No one? Well I don't know it just seems odd to me, is all.
Generally when a group of people "loses" we kind of throw it all in the trash because you know they aren't worth anything anymore, except as fantasies for people who want to fantasize, I guess.
As I said above, I retract that statement. I was wrong.
Gotcha. I missed the retraction.
This is essentially a personal taste thing. I like to sometimes have no wholly good choices available, myself.
It's fine. The thread is moving quickly and it was a small post.
Well, sounds like this change is right up your alley since the interview reads like there will be plenty of those choices.
I just hope there is still genuinely good choices in this game still, rather than all being grey choices.
No one? Well I don't know it just seems odd to me, is all.
Generally when a group of people "loses" we kind of throw it all in the trash because you know they aren't worth anything anymore, except as fantasies for people who want to fantasize, I guess.
Wow, calm down, people. I see there's a general misunderstanding. Without debating whether morality is important or not I would like to clarify something.
1) Grey options don't necessarily mean neutral only. Your favorite Paragon-ish/Renegade-ish responses will still be there but the difference is that it will be difficult to categorize which would be Paragon and which would be Renegade.
2) Grey choices mean that they are all acceptable choices (based on your personal philosophy).
3) Grey choices mean that you can't predict how will your words be taken by another person (like IRL).
4) There will be an option to be nice to everyone
5) There will be an option to be a jerk. The only difference would be is that you won't be able to see that you're being a jerk. Other people may see you as one, but not you (again, like IRL).
I hope I made it clear for everyone.
Well, sounds like this change is right up your alley since the interview reads like there will be plenty of those choices.
I just hope there is still genuinely good choices in this game still, rather than all being grey choices.
Would someone at least explain why we worship what Rome thinks about everything? They did fall and collapse you know, like, they aren't around anymore for a reason.
I just don't like being the side of losers but I guess you guys feel differently about it, which is fine, if you guys are masochistic that way.
No one? Well I don't know it just seems odd to me, is all.
Generally when a group of people "loses" we kind of throw it all in the trash because you know they aren't worth anything anymore, except as fantasies for people who want to fantasize, I guess.
Oh boy aren't you fun at parties and in reality... and well anywhere that requires human contact.
Also my opinion of grey morality. Look at the latest two Shadowrun games by Hairbrained Schemes, BioWare should learn from them.
I'm not faking ignorance. I'm challenging your question.You are faking ignorance as to people's discrete lack of "preference" as to getting hit by fast moving busses.
So.......
This is a bit dopey. If you want to say that logical fallacies aren't actually fallacies, you've got to attack the definition of the fallacies. Guilt by association Isn't going to get a rise out of anyone; nobody's emotionally attached to the Romans or Greeks.
Ok, I'll attack the definition of fallacies, the idea that someone says something it can be "wrong."
How about if someone says something, they must be saying it for a reason, and if you can't understand the reason, you are the one that is wrong?
The Romans invented "logical fallacies" to excuse and justify their violence towards others. The Nazis invented theories about "master race" ideology. The Greeks invented "democracy" and then invented "tyranny" in the same breath. Napoleon promoted "liberty" whilst forcing others to live according to his ideas. The Khmer Rouge invented theories about "communal ism" All invention, all thin excuses to carry out personal vendettas.
And just what invention are you trying to get me to buy? Hm? Canadian feminazism? The notion that the man is bad because he's awkward around women and needs help to figure out what they want?
Association is a perfectly justifiable way to judge someone by the way, it's just another instance of someone trying to excuse the precise most logical way of attacking something.
Even better, I would argue that every one of the premises you offered is debateable. One in particular has always bothered me:Have fun providing the unerringly moral answer!
This has always struck me as absurd. Inaction can't have moral relevance, because inaction is by definition the absence of action. It's an action that doesn't exist, and things that don't exist can't exhibit characteristics.-Is allowing death through inaction wrong? Yes.
Well no responses again well whatever I'm out.
Well no responses again well whatever I'm out.
Nope you stay put.
Cognative dissonance much? I genuinely recommend mental help. IF you can remember this.
How about if someone says something, they must be saying it for a reason, and if you can't understand the reason, you are the one that is wrong?
