1079 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
It's behaviour that can reasonably be expected to exclude people if they are present.  This standard is consistently applied with other forms of socially inacceptable behaviour.  Just because you don't mean to offend or exclude people doesn't make the behaviour any less offensive or exclusive.

Even if that were true, it would still not make it bullying. Bullying requires intent, in the same way that murder (as a criminal offence) does. Think of it as the mens rea requirement, whereas the action itself would only be the actus reus.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Recall that I don't think intent is knowable.

[IRMcGhee]

Not really, bullying requires intent. It's not a passive activity.
 by IE

Modifié par IRMcGhee, 30 décembre 2010 - 08:51 .

[Wissenschaft]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Recall that I don't think intent is knowable.

Then you must think the American judicial system is ludicrous since many crimes require intent in order to prove someone guilty, such as first degree murder.

Modifié par Wissenschaft, 30 décembre 2010 - 10:46 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wissenschaft wrote...

Then you must think the American judicial system is ludicrous

Yes, I do.

But I object to common law systems generally, anyway, so I already thought the American judicial system was ludicrous.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

This is a major difference between us, because I certainly consider the character (insofar as dialogue is concerned) a person in their own right. That I act in their role for the purpose of the conversaton doesn't make them some half-finished entity.

How do you know in what particular manner you should be acting in their role? What makes you choose one option over the others?

That comes back to thinking the player should directly control behaviour instead of personality. (..)

You feel that you are not in control of your character unless you dictate the specific behaviour and the specific way that behaviour is undertaken.

Considering you, the player, pick the character's responses in the dialogue and as such direct the character's behaviour, i'm not sure how you can avoid the "dictating specific behaviours and the ways they're undertaken" part of the experience. Simply because the game doesn't play itself.

It was very obviously implied we are speaking about the subset of people that would make the claim "Silent PCs area dead and empty." This was what our entire conversation is about? Why would I need to explicitly point out the subset?

Seeing how totally different we view this conversation, it should be quite obvious by now that trying to presume any implication is bound to end in misunderstanding and frustration. Case in point, the very reason we're having this conversation is i did not read such implication in your statement. When you say "people" then to me this is as generic as it gets, and i tend to interpret it you're expanding the subject.

Why explicitly point out the subset or otherwise try to be precise -- to avoid exactly this sort of misunderstandings, i suppose, could be one decent reason.

If you challenge a premise, you challenge the conclusion that premise supports. You are de facto questioning this conclusion.

There's a catch here, if the reasoning is performed in multiple stages. If you use "A because of B, and hence C" and A is false, then it's perfectly possible to point out the true reasons for B without challenging C.

In our case A is "character doesn't speak", B is "character appears dead" and C is "dead-like PC sucks". My stance is that A should be expanded to "character doesn't speak and the player either chooses not to or can't substitute that with their own rendition".

I suppose if you want to get technical about it then i am challenging the conclusion that's B, in a manner you could consider it a challenge to correct statement like "people breathe by inhaling" with "people breathe by both inhaling and exhaling". Still, that doesn't really affect part C of the argument.

This statement relates only to our experience (the subset that believes this) and your apparent insistence that we are wrong about the reason we do not like a silent PC and it must involve an inability to imagine at least on the part of some.

If there's any insistence of mine here, it's that singular you are possibly wrong when you make a claim that the PC being silent is the only reason the silent PC is "dead and empty" for this entire group.

Modifié par tmp7704, 30 décembre 2010 - 11:30 .

[rougefanatic13]

okay i read this entire forum and i'm going to vomit my opinion of it real quick.i'm completely in love with bioware and its writers, the way the writers actually interact with fans is something i respect a lot. thank you!!

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
How do you know in what particular manner you should be acting in their role? What makes you choose one option over the others?

I have a personality profile on hand.
 

Considering you, the player, pick the character's responses in the dialogue and as such direct the character's behaviour, i'm not sure how you can avoid the "dictating specific behaviours and the ways they're undertaken" part of the experience. Simply because the game doesn't play itself.

Right, like I said, you can't imagine playing otherwise.

Suppose my character's trait is "highly altruistic". This means, most of the time, he will do the most altruistic thing possible. So whenever I have options available, I will pick the most altruistic one.

