372 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

When it comes to cRPGs,  I don't agree.  If I wanted such an experience I would write a story where the choices and consequences were internally conceived.  In cRPGs they aren't, so it isn't internal to me.

The choices are internally conceived.  Only you know what aspects of the alternatives presented to you are relevant to your character.

What I don't understand, though, is why you'd want the consequences to be internally conceived.  That, I think, would defeat the purpose of roleplaying, because you'd be free to decide what the outcomes were.

Then you're just writing a story.

[Xewaka]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That runs contrary to centuries of literary theory.

Once the author writes the book, he no longer has any control over how people read it, and there's no wrong conclusion to draw from the text.

Correct. That still doesn't remove the fact that the author has a personally preferred conclusion, closer to whatever his state of mind was during the process of writing.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The choices are internally conceived.

I didn't conjure the options that appear on my screen.  They were always there.  (Edit: Well, ever since the writers wrote them, anyway)

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Only you know what aspects of the alternatives presented to you are relevant to your character.

To me this is:

"Only I know which aspects of the alternatives presented to me are relevant to the version of Bioware's character I'm choosing."

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

What I don't understand, though, is why you'd want the consequences to be internally conceived.  That, I think, would defeat the purpose of roleplaying, because you'd be free to decide what the outcomes were.

Then you're just writing a story.

That's not what I want, it's my reductionist summary of the implications of your approach.  Part of your position is that you internally conceive the consequences of a variety of incongruities presented to you by the limitations of the game - such as just a few posts ago simply imagining that your character and a comrade cleared up some misunderstanding off-screen.  I'm more than willing to suspend disbelief over trivialities like eating, going to the bathroom, sleeping - etc.  But not things explicitly intended to be player choices with observable ingame consequences.  This goes back to months ago when my first reaction to the way you describe your approach was to say that I couldn't suspend disbelief to the extent you do.  

My position is simply that the choices and consequences are all predetermined, and anything that allows me to shape Bioware's story along paths they've accounted for with better accuracy is an improvement.   Indications of intended tone included.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 décembre 2010 - 12:17 .

[Maria Caliban]

AlanC9 wrote...

Having not played DX, I don't know how they're solving it. Do you?

Edit: IIRC The Witcher handles this by keeping Geralt's lines short. It works because he's a fairly laconic character, and doesn't have to make any of those big inspirational speeches that Shepard makes and Hawke almost certainly will have to.

Anyway, all I'm saying is that you have the causality wrong. The paraphrases are making the intent icons happen, not the other way around.

Adam has a predetermined personality. While the player has control of his beliefs, they don't touch the tone of his conversation.

Xewaka wrote...

I'd say because authors want people to experience their works by the vision the author has, rather than by the vision the reader has. Which is impossible.

Which of the above are you calling impossible?

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

I'd say because authors want people to experience their works by the vision the author has, rather than by the vision the reader has.

That runs contrary to centuries of literary theory.

Once the author writes the book, he no longer has any control over how people read it, and there's no wrong conclusion to draw from the text.

I'd say it's something that's frequently contested in literary circles. The further back you go, the more you'll see the assumption that all intelligent people will, when reading the same text, have the same experience of it.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 07 décembre 2010 - 12:48 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

"Only I know which aspects of the alternatives presented to me are relevant to the version of Bioware's character I'm choosing."

that's your choice.  you're welcome to play like that, but there's no reason to require others do the same.

.That's not what I want, it's my reductionist summary of the implications of your approach.  Part of your position is that you internally conceive the consequences of a variety of incongruities presented to you by the limitations of the game - such as just a few posts ago simply imagining that your character and a comrade cleared up some misunderstanding off-screen.  I'm more than willing to suspend disbelief over trivialities like eating, going to the bathroom, sleeping - etc.  But not things explicitly intended to be player choices with observable ingame consequences.

And where we differ is that I don't think those details are explicit.

My position is simply that the choices and consequences are all predetermined, and anything that allows me to shape Bioware's story along paths they've accounted for with better accuracy is an improvement.   Indications of intended tone included.

I'll agree that your playstyle is well served by BioWare's changes.

I keep forgetting this, because the playstyle to which BioWare is now catering couldn't have played the CRPGs I consider the finest examples of the genre without finding them horribly shallow.

[Bryy_Miller]

What about the icons that represent Criminal Intent?



