1279 réponses à ce sujet

[Sidney]

Vaeliorin wrote...


Honestly, I feel that the dialogue wheel and voiced protagonist just strip away far too many options.  Though I've played ME numerous times, I had an interesting idea for a character the other day, but it was just impossible to play the character I wanted simply because of all the voice over.  I wanted to play a character with strong nationalistic tendencies who generally rejected the concept of the Alliance, but had joined anyway in an attempt to subvert members and/or steal secrets from the Alliance. 

That's all good and well but the voice has nothing to do with that. Replace Alliance with Warden and you can't do that in DAO unless they give you dialog options for it - short of the I just imagine anything I want silliness - so that isn't the problem.  I might want to play an anarchist who gives 2 rips about the problems of Ferelden and the oppressive monarchy and the Wardens and their sick rituals and just wants to tell them all to stuff a sock in and flee to Tevinter it but that option doesn't exist for me in the game so I can't do it. In BG@ I could just blow off the Imoen quest and say "Let the annoying twit die". Voicing has nothing to do with those limits on what I can or can't do. In DAO or ME you are a hero and all you really control are the shades of that hero. That's just where we are with technology right now and people seem to not get that.

[Wyndham711]

the_one_54321 wrote...

What about Link from The Legend of Zelda, for instance? The only aspects of that character that are defined are Heroic, Warior, Hylian. Everything else you can imagine however you wish. Do you think that makes TLoZ an RPG?

No. The game has no reactivity to any personality I would create for him. Or means for expressing it.

[the_one_54321]

Ok, well then what about some of the really old CRPGs? They didn't have that either.

[AlanC9]

Wyndham711 wrote...
The game offering situations where the player gets to express said personality, or at the very least avoiding to inhibit the existence of such a personality within the game (even if the game's ability to react to the created personality is very limited), is one of the cornerstones of an RPG that supports this roleplaying tradition. I see this as the defining aspect of RPGs.
If everything is made explicit through a very cinematic approach, the player's freedom is at the very least severely limited in this respect.

But conversely, the player's freedom to actually have his personality matter in game can be enhanced. It's roughly parallel to the different kinds of freedom in stereotypical Bioware and stereotypical Bethesda games. You're free to do more stuff in Bethesda games because none of it matters.

[John Epler]

We have left the beaten path of DA2 discussion and wandered off into the wilds of 'things related to RPGs in a general way'. While I always support reasonable and intelligent debate, we do need to keep things related to DA2 in a slightly more substantial way than this thread currently is.

[the_one_54321]

Ok, does the fact that Hawke is human and voiced take away your ability to meaningfully express his/her personality?

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

The people who wrote the story are not allowed to decide what is true in the story?

They're allowed to do that by writing that into the story, sure.

But if they don't, then they didn't include it within the story.  The story doesn't contain those details the writers didn't include in the story.

All those details about the Qunari that David and Mary have revealed in threads here - that's great stuff to read, but it's not necessarily true within a playthrough of DAO.  Because that content doesn't exist within DAO.

Your position is the one that makes no sense.  You're saying that if I write a book, and never within the book explain why someone does does something, I can magically add that content to the book even though the actual content of the book hasn't changed.  Really?

If the BioWare writers hadn't said they intended a spedific tone with the lines, would your opinion of the game's content change?  Why?  The game's content would be exactly the same.  When determining what's in the game, LOOK AT THE GAME.  Nothing else matters because nothing else makes any difference to the game's content.

You say that you can imagine whatever you want and throw out what the writiers say happens in the story? Well, now you can't. Because having wrote the story, they own the story and now they've exerted that authority over your interaction with the story by putting a voice in it and stoping you from imagining different tones. The writiers definitive interpretation has just been demonstrated for you.

The writers' definitive interpretation is now extant within the game.  That's what I'm complaining about.  Before it wasn't there.  Now it is.

[tmp7704]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

You're saying that if I write a book, and never within the book explain why someone does does something, I can magically add that content to the book even though the actual content of the book hasn't changed.  Really?

