Poll: Video Gamings Most One Sided Arguments.

[Imp_Emissary]

There are a lot of complicated issues, and arguments brought up in video games. Ranging from technology advancing faster than people can keep up, race relations, and even questions about the meaning of life.

That said, sometimes the arguments in some games, when talked about outside the game(or even within the game) sometimes seem to favor one side a good deal more over the other. For a small example; I don't know of too many people that say blowing up Megaton in Fallout 3 was the best choice(morally at least). That isn't to say no one thinks that, but I haven't found many.

In recent memory, I can think of a couple games that had complicated issues that had players ending up more often on one side of the argument than the other.

Deus Ex Human Revolution, and Dragon Age.

In HR, the argument was about if human augmentation should be allowed, and for Dragon Age the argument was if the Templars should keep their level of control on the mages, or if the Mages should have more freedom.

While there are some people who go to either side, in my experience at least, I've noticed that people tent to pick one side more often than the other in the two debates.
In HR's case, people tent to favor allowing human augmentation(to a point at least, not everyone needs to be turned into a walking tank), and in DA's case people tent to favor letting the mages have a bit more freedom(again, to a point. No need to summon demons just to tell them to make you some tea).

So for this thread, what one do you think is more one-sided? Why? What side do you pick?
Or, if you know of a argument from a game that you think is even more one sided, please tell us about it in the thread. Please remember to have fun, and don't take things too seriously.
[sub]But a little seriousness never hurt.[/sub]

This thread has been brought to you by, The Injustice League user group. Taking over the fabric of the universe, one thread at a time.

Spoiler: A bit of a joke about the Dragon Age debate.

Spoiler: And one joke about the Deus Ex Human Revolution debate.

 

[CloudAtlas]

Even if most people would give mages a little bit more freedom in Dragon Age, in contrast to maintaining the status quo, how's that one-sided? Aren't they just supporting moving from one extreme to some middle-ground? If there was a binary choice between total freedom and total control, and people would strongly favor one choice, then you might call that one-sided.
And even then, just because most people favor one alternative in an ambiguous moral choice problem, i.e. a problem pitting conflicting moral ideas/concepts against each other, doesn't necessarily mean that the problem itself is one-sided, in the sense that one alternative is morally superior to the others. It could just mean that most people favor one morality system over another.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Spoiler: It's there. I promise.

Even if most people would give mages a little bit more freedom in Dragon Age, in contrast to maintaining the status quo, how's that one-sided? Aren't they just supporting moving from one extreme to some middle-ground? If there was a binary choice between total freedom and total control, and people would strongly favor one choice, then you might call that one-sided.
And even then, just because most people favor one alternative in an ambiguous moral choice problem, i.e. a problem pitting conflicting moral ideas/concepts against each other, doesn't necessarily mean that the problem itself is one-sided, in the sense that one alternative is morally superior to the others. It could just mean that most people favor one morality system over another.

True. Most people do put the argument in turns of moving to the middle path. However, I can it one sided because they do usually use the short hand "I support the mages." when explaining what side they chose. Plus the Templars(mostly) don't really want a "middle way" to solve the problem, but rather to keep the status quo. Which is pretty much as much control as the Templars can get away with.

That said, this perception could be a bit bias because it's based on how the game frames the argument. Showing most mages asking for just a few more basic rights, and higher ranked Templars unwilling to give an inch. Because while it wasn't shown as much, there were Templars who believed that the mages could be trusted with more freedom, and there were some mages who probably should be locked up for good.

Again, this is all kind of based of what I have observed. In truth, it isn't impossible that I have it backwards, or like you said, the arguments may not really be that one sided.

If I may be so bold, can I ask what you thought of the Human Revolution debate on human augmentation? Do you think that it may not be so one sided as well?

 

[IllumInaTIma]

I'd say that discussions about favorite romances from Persona 3 and 4 tend to be quite one sided with people favoring Chie and Naoto more than anyone else.

 

[CloudAtlas]

True. Most people do put the argument in turns of moving to the middle path. However, I can it one sided because they do usually use the short hand "I support the mages." when explaining what side they chose. Plus the Templars(mostly) don't really want a "middle way" to solve the problem, but rather to keep the status quo. Which is pretty much as much control as the Templars can get away with.

