299 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

And what if that's atypical?

It's the only method available to all people.  I would expect it to be the method accommodated by the designers.

And regardless, it should allow me to learn any system you use assuming such a system operates on a standard more sophisticated than "I know it when I see it".

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If empiricism works, then I should be able to look at someone else's data - or even his conclusions.

That's why it's a bit of a clumsy metaphor.  It's empiricism in the sense that it is a set of conclusions based on observations and experimentation.  Not a direct parallel to the scientific method.  Though someone with more relevant education and training may have a suitable answer.

An example conclusion would be, "If someone is wildly overstating something there is a good chance they are being sarcastic."  This is not 100% true.  But it's true often enough that my mind goes there first, all else being equal.  They could also simply be boasting.  Context clues, body language, tone, and personal history all impact my evaluation of a particular communication.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If you think you know how to interpret the paraphrases, what method do you use? 

What is it?  When given any paraphrase option, by what means do you determine the content of the resulting line?

Empathy and intuition (forgive the Wikipedia links).  Granted, I am not looking for the same things when I am interpreting the paraphrases as you are.  If I was trying to predict the precise word content (or action) following the selection, I would likely do no better than you.

What am I looking for?  I am trying to convey an idea or elicit a reaction when selecting a paraphrase. 

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

It's the only method available to all people.

It's also unnatural and uncomfortable to most people.  At least I'm guessing.  I don't speak for "the rest of humanity" or anything, obviously.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I would expect it to be the method accommodated by the designers.

That actually leads into my (somewhat limited) goal, which had been this point been unstated:  To question that enough people use the method to justify it being accomodated by designers. 

However, it wouldn't have anything to do with other reasons or thought processes that arrive at the same or similar conclusions on an issue-by-issue basis.

Taken together that means I'm challenging the substance of your arguments as being idiosyncratic (even acknowledging their logical coherence) to the point of uselessness for a game developer, not necessarily your resulting conclusions - which others do share for other reasons.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

And regardless, it should allow me to learn any system you use assuming such a system operates on a standard more sophisticated than "I know it when I see it".

Your standard of evidence, as In Exile often points out, isn't something we all share.  In fact, I imagine a part of your struggle with common human interaction ("Why are people upset?" being a recent example) results from that I'd say most people are truly incapable of describing precisely how they interpret and utilize tone and body language, or at the very least haven't put a heck of a lot of thought into it in a way you would view as useful.   It's empathy, something that's definitely sophisticated, but not in a way many people - despite utilizing it every day - are qualified to describe.  The intricacies of the mind are there to be explained, in small part or in whole, by those with the training and education to do so.  The expectation that anyone should be able to give you a checklist or method on how to utilize that which comes naturally to them is unreasonable. 

In that sense I could almost put it simply by saying it's too sophisticated for most people to even begin to comprehend, despite utilizing it in their daily lives.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 février 2011 - 06:01 .

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I process human interaction in a demonstrably reasonable way.

If there's some other way to do it, I want to know what it is.  Someone needs to provide an algorithm, or a cipher, that anyone could use to figure out what the paraphrases mean.

Conversation does not work as an algorithm. In fact, we can demonstrate that human reasoning and language itself cannot work as an algorithm. You're trying to fit the square peg into the round hole, which is why you have this problem.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
If empiricism works, then I should be able to look at someone else's data - or even his conclusions.

You're not accounting for the theory-laden character of observation. You can never look at data in isolation. You can only look at data through the lense of a theory.

So you can access the same set of features that includes my data, but to ''see'' my data, you need to adopt my theory. And my theory is incommesurable with yours. You can't rationally compare them, because they're valid by their criteria alone.

I really, really reccommend you read Thomas Kuhn.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Empathy and intuition (forgive the Wikipedia links).  Granted, I am not looking for the same things when I am interpreting the paraphrases as you are.  If I was trying to predict the precise word content (or action) following the selection, I would likely do no better than you.

What am I looking for?  I am trying to convey an idea or elicit a reaction when selecting a paraphrase.