*dun-DUN*

[tmp7704]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Think about Mass Effect series. No intent icons there. But writers didn't have to make the text any more self-explanatory, did they?

Mass Effect uses placement on the dialogue wheel as an equivalent of intent icons. Upper half -- "nice", middle -- neutral or "diplomat", bottom -- "aggressive"

why would you blame the icons for obscurity?

It can be read from earlier post of Mr.Gaider in this thread:

But you do need the guidance. It has nothing to do with hand-holding-- like Mary pointed out there, the paraphrases were written using the icons for context. This means that we didn't have to try and convey both tone and intent at the same time... which can be difficult to do in 30 characters, as it forces you to be incredibly blantant and sometimes unintentionally misleading. Suddenly taking away the icon without re-writing all the paraphrases would leave someone in quite the difficult position.

i'm not sure if "blame" is the right word here, but the ability to use the intent icon did apparently result in the paraphrases being less blatant than they would otherwise need to be, if the icons weren't available.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

that's your choice.  you're welcome to play like that, but there's no reason to require others do the same.

It we're talking about a feature absolutely enhances my experience, that's all the reason I need.  Whether or not Sylvius the Mad whom I know as "a poster on the Bioware Social Network with a different approach" enjoys the game or not has no bearing on the amount of fun I'm going to have with a particular game.  And the reverse is true.  

Put another way, why should I endorse an El Camino when I want a truck, simply because the former can sorta haul things too?

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I'll agree that your playstyle is well served by BioWare's changes.

I keep forgetting this, because the playstyle to which BioWare is now catering couldn't have played the CRPGs I consider the finest examples of the genre without finding them horribly shallow.

I suppose I found them fairly shallow by comparison - to use your terminology without dispute - but since I was a teenager when the original Baldur's Gate came out, my standards and expectations weren't quite the same as they are now.  In that sense, I sort of view Bioware cRPGs as evolving with my preferences.  That doesn't mean I don't empathize with your position however, flight and space sims couldn't have possibly moved farther away from mine on that genre's way to the (relative) graveyard.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 décembre 2010 - 01:21 .

[Ortaya Alevli]

tmp7704 wrote...

Mass Effect uses placement on the dialogue wheel as an equivalent of intent icons. Upper half -- "nice", middle -- neutral or "diplomat", bottom -- "aggressive"

Not exclusively. They were more like, upper half - paragon, middle - no paragon/renegade points for you, and lower half - renegade, and in more than a few cases paragon options proved much more aggressive than their renegade counterparts while in other instances some renegade options were rather cooperative in nature.

It can be read from earlier post of Mr.Gaider in this thread:

But you do need the guidance. It has nothing to do with hand-holding-- like Mary pointed out there, the paraphrases were written using the icons for context. This means that we didn't have to try and convey both tone and intent at the same time... which can be difficult to do in 30 characters, as it forces you to be incredibly blantant and sometimes unintentionally misleading. Suddenly taking away the icon without re-writing all the paraphrases would leave someone in quite the difficult position.

i'm not sure if "blame" is the right word here, but the ability to use the intent icon did apparently result in the paraphrases being less blatant than they would otherwise need to be, if the icons weren't available.

Sorry, but this still doesn't show me how intent icons are causing more obscurity. Otherwise I'm already aware of where BioWare is going with the introduction of icons; the concern here is not the ambiguity of paraphrases but of what Hawke actually means to say.

[tmp7704]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Sorry, but this still doesn't show me how intent icons are causing more obscurity. Otherwise I'm already aware of where BioWare is going with the introduction of icons; the concern here is not the ambiguity of paraphrases but of what Hawke actually means to say.

It's similar to how say, the fact wagons are normally pulled by an engine results in these wagons being designed without an engine of their own. The wagon doesn't need an engine because it's always paired with one to provide that function for it. The DA2 paraphrases don't need to include information about intent of the line, because they come with icon which provides this very info.

The actual point made by fchopin was "without them [the intent icons] the writers would have had to make the text more self explanatory" and this appears to be correct given Mr.Gaider's quote -- the presence of icons allowed the writers to make the paraphrases provide only part of the information about tone and intent, because the icons were there to provide the part which no longer had to be put in the paraphrase itself.

This doesn't mean the DA2 dialogue choices are more obscure overall (when you combine text and the icon) but rather the text of paraphrase conveys less information, simply because it doesn't need to provide more. But at the same time this means the icons cannot be made optional part of the game UI, because that'd result in giving player only partial info about the intent and tone of dialogue choices.

