735 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

the_one_54321 wrote...
And that is why this is the perfect analogy. (though AngryPants didn't even realize he was making a perfect analogy while he was making it) The cat is the writing. The cat is explicitly known to be there, it just isn't information that is part of opening the box itself. But we don't know how the writing will turn out until we choose the dialog options. We don't know if the cat is dead or alive until we open the box. But the cat is explicitly known to be inside the box. The writing exists despite having not been read yet.

Ah, brilliant distinction.  I see what you're saying and get why it's a much better metaphor than I first imagined when I used it.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 octobre 2010 - 07:30 .

[Meltemph]

I think part of that may be, when it comes to meals there's usually less discussion involved whether a fly in the soup is just a bug or actually an innovative and intended feature.

Really not seeing how that simile apply's to designing a game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]Upsettingshorts wrote...

Of course I play single player CRPGs like a game because thats what they are.[/quote]
You view them as somehow different in kind from multi-player RPGs?

I think the whole point of CRPGs is to reproduce tabletop RPGs without the need for other people.  The roleplaying aspect is identical (in fact, it's often better, as you don't have to rely on quality roleplaying from the other players - a single-player CRPG generally offers a more consistent performance from the other characters),
[quote]In my view, you're treating them not just as something they aren't, but as something they never were and are incapable of being. [quote]
That I've been playing them that way for decades suggests they are capable of being that.

[Lyssistr]

Anarya wrote...

It's kind of more like a regular live cat in a box that Sylvius has written "Schroedinger's Cat" on the side of. Because the information is actually there whether you are aware of it or not.

Soon this thread is going to be about non-local hidden variable models in quantum mechanics, multiverse and if god plays dice. 

[the_one_54321]

A summary of my reactions:

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That's a terrific analogy.

:O

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The cat is both in the box and not until we check.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
As long as we don't check (and we can't on the first playthrough, and on subsequent playthroughs we can choose not to), then the cat's absence from the box remains possibly true.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And if the cat is possibly not in the box, then our behaviour based on the cat's absence can't be directly contradicted.

*headesk*

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

You're pretending that cause and effect does not exist and that's absurd. The reaction is not the tone itself but the reaction is a function of the tone. Getting to the tone from the reaction is similar to using an antifunction. The concept is well grounded in logical application.

The reaction can only be a function of the tone if there's a necessary and consistent connection between the two.  That's not how conversations work.

And regardless, my way still provides greater roleplaying freedom.  My character gets to be whomever I would like him to be, regardless of what the writers might have intended.

[TheBlackBaron]

the_one_54321 wrote...

A summary of my reactions:

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That's a terrific analogy.

:O

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The cat is both in the box and not until we check.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
As long as we don't check (and we can't on the first playthrough, and on subsequent playthroughs we can choose not to), then the cat's absence from the box remains possibly true.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And if the cat is possibly not in the box, then our behaviour based on the cat's absence can't be directly contradicted.

*headesk*

We've officially crossed over into a cRPG's being comparable to high-level physics. Rocket science, if you will.

[tmp7704]

Meltemph wrote...

Really not seeing how that simile apply's to designing a game.

Granted, this one tends to pop up more often on the MMO-related boards. Here it seems more like "why are you replacing pepper with onions, i liked the pepper".

[Lyssistr]

Meltemph wrote...

I guess my idea on feedback and telling people how to make a game(from a design perspective) is different. I guess I don't look at it so intently on how I think a developer should be making the game I wana buy. Either I like the product and I'll buy it, or it isn't what I'm looking for and I won't. Sure I'll give customer feedback and what not, but I'm not going to argue the philosophy of a design choice with a developer/producer.

When it comes to entertainment there are so many creative and artistic viewpoints that assuming one gets taken over the other seems a bit far fetched to me. Now, features in a game, ya I can see, but telling a producer where the design philosophy of a product, they are making should go, as a customer, just seems... presumptuous to me.

 You can always tell what affects the gameplay experience, if you'll be listened is a different story altogether. If not and it's something that matters to you, you won't give away your money for the product.