I'm not looking for the precise word content, necessarily.  Just the literal meaning.  The precise word content gives me that, which is why I like the full text options in DAO so much, but if I can get the literal meaning some other way then I'm fine.

When choosing a dialogue option, conveying an idea is exactly what I want to achieve.  Maybe I define the idea more narrowly, or care more about what I'm not saying (I often exclude specific content on purpose - if the game then includes that content then it has broken my character - ME did this), but what I want the paraphrase to tell me is what information my character will make available to his listeners.  That's really all that matters.

Wanting to elicit a specific reaction seems to me quite meta-gamey.  Yes, often my character will want to elicit a reacion, but it's his thoughts on what ideas will lead to that reaction that will drive the choce of dialogue.  That I, the player, know what option will lead to a given reaction doesn't matter, as my character might not have reached that same conclusion.  My character, based on his first meeting with another character, probably draws some rudimentary conclusions about that character.  What those conclusions are will inform his choice of idea that he hopes will elicit a specific reaction.  Telling me, the player, what line will produce a specific reaction isn't helpful, as I cannot use that information to inform my choice of dialogue option.

That actually leads into my (somewhat limited) goal, which had been this point been unstated:  To question that enough people use the method to justify it being accomodated by designers.

Whatever method they're trying to accommodate, I want to know what it is.

Please, someone, write it down.  Surely the designers know how to interpret a paraphrase.  They wrote the damn things.

And yet, when I asked the ME developers for assistance, I found only silence.  I very much hope the DA team will be more helpful.

Taken together that means I'm challenging the substance of your arguments as being idiosyncratic (even acknowledging their logical coherence) to the point of uselessness for a game developer, not necessarily your resulting conclusions - which others do share for other reasons.

I recognise that many people prefer this new system, and find it more natural.  I just want guidance on how to use it.

To some degree, I blame the move away from documentation.  Games today simply aren't documented adequately.  The dialogue wheel is a game system; it needs documentation to tell us how it works.

Your standard of evidence, as In Exile often points out, isn't something we all share.  In fact, I imagine a part of your struggle with common human interaction ("Why are people upset?" being a recent example) results from that I'd say most people are truly incapable of describing precisely how they interpret and utilize tone and body language, or at the very least haven't put a heck of a lot of thought into it in a way you would view as useful.

I asked "Why are people upset?" Socraticly.  I recognised that their being upset made no sense, so I asked why they were upset hoping they would try to explain it, and in doing so reveal to themselves how absurd their position was.

It's empathy, something that's definitely sophisticated, but not in a way many people - despite utilizing it every day - are qualified to describe.  The intricacies of the mind are there to be explained, in small part or in whole, by those with the training and education to do so.  The expectation that anyone should be able to give you a checklist or method on how to utilize that which comes naturally to them is unreasonable.

If that's the case, then it's completely irrational for them to trust that tool.  If they don't know how it works, it makes no sense for them to trust that it does.

Among other things, I design and manage databases for a living, and I have this fight over and over again with software vendors who think that users will happily trust the results that get spit out of their products despite never having seen the code in the queries they're using.  If you don't know how it builds the dataset, then you can't know what the dataset entails.

And by the way, I'm strongly of the opinion that there's no such thing as empathy, and the first sentence in your linked article is why.

An example conclusion would be, "If someone is wildly
overstating something there is a good chance they are being
sarcastic."  This is not 100% true.  But it's true often enough that my
mind goes there first, all else being equal.  They could also
simply be boasting.  Context clues, body language, tone, and personal
history all impact my evaluation of a particular communication.

Not that it matters, but my first guess upon hearing a "wild overstatement" would be that the speaker was using hyperbole.

Though I would need a lot of context (probably gained subsequently) to have confidence in that conclusion.  Once that context was acquired, I would return to the statement in question and revise my assessment.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 02 février 2011 - 06:39 .

[HolyAvenger]

I'm just gonna reiterate a wish for more BadassBoasts by Hawke. Oh pretty please...

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

I really, really reccommend you read Thomas Kuhn.

