992 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
It didn't.  Things that don't exist can't exhibit characteristics.

You said you can't lie with a question. You then defined "lying" as including false information. I just did that very thing. My question is a set of beliefs. Within it, I include the claim that it can be the case that you are pregnant and th claim that it is the case that you are pregnant. These are premises implicit. And these are false premises.

Existence (as a measure of truth) is just the standard of falsity. This is basic correspondence theory. Or are you using some other truth theory?

Referring to a false claim is different from making a false claim.  Your question isn't making a claim about me at all.

It is making a claim about you and the world. This is, again, basic to correspondence theory.

[TEWR]

also, I doubt some people realize what the fist really signifies, so....

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Raised_fist

I didn't until about a few months back

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 26 février 2011 - 01:27 .

[tmp7704]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

also, I doubt some people realize what the fist really signifies, so....

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Raised_fist

I didn't until about a few months back

Having choice between Marxist Hawke, Monarchist Hawke and Libertarian Hawke would be interesting dialogue setup.

Modifié par tmp7704, 26 février 2011 - 01:36 .

[The Gentle Ben]

My (specifically my) point was that I interpreted the top (green) response as the consoling option, and the bottom (red) response as the harsh (to your mother) option. Therefore I expected the middle (blue) option to fall somewhere in the middle (vengeance seemed appropriate) and never anticipated a second consoling option.

I can't link to a specific post, but I believe the stated intent of the icons was largely to intuitively link intent with text, which is fine (and good). To be clear, I support VO, I support intent icons, I even theoretically am perfectly content (and perhaps even support) paraphrases.

My problems with the system are when I am unable to anticipate outcomes given the provided information (which are failures of execution rather than concept) within a reasonable range (subjective, but I think I'm fairly forgiving), such as the example described. I am perfectly willing to accept fault for my own failings in interpreting the provided information when I feel that my conclusion was based upon erroneous logic. However, in this case I feel as if my logic was sound, and struggle to see how I was wrong in my expectation as opposed to merely being incorrect in my anticipation of the outcome.

Besides, a vengeful reaction should totally have been supported.

Modifié par The Gentle Ben, 26 février 2011 - 01:41 .

[TEWR]

tmp7704 wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

also, I doubt some people realize what the fist really signifies, so....

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Raised_fist

I didn't until about a few months back

Having choice between Marxist Hawke, Monarchist Hawke and Libertarian Hawke would be interesting dialogue setup.

Thou hast maketh me laugh heartily.

The Gentle Ben wrote...

My (specifically my) point was that I interpreted the top (green) response as the consoling option, and the bottom (red) response as the harsh (to your mother) option. Therefore I expected the middle (blue) option to fall somewhere in the middle (vengeance seemed appropriate) and never anticipated a second consoling option.

I can't link to a specific post, but I believe the stated intent of the icons was largely to intuitively link intent with text, which is fine (and good). To be clear, I support VO, I support intent icons, I even theoretically am perfectly content (and perhaps even support) paraphrases.

My problems with the system are when I am unable to anticipate outcomes given the provided information within a reasonable range (subjective, but I think I'm fairly forgiving), such as the example described. I am perfectly willing to accept fault for my own failings in interpreting the provided information when I feel that my conclusion was based upon erroneous logic. However, in this case, I feel as if my logic was sound, and struggle to see how I was wrong in my expectation as opposed to merely being incorrect in my anticipation of the outcome. Besides, a vengeful reaction should totally have been supported.

I can understand that, but now you know that they are not so much the good the bad and the middle options, but different ways of expressing a view on a scenario depending on what mood you want to be in.

And i don't see a problem with your last paragraph too much. Just one question, do you read the Codex? If not, it does tend to help. If you do, then no biggie. Just wondering. You're not wrong definitely, but it is somewhat..... stretching it to think Carver will not be alone by you slaying, as I've stated, thousands of soulless creatures. Without a soul, they have no afterlife, thus Carver would still be alone if that were the intended response, at least imo anyway.

[The Gentle Ben]

I do read the Codex, although I will confess I didn't in the demo, (the hotkey didn't work and I didn't care enough in a demo to go digging) but I did already know about Hawke's father from my obsessive reading of developer posts.

