283 réponses à ce sujet

[Elhanan]

Yrkoon wrote...

Well, except that in Cassandra's case, the interrogation of Varric does not occur in public.  It occurs in  private.  in a dark room, where Cassandra can be herself, instead  of having to  live up to the  image that you're  ascribing to the Chantry.  Ergo, her anger, threats, and cussing are believable...  natural.    Even expected.

It does not need to be a public venue to require an appearance of superiority, esp over her victim. If she was to let her hair down so to speak, this would seem to have been done over time; not initially. Again, my preference would have been to maintain such a cool head and heart; instead we got the anger and threats.

But the cussing was not believeable; nor felt natural, to me. It appeared to be just another petty pretender that seemed out of place, and did not represent well what was supposedly being presented.

[HikerRemastered]

It makes me giggle, that people discuss the proper use of cussing and sex, in a video game where you chop monsters in half, backstab "bad" people, whilst chuckin' fireballs every which way all covered in blood. I find a good debate about proper etiquette and the timing of a good cuss interesting, but this is almost too ironic, so I shall partake nonetheless.

What I fail to understand is how come so many people worry about cussing? In America it's almost impossible to hear the word **** on TV, but feces or fecal matter is perfectly acceptable. They all describe the same object, why is some words banned whilst other are not, what determines when a word is a cuss or just simply a descriptive word? As a general practitioner listening to people struggle to find the "politically correct" word for bowel movements, can be entertaining in itself.

Too many people worry about cussing. Cussing is part of our language. Sure, it can become too much, but whether if there's cussing done 5 times or 50 times in pre-recorded dialogue worth of 15hours, I don't see the huff. I also do not understand why people worry about their kids learning cuss words early on. They will eventually, and all that stops them from uttering them, is their parents who worry about what people will think of their kid who just said "Eff this" in the supermarket. People need to relax, let kids be kids, and stop using that as an argument for banning cussing on medias.


Disjointed post, submitted.

Modifié par HikerRemastered, 13 août 2011 - 07:58 .

[Ariella]

HikerRemastered wrote...

It makes me giggle, that people discuss the proper use of cussing and sex, in a video game where you chop monsters in half, backstab "bad" people, whilst chuckin' fireballs every which way all covered in blood. I find a good debate about proper etiquette and the timing of a good cuss interesting, but this is almost too ironic, so I shall partake nonetheless.

It's not just cussing, thought that is a factor, but the use of language in general. To be as plain as I can: I like smart language. I like language that rises above the usual clutter of day to day life, so I'd like to continue to see Bioware push language in the form of both dialogue and codex to be as smart and as sharp as possible.

[Elhanan]

HikerRemastered wrote...

It makes me giggle, that people discuss the proper use of cussing and sex, in a video game where you chop monsters in half, backstab "bad" people, whilst chuckin' fireballs every which way all covered in blood. I find a good debate about proper etiquette and the timing of a good cuss interesting, but this is almost too ironic, so I shall partake nonetheless.

What I fail to understand is how come so many people worry about cussing? In America it's almost impossible to hear the word **** on TV, but feces or fecal matter is perfectly acceptable. They all describe the same object, why is some words banned whilst other are not, what determines when a word is a cuss or just simply a descriptive word? As a general practitioner listening to people struggle to find the "politically correct" word for bowel movements, can be entertaining in itself.

Too many people worry about cussing. Cussing is part of our language. Sure, it can become too much, but whether if there's cussing done 5 times or 50 times in pre-recorded dialogue worth of 15hours, I don't see the huff. I also do not understand why people worry about their kids learning cuss words early on. They will eventually, and all that stops them from uttering them, is their parents who worry about what people will think of their kid who just said "Eff this" in the supermarket. People need to relax, let kids be kids, and stop using that as an argument for banning cussing on medias

Disjointed post, submitted.

Personally, I worry because it is morphing into something so common, and becoming acceptable.

I worry because I do not want it to represent me; nor my beliefs.

I worry because what was once heard in locker rooms and in military barracks is now presented in more public venues.
 
I worry that the de-evolution of our language and culture is being embraced more frequently rather than trying to ascend to something better and more perfect.

I worry that rather than improve the usage of sex and violence, the call is to relax the sliding standards even more.