Well, if you write a book then one would at least hope that as you write it, you have clear idea of why the characters do things they do in it, in your mind. Whether you record that thought process down on paper as part of the book itself is optional, but the lack of such record doesn't cancel the existence of this content which doesn't get recorded. It just isn't something that gets revealed to the readers at the time the book is being written. And there's nothing magical about it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

tmp7704 wrote...

Well, if you write a book then one would at least hope that as you write it, you have clear idea of why the characters do things they do in it, in your mind. Whether you record that thought process down on paper as part of the book itself is optional, but the lack of such record doesn't cancel the existence of this content which doesn't get recorded.

It does prevent that ontent from being in the book, though, which is what I'm asking.

the_one seems to think that something that isn't in the game is somehow in the game if the writers say it is.  Even though he agrees it isn't in the game.  He's directly contradicting himself.

[tmp7704]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

It does prevent that ontent from being in the book, though, which is what I'm asking.

the_one seems to think that something that isn't in the game is somehow in the game if the writers say it is.  Even though he agrees it isn't in the game.  He's directly contradicting himself.

This is getting rather abstract, but would you argue for the alternative -- that if something isn't explicitly stated in the game, it doesn't exist in the game? Because that can easily lead to absurds like concluding that most characters in the game act without any reason at all, since their motivations are rarely explained.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
The people who wrote the story are not allowed to decide what is true in the story?

They're allowed to do that by writing that into the story, sure.

But if they don't, then they didn't include it within the story.  The story doesn't contain those details the writers didn't include in the story.

All those details about the Qunari that David and Mary have revealed in threads here - that's great stuff to read, but it's not necessarily true within a playthrough of DAO.  Because that content doesn't exist within DAO.

Your position is the one that makes no sense.  You're saying that if I write a book, and never within the book explain why someone does does something, I can magically add that content to the book even though the actual content of the book hasn't changed.  Really?

If the BioWare writers hadn't said they intended a spedific tone with the lines, would your opinion of the game's content change?  Why?  The game's content would be exactly the same.  When determining what's in the game, LOOK AT THE GAME.  Nothing else matters because nothing else makes any difference to the game's content.

You say that you can imagine whatever you want and throw out what the writiers say happens in the story? Well, now you can't. Because having wrote the story, they own the story and now they've exerted that authority over your interaction with the story by putting a voice in it and stoping you from imagining different tones. The writiers definitive interpretation has just been demonstrated for you.

The writers' definitive interpretation is now extant within the game.  That's what I'm complaining about.  Before it wasn't there.  Now it is.

What you're arguing is completely absurd. It's laughable.

The main problem here? Your argument is wearing blinders. It's like a horse with blinders on that can only see the road ahead of it and nothing else. And then it is claimin that all that exists is the road just because it cannot see anything except the road. That is precisely what your argument is. "I am wearing blinders, therefore nothing exists except the road." 

The fact that you want to keep the blinders on because it gives you freedom to imagine everything you can't see? That's fine. I have no issue with that. The fact that you are literally claiming that nothing exists where the blinders block your vision? That is a load of bull.

Adding examples.

In a book you can be given only what happens right then and there and have the background information filled in through other writings or in apendecies that are not less canon than the book itself.
In video games manuals and other source materials often give you more information on the rest of the world that is not included in the game itself. DA provides another excellent specific example. The map of Thedas is never shown to you in DA:O. But Thedas is as the map shows it to be, as will be shown in part in the next game.
Movies often will leave somethings unknown only to have the information filled in later when sequels are made. If you didn't know something in the first movie that doesn't make it not true if the second movie fills in the gaps.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 05 octobre 2010 - 07:31 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

The main problem here? Your argument is wearing blinders. It's like a horse with blinders on that can only see the road ahead of it and nothing else. And then it is claimin that all that exists is the road just because it cannot see anything except the road. That is precisely what your argument is. "I am wearing blinders, therefore nothing exists except the road." 

