885 réponses à ce sujet

[Davasar]

Atakuma wrote...

Davasar wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

I am not really disputing this...I am however disbuteing how he seems to think adding a voice restricts freedom when in truth it does not change it in the slightest.

The voice actor decides how the characters tone and inflection and emotion are induced to each statement.

You aren't deciding that.

That's all I am saying.

You weren't deciding that in origins either, you only pretended you were.

Actually I was, I had six to choose from

[SirOccam]

Davasar wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Davasar wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

I am not really disputing this...I am however disbuteing how he seems to think adding a voice restricts freedom when in truth it does not change it in the slightest.

The voice actor decides how the characters tone and inflection and emotion are induced to each statement.

You aren't deciding that.

That's all I am saying.

You weren't deciding that in origins either, you only pretended you were.

Actually I was, I had six to choose from

And guess what? You still have six to choose from.

[Morroian]

Revan312 wrote...

I'm not saying the amount of information conveyed is better in a book, I'm saying books convey that information in a way that requires more thought and reflection, therefor it produces more impact. Perhaps this as well is mostly subjective, I don't feel it is but it could be, regardless however I retain the argument that heavy readers are on a whole more intelligent than heavy video game/movie/tv watchers..

Games have different benefits, tactical or strategic games encourage more tactical and strategic thinking, then there's the physical benefits of more twitch games like hand eye co-ordination.

[Davasar]

Sir JK wrote...
We want our character to communicate, to interact with the world. If that means less choices total then it's a fair trade-off (to us).
In essence: a choice that matters gives more roleplaying freedom than a choice that doesn't.

I hope that makes sense

See bold above.  Myself and others like more choice over all.  You and others are ok with less choice.

There is the crux of our disconnect.

Thank you for pointing that out.

Modifié par Davasar, 22 novembre 2010 - 05:46 .

[Davasar]

SirOccam wrote...

Davasar wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Davasar wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

I am not really disputing this...I am however disbuteing how he seems to think adding a voice restricts freedom when in truth it does not change it in the slightest.

The voice actor decides how the characters tone and inflection and emotion are induced to each statement.

You aren't deciding that.

That's all I am saying.

You weren't deciding that in origins either, you only pretended you were.

Actually I was, I had six to choose from

And guess what? You still have six to choose from.

But I gotta listen to some clown deliver the lines.  Bleh

Well, if I borrow the game.

Modifié par Davasar, 22 novembre 2010 - 05:41 .

[upsettingshorts]

I would have bolded a different part, myself.

"A choice that matters gives more roleplaying freedom than a choice that doesn't"

I can and do understand that doubt, ambiguity, and illusion of choice enhance roleplaying for people who enjoy projecting their imagination onto a CRPG - and I totally get that - but as someone who doesn't do that and instead plays within the confines of the game's limitations, the effect of what my character does and says it far more important than the precise wording or nature of the delivery.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 novembre 2010 - 05:42 .

[TheRevanchist]

Davasar wrote...

Sir JK wrote...
We want our character to communicate, to interact with the world. If that means less choices total then it's a fair trade-off (to us).
In essence: a choice that matters gives more roleplaying freedom than a choice that doesn't.

I hope that makes sense

See bold above.  Myself and others like less choice over all.  You and others want it.

There is the crux of our disconnect.

Thank you for pointing that out.

That has nothing to do with your argument...you are simply leap frogging onto other arguments whenever you realized you lost one.

[Sir JK]

Davasar wrote...
See bold above.  Myself and other like less choice over all.  You and others want it.

There is the crux of our disconnect.

Thank you for pointing that out.

Hmmm... I'd put it like this:

We both want more choice.
I'm willing to give up having more options to reach that end (making each option matter more).
You prefer having more options to reach that end (providing more options to choose from).

That way we won't insult anyones sensibilities

[In Exile]

Revan312 wrote...
My definition of higher form within the context of media is that books do take more comprehension and focus, meaning your becoming more intelligent in the process, your training yourself mentally. Books are also much more, at least for me, enlightening and fulfilling. Watching a movie is just that, watching, reading is active and needs active brain involvement.

Intelligence doesn't work that way. Reading doesn't make you smarter; it makes you a better reader, in the same way that repeatedly doing math doesn't make you smarter, it just makes you a smarter mathematician.

I would argue a good movie can be just as intellectually challenging is a good book. Certainly a harlequin romance is not the equivalent of, say, the Godfather or Taxi Driver.

I'm not saying the amount of information conveyed is better in a book, I'm saying books convey that information in a way that requires more thought and reflection, therefor it produces more impact.

Does math statistical thermodynamics produce more "impact" than an on-screen kiss? Certainly to understand statistical thermondynamics one requires a significant amount of reflection; trust me, it's quite challenging.

Perhaps this as well is mostly subjective, I don't feel it is but it could be, regardless however I retain the argument that heavy readers are on a whole more intelligent than heavy video game/movie/tv watchers..

What are we reading? I would wager if I watch films only of the highest critical acclaim (i.e. Oscar contenders) and someone else is reading Harry Potter or Twilight, people would be inclined to make the opposite inference on taste.