It does not matter how my character expresses altruism (i.e. the ME2 paraphrase complaint). It does not matter how many character acts out that altruism (by giving a beggar a coin or emotional support).

The game generally allows you fine control over behaviour but not over statements, and but neither is particularly important relative to the profile.

Put another way: the paraphrase complaint (that not choosing the literal line affects roleplay) would be translated to action the following way (which is why I mention behaviour).

Suppose when you choose to give a coin to a beggar it is animated. Your character might toss the coin non-chanlantly, or  give it to the begger and pat them on the shoulder.

These are rather different actions re: what type of altruistic person might do them. I say you want to control behaviour, because your argument suggests that how a character does this thing is important to how you view the personality of that character.

In the same way that how a character expresses altruism verbally matters to you.

This is how I distinguish between levels of control and RP.

Seeing how totally different we view this conversation, it should be quite obvious by now that trying to presume any implication is bound to end in misunderstanding and frustration. Case in point, the very reason we're having this conversation is i did not read such implication in your statement. When you say "people" then to me this is as generic as it gets, and i tend to interpret it you're expanding the subject.

Except you seemed to clearly understand which group I was refering to. For example here:

Since this perception of "dead, lifeless character" doesn't seem to
be universal, i wouldn't be so hasty to exclude individual's limitation
(or different focus) as potential factor here. Although certainly, it
doesn't have to be "inability to understand the character is supposed to
speak". Maybe rather inability/unwilingness to envision the character
speaking as you pick the line, which leaves one indeed not ever seeing
their character utter a word? Not sure.

You say that the classification is not universal, then proceed to make a claim about only the subset.

After this is where I said that part view (which refers to an inability) as elitist garbage. I don't see how you were addressing any kind of general point. You are very clearly talking about the same people I am.

Or even more directly (the part in italics is my original statement):

The implication is that it is a lack
of imagination that drives the effect is all to say that the only
reason people do not want
silent VO is that they are incapable of ever perceiving it.

It's a
roundabout way of saying that the only reason silent VO isn't
universally people is that some people are too limited to understand it.

Whereas
saying that it is a preference
or focus is to say that if
people wanted to do it, they could, but for whatever reason, they don't.

This is why in the original statement i included both the inability and unwilingness as possible
reasons -- it wasn't to imply that everyone who finds themselves in this
spot is there because they don't have choice in this matter.

We are talking about the same thing. The bold portion indicates where each of us almost directly refers to which subgroup we are talking about. You are backtracking.

You then continue to avoid the elitist implication of your statement and try to hide behind several things, including "some might not want to"  (which is not offensive and I never objected to) and now this logic aside.

Why explicitly point out the subset or otherwise try to be precise -- to avoid exactly this sort of misunderstandings, i suppose, could be one decent reason.

But there is no misunderstanding. We are talking about the same group. I have quotes.

There's a catch here, if the reasoning is performed in multiple stages. If you use "A because of B, and hence C" and A is false, then it's perfectly possible to point out the true reasons for B without challenging C.

Just as an aside, you can't point out reasons for B to be true, because your chain is B => A => C. If ~A then ~B by definition. B is your sufficient condition for A.

So as it turns out, if A is false, then so is B.

In our case A is "character doesn't speak", B is "character appears dead" and C is "dead-like PC sucks". My stance is that A should be expanded to "character doesn't speak and the player either chooses not to or can't substitute that with their own rendition".

Right, I see what you mean. You mean "B because of A", i.e. the character is dead because the character doesn't speak. Because is a premise indicator.

Another problem with your argument is that by introducing a disjuction, you introduce noise. I could say A should be expanded to "the character does not speak and (the player chooses not to substitute their own rendition or cannot substitute their own redition or likes the colour purple or drives a red car on tuesdays)" and the statement would be logically equivalent.

Moreover, you are still trying to hide your point.

Supose we have A, and the chain A => B => C. A is sufficient for C. If we have A, then we have C.

Now you say we have the chain A' = A and we have A, but there is also A'' (which is your second disjunct) and A'+A'' => B => C which is not sufficient for C unless we had A".