I did read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions as a student (some years ago, now), and my only real recollection of it was that I thought Kuhn was wrong.

Is there something in particular you recommend?  You may have already done so, but if so then I've clearly forgotten.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I did read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions as a student (some years ago, now), and my only real recollection of it was that I thought Kuhn was wrong.

Did it have his post-script? The original copy of Structure is bad philosophy. In the post-script he addresses and engages with what he borrows from Wittgenstein explicitly and that captures much better the idea of theory-laden observation as a problem for empiricism and data collection.

Is there something in particular you recommend?  You may have already done so, but if so then I've clearly forgotten.

I'm trying to think of a good reference point. For a second, I forgot the philosophical rigour that you expect from any account. It was my bad, and in hindsight, Kuhn himself is not systematic enough as a philosopher to give a good account of the philosophical implication of his view.

There are a lot of problems with this link and it does not give a great overview of the issue, but short of a lecture on this material this is the best I can do in the interim:

http://plato.stanfor...ry-observation/

Here you will find a broad overview of theory in science. This isn't a perfect example of the role of theory in observation because there is an overt and powerful focus on findings in chemistry and physics which are simple enough that they lend themselves well to the kinds of correction that are not possible in the kind of complex and dynamic systems we would want to examine empirically when looking at conversation.

Still, it will give you a better overview of the issue, and you and I can talk further via PM.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Many philosophers seem to think that their conclusions are so compelling on their own that they need not support them.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Many philosophers seem to think that their conclusions are so compelling on their own that they need not support them.

This is true, but Structure is bad philosophy in a more mundane way - it does not have important and central terms (like paradigm) well defined at all. So when you try to abstract the philosophical system itself, you can't; the terminology is not clear enough to be able to do it. The problem isn't the absence of argument - it's that we aren't even at the level where it's clear what we're arguing for.

[AlanC9]

Why am I suddenly thinking of Heidegger?

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

This is true, but Structure is bad philosophy in a more mundane way - it does not have important and central terms (like paradigm) well defined at all. So when you try to abstract the philosophical system itself, you can't; the terminology is not clear enough to be able to do it. The problem isn't the absence of argument - it's that we aren't even at the level where it's clear what we're arguing for.

So even worse that being a lousy argument, it was literally meaningless.  I hate those.

I was required to take an undergraduate course in Metaphysics in which my professor used as a textbook Stephen Covey's Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.  Nowhere in that book does Covey even try to address what he means by "effective".  That was the first book I ever read that I determined to be literally meaningless.

Possibly as a result, I hate Metaphysics.  There are far too many epistemological problems that need to be solved before metaphysical problems can even be approached.  Ethics has a similar problem.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 02 février 2011 - 07:38 .

[elfdwarf]

can i angry tone with all templar?

[Nadia]

Chansel wrote...

Ah, yes. Thanks for giving some more info on the matter.
I was already pretty excited about the dialog wheel, because I thought the intent icons would be a nice addition to make it work better than in ME. But now that that’s it’s clear that the way Hawke talks in battle and decision hubs can be changed to match the personality you’re playing.. That’s just epic.

Thank you, Bioware!

I agree, that sounds fantastic indeed!!! I can't wait to experience this!

[Wulfram]

David Gaider wrote...

The alternative, of course, would simply to have a single and unchanging soundset

Or not have a combat soundset at all.

Sorry, but I've never heard one which isn't annoying after about two combats

[Big Mabels Diet-Plan]

Xewaka wrote...

KawaiiKatie wrote...
Apparently the dialogue choices were vague enough that some men were "tricked" into a romance with Zevran, and it really pissed them off. The dialogue wheel is supposed to get rid of this complication.

I rest my case.

(strip authored by Yuko Ota and Annath Pangariya at http://www.johnnywander.com)

I don't get it?
The guys role playing a female shepard who acts toward Jacob in the same way the male shepard does toward any split-arse in the squad when you chat them up.
But I guess if undertones of homophobia make you laugh.....

