PDA

View Full Version : Moral principles and conscience.



Max_Viridi
11-22-2016, 05:22 PM
Good afternoon.
Thanks for playing, game so far is much better than 1 part in atmosphere and story.
I want to ask you, where are moral principles in play? Including in Watch Dogs 2?
Yes, I understand that the main characters are without a tower young people, but they are not murderers?
Why have you abandoned system: a bad\good it had to be further developed in the new part, because if in the first part, the protagonist took revenge and it was possible to write off his bad behavior, that his anger has eclipsed reason and that there was a system of good\bad.
The new part you just dropped it. Although in this part it was needed very much.
The main character did not be reacting to the murder... even in the first mission?
He is so cold-blooded murderer?
I understand that you give freedom to the players, but you tell the story (history), and the player must choose which character he will do, Hero or Villain — but the game should react to it, characters should react to player's actions, although would like to comment on that.
In this part they collect "followers" and in it they had to be "strict requirements", mission secretive passage and so on.
For example bad driving, destruction of city property, killing innocents and so on, they need to lose these "subscribers."
The main character, if he misbehaves, should be declared wanted, if not a hero then at least his vehicle etc. Even if the Main Character does not see CityOS, it can see the people in the district.
What the game is absolutely not as non-responsive. What characters are not as does not react.
Why are you trying to make of his GTA? There are absolutely other characters and other relationships in the game they are hackers, not the criminals without conscience and moral principles. They're doing it for the good of the people to defeat the CityOS? To open people's eyes.
For example: the Mission in the game with the sect. Hackers spread that the cult lied to all the news in the game saying that "Hackers learn a little evidence that the sect used to cheat", but in the news in the game do not say that all were killed in the sect, and the characters don't get less "subscribers" from the dirty Missions in the game.
You trying to give players the freedom of the game, take away the feeling of victory, feeling the efforts of the mission, now the game can be anything and it not affect anything.
Remember the first game Splinter Cell how much she has lost entourage and atmospheric, if it were to pass as anything, the game would lost a part of yourself, which is what happened in the future, when the game is about a spy turned into a shooter.
I hope you understand my opinion, sorry for my bad English.
Thank you for your attention.

Google translator:
Thank you for the game, the game is what happened better than 1 part by the atmosphere and story.
I want to ask you, what happened to the moral principles in the games? Including 2 Watch Dogs?
Yes, I understand that the main characters - it's not tower young people, but they are not the same killer?
Why have you abandoned the system: poor \ good, it had yet to develop more in the new part, because if in the first part, the protagonist of revenge and could be attributed to his bad behavior, that it anger eclipsed reason and there It was a good \ bad system.
So in the new part you just give it up. Although it is in this part of it was needed very much.
The protagonist does not like not responding to the murder ... even in the first mission?
He that is so cold-blooded killer?
I understand that you are giving freedom to players, but at the same time you tell the story (story), and already the player has to choose what character he would do, the Hero or Villain - but the game has to react to it, the characters should react to the player's actions, at least such as comments on this.
It is in this part they collect "followers" and that there they were to be "strict requirements" mission secretive passage and so on.
For example for bad driving, damage to property of the city, killing innocent people and so they have to lose those "subscribers".
The main character, if he misbehaves, should declare the wanted list, and if not the hero or at least his vehicle, etc. and etc. Even if the main characters do not see CityOS, his own people see in the area.
What game did not like not responding. What characters do not like do not react.
Why are you trying to do from the GTA games? There are completely different characters and other relationships in the game - they are hackers, not criminals without conscience and morals. They're doing it for the good of the people to defeat CityOS? To open the people's eyes.
For example: The mission of the game with the sect. Hackers spread that the sect of cheating, the news of the game say that "Hackers learn some evidence that the sect of cheating", but in the news does not say the game that all of them died in this sect and the characters do not get less "subscribers" because of the dirty passage of missions in the game.
Are you trying to give players the freedom to play, take away the feeling of victory, the sense of the passage of the efforts of the mission, the game is now possible to go as you please and it will not has no effect.
Remember the first Splinter Cell game no matter how much she lost her surroundings and atmospheric, if it could pass as anything, the game would lose a part of yourself, which is what happened in the future, when the game is about a spy into a shooter.
I hope you understand my opinion, sorry for my bad english.
Thank you for attention.

quetzicoatl
11-23-2016, 05:50 PM
Just want to say I agree. Not only is gameplay now more dissonant with story content, but the game will actively put civilians directly in your path in things like races, the side content. Combined with the forced antichristian music, like the reign song (and it's a nasty earworm, yuck), I get a bad vibe with aspects of this game that wasn't there in the first one. Kind of like in Assassin's Creed Unity, which I won't touch now primarily because of where the story veered off starting with it promoting mestopholes, how you couldn't even intervene to stop a human sacrifice. I'll never pick it up again, never play the mp on it because I just don't want to touch it again.

