942 réponses à ce sujet

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Empathy, as you describe it, only allows people who are relevantly similar to perceive their own emotions in others.  For people who are not relevantly similar, the system breaks.  Therefore, empathy isn't actually perceiving emotions.

Taste, as you describe it, only allows people who are relevantly similar in taste buds to perceive their own flavors in others. For people who lack certain taste buds, the system breaks. Therefore, taste isn't actually perceiving flavors.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Empathy, as you describe it, only allows people who are relevantly similar to perceive their own emotions in others.  For people who are not relevantly similar, the system breaks.  Therefore, empathy isn't actually perceiving emotions.

The notion that individual people are typically remarkably different is a fallacy. Conceivably, outliers are remarkably different, and/or selecting a specific range of acceptable accuracy could force the interpretation into the range of remarkable difference. But strictly speaking, statistical analysis shows that most humans don't deviate from standard reactions and emotional response.

On the other side, empathy is not intended to be applied as a perfect concept. Empathy is always a nearest approximation function.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 27 mars 2012 - 10:00 .

[FieryDove]

David Gaider wrote...


This is very true. It's worth noting, however, that some players feel their choices are more limited-- even if that isn't really so from an interface standpoint. While the source of their frustration may not necessarily be what they've concluded it to be, that doesn't mean the frustration isn't there.

I have to disagree with this. The closest I can get to a neutral reply is diplomatic in D2. Its just not the same. I don't dare pick sarcastic or aggressive for this sort of guesswork in what my character would say. (Yes wheel is still ebil!)

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Unfortunately, this produced large swaths of gameplay in which I had no interest.  An NPC would offer a quest in which Hawke had no interest, and thus Hawke didn't do it. 

Is it possible to conceive of a Hawke who would be interested in the quest? Do you as a player have no interest in playing such a character?

But I haven't been playing such a character.

I can imagine a Hawke who would take that quest, but I would need to invent a Hawke who would do all of the other things he has already done, and take that quest.  And I would need to know how that new Hawke felt about every single thing that he has seen happen so far during the game.

When I play a character, I inhabit that character.  I know how he feels about every little detail.  And that informs his perception of everything he perceives after that.  What conclusions does he draw from witnessing one of his companion's battle tactics?  To retcon in a new Hawke I would need to redo all of those calculations, but I don't have a record of all of that stimulus.  I know what conclusions he reached, but not necessarily how he reached them.  If the method of reasoning no longer applies (and it wouldn't, given that that was teh thing that made him not take the quest), I need to redo everything, and that simply isn't feasible.

How do you retcon that?  Or do you just not bother and accept that Hawke's past actions might be inconsistent with his future actions?

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Empathy, as you describe it, only allows people who are relevantly similar to perceive their own emotions in others.  For people who are not relevantly similar, the system breaks.  Therefore, empathy isn't actually perceiving emotions.

Taste, as you describe it, only allows people who are relevantly similar in taste buds to perceive their own flavors in others. For people who lack certain taste buds, the system breaks. Therefore, taste isn't actually perceiving flavors.

You're not necessarily perceiving the flavours as others do, no.  That's similar to my point.

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

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 27 mars 2012 - 09:59 .

[Adanu]

Seriously...

If you want total and full control over every aspect of the characters you play with, go play DND.

VIdeo games will ALWAYS have constraints to play within so long by their very nature of being 3D.

You either accept that you can't control everything, or you don't. If you can't, then computer role playing games are not for you.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
How do you retcon that?  Or do you just not bother and accept that Hawke's past actions might be inconsistent with his future actions?

It can sometimes be in the nature of a person to behave inconsistently. Or to act with uncertainty, and thus revisit decisions or have emotional responses altered.

On the flip side, you can accept that someone else is Role Playing your character for you in a few instances after approximating what kind of person you are playing. Which is what is effectively happening with the paraphrases and voiced dialog.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

The notion that individual people are typically remarkably different is a fallacy.

I didn't say typically.  I'm applying an extreme case to test the theory.  The theory failed.

That's how science works.

Conceivably, outliers are remarkably different

They are.  We have data.  But if empathy actually did what you claim it does (and what it is generally believed to do), there would not be.

On the other side, empathy is not intended to be applied as a perfect concept. Empathy is always a nearest approximation function.

That's what I'm saying.  Empathy approximates other people's emotions (badly, in some cases).  It does not actually detect them.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That's how science works.

That's actually not how science works with regards to large group analysis. There's a whole set of criteria for verification, that is contradictory to the extreme case test. And it works quite well. It's statistical analysis, and it's based on distribution curves, standard deviation, degree of accuracy, etc etc. It's very very effective.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But if empathy actually did what you claim it does (and what it is generally believed to do), there would not be.

Incorrect. Different criteria for verification. See above.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Empathy approximates other people's emotions (badly, in some cases).  It does not actually detect them.

Detection is biological. Empathy relies on detection, but it is not detection itself.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 27 mars 2012 - 10:08 .

[John Epler]

We have gone markedly off-topic at this point. Let's bring it back to DA and take the side-discussion elsewhere.

[Mr Fixit]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

How do you retcon that?  Or do you just not bother and accept that Hawke's past actions might be inconsistent with his future actions?

