735 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

Not relevant.  here's why:

The cat has already been observed to be in the box.

And then we closed the box and stopped looking at the cat.  The cat was alive when we last saw it, too, but that certainly doesn't guarantee the cat will still be alive when we open the box.

You're placing restrictions on the cat's location and existence based on assumptions about the physical laws of the universe.

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."

Right.  Because the guy who told me that isn't looking in the box right now, so he doesn't really know there's a cat in there.

But once the responses are seen the full intent of the phrase can be determined.

This can only be true if the phrases actually contain intent.

And they don't.  Why do you think they do?

[Lyssistr]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

Sylvious, No Quantum superposition & entanglement (which sum up the q. system of cat+gun) have nothing to do with choices in RPGs.
 Also when something hasn't been proven false (while not proven true) is not true, the best bet is to attach a (bayesian) probability to that statement and say it's 1/2 true and 1/2 false, until further information is revealed. What you have in RPGs is lack of sufficient information, Bayesian probability is enough to make a model for that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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?

If there's ignorance involved it's on the other side of the debate.  My position is based on a fundamental awareness of uncertainty.  the_one seems unwilling to allow for uncertainty in his world view (which doesn't surprise me at all, given other discussions I've had with him).

[Meltemph]

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?

I think he is actually arguing for a willful inclusion of psychosis(loss of contact with reality, to ignore the real world and accept you are in that one), specifically, while you are playing the game.  He is argueing that it is your job as a person playing a RPG, to do this as it is truly the only way to RP.

Modifié par Meltemph, 10 octobre 2010 - 08:04 .

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And then we closed the box and stopped looking at the cat.

Actually what we're saying is that the argument between us here can be more accurately described thusly:

Sylvius and Upsettingshorts both witness the cat being placed in the box.

Upsettingshorts: "The cat is in the box, whether or not it is alive or dead is irrelevant."
Sylvius: "I have chosen to forget the cat is in the box, because it might be alive or dead."

The cat is the software, the writing, and the consequences of our character's action.  The status of the cat is the nature of those consequences, the things we don't know - as you say. 

Meltemph wrote...
I think he is actually arguing for a willfulinclusion of psychosis(loss of contact with reality, to ignore the realworld and accept you are in that one), specifically, while you are playing the game.  He is argueing that it is your job as a person playing a RPG, to do this as it is truly the only way to RP.

Hm, that tracks.   My argument is, basically, that I don't agree - and he ought to be playing the game.  Hence my original claim that the views are incompatible.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 octobre 2010 - 08:06 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lyssistr wrote...

Also when something hasn't been proven
false (while not proven true) is not true, the best bet is to attach a
(bayesian) probability to that statement and say it's 1/2 true and 1/2
false, until further information is revealed. What you have in RPGs is
lack of sufficient information, Bayesian probability is enough to make
a model for that.

I'm using strict modal logic.  Anything that isn't necessarily false is possibly true.

This is guaranteed.

Meltemph wrote...

I think he is actually arguing for a willful inclusion of psychosis(loss of contact with reality, to ignore the real world and accept you are in that one), specifically, while you are playing the game.  He is argueing that it is your job as a person playing a RPG, to do this as it is truly the only way to RP.

Yes.  Exactly this.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Actually what we're saying is that the argument between us here can be more accurately described thusly:

Sylvius and Upsettingshorts both witness the cat being placed in the box.

Upsettingshorts: "The cat is in the box, whether or not it is alive or dead is irrelevant."
Sylvius: "I have chosen to forget the cat is in the box, because it might be alive or dead."

No, I'm aware that I witnessed (or t least, I recall witnessing) the cat being placed in the box, and I have no information that suggests the cat was removed from the box.

I'm just not willing to jump to the conclusion that the cat remains in the box just because I don't have a plausible explanation as to how it left.

My argument is, basically, that I don't agree - and he ought to be playing the game.

I don't like games.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 10 octobre 2010 - 08:08 .

[Meltemph]

Yes. Exactly this.

Just keep in mind, not everyone is good at doing that or even can(at least properly).

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
No, I'm aware that I witnessed (or t least, I recall witnessing) the cat being placed in the box, and I have no information that suggests the cat was removed from the box.

I'm just not willing to jump to the conclusion that the cat remains in the box just because I don't have a plausible explanation as to how it left.

So more or less, when you sit down to play what is incontrovertibly a computer game, you then believe that the computer game doesn't exist?