[Meltemph]

You can always tell what affects the gameplay experience

Yes, but if you follow that line of thought to its completion, that would technically mean I have a leg to stand on when I yell at Bungie for not having enough RPG in my FPS. I mean, after a certain point, I'm telling them to make a different game.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
You're pretending that cause and effect does not exist and that's absurd. The reaction is not the tone itself but the reaction is a function of the tone. Getting to the tone from the reaction is similar to using an antifunction. The concept is well grounded in logical application.

The reaction can only be a function of the tone if there's a necessary and consistent connection between the two.  That's not how conversations work.

And regardless, my way still provides greater roleplaying freedom.  My character gets to be whomever I would like him to be, regardless of what the writers might have intended.

It is not a conversation. It is a function. Input variable, get appropriate output.
f(a)=b, f©=d, f(e)=f
That's how it works. Literally. And you're chosing to ignore this, then saying that by ignoring it you render it non-existent. It doesn't work that way. While you are free to imgaine whatever you wish about it, and interpret things however you want, the function still exists. The writing still exists. The method by which options are choses and reactions are created still exists. You can't make it not exist no matter how inconvenient that is for you.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

*facepalm*
No. The cat is in the box.

Why are you so sure?  You can't tell without looking inside.  The superposition of the cat's presence (and even its existence) works exactly the same way as the cat's life and death.

That Schrödinger spoke only about the cat's life and death has no relation to the other possible states.  He was simplifiying the thought experiment to make a point.  This isn't unlike Gregor Mendel faking his pea genetics results to illustrate a specific principle of heredity.

Things can't be necessarily true unless we do demonstrate that they are necessarily true.  Not just that we can demonstrate it, but that we do.  That's how necessary truth works.

The cat is the writing. The cat is explicitly known to be there, it just isn't information that is part of opening the box itself. But we don't know how the writing will turn out until we choose the dialog options. We don't know if the cat is dead or alive until we open the box. But the cat is explicityly known to be inside the box. The writing exists despite having not been read yet.

Your way only works if we accept your asserton that the PC's tone is contained within the writing.

If we don't accept that, the analogy ceases to be informative.  Because we do know the writing's contents (the words), and the thing we don't know (the NPC reaction) is something over which we would never credibly have control anyway.

Remember, I don't believe in communication.  I don't think you have any control over how people interpret what you say.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You view them as somehow different in kind from multi-player RPGs?

Well, the counterexample I would bring up would be say, NWN multiplayer with a gamemaster that is capable of manipulating events and characters on the fly.  But since I never played that game multiplayer I was trying to avoid having to bring it up, because my knowledge of how it specifically works is limited at best.

Basically, CRPGs with written storylines is the line I was trying to draw.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I think the whole point of CRPGs is to reproduce tabletop RPGs without the need for other people.  The roleplaying aspect is identical

I think the whole point of CRPGs used to be to reproduce tabletop RPGs, and in trying to accomplish that copied many of its conventions such as but not limited to D&D rules.  However, just as early films attempted to emulate stage plays, eventually the creative people in charge became accustomed to the strengths and weaknesses of the new medium.  Early CRPGs did what they could to mimic the tabletop experience but the key difference was always going to be that the freedom limited only by the minds of the players that such games can deliver was something computer software could only emulate, not reproduce.  As such they demanded a certain suspension of disbelief - such as you've undertaken - to experience them in precisely the same way.

This is why I view features like voiced protagonists and the dialogue wheel as innovations.  They exploit the strengths of the computer/console medium - namely combining interactivity with immersion.  Film and television cannot provide interactivity because it is written and filmed, and tabeltop RPGs cannot provide immersion because audio/visual stimuli is limited at best and typically little more than crude drawings.  Before you dispute the latter description, imagine an actor acting on a bluescreen CGI set versus acting on a practical set, the latter provides a shared context which allows ones imagination to flourish.   Could that concept be described as an "interactive movie" - without splitting yet another hair... yes, it could.  

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That I've been playing them that way for decades suggests they are capable of being that.

If you suspend disbelief to the extent you have described, almost anything - however unsubstantiated - is possible.  To take such a concept to its extreme - and not at all representative of your views - conclusion, if I've believed I'm a popsicle for years, I very well could be a popsicle.  But I'm not.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Why are you so sure?  You can't tell without looking inside.

Because games aren't quantum physics.  They're software.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 octobre 2010 - 07:54 .