I worry that it makes others giggle.

[Firky]

Fast moving thread.

^ Well said, person above.

(Although, oddly, I'm actually in favour of society swearing much, much more. I think it's from years of ineffectually trying to force teenagers to stop swearing in the school/learning context. I think I eventually decided that trying to repress language just leads to bad mental outcomes for people who really do need to express themselves verbally; everyone, to some degree. Although, as Realmz said in there, somewhere, having a better vocabulary is always useful, too. In terms of writing for videogames, I very much like the imperfect characters, so "expressive swearing" would be entirely cool with me.)

Ariella wrote...

Jim Butcher used plough instead of screw or other euphamisms for sex in his Codex Alera series. It actually makes sense in that context because it's an agricultural based society and came from earth before certain acronyms had even come into use.

And yes, the use of the word plough makes sense, but not only in the technological impact on the land, but a more basic function: one has to plough to plant seeds, which then grow into a harvest. Very basic reproduction imagery there.

That sounds like an interesting read. (I just had a squiz, via Google.)

On a contrasting point to "ploughing", and Minced Oaths, I also really liked "Vashedan" in Origins. (I really can't recall, but Sten said this, right?) I was approaching him in a classic RPG companion kind of a way and trying to make him happy and he hated me. I knew "Vashedan" was a swear, but it had exactly no initial impact, because I've never heard it before. But, it started to grate on me over time, with the added insult of making me feel stupid as well as sweared at.

I'm currently reading The Book Thief, in which a mother calls her adopted daughter "Saumensch" but, because I'm not German, it had initially no impact. It's becoming really clear, however, that Saumensch is a terrible thing for a mother to call her child.

Swearing without swearing (sort of, anyway). That's good writing. (IMO.)

[Aradace]

Ariella wrote...

Aradace wrote...

I fail to see how the "swearing" in any case in DA2 "breaks immersion".

Okay, when someone uses the f-bomb t's going to catch your attention, and put the focus on the curse word. It becomes all about the f-bomb and not about what else the person is saying.

for you maybe.  But that particular word is pretty common in my own vocabulary.  Especially when Im frustrated.  That and S.o.B are common words I use lol.  Seriously though, dont assume it has the same "effect" on everyone as it does you.  Where as the word may have such an impact that it breaks immersion for you, it may not for others.  Im ex-military, so that particular "f" word doesnt bother or even phase me in the least.  To me, it's just another word.

[Pzykozis]

Elhanan wrote...

I worry that the de-evolution of our language and culture is being embraced more frequently rather than trying to ascend to something better and more perfect.

Ugh, there is nothing evolutionary or de-evolutionary about the use of specific words. It's a matter of preference not of intelligence.

Danger lies in thinking that it is superior to have a certain preference.

Just use it appropriately is my view, Isabela is a pirate it's doubtful someone of that background would mind their p's and q's a wide enforcement on the lack of words that are common to certain personalities or whatever just seems odd. But can't fault anyone for being stringent in regards to this as opposed to being completely free, since that'd probably annoy more than t'other way around.

[Elhanan]

Pzykozis wrote...

Ugh, there is nothing evolutionary or de-evolutionary about the use of specific words. It's a matter of preference not of intelligence.

Danger lies in thinking that it is superior to have a certain preference.

Just use it appropriately is my view, Isabela is a pirate it's doubtful someone of that background would mind their p's and q's a wide enforcement on the lack of words that are common to certain personalities or whatever just seems odd. But can't fault anyone for being stringent in regards to this as opposed to being completely free, since that'd probably annoy more than t'other way around.

Ugh? The de-evolution mentioned ref the standards of society which allow the pervasiveness of profanity to be used so frequently and commonly. It is a matter of preference; depicts a lack of intelligence though it may be actually be extant.

Danger lies in not believing that choices mater, and have consequence.

There is no appropriate use of profanity, IMO. While I am also aware of the frequency it is used in the military, my admiration was for those that chose to remove it from their vocabulary in dealing with me and others. It is not, nor did not represent the best we had to offer. And if it is actually offensive or annoying to any for having it removed from dialogue, then I would think that the fault lies in the receiver; not with the transmitter.

Modifié par Elhanan, 13 août 2011 - 03:08 .

