735 réponses à ce sujet

[Lyssistr]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

 Inside the game world, the game world is still classical, it cannot be quantum (provided the world is not merely a handful of particles) simply because you cant (exactly) simulate a quantum system with a classical one (efficiently).

 Now you could say that being in the game world you won't know this but this is not exactly true, should the game world be detailed enough to allow you to perform repeatable experiments on it's tiniest systems, you would tell. If on the other hand there is absolutely no way (even in principle) to see if the world is quantum (you cannot observe something that's definitely quantum), by Occam's razor any quantum considerations are superfluous.

 the only thing you need in-world to model your lack of information of what is going to happen is bayesian probability.

[upsettingshorts]

That being said, how much time must we spend interrogating Sylvius on his playstyle? I think we all get the basics of it, and he gets ours. The difficult part is his request that games be tailored to allow for such a point of view at the expense of what features the medium is potentially more effective at delivering.

That's where the actual argument lies. Not saying that one is winnable - by either side - either, but at least it would be different.   And closer to the thread topic.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 octobre 2010 - 08:30 .

[Meltemph]

- 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.

You have to make sure you "role play as you go", When you do it like that. You have a mindset, but you don't have your character fleshed out, like you would a normal table top, since you are technically fleshing your character out, by playing the game.

[the_one_54321]

A summary of tonight's debate

[upsettingshorts]

the_one_54321 wrote...

A summary of tonight's debate

This is closer, at least in terms of who is taking part in the debate:

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 octobre 2010 - 08:44 .

[the_one_54321]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
...

The part you edited out was perfect.

[upsettingshorts]

the_one_54321 wrote...
The part you edited out was perfect.

I was always trying to link to that sketch, I just found one that I could embed.

Basically we're all silly and the issue is only of slight importance.  And at some point Stanley Woo is going to come in here and hit us with a chicken.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 octobre 2010 - 08:54 .

[the_one_54321]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Stanley Woo is going to come in here and hit us with a chicken.

Fish.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 10 octobre 2010 - 08:56 .

[MorrigansLove]

DRAGON AGE 2 WILL BE THE GREATEST GAME OF ALL TIME!

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

That being said, how much time must we spend interrogating Sylvius on his playstyle? I think we all get the basics of it, and he gets ours. The difficult part is his request that games be tailored to allow for such a point of view at the expense of what features the medium is potentially more effective at delivering.

That's where the actual argument lies. Not saying that one is winnable - by either side - either, but at least it would be different.   And closer to the thread topic.

Its the_one's favorite hobby, trying to tell Sylvius how he's played CRPG's for years is somehow "wrong".

[upsettingshorts]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Its the_one's favorite hobby, trying to tell Sylvius how he's played CRPG's for years is somehow "wrong".

Well it's certainly wrong for me.   Just as how I play them is wrong for him.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 octobre 2010 - 10:05 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Its the_one's favorite hobby, trying to tell Sylvius how he's played CRPG's for years is somehow "wrong".

Well it's certainly wrong for me.   Just as how I play them is wrong for him.

Eh not really, you'd just rather be told a story rather than making a vested effort into the characters you're playing. I can understand that, doesn't make it wrong. It does bother me when people come right out and say that I can't play the way I've been playing CRPG's for years though, its certainly news to me at least.

[TehMerc]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...





Eh not really, you'd just rather be told a story rather than making a vested effort into the characters you're playing. I can understand that, doesn't make it wrong. It does bother me when people come right out and say that I can't play the way I've been playing CRPG's for years though, its certainly news to me at least.

You really like to backhand people in most of you're posts, don't you?

[Leonia]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Its the_one's favorite hobby, trying to tell Sylvius how he's played CRPG's for years is somehow "wrong".

Well it's certainly wrong for me.   Just as how I play them is wrong for him.

Eh not really, you'd just rather be told a story rather than making a vested effort into the characters you're playing. I can understand that, doesn't make it wrong. It does bother me when people come right out and say that I can't play the way I've been playing CRPG's for years though, its certainly news to me at least.

Er? Nobody is telling anyone how they should play CRPGs here. Everyone can do as they please, it doesn't make it "wrong" or "right".

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

TehMerc wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...





Eh not really, you'd just rather be told a story rather than making a vested effort into the characters you're playing. I can understand that, doesn't make it wrong. It does bother me when people come right out and say that I can't play the way I've been playing CRPG's for years though, its certainly news to me at least.

You really like to backhand people in most of you're posts, don't you?

How is that a backhanded comment? AngryPants himself has said multiple times that the story is already written by the writters, tone is already predetermined, and thats how he views the game. 