[Lyssistr]

Meltemph wrote...

You can always tell what affects the gameplay experience

Yes, but if you follow that line of thought to its completion, that would technically mean I have a leg to stand on when I yell at Bungie for not having enough RPG in my FPS. I mean, after a certain point, I'm telling them to make a different game.

Bungie not being an rpg dev would be unlike to follow this suggestion, it also is quite incompatible with it's fanbase.

Bioware on the other hand, have been developing rpgs for years, a little criticism on becoming lighter on that side is not out of context nor is it incompatible with a large part of their customerbase.

[tmp7704]

the_one_54321 wrote...

And you're chosing to ignore this, then saying that by ignoring it you render it non-existent. It doesn't work that way.

Sure it does

[Anarya]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

You're pretending that cause and effect does not exist and that's absurd. The reaction is not the tone itself but the reaction is a function of the tone. Getting to the tone from the reaction is similar to using an antifunction. The concept is well grounded in logical application.

The reaction can only be a function of the tone if there's a necessary and consistent connection between the two.  That's not how conversations work.

And regardless, my way still provides greater roleplaying freedom.  My character gets to be whomever I would like him to be, regardless of what the writers might have intended.

The game is giving you a choice between spaghetti, pizza and salad and you're pointing to the spaghetti while saying "I'll have the chocolate pudding" and then exclaiming how delicious and chocolatey your pudding is while eating spaghetti. Your dining partner then remarks that you have tomato sauce on your cheek. You chalk this up to misinterpretation.

The rest of us stand to the side scratching our heads confusedly. I mean hey, if that's how you want to eat your dinner, more power to you, but you won't convince me that spaghetti is open to interpretation.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

To take such a concept to its extreme - and not at all representative of your views - conclusion, if I've believed I'm a popsicle for years, I very well could be a popsicle.  But I'm not.

As long as you lack conclusive evidence that you're not a popsicle, then it's perfectly reasonable for you to allow for the possibility that you might be.

This has basically been my point all along.  Anything - literally anything - that hasn't been proven false remains possibly true.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 10 octobre 2010 - 07:51 .

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Why are you so sure?  You can't tell without looking inside.  The superposition of the cat's presence (and even its existence) works exactly the same way as the cat's life and death.

Because outside of the actual experiment it was made explicitly clear that there would be a cat in the box. The cat has already been observed to be in the box. But by being so fixated on the opening of the box being all that matters, you have ignored the part where they told you "hey, there's a cat in this box."

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Things can't be necessarily true unless we do demonstrate that they are necessarily true.  Not just that we can demonstrate it, but that we do.  That's how necessary truth works.

And it is demonstrated prior to approaching the box. Someone told you "there is a cat in that box. Now go and open it to find out if the cat is dead or alive." And  you are responding by saying "ok, I'm going to go see if there is a cat in that box."

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Your way only works if we accept your asserton that the PC's tone is contained within the writing.

It's not acceptence, since there is no conjecture. Tone is demonstrated by antifunction through the NPCs reaction.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Remember, I don't believe in communication.  I don't think you have any control over how people interpret what you say.

This does not apply because it is not a matter of the concept of communication. The writer created a set of phrases and presented them to you, and simultaneously the writer created a set of responses that will appear based on the phrases. The phrases are such that you could assume a response mistakenly by not understanding the full intent of the phrase presented. But once the responses are seen the full intent of the phrase can be determined. It is quite literally a function and antifunction relationship.

[Ortaya Alevli]

Well, this is a computer game. No amount of philosophy or avoiding metagaming will change it. No computer game will allow my character to do all those crazy stuff my characters did in tabletop games. It will always be delivering a line chosen from a list of five items tops, asking predetermined questions and making predetermined decisions to move the plot. Even before our character's predetermined tone in their voice was an issue, there still existed problems regarding a distinct lack of freedom. I'll never be able to let Ironbark (my dog) to this box of yours and tear it apart and see if the cat died right there or was already dead before she got shredded. Nor will I ever be able to have my female Cousland stop Alistair before he deals the killing blow atop Fort Drakon. BioWare seems to have decided to fight other, more sensible battles and I wouldn't expect them to do everything in their power to create an illusion of tabletop freedom at this point.