Max_Viridi
11-24-2016, 08:50 PM
Just want to say I agree. Not only is gameplay now more dissonant with story content, but the game will actively put civilians directly in your path in things like races, the side content. Combined with the forced antichristian music, like the reign song (and it's a nasty earworm, yuck), I get a bad vibe with aspects of this game that wasn't there in the first one. Kind of like in Assassin's Creed Unity, which I won't touch now primarily because of where the story veered off starting with it promoting mestopholes, how you couldn't even intervene to stop a human sacrifice. I'll never pick it up again, never play the mp on it because I just don't want to touch it again.

And I disagree with you.
If so as you say, it is possible the entire game going under the scalpel from her and nothing will remain... because everyone can not like something of their own in the game and everyone wants to cut it from the game, something the cut.
What does "Combined with the forced antichristian music" or "but the game will actively put civilians directly in your path in things like races" ?
I was talking about something else. I'm not saying that the game you have to please in something?
It's like film: You saw the movie and you liked it or not. Same here... it's the atmosphere and story, you may like or may not like it, but that doesn't mean the game will be worse.

I said that the game needs to set limits gameplay, that's gameplay.
The framework should be that you can do in the game and what not, so as not to ruin it created an atmosphere in the game.

The whole idea of the game is designed for stealth. The main characters different attitude, different atmosphere in contrast to the first part.
It is not necessary to give freedom in the game, where it is not needed.
Where it ruins the whole style of the game — freedom in the game is not needed.

But if this freedom in the game and give to it should match with the atmosphere of the game or the characters need to react to it (comments, relationship of characters to the protagonist of the game, must change his style of play) and the main character's actions should fall under the plot and atmosphere inside the game.

If the main character by the end of the game is going through some shock and it changes his worldview., Yes, the end of the game may change and the style of gameplay.
Just why you could not do in Sleeping Dogs? There were even fines for the downed poles in the city. There were two lines... for good and for bad.

And it would be possible at all to remove the possibility of "hard geypleya", at least in the beginning of the game.
Trying to please all fans of different styles of gameplay, games lose their individuality. So it was with Splinter Cell and so will Watch Dogs... Watch Dogs is not GTA.
And it was necessary to make the players understand that this is not GTA. Even the first part was for GTA, but here it looked out of place, but there was another character who was a different atmosphere. And there was a system: Good\Bad, although it was not mandatory, and here in part 2, it's the system, not what is needed, she just needed the game as the air, modified and improved "Good\Bad". Let the main character "Dislikes", reduce mission rewards, change your attitude to the main character as "violent" the passing game.
I believe that the game can't be interesting if it is possible to have different styles of passages. The variety of passages should be, but not styles. Especially there should not be such that do not fit into the atmosphere of the game.

You lose the lion's share of players who just don't understand that you can play the game differently, but they do not want to understand. And then put the game miserable assessment.
He has a Taser — why did he rest? Yes in the story he may encounter a different style of play, but it's not in his nature? It must seem as alien to the main character.
The game show me that the game can be completed quickly and easily, but you're missing out, passing her. Make the player feel more difficulty in this passage.
I say it's the same as with Splinter Cell, it lost its individuality, its charm. And became a regular shooter. And it was not fun to play. Because although it is called different "play style", it broke the whole concept, the whole style of the game.
How can you not understand, if the player to give different ways to play the game — it will run any game on the forehead, the most clumsy, the most boring and fastest way.

