272 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

MerinTB wrote...

 I'm so used to being told that my analogies are false

Well, glad I could meet your expectations, lol.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 27 octobre 2011 - 09:20 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

It'd be more like Sylvius likes to have something for breakfast I can't taste.  And there are aspects of my breakfast that he can appreciate, but could and often does do without.

Sylvius doesn't appreciate reactivity the same way I do, I don't appreciate agency the same way he does.  That's all it really seems to break down to.

That's often how our discussions go, but that wasn't wnat we were talking about now.  We were talking about whether the writers' intent exists within the game.

I find what Merin describes happens a lot.  If someone is advocating "If A then B", and I come along and disagree, his response is generally to assume that I'm advocating "If B then A", when in fact I'm more likely to be arguing that both A and B are nonsensical concepts, and thus assigning them a conditional relationship is absurd.

[MerinTB]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
 I'm so used to being told that my analogies are false

Well, glad I could meet your expectations, lol.

It was pretty darn good timing on your part.

[upsettingshorts]

And then I say that the intent of the line is revealed in the other character's reaction, and then you say that there is no reasonable method by which to conclude the accuracy of that assumption. And then I - or more typically In Exile - attempt to explain how this is inconsistent with our own experiences and the experiences of others we know, while acknowledging that no, there is no precise logical method by which we can explain how to replicate this process for others who don't already see it as easy, a result of experience interacting with others. Yada yada yada. I just don't really see the benefit in rehashing the same argument again, you understand.

On that note, I often find myself in a similar position, if not towards or on the same issues. In the sense that I end up challenging someone's position and their assuming that I am endorsing the opposite, when I am just arguing that the whole argument is based upon a flawed premise.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 27 octobre 2011 - 09:26 .

[MerinTB]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
On that note, I often find myself in a similar position, if not towards or on the same issues. In the sense that I end up challenging someone's position and their assuming that I am endorsing the opposite, when I am just arguing that the whole argument is based upon a flawed premise.

On this, if nothing else, we are annoyingly similar and it is this more than anything that causes us to often butt heads.

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...We were talking about whether the writers' intent exists within the game.

In context of the thread's topic, I saw the argument going like this:

Sylvius - "The game writing and design works against my ability to imagine my own character and have my imagined character react as I wish to the events in the game.  When the writing/game doesn't provide a way forward for my imagined character then my character cannot proceed." (Breakfast should only be eggs, cereal or muffins.)

Upsettingshorts - "As far as I'm concerned if there isn't explicit game story content create to react to something the character does, there is no character choices or concerns that matter.  My character is part of the game, and can only have personality parameters as set forth by the game and no others." (I don't eat breakfast.)

[upsettingshorts]

It'd be more accurate to say, in that context, that if the breakfast doesn't exist then I can't eat it.

And by my standards, it does not.  So I only eat what's on the plate.

Sylvius seems to concerned only with explicit contradictions of the breakfast he ordered.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 27 octobre 2011 - 09:39 .

[MerinTB]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
It'd be more accurate to say, in that context, that if the breakfast doesn't exist then I can't eat it. And by my standards, it does not.

Analogies are not exact 1 for 1 relations.  If the general meaning of the comparison is accurate, the analogy is accurate.

Analogies are false when the item being compared is a false comparison :

Apples and oranges are different colors, just like hamburger and roast beef are from different animals.

Or a famous one -

Ken Lay saying people calling out Enron for bad business practices was like terrorists attacking the USA.

Modifié par MerinTB, 27 octobre 2011 - 09:42 .

[Merci357]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius seems to concerned only with explicit contradictions of the breakfast he ordered.

I'd say he orders breakfast that's not on the menu in the first place. At least not in the premises we are right now.

[upsettingshorts]

But it misses the crux of my argument from my point of view.

I do eat breakfast, but I work within the confines of the menu. If it's not on the menu, I can't order it. Leaving the restaurant doesn't really strike me as a valid option in this scenario, but it does for Sylvius. He has finished his meal. I'd just pick the next closest thing from the menu and keep eating.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 27 octobre 2011 - 09:49 .

[MerinTB]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
But it misses the crux of my argument from my point of view.

I do eat breakfast, but I work within the confines of the menu. If it's not on the menu, I can't order it. Leaving the restaurant doesn't really strike me as a valid option in this scenario, but it does for Sylvius. He has finished his meal. I'd just pick the next closest thing from the menu and keep eating.

Again, analogies are not about saying A is like Y and B is like Z, so the relationship between A and B is like the relationship between Y and Z.
A doesn't have to be ANYTHING LIKE Y.  Nor does B have to have the SLIGHTEST similarities to Z.
What's important is that the RELATIONSHIP between A and B is, for the point of the analogy, instructively similar to the RELATIONSHIP between Y and Z.

