253 réponses à ce sujet

[BloodyMares]

What I would love to see is a system that learns your personality type and changes as the game goes on based on that. For example; if I have a tendency to pick 'peaceful' or 'good' options then slowly over the course of the game 'jerk/evil' options become phased out and I get more variety's of 'peaceful' options to choose from. Likewise, if I have a tendency towards 'jerk' or 'evil' options, then my game presents me with more varieties of these and phases out the 'peaceful/good' options. Or, like DA2, if I pick sarcasm to damn near everything my guy gets more of those. This way all of my characters are going to feel like individuals; and on re-plays i'm going to see options I never saw before as I explore different reactions to things that happen.

And yes, I know there are people out there who would go through picking extreme good, then extreme evil just to see what the system does. ...cause I know I would. I would hope it would see you're being a dick and phase out all your grey options so you're left with nothing but your extreme good and extreme evil options. Nothing wrong with a little Chaotic good/evil lol

It's ME2 restriction all over again. They only need to exclude extremes instead of limiting player's freedom because extremes are always stupid.

[Dean_the_Young]

Consequently, I see a "no universal morality" or "systems to protect rights of X or defend against Y" as explicitly a non-morality.

 

Like, it doesn't matter if you can't convince every single thing of your universal morality, the point is you are on a moral compass whether you like it or not, and pretending there isn't one just puts you at the bottom of the pile.

 

Why is it 'your' universal morality? If it was truly universal, wouldn't the possessive pronoun be meaningless?

[Seraphim24]

All they really need is a character that goes on and on about the dangers of black and white morality, extremes, etc, but who themselves doesn't actually obey those precepts and is an extremist, who terrorizes the world through aggressive use of black and white morality.

 

Maybe even talk about the "shades of gray" ad nausea as well.

 

Basically an ME version of Solas.

 

That covers a huge proportion of people with that idea. It's probably the most common archetype in all fiction.

[Seraphim24]

Why is it 'your' universal morality? If it was truly universal, wouldn't the possessive pronoun be meaningless?

 

Yes as stated it would have to be as many people as you can actually convince, probably has limits for someone.

 

If you are emotionally triggered by someone, then that is the limit of your morality.

 

So universal morality just means someone who isn't triggered by like anything, not Nazis or Bioware fans, the man, the woman, Zimbabwae, India, China, the way Bhutan does things, Bushmen, Coca-Cola, Pespi, Justin Bieber, Miley Cyrus, Sinesead O'Connor, Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Joan of Arc, Caesar, Ocatavian, Michael Jordan, Donald Trump, 2Pac, Mozart, Bach, Cleopatra, sweatshop iPhone employees in China, Humpback Whales, the Loch Ness Monster, yoga, Veganism, Outback Australian deep sea divers, just, like whole bunches of people.

 

If they aren't triggered by these people or concepts or whatever then they can start to lay claim to a certainly "more" universal morality. At any rate pretty mcuh everyone lies and says they aren't, which I take as proof positive that they are because why would they say otherwise.

 

They can not "like" them but all our current world leaders/socio-political leaders etc are ultimately triggered by a few or more of these things, i.e. can't claim it and often don't deserve their roles.

 

Instead we have the reverse, people who are walking trigger bombs (Barack Obama, probably couldn't even tolerate just your garden variety gay or lesbian, says otherwise, but we all know that isn't true in his heart, let alone a sadomasochist or something), seize on every opportunity to shellack people or over-emphasize the few triggers they do have (You really hate hispanics DONT YOU!) in order to justify the gap in power, which means benefits go bad for everyone.

 

So I mean after all YEAH I daresay a crisper morality is indeed in order, not everyone is awandering perfect spirits and a person who says they aren't bigoted but nonetheless applies "gray concept" is exhuding hatred and bias on a daily basis that is unavoidably deleterious anyway.

[Dean_the_Young]

Yes as stated it would have to be as many people as you can actually convince, probably has limits for someone.

 

If you are emotionally triggered by someone, then that is the limit of your morality.

 

So universal morality just means someone who isn't triggered by like anything, not Nazis or Bioware fans, the man, the woman, Zimbabwae, India, China, the way Bhutan does things, Bushmen, Coca-Cola, Pespi, Justin Bieber, Miley Cyrus, Sinesead O'Connor, Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Joan of Arc, Caesar, Ocatavian, Michael Jordan, Donald Trump, 2Pac, Mozart, Bach, Cleopatra, sweatshop iPhone employees in China, Humpback Whales, the Loch Ness Monster, yoga, Veganism, Outback Australian deep sea divers, just, like whole bunches of people.

 

If they aren't triggered by these people or concepts or whatever then they can start to lay claim to a certainly "more" universal morality. At any rate pretty mcuh everyone lies and says they aren't, which I take as proof positive that they are because why would they say otherwise.