In the first case, we have a logically true case for C (games suck). In the second case, we no longer have such a case for C. We could have C or ~C. And you just so happen to believe ~C, and rejected an argument in favour for C.

But of course, you are certainly not trying to suggest that your view on the matter is right by providing a counter-example to the alternative view. No, you are simply a logic machine and not at all suggesting any broader point.

Here is what you are doing: you are trying to repeatedly telling any person who happens to disbelieve in your addition of A" that they are wrong as to why they think non VO sucks for them and that in fact it is the presence fo A" that makes them suck for them, i.e. their inability.

Which is how you are being an elitist. There - we've actually logically sketched out why you are biased.

I suppose if you want to get technical about it then i am challenging the conclusion that's B, in a manner you could consider it a challenge to correct statement like "people breathe by inhaling" with "people breathe by both inhaling and exhaling". Still, that doesn't really affect part C of the argument.

No, that's not what you are doing at all.

If there's any insistence of mine here, it's that singular you are possibly wrong when you make a claim that the PC being silent is the only reason the silent PC is "dead and empty" for this entire group.

Your insistence, which you have been trying to hide in a multiple number of ways so far, is that people can't appreciate the silent PC because they lack the imagination to do so. I called you out on this, and you've been trying to dress up your pig in half a hundred ways since.

I quoted you several times on how you weren't refering to me at all, but to the group specifically. Do you want me to bring up your quote that says that just because they lack imagination it doesn't really mean you're insulting them at all?

[jsachun]

In Origins, you were a nameless, voiceless hero, but in DA2, you are the silky-toned Hawke, a change that may be jarring to those who favored Origins's old school approach to characterization. Which, as Laidlaw tells it, is not that many players. "People generally hated the silent protagonist," he says, but that wasn't the only reason to adopt a main character who could speak for themselves; Having the hero stand stoically while drama erupted all around them "seemed to be doing a disservice to the storytelling." Recognizing that responding to an impassioned speech from Leliana by choosing a sentence from a menu lacked a certain vitality, the Dragon Age team decided to borrow a page from their colleagues across the hall.

This is true. But the one same sentenced voiced dialogue for all speech/emotional response choices in ME2 becomes one of those chores you wish you could skip in every other playthrough except the first.

Modifié par jsachun, 31 décembre 2010 - 06:45 .

[DaringMoosejaw]

Just put in a toggle, it'll solve everything!

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

I have a personality profile on hand.

And who's filled this profile? You, or the character?
 

Right, like I said, you can't imagine playing otherwise.

Suppose my character's trait is "highly altruistic". This means, most of the time, he will do the most altruistic thing possible. So whenever I have options available, I will pick the most altruistic one.

And there you have it. What is this act of picking the option, if not "dictating specific behaviours and the ways they're undertaken"?

It's not about being capable of imagining how to play otherwise. You can't play the game otherwise. You have to personally click on the choices, which makes you the person who makes choices and dictates behaviours for your character. That you make these choices based on the personality profile doesn't really change a thing because that personality profile it's also something you've created yourself.

These are rather different actions re: what type of altruistic person might do them. I say you want to control behaviour, because your argument suggests that how a character does this thing is important to how you view the personality of that character.

And i say you can't avoid this because in the end it is you who decides in any given situation if that's actually situation where your highly altruistic character does act in altruistic manner, or maybe it's one of the situations which warrants different sort of action.

As well as it's you who determines what exactly consitutes to being altruistic in said situation. To use your beggar example, altruistic behaviour may be giving him a coin, but it also may be not giving them the coin and delivering them "go to work, bum" speech in hope this will improve the guy's lot better in the long run. So in the end it is you and not the character who decides just how the intended behaviour should be displayed.

Dictating ways the behaviours are undertaken isn't about the minutiae of how you want the character to hand in the coin. It's on level higher, so to speak -- it's about making the decision whether the coin should be given at all. Which in turn stems from dictating the behaviour, in this case to do something altruistic.

Except you seemed to clearly understand which group I was refering to.

