473 réponses à ce sujet

[slimgrin]

Then what does 'press to attack' mean?

[TwistedComplex]

slimgrin wrote...

Then what does 'press to attack' mean?

Speaking of hack and slash, nice signature.

[Dayshadow]

Maconbar wrote...

What is a hardcore rpg gamer?

It's like a hardcore pornstar, but with video games.

[slimgrin]

TwistedComplex wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Then what does 'press to attack' mean?

Speaking of hack and slash, nice signature.

I'm not trying to degrade DA2 by assuming it might have hack n' slash features. I happen to love twitch gameplay. I'm just calling it as I see it. If it has twitch gameplay coupled with tactical pause and play, all the better. Mike Laidlaw said the game could be played in real-time, like an action rpg. You can draw your own conclusions from that.

Modifié par slimgrin, 31 décembre 2010 - 11:36 .

[TwistedComplex]

slimgrin wrote...

TwistedComplex wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Then what does 'press to attack' mean?

Speaking of hack and slash, nice signature.

I'm not trying to degrade DA2 by assuming it might have hack n' slash features. I happen to love twitch gameplay. I'm just calling it as I see it. If it has twitch gameplay coupled with tactical pause and play, all the better. Mike Laidlaw said the game could be played in real time, like an action rpg. You can draw your own conclusions from that.

So could DAO. I just had to pause a lot to heal and sue potions

Maybe they tweaked how hard enemies hit, or improved the tactics interface so your companions heal better.

I'm fine with any kind of gameplay. I didnt play dragon age origins for its gameplay anyway. I couldn't stand it

[Sharn01]

Snoteye wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...

This is partially true but people need to learn what an opinion is, as soon as facts, true or false are introduced it is no longer an opinion, it can be described as a theory, a belief or many other things, but not an opinion.

I dont like greenbeans. This is an opinion, its based purely on perosnal preference.

Actually, that's a pronouncement (possibly a judgment or observation), typically based on an opinion. An opinion would be to state that "greenbeans are bad."

But this is getting off topic.

All statements are pronouncements, regardless of whether or not they are opinions.  I probably didnt phrase my argument properly trying to keep it simple. 

There are many definitions for the word opinion, particuarly when dealing with legality.  I was foolishly trying to find a way for people to not get up in arms about opinions being wrong, but the most basic definition of opinion means that it can actually be wrong.  If an opinion is reached on false information, then that opinion can be incorrect.  

A good example is the FOX news BS that occured with ME's sex scenes.  The people reported their opinion based on what they where told by someone who was biased against the game.   Their opinion was later proved to be false because the facts they based that opinion on where false, and they issued an apology, after actually seeing the scenes and learning about the game, they where able to form an actual opinion.  They stating that they never actually played the game or watched any of the scenes, so in this sense thier opinion was wrong because it wasnt a opinion based on facts, but an opinion based on lies.

So, we either need to admit that opinions can be wrong, or clearly define which use of opinion we wish to use for the forum, because the only way an opinion can never be wrong is when it is made soley on factual information.  At that point its subjective based on each individuals personal taste.

Modifié par Sharn01, 31 décembre 2010 - 11:42 .

[Sidney]

slimgrin wrote...

I'm not trying to degrade DA2 by assuming it might have hack n' slash features. I happen to love twitch gameplay. I'm just calling it as I see it. If it has twitch gameplay coupled with tactical pause and play, all the better. Mike Laidlaw said the game could be played in real-time, like an action rpg. You can draw your own conclusions from that.

I rarely paused in DAO - when I played as a mage. I had tactics set on my companions to deal with most mob level encounters and they worked wel nenough I wasn't dying or anything. I handled most of my work via hotkeys. The only pausing I did typically was during boss fights because it wasn't really needed 99% of the time. I really could have scripted my mage too for most of those fights. The "tactical" nature of DAO is grossly, vastly and wildly overstated by people trying to justify a playing preference.

In the end, the videos of DA2 combat look exactly like the way DAO combat worked.

[Dave of Canada]

I remember when the "hardcore" people would say Dragon Age: Origins was hack & slash, how it was "streamlined" for the "console users" and how it wasn't a return-to-roots RPG.

Sort of funny, all things considered.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 31 décembre 2010 - 11:47 .

[Snoteye]

slimgrin wrote...



Then what does 'press to attack' mean?