 

They can not "like" them but all our current world leaders/socio-political leaders etc are ultimately triggered by a few or more of these things, i.e. can't claim it and often don't deserve their roles.

 

Instead we have the reverse, people who are walking trigger bombs (Barack Obama, probably couldn't even tolerate just your garden variety gay or lesbian, says otherwise, but we all know that isn't true in his heart, let alone a sadomasochist or something), seize on every opportunity to shellack people or over-emphasize the few triggers they do have (You really hate hispanics DONT YOU!) in order to justify the gap in power, which means benefits go bad for everyone.

 

So I mean after all YEAH I daresay a crisper morality is indeed in order, not everyone is awandering perfect spirits and a person who says they aren't bigoted but nonetheless applies "gray concept" is exhuding hatred and bias on a daily basis that is unavoidably deleterious anyway.

 

So it's not actually a universal morality. It's just a vague, nebulous sort of morality in which you feel people would be better if they agreed with you.

 

Well, that clears up not much at all, but thank you for demonstrating your particular capacity to judge others.

[Fredward]

Good, morality systems are lame anyway.

[ssanyesz]

It's ME2 restriction all over again. They only need to exclude extremes instead of limiting player's freedom because extremes are always stupid.

 

Excluding extreme options also limits the player's freedom.

 

Or removing options because they're overused doesn't make them bad, we just need more options, then we can choose to our liking.

 

Sometimes Hawke's personalities almost felt like a predetermined / chosen backrounds, only they were properly voiced with unique dialogues. I hope they expand the pre-service history and psychological profile options too, because it had a different feeling playing a Ruthless+Colonist Shepard in mind than a Spacer+Sole Survivor.

[Seraphim24]

So it's not actually a universal morality. It's just a vague, nebulous sort of morality in which you feel people would be better if they agreed with you.

 

Well, that clears up not much at all, but thank you for demonstrating your particular capacity to judge others.

 

That's really not what I said. 

 

Vague, nebulous sort of morality would be better if people agreed with it, as well as demonstrating capacity to judge others. Sounds precisely like "gray morality." 

[AlanC9]

So it's not actually a universal morality. It's just a vague, nebulous sort of morality in which you feel people would be better if they agreed with you.
 

That's actually an intellectually respectable position. But If he's trying to push non-cognitivism, this is odd rhetoric to use.

[AlanC9]

That's really not what I said. 
 
Vague, nebulous sort of morality would be better if people agreed with it, as well as demonstrating capacity to judge others. Sounds precisely like "gray morality."

Then where's the disagreement? Just about anyone is likely to think that things would be better if more people agreed with his own views on how people should behave. Even a sociopath would find it convenient for other people to behave in ways that made the world a better place for him to live in.

[Monk]

It's ME2 restriction all over again. They only need to exclude extremes instead of limiting player's freedom because extremes are always stupid.

 

The extremes can be lame but this cuts off those people who want to role play a cartoonishly good/evil (did i repeat myself?) character. Now, i can see this if there's limitation of dialog-wheel space. In this case, there's no room because more realistic options are preferable to the specific extreme archetypes.

 

 

Good, morality systems are lame anyway.

 

True, morality systems can be lame but i think it matters if it seems to be a shoehorning of said system or executing what would best fit the story being portrayed. Because as much as we want all these dialogs options and more options for role playing, there's still an underlying story being told and the writers have the difficult job of deciding how best to provide these options. And whether we like or not, it's up to the writers knowing their strengths on what kind of scale they can provide us that will best serve the story and us.

[Dean_the_Young]

That's really not what I said. 

 

It is, however, what what you said put into practice means. You haven't actually laid out or described any comprehensive morality system or underlying structure that can be claimed as 'universal'. All you've done is say things would be better if everyone agreed with your morality system.

 

Like, every morality system advocate about it. There's nothing universal about it, except that it has just as little inherant authority as anyone else's great big idea to recast society.
 

 

Vague, nebulous sort of morality would be better if people agreed with it, as well as demonstrating capacity to judge others. Sounds precisely like "gray morality."

 

 

Not really- because the nature of the underlying morality system is seperated from how many people agree with it. If everyone follows a single morality system that judges others, it can easily be an extremist black/white morality system.

 

Then where's the disagreement? Just about anyone is likely to think that things would be better if more people agreed with his own views on how people should behave. Even a sociopath would find it convenient for other people to behave in ways that made the world a better place for him to live in.

 

In fact, it begs the question of why GRRM should adjust to Seraphim's morality rather than the other way around.