This is earlier point of discussion. After that we have eventually arrived to:

me: "I said that lacking the imagination or choosing not to use it can be a factor in perceiving the silent PC dead and empty. Will you disagree with it? If yes, then please explain how comes not everyone perceives the silent PC dead and empty."

you: "In a visual medium, people want equivalent presentation of all things. So the mere fact that the PC is not represented in the same medium as the rest of the NPCs (the game, versus your imagination) makes the PC seem lacking."

can you see how the confusion was created here? Your claim about "people wanting equivalent presentation" was provided in what appeared to be direct response to my request regarding people who aren't part of the group we've been discussing up to that point.

If you simply dodged my question there and instead chose to reply only to the first sentence, then i'm sorry for not realizing it. Still, it brings us back to the point that clarification can be helpful.

Just as an aside, you can't point out reasons for B to be true, because your chain is B => A => C. If ~A then ~B by definition. B is your sufficient condition for A.

D'oh, the grammar got me here. The intended chain was A -> B -> C. I think i've changed that sentence mid-writing and it slipped how the order would get changed. Sorry about it

Another problem with your argument is that by introducing a disjuction, you introduce noise. I could say A should be expanded to "the character does not speak and (the player chooses not to substitute their own rendition or cannot substitute their own redition or likes the colour purple or drives a red car on tuesdays)" and the statement would be logically equivalent.

I suppose you could, but it's just a piece of sophistry given the "or" operator allows to freely introduce elements which have no logical relation to the subject without impact on the outcome, unlike "and". By simply adding noise yourself you are not proving my addition is noise as well.

Moreover, you are still trying to hide your point.

Supose we have A, and the chain A => B => C. A is sufficient for C. If we have A, then we have C.

That's the thing -- i disagree with the notion A is sufficient on its own, based that in number of cases having just A doesn't lead us to B -> C

No, that's not what you are doing at all.

In any case it's what i intend to do. Whether that comes through clear or not can be blamed on my ability to word my intentions, but as i actually clarify the intent here could you drop the pointless argument with your personal perception of my words that happens to be something quite different? As i have no interest in filling in for this particular straw man.

Your insistence, which you have been trying to hide in a multiple number of ways so far, is that people can't appreciate the silent PC because they lack the imagination to do so. I called you out on this, and you've been trying to dress up your pig in half a hundred ways since.

Or that they choose not to. You repeatedly neglect this part of my statement, perhaps because doing so puts a convenient layer of dirt on said pig?

I haven't been hiding anything -- i've tried in multiple ways to explain the reasoning for my point, which i think is an opposite of hiding. It's starting to seem though this is just supposed to be an opportunity for some of the good old "you humans are all racist".

[In Exile]

[quote]tmp7704 wrote...
And who's filled this profile? You, or the character? [/quote]

Obviously me.
  
[quote]And there you have it. What is this act of picking the option, if not "dictating specific behaviours and the ways they're undertaken"? [/quote]

It's dictating the behaviour predisposition.

Let me try to display it this way.

Let's say you had two scenarios:

One is: "act altruistically or not". This is your only choice. A 10 minute cut-scene will follow.

The other is a series of choices: "give coin; give speech about going to work; hire, and so on". Many different behaviours.

I would say the two are completely equivalent in how well they allow you to roleplay your character and how much control you have over that character.

What the second does is give you finer control of what actions will follow, but those specific actions are irrelevant so long as they fall under the general behaviour.

[quote]It's not about being capable of imagining how to play otherwise. You can't play the game otherwise. You have to personally click on the choices, which makes you the person who makes choices and dictates behaviours for your character. That you make these choices based on the personality profile doesn't really change a thing because that personality profile it's also something you've created yourself. [/quote]

Let's try it this way: people complain about the paraphrase in ME because it has Shepard act in an unexpected way. For example, "Shut up!" with the report is taken to be a poor cue of physical violence.

I would counter by saying to me that is not the case because so long as I have a personality sketch of what the choice means (i.e. bottom right is violent-aggresive) Shepard clocking the reporter would be consistent with the character acting in a violent/aggresive way.

Do you see the point?

[quote]And i say you can't avoid this because in the end it is you who decides in any given situation if that's actually situation where your highly altruistic character does act in altruistic manner, or maybe it's one of the situations which warrants different sort of action. [/quote]

But that isn't about controlling behaviour. The way the character acts altruistic (or says something) is irrelevant.