It means you press a button and something awesome happens you attack. Any game that includes combat has this functionality to some extent or another. Hack'n'slash, as a label, is usually applied to games that are heavy on combat and relatively light on story (Diablo, Sacred, Dark Alliance). Console-DA2 will invariably be more hack'n'slash-like than DA:O ever was, but, I posit, nowhere near enough to be classified as neither hack'n'slash nor action-RPG.

[Negix]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I remember when the "hardcore" people would say Dragon Age: Origins was hack & slash, how it was "streamlined" for the "console users" and how it wasn't a return-to-roots RPG.

Sort of funny, all things considered.

god that was annoying (and yes i was in those forums at that time but i completely forgot my name xD)

[Lord Atlia]

Ah yes, "Hack and Slash," we have dismissed these claims.

[Amioran]

In Exile wrote...

A comparative metaphor only works if the comparison is appropriate. In this case it isn't.

It was. The point was: if you control an archetype you de-personalize the character. So perfectly appropriate. You never read Kant (or Ouspensky) I imagine.

In Exile wrote...
Sylvius considers an RPG as something that is in a state of flux. Think of it as a thought experiment. So long as something could be true, for Sylvius it is possible for it to be true in that particular playthrough.

"Could" is a good word in an utopia (as an archetype conception), a shame that things don't work this way in a personalized context. It work in an archetypal one, but not in a personalized one. DAO already had impositions on personalization for what it concerned story, now they are doing the same also for gameplay, I don't see what's so wrong. To create a character and personalize it then the same must be tied to some rule somewhere, it is intrinsic in the personalization (again, Kant).

In Exile wrote...
So if Isabella could be an archer, for example, and there is no information on her background other than the fact that she is a pirate, because it could be true that she trained exclusively as an archer as opposed to a pirate, to Sylvius the character of Isabella could be a swashbuckler or an archer.

And this is the difference between an archetype and a persona. In the former case there is a "could be true" (in the sense that you define that "could be"), in the latter this "could be" is not pertaining and out of place, because there is already present an "it is". Now adding or chaning an "it is" to a "could be" removes the personalization factor present.

Many approaches in rpgs (when working with archetypes) don't have the "it is" in the gameplay (only on story mostly), so you can control the "could be" aspect. Still in those cases you are working with archetypes, not a persona in itself. This is the difference.

In Exile wrote...
Of course, Isabella is a swashbuckler and does have this as part of her background. Nevertheless, Sylvius would still argue that almost (if not entirely) independent of how convoluted the argument could be, so long as you could make the case that it could be true that Isabella is an archer, that is enough for her to be able to be an archer in any playthrough.

And I would reply, as I did previously, that if you do so you de-personalize the character. It is inherent in the doing, you cannot do both things and have the same results.

In Exile wrote...
What Sylvius does not like is more defined content in an RPG as a consequence. This is the source of his objections.

And my objection to the objection is that he only want to see a part of it, but, as always, things are more complicate than they look at first.

Modifié par Amioran, 01 janvier 2011 - 09:31 .

[AlanC9]

slimgrin wrote...

Then what does 'press to attack' mean?

It just means press to attack. That doesn't equal twitch, which means that reflexes and physical skill have some impact on your combat performance. You can screw up an attack in The Witcher or ME2 by clicking at the wrong time or in the wrong place. You can't screw up in Diablo.

I probably shouldn't have gone back to that, but these discussions are hard enough without people using the same word to mean different things.

Modifié par AlanC9, 01 janvier 2011 - 09:32 .

[AlanC9]

Amioran wrote...

It was. The point was: if you control an archetype you de-personalize the character. So perfectly appropriate. You never read Kant (or Ouspensky) I imagine.

I've read Kant -- wasn't all that impressed, actually. Never Ouspensky. What's the relevance?

[Amioran]

Tiax Rules All wrote...

and AMOIRAN, dude, Sylvius is crazy sometimes but your points are horrible, just stop..

This is the first time that I hear Kant being described as horrible (or it isn't? maybe in art school someone defined him that way, but for other reasons).

[soteria]

AlanC9 wrote...

I've read Kant -- wasn't all that impressed, actually. Never Ouspensky. What's the relevance?

Given the bookish writing style, I'd guess to appear more highly educated. I could be judging him too harshly, though.

[Amioran]

AlanC9 wrote...

Amioran wrote...

It was. The point was: if you control an archetype you de-personalize the character. So perfectly appropriate. You never read Kant (or Ouspensky) I imagine.

I've read Kant -- wasn't all that impressed, actually. Never Ouspensky. What's the relevance?

The relevance is in the concept of de-personalizing a character. It was not just Kant or Ouspensky that wrote about it. It is a relevant argument in phylosophy, in recent times also Csikzentmihaly wrote a tractate on it, to elaborate on those points.