[Yrkoon]

Elhanan wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Well, except that in Cassandra's case, the interrogation of Varric does not occur in public.  It occurs in  private.  in a dark room, where Cassandra can be herself, instead  of having to  live up to the  image that you're  ascribing to the Chantry.  Ergo, her anger, threats, and cussing are believable...  natural.    Even expected.

It does not need to be a public venue to require an appearance of superiority, esp over her victim. If she was to let her hair down so to speak, this would seem to have been done over time; not initially. Again, my preference would have been to maintain such a cool head and heart; instead we got the anger and threats.

But the cussing was not believeable; nor felt natural, to me. It appeared to be just another petty pretender that seemed out of place, and did not represent well what was supposedly being presented.

You are, once again,  operating under the assumption that the Chantry is some noble, level-headed beacon of civil society,  and that its  militant, covert arm  (its seekers) is supposed to represent this civility.   it is NOT.

Even aside from the fact that, at this point, they are a desperate  and frightened  animal backed into a corner, we've still got loads of lore to point to them being anything but civil...  especially to non-human races of thedas  (Varric is a dwarf, remember?).  So to repeat the obvious:  They torture,  murder,  launch  massive wars... but they're too proper to cuss?    Is that what your head is telling you? 

Modifié par Yrkoon, 13 août 2011 - 03:28 .

[Yrkoon]

And what's this devolution nonsense? Profanity's been a staple of every major language for milennia.

Ariella wrote...

It's not just cussing, thought that is a factor, but the use of language in general. To be as plain as I can: I like smart language. I like language that rises above the usual clutter of day to day life, so I'd like to continue to see Bioware push language in the form of both dialogue and codex to be as smart and as sharp as possible.

And what happens if a developer is trying to  represent   the clutter and realities of every day life in a cut scene or a conversation?  Would you have them   intentionally represent it  (falsely) in an overly sterile manner?

Modifié par Yrkoon, 13 août 2011 - 03:34 .

[Elhanan]

Really. For myself, it is far more chilling to to see a True Believer act with an air of propriety, rather than rage about like a badger from NWN1. The Operative from the film Serenity is a fine example of my preference.

Whether or not one believes the Chantry is noble or not, the general idea that is projected to the masses is that of civility and righteousness; that they believe they are right and just.

[Elhanan]

Yrkoon wrote...

And what's this devolution nonsense? Profanity's been a staple of every major language for milennia.

Again, falling farther and farther away from the goal of perfection.

[Yrkoon]

Elhanan wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

And what's this devolution nonsense? Profanity's been a staple of every major language for milennia.

Again, falling farther and farther away from the goal of perfection.

Good god,  your  snobbishness here is painful.

If you were in Dragon Age, people would call you Orlesian. lol
 
Language is Neutral and ever mutable.  It's a bunch of letters formed in such a way as to create words.  And these words serve no purpose but to project the thoughts of the speaker/writer.  Who are you to decide what  constitutes "perfection" in someone else's THOUGHTS?

Modifié par Yrkoon, 13 août 2011 - 03:47 .

[Elhanan]

Yrkoon wrote...

Good god,  your  arrogance here is painful.

If you were in Dragon Age, people would call you Orlesian. lol
 
Language is Neutral and ever mutable.  It's a bunch of letters formed in such a way as to create words.  And these words serve no purpose but to project the thoughts of the speaker/writer.  Who are you to decide what  constitutes "perfection"?

He is good, and the reason behind perfection; not myself. But again we wander off the OT to begin discussions not applicable to these forums.

[Yrkoon]

Elhanan wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Good god,  your  arrogance here is painful.

If you were in Dragon Age, people would call you Orlesian. lol
 
Language is Neutral and ever mutable.  It's a bunch of letters formed in such a way as to create words.  And these words serve no purpose but to project the thoughts of the speaker/writer.  Who are you to decide what  constitutes "perfection"?

He is good, and the reason behind perfection; not myself. But again we wander off the OT to begin discussions not applicable to these forums.

You're dodging.

Stop wasting my time.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 13 août 2011 - 03:54 .

[HikerRemastered]

Elhanan wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

And what's this devolution nonsense? Profanity's been a staple of every major language for milennia.

Again, falling farther and farther away from the goal of perfection.