[Davasar]

kylecouch wrote...

Davasar wrote...

Sir JK wrote...
We want our character to communicate, to interact with the world. If that means less choices total then it's a fair trade-off (to us).
In essence: a choice that matters gives more roleplaying freedom than a choice that doesn't.

I hope that makes sense

See bold above.  Myself and others like less choice over all.  You and others want it.

There is the crux of our disconnect.

Thank you for pointing that out.

That has nothing to do with your argument...you are simply leap frogging onto other arguments whenever you realized you lost one.

Or, maybe I do not wish to argue with the obtuse.

[Revan312]

Morroian wrote...
Games have different benefits, tactical or strategic games encourage more tactical and strategic thinking, then there's the physical benefits of more twitch games like hand eye co-ordination.

Oh I'm not saying that games/tv/movies don't encourage certain aspects of thought or  motor skills or perception etc etc  But on a critical thinking and general inteligence level, book readers are further along than any of the other mediafiles.  My grandmother knows 5 times more than I do about cultures, geography, history, politics and more, and those are just the factoids she's gleened off from reading, let alone her critical thinking/comprehension skills aquired from it.

[Davasar]

Sir JK wrote...

Davasar wrote...
See bold above.  Myself and other like less choice over all.  You and others want it.

There is the crux of our disconnect.

Thank you for pointing that out.

Hmmm... I'd put it like this:

We both want more choice.
I'm willing to give up having more options to reach that end (making each option matter more).
You prefer having more options to reach that end (providing more options to choose from).

That way we won't insult anyones sensibilities

True.  I suppose I am rather demanding with my games these days on certain things just as others are.

[TheRevanchist]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I would have bolded a different part, myself.

"A choice that matters gives more roleplaying freedom than a choice that doesn't"

I can and do understand that doubt, ambiguity, and illusion of choice enhance roleplaying for people who enjoy projecting their imagination onto a CRPG - and I totally get that - but as someone who doesn't do that and instead plays within the confines of the game's limitations, the effect of what my character does and says it far more important than the precise wording or nature of the delivery.

This...to the 1,000,000th power this.

[TheRevanchist]

Davasar wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

Davasar wrote...

Sir JK wrote...
We want our character to communicate, to interact with the world. If that means less choices total then it's a fair trade-off (to us).
In essence: a choice that matters gives more roleplaying freedom than a choice that doesn't.

I hope that makes sense

See bold above.  Myself and others like less choice over all.  You and others want it.

There is the crux of our disconnect.

Thank you for pointing that out.

That has nothing to do with your argument...you are simply leap frogging onto other arguments whenever you realized you lost one.

Or, maybe I do not wish to argue with the obtuse.

No..you simply don't want to admit that the tone you "imagine" your character saying does not mean anything AT ALL to the game.

[Davasar]

kylecouch wrote...

Davasar wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

Davasar wrote...

Sir JK wrote...
We want our character to communicate, to interact with the world. If that means less choices total then it's a fair trade-off (to us).
In essence: a choice that matters gives more roleplaying freedom than a choice that doesn't.

I hope that makes sense

See bold above.  Myself and others like less choice over all.  You and others want it.

There is the crux of our disconnect.

Thank you for pointing that out.

That has nothing to do with your argument...you are simply leap frogging onto other arguments whenever you realized you lost one.

Or, maybe I do not wish to argue with the obtuse.

No..you simply don't want to admit that the tone you "imagine" your character saying does not mean anything AT ALL to the game.

Hey, just because you dont get as much out of it as I do because of my imagination isnt reason to get mad.

[TheMufflon]

Revan312 wrote...

My definition of higher form within the context of media is that books do take more comprehension and focus, meaning your becoming more intelligent in the process, your training yourself mentally. Books are also much more, at least for me, enlightening and fulfilling. Watching a movie is just that, watching, reading is active and needs active brain involvement.

I fail to see the reasoning behind the idea that reading books is somehow healthy or "good for you". Reading fiction will not make you smarter or more knowledgeable than watching fiction. As much information can be conveyed through a non-fiction book as through a documentary.

Furthermore I would dispute that reading is somehow more "active" than watching a movie. You are simply taking in information in a different way. You can think as much when watching a movie as when reading a book.

I'm not saying the amount of information conveyed is better in a book, I'm saying books convey that information in a way that requires more thought and reflection.

Except you can read a book without thinking of, or reflecting on its content, just as you can watch a movie and think about, and reflect on its content.

Modifié par TheMufflon, 22 novembre 2010 - 05:48 .

[upsettingshorts]

As someone who has witnessed first-hand how few people legitimately read critically, the argument that the written word is intrinsically more intellectually demanding doesn't strike me as compelling.

Like anything else, what matters is effort. That being said, I'm not sure what it has to do with the silent protagonist of DA:O versus the voiced protagonist of DA:2....

[TheRevanchist]

Davasar wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

Davasar wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

Davasar wrote...

Sir JK wrote...
We want our character to communicate, to interact with the world. If that means less choices total then it's a fair trade-off (to us).
In essence: a choice that matters gives more roleplaying freedom than a choice that doesn't.