The Romans invented "logical fallacies" to excuse and justify their violence towards others. The Nazis invented theories about "master race" ideology. The Greeks invented "democracy" and then invented "tyranny" in the same breath. Napoleon promoted "liberty" whilst forcing others to live according to his ideas. The Khmer Rouge invented theories about "communal ism" All invention, all thin excuses to carry out personal vendettas.
And just what invention are you trying to get me to buy? Hm? Canadian feminazism? The notion that the man is bad because he's awkward around women and needs help to figure out what they want?
Association is a perfectly justifiable way to judge someone by the way, it's just another instance of someone trying to excuse the precise most logical way of attacking something.
Well no responses again well whatever I'm out.
I was going to respond, but when I disallowed for the mathematics created by defeated civilizations like the Babylonians, Greeks, the pre-Qin Chinese empire, and Egyptians, I found I couldn't use my computer anymore.
Then I was just going to drive it over to you, but without the wheel invented by the long-dead Neolithic peoples, well...
Doesn't matter anyway. I only speak two languages, both of them built on the multiple skeletons of the cultures that came before their modern versions.
I'd be completely fine with getting rid of paragon and renegade. Let the player decide what's good and what's not. I can think of at least one time I disagreed with the game on whether something was paragon or renegade. During Bring Down the Sky there is that batarian, Charn. He says that he doesn't want to fight and that he thought they were just going on a slave raid. The "paragon" choice is letting him go without a fight and the "renegade" choice is to kill him for what he did. Even when I'm paragon I kill him, he murdered people and intended to enslave people. I see killing him as paragon because you bring him to justice despite the risks, while I see letting him go as renegade because you let him get away so you can skip the fight, but the game tells me that letting this slaver go scot-free so that he can go enslave people again is paragon.
Indeed, here's some more:
Throwing a guard out the window while recruiting Thane (sorry, that's not renegade because otherwise I'd just shoot the guy and dead is dead), killing the gunship-mechanic while recruiting Garrus (not renegade - common sense IMHO...a soldier who doesn't stop the enemie from making repairs to their weapons if he can do so without being killed seconds after is stupid IMHO!), shooting Udina (damned SOB, holding you for trial is too dangerous!) etc. etc. 
Still, it wasn't/isn't a bad system (the bad thing is it colors the players perception...if you don't give them fixed "good" and supposedly "bad" options it's up to the player to decide what's good and bad!)
The problem is that dialogue-wheel - GET RID OF IT! - even if other companies (Bethesda!!!) are now copying it...a Dragon Age: Origins or Fallout: New Vegas like system is much better (without the speech-checks if you don't have a speech skill, repair-skill, science skill etc.)
OP's clearly never played other crpgs. FO1/2, NV, wasteland 2, DAO ect all have choices where you can be a complete dick or be evil vwithout the paragon and renegade crap. Using DAI as the definition of grey is silly.
I want the renegade/paragon because I like the dark/light choices of SWTOR and KOTOR. I want something that tracks how vicious/ruthless my character is. It helps define my character. I don't want what you get in those older games, whatever it's Baldur's Gate or F1 and 2 - it matters not what you say or do. Every time you talk someone you reset back to a neutral character. Only the few times you have a quest and the second NPC know you just killed their friends who tried to steal all your gold, or whatever. A reputation system like the one in NV did not work well either.
I'm tired of that old system. Even if I know I'm mostly likely gonna get that in Tyranny, a game where you play an evil character. There need to be consequences for the things an evil character does. Not just someone who wants revenge because you just killed some random NPC two days earlier.
What I hope this means:
No more gated choices that require you to be precisely this much Paragon or this much Renegade. Some of them could get rather ludicrous, even if you were hammering it all game long.
What I'm afraid this means:
"Shades of grey" tends to be code-speak for "trap options" or "swerve options". You know the type. Option A and Option B are both choices, but they're both going to bite you in the backside somehow. Not that you should win all the time, before someone drags that out, but if every choice backfires then why bother?
From my understanding they're trying to make ME:A feel more realistic. In ME1-3 we're told that Renegade choices are the more vile choices, and that Paragon choices are the more morally upright options. That's BioWare pushing their bias at us, and telling us what options they feel are bad/good. In removing said options they are going to be removing said bias, a decision that I can wholeheartedly support.
