[quote]In Exile wrote...
The best way to put it would be that my expression is typically on auto-pilot? Put another way, it is a little like walking somewhere. I do not consciously need to think about
how I am walking; if I am familiar with the area I do not even need to think about a particular path I am taking. I just have the notion that I want to go to
x, and so go there.
Speaking is similar.[/quote]
I'll agree that's how walking works.
But I insist that speaking is dissimilar.
[quote]All of this is to say that it is not just about what
I think is clear. It is about the conjectures I make about what the other person understands. It is impossible to communicate without pressupositions about the other person. In the game, I do not have this all important content. [/quote]
Your conjecture, in life or in the game, can only be based on information you have. It's much like speaking to someone you don't know.
[/quote]If by everything beyond you mean the interpretation the other person has of the line you have written, then I disagree. [/quote]
You don't have mind control powers. Each mind is a discrete entity, and they operate independently.
How someone interprets what you say is beyond your control. You can choose what you say with the objective of having them interpret it in a particular way (based on how you think they interpret things), but the actual interpretation happens entirely in the other mind. You can't ever see it. You can't ever know what's happning in there.
[quote]Literal content is a threshold effect. Beyond a certain point (a line of comprehensibility) different content is functionally equivalent.[/quote]
That line is somewhat higher than you seem to think it is. Semantics matter.
[quote]Effective communication depends on more. So being given the literal content of a line of dialogue is, to use an analogy, like being given the chance to raise your stats at level up without seeing which you raise or being asked to pick abilities while never being given descriptions about them.
It is just not sufficient information. [/quote]
Regardless of whether it's sufficient, it is necessary.
If you want information beyond the literal content, that is - as I've said - a different issue. I'm saying that the literal content isn't something we can throw away, no matter what else we get in return.
You're talking about sufficient conditions. I'm talking about necessary conditions.
[quote]The original point you raised was that written dialogue is superior to the paraphrase because it gives you the literal content. But I disagree.[/quote]
But that's nonsense. The literal content is more valuable than the lack of literal content.
Whether there's some added value in having intent isn't relevant to the point I'm making.
[quote]Why would you say that I cannot predict my behaviour in conversation? That I do not know the
precise wording is not equivalent to the claim that I did not know what I was going to say. [/quote]
Yes it is. It's
precisely equivalent.
If you don't kow something, then you don't know it. You're basically trying to deny a tautology.
[quote]What you actually say is instrumental - what you want to convey is the mental state, i.e. the intent.[/quote]
Not true. When I choose my words, my primary concern is "Does this sentence make available the information I want to make available, while not revealing information I want to conceal?"
My intent is several steps further back, but each sentence needs to be checked before it is used to ensure that it doesn't accidentally provide information I would rather it not, or fail to provide information I actually want to deliver.
When in a conversation, I'm keeping track of what it is I've already said (and what I haven't said), and every subsequent sentence I speak adds to that logical framework from which my listener can drawn reasoned conclusions.
So, when my listener does draw conclusions, I can tell immediately whether they stem from what I actually said, or whether my listener has unreasonably jumped to an unfounded conclusion. And which it is informs how I react to it.
If I'm as imprecise as you would have me be, this approach would fail utterly.
[quote] Let me put it this way - suppose you are sending a letter. What is more important? The letter, or the envelope in comes in? Obviously the letter.[/quote]
No. They are equally important. Both are information available to the recipient.
[quote]Now clearly the relationship between intent and wording is nothing like this. But the wording is essentially a puzzle that has to be solved to get at the intent. In communication, what is relevant is the intention. [/quote]
What if the listener solves the puzzle incorrectly? What if I want him to?
Conversation is a contest, to see if you can lead your listener down the path you would rather he travel, while he is trying to wrest from you information you'd rather not divulge. Conversation is adversarial.
[quote]If I am trying to console you, what is important is my attempt at consolation, not precisely what I say. If I try to seduce you, what is important is my attempt at seduction, not precisely what I say.[/quote]
Your attempt at seduction is exactly equivalent to the sum of your words and actions. Your intent isn't knowable to your target. It cannot have any direct consequence.
