I think the Christian thing was because two of the classes are Priest and Demon. And by multiple ways, maybe because doing something could be frowned upon by some people, but not so much by others? Like how PETA hates it when people abuse animals (as do most people) but the big corporations don't give a s***... Maybe that was a bad example, and maybe I'm missing Alonso's point, but that's basically how I see it.
If you put a million monkeys at a million keyboards, one of them will eventually write a Java program.
The rest of them will write Perl programs.
See it this way, Jon. Imagine each direction is one of our main cultures. Have one be the west, another the east, another the middle-east, another the mesoamerican cultures, etc. Each of these cultures have different weltanschauungs, each with their moral code (perhaps some with a manifested distinction between linear and polygonal morality, maybe some understanding morality more as a sphere rather than a two-dimensional polygon). By considering this different approach, moral decisions become much more sophisticated and hermeneutic; it all depends on who's the who that makes the decision, who's the family of that who, why does that who make such choices, etc.
Killing or saving a life is much more of a clear distinction between what christians consider evil or good respectively. Nevertheless, take for example: what moral standing would buying cabbage from a poor man have? Or even more complex, what moral standing would buying cabbage from a poor man (that happens to be a paedophile) have? Suddenly, it becomes clear that it's not so easy to categorise that situation in either "good" or "bad". Suddenly, you need more categories. Maybe "generous", maybe "unfortunate", maybe "stupid", etc.
As for my reference to christianity, said before to be a reference to judeo-christianity or cartesianism (Descartes), I meant to make it clear that when there are gods and devils, it's much easier to say something is either plain good or plain bad (because there's only heaven or hell--there's no kind-of-heaven's or not-really-hell's for us that are not entirely good or entirely bad to go to). Irrespective on your stance on creation or deities, making a distinction between religious and ethical (as a branch of philosophy) moral choices, I found necessary. We are, after all, a predominantly christian western world, and we still root our ideas from it, unfortunately. No intent to harm.
Very well put, Alonso. I see your point perfectly clearly now, though I'm sure someone out there may be offended. Since there can't be an infinite number of possibilities, there would inevitably need to be stereotypes, unless I made the "corners" of the polygon or sphere based on completely fictional races or religions, such as the Goblin race or the Amphibianism religion. The world could then be completely separated from this by having the character's appearance transform depending on their view of right and wrong. This could, however, be seen as a parody of sorts of discrimination, as those who act the same would look the same, speak the same language, even live in the same places. But perhaps I am just putting too much thought into this... Though it would be rather nice if a video game tried to make a statement, somewhat how a movie or novel might.
If you put a million monkeys at a million keyboards, one of them will eventually write a Java program.
The rest of them will write Perl programs.
Originally Posted by Alonso Martin See it this way, Jon. Imagine each direction is one of our main cultures. Have one be the west, another the east, another the middle-east, another the mesoamerican cultures, etc. Each of these cultures have different weltanschauungs, each with their moral code (perhaps some with a manifested distinction between linear and polygonal morality, maybe some understanding morality more as a sphere rather than a two-dimensional polygon). By considering this different approach, moral decisions become much more sophisticated and hermeneutic; it all depends on who's the who that makes the decision, who's the family of that who, why does that who make such choices, etc.
Killing or saving a life is much more of a clear distinction between what christians consider evil or good respectively. Nevertheless, take for example: what moral standing would buying cabbage from a poor man have? Or even more complex, what moral standing would buying cabbage from a poor man (that happens to be a paedophile) have? Suddenly, it becomes clear that it's not so easy to categorise that situation in either "good" or "bad". Suddenly, you need more categories. Maybe "generous", maybe "unfortunate", maybe "stupid", etc.
As for my reference to christianity, said before to be a reference to judeo-christianity or cartesianism (Descartes), I meant to make it clear that when there are gods and devils, it's much easier to say something is either plain good or plain bad (because there's only heaven or hell--there's no kind-of-heaven's or not-really-hell's for us that are not entirely good or entirely bad to go to). Irrespective on your stance on creation or deities, making a distinction between religious and ethical (as a branch of philosophy) moral choices, I found necessary. We are, after all, a predominantly christian western world, and we still root our ideas from it, unfortunately. No intent to harm.
Catholicism has purgatory.
First off, I doubt any game is going to want to concern itself with as many different moral possibilities as you describe, seeing as the game isn't going to be set in as many cultures as that so it wouldn't make any sense to apply those moral concepts to the game, and even if they were, the game either becomes too complicated (as you would have to consider how your actions concern the morals of multiple standards at once) or nonsensical (because it wouldn't make sense to have one culture or setting judging based on multiple standards, especially seeing as some standards would undoubtedly conflict with others.)
