311 réponses à ce sujet

[saladinbob]

 

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.

 

That's the problem though. When it comes to Bioware games, the outcome of the story is pre-determined because your choices are rooted in the gameplay rather than the narrative. Making a 'good' or 'bad' decision in a Bioware game does nothing to change the way the story is told, it simply provides either an easier or harder gameplay experience. Sometimes it may change the epilogue but it never changes how you arrive at that point, it doesn't change how the world reacts to you and thus Bioware worlds feel static as a result.

 

Take Inquisition, for example. Whether I put Gospard or Celene on the thrown makes absolutely no difference to the story moving forward from that point. If anyone has played The Witcher 3, compare this to how CDPR wrote The Bloody Baron's Wife. Without going in to details and inadvertently giving spoilers, you're faced with a moral choice. To put this in Bioware terms, do you take the Paragon choice, stick to your principles and help the innocent at the cost of lives, or do you take the Renegade option and sacrifice the innocent in order to gain information you need to find your daughter? How far will you go? Will you sacrifice your morals? Will you remain principled and find another way - because you can find another way later in the game.

 

It's far more nuanced than simply being 'the good guy' or 'the bad guy'. The choice you make doesn't make the game any easier or difficult so the choice you make is yours, based upon your morales or the way you wish to roleplay the character. Bioware games take that morale choice away from you, reducing 'good' or 'bad' choices as easier or harder final battles. It's a lesson that Bioware could, and really should learn from CD Projekt Red.

[N7Jamaican]

Most of the renegade choices in ME3 were "evil."

[themikefest]

Most of the renegade choices in ME3 were "evil."

No they weren't.

 

The game needed a lot more renegade choices and interrupts 

[Suron]

BioWare should not concern themselves with questions of good or evil.

We should get the outcomes that make sense, under the circumstances.

I agree but let's face it.

 

Mass Effect is BioWares Star Wars...Para/Rene is their Lightside/Darkside with Biotics being the Force....

 

we're still gonna have it methinks.

[AlanC9]

That's the problem though. When it comes to Bioware games, the outcome of the story is pre-determined because your choices are rooted in the gameplay rather than the narrative. Making a 'good' or 'bad' decision in a Bioware game does nothing to change the way the story is told, it simply provides either an easier or harder gameplay experience.

Usually the choices don't even do that much. Changing the gameplay is quite rare, and it's fairly trivial when it happens.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I agree but let's face it.

 

Mass Effect is BioWares Star Wars...Para/Rene is their Lightside/Darkside with Biotics being the Force....

 

we're still gonna have it methinks.

The definitions of paragon and renegade given to us in ME1 didn't have a moral angle.  Neither did their application in ME1.

 

Only in ME2 did they gain moral value (something I found extremely confusing at the beginning of ME2, as this change was entirely undocumented).  It's one of the many reasons I didn't like ME2.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That's the problem though. When it comes to Bioware games, the outcome of the story is pre-determined because your choices are rooted in the gameplay rather than the narrative. Making a 'good' or 'bad' decision in a Bioware game does nothing to change the way the story is told, it simply provides either an easier or harder gameplay experience. Sometimes it may change the epilogue but it never changes how you arrive at that point, it doesn't change how the world reacts to you and thus Bioware worlds feel static as a result.

 

Take Inquisition, for example. Whether I put Gospard or Celene on the thrown makes absolutely no difference to the story moving forward from that point. If anyone has played The Witcher 3, compare this to how CDPR wrote The Bloody Baron's Wife. Without going in to details and inadvertently giving spoilers, you're faced with a moral choice. To put this in Bioware terms, do you take the Paragon choice, stick to your principles and help the innocent at the cost of lives, or do you take the Renegade option and sacrifice the innocent in order to gain information you need to find your daughter? How far will you go? Will you sacrifice your morals? Will you remain principled and find another way - because you can find another way later in the game.

 

It's far more nuanced than simply being 'the good guy' or 'the bad guy'. The choice you make doesn't make the game any easier or difficult so the choice you make is yours, based upon your morales or the way you wish to roleplay the character. Bioware games take that morale choice away from you, reducing 'good' or 'bad' choices as easier or harder final battles. It's a lesson that Bioware could, and really should learn from CD Projekt Red.

 

There's no such thing as an interesting moral choice.  As long as you know your own morality, the choices are never more than arithmetic.

[Daemul]

Most of the renegade choices in ME3 were "evil."

 

What is this nonsense? 

[Vicex]

I agree but let's face it.

 

Mass Effect is BioWares Star Wars...Para/Rene is their Lightside/Darkside with Biotics being the Force....

 

we're still gonna have it methinks.

