313 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I'm not forcing them to do anything.  I'm giving them a remark that has clear denotative meaning.  What they do with it is up to them.

You're forcing an interpretation of language on them centered around denotative meaning. There really is no neutral option when it comes to interaction.

By removing the interpretive part of my end of the conversation, I would argue I'm making it less confusing and easier to understand. 

What do you mean, removing the interpretive part?

And yet they only improve at interpretation if I explicitly tell them what I've done (and even then they'll still screw it up some of the time).

That's because, to use an analogy, you show up in skates at a basketball game. By insisting on using a set of rules different than everyone else, you add to the confusion, not reduce it.

But if I don't include that interpretive content, then I know I haven't included it poorly, and I know that I'm not trying to convey information in a way I can't defend.  Plus, it tends to produce the behaviour I want (the other people driving the conversation).

I think I see what you're driving at. You consider anything that is beyond the denotative meaning interpretation. The problem, is lacking any note and attempting to convey only denotative meaning is interpretation. You are asking the other party to make inferences based on that.

More to the point, letting other people drive the conversation is what leads to more misundertands. As I understand you, what you do is try to remove as much emotion or non-word indicators from a sentence as possible, then provide no feedback to the other person up to a point where you feel they are misunderstanding you, at which point you correct them (or don't, since you've actually mentioned that you rarely correct misunderstandings).

Are you actually surprised that you are often misunderstood? 

Conversation is something that is interactive and that you have to drive at some point, otherwise you are effectively letting the person go on without any feedback, accumulating misundertanding and errors, until the whole process cascades and the other person just fees confused that you've led the on for the entire duration of your talk.

You've mentioned before that you don't like an unvoiced PC because it makes you feel like a passive participant in the conversation.  But I want to feel like a passive participant in the conversation.  Those are the conversations in which I am most comfortable.

I don't like an unvoiced PC because it forces you to be passive. I don't have an issue with the option to be passive - it is just that I do not want it forced on me, as I suppose you do not want to be forced to be active.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

You're forcing an interpretation of language on them centered around denotative meaning.

But they're guaranteed to have that denotative meaning as long as we all speak the same language.

What do you mean, removing the interpretive part?

That turn of phrase will make more sense to you once you're in law school (you're studying for law school, right?).  Interpretive clauses in laws are passages with no clear meaning, but aren't just extraneous.  A famous example in Canadian history was an effort to add to the constitution the recognition of Quebec as a "distinct society" without any explanation of what that meant or would entail.

Anyway, you seem to figure it out down below.

That's because, to use an analogy, you show up in skates at a basketball game. By insisting on using a set of rules different than everyone else, you add to the confusion, not reduce it.

I'd use their rules if they'd make them explicit.  Until they do (and so far they don't appear able to do so) I'm not convinced that set of rules exists.

I think I see what you're driving at. You consider anything that is beyond the denotative meaning interpretation. The problem, is lacking any note and attempting to convey only denotative meaning is interpretation. You are asking the other party to make inferences based on that.

No.  I'm not asking them to make inferences.  I'm not even asking them not to make inferences.  Whether they make inferences is up to them.

More to the point, letting other people drive the conversation is what leads to more misundertands. As I understand you, what you do is try to remove as much emotion or non-word indicators from a sentence as possible, then provide no feedback to the other person up to a point where you feel they are misunderstanding you, at which point you correct them (or don't, since you've actually mentioned that you rarely correct misunderstandings).

Are you actually surprised that you are often misunderstood? 

Not at all.  I'm surprised other people aren't.

We're all separate individuals.  We all have our own thought processes and ways of thinking about things.  How do we ever communicate?

Conversation is something that is interactive and that you have to drive at some point, otherwise you are effectively letting the person go on without any feedback, accumulating misundertanding and errors, until the whole process cascades and the other person just fees confused that you've led the on for the entire duration of your talk.

That's a remarkably accurate description of my conversations.

I don't like an unvoiced PC because it forces you to be passive. I don't have an issue with the option to be passive - it is just that I do not want it forced on me, as I suppose you do not want to be forced to be active.

Yes, exactly.  And ME did that incessantly.

[AmstradHero]

I know I said I was out, but I've read the thread, and I've come to the conclusion that I can't argue with you, Sylvius. Not because you're right, but because what you want is something extremely specific, and you want conversations to play out exactly in a way that suits your conversational style. Basically, there's no point in arguing with you because you want your way and seemingly won't accept anything else as a valid conversation option. I would hate to be forced to use your preferred conversational style in an RPG because I don't want to be passive in an RPG. I want to have choice and make decisions, not debate over the nuance of tone.