[quote]As well as it's you who determines what exactly consitutes to being altruistic in said situation. To use your beggar example, altruistic behaviour may be giving him a coin, but it also may be not giving them the coin and delivering them "go to work, bum" speech in hope this will improve the guy's lot better in the long run. So in the end it is you and not the character who decides just how the intended behaviour should be displayed. [/quote]

No! That's the entire point. It doesn't matter. If the writers determined what that meant, I would feel the character is still mine.

All that matters is that between the writers and myself, there is a clear idea of what they take the options to be.

[quote]Dictating ways the behaviours are undertaken isn't about the minutiae of how you want the character to hand in the coin. It's on level higher, so to speak -- it's about making the decision whether the coin should be given at all. Which in turn stems from dictating the behaviour, in this case to do something altruistic. [/quote]

No, it doesn't stem from dictating behaviour. It stems from dictating predispositions. Higher level concepts like this are just not behaviour. You are using the word wrong.


This is earlier point of discussion. After that we have eventually arrived to:

[quote]
can you see how the confusion was created here? Your claim about "people wanting equivalent presentation" was provided in what appeared to be direct response to my request regarding people who aren't part of the group we've been discussing up to that point.[/quote]

No, it wasn't. It was in response to the first part of your sentence. You asked me if I disagreed with it.

[quote]If you simply dodged my question there and instead chose to reply only to the first sentence, then i'm sorry for not realizing it. Still, it brings us back to the point that clarification can be helpful.[/quote]

There could be half a hundred reasons why not everyone feels this way. Maybe those people value imagining content intrinsically. Maybe some people aren't bothered by the dissonance. Who knows? Who cares?

My point is that your claim that it is a difference in imagination that is at work in any case is offensive. This was my point from the start.

[quote]D'oh, the grammar got me here. The intended chain was A -> B -> C. I think i've changed that sentence mid-writing and it slipped how the order would get changed. Sorry about it [/quote]

That's cool. I figured it out. It happens. Mostly I picked on that because it's only been a month since I wrote the LSAT and trained myself like a machine to pick these things out.

[quote]I suppose you could, but it's just a piece of sophistry given the "or" operator allows to freely introduce elements which have no logical relation to the subject without impact on the outcome, unlike "and". By simply adding noise yourself you are not proving my addition is noise as well. [/quote]

It's obfuscatory because it hides the offensiveness of the point re: ability by couching it as a disjuction.

It's like saying "it could be that zarbloxians are less intelligent than mollocks or that mollocks come from poorer backgrounds overall". The first disjuct is the offender. Whether or not you add an or does not make it less offensive.

[quote]That's the thing -- i disagree with the notion A is sufficient on its own, based that in number of cases having just A doesn't lead us to B -> C [/quote]

A doesn't have to lead to B=>C. B is sufficient for C. B always leads to C. What matters is whether A => B for some people.

You want to say that this happens because of some lack on their part. I am trying to tell you this is offensive.

[quote] As i have no interest in filling in for this particular straw man. [/quote]

I was picking on the logic because it was poor. The point at issue is that your claim is elitist, and you've tried to hide that in a variety of ways, including by adding the "or it could be this other thing" angle.

[quote]Or that they choose not to. You repeatedly neglect this part of my statement, perhaps because doing so puts a convenient layer of dirt on said pig? [/quote]

But I don't think that's offensive. In fact, I think that's what happens in all cases. Why would I dispute this?

[quote]I haven't been hiding anything -- i've tried in multiple ways to explain the reasoning for my point, which i think is an opposite of hiding. It's starting to seem though this is just supposed to be an opportunity for some of the good old "you humans are all racist".[/quote]

The reason for your point is that you happen to think someone people just lack the capacity for imagination. You think some people are better than others at imagining content, and that this mere difference can explain at least one case where one person dislikes silent VO and another likes it.

It's all BS, and it's trying to couch one group as being better than the other.

Unless you're going to tell me that calling a group of people unimaginative is not insulting?

ETA:

It would be like me saying that at least some people like silent VO becuase they are great at deluding themselves, or just have a particular talent for hearing voices. It's offensive, and since really we have no idea why people happen to like these features, going on and making claims about capacities is just elitist and uncalled for. What I am looking for is a retraction.