[mesmerizedish]

TripedWire wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

KawaiiKatie wrote...
Apparently the dialogue choices were vague enough that some men were "tricked" into a romance with Zevran, and it really pissed them off. The dialogue wheel is supposed to get rid of this complication.

I rest my case.

(strip authored by Yuko Ota and Annath Pangariya at http://www.johnnywander.com)

I don't get it?
The guys role playing a female shepard who acts toward Jacob in the same way the male shepard does toward any split-arse in the squad when you chat them up.
But I guess if undertones of homophobia make you laugh.....

That's not it at all... the joke is the disparity between the selected dialogue option ('Sup?) and what the character actually said (Bone me you beautiful man). It's irony. Homophobia doesn't play into it at all, and I honestly have no idea why you would think it does.

[Erinpedz]

I must admit I'm looking forward to the dialogue wheel with the way Mr Gaider has explained it..

Although with his line about combat shouts.. my one burning urgent question is.. please tell me the get off my back line has gone byebyes???

I don't want to have to abort a 0playthrough due to that line over and over and over again.

[Big Mabels Diet-Plan]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

TripedWire wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

KawaiiKatie wrote...
Apparently the dialogue choices were vague enough that some men were "tricked" into a romance with Zevran, and it really pissed them off. The dialogue wheel is supposed to get rid of this complication.

I rest my case.

(strip authored by Yuko Ota and Annath Pangariya at http://www.johnnywander.com)

I don't get it?
The guys role playing a female shepard who acts toward Jacob in the same way the male shepard does toward any split-arse in the squad when you chat them up.
But I guess if undertones of homophobia make you laugh.....

That's not it at all... the joke is the disparity between the selected dialogue option ('Sup?) and what the character actually said (Bone me you beautiful man). It's irony. Homophobia doesn't play into it at all, and I honestly have no idea why you would think it does.

OK imagine the cartoon with a male shepard hitting up miranda, would the last panel show the consternation of two young men at the unexpected sexual aggression of shephard or would it be them high fiving and bro hugging?
In fact I think it's a mix of homophobia at the unexpected outcome and unease in the face of female sexual assertiveness which doesn't surprise me as the vast majority of gamers will share the cartoon characters anxiety about such things.

[Xewaka]

TripedWire wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

TripedWire wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

KawaiiKatie wrote...
Apparently the dialogue choices were vague enough that some men were "tricked" into a romance with Zevran, and it really pissed them off. The dialogue wheel is supposed to get rid of this complication.

*Comic snipped to save space*
I rest my case.
(strip authored by Yuko Ota and Annath Pangariya at http://www.johnnywander.com)

I don't get it?
The guys role playing a female shepard who acts toward Jacob in the same way the male shepard does toward any split-arse in the squad when you chat them up.
But I guess if undertones of homophobia make you laugh.....

That's not it at all... the joke is the disparity between the selected dialogue option ('Sup?) and what the character actually said (Bone me you beautiful man). It's irony. Homophobia doesn't play into it at all, and I honestly have no idea why you would think it does.

OK imagine the cartoon with a male shepard hitting up miranda, would the last panel show the consternation of two young men at the unexpected sexual aggression of shephard or would it be them high fiving and bro hugging?
In fact I think it's a mix of homophobia at the unexpected outcome and unease in the face of female sexual assertiveness which doesn't surprise me as the vast majority of gamers will share the cartoon characters anxiety about such things.

The glassed brunnete who suggests the interaction is a petite woman. So your point of homophobia is quite off the mark.
Besides, it is the difference between gamer intent and game result is what I'm trying to illustrate. The wheel does not resolve the alleged "surprise Zevran romance" (Which baffles me, as the text to stop Zevran shameless flirting is there and crystal clear) by any measure. It arguably makes the problem worse.

Modifié par Xewaka, 02 février 2011 - 12:07 .

[sonsonthebia07]

fibchopkin wrote...