As I said, since it was a comparative metaphor, the laws of a concept transmit to another when the latter imitates the former. So the concept of Kant and others are relevant since they concern the same issue. In real life if you try to change a person (or want the same to be something else) then you de-personalize the same. Same happens in a context where you have an already defined character vs. an archetype, because, as I have explained, the difference is that in the former case there's an already present definition, in the latter there isn't. If you remove (or change) the definition then a character is lost.

Modifié par Amioran, 01 janvier 2011 - 09:47 .

[Maria Caliban]

Amioran wrote...

As I said, since it was a comparative metaphor, the laws of a concept transmit to another when the latter imitates the former. So the concept of Kant and others are relevant since they concern the same issue. In real life if you try to change a person (or want the same to be something else) then you de-personalize the same. Same happens in a context where you have an already defined character vs. an archetype, because, as I have explained, the difference is that in the former case there's an already present definition, in the latter there isn't. If you remove (or change) the definition then a character is lost.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

One might be able to dilute a character by changing aspects of them, but that's not the same as losing the character. Take James Bond. About a dozen different actors, each with their own spin on the character, and yet the audience can easily identify all of them as Bond.

We can only say that making Isabela an archer 'loses' her as a character if her swordsmanship is a defining aspect. It might be. Alternatively, given how little we know about her at this point, that she's a duelist might have an importance in our mind that doesn't reflect Isabela in DA 2.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 01 janvier 2011 - 09:56 .

[Amioran]

soteria wrote...
Given the bookish writing style, I'd guess to appear more highly educated.

No, just to prove a point that it is too long and complex to elaborate in a forum. If then someone is interested in what is being talked about quoting a source can be useful for someone that want to dig a little more on the issue.

Also done to refer to a point that someone having read the source can understand immediately, as a sort of background, since, as I said, the concept is complex and cannot be exausted in a single sentence easily.

[soteria]

I'm just trying to figure out when a philosopher's writings and theories became fact.

No, just to prove a point that it is too long and complex to elaborate in a forum. If then someone is interested in what is being talked about quoting a source can be useful for someone that want to dig a little more on the issue.

If you had actually quoted a source, that might be a believable explanation.  All you did was drop names.

Modifié par soteria, 01 janvier 2011 - 10:03 .

[Amioran]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Also this is an absolute, mind you.

As I said many times every sentence have a contradiction in itself, so while it is true that absolutes doesn't exist, it is at the same time true that they exists. To explain it better, it depends on what "height" you look at the issue.

While you can also not remove a personalization changing a character, doing so requires the same character to be beyond a characterization, a thing that 99% of individuals cannot do. So, while absolutely this is not true because it can be done for someone (namely in real life for those that are beyond the ego), still is much more common than the contrary.

Maria Caliban wrote...
One might be able to dilute a character by changing aspects of them, but that's not the same as losing the character. Take James Bond. About a dozen different actors, each with their own spin on the character, and yet the audience can easily identify all of them as Bond.

Changing appearance doesn't change a character in the case of Bond, because appearance was not tied at priori with its character (as it would happen differently, for example, with Otello for what concerns skin color). However you recognize Bond for his character, attitudes, etc., changing the same will make you understand him as no more Bond. Little variances can be adopted (and in fact they are adopted also in DA2, since you can control skills that are learned), but the context, the "it is" remains invaried. If you alter it then the character is lost.

Maria Caliban wrote...
We can only say that making Isabela an archer 'loses' her as a character if her swordsmanship is a defining aspect. It might be. Alternatively, given how little we know about her at this point, that she's a duelist might have an importance in our mind that doesn't reflect Isabela in DA 2.

Naturally we don't know all of this yet, but from what devs have said the swordmanship of Isabela IS a defining aspect and the why they have removed the option to use archery from her. This little, at last, is known, and if you change this aspect then you also change the character.

Modifié par Amioran, 01 janvier 2011 - 10:09 .

[In Exile]

Amioran wrote...
It was. The point was: if you control an archetype you de-personalize the character. So perfectly appropriate. You never read Kant (or Ouspensky) I imagine.

I did. Not a fan. Never heard of Ouspensky. Modern Kantian, I take it?

"Could" is a good word in an utopia (as an archetype conception), a shame that things don't work this way in a personalized context. It work in an archetypal one, but not in a personalized one.

You are going to have to define both archetype and personalized context for me. It seems you are using them in a particularly narrow way and that your argument hinges on both these definitions being true, but this isn't something anyone has granted.