That said, this perception could be a bit bias because it's based on how the game frames the argument. Showing most mages asking for just a few more basic rights, and higher ranked Templars unwilling to give an inch. Because while it wasn't shown as much, there were Templars who believed that the mages could be trusted with more freedom, and there were some mages who probably should be locked up for good.

Again, this is all kind of based of what I have observed. In truth, it isn't impossible that I have it backwards, or like you said, the arguments may not really be that one sided.

Well, the argument against giving mages any freedom in the world of Dragon Age is, as I see it, that, in principle, every living mage is a potential gateway for demons that might end up subjugating or even ending the whole world. Pretty high stakes. And it's not just a hypothetical risk either, as mages are summoning demons and stuff again and again, so, eventually, it might be bound to happen. In the real world, large groups of people were stripped of their freedom for much lesser reasons (think of people with Japanese origin in the US during WW II).
Anyway, the moral question is: Is it justified to infringe upon the right to personal freedom of every member of a certain group just because some members pose a certain (great) risk for society as whole? And that's what I like about this question, because it's such a central question in moral philosophy, and in practical policy as well. And the game pushes this question to the limit: it's one thing if the risk is just someone hijacking a plane to blow up a building; the equivalent to the consequences in Dragon Age, however, would look more Al Qaeda acquiring 100 nukes.

What decision did I make personally in DA:O? Well, not really on moral grounds. I tried a city elf origin first, but switched to an elf mage. And my mage was pretty fed up with the racism she faced, with being imprisoned in this ugly tower, with being deceived into becoming a warden, and I, as a player, didn't like the game and so I didn't care about this world that much either, so she burned everything to the ground.

If I may be so bold, can I ask what you thought of the Human Revolution debate on human augmentation? Do you think that it may not be so one sided as well?

I haven't played it and know nothing about it, so I'm afraid I don't have an opinion here.

 

[Lieju]

That said, this perception could be a bit bias because it's based on how the game frames the argument. Showing most mages asking for just a few more basic rights, and higher ranked Templars unwilling to give an inch. Because while it wasn't shown as much, there were Templars who believed that the mages could be trusted with more freedom, and there were some mages who probably should be locked up for good.

Again, this is all kind of based of what I have observed. In truth, it isn't impossible that I have it backwards, or like you said, the arguments may not really be that one sided.

There were plenty of examples of mages going crazy and being a threat to botht themselves and others, like the whole thing with the Circle, or Connor, or the whole country of Tevinter where mages rule. I think the game did a good job presenting the issue.

I might not agree with the Templars, but I get where they are coming from.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

I'd say that discussions about favorite romances from Persona 3 and 4 tend to be quite one sided with people favoring Chie and Naoto more than anyone else.

I got to play those games at some point. I hear so much about them.

Spoiler: You read it.

True. Most people do put the argument in turns of moving to the middle path. However, I can it one sided because they do usually use the short hand "I support the mages." when explaining what side they chose. Plus the Templars(mostly) don't really want a "middle way" to solve the problem, but rather to keep the status quo. Which is pretty much as much control as the Templars can get away with.

That said, this perception could be a bit bias because it's based on how the game frames the argument. Showing most mages asking for just a few more basic rights, and higher ranked Templars unwilling to give an inch. Because while it wasn't shown as much, there were Templars who believed that the mages could be trusted with more freedom, and there were some mages who probably should be locked up for good.

Again, this is all kind of based of what I have observed. In truth, it isn't impossible that I have it backwards, or like you said, the arguments may not really be that one sided.

Well, the argument against giving mages any freedom in the world of Dragon Age is, as I see it, that, in principle, every living mage is a potential gateway for demons that might end up subjugating or even ending the whole world. Pretty high stakes. And it's not just a hypothetical risk either, as mages are summoning demons and stuff again and again, so, eventually, it might be bound to happen. In the real world, large groups of people were stripped of their freedom for much lesser reasons (think of people with Japanese origin in the US during WW II).
Anyway, the moral question is: Is it justified to infringe upon the right to personal freedom of every member of a certain group just because some members pose a certain (great) risk for society as whole? And that's what I like about this question, because it's such a central question in moral philosophy, and in practical policy as well. And the game pushes this question to the limit: it's one thing if the risk is just someone hijacking a plane to blow up a building; the equivalent to the consequences in Dragon Age, however, would look more Al Qaeda acquiring 100 nukes.