In real life there isn't someone holding your hand all the time telling you, "now if you do this its wrong" and "if you do this its right". In a lot of situations we're forced to infer that judgment ourselves, and in doing so not only find out more about who we are as people, but about what our own moral compass is. I feel like that's what they are trying to do with Ryder. We'll be given a choice, and not really know which option is right/wrong. (And while this is a good thing I'm sure it'll lead to tons of petty online fights. 'This is the right choice!' 'No! This is!')
Moral ambiguity is something not a lot of games practice. I believe someone on here mentioned Fallout already? But even Fallout does not practice it, at least not fully. You still have Good/Bad Karma, the only difference is the dialogue options aren't painted out to tell you what Karma who can/will obtain. It's inferred. Which is a step in the right direction. New Vegas has perhaps the best sense of grey morality, by showing you the pros/cons of each faction, and leading you to decide who has the best ideology for the Mojave. It's not about who's the good guy or bad guy as that can change with each different PT.
Really my only desire when it comes to morality/reputation related things is that you aren't praised as a hero no matter what you choose. Shepard can be a warmongering tyrant, and people still call him/her a hero. The only time I can possibly see that not being applicable is if you don't cure the genophage and Wrex is still in charge. (Though I'd still call that a weak example.) I want morality where when you are an ass, you're treated like an ass. When you act ruthless, people become very aggressive/scared of you, and not just for that one singular encounter. I want to be able to play a Ryder who acts like a monster - word spreads - and people quake in fear as you spread your wrath. Am I getting too into this? Yes, I think I am.
At the end of the day I approve of the morality systems removal. But at the same time I don't think I'd care if it was still there. I want my choices to carry more weight certainly, but do I really care that there's no more red/blue dialogue options? No, that part of the game really never mattered much to me.
Anyway, there definitely was almost certainly a universal(ist) morality, one based on non-violence....
i
Really my only desire when it comes to morality/reputation related things is that you aren't praised as a hero no matter what you choose. Shepard can be a warmongering tyrant, and people still call him/her a hero. The only time I can possibly see that not being applicable is if you don't cure the genophage and Wrex is still in charge. (Though I'd still call that a weak example.) I want morality where when you are an ass, you're treated like an ass. When you act ruthless, people become very aggressive/scared of you, and not just for that one singular encounter. I want to be able to play a Ryder who acts like a monster - word spreads - and people quake in fear as you spread your wrath.
Am I getting too into this? Yes, I think I am.
The problem with "word spreads" is to determine how that word spreads. I could understand that if Shepard punches a reporter (media worker), people would know that you're a reporter-punching jerk but if you spare some pyjak on an uncharted planet then somehow everybody knows that you're a good person. That's why I think your words/actions should only have reach within the group//city/planet unless it's a very famous person (again, famous within which group?). Not everyone can spread the word about Commander Shepard (Ryder in this case) because some average Joe you saved on one colony is unlikely to meet a group of mercenaries and tell them what a nice person you are. Also the ability to intimidate shouldn't be bound to your status of a jerk, it should be bound to your abilities and power. In the same manner the ability to charm (should be called coax really) shouldn't be always bound to your reputation of a hero/nice person, it should be focused more on your knowledge about these people (pull the right strings) and your relationship with them. You are likely to coax a friendly person, not a hostile one.
The problem with "word spreads" is to determine how that word spreads. I could understand that if Shepard punches a reporter (media worker), people would know that you're a reporter-punching jerk but if you spare some pyjak on an uncharted planet then somehow everybody knows that you're a good person. That's why I think your words/actions should only have reach within the group//city/planet unless it's a very famous person (again, famous within which group?). Not everyone can spread the word about Commander Shepard (Ryder in this case) because some average Joe you saved on one colony is unlikely to meet a group of mercenaries and tell them what a nice person you are. Also the ability to intimidate shouldn't be bound to your status of a jerk, it should be bound to your abilities and power. In the same manner the ability to charm (should be called coax really) shouldn't be always bound to your reputation of a hero/nice person, it should be focused more on your knowledge about these people (pull the right strings) and your relationship with them. You are likely to coax a friendly person, not a hostile one.