Is it "wrong" to try getting the best tabletop experience out of a computer game? No. If that's what one considers enjoyable, by all means. It is, however, somewhat unrealistic to expect a company to accommodate such a playing style.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
This has basically been my point all along.  Anything - literally anything - that hasn't been proven false remains possibly true.

So to break down your argument to its core, you say that willful ignorance and self-denial is what allows you to play CRPGs your way?

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

It is not a conversation. It is a function. Input variable, get appropriate output.
f(a)=b, f©=d, f(e)=f
That's how it works. Literally. And you're chosing to ignore this, then saying that by ignoring it you render it non-existent. It doesn't work that way. While you are free to imgaine whatever you wish about it, and interpret things however you want, the function still exists. The writing still exists. The method by which options are choses and reactions are created still exists. You can't make it not exist no matter how inconvenient that is for you.

That's how the game's code runs, yes.

But that's not relevant.  In the code, that's exactly why one dialogue option produces a specific response from the game.  But within the game's fiction (wherein your character lives), the mechanism that produces that outcome is unknowable.  The mechanism you describe exists only outside that setting, so it cannot be the in-situ cause of that reaction.  Since it does not exist, it cannot exhibit characteristics.

[Meltemph]

Bioware on the other hand, have been developing rpgs for years, a little criticism on becoming lighter on that side is not out of context nor is it incompatible with a large part of their customerbase.

The consumer at that point is finding the producer to make a product that he wants to buy(Based on Consumer loyalty at this point)). You ARE asking for a different game. Different, lighter, not the genre you are looking for, either way they are making a different type of product/game(however minor) , but it is different from DAO(orginal product the new one is based on), to ask them not to make it is asking them to make a different game(again no matter how minor).

It would be up to the producer at that point to either make a different game or disregard the request, and at that point as a consumer you have 2 choices: Buy the product they are making or you don't. The only useful recourse at this point is to give customer feedback for the game they are actually making, if you decide you will buy it anyway.

Modifié par Meltemph, 10 octobre 2010 - 07:57 .

[the_one_54321]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
This has basically been my point all along.  Anything - literally anything - that hasn't been proven false remains possibly true.

So to break down your argument to its core, you say that willful ignorance and self-denial is what allows you to play CRPGs your way?

Did you barely grasp this? He's been saying exactly that for a while now. Admitedly I've been mostly just banging my head against a brick wall because I want him to acknowledge that the writing doesn't stop being there just because he doesn't want it to be.

[upsettingshorts]

the_one_54321 wrote...
Did you barely grasp this? He's been saying exactly that for a while now. Admitedly I've been mostly just banging my head against a brick wall because I want him to acknowledge that the writing doesn't stop being there just because he doesn't want it to be.

It is 4:00AM here, I'm not exactly on my A-game so I need explicit reductions to feed my working-at-low-operating-efficiency brain.

My follow up is more or less planned to be that he can't legitimately expect a developer or even a player such as myself to find a position based on such things to be a particularly strong one, especially if it is supposed to be the basis of an argument against a game design movement. 

So if you're reading this post before responding to the above one Sylvius, feel free to respond to the above paragraph instead.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 octobre 2010 - 08:00 .

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
It is not a conversation. It is a function. Input variable, get appropriate output.
f(a)=b, f©=d, f(e)=f
That's how it works. Literally. And you're chosing to ignore this, then saying that by ignoring it you render it non-existent. It doesn't work that way. While you are free to imgaine whatever you wish about it, and interpret things however you want, the function still exists. The writing still exists. The method by which options are choses and reactions are created still exists. You can't make it not exist no matter how inconvenient that is for you.

That's how the game's code runs, yes.

But that's not relevant.  In the code, that's exactly why one dialogue option produces a specific response from the game.  But within the game's fiction (wherein your character lives), the mechanism that produces that outcome is unknowable.  The mechanism you describe exists only outside that setting, so it cannot be the in-situ cause of that reaction.  Since it does not exist, it cannot exhibit characteristics.

And you can imagine and role play the in-situ part all you want to, with no disagrement on my part. That doesn't change anything about the information being available to you, the player outside of the game making the RP decisions, for decision making.