202 réponses à ce sujet

[Mordaedil]

Gravity is heavy, man.

[JrayM16]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...

I can tell you'd be the the kind of guy who'd be more swayed by logos, but alot of people are suckers for a pathos-heavy argument,

Yes they are.

I'm not sure I count those people as human.

and ethos is good when talking about the speaker's credibility.

Even if the speaker is blatantly hypocritical on the issue he's discussing, that has no relevance to merits of his argument.

I think most people would be inclined to say that you wouldn't be human for not accepting ethos or pathos arguments, but that's beside the point.

Ethos is often used best when used passively.  For instance, if a doctor is trying to convince people that smoking is unhealthy then he is using ethos whether he wants to or not because he is a doctor and therefore knows more on the issue than most and people will realize and take this into account.

Pathos is often mischaracterized as a fluff tactic to pad a non-existent argument or deliberately mislead people, but it is in my opinion most effective as a call for action.  Facts can only convince people so far, especially when the facts are not entirely certain for whatever reason. 

[SphereofSilence]

David Gaider wrote...

Brockololly wrote...
guh...I'd have gladly kept the non "hot rod samurai" graphics "improvement" of DA2 for horses and cloaks and who knows what else. Its just a tad disappointing with DA2 as I was thinking it would take the BG2 route of a sequel and build on what Origins established and add more cool stuff, instead of ripping out the foundation and starting over.

It wasn't just making it "hot rod samurai", though. We did proceed with exactly what you suggested at first, but part of the problem with DAO was that it spent so long in development and thus its graphics were pretty behind the times in terms of newer releases. Happily that didn't have a big effect on its sales (or so we assume), but that situation was only going to get worse as time passed-- even for those of you that don't personally assign much value to graphics, you have to admit this is true. From our perspective it was either feel the pain now or feel it even more later when and if we made a third game.

Honestly, from what we've seen so far from the trailer that was released, the graphics still looked rather dated to me. I am of the opinion that the game needs a massive graphical overhaul come the third game, but that's another topic entirely and it's just that - an opinion. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Whether someone knows what they're talking about or not should influence your opinion on what they say.

For example, imagine I say:
1) The USA has 5% of the world's population but 25% of the world's prison population,
2) The increase in the number of prisons and prisoners hasn't led to a decrease in crime,
3) The longer someone stays in prison, the longer it takes for them to reintegrate into society and become a productive member again, and
4) The modern, American legal system jails people for longer periods and for more trivial crimes than modern Europe or pre-1970's American legal system.

Before you look at whatever argument I'm making based on this information, it's important to ask "Does Maria know what she's talking about?" Because if I'm just pulling data out of my backside or highly questionable sources, my argument is already suffering.

Yes, you can attempt to find all this information on your own, but it's not as simple as a google search. It's going to take you a fair amount of time and energy, and you're not going to want to do that for every argument you come across.

If I care about the argument, yes I am.  And if I'm not willing to do the leg work and gather all the background information, then clearly I'm not that concerned with the topic of discussion.

Ethos isn't logical, but it is rational from an economic perspective as you don't have the time or ability to become an expert in every subject that concerns you, meaning others can speak from knowledge and understanding you don't have.

But you can't reasonably trust those people without verifying their sources.

[Sylvius the Mad]

JrayM16 wrote...

I think most people would be inclined to say that you wouldn't be human for not accepting ethos or pathos arguments

I once had a professor who told me that very thing.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
If I care about the argument, yes I am.  And if I'm not willing to do the leg work and gather all the background information, then clearly I'm not that concerned with the topic of discussion.

Making you care is part of the argument.  And it isn't the logos part.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Making you care is part of the argument.  And it isn't the logos part.

If I don't care when you start, you've already lost.  You can't make people care about things.  A person's preferences are necessarily baseless.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
 You can't make people care about things.

Oh you most certainly can. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Oh you most certainly can. 

No.

At most you can make them aware that they already care about something, but they hadn't noticed yet.

And that's Logos.

[Images]

Cloaks and capes rock. And if this is medieval then indeed people did on occasion wear them in those times. I support them for the series and am saddened by their absence.



Not hugely or anything, more just an awwwww I'm out of baked beans when I'm about to make a full English breakfast and have to settle for chopped tomatoes kind of disappointment.



But capes yeah, they should of been in because they rock, except on obese goth guys...but thats another topic in itself.

[upsettingshorts]

This is where I shake my head and walk away.

[TUHD]

/facepalm



For those who fail (to understand why it isn't in)...

- Cloaks etc need each an unique model - which costs time, money and manpower you can use somewhere else

- Then you need to enhance the general model - mind, that isn't just one, but it is for fighting, running, walking, etc.... - again, costs time and money.

- With the techniques those days, also the model for weathereffects need to be taken into account - if you use dynamic weather in the game and let it have effect.