I agree with you to a large degree, though there is the fact that we're a completely alien force trespassing on the Andromeda system with alarming numbers. They'd have to be wary of these newcomers from another galaxy, trying to feel out our motives and judge the character of those they send as delegates on their behalf. Therefore, it's likely that any member of an Andromedan race would communicate the details of an encounter with Ryder as far and wide as they could. Depending on their status and technological sophistication, this may just influence your reception in a city, or it may affect how members of that race perceive you throughout the galaxy.
Similarly with the Lacteal (those from the Milky Way) races. At this point, we're a tightly knit community with numbers approximating (presumably) that of a major city. Ryder, as a Pathfinder, would presumably be something of a minor celebrity among this group. And when all a cloistered group has the ability to do is worry, speculate about their future, and dream of where they'll live, it stands to reason they'd take an interest in the efforts of the Pathfinders. This means that any interaction with Ryder would likely enter the rumor mill and not emerge until it was pulverized to an atomic level. And that says nothing of any military or quasi-military organization we belong to as part of the Ark Initiative. After all, we're not Spectres this time; we are answerable for our actions (should they be found out).
All of which is to say, the fate of some pyjak-loving dillhole we chase to a backwater moon and execute without any witnesses? That shouldn't affect how others perceive us. But the way we greet the farmer whose field we land in? The way we deal with subordinates in our organization? How the lone human conducts herself in a bar, on a planet, in a galaxy that's never seen a human before? That should have echos, because people are definitely going to talk.
There's nothing to really enjoy in those stories, GOT is just one big kill fetish against all the people who "wronged" him for being ugly or something throughout his life, anyway whatever I just think he's the biggest degenerate there is.
I guess if people are going to consume it thought what are you going to do there it is.
"A Song of Ice and Fire" is the name of the series. It is a series that is aimed towards the deconstruction of a great number of tropes. It was partially inspired by historical events such as the Wars of the Roses. The aforementioned Red Wedding was inspired by the Black Dinner and the Glencoe Massacre.
I will start with this statement of yours that you claim is accurate of the series; "GOT is just one big kill fetish against all the people who "wronged" him for being ugly or something throughout his life"
Part of what renders this claim of yours questionable is the motive you ascribe him for having wirtten this: that it is a revenge fantasy.
As a counterargument, I present this quote of George R. R. Martin about the Red Wedding;
"That was the hardest scene I’ve ever had to write. It’s two-thirds of the way through the book, but I skipped over it when I came to it. So the entire book was done and there was still that one chapter left. Then I wrote it. It was like murdering two of your children. I try to make the readers feel they’ve lived the events of the book. Just as you grieve if a friend is killed, you should grieve if a fictional character is killed. You should care. If somebody dies and you just go get more popcorn, it’s a superficial experience isn’t it?"
He was clearly fond of Robb Stark and Catelyn Stark so that would seem to bring your point of it being a revenge fantasy into question. The reason he says as for why he did this also draws into question your claim that the series is a "-big kill fetish-" seeing as he wanted people to truely care that two characters had died.
Ok where would we start?
Tyrion is a jerk, Tywin is a jerk, The Red woman is... actually not as bad of a jerk. Iron Borne, all thugs. The Dornish, all thugs. The Freys, Boltons, all thugs and mafiosos basically... would take awhile to get to it all and not being the superfan as obvious I probably wouldn't be comprehensive.
The least violence are ironically the "conquerors" Targaryens, and even then they're still really messed up.
There's no "gray morality" it's just Sopranos in Middle Earth.
You leave me with very vague reasonings so if you have not left the discussion, I would like to ask for elaborations. One of the things that puzzled me was this sentence of yours; "The Red woman is... actually not as bad of a jerk."
My puzzlement stems from the fact that Melisandre is a character who advocates burning people alive and has done so in the series yet she is "-not as bad of a jerk" as you claim Tyrion to be?
We should perhaps move this to private messaging out of courtsey to this thread's topic.
Well to be fair the Mako does have its charm (in a fked up way).And this ladies and gentlemen is why the bsn is mocked. People have been asking for years for Bioware to remove this crappy system, they are and now people are coming out oft he wood work to defend it. This is the Mako all over again.
Retour en haut