That's not it at all.  i'm not saying "I can't see it, therefore it's not there."  I'm saying "I can't see it, therefore I can't see it."

With the horse, if he were to turn his head and look to the side he would see the rest of the world.

So, in DAO, show me this content that you claim exists but I can't see.  Point me to it.

Can you?  No.  Because it's not there.

It's not there, because it's not there.  There's nothing more complicated than that to my position.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 05 octobre 2010 - 08:23 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

tmp7704 wrote...

This is getting rather abstract, but would you argue for the alternative -- that if something isn't explicitly stated in the game, it doesn't exist in the game?

No, I'm saying that if it isn't explicitly stated in the game then it isn't necessarily true in the game.

Only explicit content is necessarily true.

So when the NPCs react to the Warden's line, that reaction is explicit content.  There's no changing that intitial reaction.  But to what did the NPC react?  That content isn't explicit, so no description of that event is necessarily true.

[JrayM16]

This has gone so far off the rails...

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
So, in DAO, show me this content that you claim exists but I can't see.  Point me to it.

Can you?  No.  Because it's not there.

It is there. You're just refusing to acknowledge it because it would be inconvenient for you to do so. You make an arbitrary distinction to server your own argumentative purposes. You are the horse with the blinders and you could turn your head to the right or the left but you refuse to do so. You say "yes, there are things to the right and the left, but I don't want to acknowledge them as part of the world, so I will not turn my head. I define the world as being the road and the rest is dismissable until someone actually forces me to look at it against my will." 

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
It's not there, because it's not there.  There's nothing more complicated than that to my position.

And right there is a specific example of what I'm talking about. You are staring at the road, refusing to turn you head to see what's on the right or left and repeating "it's not there because it's not there."

And all that is just inside your own head. Which, again, is fine. But the fact that you refuse to accept that the things not inside your own do exist is facepalm worthy.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 05 octobre 2010 - 08:34 .

[JrayM16]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

This is getting rather abstract, but would you argue for the alternative -- that if something isn't explicitly stated in the game, it doesn't exist in the game?

No, I'm saying that if it isn't explicitly stated in the game then it isn't necessarily true in the game.

Only explicit content is necessarily true.

So when the NPCs react to the Warden's line, that reaction is explicit content.  There's no changing that intitial reaction.  But to what did the NPC react?  That content isn't explicit, so no description of that event is necessarily true.

But that's not entirely true. 

We have two contextual clues in DA:O dialogue to infer what exactly was said.  One is the NPC's reaction, the other is the dialogue choice we selected. 

Both together provide enough information to adequately determine what was said.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
So when the NPCs react to the Warden's line, that reaction is explicit content.  There's no changing that intitial reaction.  But to what did the NPC react?  That content isn't explicit, so no description of that event is necessarily true.

Your adherence to literalism is practically neurotic in scale. And the result is that you're making ludicrous obviously false claims about something you have no authority over.
To the point that you apply literalist concepts to things which have no basis in literal interpretation.

Like the example of the painting. It's just paint on canvas, huh? Just oils and colored minerals spread on a canvas? Who the hell do you think you are to believe you can tell an artist whaty s/he did or did not paint? What makes you think you have that authority? What makes you think that you can tell a story writer what is or isn't the story that came out of his/her own mind? You're playing in a world that they created. Just because they allowed you to make up the character in that world doesn't make it any less their property and their creation to which they gave their definition.

And that is the big distinction here, the line drawn in the sand. You refuse to acknowledge what is inconvenient for you unless it is specifically placed within the object your attention is focussed on. And that's why the analogy with the horse and blinders in apt. If it's not in your focus, it doesn't matter. It isn't real to you because you haven't given it your attention. You'll even ignore examples that show exactly the opposite of what you claim. I gave you several, which you ignored. The most frustrating aspect of this argument you've made is the fact that things have been put before you that show explicitly "hey, what you're saying isn't right." To which you cover your eyes and "nope, cant' see it, can't here you, lalalalalalalalalla not listening!"