 

It's not just Mass Effect, it's nearly all media- even books. For some reason people simplify ethics and morals as good vs. evil, while the reality is ethics and morals are blurs of grey where there is no 'right choice' only choices that have both good and bad out comes mixed together. What matters is no longer what choice you made, but why you made that choice- how do you justify it. Do you place more value on saving as many people as you can- even to the point where you put even more lives in danger... or do you protect those that you have, and realise that by attempting to save more, you are only dooming the rest.

 

That's not to say Mass Effect can't have some 'evil' choices like punching a reporter, or shooting a really annoying companion in the foot.. I rather enjoy some of those. The point is that individuals who are 'recklessly good/virtues' need to have consequences... which is why I love Game of Thrones for doing exactly that with Jon Snow (even as saddened/disappointed as I was). 

[Vicex]

There's no such thing as an interesting moral choice.  As long as you know your own morality, the choices are never more than arithmetic.

 

It's not so much as the moral choice itself that is interesting... so much is the setting upon which that moral choice impacts. The only time where it comes down to 'arithmetic' is when the choice is simplified to the point where there is an obvious right/wrong.

 

I mean, if you need examples of interesting moral dilemmas, just look around you- this world has nothing but them.

[shepskisaac]

They should just ditch red/blue points & colors and think of possible player options in each quest individually. If it's gonna be 5 different "good" options then so be it, if it's gonne be 5 different "essentially evil/immoral" options then so be it. Better then being restricted by "we gotta have both in each conversation" fomula.

[Sartoz]

Are you thinking of anything in particular with that last bit?

 

                                                                                         <<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>

 

Sure. Let's talk about the leaked poll questions. The one about Outposts and Mining Operations.

 

Scenario One

Let's hypothesize that sector 21 is human controlled and contains a listen Outpost that is next to sector 29 which is enemy controlled. Sector 21 also contains two major mining operations bringing in rare materials necessary for for your navy's ship building and weapons manufacture. Furthermore, we add the fact that your AI field agent team in sector 33 is reporting increased enemy patrols and have also spotted a BattleGroup of considerable size. Enemy sector 33 is two sectors away from a prime human colony world. You need to make a decision about where to send your own navy's new battle cruiser with its three escorts.. sector 21? or  the colony world?  You make a decision to safeguard your vital resources. Then, a mission or two later you read a report that the colony world was hit by an enemy battle fleet. You battle cruiser and its three escorts were enough to fend off the attack!

 

Scenario Two

You found critical intellingece that will save a mining Outpost with over 200 miners and support personnel. But, you need to get that information to HQ Right Now!!. At the present moment, however, you and your squad are fighting a retreat with an enemy force tasked to secure that information. The enemy has called for re-inforcement which is on its way to destroy your shuttle.The situation is that someone needs to hold a defensive position long enough for the rest of your team to disengage, get to the shuttle and flee before enemy re-inforcement arrive.  Unfortunately, the one left behind won't survive for long. Which do you choose to stay behind?

 

Option 2, here, is for your team to hold a defensive position which is strong enough to survive until your own re-inforcement arrive. Problem here is that the critical information won't make it back to HQ in time to save the Mining Outpost.

 

Scenario Three

You and your team are taking a much needed R&R in a bar.  A tall, wide shouldered bearded loudmouth and you bump into each other. He lets go with a string of extremely colour and non repetive language at you and your family line. You get three decisions.

1. You congratulate him with his large knowlledge of colourfull  language

2. knock him down on his sorry ass!

3. Buy him a drink in an attempt to diffuse the situation

 

The result of your choices will be known three missions down the road..

1. Choice is neutral.

2. The guy is pissed at you and will leave earlier than planned.

3. The guy stays a bit longer and will meet a stranger and get friendly.

 

Three mission down the road, a tall wide shouldered, bearded guy comes to the rescue of Lt. Raneer who has some serious intellingence on pirate activities. The same person he met at the R&R bar.

 

I realize that these scenarios are scripted and have simple binary outcomes. However, if the game contains a third hidden option the game can have quite the replay value. The hidden option I'm talking about are decisions made early in the game. Decisions such as increasing resource mining in sector 21 which allowed the navy (in the background) to send a defensive task force in the colony world. The development of Scenario One would be different and a choice may not be presented to you. However, you would still get to read the report that prior decisions to increase the navy's requirements saved the colony from enemy attack.

 

 

This is what I mean by feedback. Your decisions truly have an impact.

[God]

I haven't 'changed my tune' since I didn't say that.

 

If you claim I have, why don't you use the search function and track down the post and show it to me.

 

I would, if your accounts weren't all banned.

[Jorji Costava]

There's no such thing as an interesting moral choice.  As long as you know your own morality, the choices are never more than arithmetic.