What decision did I make personally in DA:O? Well, not really on moral grounds. I tried a city elf origin first, but switched to an elf mage. And my mage was pretty fed up with the racism she faced, with being imprisoned in this ugly tower, with being deceived into becoming a warden, and I, as a player, didn't like the game and so I didn't care about this world that much either, so she burned everything to the ground.

If I may be so bold, can I ask what you thought of the Human Revolution debate on human augmentation? Do you think that it may not be so one sided as well?

I haven't played it and know nothing about it, so I'm afraid I don't have an opinion here.

Very interesting real world parallels. And an interesting in game world view. ;D
Though, I think Al Qaeda with nukes is a bit much if your just talking about one abomination. Now if your talking about Tevinter, then ya, that's about right. Though, Tevinter isn't really as bad as it is because of mages, but rather that the mages are mostly nobles.

Think about it. In a fantasy setting, if it isn't a monster/demon/or a mage gone bad the main bad is usually of noble/royal heritage. Heck, in dragon age most of the bad things that happened were caused by a noble being a dick. Even a few of the demons use to be evil nobles. Flemith herself was betrayed by a noble at the start.

That's what's really wrong with Tevinter. All the mages are nobles. Plus, they also prop up their economy on slavery, and that doesn't usually end well for those who do it.

Don't get me wrong, there should be some regulation, but what the Templars do is just cruel. Not letting mages see their families(or even keep in touch), not letting them have their own families(they take away your kids), and most of the time not even letting them go outside the tower. Though, to be fair, part of it may be that Bioware had the Templars be purposefully overzealous. After all, not much drama in being a mage if it just means you're sent off to boarding school for a bit, ya know?

As for the HR stuff. It's pretty much just the question of; "is it's okay to give people robot parts, and how far should we be able to go with it?"
One side says we should go as far as we can, the other says we really shouldn't be doing it at all.

 

[CloudAtlas]

But to add an argument from a game that I do know: Should you cure the Genophage in Mass Effect 3? This might have been one of the most difficult question I have ever faced in a game.

Very interesting real world parallels. And an interesting in game world view. ;D
Though, I think Al Qaeda with nukes is a bit much if your just talking about one abomination. Now if your talking about Tevinter, then ya, that's about right. Though, Tevinter isn't really as bad as it is because of mages, but rather that the mages are mostly nobles.

Think about it. In a fantasy setting, if it isn't a monster/demon/or a mage gone bad the main bad is usually of noble/royal heritage. Heck, in dragon age most of the bad things that happened were caused by a noble being a dick. Even a few of the demons use to be evil nobles. Flemith herself was betrayed by a noble at the start.

But what happens if a mage becomes an abomination, and no hero's stopping by in time to save the day... or what's left of it? They might tear the veil between the real world and the fade, and demons start roaming the world. And doesn't the trailer to Dragon Age 3 show something pretty similar to that? And there they're talking about the end of the world, so, I don't think 100 nukes are too strong a comparison.

As for the HR stuff. It's pretty much just the question of; "is it's okay to give people robot parts, and how far should we be able to go with it?"
One side says we should go as far as we can, the other says we really shouldn't be doing it at all.

This is a question I'm happy I don't have to answer. But I'm happy that it's a question that is appearing frequently in Sci Fi. What is it that makes us human? What is life? Can't get much deeper.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

That said, this perception could be a bit bias because it's based on how the game frames the argument. Showing most mages asking for just a few more basic rights, and higher ranked Templars unwilling to give an inch. Because while it wasn't shown as much, there were Templars who believed that the mages could be trusted with more freedom, and there were some mages who probably should be locked up for good.

Again, this is all kind of based of what I have observed. In truth, it isn't impossible that I have it backwards, or like you said, the arguments may not really be that one sided.

There were plenty of examples of mages going crazy and being a threat to botht themselves and others, like the whole thing with the Circle, or Connor, or the whole country of Tevinter where mages rule. I think the game did a good job presenting the issue.

I might not agree with the Templars, but I get where they are coming from.

Indeed. Magic is not something to just ignore.
However, if you're approach is to teach and treat mages like walking monster bombs, well that's just going to make the problem worse. "Treat me like a monster, and that's what I shall be."

In Tivinter they do that too, only they treat becoming a monster as something to strive for, because monsters are powerful, and the more power you have the higher you can rise in the government. Mages should be properly trained in how to use magic responsibly, but you're not going to get that done if you don't treat them like human beings.