Modifié par CoS Sarah Jinstar, 10 octobre 2010 - 10:41 .

[TehMerc]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

TehMerc wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...





Eh not really, you'd just rather be told a story rather than making a vested effort into the characters you're playing. I can understand that, doesn't make it wrong. It does bother me when people come right out and say that I can't play the way I've been playing CRPG's for years though, its certainly news to me at least.

You really like to backhand people in most of you're posts, don't you?

How is that a backhanded comment? AngryPants himself has said multiple times that the story is already written by the writters and thats how he views the game. 

Eh, there's a difference between "you'd rather be told a story and not make any effort into the character you're playing" and "ya, you feel the story's already written".

Or I read too much into it maybe, but choice number 2 sounds much less passive aggressive. Maybe you should be using a dialogue wheel, clear this right up :3

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

TehMerc wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

TehMerc wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...





Eh not really, you'd just rather be told a story rather than making a vested effort into the characters you're playing. I can understand that, doesn't make it wrong. It does bother me when people come right out and say that I can't play the way I've been playing CRPG's for years though, its certainly news to me at least.

You really like to backhand people in most of you're posts, don't you?

How is that a backhanded comment? AngryPants himself has said multiple times that the story is already written by the writters and thats how he views the game. 

Eh, there's a difference between "you'd rather be told a story and not make any effort into the character you're playing" and "ya, you feel the story's already written".

Or I read too much into it maybe, but choice number 2 sounds much less passive aggressive. Maybe you should be using a dialogue wheel, clear this right up :3

Eh you're reading into it too much to be honest. You can keep your dialog wheel though thanks for the offer.

[TehMerc]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...


Eh you're reading into it too much to be honest. You can keep your dialog wheel though thanks for the offer.

Fair enough then.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Kinda further helps the point that its extremely difficult to attain implied tone from written dialog, but I digress.

[FedericoV]

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 (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)

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that you can't reproduce a real tabletop RPG without having other people around. If you ever played a tabletop RPG you know the difference. And the roleplaying aspect is not identical at all because in one field you have complete freedom to express your charachter in your way and you have an audience. In the other field you are using choosing options between scripted events and have no audience that can really interact with them.

Modifié par FedericoV, 10 octobre 2010 - 11:08 .

[AtreiyaN7]

Schroedinger's Cat AND the Fish Slapping Dance!!!! Well, at least the strange turns this thread keeps taking have rendered it both highly unpredictable and somewhat interesting to read every so often.

[MerinTB]

FedericoV wrote...

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 (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)

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that you can't reproduce a real tabletop RPG without having other people around. If you ever played a tabletop RPG you know the difference. And the roleplaying aspect is not identical at all because in one field you have complete freedom to express your charachter in your way and you have an audience. In the other field you are using choosing options between scripted events and have no audience that can really interact with them.

Again with this -

yes, perhaps by your estimation the experiences aren't the same -

but that's like saying "The Sims" doesn't recreate someone's life.
Of course not.

But for some other people, cRPG's DO recreate table-top RPG experiences, and (yes) often a better experience.

What do I, personally, lose when I play a cRPG versus a table-top RPG?
Positives:

• DM able to adjust story and NPCs on the fly for player actions and player character backgrounds
• Other people running their character who can react on the fly to my character's actions
• Due to the previous two points, technically far more freedom in your choices of what you can do

Negatives:

• out-of-game chatting with people (which is amusing enough if you are playing with friends, annoying if you are playing with gamers who are not actually your friends)
• waiting on other people's texting, web browsing, book reading, rules-looking-up, and side conversations
• very arbitrary decisions on the DM's part (my least favorite: a character who's got  a stat that the player really focused on, say Perception, so that it it really high, suddenly finds himself having to hit ridiculously high (for their level) DC's as the DM subconsciously (or sometimes consciously and maliciously) adjust the challenge to match the score)
• combat taking somtimes hours, with me waiting anywhere from ten minutes to half an hour between my turns (which, honestly, mostly forgives the players for their texting/reading/whatever distractions)

The similarities, however, are there:

• you get to make your own character (sometimes multiple characters and, hence, better than typical table-top games)
• you get to adventure with your character, make choices with your character, gain XP, level up, get loot, interact with NPCs, etc.

What you loose from the table-top experience (IMO, often more negatives than positives) is (IMO) more than balanced out by what you gain:

• faster combat
• no downtime waiting on other players
• can play the game whenever your feel like it, for as long as little as you like
• make multiple characters
• computer handles all the math for you
• often get to design what your character looks like
• benefit of more professionally designed stories and challenges

In the end, it depends on what parts of the table-top experience are important to you for you to qualify whether the experience is recreated or not.