Modifié par In Exile, 03 janvier 2011 - 12:40 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

In Exile wrote...

Let's try it this way: people complain about the paraphrase in ME because it has Shepard act in an unexpected way. For example, "Shut up!" with the report is taken to be a poor cue of physical violence.

I would counter by saying to me that is not the case because so long as I have a personality sketch of what the choice means (i.e. bottom right is violent-aggresive) Shepard clocking the reporter would be consistent with the character acting in a violent/aggresive way.

Do you see the point?

But..what you think the choice means and what it means may not be the same. Aggresive covers a whole range of degrees. From "mildly agressive" to "bloodthirsty maniac". Adn that degrees do impact the personality a lot.

This turnes the whole thing into a "what would Bob do"? game...except Bob is a character you just made up.

[drahelvete]

... and that, kids, is why you should always save your game before entering a conversation.

True story!

Modifié par drahelvete, 05 janvier 2011 - 09:33 .

[arafinwe_ingalaure]

I just wish they didn't dumb down the RPG features like they did with M ass Effect 2, that wasn't a good decision.

[AlanC9]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Let's try it this way: people complain about the paraphrase in ME because it has Shepard act in an unexpected way. For example, "Shut up!" with the report is taken to be a poor cue of physical violence.

I would counter by saying to me that is not the case because so long as I have a personality sketch of what the choice means (i.e. bottom right is violent-aggresive) Shepard clocking the reporter would be consistent with the character acting in a violent/aggresive way.

Do you see the point?

But..what you think the choice means and what it means may not be the same. Aggresive covers a whole range of degrees. From "mildly agressive" to "bloodthirsty maniac". Adn that degrees do impact the personality a lot.

This turnes the whole thing into a "what would Bob do"? game...except Bob is a character you just made up.

But OTOH, ME2 Renegade interrupts generally have some sort of physical action associated with them, don't they? I haven't tried too many of them yet since the PC's I've taken through have been kind of Paragonish, buy the few interrupts I have tried always involved hitting or shooting someone.

We are talking about an interrupt here, right? I've never had a Shepard hit her yet.

[IRMcGhee]

Yes, the interrupt's the only way you throw a punch. And you're right that they're mostly some sort of violence associated with them (cooking Krogan and pushing a merc of a skyscraper come to mind). I think the post you quoted might be referencing ME1 'tho, which IIRC the punch is associated with the renegade dialogue choice.

I presume the DA2 system will have icons which designate if a particular dialogue choice causes an extreme reaction like these (fist icon ?), so this situation won't happen. That is the whole point of having them, after all.

Modifié par IRMcGhee, 06 janvier 2011 - 07:47 .

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

It's dictating the behaviour predisposition.

Let me try to display it this way.

(..)

I would say the two are completely equivalent in how well they allow you to roleplay your character and how much control you have over that character.

What the second does is give you finer control of what actions will follow, but those specific actions are irrelevant so long as they fall under the general behaviour.

Hmm i think this example sort of walks around my point -- i'll agree that you could call these situations equivalent in the sense in both situations you can simplify it down to "act altruistically or not". However, the difference between them is, in the latter the options don't come as labels of "general behaviour" and instead you, the player, are expected to decide which particular option in the given situation can work as display of behaviour you intend the character to follow.

The conversation system in DAO is more like that latter scenario; DA2 on the other hand with its "behaviour type" icons becomes more like the former. Although i'd argue that even then deciding whether the character should in the given situation actually act altruistically or not... dictates more than just predisposition, as it moves into dictating specific behaviour in very specific scenarios.

I would counter by saying to me that is not the case because so long as I have a personality sketch of what the choice means (i.e. bottom right is violent-aggresive) Shepard clocking the reporter would be consistent with the character acting in a violent/aggresive way.

Do you see the point?

Right, this is the latter model, the one which saves you the need to decide which of the provided options actually is a display of the violent/aggressive way. But if this is not the case you cannot pick your actions blindly, you have to make decision what sort of behaviour is "violent-aggressive".