So your example is that each direction is a different culture. Outline then how you would use each of those direction. Explain a spherical morality. Pretend that I'm a man with a largely linear morality and attempt to explain what it would even mean to have a morality be spherical. What are the considerations to be made of each action? There's only so much that can be done in a game, and you might want to give actual examples as to how such a concept would work. Not even for monkeytherat really, but for me, because again, I'm having a hard time making sense of how you would think that would be applied to a video game (most of what you're saying I understand just fine, I just can't understand how a spherical morality works.)
And I was not offended, it just seemed odd to call it Christian of all things.
Well, I wasn't really on a time limit, so I could spend a lot of time on the moral polygon and still have time to make the game good, but I honestly see no reason other than saving time and work to go with a black and white bar. I would prefer to have a more in-depth game in any way I could, without going into a full 3d game or anything. I personally prefer the polygon suggestion. If you have any reasons for why I should use the black and white method, please share them, as your criticism is welcome. Simply telling me to use a certain method, however, is no help to me.
If you put a million monkeys at a million keyboards, one of them will eventually write a Java program.
The rest of them will write Perl programs.
Ok I see where you are going with the simplicity thing, but from the start I was going to make this game fairly complex. Not huge or difficult to play, but have a complex game mechanic that is new (as far as I know), easy to get used to, and adds depth to a game that would otherwise be like any other RPG out there. With the great number of styles of RPGs, it seems to me that one needs to have something that would set their game apart from the rest in order to give players a new experience, and hopefully gain recognition as a great innovative game.
I am always up for a challenge as far as programming goes, most of what I know I had to figure out myself. But I'm no grand master programmer and don't see myself as a god, so if the multi-faceted morality meter doesn't work out I will go back to the original plan of a simple meter.
If you put a million monkeys at a million keyboards, one of them will eventually write a Java program.
The rest of them will write Perl programs.
Jon, I actually am taking you for a man with a linear conception of morality. Otherwise, this conversation would not be taking place. The good thing about philosophy is that its statements don't need to be true or verifiable; that's not the point. It is in the asking that one finds a conclusion that leads to another question.
You put me in a place where not too fortunate questions must be asked. I mentioned there could be a culture with a spherical conception of morality (and by that I meant "more complex" in a graphical way; obviously it would not be literally spherical--just that this culture would see that it could place moral choices on a three-dimensional fashion in any direction from the centre, as opposed to the other limited linear, bidimensional and polarising approach). Thus, to make it easier, the gamma of categorisation would increase brutally. Remember, we started with two categories (good and bad). What's the benefit? Less action would take place, for people would be much more aware of the complexity of their acting. It would also be responsible action, not proselytising.
Then the question will be asked: "but does this affect, to say, tennis? Eating cheese?" In a way, it does. It would stem from a bigger, more relevant issue of morality (such as buying instead of stealing the cheese). In an easier way, obviously not. "We talk about videogames," should you say, "not philosophy", then it would be my turn to say this was an opinion of mine, me who values very much the issue of thinking. And wherefore, I choose (or it was chosen for me) to have it as the foundation for all I do. It is why, then, I write.
Life chanced out for me to go into film rather than videogame development. For me, it is just a hobby. But should my interlocutor consider it otherwise, especially on a gaming website, I gave an opinion and it seemed to help. As for your request, if one day I consider it important to think of such a system, I will gladly share my discoveries with you.
In essence, whatever one does one will keep on doing. But with knowledge different than one's, one will do the same things but in a very different way. I would gladly give you reference to my readings, if you like. They certainly all better explain this than me.
Do give me the references to your readings; as a man who enjoys the study of philosophy I hope to find them more engagin and informative that my philosophy course in college was. I recognized the name Descartes as the study of ethics was the last thing we went over in both my Philosophy 101 course and my Theory of Knowledge course. Furthermore, we discussed Descartes as well as some others in one of my 10th grade courses.
Not that it matters much but I do understand ethics to be more than a black-and-white concept, as I've been taught more than once that many seemingly such issues are really false dilemmas, and I like to think that I take that to heart. The reason I demand so much from your ideas is not because I seek some sort of objective standard of morality or any sort of moral truth, but because of two things: a) waxing philosophical is a hobby of mine (when I can do it right) and b) because while your idea might be all fine and good to make a statement of some sort or bring variety to a tired medium, the fact is that this concerns videogames, and gameplay is the key factor; this would be a rather complicated feature to pull off effectively both in a way that is truly different (as opposed to simply making a number of different black-and-white options and taping them together) and usable.
I don't claim to know many things, because there are so many factors that affect whether or not we can know something, and to what we can apply such knowledge. However, never do I say "that is a good thing to do" or come up with an idea of how something should or can be done without considering it from as many angles as possible.