I put forth again - if we cannot define what an RPG is, we sure as David Gaider will come back with some snarky remarks at a forum poster in the next week cannot come up with a meaningful backing of the statement "cRPGs cannot recreate the table-top experience".

I guarantee you that your table-top experience cannot recreate MY table-top experience.   Does that mean yours (or my) experience is "not table-top role-playing"?:innocent:

[Sidney]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Eh not really, you'd just rather be told a story rather than making a vested effort into the characters you're playing. I can understand that, doesn't make it wrong. It does bother me when people come right out and say that I can't play the way I've been playing CRPG's for years though, its certainly news to me at least.

No one has told you can't play the way you have for years. ME2 and DAO are the same thing as BG2 or KoTOR. You have a character. You can create the look and feel of that character. You get to pick a class for that character. That character has a specific role in a story - these aren't open world games where you can wander off and really not do the main story. That character gets to make choices in the game. Those choices are limited by the options provided by the dev team. You are allowed to select from those options in the game. The game reacts to those selections based again on the code work done by the dev team. That is the "role playing" that happens in each game.

Now what you htought you were doing might be different than that but it wasn't. You've built up this whole vision of what these games are and aren't but at the core they're the same thing.

[FedericoV]

MerinTB wrote...

I put forth again - if we cannot define what an RPG is, we sure as David Gaider will come back with some snarky remarks at a forum poster in the next week cannot come up with a meaningful backing of the statement "cRPGs cannot recreate the table-top experience".

I guarantee you that your table-top experience cannot recreate MY table-top experience.   Does that mean yours (or my) experience is "not table-top role-playing"?:innocent:

Maybe I 've not explained my self. The point is not to estabilish what is an RPG or not. The point is not to estabilish what is the better form of roleplaying considering respective pros and cons.

I do believe that single player rpgs do not allow real roleplaying, since roleplaying is social gaming and single player games are not social experiences by definition. I do believe that the presence of an audience that reacts to your words or descriptions with a human storyteller that organize the interaction it's the essence of the RPG experience. But that's my opinion and I could be wrong off course. It's a nominalistic issue and it only brings the debate in the territory of semanthic and formal logic wich is clearly OT.

The point is that they are clearly two completely different forms of gaming and that is objective. And because of that is not very accurate to judge the quality of a feature in a videogame, comparing it to its tabletop counterpart or saying that a feature in a videogame is better than another one because it duplicates better the tabletop experience. The point (considering that we are discussing the use of voice over in a RP videogame like DA2) is only if it works better in a videogame or not and that is subjective and open to debate. I think that it's better, maybe you think that it's not better. No way to end the discussion with definitve arguments. 

So at the end it's pretty silly to discuss the merit of a feature in itself and it would be better to discuss how to improve it and if it can be improved at all (imho). And reading that thread from the beginning to the end, there are two kind of improvement that Bioware players asks to the dialogue wheel format:

• The dialogue wheel and voice over should not prevent completeness of information (design issue).
• The dialogue wheel and voice over should not prevent the possibility to customize our charachters as much as possibile (resource issue).

Modifié par FedericoV, 10 octobre 2010 - 04:02 .

[MerinTB]

FedericoV wrote...

Maybe I 've not explained my self. The point is not to estabilish what is an RPG or not. The point is not to estabilish what is the better form of roleplaying considering respective pros and cons.

I do believe that single player rpgs do not allow real roleplaying, since roleplaying is social gaming and single player games are not social experiences by definition. I do believe that the presence of an audience that reacts to your words or descriptions with a human storyteller that organize the interaction it's the essence of the RPG experience. But that's my opinion and I could be wrong off course. It's a nominalistic issue and it only brings the debate in the territory of semanthic and formal logic wich is clearly OT.

Uhm.

"not to establish what is an RPG or not"
"not to establish what is the better form of role-playing"
and then
"single player rpgs do not allow real roleplaying"
"since roleplaying is social gaming"

I could point out that "social gaming" is a new one for me as far as defining what is an "RPG" and something that I've never seen used to define what an RPG is (there are plenty of non-video game RPGs out there that you can solo: Lone Wolf books, the new Red Box from D&D, and I think TSR had a whole series of solo adventures back int he day...)

But what I find confusing (and humorous) is that in the same paragraph you claim that you are NOT trying to define what is an RPG, what makes a better form of role-playing...
and then you go on to do EXACTLY THAT - define role-playing as "social gaming" and single-player RPGs as "not allowing real roleplaying."

Relevant