Stretching or not, it was honestly my only interpretation of the choice, and therefore the basis for my expectations when I selected it. After the fact, I understood how the actual outcome made sense, but the point of the system is to give a degree of prescience roughly equivalent to full text so as to prevent such surprises. So therefore in this case (for me), the system failed. I am willing to consider if it was instead a failure on my part, but by what I have heard so far, it appears (in my judgment) to have been a failure of implementation instead.

Modifié par The Gentle Ben, 26 février 2011 - 01:56 .

[TEWR]

since you didn't read it in the demo, your interpretation is entirely understandable. Since DA2 is focusing as much on Hawke as it is the story (you could call them one in the same actually, since it is Hawke's story), the codex will help with this game immensely. In DA:O it was more like just finding out more information on a place or person, but it had no overall effect on anything. Mainly a way to kill time.



And I can see your point. While I don't necessarily agree with it, I can respect it.

[Maj.Pain007]

wowpwnslol wrote...

It's worse. Made for ADD kids too lazy to read, so they even added pictures. I hate ME style dialogue "wheel" it screams console oversimplification.

No its not. The problem with the chat system is its a TL:DR version of what will be said the problem with that is player is expecting 1 thing when instead its delivered a certain way whichw as the opposite of what you thought. Numerous times this has happened to me in Origins and Mass Effect. You guys QQ so much. ITs a much cleaner version than ORigins.

[The-Sapient]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
My supposedly silly claim has caused you to make a fool of yourself, thus discrediting your position.

I win again.

Well, I won't bother to mock your logic on this one.  But I think it does a nice job demonstrating how a person fails to learn.
My questions to you, and your responses, did a good job of demonstrating my point.  When I asked "Why are you defending wife beating", you belief is that it being a question, it could not make any assertions.  But it did.  What did it assert?  WIthout context, it asserted you defended wife beating.  But context matters.  In the context of this discussion, it asserted that it was itself an example of a question that makes asserts.  And as convoluted as that is, the message of the question was clear to everyone, including you.
The point is that language and communication are complex.  If you were trying to program a very basic language parser, sure, you might questions are for seeking information.  But for actual users of language, a simple question can have several layers of meaning, and fufil several purposes.  

[Reaverwind]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Personally I hate it. In DA I would read through my choices and pick the one that suited my character best. Now much like ME we get the good/evil and middle path. Not only that, but we get little icons to make it even easier...

Now you don't even have to read just look at the icons.

Anyway what does everyone else think ? Better or just lazy?

Hate it. Turn off brain and look at the pretty colors.

[Mr_Steph]

 I think it is fine. I would still prefer my silent protagonist, but I don't mind this.

[Riona45]

I love the new system and can't wait to see how it plays out in the DA world.  The intent icons are a big plus, I think.

[JrayM16]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

[

JrayM16 wrote...

You asked if one could lie with a question.  Assuming the man was NOT beating his wife, the question would be a lie.

But that's not true.  The question even still makes sense for a man who isn't beating his wife.  He hasn't stopped.

That people will misinterpret the response doesn't tell us anything about whether the question actually makes false claims.

Lies are necessarily assertions.

[*]).

The assertion is implied by the question.  That's why it is a complex question.

[sythsillis]

Ultimately, the choices you make won't really alter the path of the game that much. Just as in Origins, this is covered over by the whiz bang voice acting and the cut scenes. Everything will come to pretty much the same denument. Easier and cheaper to program that way.

[Vit246]

I prefer the full text dialogue. I don't care if I read the whole thing and then hear it repeated by the VO. At least I'd know exactly what my character's gonna say and in what tone. Which is the point of an RPG.

[Chadthesad]

Less is more. Arch-type class system is the way to go for any role-playing game, Damage per second/damage, Tank, Ranged. It's the simple building blocks for the sub classes which fully develop the character. I partially like this ability/spell system. It's intriguing how Bioware decided to include add-on choices to the base abilities/skills. They give you choice. Once one begins to analyze the game elements, instead of purely passing judgment based off emotions you'll understand where the development team is coming from.

[Gazeuse]

In Exile wrote...
If you don't want to ''use your brain'' because you don't like the way information is presented, that your loss. You could easily play DA:O by just clicking the good response (Hint: It's almost always 1; that's also the one that always advances the conversation). You can think about the consequences in DA2. 

