[quote]Amioran wrote...
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]
I was asking about Ouspensky.
[quote]
It is not me that defined those, it is the authors of the game that did it this time for gameplay too. [/quote]
No, the terms archetype and personalized - you are using these as terms with particular definitions. Your argument hinges on how a particular approach reduces something to an archetype.
These words mean something in the context of your argument. It is a bit difficult for me to address your argument unless you can give me a precise definition of what these words mean.
[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]
I see you are having a hard time with the counterfactual.
As of right now we do not know anything about whether Isabella likes chocolate cake. If she liked chocolate cake, based how you have described the concept of "it is" so far, this would make her a different person from an Isabella that did not like cake.
What Sylvius is saying is that the more we have cases such as the above - where we do not know, we can have different "it is" within a game. This is how a possible world interpretation in RPGs works without wanting to redefine any particular aspect of the person.
Once again - you are too narrow in your focus.
[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. [/quote]
But I am not disputing this. You have misunderstood the argument.
[quote]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]
This is the problem with your argument. Yes, if it is the case that the bold is true your agument follows. But the "could be" does not address a change in the character. It address only the unknown aspects of the character in which there is no defined aspect.
What Sylvius argues is that the more ''Alistair is...'' statements we can make, the more fixed the character is. This is a bad thing (for him). So he wants less ''Alistair is...'' statements in the game, so Alistair could be many other things.
So your analogy fails because it argues against a position which, at the time you were making your argument, no one held.
[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]
Right. Sylvius would agree with you here.
His point is not that this is not the case. His point is that because this is the case, the game is worse for it.
[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.[/quote]
You are shifting terms without defining them again. You have not clearly demarcated between archetype and persona, so it is not clear at all what you are saying here.
What makes an archetype distinct from a persona?
[quote]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]
This is confusing. Are you saying an archetype in your terminology is just a persona in flux?
Again, your terms are not clear.
You seem to take 'it is' as some known thing about a character. That suggests the only demarcation between an archetype and a persona is that one is in flux and the other isn't, but otherwise they are equivalent. Except other parts of your argument seem not to suggest this.
You need to clarify.
[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]
Okay, so you are saying the above. I don't see why this distinction matters. An archtype as you consider it would never exist inside of a game; for any person who favours such a thing, they would construct a fully determined persona.
You cannot say the act of a person creating a persona makes it not a persona, because then that would just be a claim that fictional characters cannot be personas. All you could say is that someone who creates a fictional character cannot see them as a person, but this kind of subject specific argument seems inconsistent with your position.
[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]
No, you're wrong. For atheists, there is generally speaking no ground for meaning. It's a self-determining thing, if you accept that your ground for meaning can exist.
But the concept itself is nonsensical; I was just playing along for the purpose of this thread to show you that your argument does not follow.
If you are going to argue for platonic concepts, then you're just taking for granting a tremendous number of concepts that are highly controversional. Your argument is not convincing if it relies on heavily contested premises.
[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]
I am not talking about the facts regarding what Bioware is doing. I am talking about your ontology. You are taking it for granted to make your argument.
I mean, the fact that you say there is a difference between these concepts or that they exist at all is an issue to begin with.
[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]
I explained this above. The objection Sylvius raised to you initially (though in different language than this - man, I dislike how imprecise and jargon-filled continental philosophy is) was a consequence of this.
Sylvius would agree with you here, but say that this consequence is undesirable and so the writers ought never present any predetermine ''it is'' in your terminology.
[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]
No, your claim is that personhood is intrinsic. This follows from your concept of it is, because it is effectively a claim that there are certain definitive features of any particular person that make that particular person unique. That is not the point. As I said before - you have misunderstood the argument. See above for more detail.
[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]
You have never explained what an archetype is. Moreover, you are wrong re: the bold and in your claim about Sylvius as a person. Your analysis with regard to the fact that are pros and cons to more defined characters it not at issue here (at least in your discussion with me).
[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.
[/quote]
Even if you are right, that does not address the failure of your comparison.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
)