[quote]No. Both require me to interpret the writing the neccesary context information I need to reduce ambiguity. What would solve the issue of intent would be tags, e.g. [sarcastic] [lie] [compasionnate].
These are general tags that tell me the broad purpose I am trying to achieve with the statement in the world. To be honest, I do not understand why the tags bother you.[/quote]
Because they limit me only to those intents foreseen by the writers, and require that those intents be known to me at the time I choose the line.
Suppose there are two options:
1. Yes, I will help you.
2 [Lie] Yes, I will help you.
What if I haven't decided yet? Which do I choose? I know I want to say that sentence, but whether it's true is as yet unknown to me.
That's why I dislike tags.
[quote]Let me explain:
You have told me previously you do not think it is unreasonable to have a limited number of expressions. This is because it is an issue of cost. And you have also told me that, within reason, you do not think the literal meaning of the phrase is, in fact, what the character says (actually, this raises I question I want to ask you). Suppose we had several options:
[Compassionate] That was horrible.
[Dismissive] That was a waste.
[Concerned] Was everything okay?
Putting aside the quality of these statements, why do you say you have an issue with tags like these? You say it is because the writer is telling you about your mental state - but by your standard that is not so. You told me that the lines I have available to me are not neccesarily all things my character is thinking - just things my character
could say. So what is the issue?[/quote]
As you say, "Beyond a certain point different content is functionally equivalent." I'll edit those dialogue options to have them suit my character more, but they remain functionally equivalent.
[quote]Also - if you actually think your character says something
different from the literal content, then are you essentially using the literal content as a paraphrase for what your character wants to say?[/quote]
Yes.
But the game doesn't then tell me that my character said something different (as it does in ME and DA2, where the full line is acted out on screen).
The problem with the paraphrase system is that the full line is made explicit subsequent my my choice.
[quote]But what does that line mean?[/quote]
I don't care what it means. I care what it
can mean.
Because I'm not limited by the writers' intent, I have more freedom to play my character.
[quote]I have just shown you from the line I cannot know your intent. There needs to be more information provided. If I do not know your intent, communication is impossible. [/quote]
Communication is always impossible. Communication isn't real.
[quote]
This is why we are constrained by what Bioware designs - because there are contingent truths about the game that make any other possible interpretation nonsensical. [/quote]
Those truths are only contingent. They are not necessary truths. That it why they do not constrain us necessarily.
[quote]No, that was a meta-game argument for how we (as players) know that a writen line has fixed intent in the game.[/quote]
Ah. I had this discussion with the_one earlier.
That isn't evidence that teh written line has a fixed intent within the game. It is only evidence that the writer intended a specific intent when he wrote the line.
One does not require the other.
[quote]And then I wanted to return to my original question.[/quote]
You're trying too hard to direct expression rather than just state of mind. Your approach will always fail.
[quote]I don't know how you speak, but to me a conversation
is a single event. There has to be something
very dramatic occuring for me to change my mental state during a conversation, particularly when all I am doing is asking questions. [/quote]
I redo all the conversational arithmetic with every line. Every line stands alone as an event (though all the sentences uttered form a single logical framework available to the listener).
[quote]No - that set always exists. Why do you think it doesn't? Do you honestly think that your thoughts are unrelated to each other?[/quote]
The options you don't choose have nothing to do with your thoughts. They're events that never took place.
[quote]That's just silly. Of course it does - for the basic reason that the design says in the first place what can or cannot a choice.[/quote]
From the point of view of the character, the conversation doesn't exist as a single entity until it is over. And by then it's too late.
[quote]This is like saying you are not constrained by contingent facts.[/quote]
Which of them are facts is a matter of some dispute.
[quote]I don't understand. Are you arguing Bioware does not know where conversations end in their own game?[/quote]
Yes, since the "finish" is defined by the objectives of the participants, and BioWare is wholly ignorant of one of those participants.
Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 16 octobre 2010 - 09:46 .
Retour en haut
). And I have enjoyed BG2, Icewind Dale, Planescape: Torment etc. all the way up to Oblivion and Dragon Age: Origins. They have all has silent protagonist (or player characters). I've also played adventure games (remember those:
