333 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...


The bold portions are all suppositions you are making about my character. He (in this case) would do none of these things, particularly not hide a distatesful opinion or not actually care about Wynne's opinion.

The game forcing me into dialogue like this is no different than your complaint that Shepard cannot represent you based on the things he says during dialogue.

I am pointing out that the game cannot support this character in this instance. Just like it cannot support characters that correct misunderstands. Just because you would act some way says nothing about the viability of any particular character concept.

My character not expressing his opinion here is as inconsistent as picking any other opinion.

Having that requirement would defeat every game.  There's no way for the designers to know your character's mental state, so they cannot allow you always to express that mental state.

If you choose to design a character that requires that expression, then you're effectively choosing to be unsatisfied with the game.  You know it's going to fail.

After all, if I tell Wynne it means glory and honour, that could very well be a lie.

That's true.  But it would have to be a lie your character was willing to tell.  That's different in kind from the dodge option.

The dodge option doesn't require your character actually say anyting substantive.  That's why it's valuable.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 13 décembre 2010 - 07:09 .

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Having that requirement would defeat every game.  There's no way for the designers to know your character's mental state, so they cannot allow you always to express that mental state.

Does success here require 100% fidelity?

[Sylvius the Mad]

I said always. So yes.

But I don't see how a game could possibly accommodate that even 50% of the time.

[darrylzero]

I think this is a really interesting debate, and I find myself somewhere in between. The dodge Sylvius mentions works perfectly well for the kinds of characters I tend to play, so I don't share all of In Exile's frustration. However, while it's true that the writers can't anticipate everything, I think that the writers should have anticipated more ambivalence, even outrage, about being forced to become a Warden. In fact, I'm kind of surprised they didn't.



I think once again it breaks down partially by origin. I would think that most Mahariel and Aeducan characters would not be so outraged. Maybe ambivalent, frustrated and a little creeped out by the cultish secrecy, but probably not outraged by the role of the Wardens in their lives. Couslands, on the other hand, will either be eager to sign up from the start or they will be outraged (or possibly both if they end up feeling blindsided by the ritual). Those characters are poorly served by the available choices.



But I want to focus on the other three. There's definitely variety in the way that Amell, Tabris, and Brosca characters might respond to all this, but I think one thing they share is a much more tentative, ambivalent relationship with society in general. You may be pissed off that you're forced to become a Warden, but in each case it's less the Wardens' fault (or Duncan's). Moreover, by the end of Origins, a big part of what gives you standing in society is your role as Warden.



I think this better accommodates the choice to participate in the events of Awakening. My Tabris has two remaining goals after the end of the Origins campaign:



1) Stay above my previous station in life.



2) Remove the taint.



Basically any character I play ends up in roughly the same place (for my female Cousland, you can substitute freedom/autonomy for station). But I think it makes sense for Tabris/Brosca/Amell characters to agree command the Wardens, while they search out a cure for the taint. All three backgrounds have substantial reason to fear society turning on them, I think, and shouldn't be too quick to air dirty laundry in public. I'm not saying that's the only way to go.



So, I'm bummed I never got to role-play searching for an end to the taint, but it's not quite the end of the world for me (though I do think it was a big missed opportunity). Maybe there is no cure (we know about Fiona, of course, but my character doesn't), and with Witch Hunt rolling around, maybe he's ready to see some other things as more important (like protecting his kid from Flemeth's designs). I didn't get what I wanted, but I can make it all make sense for my character. And I feel like that should be true for most non-Cousland characters, because I think they should be a little nervous about their relationship to society and willing to *use* their status as a Warden, however much they resent it, in pursuit (or defense) of their interests. That's my two cents anyway...

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I said always. So yes..

Shouldn't In Exile be making that call for himself? Unless when you said "if you choose" you actually meant "if I chose", etc.

Modifié par AlanC9, 13 décembre 2010 - 08:56 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

But he's the one choosing to design that character.

I'll admit I never considered making a character like that because that's just not how I approach conversations, but his complaints about the game not accommodating him all boil down to him requiring his character be something the game can't ever allow.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

It actually does. Wynne asks you outright what being a Warden means to you. Here are your options:

Ah, right. I forgot that one. It is a good point, there's lack of option to complain about the conscription.

And then comes Awakening, which tells you take your reasons and shove them if you want to keep playing, because you're commanding the Warden Order in Ferelden and that's it.

Well, yes. The expansion covers this particular scenario where your character is willing to lend the Wardens a hand. This does indeed leave everyone who doesn't want that option unable to continue their story, but then the same would be true if instead the expansion covered say, your character quitting the Wardens and going out on adventure instad. Then it would be different part of the playerbase, the one who'd want to stick with the Wardens, that'd be left with no way to continue "their" story.

As such, i'm not sure really if that's something that can be resolved in manner which would please everyone.

And that's the problem. The writers do not consider the possibility people will react poorly to their forced conscription and kidnapping.

Perhaps they consider it, but there's only so much branching that can be put into the story given amount of resources available. From what we've been told, the game had to be trimmed from quite a bit of content as it is, becaues they weren't able to get it all done before the deadline.

But granted, i would personally appreciate having option to vent to Wynne about it, if nothing else.

edit: poked around Wynne's dialogue file and she does have a conversation where you can actually complain about being a Warden to some degree. She basically tells you to "deal with it" but well, it's something.

Modifié par tmp7704, 14 décembre 2010 - 02:31 .

[tmp7704]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

[*]I don't know. Does it have to mean something?

This is the one you should have chosen.  It's a dodge.  It doesn't answer Wynne's question.

Yeah, went with this one in my CE game if i remember right, reasoning it wouldn't be subject she'd really want to discuss being still pretty sore about it. It was a case of bending (somewhat) the concept of character to list of choices available. But then it's bound to happen every now and then.

Modifié par tmp7704, 14 décembre 2010 - 02:25 .

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Having that requirement would defeat every game.  There's no way for the designers to know your character's mental state, so they cannot allow you always to express that mental state.

The writers don't need to know my mental state at all. In this case, we are expressing an opinion. Broadly, the affect of any opinion is somewhere between like/neutral/hate.

I don't demand that Bioware allow me to express any particular "because..." for my affect, but I would like for them to allow me to express any of the three if given the choice.

With the Wardens, we have three specific variants of "like" and one "neutral." This is the problem.

If you choose to design a character that requires that expression, then you're effectively choosing to be unsatisfied with the game.  You know it's going to fail.

Not at all. Your standard for expression is not mine. I do not need the character to say some particular literal line; I only need some broad expression that will have the kind of effect in the gameworld that I want.

This is the same issue as with misunderstanding. If the game does not allow it, it does not happen, and so the character is broken.

This is why I prefer VO. It dramatically narrows the expressive affective range of the PC and allows you to clearly know what expressions are supported in-game.

That's true.  But it would have to be a lie your character was willing to tell.  That's different in kind from the dodge option.

Not at all. The only difference is at the very best the fact that my character would rather lie than dodge. But for a character that would do neither, this interaction is broken.

The dodge option doesn't require your character actually say anyting substantive.  That's why it's valuable

Actually, it does. It requires that you actively misleading, constantly.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But he's the one choosing to
design that character.

I'm choosing to include a broad personality trait. This is no different than how silent VO rampantly discriminates against extraversion.

I'll admit I never considered making a
character like that because that's just not how I approach
conversations, but his complaints about the game not accommodating him
all boil down to him requiring his character be something the game can't
ever allow.

Not at all. As always, you are beggining the question against me by applying your standard to my request.

tmp7704 wrote...

And then comes Awakening, which tells you
take your reasons and shove them if you want to keep playing, because
you're commanding the Warden Order in Ferelden and that's it.

Thing is, they could still funnel you. Wynne might just say some variant of suck it up, you have a job to do. The fact that you actually can't hate the Wardens for kidnapping and infecting you with the taint is pretty insane to me, though.

Well, yes. The expansion covers this particular scenario where your
character is willing to lend the Wardens a hand. This does indeed leave
everyone who doesn't want that option unable to continue their story,
but then the same would be true if instead the expansion covered say,
your character quitting the Wardens and going out on adventure instad.
Then it would be different part of the playerbase, the one who'd want to
stick with the Wardens, that'd be left with no way to continue "their"
story.

As such, i'm not sure really if that's something that can
be resolved in manner which would please everyone.

The problem is with the "you wanted this" hook. If the architect kidnapped you, and so you then went to Vigil's Keep and found the Wardens dead and a leader was needed, that would be different. You could have the same plot, just without them breaking a character.

That's how it worked in DA:O, after all, with the right to conscription. It was the "GREY WARDEN PLOT POWER ACTIVATE: Form of... Railroading!" type of move.

Perhaps they consider it, but there's only so much branching that can be
put into the story given amount of resources available. From what we've
been told, the game had to be trimmed from quite a bit of content as it
is, becaues they weren't able to get it all done before the deadline.

I don't think it really needs very much content. A lot of it can just be (since this is silent VO) the kind of PC line no one actually bothers to react to except with generic dialogue.

But
granted, i would personally appreciate having option to vent to Wynne
about it, if nothing else.

It wouldn't even have bugged me so much if they didn't draw attention to it as much as they do.

[darrylzero]

I don't know. While I would also value the ability to say the kinds of things In Exile wishes he were able to say in DAO, I'm not sure Sylvius is off-base here. If part of the requirement of your vision is that you be able to say exactly what you want to be able to say, some subset of the people who desire this will be unsatisfied, inevitably. In Exile has a point, that sometimes our inability to express what we want to express is just as significant as some voice actor blindsiding us, but I think it's approaching a truism that we're likely to encounter that issue more often with voiceover than without.



Now, that doesn't end this kind of conversation. Part of what I feel like In Exile is trying to do is caution us about being complacent about the extent to which a silent protagonist does (or doesn't) help us avoid all this. But I think that plays back into a very Sylvius-friendly dichotomy. The writers can either:



1) Try to create dialogue options that are to some degree polyvocal.



2) Try to write a better (but restrictive) story, such that more players are better satisfied by the available options.



To be honest, I can't decide which I value more. I'm definitely willing to entertain In Exile's assertion Sylvius is underestimating the costs of vague dialogue choices that are not story-driven in this regard. Certainly, when the writers get me, that is the best scenario. But I think that people may also be underestimating the value of being able to say something that is no-quite-right-but-not-entirely-out-of-character. That's a much easier choice for me to make, and a more comfortable one than seeing/hearing my character spout something that I just can't imagine him or her saying.

[Wishpig]

marshalleck wrote...

EGTF wrote...
 Dragon Effect.

How f***ing clever.

LOL! Kind of late to the party, but epic post!

[In Exile]

darrylzero wrote...
. If part of the requirement of your vision is that you be able to say exactly what you want to be able to say, some subset of the people who desire this will be unsatisfied, inevitably. In Exile has a point, that sometimes our inability to express what we want to express is just as significant as some voice actor blindsiding us, but I think it's approaching a truism that we're likely to encounter that issue more often with voiceover than without.

It's important to point out here that my claim isn't that people need to say exactly what they want to say. In fact, I would argue against this as any kind of dialogue principle. I believe that people should be allowed to express the broad intent they have and to have predictable consequences from their dialogue in a direction they want, but I think the literal content of dialogue is irrelevant.

To give you an example. If I have a PC with anger problems, I would like lots of angry or aggresive responses. I don't particularly care what the angry or aggressive responses are, but I would like them to be there.

I only have an issue with the dialogue when they are not there.

Now, that doesn't end this kind of conversation. Part of what I feel like In Exile is trying to do is caution us about being complacent about the extent to which a silent protagonist does (or doesn't) help us avoid all this. But I think that plays back into a very Sylvius-friendly dichotomy. The writers can either:

1) Try to create dialogue options that are to some degree polyvocal.

2) Try to write a better (but restrictive) story, such that more players are better satisfied by the available options

No, my claim is different. For one, I would say that 1) is impossible. The dialogue cannot be polyvocal because the NPC has to react to it in some way and so the tone is defined, because the game will only react as if it was said in that one predetermined tone. Moreover, I would argue that dialogue options have a single meaning, because there is a single reaction that characters can have to it.

The solution is to write more restrictive characters, with a broader range of emotions that can be experienced. So long as we focus on the literal content of what is being said, we run into the problem of it being impossible for the writers to actually anticipated how people want to say things. If we focus on the purpose of action and the broad set of things people could do in a particular situation, then we've created a much more reactive dialogue system.

To be honest, I can't decide which I value more. I'm definitely willing to entertain In Exile's assertion Sylvius is underestimating the costs of vague dialogue choices that are not story-driven in this regard. Certainly, when the writers get me, that is the best scenario. But I think that people may also be underestimating the value of being able to say something that is no-quite-right-but-not-entirely-out-of-character. That's a much easier choice for me to make, and a more comfortable one than seeing/hearing my character spout something that I just can't imagine him or her saying.

This comes down to personal preference. My character is always broken when an action is impossible. It isn't about saying the wrong thing at all. It is about doing the wrong thing. Essentially, to me there is no difference between not being able to do or say something in character, and your counter-claim about having to say something out of character.

More broadly, I don't see the difference between the two situations. You're trying to minimize the difference in the silent VO case, but that's not justified. Why is acting entirely out of character in on case less discomforting than acting entirely out of character in the other case?

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

I don't demand that Bioware allow me to express any particular "because..." for my affect, but I would like for them to allow me to express any of the three if given the choice.

With the Wardens, we have three specific variants of "like" and one "neutral." This is the problem.

I think those specific variants matter.  The three extremes you mention don't offer a lot of opportunity for nuance.

But you are correct that a chance to openly object would have been very good, and the game suffers by its absence.

Not at all. Your standard for expression is not mine. I do not need the character to say some particular literal line; I only need some broad expression that will have the kind of effect in the gameworld that I want.

I'll admit I still don't understand this at all.  The effect in the gameworld over which you can credibly have control is the literal content of the line.  Everything past that is beyond the abilities of any credible character.

But even so, the game would need to do a much better job than ME did of letting the player know what that effect is going to be.

This is why I prefer VO. It dramatically narrows the expressive affective range of the PC and allows you to clearly know what expressions are supported in-game.

And why I prefer a silent protagonist, as it allows a much broader expressive range.

Not at all. The only difference is at the very best the fact that my character would rather lie than dodge. But for a character that would do neither, this interaction is broken.

A character that doesn't dodge?  Does such a person exist?  He's be comically earnest.

Actually, it does. It requires that you actively misleading, constantly.

Asking a question cannot be misleading.  Questions contain no information.

I'm choosing to include a broad personality trait. This is no different than how silent VO rampantly discriminates against extraversion.

As implemented in games so far, a voiced PC rampantly discriminates against introversion.

In Exile wrote...

No, my claim is different. For one, I would say that 1) is impossible. The dialogue cannot be polyvocal because the NPC has to react to it in some way and so the tone is defined, because the game will only react as if it was said in that one predetermined tone. Moreover, I would argue that dialogue options have a single meaning, because there is a single reaction that characters can have to it.

These conclusions are entirely baseless.  You know that, right?

There's no reason to believe that a character's reaction to a remark is an accurate representation of that remark.

The solution is to write more restrictive characters, with a broader range of emotions that can be experienced. So long as we focus on the literal content of what is being said, we run into the problem of it being impossible for the writers to actually anticipated how people want to say things.

This is a strength of the system, not a failing.

This comes down to personal preference. My character is always broken when an action is impossible.

Whereas, my character is broken when he performs any action (including utterances) I didn't explicitly intend.  And with ME's dialogue, since there was no way for me to know what Shepard was going to say or how he was going to say it, it was impossible for me to intend those utterances.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 14 décembre 2010 - 06:44 .

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

This is why I prefer VO. It dramatically narrows the expressive affective range of the PC and allows you to clearly know what expressions are supported in-game.

And why I prefer a silent protagonist, as it allows a much broader expressive range.

And at this point, you two should just stop. Seriously. You two are trying to do two different things, and there's no reconciling them. In Exile is only interested in controlling his character's utterances to the extent that they can have a potential effect on NPCs. What you want in the dialog system is of no value to him, and adding enough ambiguity to the PC's dialog to provide what you want runs counter to his interests.

Edit: no reconciling the perspectives, I mean; I suppose a system that satisfies both is conceivable. Would an ME2 system with a null PC voiceset  work for you, Sylvius? You could imagine any dialog you wanted consistent with the paraphrases, right?

Modifié par AlanC9, 14 décembre 2010 - 09:30 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

Edit: no reconciling the perspectives, I mean; I suppose a system that satisfies both is conceivable. Would an ME2 system with a null PC voiceset  work for you, Sylvius? You could imagine any dialog you wanted consistent with the paraphrases, right?

I've basically said as much.  Disabling the PC voice and turning off the subtitles (so I never see how much the paraphrase differs from the actual line) would go a long way toward making ME fun for me.

That still wouldn't be ideal, as Shepard would still take unforeseeable actions based on those paraphrase options, but it would certainly be better.

[Aesthioseae]

@ Sylvius the Mad:



I disagree with your statement that questions contain no information. For instance, if I were to ask you "How was your day at such and such?" without you having told me you were there, you may very well be able to extrapolate that I had some way of knowing that you were there. This same question may be represented over a broad array of spectrums.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Aesthioseae wrote...

I disagree with your statement that questions contain no information. For instance, if I were to ask you "How was your day at such and such?" without you having told me you were there, you may very well be able to extrapolate that I had some way of knowing that you were there. This same question may be represented over a broad array of spectrums.

But there's no requirement that you know I was there.  What if I wasn't there, and you know that, so you're trying to trip me up by elaborating on a lie?

Questions can't contain information, because then it would be possible for them to contain false information.  And then you could lie with them.

Can you lie with a question?  Can you ask me a question that constitutes lying to me?

No, you can't.  Therefore, questions can't contain information.  Modus tollens.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I think those specific variants matter.  The three extremes you mention don't offer a lot of opportunity for nuance.

But you are correct that a chance to openly object would have been very good, and the game suffers by its absence.

We'll never agree on the issue of specifics. But you see the justification for my initial complaint?

I'll admit I still don't understand this at all.  The effect in the gameworld over which you can credibly have control is the literal content of the line.  Everything past that is beyond the abilities of any credible character.

Please, stop beggining the question. I like debating with you, but I would appreciate that you at least acknowledge I have a different view on things than you do, and will ask you again to stop filtering my views through your system and letting me know you disagree.

But even so, the game would need to do a much better job than ME did of letting the player know what that effect is going to be.

I agree. That isn't relevant to the previous issue, however. Not at all. The only difference is at the very best the fact that my character would rather lie than dodge. But for a character that would do neither, this interaction is broken.

A character that doesn't dodge?  Does such a person exist?  He's be comically earnest.

Why do you suppose the character would never dodge? I am only saying that in this situation (expressing an incredible and seething hatred of the Grey Wardens) my character would not dodge.

Certainly you would agree with me that even if this action were self-descructive, a PC ought to be allowed to be self-destructive.

Asking a question cannot be misleading.  Questions contain no information.

We will not agree on this, because we will disagree on the actual content of a conversation and the revelance of a host of things beyond the literal content, which I will again remind you I think is the least relevant part of any conversation.

As implemented in games so far, a voiced PC rampantly discriminates against introversion.

I would argue Bioware games themselves discriminate against introversion. You simply cannot have a withdrawn leader without a revolt. The second you allow an extroverted person in the party, that person will revolt.

These conclusions are entirely baseless.  You know that, right?

There's no reason to believe that a character's reaction to a remark is an accurate representation of that remark.

We have been debating for over two years - in all this time, you haven't appreciated my position enough to understand what I believe? It kind of upsets me. 

Whereas, my character is broken when he performs any action (including utterances) I didn't explicitly intend.  And with ME's dialogue, since there was no way for me to know what Shepard was going to say or how he was going to say it, it was impossible for me to intend those utterances.

If a character is forced to act out of character, or if it is impossible for a character to act in character, for me there is no discernable difference.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Can you lie with a question?  Can you ask me a question that constitutes lying to me?

No, you can't.  Therefore, questions can't contain information.  Modus tollens.

Why do my ovaries hurt?

I am a man. It cannot be the case that my ovaries hurt. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Can you lie with a question?  Can you ask me a question that constitutes lying to me?

No, you can't.  Therefore, questions can't contain information.  Modus tollens.

Why do my ovaries hurt?

I am a man. It cannot be the case that my ovaries hurt.

Is that question equivalent to claiming that they do?

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

We'll never agree on the issue of specifics. But you see the justification for my initial complaint?

Yes.

Though I maintain that the DAO system is superior in pretty much every way that matters to me, I don't claim that DAO's implementation of that system was ideal.

And I don't see how a voiced PC would allow that range of expression either.  Which you concede.  But I disagree that voicing the PC makes that constraint any more acceptable.

Why do you suppose the character would never dodge? I am only saying that in this situation (expressing an incredible and seething hatred of the Grey Wardens) my character would not dodge.

Good point.

I recall when I first played DAO I couldn't imagine why anyone would openly tell Cailan that he was pathetic and the PC didn't care at all about him or his throne.  It struck me as a dumb thing to do.

And then I played a character who insisted on doing exactly that.

Certainly you would agree with me that even if this action were self-descructive, a PC ought to be allowed to be self-destructive.

To some degree, yes.  But I also recognise that the game can only model so many outcomes.  The failure of an option to be presented is equivalent to the game telling you that what you wanted to do didn't work, and suggesting you try again as if you reloaded.

We will not agree on this, because we will disagree on the actual content of a conversation and the revelance of a host of things beyond the literal content, which I will again remind you I think is the least relevant part of any conversation.

I don't keep coming back to this because I don't know your opinion on the issue.  I keep coming back to it because I don't understand your opinion on the issue.

If there is other conversational content, in order to understand what it can be I need to understand the process by which it is interpreted (and ideally expressed), and I simply don't.  If I had some procedure I could follow to interpret this non-literal content (or even had reason to suspect there is one), then I could move on.

I would argue Bioware games themselves discriminate against introversion. You simply cannot have a withdrawn leader without a revolt. The second you allow an extroverted person in the party, that person will revolt.

Except they don't.  And as you've pointed out many times, the unvoiced PC is necessarily a passive participant in most conversations.  Is this not evidence of introversion?

Not to mention that the games don't even require that the PC be the leader of a group (BG, for example).  In NWN he's an employer of hirelings.  Surely you don't deny that an introvert can employ people.

And furthermore, I maintain that in a party-based game the player is playing all of the characters, so then whatever reason the companions have for working together is determined by the player himself.

If a character is forced to act out of character, or if it is impossible for a character to act in character, for me there is no discernable difference.

And because I think acting out of character and not acting are different in kind, I disagree.

Inaction is neither in character nor out of character.  I don't think it makes sense to describe the absence of behaviour in this way.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote..
Is that question equivalent to claiming that they do?

Yes. If I, as a man, ask why my ovaries hurt, then I am making the demonstrably false claim that I have ovaries. Put another way, the questions takes for granted that I have ovaries.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm not sure that you are, but this is certainly the closest anyone has come when I've asked the question.

Good job.

[upsettingshorts]

In Exile wrote...

Yes. If I, as a man, ask why my ovaries hurt, then I am making the demonstrably false claim that I have ovaries. Put another way, the questions takes for granted that I have ovaries.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I'm not sure that you are, but this is certainly the closest anyone has come when I've asked the question.
Good job.

I'm thinking a lot on this, because I thought the issue you raised was very interesting. Can it be that questions never assert anything?

I'm not sure that's the case. I feel that a question takes for granted certain things, and can be used in a leading fashion. I don't think a question never asserts. I think good questions never do.

I'm currently thinking about open-ended questions.