A voiced or non-voiced character does not make you more active or passive unless you specifically wish to be passive and communicate solely through tone and emotional content. Perhaps Alpha Protocol, which communicates almost entirely through its choice of emotion would be more up your alley? (Though probably not, because you have to be "active" in it)

I would argue that even a non-voiced protagonist does not have complete control over the "tone" the use for any given line, you can't say an "evil" line with benevolence or a good line with sheer malice unless you've got a really bizarre character concept... in which case I really think you should be playing a pen & paper RPG rather than a CRPG because you're unlikely to be able to map that character satisfactorily to any modern RPG... maybe a gold box game where you fill in the completely blank slate of each of your characters would be more suitable?

I also disagree that not knowing the exact words Shepard would say in ME means I had a weak character concept for him/her, and regardless, I know a couple of times I practically said a line in tandem with Shepard (and a couple of other characters in ME2).  Normally they were the more emphatic decisions that were more cliches or exclamations than full blown lines, but it still happened.  As for interrupts... let's see, I knew Shepard was going to heal the wounded Salarian in the Dantius towers, I knew Shepard was going to blow away the ranting Krogan in the Tuchanka medical facility, I knew Shepard was going to hug Tali... I could go on, but I think you get the point.

To be completely honest, I'm staggered that you've actually ever enjoyed RPGs given how you've said you would prefer dialogue to be constructed.  I'm sorry, and I don't mean to be rude, but I really hope that RPGs don't start catering to your tastes when it comes to dialogue. I don't think it would make for interesting dialogue, and I definitely don't think it would make the player feel empowered.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 25 août 2010 - 09:55 .

[Yrkoon]

David Gaider wrote...

the-expatriate wrote...
Whoever it is will have to be veeery multi-talented, and the pressure would be very high.

They are indeed. It wasn't easy to cast, as we required someone who could do all three tones convincingly without sounding like a completely different person each time. When people find out who the male PC is, I'm going to laugh-- he was in Origins, but his character wasn't very popular. Regardless, he has a wonderful voice and is quite capable.

Dog?   Just kidding.

My guess: Seargent Kylon.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AmstradHero wrote...

I really hope that RPGs don't start catering to your tastes when it comes to dialogue.

Not start.  Resume.

My playstyle was built in older games.

[Stronghand]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Not start.  Resume.

My playstyle was built in older games.

Sylvius, am I right in my understanding that if the game didn't have a voiced protagonist you wouldn't want the tone of voice thing in at all, but since it is, you like it since it gives you more control over the PC?

Aside from that I think I agree with Sylvius, if the options are already there why not let us choose from all of them? Ah well, maybe next game. At least this seems better than the ME-wheel.
Also, I seem to recall a similar discussion on the old DA-board a year or so ago, back when DAO wasn't even out, funny that.

[Niten Ryu]

I'm not too bothered with the change. My characters usually are polite goodie two shoes, annoying bastard and ultra agressive chaotic stupid personality. VO options should suit all my characters just fine.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Stronghand wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Not start.  Resume.

My playstyle was built in older games.

Sylvius, am I right in my understanding that if the game didn't have a voiced protagonist you wouldn't want the tone of voice thing in at all, but since it is, you like it since it gives you more control over the PC?

Right.  But since DA2 does have a voiced protagonist, my preference for how to implement an unvoiced protagonist is immaterial (unless we can somehow turn off the voice, which is something for which I will continue asking).

if the options are already there why not let us choose from all of them?

Yes, this is the question I'm asking with regard to DA2.

[Hollingdale]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

I really hope that RPGs don't start catering to your tastes when it comes to dialogue.

Not start.  Resume.

My playstyle was built in older games.

lololol Chronological Snobbery is at the heart of all your arguments.

Modifié par Hollingdale, 25 août 2010 - 09:59 .

[Amyntas]

Does it mean I can't act like this anymore? ;-)

Modifié par Amyntas, 26 août 2010 - 07:06 .

[Wulfram]

When I end up picking a consistent "tone" throughout the game, I usually feel my character hasn't developed much of a personality.

[Wishpig]

This is ****ing fantastic. My #1 problem with Mass Effect's system. If you played as a renegade, he had a tone about him that doesn't carry over with non-renegade options.

[Collider]

Wulfram wrote...

When I end up picking a consistent "tone" throughout the game, I usually feel my character hasn't developed much of a personality.

It's really up to the player on how much to diversify the character's personality within the frame they are given.

[Riona45]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

I really hope that RPGs don't start catering to your tastes when it comes to dialogue.

Not start.  Resume.

My playstyle was built in older games.

I take it you'd prefer the PC to be an AFGNCAAP?