[Maia]

This is from the big survey leak, so it's not official - even if everything we've seen so far has pointed to that leak being pretty genuine - but I still feel like it's worth mentioning with how specifically relevant it is to this topic:

 

"Building upon the rich history of strategic dialogue that has defined the Mass Effect series, you can make meaningful choices in every conversation you have with characters that impact the way your game evolves. The next Mass Effect adds deeper control over your conversations through a greater ability to interrupt and change the course of the conversation as it is happening. During certain conversations, you will be able to take action based choices, such as the option to pull out your gun and force someone to open a door instead of convincing them to do it through conversational guile. Action based choices give you more options for how you approach dialogue with characters in the game and can lead to more extreme outcomes on the story as it evolves around the decisions you make when interacting with a huge cast of NPC characters."

 

So, assuming that's not a load of bollocks, it sounds like they're planning to significantly expand the interrupt system, if anything.

 

Hope your puppy's doing okay! My dog's coming up on ten, which is fairly old for her breed, and it's always ridiculously stressful whenever she has a health problem bad enough to need surgery. 

sounds abit to good to be true to be honest.

[Seraphim24]

It is, however, what what you said put into practice means. You haven't actually laid out or described any comprehensive morality system or underlying structure that can be claimed as 'universal'. All you've done is say things would be better if everyone agreed with your morality system.

 

Like, every morality system advocate about it. There's nothing universal about it, except that it has just as little inherant authority as anyone else's great big idea to recast society.
 

 

Not really- because the nature of the underlying morality system is seperated from how many people agree with it. If everyone follows a single morality system that judges others, it can easily be an extremist black/white morality system.

 

 

In fact, it begs the question of why GRRM should adjust to Seraphim's morality rather than the other way around.

 

 

Your arbitrary dismissals are just that.

 

Morality actually isn't super complicated... there's 3 states, untriggered when you have total psychological dominance over someone, triggered, when you are even when someone, and which can exist in varying degrees, and overwhelmed where you turn into this spaz like state and start arbitrarily trying to find ways to excuse your inferiority at all times, or otherwise turn into a state of extreme devotion and submission, but most often the person just becomes a pure contrarian.

 

(Hint, most BSN posters are int he 3rd category)

 

So if someone treats a trigger as anything other than a state of paralellness, then they are doing it wrong.

 

I don't coerce anyone into that moral system, it's just an observation of the way the natural world operate, and I think people should recognize what it actually is, and it's function, for their own sake.

 

GRRM believes in coercion, hence, is immoral.

 

Also since we don't assign value according to a person's dominance, tis assigned randomly according to money, popularity, and other factors, chaos is induced in society to the detriment of all (even those who with the most money, at times)

[Seraphim24]

Morality has a bad sheen because it's usually promoted by fakes, the essence of true morality is non-intervention, non-judgmentality, not, non-reality, but not activist or interventionist.

 

It's also a recognition that triggered states are an inherent part of emotion, more acutely romantic/sexual interaction and should be appropriately feared, but also embraced as the font of life and evolution.

 

But because of people like you and GRRM, you all run around like ninnies for years and passage of years, but when those years pass and time comes back, feel free to acknowledge everything I said here as a inviolate truth you should of heeded...

 

Why are you guys stuck to Bioware like glue? Because it is a moral code of sorts, and compels yours and others submission, that is all the proof I need, that you cannot leave here.

 

You are free to adopt Hegelian Smorgasboard, but you don't, you are free to adopt Rawlsian free individualism or whatever, but you don't, you are here, not there, because one is true, the other is.... less...

[nfi42]

I'm pleased. I don't like the paragon/renegade system. I don't like how it forces every dialogue to have each option, I don't like how it tells you which are the good/bad instead of letting you decide (or choose what your character thinks), and I don't like how it encourages you to always pick the same icon by giving incentives like special options instead of choosing conversation by conversation.


If MEA has no paragon/renegade and no DA2 personality system. And does have emotion icons and a variety of dialogue/choices I will be a happy woman.

 

I don't like it either. To expand on this,  imo if the choice of response picked in a dialog. Actually resembled what comes out of the protagonists mouth, emotion icons wouldn't be necessary either. It would also make me as a player think more about what dialog option I chose.

 

I like thinking,  emotion icons dumbs it down as does paragon/renegade.

[Halfdan The Menace]

No morality system because we are the main villain in Andromeda?

[SKAR]

Guess it no more.

[AlanC9]

I don't like it either. To expand on this, imo if the choice of response picked in a dialog. Actually resembled what comes out of the protagonists mouth, emotion icons wouldn't be necessary either. It would also make me as a player think more about what dialog option I chose.

I like thinking, emotion icons dumbs it down as does paragon/renegade.

Honestly, I don't think that thinking is all that useful most of the time when picking dialogue options. For any given PC and a typical dialogue node, the available option which best fits that PC should be pretty obvious. Of course, there are times when you'll be making a difficult decision and tone won't be an issue, but I don't see how tone gets in the way there.

Note that I say this as someone who averages something less than one instance per game of getting a wrong PC line from the dialogue system.