I am not a linear man, I simply play one because that is how the society of which I am a part works. Why then does this conversation take place? Because I make people responsible for their ideas. If someone has some idea or belief that they're going to take to heart or try to spread, I'm going to make sure that they actually know and understand their idea.
Replying in reverse-order, in the way the sentence was phrased, it would seem as though you already know what your interlocutor thinks, only you want him to express the thought clearly. This would very much save us time, and, alas, would be helpful.
I trepidated, at first, over the greeks without taking any prior understanding of philosophy. Then I came to Descartes and his followers, only to be astonished by their resemblance to the religious stance on life. While religion makes its foundation the ens increatum, science makes metaphysics its own. Why is this a wrong or unfortunate approach? Because metaphysics has its foundation on man. But why is that a problem? It assumes, axionomically in its logic, that everything is understandable through man's intents. Thus, people like Daniel Dennett say that the universe is like a puzzle in that it can be solved/understood (while mysteries are unsolvable). I would very much say the world is a place (ontically) and a state of being (ontologically) in which we find ourselves already being in it. Descartes, on the other hand, tried to start from scratch when designing his systems. Very much like every other philosopher after the greeks, except for parts of Kant and Heidegger.
In fact, so much we take for granted this part of "already being-in-the-world", that it has been forgotten for centuries. Before understanding what being-in-the-world is, we must know what "to be" means. We understand each other when we use it in sentences, but we don't really know how to define "to be". To be isn't to exist (that's actually another misinterpretation on the original meaning: ex-sistere) or to live (that's already taking in account being-in-the-world along with other things) Why is this, then? Because the being of things is something that cannot be verified by the positivity of the modern sciences. In fact, "being" is very much in the negative realm of things.
The positive is, in essence, reality. Yet, reality is the essence, in another way, of what is real. What's the difference between these two definitions of essence? One essence is that series of characteristics that make an object that object (a chair must have a seat, essentially, for instance). But the other definition, the more complex and aiding one, is that the essence of something is the way in which that something is that something. So the essence of the chair is not the seat now, but how the char IS that particular chair. The chair-ity. Same with myself, being my-self is, essentially, Alonso-ity. Here's what's interesting. Real-ity is the essence of the real: how the real is the real.
But how is the real the real? By being constant in its presenting itself. By remaining constant, one can verify it with, for instance, the scientific method, etc. Yet, what isn't constant, cannot be verified or proven to be true (because in its essence, in its way of being it, it cannot be present all the time as a constant). So what does not present itself and remain constant? Love, god, ideas, pink elephants, etc. But these things are something, but not quite something physical or constant in its way of presenting itself. These things are "the negative". The positive is "the real", which is very little indeed. Why ask for the negative, then? Because its essence is mostly ontological (being), not ontical (entity). But we don't care for that in the tradition. No, those things "don't exist" (read Heidegger's Letter on Humanism for "existentia", and ex-sistere). We basically say to ourselves all the time: "that which things are, we ask not for".
Thus, coming back to the beginning, when something is cartesian or christian (Descartes has its foundation on christianity's Aquinas and Augustin), it means that it uses metaphysics to present its system of thought. Doing that is inherently making a mistake right from the beginning (which is why then come hermeneutics and phaenomenology, the latter which is a way of understanding things from things themselves). What is the right way? There's no such. There are "better" ways, though. More responsible ways in the sense that they take care to see where they make mistakes, and if they do, they tear down the whole building (and metaphysics only patches the rough spots).
But these other ways are very much hidden from us. We think there's only one way to things. We think capitalism is the only way to handle our trade. We think god is the only answer to the meaning of life. We, on the other hand, never think we might actually be wrong from the beginning, and that there's no way to be right. But there are ways to live better among ourselves, to treat each other better, etc. These are ways that are yet to be thought of, but they remain in the negative. That doesn't mean they don't "exist". It means they don't yet.
Onto the beginning of your post, my references are mainly Heidegger (his thoughts I've found the most interesting, and are my main sources: from Being and time, On time and Being, The concept of time, The origin of the work of art, the thingness, Letter on humanism, What is metaphysics?, Meditation, and a few others), some of Kierkegaard (I know he's a christian, before you say something) and some of Nietzsche. From the greeks, I take from Plato (and through him, Socrates), some of Aristotle, Parmenides and Heraclitus. Heidegger also bases most of his thought on them, which I found very comforting due to my familiarity. The concept of positive-negative is the same as that of ἀλήθεια. Those on morality are, I suppose, my own. I took from Heidegger's critique of metaphysics and Kierkegaard's Either/Or. I'm probably missing much, but I'm already tired. Hope it made things clearer.
Edit: "metaphysics" is not "beyond the physical" (supernatural). It got that name because it was an Aristoteles book unnamed after the Physics book (meta-physics). Today, it means the system of thought that understands all that it means to be in the world (which fails to do so very quickly in the uptake).