- Furthermore, the collision points need to be expanded.... I've seen devs add cloaks in without taking into account that the collision points are way different with the changed model.... and then you could see swords sticking through the coats, etc... Not a pretty sight



Hope this helps to understand the point of why it is difficult and less done those days.

[soteria]

But you can't reasonably trust those people without verifying their sources.

That's not true either. I have to make the determination of whether a person is trustworthy or not, but I don't have to "verify their sources" every time a subject matter expert tells me something. In this example, you've already made the determination to trust the unnamed sources--but how do you know they're reliable? Check their sources? Where does it stop, omniscience?

[JrayM16]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

This is where I shake my head and walk away.

Seconded.

[Majin Paul]

I don't mind capes not being in the game but they would have been a cool addition, moreso outside combat.

[tmp7704]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

No.

At most you can make them aware that they already care about something, but they hadn't noticed yet.

I'd love to hear explanation how one may already care about something they either weren't aware of in the first place, or have decided not to care about as a result of whatever thought process caused them to make such (conscious) decision.

A: "i don't care about X, it doesn't affect me"
B: "no, X affects you because of Y"
A: "ohh then i guess i do care about X"

are you going to insist that A did care about X all along, despite their clear claim to the contrary?

Modifié par tmp7704, 02 novembre 2010 - 02:27 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

tmp7704 wrote...

I'd love to hear explanation how one may already care about something they either weren't aware of in the first place, or have decided not to care about as a result of whatever thought process caused them to make such (conscious) decision.

A: "i don't care about X, it doesn't affect me"
B: "no, X affects you because of Y"
A: "ohh then i guess i do care about X"

are you going to insist that A did care about X all along, despite their clear claim to the contrary?

Yes.  If them caring about X follows logically from them caring about something else (the Y mentioned in the argument), then they must have already cared about X.  To do otherwise would have been internally contradictory.

[grregg]

Hmm... I would expect that introducing words like 'cares' or 'believes' would cause the sentence in question to stop being truth-functional. In fact, I'd think that you'd land smack-dab in the middle of intensional logic (as opposed to extensional logic that generally is truth-functional).

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't find intensional logic valuable. Examining the semantics of natural language is a waste of time; natural language is a problem to be overcome, not a field to be studied.

[Hollingdale]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I don't find intensional logic valuable. Examining the semantics of natural language is a waste of time; natural language is a problem to be overcome, not a field to be studied.

As if natural language semantics don't mirror our thoughts and aren't part of the problem you think should be overcome.

Imo know the rules you want to break.

[Hollingdale]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius are you just tired of qualifying your opinions as such - which I would understand, or do you legitimately feel your views are representative of objective truth?

I fail to see what value higher quality graphics would provide.  I also question whether the graphics can actually be higher quality overall given the limitations of using exactly the same console hardware for the second game.

It's not like with a PC game where they can take advantage of newer hardware with every release.  They're stuck with exactly the same graphical limitations they had last time.

In order to improve one area - say, character models - I think they'll have to give back on something else (perhaps the poly-counts of environments).

And that's not an improvement.  That's a trade-off.

Coming from someone with clear intellectual aspirations this post must surely be a joke? Protip: Compare early 360 or PS2 or whatever games with new. Yes they probably use the same amount of processing power etc so indeed they've made a lot of good tradeoffs and they've used more efficient programming (which isn't even tradeoff) leading to improved graphics. Really, christ, if you want to talk about logic why use a definition of good graphics where all that is relevant is the power of the available hardware.

[tmp7704]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

I'd love to hear explanation how one may already care about something they either weren't aware of in the first place, or have decided not to care about as a result of whatever thought process caused them to make such (conscious) decision.

A: "i don't care about X, it doesn't affect me"
B: "no, X affects you because of Y"
A: "ohh then i guess i do care about X"

are you going to insist that A did care about X all along, despite their clear claim to the contrary?

Yes.  If them caring about X follows logically from them caring about something else (the Y mentioned in the argument), then they must have already cared about X.  To do otherwise would have been internally contradictory.

I'm sorry but this is faulty logic -- at the initial point where the person is convinced they do not care about X, they hold this view as result of their own thought process which they believe to be correct. As such there is nothing internally contradictory here about changing one's mind if provided with additional information or a point of view that wasn't previously taken into account.

If for example a person believes (for whatever reason) all frogs are female and then are proven wrong and change their mind as result of that, it doesn't mean they believed from the start that frogs could be of either gender, nor there's anything internally contradictory in their change of view.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Granted.  Incorrect assumptions can lead to incorrect conclusions.  But introducing new information is a logical argument, not an emotional one.

Logos still wins.

[John Epler]

Let's pull this back on topic.

[grregg]

The topic of Ummm.... you mean?