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
So, in DAO, show me this content that you claim exists but I can't see.  Point me to it.

Can you?  No.  Because it's not there.

It is there.

Where?  Show it to me.  Show me where in the game this content appears.

You can't.  Because it's not there.  If it were there you could end this argument right now by pointing it out.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
So, in DAO, show me this content that you claim exists but I can't see.  Point me to it.

Can you?  No.  Because it's not there.

It is there.

Where?  Show it to me.  Show me where in the game this content appears.

You can't.  Because it's not there.  If it were there you could end this argument right now by pointing it out.

Why bother? You'll pretend it isn't valid.
For one, you can find direct clues in the dialog responses that dictate specifics of what the PC says and does. But you act like they don't happen simply because the PC doesn't speak with an audible voice.
For another, being literally inside the game play is not what defines the world the game takes place in but you'll reject that as being inconvenient to your definitions and conveniently outside your absolute insistance on literalist interpretation.
Oh, and that despite the fact that other media, other video games and even DA itself have shown specific examples of how that literalist interpretation is invalid.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 05 octobre 2010 - 08:57 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

JrayM16 wrote...

But that's not entirely true. 

We have two contextual clues in DA:O dialogue to infer what exactly was said.  One is the NPC's reaction, the other is the dialogue choice we selected. 

Both together provide enough information to adequately determine what was said.

The reaction can't do that because it's not available when the selection is being made.

We choose the dialogue option we want our character to use.  Do you accept this?  If not, then you're basically saying we're not playing the character.  But if so, then how do we determine which option we want?  Can we use the literal content of the line?  Yes, because it's available to us.  But the reaction isn't yet, so how can that be where the meaning resides?

[the_one_54321]

IN A CRPG YOU CANNOT CONTROL THE PC 100%. EVER.



It's not possible to design a game where you can, unless it's multiplayer with another actual person on the other side.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Like the example of the painting. It's just paint on canvas, huh? Just oils and colored minerals spread on a canvas? Who the hell do you think you are to believe you can tell an artist whaty s/he did or did not paint?

Someone who can see the result, and perhaps run some chemical analysis.

What makes you think you have that authority?

What's true isn't dictated by those with authority.

What makes you think that you can tell a story writer what is or isn't the story that came out of his/her own mind?

That I can read makes me a person who can do that.

the_one_54321 wrote...

Why bother? You'll pretend it isn't valid.

Nice dodge.

Let the record show that you didn't make any effort to justify your position.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

IN A CRPG YOU CANNOT CONTROL THE PC 100%. EVER.

And how is what you just did there (telling me what I do when playing my character) different from me telling a painter what he did or didn't paint?

[TheMufflon]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

We choose the dialogue option we want our character to use.  Do you accept this?  If not, then you're basically saying we're not playing the character.  But if so, then how do we determine which option we want?  Can we use the literal content of the line?  Yes, because it's available to us.  But the reaction isn't yet, so how can that be where the meaning resides?

Then the same would be true of a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure book.

Which is why a CRPG is only an RPG in the same as such a book.

Modifié par TheMufflon, 05 octobre 2010 - 09:10 .

[JrayM16]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...

But that's not entirely true. 

We have two contextual clues in DA:O dialogue to infer what exactly was said.  One is the NPC's reaction, the other is the dialogue choice we selected. 

Both together provide enough information to adequately determine what was said.

The reaction can't do that because it's not available when the selection is being made.

We choose the dialogue option we want our character to use.  Do you accept this?  If not, then you're basically saying we're not playing the character.  But if so, then how do we determine which option we want?  Can we use the literal content of the line?  Yes, because it's available to us.  But the reaction isn't yet, so how can that be where the meaning resides?

The point I was trying to make is that the reaction provides enough information to prove that there is a predetermined statement.  I won't contest that it's not available to the player and therefore the picture is not complete beforehand. 

But we're forgetting the context of the conversation as it occurrs before a choice pops up, which often tell us everything we need to know about a statement.