[SKAR]

No morality system because we are the main villain in Andromeda?

Did you think that one through? It's an advanced morality system probably. I'm sure there'll still be good and bad choices but a bigger emphasis on in between gray stuff.

[nfi42]

Honestly, I don't think that thinking is all that useful most of the time when picking dialogue options. For any given PC and a typical dialogue node, the available option which best fits that PC should be pretty obvious. Of course, there are times when you'll be making a difficult decision and tone won't be an issue, but I don't see how tone gets in the way there.

Note that I say this as someone who averages something less than one instance per game of getting a wrong PC line from the dialogue system.

 

Last time I played a bioware game was 12 months or more ago,  so no doubt I am probably wrong in my recollection of getting the wrong dialog line.  I do remember a very funny yt video lambasting FO4'd dialog wheel for this very reason which probably what I remember.

 

In any case,  if the dialogue option is presented correctly, i don't really see the need for the emotion icons.

[Seraphim24]

Hm, nothing to it then? I believe the original version of morality was a Christianity-ish or otherwise monotheism that posited a concept of non-violence and while it possibly did not incorporate every living thing, it at least agreed on the concept that one thing was right, striving not to judge, and not to be violent.

 

GRRM goes in the exact opposite direction, can't say that's worth much to humanity.

 

Europe and much of the ancient world had polytheism, GRRM/America is non-theist, there's even fewer restrictions on morality, you succeed only by force of will.

 

People aren't going to treat those equally, because they aren't.

 

No Renegade/Paaragon just means less morality, not "gray morality." Force vs justice and kindness.

[Dean_the_Young]

Your arbitrary dismissals are just that.

 

All arbitration is, at it's root, arbitrary. That doesn't mean it's invalid.

 

 

Morality actually isn't super complicated... there's 3 states, untriggered when you have total psychological dominance over someone, triggered, when you are even when someone, and which can exist in varying degrees, and overwhelmed where you turn into this spaz like state and start arbitrarily trying to find ways to excuse your inferiority at all times, or otherwise turn into a state of extreme devotion and submission, but most often the person just becomes a pure contrarian.

 

*Citation needed.
 

 

(Hint, most BSN posters are int he 3rd category)

 

 

I'll give you a three out of a ten for the attempted insult, if only because the poor syntax and comma splicing ruin the flow.
 

 

So if someone treats a trigger as anything other than a state of paralellness, then they are doing it wrong.

 

 

Got a non-arbitrary source to back this up, or are you just falling back into the 'judging by what I want others to be like' phase?

 

 

 

I don't coerce anyone into that moral system, it's just an observation of the way the natural world operate, and I think people should recognize what it actually is, and it's function, for their own sake.

 

Except you haven't actually established what the moral principles of morality are. In fact, you haven't even demonstrated that the natural world operates according to your positions, let alone the function of morality.

 

 

GRRM believes in coercion, hence, is immoral.

 

 

Coercion exists in the world naturally, hence, it is not immoral if the natural state of the world is not immoral. Weren't you just arguing on the merits of natural world state and objective functionality of relationships?

 

 

Also since we don't assign value according to a person's dominance, tis assigned randomly according to money, popularity, and other factors, chaos is induced in society to the detriment of all (even those who with the most money, at times)

 

 

Not actually relevant to moral codes, in so much that morality directs what people should do in contexts, not how such contexts come about. The (frequently natural) chaos of the world simply changes status quos, without regard to whether the status quo is good or not. A status quo can easily be to the detriment of all.

[Dean_the_Young]

Morality has a bad sheen because it's usually promoted by fakes, the essence of true morality is non-intervention, non-judgmentality, not, non-reality, but not activist or interventionist.

 

 

According to who?

 

 

 

It's also a recognition that triggered states are an inherent part of emotion, more acutely romantic/sexual interaction and should be appropriately feared, but also embraced as the font of life and evolution.

 

 

According to what?

 

 

But because of people like you and GRRM, you all run around like ninnies for years and passage of years, but when those years pass and time comes back, feel free to acknowledge everything I said here as a inviolate truth you should of heeded...

 

 

Aren't you an arbitrary authority?

 

 

Why are you guys stuck to Bioware like glue? Because it is a moral code of sorts, and compels yours and others submission, that is all the proof I need, that you cannot leave here.

 

 

Wouldn't we be arbitrary authorities?
 

 

 

You are free to adopt Hegelian Smorgasboard, but you don't, you are free to adopt Rawlsian free individualism or whatever, but you don't, you are here, not there, because one is true, the other is.... less...

 

 

Says who?

[PunchFaceReporter]

If we do get a Paragon/Renegade system I hope it doesn't have a big effect on the dialogue. Always felt like I had to choose top or bottom answer in order to choose dialogue later on.