1279 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Because I have had the freedom to imagine within the game, the game is constructed as I have imagined it.

I'd change the second part to read "the game can be constructed as I imagine it".

I'd argue that the loss of that ability to construct the game as you imagine it is relatively trivial given the nature of the responses of the NPCs and that the decrease in freedom is inconsequential, especially in regard to the majority of the playerbase.
Furthermore, I'd make the the case that it is debatable that it really is possible to construct the game as you have imagined it except once again within the confines of your own imagination since the developers already had a different construction in mind as they were constructing it.

In other words, I argue that the creators interpretation is definitive.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 04 octobre 2010 - 10:32 .

[JrayM16]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...

How is it actually roleplaying if I have to do it outside the game?

Because it maintains the coherence of your character.

What do you think roleplaying is?

That's like if I say something to a friend that upsets them, but somehow can't say anything apologetic or to clarify that I meant something else, and instead would just say it later to myself and call that good enough.

Except there the friend doesn't know you've done it.

But that's the point I'm trying to make.  Now it's my turn to say you just don't get what I'm saying. 

While I agree it maintains the coherence of the character in the mind, the role that I'm playing would call for a clarification.  For instance, I'm the kind of person who would always try to ecplain what I was trying to say if I had upset a friend.  If I can't do that, then I'm not fulfilling my role.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I'd argue that the loss of that ability to construct the game as you imagine it is relatively trivial given the nature of the responses of the NPCs and that the decrease in freedom is inconsequential, especially in regard to the majority of the playerbase.

If the point of the game is to roleplay a character, then this ability is a vital part of the game's core feature.

Furthermore, I'd make the the case that it is debatable that it really is possible to construct the game as you have imagined it except once again within the confines of your own imagination since the developers already had a different construction in mind as they were constructing it.

In other words, I argue that the creators interpretation is definitive.

I know you do.

I want to know why you think that what the developers think is true determines what is actually true.

[Sylvius the Mad]

JrayM16 wrote...

But that's the point I'm trying to make.  Now it's my turn to say you just don't get what I'm saying. 

While I agree it maintains the coherence of the character in the mind, the role that I'm playing would call for a clarification.  For instance, I'm the kind of person who would always try to ecplain what I was trying to say if I had upset a friend.  If I can't do that, then I'm not fulfilling my role.

Again, I don't see why this can't happen off-screen (like eating and sleeping do - and travelling - we do have precedence for some party activities occurring off-screen).

The NPC's initial reaction still happened, but whether you dealt with it after the fact is left up to you. 

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I want to know why you think that what the developers think is true determines what is actually true.

Because they created it.
If an artist draws a picture that is a slightly ambiguous four legged creature and the artist says "that is a cat," then it is a picutre of a cat regardless of whether or not you think it looks more like a dog.

[Meltemph]

What you are describing, almost sounds like a form of self induced psychosis...

[JrayM16]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...

But that's the point I'm trying to make.  Now it's my turn to say you just don't get what I'm saying. 

While I agree it maintains the coherence of the character in the mind, the role that I'm playing would call for a clarification.  For instance, I'm the kind of person who would always try to ecplain what I was trying to say if I had upset a friend.  If I can't do that, then I'm not fulfilling my role.

Again, I don't see why this can't happen off-screen (like eating and sleeping do - and travelling - we do have precedence for some party activities occurring off-screen).

The NPC's initial reaction still happened, but whether you dealt with it after the fact is left up to you. 

DA:O even has a system which disproves your point in a sense.  Approval.  If I do something that loses someone else's approval, that approval is gone, and I can't imagine it back.  I have to do something independent of the situation in which I lost approval to get it back.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
I'd argue that the loss of that ability to construct the game as you imagine it is relatively trivial given the nature of the responses of the NPCs and that the decrease in freedom is inconsequential, especially in regard to the majority of the playerbase.

If the point of the game is to roleplay a character, then this ability is a vital part of the game's core feature.

For Sylvius's role play, yes. For the majority (read: nearly all) of other players role play, ranges from no to hell no.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Because they created it.
If an artist draws a picture that is a slightly ambiguous four legged creature and the artist says "that is a cat," then it is a picutre of a cat regardless of whether or not you think it looks more like a dog.

It would remain, as it always was, an ambiguous four legged creature.

[JrayM16]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Because they created it.
If an artist draws a picture that is a slightly ambiguous four legged creature and the artist says "that is a cat," then it is a picutre of a cat regardless of whether or not you think it looks more like a dog.

It would remain, as it always was, an ambiguous four legged creature.

So therefore everything is as it appears in the game.  Done.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Because they created it.
If an artist draws a picture that is a slightly ambiguous four legged creature and the artist says "that is a cat," then it is a picutre of a cat regardless of whether or not you think it looks more like a dog.