Meltemph wrote...
Just keep in mind, not everyone is good at doing that or even can(at least properly).

Indeed,  I would need to be on powerful hallucinogens to do that, let alone enjoy it.

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

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...

Yes. Exactly this.

Just keep in mind, not everyone is good at doing that or even can(at least properly).

I'm only asking that RPGs continue to accommodate the playstyle, not that the playstyle be required.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And then we closed the box and stopped looking at the cat.  The cat was alive when we last saw it, too, but that certainly doesn't guarantee the cat will still be alive when we open the box.

Perhaps you're not as familiar with quantum theory as I'd thought. Once something has been observed, the uncertainty is eliminated.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You're placing restrictions on the cat's location and existence based on assumptions about the physical laws of the universe.

Yeah. Is there a problem with that? Is there a problem with saying that there is text in the game that designates what dialog is be.... You know.. I just don't see at all what the purpose of that last statement was.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Right.  Because the guy who told me that isn't looking in the box right now, so he doesn't really know there's a cat in there.

The guy has been aware of the exact state of the box the whole time. The writer has been aware of what is inside the game the whole time.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
This can only be true if the phrases actually contain intent.

And they don't.  Why do you think they do?

They do, as demonstrated by the fact the response is a function of that intent. We've been over this already.
At some point in time the writer created the words with the intent also in mind and then wrote the response based on the words and the intent.
You're argument is based on ignoring the writiers involvement in things since that isn't part of what happens in the game world. But even with that frame of mind you must accept that the writer did this, even if it's outside of the game world. The tone still exists even if you're not going to acknowledge it during the game. You can't go back and question the existence of the tone once we've already discussed and established it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

So more or less, when you sit down to play what is incontrovertibly a computer game, you then believe that the computer game doesn't exist?

It's more that my opinions about the game no longer matter, as my existence is not permitted within the game's fiction.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
It's more that my opinions about the game no longer matter, as my existence is not permitted within the game's fiction.

Sort of like how when sitting in a movie theater one might suspend disbelief as to not think about how they are watching still images being flashed infront of them on a large screen at 24 frames per second?

Edit: Not to equate those steps, just to understand at some level what is required to accomodate your playstyle.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 octobre 2010 - 08:15 .

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
 the_one seems unwilling to allow for uncertainty in his world view

Strictly speaking, and this is without any regard to role playing or how you approach the game, there is zero uncertainty in a video game. The uncertainy only exists while the developers are still making decisions about it. Once the game is in your hand and about to be played everything has literally already been definitively coded and you can't change any of it. You can imagine whatever you want, but that is an entirely different ball park in terms of interpreting the game.

My big issue here is that you've taken that whole other ball park of interpretation and have tried to say that it effects what actually exists in the box, on the disk.

[Meltemph]

I'm only asking that RPGs continue to accommodate the playstyle, not that the playstyle be required.

Ya, I think I get that now. I was afraid to say it before, which is why I shied away from explaining it to you when you asked me in the other topic for some people that would offend them.



But then by acknowledging that there are people who can not do that, then you have to realize that there are going to be RPG's that don't fill that for you, and even those who used to make them are going to try and make games for them to.



Me, personally, I actually can play both just fine, but I will admit that it definitely feels like a different way of playing. And I would argue, even with playing it like that, your actions should make sense according to the story of the game(IE, playing a merchant[as in can not fight] as your Gray Warden, when you can't even become a gray warden unless you are a great fighter).



When there is a story involved there are always limitations, but yes, if you play like that there are very few limitations in scope.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Perhaps you're not as familiar with quantum theory as I'd thought. Once something has been observed, the uncertainty is eliminated.

Until something interacts with it.  And as long as I'm not looking, that could happen at any time.

They do, as demonstrated by the fact the response is a function of that intent. We've been over this already.
At some point in time the writer created the words with the intent also in mind and then wrote the response based on the words and the intent.

That the writer had an intent in mind when he wrote the words does not infuse those words with intent.

Knowing what that intent of the writer's was would make it easier to predict the response, undoubtedly, but that doesn't mean the intent is actually there.

I still don't see why you think the intent exists within the text.  Any sent of words is that set of words.  Where's the intent?

You're argument is based on ignoring the writiers involvement in things since that isn't part of what happens in the game world.

Yes.

But even with that frame of mind you must accept that the writer did this, even if it's outside of the game world.