"Imperfection is beauty, madness is genius and it's better to be absolutely ridiculous than absolutely boring."  - Marilyn Monroe.

I strongly disagree that language is becoming more archaic, whoever said that.

Censorship of profanity, breeds more profanity, at least that's my theory. Sure, your kids may not pick up the words as early, but no matter how well you bleep it out, they will learn cusses, and will resort to it. I am not a parent myself, but having 4 sisters, each of them have kids from 2-8, they do cuss. Comparitively one of my sisters and her husband is very religious and frown every time anyone even says "damn", their son of 5 has the dirtiest mouth of the whole bunch.

I know that doesn't make a statistic, but it does make an interesting experience 

[Elhanan]

That is my belief and answer, whether you choose to accept it or not.

Language is a choice; profanity is a cheap selection.

[Pzykozis]

Elhanan wrote...

Ugh? The de-evolution mentioned ref the standards of society which allow the pervasiveness of profanity to be used so frequently and commonly. It is a matter of preference; depicts a lack of intelligence though it may be actually be extant.

Danger lies in not believing that choices mater, and have consequence.

There is no appropriate use of profanity, IMO. While I am also aware of the frequency it is used in the military, my admiration was for those that chose to remove it from their vocabulary in dealing with me and others. It is not, nor did not represent the best we had to offer. And if it is actually offensive or annoying to any for having it removed from dialogue, then I would think that the fault lies in the receiver; not with the transmitter.

And insulting those who have diffeernt preferences to you is somehow more evolved?

Words do not depict a lack of intelligence or an over-abundance of it. Intelligence cannot be derived from choice of language, words are meant for communication, if you can communicate your message succinctly you're golden if you choose to hide your meaning behind walls of prose you're as useless at communicating as someone who can't string a sentence together, but the words and the people behind them have no level of intelligence shown by their use.

As for appropriate, appriopriate for a person as opposed to appropriate at a specific time, your preferences say that you don't like 'swearing' that's fine, but likewise my preferences say I'd make a sailor blush, I don't expect a character based on you to swear, but if there was a character based on me and it didn't swear that'd be odd (not offensive or annoying just strange in an unrealistic way, though that unreal feeling could become annoyance in the long run I guess).

But I fear there shall be no agreement so I'll leave you to it.

[In Exile]

Elhanan wrote...
Ugh? The de-evolution mentioned ref the standards of society which allow the pervasiveness of profanity to be used so frequently and commonly. It is a matter of preference; depicts a lack of intelligence though it may be actually be extant.

It denotes nothing of the sort. Just because you start from the position that less swearing = more sophistication, and more sophistication = evolution doesn't make it true.

Language evolves in virtue of changing over time. That's it. That's all the word evolution means. 

There is no appropriate use of profanity, IMO.

So when you want to insult someone, that isn't an appropriate use of profanity?

Anyway, scientific research says you're wrong. Using profanity is empirically demonstrated to reduce pain.

As in, hit your knee on something and scream "mother****er!" and it will hurt less than not swearing.

While I am also aware of the frequency it is used in the military, my admiration was for those that chose to remove it from their vocabulary in dealing with me and others. It is not, nor did not represent the best we had to offer. And if it is actually offensive or annoying to any for having it removed from dialogue, then I would think that the fault lies in the receiver; not with the transmitter.

So you want media that attempts (for example) for a realistic portrayal of the army to avoid portraying it realistically so it can affirm your worldview? 

[Elhanan]

HikerRemastered wrote...

"Imperfection is beauty, madness is genius and it's better to be absolutely ridiculous than absolutely boring."  - Marilyn Monroe.

I strongly disagree that language is becoming more archaic, whoever said that.

Censorship of profanity, breeds more profanity, at least that's my theory. Sure, your kids may not pick up the words as early, but no matter how well you bleep it out, they will learn cusses, and will resort to it. I am not a parent myself, but having 4 sisters, each of them have kids from 2-8, they do cuss. Comparitively one of my sisters and her husband is very religious and frown every time anyone even says "damn", their son of 5 has the dirtiest mouth of the whole bunch.

I know that doesn't make a statistic, but it does make an interesting experience 

Personally, I dislike censorship, as I wish it were not needed. Self discipline and choice could omit the need for covering of ears, and editing recorded events. But profanity and censorship are also tied together by the lack of civility shown by many in their regard for others; thus seemingly both exist.
 