Going back: Apples are not like hamburger in almost any way, and oranges are not like roast beef in almost any way.  Nor, for that matter, is color like a type of animal.  But the comparison attempted to be made (in the false analogy from before) is that the difference in color between an apple and an orange is like the differene in type of animal the meat comes from between hamburger and roast beef.  And the reason the analogy is false is because hamburger and roast beef both come from the same animal.  The RELATIONSHIP comparison is false.  Apples are a different color than oranges.  But hamburger does not come from a different animal than roast beef.  The analogy is false.

Not because apples are dissimilar to hamburger.  And not because color is dissimilar to type of animal.

The relationship between what Sylvius and you, Upsettingshorts, are arguing -
is like the relationship between one person saying what he considers to be breakfast foods while the other person says they don't eat breakfast.

The relationship is that they are not arguing the same point, specifically because the latter person doesn't care about the former's point because it really doesn't exist for him.

That analogy is sound.

Regardless of whether you think your point, Upsettingshorts, is similar to not eating breakfast or not.  I was not making an analogy between those two things for whatever reasons you bring up.

My analogy was in the relationship of the arguments.

Understand the difference?

[upsettingshorts]

If I accept that as the explanation of your analogy, then I'd question why bother even making it. It doesn't reveal or explain anything that wasn't plain as day. We have yet again another fundamental disagreement with incompatible premises.

You could flip which one of us thinks breakfast must be something, and which doesn't eat breakfast and the "relationship" would be preserved.

All I was attempting to do was construct a more useful and instructive analogy.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 27 octobre 2011 - 11:31 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

It's as if I've been ordering room service every day for the past several years, and I've been ordering the same thing. But I haven't been eating the food - I've been using the food to synthesize rocket fuel in my hotel room.

Now, the hotel has changed to menu item subtly and I can no longer use it to make rocket fuel. So I complain that they've taken away my ability to make rocket fuel (which they have), but they respond that I never had that ability in the first place. Except I clearly did, because I was doing it every day for years.

Shorts then says that he likes the change, because it makes the meal tastier. But that's not relevant to my concern, because I'm not even evaluating it as food.

[upsettingshorts]

Well, either that or they said they never intended for you to make rocket fuel so they aren't sympathetic to your plight of no-longer being able to do so.

Otherwise I'm on board with that analogy.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 27 octobre 2011 - 11:44 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Well, either that or they said they never intended for you to make rocket fuel so they aren't sympathetic to your plight of no-longer being able to do so.

That's a position I could accept.  That's not what they've been saying.

In those remarks of David's to which you linked, he insisted that the tone of PC dialogue was always fixed, and that's clearly not true.

[Il Divo]

Hmm, with all these analogies flying around, I feel like we're beginning to miss the forest for the trees...

[upsettingshorts]

simfamSP wrote...

Totally out of topic here, but where is the full clip of that Dog avatar shorts? I keep on giggling at it, and the thought of never seeing what happens next kills me. It's like a never ending cliffhanger!

This version is all I've ever seen.

It's Schroedinger's cupcake. 

Il Divo wrote...

Hmm, with all these analogies flying around, I feel like we're beginning to miss the forest for the trees...

I see what you did there.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 27 octobre 2011 - 11:51 .

[Il Divo]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I see what you did there.

Haha, yeah you did.

[Heimdall]

Rojahar wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In those remarks of David's to which you linked, he insisted that the tone of PC dialogue was always fixed, and that's clearly not true.

Characters have always reacted as if your character spoken in a certain tone. If you're able to ignore or mentally rewrite NPC reactions, then why can't you do so with the PC?

He assumes they've misinterpretted the PC.

[Heimdall]

Rojahar wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Rojahar wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In those remarks of David's to which you linked, he insisted that the tone of PC dialogue was always fixed, and that's clearly not true.

Characters have always reacted as if your character spoken in a certain tone. If you're able to ignore or mentally rewrite NPC reactions, then why can't you do so with the PC?

He assumes they've misinterpretted the PC.

And the PC doesn't care to clarify? Nothing at all seems at all odd about the dramatic reactions some people have? If suspension of disbelief is so strong, then I still don't get why he makes no effort to try and make such compensations for the PC. Apparently the PC never had the freedom to be clear.

Frankly though, with the amount of freedom Sylvius demands at times, I honestly wonder why he doesn't just write fanfiction, create his own games, or play D&D by himself - as then he's have absolute freedom. There's always been limitation in computer RPGs. To say they're not RPGs because they have rules is silly. Many games have restrictions, rules, barriers, or some area you have to play within the confines of. In the case of RPGs, you generally roleplay within the confines of the game and setting.

I've also seen him asked this before, though I forget his response.  However, I know he believes RPGs should strive to imitate PnP games as much as possible.

[KazenoKoe]

Best post I've seen in a while. 5stars