Incidentally, don't you think this latter model --by removing the player's decision on what sort of behaviour displays the underlying personality of the character-- very much reduces actual roleplaying in the game? You are not as much playing a role anymore yourself, but rather passively going with whatever actions the writers associated with the specfific general behaviour. Taken to the extreme the game could quite well just ask you at the beginning what sort of character your PC is supposed to be, and then just play all conversations in fully automated manner, saving you purely menial clicking.

No, it wasn't. It was in response to the first part of your sentence. You asked me if I disagreed with it.

Yes, and i have read your response differently. Hence the misunderstanding, hopefully now cleared.

It's obfuscatory because it hides the offensiveness of the point re: ability by couching it as a disjuction.

It's like saying "it could be that zarbloxians are less intelligent than mollocks or that mollocks come from poorer backgrounds overall". The first disjuct is the offender. Whether or not you add an or does not make it less offensive.

Except if some of the zarbloxians can be in fact less intelligent than mollocks, then i really see nothing offensive in pointing out this possibility. If someone does, well that's too bad but as such reaction appears irrational that doesn't affect my view on the matter. 

What matters is whether A => B for some people.

You want to say that this happens because of some lack on their part. I am trying to tell you this is offensive.

For some people, yes; "this is offensive" doesn't make an effective counter-argument for me, sorry.

I was picking on the logic because it was poor. The point at issue is that your claim is elitist, and you've tried to hide that in a variety of ways, including by adding the "or it could be this other thing" angle.

Your point is an appeal to emotion. Which, if anything, is poor logic.

It would be like me saying that at least some people like silent VO becuase they are great at deluding themselves, or just have a particular talent for hearing voices. It's offensive, and since really we have no idea why people happen to like these features, going on and making claims about capacities is just elitist and uncalled for. What I am looking for is a retraction.

I believe for some people this can indeed be a reason why the silent protagonist doesn't feel "dead and empty" for them. As such, i don't find it offensive because it's either correct or doesn't apply.

Modifié par tmp7704, 06 janvier 2011 - 03:00 .

[Captain Sassy Pants]

"a situation not likely to happen in DA2, where the elves sport extra large eyes and ears"



WoW and anime elves???



Awesome...

[Captain Sassy Pants]

Apollo Starflare wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

Who knows, maybe Bioware is right that most people loved Origins in spite of the things that made me love it, not because of them. Maybe making things simpler, removing the need to think about your inventory or plan ahead, removing the need to actually use your imagination in terms of your character's responses, and the like will bring them massive acclaim regardless of the fact that a few people like me may see these things as negatives. But if they thought normal was too hard....well, this if going to be pretty freaking easy.

Y'know, they could make normal easier without making every difficulty easier, they are probably just re-balancing the difficulty modes. I'm pretty sure I remember some folks complaining that the difficulty wasn't balanced very well in Origins when it came out.

And how are they removing the need to think about your inventory when... It's almost identical to Origins? There was a junk folder in that game afterall. The companion outfits have been much discussed, but they hardly mean that you don't need to think about your inventory.

How about, it now gives equipment star ratings, telling you which is better? Not only that, if a ring gives + to mana, if you are looking at it with a warrior it will 1 star it, but if you are looking at it with a mage it will rate it higher.

Basically, it's holding your hand.

This, coupled with "no friendly fire except in nightmare mode, with the exception of monsters who will always be able to hurt each other", "when a player attacks, it happens instantly, whereas monsters will still wind up for attacks giving you more time to react", "players have gap closing abilities, whereas monsters do not, giving you the ability to hammer away at them as they move towards you", I'd say that the game is definitely moving towards an "easier" experience.

[Cobrawar]

This thread makes me sad and depresses me. Dr Frankenstein, thought his creation was hot stuff as well but all it did was come back to destroy him.

[Ziggeh]

Cobrawar wrote...

This thread makes me sad and depresses me. Dr Frankenstein, thought his creation was hot stuff as well but all it did was come back to destroy him.

They am play gods.

[Terenbas]

Is there a possibility that you will have BOTH siblings with you at all times? In all the previews, screenshots, trailers, etc. I've only seen one or the other. Will you have both?

[logangriffith]

I for one welcome our all human PC overlords.