No.  Outside the game world the writer did this, yes.  But not inside the game world.  Inside the game world the writer doesn't exist, and things that don't exist can't exhibit characteristics.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Meltemph wrote...
I think he is actually arguing for a willful inclusion of psychosis(loss of contact with reality, to ignore the real world and accept you are in that one), specifically, while you are playing the game.  He is argueing that it is your job as a person playing a RPG, to do this as it is truly the only way to RP.

Yes.  Exactly this.

Psychosis is never good for you. I suggest that you reassess how you approach video gaming.

[upsettingshorts]

Meltemph wrote...

Me, personally, I actually can play both just fine, but I will admit that it definitely feels like a different way of playing. And I would argue, even with playing it like that, your actions should make sense according to the story of the game(IE, playing a merchant[as in can not fight] as your Gray Warden, when you can't even become a gray warden unless you are a great fighter).

I suppose when described that way, I can and have played like that.  The problem is when my character arrives at situations like you describe - where my imagination comes in direct absolute conflict with the game - it is like being woken up from a dream.  It's not a feeling I find pleasant, and decided quite a while ago that I prefer playing games closer to how I feel their developers intended.  

Not only is it personally more enjoyable to me, I feel like its more respectful to the artists who created it.  But that's neither here nor there.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 octobre 2010 - 08:19 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Strictly speaking, and this is without any regard to role playing or how you approach the game, there is zero uncertainty in a video game.

And this is why we disagree.

There's not zero uncertainty anywhere.  Even in that sentence.  The global level of uncertainty is unbelievably high - all of the time, in all things.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That the writer had an intent in mind when he wrote the words does not infuse those words with intent.

Yes it does! That's exactly what it does because the writer also wrote the response!

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
No.  Outside the game world the writer did this, yes.  But not inside the game world.  Inside the game world the writer doesn't exist, and things that don't exist can't exhibit characteristics.

Do you not see what you've done here? "No, but yes."
You don't exist in the game world and thus cannot exhibit characteristics there. Therefore what your character does or says has no relation to why or how you developed your choices while playing the game. You can use any reason you want to pick a dialog option.



Your choice of the dialog options exists in the same state as the writing of the game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I suppose when described that way, I can and have played like that.  The problem is when my character arrives at situations like you describe - where my imagination comes in direct absolute conflict with the game - it is like being woken up from a dream.

If you immerse yourself further, that problem mostly goes away.  Your character knows his own mind, so any detail that contradicts things he knows must be in error.  Allowing that the NPCs are unreliable narrators (I'm probably going to lean heavily on that one in DA2) hides a multitude of sins.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
If you immerse yourself further, that problem mostly goes away.  Your character knows his own mind, so any detail that contradicts things he knows must be in error. 

Not necessarily.  When reality comes in stark contrast with my preconceptions in real life I tend to re-evaluate them.  

If I immerse myself further as an insane person, then I could chalk everyone else up as insane - but that's a pretty narrow set of circumstances through which I could through my point of view successfully emulate your playstyle.

Your point about an unreliable narrator is possibly well taken though, given the uniqueness of DA:2's story structure.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 octobre 2010 - 08:25 .

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Strictly speaking, and this is without any regard to role playing or how you approach the game, there is zero uncertainty in a video game.

And this is why we disagree.

There's not zero uncertainty anywhere.  Even in that sentence.  The global level of uncertainty is unbelievably high - all of the time, in all things.

"If I smash the chair over your head, then we'll know if it's real or not, won't we?"
The notion that you're going to start pulling seriously existentialist concepts into the application of role playing is just too much. I can't get into a discussion based on that level of neurosis. I'll see you in the next argument.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That the writer had an intent in mind when he wrote the words does not infuse those words with intent.

Yes it does! That's exactly what it does because the writer also wrote the response!

Show me.  You're making the positive assertion.  The burden of proof lies with you.

You don't exist in the game world and thus cannot exhibit characteristics there.

Agreed.

Therefore what your character does or says has no relation to why or how you developed your choices while playing the game.

Agreed.  How my character behaves is directly related only to his own mind.

You can use any reason you want to pick a dialog option.

No, I can't.  I can't use any reason at all, as I don't exist (you just said so).  The character chooses.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

The notion that you're going to start pulling seriously existentialist concepts into the application of role playing is just too much. I can't get into a discussion based on that level of neurosis. I'll see you in the next argument.

The way I think the world works doesn't change based on what I'm doing.  I'm a global sceptic.