[Ortaya Alevli]

tmp7704 wrote...

It's similar to how say, the fact wagons are normally pulled by an engine results in these wagons being designed without an engine of their own. The wagon doesn't need an engine because it's always paired with one to provide that function for it. The DA2 paraphrases don't need to include information about intent of the line, because they come with icon which provides this very info.

The actual point made by fchopin was "without them [the intent icons] the writers would have had to make the text more self explanatory" and this appears to be correct given Mr.Gaider's quote -- the presence of icons allowed the writers to make the paraphrases provide only part of the information about tone and intent, because the icons were there to provide the part which no longer had to be put in the paraphrase itself.

This doesn't mean the DA2 dialogue choices are more obscure overall (when you combine text and the icon) but rather the text of paraphrase conveys less information, simply because it doesn't need to provide more. But at the same time this means the icons cannot be made optional part of the game UI, because that'd result in giving player only partial info about the intent and tone of dialogue choices.

I was under the impression that fchopin was mainly concerned about the overall ambiguity, instead of the icons being used as a device to take some of the load off of paraphrases. If all they want is play the same guessing games but without the icons, then yes, all I've written thus far becomes moot.

[Insomniak]

Wulfram wrote...

Mary Kirby wrote...

scyphozoa wrote...

I feel like the english language is plenty complex enough to make textual cues clear. Why do we need icons? And can we toggle them off if we are literate?

Quit murdering kittens. Jerk.

Could someone put a tone icon on this so I can tell if she's joking?

ROFL - I think that was the point... Should it be this? Or this ? Or this? Or this? Or...?

Modifié par javajedi217, 07 décembre 2010 - 02:42 .

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Unless they did it off-screen.  Which is entirely possible.

I'm going to say it  happened at the same point they defeat the Zarlboxx alien invasion by using the Laser Sword of Infinite Spirit. It took 146 months, involved an intergalactic war and the destruction of no less than three civilizations and the obliteration of a particularly massive red giant, but in the end thanks to the use of a time machine only several days passed in Ferelden and then entire party only talked about their experiences with the Zarbloxx invasion off-screen.

When the essentially insane scenario I cooked up with could happen off-screen with the exact sort of evidence for and against that your suggestion would have for it, your suggestion fails. I do not imagine content. If it isn't in the game, it didn't happen.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
The actual point made by fchopin was "without them [the intent icons] the writers would have had to make the text more self explanatory" and this appears to be correct given Mr.Gaider's quote -- the presence of icons allowed the writers to make the paraphrases provide only part of the information about tone and intent, because the icons were there to provide the part which no longer had to be put in the paraphrase itself.

Actually, David doesn't say this at all. What he says is: 

"... means that we didn't have to try and convey both tone and intent at
the same time... which can be difficult to do in 30 characters, as it
forces you to be incredibly blantant and sometimes unintentionally
misleading. "

What David is saying is that the paraphrase can now, by separating from the tone, convey more information than before compared to having to convey tone and content.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I suppose I found them fairly shallow by comparison - to use your terminology without dispute - but since I was a teenager when the original Baldur's Gate came out, my standards and expectations weren't quite the same as they are now.

Baldur's Gate isn't meaningfully different from DAO, in terms of how one can play it.

I was more thinking of games like Ultima IV and Wasteland. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

When the essentially insane scenario I cooked up with could happen off-screen with the exact sort of evidence for and against that your suggestion would have for it, your suggestion fails.

I don't see why.

I do not imagine content. If it isn't in the game, it didn't happen.

You imagine content all the time.  You imagine content every time you infer some NPC's motives.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I was more thinking of games like Ultima IV and Wasteland. 

I wasn't even two months old when Ultima IV was released. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

That's no reason for you not to have played what many people consider the greatest CRPG ever made.

There's a flash version available online (it's even free), but it's a bit buggy. And regardless, I'd recommend playing the C=64 using an emulator; that's the superior version of U4.

U4 is the reason I keep asking BioWare to write a CRPG that doesn't have the defeat of some villain as its main quest.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 07 décembre 2010 - 03:17 .

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

What David is saying is that the paraphrase can now, by separating from the tone, convey more information than before compared to having to convey tone and content.