I hope that makes sense

See bold above.  Myself and others like less choice over all.  You and others want it.

There is the crux of our disconnect.

Thank you for pointing that out.

That has nothing to do with your argument...you are simply leap frogging onto other arguments whenever you realized you lost one.

Or, maybe I do not wish to argue with the obtuse.

No..you simply don't want to admit that the tone you "imagine" your character saying does not mean anything AT ALL to the game.

Hey, just because you dont get as much out of it as I do because of my imagination isnt reason to get mad.

Omg thats my whole point...you ARNT getting more out of this then me...the game does not care what tone you imagine...it only cares about the tone the writers programed that choice with...you are still playing the writers game regardless of how you imagine it otherwise...because you can imagine whatever you want but that does mean anything to the games programing.

[Apollo Starflare]

Revan312 wrote...

Morroian wrote...
Games have different benefits, tactical or strategic games encourage more tactical and strategic thinking, then there's the physical benefits of more twitch games like hand eye co-ordination.

Oh I'm not saying that games/tv/movies don't encourage certain aspects of thought or  motor skills or perception etc etc  But on a critical thinking and general inteligence level, book readers are further along than any of the other mediafiles.  My grandmother knows 5 times more than I do about cultures, geography, history, politics and more, and those are just the factoids she's gleened off from reading, let alone her critical thinking/comprehension skills aquired from it.

I think you would be very surprised at how well versed a 'watcher' can be on a critical thinking and general inteligence level, at least where tv and film are concerned. The times, they are a changin'.

[TheMufflon]

Davasar wrote...

Or, maybe I do not wish to argue with the obtuse.

In fact it appears that you do not wish to argue at all, because all you seem to be doing is thinking up new reasons for why you can dismiss the arguments of others without actually considering them.

[TuringPoint]

Ooo! I know!



They could just go with clicks! And then force us to learn the language of clicks and whistles, or else have extensive subtitles.

[Davasar]

kylecouch wrote...

Davasar wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

Davasar wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

Davasar wrote...

Sir JK wrote...
We want our character to communicate, to interact with the world. If that means less choices total then it's a fair trade-off (to us).
In essence: a choice that matters gives more roleplaying freedom than a choice that doesn't.

I hope that makes sense

See bold above.  Myself and others like less choice over all.  You and others want it.

There is the crux of our disconnect.

Thank you for pointing that out.

That has nothing to do with your argument...you are simply leap frogging onto other arguments whenever you realized you lost one.

Or, maybe I do not wish to argue with the obtuse.

No..you simply don't want to admit that the tone you "imagine" your character saying does not mean anything AT ALL to the game.

Hey, just because you dont get as much out of it as I do because of my imagination isnt reason to get mad.

Omg thats my whole point...you ARNT getting more out of this then me...the game does not care what tone you imagine...it only cares about the tone the writers programed that choice with...you are still playing the writers game regardless of how you imagine it otherwise...because you can imagine whatever you want but that does mean anything to the games programing.

Hey, I dont spend my time trying to look behind you curtain like you do.  If that's how you play the game, then fine.

I prefer to take a journey further then most and my imagination is the key.

[Flurdt Vash]

Honestly I could care less if the games are voiced or not. The only advantage I can see to it not being voiced is that you wouldnt NEED to recruit the voice actor every time you wanted to make an expansion or create download content. However the same could be said as a plus for full VO, if you cant get everything together, then you dont have to worry about going threw the hassle of creating DLC or anything because you cant get your 'Actor/ss' back to do his or her work. So, really I think its up to the developers as to which way they want to go. Truly I think that saying "Oh, the main character is 100% voiced.'" Is garbage, it doesnt matter, it doesnt make or break the game and a company as long term into to RPGs as BioWare is well aware of this fact. Oh dear Im rambling, lol still thats my thoughts on it.

[TheMufflon]

Davasar wrote...

I prefer to take a journey further then most and my imagination is the key.

Then why are you playing a CRPG in the first place?

Modifié par TheMufflon, 22 novembre 2010 - 05:58 .

[Revan312]

In Exile wrote...

*snip*

Your bringing specifics into an argument about generalities. Of course it matters on what is being read or watched, but when I went to the movies last weekend to see Skyline (btw, don't bother with that mess) my sister read a book about female genital mutilation in Africa. I joked to her that I was guaranteed to have a better time and yet I'm almost not sure of that after seeing it.. I do know for a fact however that she gained much more insight and factual information based on what she did as opposed to me.



But, I will still argue, that reading in and of itself does make you smarter on a whole, so long as the reading level is appropriately on par. Yes, by reading twilight your not going to get any smarter, but reading about the purpose of glial cells in biological psychology certainly will, if your not above that level of comprehension.



And I'm sorry, but no movie has ever challenged me the same as some of the books I've read. Much of that is time restraints, but I still believe that actively reading about a car crash and the feelings of the occupants has more impact on me from an intellectual level than watching it, which although visceral, still doesn't hold the weight that a very good writer can infuse into that situation.