 

[woodaba]

I'd say that discussions about favorite romances from Persona 3 and 4 tend to be quite one sided with people favoring Chie and Naoto more than anyone else.

That's only because Chie is objectively the correct option. Now, excuse me, I have to go back to my bunker before the flame war starts.

 

[The White Hunter]

Well in Skyrim I always found the civil war ridiculously one sided.

The Stormcloaks were basically dipshits and political terrorists without a worthwhile cause. So I naturally sided with the empire and stamped them out in the name of the glorious Emperor.

And grats! You made your first thread.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

The Quarian vs Geth choice in Mass Effect 3.

So either you can let the race of space hobos wipe themselves out as they are too stubborn to head your warnings that they will be destroyed if they don't stop attacking the friendly robots.

Or you can exterminate the race of super-robots who were oppressed by the aforementioned space hobos because... they're evil... despite all of them being mostly helpful to you so far... ROBOTS HAVE NO SOUL

 

[theheroofaction]

There's a very good reason DE:HR seems one sided.

And that's because it is.

For one, you're literally forced to be augmented and it has not one, not two, but zero side effects. This means that instead of a realistic debate it's instead a matter of the transhumanists automatically being on the side of the player and the naturalists being wrong.

 

[CloudAtlas]

Well in Skyrim I always found the civil war ridiculously one sided.

The Stormcloaks were basically dipshits and political terrorists without a worthwhile cause. So I naturally sided with the empire and stamped them out in the name of the glorious Emperor.

They have a very worthwhile causes: Independence from foreign oppression. They're basically invoking our modern right of self-determination of peoples in international law. Also, they fight for the freedom to practice their religion: They want to be able to worship Talos. These are both causes that many of us would support in the real world.
Sure, their support in the populace might not have be overwhelming, they're pretty racist, and their rebellion weakens the empire and thus makes it more likely that, eventually, Skyrim will be subjugated by an arguably more oppressive regime, the Thalmor - but that's precisely what makes the question ambiguous.

The Quarian vs Geth choice in Mass Effect 3.

So either you can let the race of space hobos wipe themselves out as they are too stubborn to head your warnings that they will be destroyed if they don't stop attacking the friendly robots.

Or you can exterminate the race of super-robots who were oppressed by the aforementioned space hobos because... they're evil... despite all of them being mostly helpful to you so far... ROBOTS HAVE NO SOUL

Yes, the Quarians, as people, were responsible for their fate as space nomads in the first place. But the Quarians that live "today" are not. Yes, they did ignore your warnings - but they are still intelligent, sentient life. Their life has as much worth, as much dignity as a human life. And, sure, they went to war with the Geth at the worst of times.
So the question central is: are the Geth alive? Are they alive? And if they are alive, is their life of the same worth as organic life? That is a very big, very central question you'd have to answer first, because much else hinges upon the answer. If you say no, as your statement seems to imply, then I find it hard to make an argument as why you should support the Quarians over the Geth (leaving the greater context aside for the moment: After all, the geths are just robots, just machines. If you say yes, then, of course, choosing the Quarians means genocide. Or, it might mean Genocide - even if the Geth are alive, are they true individuals? And can't their race be rebuilt later, as they were built in the first place? Choosing the Geth, the other way round, means genocide as well, of course, but at least the Quarians brought that upon themselves. The Quarians as a people, that is - you still cannot justify killing individual Quarians - of which many, I want to add, expressedly opposed going to war with the Geth.

In the bigger picture, the question of whether the Geth or the Quarians are more useful in the war cannot be ignored. I don't think the game is unambiguous here: It seems that the Geth are winning against the Quarians at the beginning of their conflict, but only because of some indirect Reaper assistance. If you pick the Geth over the Quarians in the end, or resolve their conflict without exterminating either side - which seems to morally best solution - you end up with Geth that you might call sentient, that you might call life, but they still have Reaper code inside them - and that should give you a really big headache, because nothing ever good came from dealing with Reapers.
Taking one step back, the question whether the usefulness of either race should even influence your decision for either race in the first place is only valid if you agree to "the ends justify the means" - i.e. whether you adopt a utilitarian morality system, at least to some degree. In war, and even more so in total war, utilitarian thinking tends to prevail, and there are good reasons for that, but by no means is it clear-cut that it should be so, and not everyone will agree on that.



You say this question is one-sided? It is anything but. At least, this binary choice isn't; depending on your choices, there can be a third option, peace.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Well in Skyrim I always found the civil war ridiculously one sided.