 

That's only true if you're a utilitarian or an egoist (and even then, there are questions about whether or not these theories can supply algorithmic answers to every moral question there is). You might hold, as virtue ethicists do, that moral knowledge is a skill that, like the ability to play music or sports, can't simply be learned in a textbook fashion and applied by any minimally competent person. Or you might think, as David Ross did, that there are only "prima facie" moral principles that admit of exceptions, and that there is no algorithm for determining which principle takes priority in any given situation. Or you might believe, as moral particularists do, that there are no moral principles at all, and that acting morally does not consist in the application of principles to cases.

 

All of these alternative views allow for the possibility of interesting moral choices; in fact, they may even allow for the possibility of irresolvable moral choices. As possible candidates, consider the case of the man who has promised to marry two different people, neither of whom knows about the other, or Sophie's Choice, in which (spoiler, but the statute of limitations has long since passed) a Jewish woman is asked by the Gestapo which of her two children will be killed. If she does not choose, both die.

 

BTW, Jonathan Dancy, the primary exponent of particularism, was once interviewed by Craig Ferguson (the occasion was that he is the father of Hugh Dancy, actor and husband of Claire Danes). I'm not really sure he did the best job explaining his view for lay audiences, but the thought of professional philosophers being interviewed by talk show hosts kinda tickles me, so I'll post it anyway.

[God]

I think the question of the Gestapo and two Jewish kids is easy to predict: whichever she chooses to live is the one that gets killed first. Then they kill the other the next day. And then the mother.

 

Kind of predictable. It's more of a question of 'choose who dies first'.

 

That's what the Gestapo would do.

[FemShem]

There should be three paths.

 

1) your typical white knight idealism - this may win you popularity points, but may cost you benefits such as tech.

2) pragmatic choices - these won't usually win you popularity contests, but will benefit your team most.

3) dastardly choices - these won't win you anything but being evil for lols. Will cost you popularity, but may benefit your character personally.

They kinda did this in DA2. Nice, funny, or angry.

You got skills and talents if the toons in your party liked you or hated you, but nada for not having an impression.

I really liked that wheel.  I thought I got the most diversity in dialogue.  By far my fav BioWare wheel.

[AlanC9]

I think the question of the Gestapo and two Jewish kids is easy to predict: whichever she chooses to live is the one that gets killed first. Then they kill the other the next day. And then the mother.

Kind of predictable. It's more of a question of 'choose who dies first'.

That's what the Gestapo would do.

Probably. But what's your point?

[Sylvius the Mad]

It's not so much as the moral choice itself that is interesting... so much is the setting upon which that moral choice impacts. The only time where it comes down to 'arithmetic' is when the choice is simplified to the point where there is an obvious right/wrong.

 

I mean, if you need examples of interesting moral dilemmas, just look around you- this world has nothing but them.

Every moral choice is an obvious right/wrong if you know the moral rules that govern it.

 

And if you don't, then arguably morality isn't relevant to you in that case.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That's only true if you're a utilitarian or an egoist (and even then, there are questions about whether or not these theories can supply algorithmic answers to every moral question there is). You might hold, as virtue ethicists do, that moral knowledge is a skill that, like the ability to play music or sports, can't simply be learned in a textbook fashion and applied by any minimally competent person. Or you might think, as David Ross did, that there are only "prima facie" moral principles that admit of exceptions, and that there is no algorithm for determining which principle takes priority in any given situation. Or you might believe, as moral particularists do, that there are no moral principles at all, and that acting morally does not consist in the application of principles to cases.

 

All of these alternative views allow for the possibility of interesting moral choices; in fact, they may even allow for the possibility of irresolvable moral choices. As possible candidates, consider the case of the man who has promised to marry two different people, neither of whom knows about the other, or Sophie's Choice, in which (spoiler, but the statute of limitations has long since passed) a Jewish woman is asked by the Gestapo which of her two children will be killed. If she does not choose, both die.

 

BTW, Jonathan Dancy, the primary exponent of particularism, was once interviewed by Craig Ferguson (the occasion was that he is the father of Hugh Dancy, actor and husband of Claire Danes). I'm not really sure he did the best job explaining his view for lay audiences, but the thought of professional philosophers being interviewed by talk show hosts kinda tickles me, so I'll post it anyway.

I've actually studied Dancy (I have one of his books within sight - on a shelf I haven't touched in some time, I'll admit - right now).

 

I would argue that possessing knowledge of the moral rules that govern a given situation is the only way you would actually be aware of the moral relevance of that situation.  So unless you have the rules handy, the question isn't a moral one.