This doesn't contradict the point i was making. It depends on whether you consider better representation of half of data (the tone) to be more information than perhaps less precise but full data (both tone and intent) -- this is in the context of evaluating just the information contained by the paraphrase alone, in theoretical situation where the intent icons are turned off.

Modifié par tmp7704, 07 décembre 2010 - 03:25 .

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I don't see why.

You think a standard of evidence that cannot decide between the Zarbloxx invasion and conversations is a good one?

You imagine content all the time.  You imagine content every time you infer some NPC's motives.

Not at all. Unless you think I imagine content in the real world when I infer other people's motives. In which case we are dealing with a whole other issue here.

tmp7704 wrote...
This doesn't contradict the point i was
making. It depends on whether you consider better representation of half
of data (the tone) to be more information than perhaps less precise but
full data (both tone and intent) -- this is in the context of
evaluating just the information contained by the paraphrase alone, in
theoretical situation where the intent icons are turned off.

No, that's not what the evaluative standard is at all. The tone indicates how something will be said. The paraphrase now indicates only what will be said. When you have the tone you have the delivery; when you have the literal content of the paraphrase you have some indication of what will be delivered.

What David says is that having the paraphrase includes both means a trade-off - the paraphrase has to be written in such a way that includes information on tone and the content, but the content is at odds with the tone.

I don't see how your claim follows at all.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

The paraphrase now indicates only what will be said.

Not sure what you mean by this. What is this "now" you speak of?

What David says is that having the paraphrase includes both means a trade-off - the paraphrase has to be written in such a way that includes information on tone and the content, but the content is at odds with the tone.

I don't see how your claim follows at all.

Can you explain why you don't think it follows?

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
Not sure what you mean by this. What is this "now" you speak of?

David said that prior to adding the intent icons, the typical approach to a paraphrase was to write the line in such a way that the player would have some idea of intent, and some idea of content. Intent and content traded off, because the kind of language needed to convey intent would obscure some of the content. To give an example:

''Wow, Alistair, that theory was really foolproof.'

There are two ways to say this (keep in mind I am using the Bioware rule that a paraphrase must contain none of the words in the actual statement):

''Wow, Alistair, that theory was really foolproof.'' <_<

''Wow, Alistair, that theory was really foolproof.''

A paraphrse for the first might be ''That failed spectacularly.'' This indicates you will be comenting on the previous idea, and what attitude you will express.

A paraphrase for the second might be ''That worked well.'' This indicates that you will be comenting on the previous idea, and what attitude you will express.

With the tone indicator, the paraphrase can just be [Sarcasm/Diplomatic icon] ''Your idea was great.''.

This gives you a much clearer notion of what you will be saying, and how you will be saying it.

Can you explain why you don't think it follows?

What you seem to be arguing is that the paraphrase alone now contains less information with the tone icon removed. But this isn't quite accurate. The paraphrase now contains more specific information on the precise wording of the actual line. What it lacks is any idea of how it will be delivered.

It does not make sense to talk about half data being more precise than all data because the full paraphrase (icon + paraphrase) contain both cues for the tone and content. So I cannot understand how what you are arguing for follows. Unless you want to say the full written text contains both tone and content? In that case I am going to object on the grounds that while the content is obviously 100% matched, the tone isn't matched well at all.

Modifié par In Exile, 07 décembre 2010 - 05:21 .

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...
Not at all. Unless you think I imagine content in the real world when I infer other people's motives. In which case we are dealing with a whole other issue here. 

I was barely able to contain an urge to hijack the thread into a discussion of "theory of mind."

[AlanC9]

And for the very last time, I promise....

fchopin wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Anyway, all I'm saying is that you have the causality wrong. The paraphrases are making the intent icons happen, not the other way around.

The way things change here i would not be surprised if i am wrong but i am not really interested how the intent icons happen i am more interested in the way they are preventing me from the full text message.

Again, the intent icons aren't preventing you from getting the full text . Once Bio decided to go with full protagonist VO, you were never going to get that, because they want to write responses that won't fit on the interface and aren't limited to single lines.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

You think a standard of evidence that cannot decide between the Zarbloxx invasion and conversations is a good one?

I think the outcomes of its application is a lousy way to judge a standard of evidence.

Not at all. Unless you think I imagine content in the real world when I infer other people's motives. In which case we are dealing with a whole other issue here.

I've said that exact thing before as part of my general denial of the existence of empathy.