The Stormcloaks were basically dipshits and political terrorists without a worthwhile cause. So I naturally sided with the empire and stamped them out in the name of the glorious Emperor.

And grats! You made your first thread.

Thanks!
I'm also with you on the Skyrim civil war. The Stormcloaks were just to racist for me. Plus, I was an argonian.

The Quarian vs Geth choice in Mass Effect 3.

So either you can let the race of space hobos wipe themselves out as they are too stubborn to head your warnings that they will be destroyed if they don't stop attacking the friendly robots.

Or you can exterminate the race of super-robots who were oppressed by the aforementioned space hobos because... they're evil... despite all of them being mostly helpful to you so far... ROBOTS HAVE NO SOUL

I know right?! Robots! With souls? BAH!

On a more serious note; I don't think that argument would work as well as an option as I THINK most people would chose "Option C: Save both!" Because why have your cake, and not eat it?
Then again, I guess you could still say that is a one sided argument that just happens to have three sides.

But to add an argument from a game that I do know: Should you cure the Genophage in Mass Effect 3? This might have been one of the most difficult question I have ever faced in a game.

That's a good one. Though, with the reapers breathing down you neck, it can make it easier to chose. Unless you were completely on the fence.
For me, I just figured, if they infected them with the stuff twice, I think they can do it again, so why not just cure it now, and if they act up, infect them again! Plus I tursted Wrex.

But to add an argument from a game that I do know: Should you cure the Genophage in Mass Effect 3? This might have been one of the most difficult question I have ever faced in a game.

But what happens if a mage becomes an abomination, and no hero's stopping by in time to save the day... or what's left of it? They might tear the veil between the real world and the fade, and demons start roaming the world. And doesn't the trailer to Dragon Age 3 show something pretty similar to that? And there they're talking about the end of the world, so, I don't think 100 nukes are too strong a comparison.

Well, the Templars go hunt it down. Don't get me wrong, they aren't harmless, but one wouldn't equal a destroyed city/nation. Flemith(who I think is behind the fade vile holes) is kind of different. Plus she had to plan for hundreds, if not thousands of years to do whatever it is she's doing.

Also if the mages had more freedom, they could be out with the Templars hunting demons and abominations!
On a side note: I think people don't see how important mages really are in Dragon Age. Think about it. With no mages it would be like an ocean with no lighthouses. Yes mages attract demons, but they for the most part keep them from going after "normal" people too.

Can you imagine what would happen if they all just disappeared? The demons would have a field day!

"This is a question I'm happy I don't have to answer. But I'm happy that it's a question that is appearing frequently in Sci Fi. What is it that makes us human? What is life? Can't get much deeper. "



So far, I think the meaning of life is; To ask what the meaning of life is. And then find/make our own answers.
That's why it's so fun! ;D

 

[Imp_Emissary]

There's a very good reason DE:HR seems one sided.

And that's because it is.

For one, you're literally forced to be augmented and it has not one, not two, but zero side effects. This means that instead of a realistic debate it's instead a matter of the transhumanists automatically being on the side of the player and the naturalists being wrong.

A good point. Sometimes a game has it's own message, and thus can be a bit bias in how it presents the argument.
That said, it is an issue that may soon be a reality.

Also, in the game it does show how the augmentations are being used to control peoples lives who are not free of the side effects. So I wouldn't say it's completely one sided, but you could easily argue it's a bit lopsided at the very least.

 

[deleted139124]

DELETED

 

[J Tyran]

Well in Skyrim I always found the civil war ridiculously one sided.

The Stormcloaks were basically dipshits and political terrorists without a worthwhile cause. So I naturally sided with the empire and stamped them out in the name of the glorious Emperor.

The Empire lost its way though, what about all the innocent Nords being dragged off and tortured to death by the Thalmor and with the Empires consent? What about all the Jarls smooching up to Elenwen and taking Thalmor gold in order to turn a blind eye? Hammerfell also seized independence because of this, Skyrim deserves the same.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

snipity snip snip

I fail to see your point. The two reasons you really gave not to save the geth were "they may still have reaper code, and that may be bad maybe" and "ROBOTS DON'T HAVE SOULS".

Also, I would be much more favourable towards the quarians if it weren't for the fact unless you micromanage your previous playthroughs to engineer the "peace" route they basically destroy themselves after you specifically tell them to cut it out.