If you are using the word to mean what I think you are using it to mean, then you are taking for granted too much as known re: the particular person in question.

DAO already had impositions on personalization for what it concerned story, now they are doing the same also for gameplay, I don't see what's so wrong. To create a character and personalize it then the same must be tied to some rule somewhere, it is intrinsic in the personalization (again, Kant).

There is no reason for that to be an explicit rule provided by the setting or writers. Kant just wants coherence and rational self-determination, but that is possible under a possible world account. It is merely not determinate.

And this is the difference between an archetype and a persona. In the former case there is a "could be true" (in the sense that you define that "could be"), in the latter this "could be" is not pertaining and out of place, because there is already present an "it is". Now adding or chaning an "it is" to a "could be" removes the personalization factor present.

You misunderstand. Could be in this case is equivalent to is. Put another way, the full statement is that "it could be that it is," so in any particular playthrough you will take some different "it is" to actually be the case.

Under each particular playthrough you have a persona, but there is no persona consistent across all playthroughs.

Taking your argument, even if it is the "it is" that defines a person, a different "it is" defines a different person and so long as there is no particularly demand from reason to take a particular "it is" for any one character, that character can be more than one person.

This is not possible in reality.

You are bringing too many assumptions to bear that you take for granted.

Many approaches in rpgs (when working with archetypes) don't have the "it is" in the gameplay (only on story mostly), so you can control the "could be" aspect. Still in those cases you are working with archetypes, not a persona in itself. This is the difference.

No. You are determining an "it is". You are not controlling the could be. The could be is merely a logical loop that allows you to vary the "it is" without incoherence.

And I would reply, as I did previously, that if you do so you de-personalize the character. It is inherent in the doing, you cannot do both things and have the same results.

No, it isn't. All that you are arguing is that personhood is intrinsic and predefined. What Sylvius is arguing is that so long as there is uncertaintity from the point of view of the player what precisely that intrisic and predefined personhood is, one can take it to be a different but fully functional person in each playthrough.

And my objection to the objection is that he only want to see a part of it, but, as always, things are more complicate than they look at first.

That can easily be applied to you, given the extent to which you take particular things for granted. As of right now, your entire argument is incommesurate with what Sylvius put foward. You're going to have to backtrack to have a proper discussion.

At any rate, I didn't want to get in the middle of yet another let's apply philosophy to gaming argument. I merely wanted to point out that your reply to Sylvius isn't particularly powerful so long as you take a particular theoretical framework he does not share for granted. It is not hard to show that applying his premises through your axioms leads to a different conclusion. The trick in any debate is to show which axioms ought to be taken to start with; the derivation itself is not hard.

Modifié par In Exile, 01 janvier 2011 - 10:10 .

[Amioran]

[quote]In Exile wrote...

I did. Not a fan. Never heard of Ouspensky. Modern Kantian, I take it?[/quote]

No I'm not. As I said it was just a reference. I prefer much more other point of views, still in this case the one of Kant was appropriate.

[quote]In Exile wrote...
You are going to have to define both archetype and personalized context for me. It seems you are using them in a particularly narrow way and that your argument hinges on both these definitions being true, but this isn't something anyone has granted.[/quote]
 
It is not me that defined those, it is the authors of the game that did it this time for gameplay too.

[quote]In Exile wrote...
If you are using the word to mean what I think you are using it to mean, then you are taking for granted too much as known re: the particular person in question.[/quote]

As I said to Maria some things are known, as for example Isabela being a swashbuckler not adept in bows. In this case there is an "it is". If you change this, then Isabela is no more Isabela. Usually games don't do this, because they work with archetypes in the case of gameplay. This time they did go with another approach also for gameplay, however, as others usually do with story only (for what it concerns crpg).

[quote]In Exile wrote...
There is no reason for that to be an explicit rule provided by the setting or writers. Kant just wants coherence and rational self-determination, but that is possible under a possible world account. It is merely not determinate.[/quote]
 
As I said I don't like the pow of Kant in general, but I was quoting him for what concerned the specific. In this case rationale has nothing to do with the issue. It is only that the devs have setted a character also for gameplay instead of only with story, and if you change (or control) the same then you are removing that personalization.

Alistair was a bastard son, do you think appropriate for people to not wanting it just because he "could be" another thing (more or less)? It is the same thing, only for gameplay. Isabela is not good with bows. This is her character. While for customization this can imply lesser option, still if you change this aspect the character of Isabela is changed in context, so the personalization of her in gameplay is lost.

