at least given the galaxy a few months to prepare.

 

Again, these black and white, good vs bad decisions need to be done away with- it's just so damn boring.

[Hazegurl]

Wow ran out of likes Vicex, but I like that idea.

[In Exile]

You once again missed the point David.

 

You choose to go that route always because you prefer a protagonist that always does what is righteous. The model you suggest however (i.e. the game only rewarding actions most would deem morally just), would encourage players who normally wouldn't follow your style of play, to always choose the morally just option because the alternative is for their character to consistently fail or be punished. It also renders choice in the game an illusion, because every choice has a predictable outcome. No choice would be accompanied by dramatic tension, because you know how it is going to play out before it plays out.

 

It would render the game boring, quite frankly. It even makes going the morally just route boring, because the character never does anything righteous despite potential consequences.

 

I don't get the talk about morally just. The whole pitch behind renegade isn't that Shepard is a psycho who gets off on inflicting pain and suffering for no measurable purpose, but rather on the crude utilitarian notion that some sacrifices are better for the nebulously defined greater good. It's always a debate about the morally righteous course of action.