Some seem to prefer to remove censorship, and I prefer to try and remove profanity. My way would appear to rid the need for either of them.

[HikerRemastered]

Elhanan wrote...

Some seem to prefer to remove censorship, and I prefer to try and remove profanity. My way would appear to rid the need for either of them.

Prohibit swearing? That is [Edited out by Moderator]

Modifié par Selene Moonsong, 13 août 2011 - 05:18 .

[Elhanan]

Pzykozis wrote...

And insulting those who have diffeernt preferences to you is somehow more evolved?

Simply using the words that were intended for me; don't target the messenger. Pls re-read your post.

Words do not depict a lack of intelligence or an over-abundance of it. Intelligence cannot be derived from choice of language, words are meant for communication, if you can communicate your message succinctly you're golden if you choose to hide your meaning behind walls of prose you're as useless at communicating as someone who can't string a sentence together, but the words and the people behind them have no level of intelligence shown by their use.

As for appropriate, appriopriate for a person as opposed to appropriate at a specific time, your preferences say that you don't like 'swearing' that's fine, but likewise my preferences say I'd make a sailor blush, I don't expect a character based on you to swear, but if there was a character based on me and it didn't swear that'd be odd (not offensive or annoying just strange in an unrealistic way, though that unreal feeling could become annoyance in the long run I guess).

But I fear there shall be no agreement so I'll leave you to it.

Words do convey intelligence, whether or not they are valid findings. Homer Simpson ain't an eloquent spokesman for a reason; just a guess.

You seem to want sailors and pirates to swear profusely, and I prefer well chosen dialogue to convey a sim thought. PotC seems to be rather well done, as I do not recall too many 'bombs' going off that were not associated with cannons.

Modifié par Elhanan, 13 août 2011 - 04:33 .

[In Exile]

Elhanan wrote...
Personally, I dislike censorship, as I wish it were not needed. Self discipline and choice could omit the need for covering of ears, and editing recorded events.But profanity and censorship are also tied together by the lack of civility shown by many in their regard for others; thus seemingly both exist.

It has nothing to do with a lack of civility. And if someone is angry, I would say that hiding the extent of their feelings behind a polite facade is disrespectful. If someone has a problem with someone else, they should be able to say it to that person's as, exactly how they feel. Open and honest.
   

Some seem to prefer to remove censorship, and I prefer to try and remove profanity. My way would appear to rid the need for either of them.

You're going to remove the need to insult people? Happy to see you're aiming low. 

[In Exile]

Elhanan wrote...
Words do convey intelligence, whether or not they are valid findings. Homer Simpson ain't an eloquent spokesman for a reason; just a guess.

Words convey education. And education is not a reflection of intelligence, but priveledge, though obviously only the intelligent excell at it. 

You seem to want sailors and pirates to swear profusely, and I prefer well chosen dialogue to convey a sim thought. PotC seems to be rather well done, as I do not recall too many 'bombs' going off that were not associated with cannons.

Profanity conveys thoughts very well. Nothing says I hate someone, go die like "Eat **** and die, mother****er." 

Edit:

Not direct at you, obviously. Just illustrating a point.

Modifié par In Exile, 13 août 2011 - 04:34 .

[Goneaviking]

Elhanan wrote...

Personally, I dislike censorship, as I wish it were not needed. Self discipline and choice could omit the need for covering of ears, and editing recorded events. But profanity and censorship are also tied together by the lack of civility shown by many in their regard for others; thus seemingly both exist.

It isn't needed. You have the right to be offended, you do not have the right not to be offended. Censorship is not tied to a lack of civility, it is tied to the imposition of the social values and norms of those who have the power to censor upon those who lack that power and is frequently used against their will (it wouldn't be censorship if everyone agreed on shared values).
 

Some seem to prefer to remove censorship, and I prefer to try and remove profanity. My way would appear to rid the need for either of them.

What is profane is a subjective decision. Many people use "naughty words" as casually as the rest of the language, you don't have to like it (and I don't) but that doesn't mean that it's wrong for them to do so (unless they use the terms incorrectly, but that's a slippery slope because language changes to reflect the way it's being used rather than the other way around).