It would remain, as it always was, an ambiguous four legged creature.

Only as the actual paint on canvas. But the artist painted a picture of a cat. How proficient or stylized that end result was changes the actual paint on canvas, but not that the artis painted a picture of a cat.

[Sylvius the Mad]

JrayM16 wrote...

DA:O even has a system which disproves your point in a sense.  Approval.  If I do something that loses someone else's approval, that approval is gone, and I can't imagine it back.  I have to do something independent of the situation in which I lost approval to get it back.

I wish people behaved that rationally, but they don't.

If there's a misunderstanding that causes anger and animosity, that's bad.  But if you then explain to the other person that it was a misunderstanding, and that nothing warrating anger and animosity actually occurred, what happens?  Do those emotions suddenly just vanish?

No they don't.  It's crazy, but that's how emotions seem to work.  I think the approval system is wonderfully realistic in this regard.

[the_one_54321]

JrayM16 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Because they created it.
If an artist draws a picture that is a slightly ambiguous four legged creature and the artist says "that is a cat," then it is a picutre of a cat regardless of whether or not you think it looks more like a dog.

It would remain, as it always was, an ambiguous four legged creature.

So therefore everything is as it appears in the game.  Done.

Also this.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Only as the actual paint on canvas. But the artist painted a picture of a cat. How proficient or stylized that end result was changes the actual paint on canvas, but not that the artis painted a picture of a cat.

Absolutely.  He tried to create a representation of a cat.  He thinks he did so successfully.

But what's actually on the canvas?  Paint.  In the shape of an ambigous four-legged creature.

[Meltemph]

If there's a misunderstanding that causes anger and animosity, that's bad. But if you then explain to the other person that it was a misunderstanding, and that nothing warrating anger and animosity actually occurred, what happens?

If they are reasonable? Then that misunderstanding is rectified and there no longer is a problem.

[Meltemph]

But what's actually on the canvas? Paint. In the shape of an ambigous four-legged creature.

So things are up to interpretation(Dialog that a character responds to) but the painting is not?

Modifié par Meltemph, 04 octobre 2010 - 10:54 .

[JrayM16]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...

DA:O even has a system which disproves your point in a sense.  Approval.  If I do something that loses someone else's approval, that approval is gone, and I can't imagine it back.  I have to do something independent of the situation in which I lost approval to get it back.

I wish people behaved that rationally, but they don't.

If there's a misunderstanding that causes anger and animosity, that's bad.  But if you then explain to the other person that it was a misunderstanding, and that nothing warrating anger and animosity actually occurred, what happens?  Do those emotions suddenly just vanish?

No they don't.  It's crazy, but that's how emotions seem to work.  I think the approval system is wonderfully realistic in this regard.

But that doesn't work in the context of what we were talking about, which is abstraction and misinterpretation.  If I say something by misspeaking that angers someone, if I then properly explain my error and they realize that it was just a silly mistake, then we move on.

[Sylvius the Mad]

JrayM16 wrote...

So therefore everything is as it appears in the game.

Sure.

What counts as "in the game"?  Are the targetting reticles in the game?  If so, why do the NPCs not react to them when they apepar on the ground?

[Meltemph]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...

So therefore everything is as it appears in the game.

Sure.

What counts as "in the game"?  Are the targetting reticles in the game?  If so, why do the NPCs not react to them when they apepar on the ground?

Because the developers choose what the characters react to.

[JrayM16]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...

So therefore everything is as it appears in the game.

Sure.

What counts as "in the game"?  Are the targetting reticles in the game?  If so, why do the NPCs not react to them when they apepar on the ground?

The fourth wall. 

I am playing a role, and the various extremeities of the game are outside the game's reality, as tools helping me to effectively play that role.

[TheMufflon]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Sure.

What counts as "in the game"?  Are the targetting reticles in the game?  If so, why do the NPCs not react to them when they apepar on the ground?

Are you saying that the something is only part of the game if the NPCs react to it?

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Still wondering why people think its ok to try and dictate how to view and more importantly play an RPG. If Sylvius wants to use his imagination to better play out his characters and he has fun doing that, what's the problem? I much do the same thing.

[JrayM16]

We've gone so far off the rails into esoteric wasteland at this point...

[Sylvius the Mad]

JrayM16 wrote...

I am playing a role, and the various extremeities of the game are outside the game's reality, as tools helping me to effectively play that role.

Just like the dialogue options.  They exist outside the game's reality.

[Sylvius the Mad]

TheMufflon wrote...

Are you saying that the something is only part of the game if the NPCs react to it?

No.  I am saying nothing of the sort.

But nice try.