Review press:
So, the worst thing you can do performing these tasks is to start to play Watch Dogs 2 as a shooter. And it's not stupid enemies and painfully boring skirmishes of some level Inversion. Just in this passage in the mind conceived the unpleasant dissonance.
Aiden Pearce in the first part was not only a hacker but also a cold-blooded by far more dirty jobs. He hacked the network and shooting people in the face – it was caused by the setting and the plot. Markus is not like that. He's the ordinary guy in the post teen age, loves to drink beer, have fun and watch the fighters from the 80's. When he grabs the grenade and starts killing cops, hurting along with civilians – the game falls apart. It is not possible to take it easy, my head starts to buzz, it should not be, it is wrong.

I don't understand why developers did that? Why now was to cut out elements from games, not add new ones. Just a shame if a game with such capabilities will the fate of the GTA (which the feelings have not changed since 3 parts in it, all the same, the same banter, the same bandits, exactly the same atmosphere, the only thing that happened to her, that's simplifying it — when the game every step to give you don't need to think how to pass the mission and why not, adding a cover and just degradation of gameplay for improved graphics) or Splinter Cell (which has become a regular shooter).
Why developers are afraid to restrict players of this game don't lose they win. And this happens in all games, players are allowed to play as anyone, even if it is not combined with the atmosphere of the game.

quetzicoatl
12-01-2016, 03:12 AM
Responding to above, by point:

Not true at all. But I say Christian and it set you off, which goes to my point. Did I say "please remove this because I don't like it"? No, I didn't. I'm against censorship in total.

What I said is that:
1. I want control of my game experience. Being that there are not "things everybody is offended by" in this game, meaning the game is in no way an equal opportunity offender unless the scientology reference meets your quota, I want to encourage whoever is responsible for this content to show equal respect for their audience. If that doesn't happen and antichristian content continues to increase, and I'm not given recourse in-game, I'd have no choice but to stop playing their games, and that would just flat out suck, not least for them because there are actual consequences down the line. So I'm encouraging whoever it is to be mindful of what they're doing, no matter what they personally believe, for everybody's best interests. This an extremely harmful current in society right now today, and I'm voicing my concern to them directly, because I like them. If you disagree with that, then you have my prayers, whether you want them or not. I'm not here to step on egg shells so I don't offend anyone's sensibilities, and I'm not asking Ubi to either. I posted another thread to that end, where I'm simply asking for the ability to filter what music is played in my own game. That's it. I do hope they consider their soundtrack choices better going forward, but that's up to them. There is still a lot of great music in the game.

2. I agree with your point about a lack of "morality or conscience" in the gameplay systems as compared to the original Watch_Dogs along the lines you described, which is hand in hand with Point 1, and personally the result is that I don't really feel good about playing it at times. So I'm voicing that. If you take offense to my correlation between 1. and 2., I can't help that. It is what it is; that's how I see it, so I'm going to tell them (and you) what I really think, which I hope is appreciated, because whatever anyone says, it's coming from a good place, and I am sincere. I'm not going to debate the issue as if it were up for discussion. That's not why I'm here.

What the two quoted lines refer to:
The Reign song in particular is extremely offensive, to the point I apologize for hearing it, but if I had the ability to tell the game what I don't want to play the same way I can on internet radio or in other games, it wouldn't effect my experience as much. It also is one of the few songs that repeats in time trials/ races, which are part of the game I normally would enjoy if not for that song. I like racing in these games.

The second one, the game places an npc in the center of a one lane road during one of the races, every time. It's not random, happens every run. I forget specifically which one, but I try to avoid running over anybody or killing where I can in the game (I fail, but I try), so I don't like it. It's easy to consider and fix by just randomizing it, so I mentioned it as an aside. But it just adds to the sort of Luney Toons, chaotic feel to the gameplay, which went to your suggestion.

The rest of your post I mostly agree with. I do still like GTA a lot, though.

A_Colder_Vision
12-02-2016, 04:03 PM
You can choose to play the game morally and not kill anyone, or you can choose to kill everyone. It's all up to your style of play. I like it that way.

I mean really, if you want to "understand" why Aiden did what he did, remember, he was the biggest mass-murderer in the game, all just to avenge the death of his neice, which he was very much responsible for. Sure, you could be stealthy with Aiden and do non-lethal melee, but when the **** hit the fan, going full-out murder-mode was the only way to get things done.

If you don't like the dissonance between the story-line and the lethal option afforded to you, don't use the lethal option afforded you. Simple.