 

I would further argue that Dancy has done a fine job of defeating simple moral principles, but that doesn't show that moral principles don't exist - merely that we haven't found them.  In addition, Dancy's use of the question of what makes something funny is clever, but I think it avoids the issue.  While it is the case that we seem to be able to identify something as funny without appealing to underlying principles of humour, we're only able to identify what is funny for ourselves.  If we used that with morality, morality would lose all prescriptive force (unless he's going the moral perfectionist route and assuming that all people perceive morality identically, which is demonstrably false without liberal use of no true scotsman).

[God]

Probably. But what's your point?

 

I'm just stating an observation. What's your point?

[camphor]

It's not just Mass Effect, it's nearly all media- even books. For some reason people simplify ethics and morals as good vs. evil, while the reality is ethics and morals are blurs of grey where there is no 'right choice' only choices that have both good and bad out comes mixed together. What matters is no longer what choice you made, but why you made that choice- how do you justify it. Do you place more value on saving as many people as you can- even to the point where you put even more lives in danger... or do you protect those that you have, and realise that by attempting to save more, you are only dooming the rest.

 

I disagree but i think the difference here is what do you want out of your mass effect game, for me mass effect is a power fantasy and i believe thats its designed that way. your captain of your own badass spaceship with your highly specialized force of badasses saving the galaxy from the most badass kaiju esk space monsters then romancing the hot alien babe (or dude) going around destroying civilizations saving others, was freakin awesome. 

 

I think thats actually why people dislike me3 it didnt kill shepard it killed the fantasy, WE were shepard we were awesome and in the end we died in an explosion never being with are romance and not living to see our effect on the world... you know just like real life. We wanted to go down a badass or not go down at all, and we went down being electrocuted by space magic. and that's why people still complain, thats why people dont want andromeda because its personal.

 

People dont really want to make hard choices, i am sure some do, but most dont want to choose a direction, they want to choose an outcome. they dont want to leave things to chance they want to say ok they live they die. I think most can agree the suicide mission was awesome right? I think most people understood the premise of use a sneaky person use a biotic leave the big guys for the door. that's an awesome choice its easily accessible gameplay gameplay(doing loyalty quests)+ a semi obvious premise (if i remember right it even tells you your best choices). anyone who really liked that game could get the best possible outcome by simply putting the time in to learn the game. When you do things the outcome should be fairly obvious yes there wont be as many twists and turns, but in a power fantasy i want the power to determine what will happen, I already live a real life and cant always determine exactly what happens, but i can in mass effect.

 

this post is an opinion despite some things being stated as fact would love to see numbers though

[PhroXenGold]

There's no such thing as an interesting moral choice.  As long as you know your own morality, the choices are never more than arithmetic.

 

I would argue that an interesting moral choice, in an RPG at least, is one that allows me to explore playing a character who holds a different, but still plausible, moral compass from my own.

[The Heretic of Time]

I hope ME:A will handle choices, consequences and morality like Dragon Age Inquisition or The Witcher series. Are are no good choices in those games, no evil choices, just... choices. Which is good. Let us - the players - decide what we think is the better or lesser evil choice, instead of telling us.

 

I also want every big choice to have both positive and negative consequences. One choice shouldn't have a clearly better outcome than the other, because then it would be a non-choice because everyone would go for the choice with the better outcome. The Mass Effect trilogy had way too many of these non-choices (where most of the time the paragon options gave you the clearly better outcome) and I absolutely hated that.
 

[Ahriman]

I hope ME:A will handle choices, consequences and morality like Dragon Age Inquisition or The Witcher series. Are are no good choices in those games, no evil choices, just... choices.
 

No, thanks. ME was always about epic, sacrifice, badassery, being a paladin or a jerk. If I want Witcher In Space I ask it from CDPR, not Bioware.

[saladinbob]

No, thanks. ME was always about epic, sacrifice, badassery, being a paladin or a jerk. If I want Witcher In Space I ask it from CDPR, not Bioware.

 

There's no such thing as a 'paladin' or a 'jerk' in Bioware games, it's simply a dialogue choice. No one reacts to you differently whether you act as a consummate diplomat a total bellend. Any sacrifice in their games is there for shock value and has no bearing on the story beyond game play difficulties. When was the last Bioware game that presented you with a choice to knowingly choose to sacrifice someone? Morality in Bioware games does not force emotional decisions, it forces logical ones based solely upon which dialogue choice gives me the easiest ending? The game doesn't have to be Witcher-in-space to achieve more nuanced writing.

 

Besides, it's not just CDPR that do this, Eidos Montreal gave you more nuanced morale choices in Deus Ex: Human Revolution and they appear to be doing the same in Mankind Divided. ME:A isn't just going to be judged against TW3, it's going to be competing against DE:MD so the question for Bioware is can they really afford to continue with their Disney-esq morality in games?