[quote]In Exile wrote...
You misunderstand. Could be in this case is equivalent to is. Put another way, the full statement is that "it could be that it is," so in any particular playthrough you will take some different "it is" to actually be the case. [/quote]

But the "it is" it is already setted by the devs this time. THIS is the difference. Usually this is not done. The let you create the "it is", so the "could be that it is" is appropriate since it is not already imposed. In this case it is already. It is present from beginning, it is not something you control. You cannot change the "it is" because it is already present.

[quote]In Exile wrote...
Under each particular playthrough you have a persona, but there is no persona consistent across all playthroughs. [/quote]

And in fact this is another difference. This time different playthroughs will be consistent because a character already exist also in gameplay. While you can change the behaviour in a certain perimeter, that perimeter is already determined. Usually the perimeter for gameplay for crpgs is much ample since you are working with archetypes (so the character is not already defined from beginning) but in this case is different.

When you are working with archetypes the "it is" of the character is defined by and by, with your choices, in this case an "it is" is already present and you can apply some variatons to define it more, but there's already a point of start, there's already an "it is" present from beginning.

[quote]In Exile wrote...
Taking your argument, even if it is the "it is" that defines a person, a different "it is" defines a different person and so long as there is no particularly demand from reason to take a particular "it is" for any one character, that character can be more than one person.[/quote]

But in this case there is a "particular demand from reason to take a particular "it is"", differently from an archetype that you define yourself. This, in fact, is the difference between a personalization an a lack thereof.

[quote]In Exile wrote...
This is not possible in reality. [/quote]

It always happen. For religion God gives you the "it is" of yourself. For the atheist evolution does that, or society or pre-born stimuli. Still, is always present. In case of DA2, devs are gods that define the character and create the "it is". In DAO, instead, it was the player God that working with an archetype controlled the "it is" of the same.

[quote]In Exile wrote...
You are bringing too many assumptions to bear that you take for granted. [/quote]

It doesn't seem to me. I just get the difference between an archetype and a persona and I think that Bioware is working more with the latter this time. They usually work with characters only for what concerns story, this time they are doing it also with gameplay. Naturally I can be wrong, but for what they have said till know I think I'm not mistaken.

[quote]In Exile wrote...
No. You are determining an "it is". You are not controlling the could be. The could be is merely a logical loop that allows you to vary the "it is" without incoherence. [/quote]

Again, you cannot control the "could be" if the "it is" is already present, because this removes the "it is". The loop you talk about, in fact, removes the "it is" if it is already there. In case of an archetype what you say is plausible, since you define the "it is" and the "could be" is the way to do so.

[quote]In Exile wrote...
No, it isn't. All that you are arguing is that personhood is intrinsic and predefined. What Sylvius is arguing is that so long as there is uncertaintity from the point of view of the player what precisely that intrisic and predefined personhood is, one can take it to be a different but fully functional person in each playthrough. [/quote]

I'm not arguing that personhood is instrinsic, I'm arguing that it is IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, for the approach Bioware is taking this time. This time there's no uncertainity, there's no control on the definition of the persona. You are not working with an archetype as before, but with a character.

[quote]In Exile wrote...
That can easily be applied to you, given the extent to which you take particular things for granted. As of right now, your entire argument is incommesurate with what Sylvius put foward. You're going to have to backtrack to have a proper discussion.[/quote]

I just argued to what Sylvious said. He said that he wanted to control and to define a character. I said that it is impossible to do so this time because the character is already defined for gameplay. I said, moreover, that there are both drawbacks and positives in both cases, but they are different things and they must be considered as so. An archetype is not a character, they are separate concepts.

[quote]In Exile wrote...
At any rate, I didn't want to get in the middle of yet another let's apply philosophy to gaming argument. I merely wanted to point out that your reply to Sylvius isn't particularly powerful so long as you take a particular theoretical framework he does not share for granted. It is not hard to show that applying his premises through your axioms leads to a different conclusion. The trick in any debate is to show which axioms ought to be taken to start with; the derivation itself is not hard.
[/quote]

As I said, I used phylosphy to prove the point that if you change a character then you de-personalize it. It had anything to do with the rest, it was just an example. The fact that it has become the pivotal point of the discussion is not properly my fault.

[Rohx]

Friendly fire should be on from normal +.



why only on nightmare?

That means my mages will start to use the storm of the century all they long with out a care in the world.

Even if you change the gameplay, for a more casual playbase, keep the Friendly fire!

just how it was in DA:O