833 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

But experience has consistently taught me otherwise. 

Isn't that circular reasoning?  You've just appealed to your experience to justify your interpretation of your experience.

Because tone, intent, and context are frequently of impossible-to-overstate importance.

I flatly deny this, but you know that.

You subvocalise when you read.  So you're effectively translating the written word into the spoken word in order to understand it.  To do this, you're inventing tone because you think tone is important.  But the tone wasn't there.

I do the opposite.  When I hear spoken words, I translate them into text in order to parse their meaning.  As such, I often need to invent punctuation to give the sentence structure.  If I'm wrong, I can misunderstand what was intended.

My bigger concern, though, is that you seem to think you can tell when someone has misunderstood you.  And I don't think you can.  To do that, you have to make assumptions about how people process language, and those assumptions are not universally true.  Look at me.

You could say, within reason, that they didn't actually know what that person meant when they used the wrong word.  That happens too, and further evidence usually makes it clear either way if they understood or not.  A conversation can be cooperative as well as adversarial.

I can see benefits to having the other person think a conversation was cooperative, but unfortunately I cannot read their minds, so I don't know what they think.

Like I keep saying, just because you can't see the evidence for yourself doesn't mean it isn't there and can't be evaluated by others.

 
If it were there, you could show it to me.

Show me this mystical tone in DAO's dialogue.  But I think you can't do it, because it's not there.

It's almost entirely empiricism, that means it isn't always entirely rational.

Empiricism is not incompatible with rationality.

I like empiricism.  I think you're doing it wrong.

[FieryDove]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Your goal should be to have the PC's behaviour, both in speech and actions, never surprise the player.  It should happen literally zero times.

I agree with this strongly!

Unless they go fully on set protag...ie Geralt type which then I'm not interested in at all.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Isn't that circular reasoning?  You've just appealed to your experience to justify your interpretation of your experience.

Yep.  But that's only a problem if the data gathering ever stops.  It does lead to the occasional error, sure, but I've got experience dealing with those too.

In other words, its almost an... active, perpetual form of deduction.  Which has all the flaws associated with it, of course, but works reliably well enough for most people.

Sylvius the Mad wrote... 

You subvocalise when you read.  So you're effectively translating the written word into the spoken word in order to understand it.  To do this, you're inventing tone because you think tone is important.  But the tone wasn't there.

Sometimes it is, it depends on what the author wrote.  It isn't there in say, TW1 or DA:O though.  In a book something like:
 "I love pork." he said unenthusiastically.
Can happen and it would imply sarcasm.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

My bigger concern, though, is that you seem to think you can tell when someone has misunderstood you.  And I don't think you can.  To do that, you have to make assumptions about how people process language, and those assumptions are not universally true.  Look at me.

It's not universally true.  Trying to construct an unified concept of human interaction that is universally true seems to be like a fool's errand.  It's just very frequently true.  Furthermore, if I assume someone has misunderstood me and it turns out they haven't, then explaining myself further has done nothing more than possibly waste a little bit of time.

Sylvius the Mad wrote... 

I can see benefits to having the other person think a conversation was cooperative, but unfortunately I cannot read their minds, so I don't know what they think.

But what if they want you to know what they think?  And you want them to know what you think?  

Sylvius the Mad wrote...  

If it were there, you could show it to me.

Show me this mystical tone in DAO's dialogue.  But I think you can't do it, because it's not there.

I'm talking about real life when I talk about such evidence.

DAO's full text obfuscates the tone and intent.  I could no more show it to you than you can show me the full line in Mass Effect before Shepard says it.

Sylvius the Mad wrote... 

Empiricism is not incompatible with rationality.

I like empiricism.  I think you're doing it wrong.

I didn't mean to imply that they were incompatible.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 mai 2012 - 07:38 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I say I always want choices for my PC that the game reacts to.

I want that, too.  But I think DAO gave me that.

I don't think DA2 gave me that, because DA2 didn't ever let me choose.

Both sides can agree it represents a fundamental loss of opportunity to make a choice.

Absolutely.

It is a problem. I can accept it somewhat if it is very neutral and is only utilized when say... turning in fetch quests.

I would accept it then, too

Then I'd just be glad as long as it wasn't horrifically broken like DA2.

Agreed.  DA2's fetch quests were just about the worst thing BioWare has ever done.

And I don't mind fetch quests.  Fetch quests can be fun.  But DA2's fetch quests were awful.  They magically appeared in Hawke's journal, and talking to the NPCs automatically turned in the item without any warning.  I can't really imagine a way to do fetch quests worse.

I recognize that such quests are included to pad content and give more for completionists to do at a low zot cost, and the zot cost would increase rather dramatically if each time a full conversation had to be implemented.

Sure.  But they should have at least had a wheel event where you got to choose to turn in the item so that you'd know what was happening.  Because it wasn't just the dialogue that was the surprise - it was the action.

That's an example of where both perspectives can have different problems with the same issue.

Agreed.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Isn't that circular reasoning?  You've just appealed to your experience to justify your interpretation of your experience.

Yep.  But that's only a problem if the data gathering ever stops.  It does lead to the occasional error, sure, but I've got experience dealing with those too.

But you would need constantly to refine your interpretation of previous experiences.  Your approach is infinitely recursive.

Sometimes it is, it depends on what the author wrote.  It isn't there in say, TW1 or DA:O though.  In a book something like:
 "I love pork!" he said unenthusiastically.
Can happen and it would imply sarcasm.

That's not relevantly similar.  I'm talking about you adding tone to "I love pork!" without any other information.  So in your example, I'm wondering about the tone you'd invent for "he said unenthusiastically".  Because you're subvocalising that, too, right?

It's not universally true.  Trying to construct an unified concept of human interaction that is universally true seems to be like a fool's errand.  It's just very frequently true.  Furthermore, if I assume someone has misunderstood me and it turns out they haven't, then explaining myself further has done nothing more than possibly waste a little bit of time.

They might think you're patronising them.

But what if they want you to know what they think?

 
What if I want to live in a golden mountain?

I don't, and I can't.

And you want them to know what you think?

 
I could tell them what I think, but I can't guarantee they'll believe me or understand.

The problem of other minds is a real problem.  We can't just handwave it.

DAO's full text obfuscates the tone and intent.  I could no more show it to you than you can show me the full line in Mass Effect before Shepard says it.

And here's where we disagree.  Yes, the full lines in ME are hidden from the player, but the full lines do exist.  They're shown to the player later.

The tone and intent in DAO does not exist.  There's no reason at all for you to believe that it does.  That's what you're inventing.

This would be like if someone playing Oblivion complained that he couldn't tell what his PC was going to say based on the keywords.  Anything the PC says beyond those keywords is a product of the player's imagination.

Sylvius the Mad wrote... 

Empiricism is not incompatible with rationality.

I like empiricism.  I think you're doing it wrong.

I didn't mean to imply that they were incompatible.

You said that your empirical process wasn't always going to be rational.  Why not?  If they're not incompatible, then any lack of rationality is then your choice.

[PinkDiamondstl]

I say yes because DAO was lacking it.

[Blastback]

I'd say give us more dialoge options. And maybe see if you can find a way to alter the PC's voice, to make it more what the player wants.

[GhostV9]

Totally agree.

[Cirram55]

Modifié par Cirram55, 23 février 2014 - 04:57 .