I know I'm in the minority here on this forum, but I'm actully pretty happy about the VO switch. Don't get me wrong, I loved my warden (and my JEDIs, and all my other silent PCs, come to that) but when you don't have a VO, you often don't get to see the emotional reaction of your character during a convo. The inconvenience of having to obsessively save before speaking with ANYONE in Mass Effect was far outweighed, imo, by the fact that my Shep had real emotional depth. Sometimes I felt like my warden was a stone b**** because there was no reaction to emotional scenes and during some convo. Often a 6 word sentence didn't properly convey what my char probably would have said.

I'm very happy about this. I much prefer Mass Effect's system to Dragon Age and am overjoyed at the change.

[HolyAvenger]

Actually the ME2 strip is showing you can't pick the fact that the interaction is flirtatious from the actual dialogue choices, rather than homophobia FFS. How is that not obvious.

[randydanezack]

thank you for all the bioware developers/employees who posted it here. This was most informative and makes me want to play the game even more.

[mesmerizedish]

TripedWire wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

TripedWire wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

KawaiiKatie wrote...
Apparently the dialogue choices were vague enough that some men were "tricked" into a romance with Zevran, and it really pissed them off. The dialogue wheel is supposed to get rid of this complication.

I rest my case.

(strip authored by Yuko Ota and Annath Pangariya at http://www.johnnywander.com)

I don't get it?
The guys role playing a female shepard who acts toward Jacob in the same way the male shepard does toward any split-arse in the squad when you chat them up.
But I guess if undertones of homophobia make you laugh.....

That's not it at all... the joke is the disparity between the selected dialogue option ('Sup?) and what the character actually said (Bone me you beautiful man). It's irony. Homophobia doesn't play into it at all, and I honestly have no idea why you would think it does.

OK imagine the cartoon with a male shepard hitting up miranda, would the last panel show the consternation of two young men at the unexpected sexual aggression of shephard or would it be them high fiving and bro hugging?
In fact I think it's a mix of homophobia at the unexpected outcome and unease in the face of female sexual assertiveness which doesn't surprise me as the vast majority of gamers will share the cartoon characters anxiety about such things.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

To answer your question: yes, were it a male Shepard and Miranda, the last panel would be the same. You're taking the comic and inventing subtext, and then drawing an entirely unrelated conclusion.

[_Aine_]

HolyAvenger wrote...

Actually the ME2 strip is showing you can't pick the fact that the interaction is flirtatious from the actual dialogue choices, rather than homophobia FFS. How is that not obvious.

hehe... i totally understand that strip. *grins* It is just *one* example in many that made my eyes open wider when I heard DA2 was going that route.  But the problem doesn't lie so much in the wheel itself of course, but in the choice of words used to paraphrase the intent.  I couldn't stand Jacob ( sorry Jacob fans ) because he just seemed.... I don't know, it doesn't matter... but every time I wanted to talk to him My female Shepard got all saunter-y and this strange quasi sexy pose/talk thing and made me run from the armory....fast.   It was like "let's talk" meant that weird place right before I jumped on him and devoured him...  lol  

Similarly, if romancing Thane ( or even considering it ) he goes on to tell you about his dead wife to which one of the choices is " I want you Thane!" . " Yeah, sorry about your dead wife, hon. Wipe those tears and let's #$%^! "  hehe  So, maybe these are the examples that scare people a bit.  I am feeling pretty neutral, even though generally, when given the choice of who to build my character as I prefer an unvoiced protagonist simply so they *are* just that slight bit more of my creation and I can use my imagination for the rest as the reach can be creatively greater that way in terms of roleplay.  The wheel itself, I don't mind it at all, as long as the paraphrasing is done appropriately for the mood of the statement and doesn't seem so callous or shallow. Some of my characters *are* that way, but some are not.  

DA2 is definitely already the type of game that the character is already somewhat defined in terms of character with a family, backstory etc so it will probably make more sense in this style of game than it would DA:O.  It sounds like this might work very well, so I think people should give it a chance and see how it is actually implemented. Might be fantastic!  Blind faith in something is bad, but so is unwavering pessimism.  Can't wait to try it personally, and see how it plays out.