Originally Posted by OldManClayton If you have a plan to implement it, go make it and floor us with its awesomeness.
Otherwise, keep it simple, if only for simplicity's sake.
Agreed. You either do it well, or don't bother doing it at all.
In my opinion, you should shelve it for the time being. Not to say that it isn't a good idea, I'm not particularly sure you're ready for a larger project like this.
The main thing I would recommend for starting up a team is to make sure you know how to do their job first, so if something happens to them the project can still make progress.
There are multitudes of tutorials on the Internet to help improve your art, designs and programming, take some time to study them and you'll save tons of time in the long run.
And of course the best thing you can do is a smaller project. Try doing something you can get done in like 4 days to a month. After you have a few more of those under your belt, you'll be able to knock this game out of the park.
One of the things I can tell you about working with other people is that they'll never do it exactly how you want it, which can be good or bad. In terms of working with my music guy, Jon and my art guy, Frank, they'll come up with something that isn't what I'm envisioning, but it looks/sounds great none the less. In the case with the multitude of programmers I've worked with, they usually always fail miserably. Part of that goes with the "know their job" part. When you know your art, it's easier to get better artists, because you know what good art looks like, as well as their knowledge of how to create that art. On the other side, if you don't, and someone can impress you with Photoshop Filters, you're usually going to end up with someone that is sloppy.
But of course, I could be 100% wrong, and you can start up this game and get it finished and it will rock. There is no set way to do ANYTHING, and after all, if no one tries to do something differently, then how are you going to know if there is a better way to do it?
Now that you're blindfolded and I've spun you around 100 times, go pin the tail on the donkey, just don't walk into the fire pit.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
This is my basic prototype/ idea. There are 3 dots that will eventually be invisible. They go in between two points that represent opposite moralities. Then, in the finished version, there will be another point that is always located at the centroid of the three points.
Another option is to have the 3 dots represent 3 different "black and white" meters and have it basically work like the original, but with 3 bars instead of 1. Also, since the bar determines what you transform into, there would be options, and you would be able to transform at will into whatever races your dot is close enough to. This method would work better with the elemental thing than the other method, as I could have it so that when you max out all three of the same color, you transform into the elemental version of that color.
Please leave criticisms/ preferences, as both would be fairly easy to do, but are pretty different as to how they affect game play.
If you put a million monkeys at a million keyboards, one of them will eventually write a Java program.
The rest of them will write Perl programs.
This is my basic prototype/ idea. There are 3 dots that will eventually be invisible. They go in between two points that represent opposite moralities. Then, in the finished version, there will be another point that is always located at the centroid of the three points.
Another option is to have the 3 dots represent 3 different "black and white" meters and have it basically work like the original, but with 3 bars instead of 1. Also, since the bar determines what you transform into, there would be options, and you would be able to transform at will into whatever races your dot is close enough to. This method would work better with the elemental thing than the other method, as I could have it so that when you max out all three of the same color, you transform into the elemental version of that color.
Please leave criticisms/ preferences, as both would be fairly easy to do, but are pretty different as to how they affect game play.
I don't know what you mean by the first one. What do the dots represent in that one? It sounds pretty much the same as the second one to me. The second one goes back to something I said earlier about it not really being revolutionary to tape together a bunch of different black-and-white meters. If all three bars effect the same thing then that's a little different but it also becomes much more complicated for the player because they then have to consider everything they do from three different angles instead of one, and it becomes more complicated for you because whatever those bars effect, you'll have to create a greater amount of different possibilities.
If you use each bar as a spectrum (meaning something is significant of each point on the bar) then the more bars you have, the greater the difficulty (if they all affect each other). If you only care if a bar is all the way in one direction or all the way in the other, you still have quite a large number of different possibilities to consider.
@Alonso Martin: I know what metaphysics is because I had to use to for an essay I wrote in IB. I don't know what you think, that's why I'm having you articulate it. I am familiar with Descartes, Nietzsche, Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates because we went over those people in my philosophy course(s). Existentialism is a concept we went over in my IB English course.
By the first one, I mean you connect those three dots, make them invisible, and add a new dot in the centroid of the triangle made by connecting the dots, so it's kind of like averaging the "values" of the dots, but not really, if that makes any sense. It's a lot simpler in my head...
If you put a million monkeys at a million keyboards, one of them will eventually write a Java program.
The rest of them will write Perl programs.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by Alonso Martin
I see where you are going with the simplicity thing, but from the start I was going to make this game fairly complex. Not huge or difficult to play, but have a complex game mechanic that is new (as far as I know), easy to get used to, and adds depth to a game that would otherwise be like any other RPG out there. With the great number of styles of RPGs, it seems to me that one needs to have something that would set their game apart from the rest in order to give players a new experience, and hopefully gain recognition as a great innovative game.