There are reasons to be critical of the paraphrase, but ''not intelligent enough'' is a failing on your part.

I know exactly how modern Bioware dialogue works, you don't need to lecture about that. My message is that this kind of dialogue design promotes shallow, reactive and lazy gameplay instead of deep and involving which I prefer.

Modifié par Gazeuse, 26 février 2011 - 07:37 .

[Jarradane]

Yeah I don't like it.

Origins was like medieval Kotor, but DA2 feels like the medieval Mass Effect 2.

[Sylvius the Mad]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

In this particular example, though, I have to wonder if you're deliberately refusing to making even the most reasonable of assumptions.

Assumptions can't be reasonable.  They fall outside the scope of reason.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

And how is vengeance supposed to be charming? You picked the charming response, trying to comfort your grieving mother, and to you that equates itself to being vengeful? How does that work?

That was the charming response?  How was I supposed to know it was charming?  They haven't told us what the icons mean, yet.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

You said you can't lie with a question. You then defined "lying" as including false information.

Yes.  Nothing is a lie if it is not a false statement.

I just did that very thing.

No you didn't.  You asked a question.

My question is a set of beliefs.

No, it's a question.  You seem to want people to infer a set of beliefs from it, but that doesn't mean that set of beliefs is contained within the question.
Again, what of rhetorical questions?  They are literally identical, and yet they are not intended to deceive.  you you accuse someone of kying simply for using a rhetorical question which is structured in this way?

Within it, I include the claim that it can be the case that you are pregnant and the claim that it is the case that you are pregnant.

I don't think either of those things is true, and I don't think the first one would be false.

These are premises implicit. And these are false premises.

They're not premises at all.

Existence (as a measure of truth) is just the standard of falsity. This is basic correspondence theory. Or are you using some other truth theory?

I don't see how the correspondence theory applies.  The correspondence theory applies only to statements which describe the world, and questions don't do that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

JrayM16 wrote...

The assertion is implied by the question.  That's why it is a complex question.

That sort of implication is entirely unreasonable, assuming it exists at all (which I do not concede).

The-Sapient wrote...

Well, I won't bother to mock your logic on this one.

 
I'd like to see you try.  Please point out my logical error.  I don't think you'll find one.

My questions to you, and your responses, did a good job of demonstrating my point.  When I asked "Why are you defending wife beating", you belief is that it being a question, it could not make any assertions.  But it did.

 
It did nothing of the sort.  This is linguitically guaranteed.

 What did it assert?  WIthout context, it asserted you defended wife beating.  But context matters.  In the context of this discussion, it asserted that it was itself an example of a question that makes asserts.

 
I'll agree that you were presenting as such an example, but since a cursory examination shows that it is not, you were simply wrong.

How people use questions and how people interpret questions are not directly related to what questions actually are.

[borelocin]

But, it if my response doesn't have a little blue angel wing icon how will I know I know I am being good ?



I think it's more like alpha protocol than a morality system as such - polite, funny or bastard as opposed to good, neutral or evil.

[theenigma77]

Love the voiced main character, hate the wheel. Fuse Dragon Age: Origins choices with DA2 voice acting and BAM your golden. They think just because it worked in ME2 mean it will work here? Nah no way. Not when you get your customers accustomed to something else first.

Modifié par theenigma77, 26 février 2011 - 10:21 .

[TEWR]

actually I think they have told us what the icons mean. I think, not sure though

http://dragonage.wik.../Dialogue_Wheel

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 26 février 2011 - 01:34 .

[AkiKishi]

My favourite demo exmaple.


Bro dies- up comes option "He won't be alone" Click this thinking that it will probably result in "By the time I'm done he'll have a Legion of DarkSpawn for company.

Instead I get to kick mom in the teeth by reminding her that my father is dead too....The line is something like "Well at least Father will have company"

And I thought Shepard was giant tool. But that one really takes the biscuit.
Hawkes certainly not my character, and I'm not even sure I want to play a such a pre-generated tool either.


Like someone said above it's more like being a director. In an RPG a character is an extension of myself I should know what it will say before it's said. Now if the NPC takes that in a way that was not intnded, that does not change anything.

Being a director with an actor who improvises lines and only takes a loose direction as to what "tone" a line should be delivered in.