I am not really trying to address your point, but indulge me. The apparent disconnect arises because you and icecream want different things from a role-playing game. A prosaic answer maybe, but with the added benefit of being true.

You roleplay to the exclusion of all else. I don't. All those people in BG whose houses I broke into and stole their stuff? Either I'm roleplaying a total cleptomaniac or I'm looking for other things besides roleplaying in a cRPG. It's really as simple as that.

[IAmTheMP]

Adanu wrote...

Seriously...

If you want total and full control over every aspect of the characters you play with, go play DND.

VIdeo games will ALWAYS have constraints to play within so long by their very nature of being 3D.

You either accept that you can't control everything, or you don't. If you can't, then computer role playing games are not for you.

Except some of us see DA:O as being the closest to achieving that and want to go back in that direction.  As it stands now, my particular side hasn't really gotten a compromise on voice, paraphrase/exact, paraphrase/exact toggle, noncommittal tone, nor autodialogue to make less control easier to swallow.

Modifié par IAmTheMP, 27 mars 2012 - 10:11 .

[the_one_54321]

John Epler wrote...
We have gone markedly off-topic at this point. Let's bring it back to DA and take the side-discussion elsewhere.

Role playing a character in a DA game counts as on topic, yes? 

I'm not being sarcastic. I want to know which post to refernce back to to keep on discussing.

[Maria Caliban]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Empathy, as you describe it, only allows people who are relevantly similar to perceive their own emotions in others.  For people who are not relevantly similar, the system breaks.  Therefore, empathy isn't actually perceiving emotions.

Taste, as you describe it, only allows people who are relevantly similar in taste buds to perceive their own flavors in others. For people who lack certain taste buds, the system breaks. Therefore, taste isn't actually perceiving flavors.

I'm going with Sylvius here. Flavor is based on chemicals that your tongue/nose is in physical contact with. A salty taste, for example, is the result of a specific chemical fitting in openings in your tongue like a key in a lock.

Judging another person's emotional reaction is a far more complex and elusive task. You're not directly experiencing the emotions but using their body language and the context of your interactions to guess at what they're feeling.

Because humans are social animals, we're designed to do just this, but it requires a certain amount of investment in a person.

If I say, "My girlfriend and I just broke up." There are a large number of emotions I might be feeling - sadness, happiness, relief, annoyance - and you need to get to know me or and my situation to guess. Even then, I might fake sadness or not caring for social reasons.

Alternatively, you don't need to get to know an apple to see if it's sour or sweet. It won't try to fool you into believing it tastes like a banana.

Empathy, as defined as feeling another's emotion, doesn't exist. Empathy as a form of emotional literacy where we attempt 'read' another and understand their words and actions, does exist.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 27 mars 2012 - 10:14 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

 I know what conclusions he reached, but not necessarily how he reached them.  If the method of reasoning no longer applies (and it wouldn't, given that that was teh thing that made him not take the quest), I need to redo everything, and that simply isn't feasible.

How do you retcon that?  Or do you just not bother and accept that Hawke's past actions might be inconsistent with his future actions?

How different might it be? Typically, when I create a character concept, I fill it in as much as necessary to make sense for that point in the game. I don't look at a character as an unassailable whole. Major parts of the character's motivation can still remain the same even if a choice I made along the way needs a retcon. Unless you're talking about fundamental core issues to a character, it shouldn't be that difficult. If you are, then why not do what you did in DAO under a similar situation? Stop the game, start a new Hawke, and make that Hawke one who would have a different reaction to that critical path decision.

For example, I hypothetically created a dwarf-hating Hawke. She hates dwarfs with a passion, thinks they're dirty, evil thieves all the time. And then she's forced to deal with Varric, who is a dwarf, and embodies everything that she hates in a dwarf. One Hawke would be unable to deal with him. She'd never take help from a dirty, smelly dwarf. She'd rather die than undertake quests for a dwarf (still a non-spoiler forum). Her story ends here.

But what if she cared for her family more? She loves her family and realizes that she can't go on the day-to-day in such poverty. She can work her way up, but what of her mother? She grudgingly accepts, and bites back her cynicism in dealing with dwarfs because she knows she needs to do it for her family. Maybe she snaps at him (direct/aggressive) whenever she has to deal with him. But then over the course of the story, he grows on her. He's still there when she needs him, even if she sends him on all the dirtiest tasks to find traps and such. Eventually, she can come around and not hate the dwarf so much. Maybe he earns her respect through years of grudging work together. Other dwarfs still set her teeth on edge, but this one is not as bad as she thought originally. Not that she'd ever admit it aloud...

In both situations, Hawke is more-or-less cut from the same cloth, with the same background. In the former, her hatred for dwarfs overpowers her loyalty to her family. In the second, it's the opposite. Not a lot of changes being made at the time of the choice, but it works with the story presented. It's just another constraint you have to work with.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 27 mars 2012 - 10:15 .

[John Epler]

the_one_54321 wrote...

John Epler wrote...
We have gone markedly off-topic at this point. Let's bring it back to DA and take the side-discussion elsewhere.

Role playing a character in a DA game counts as on topic, yes? 

I'm not being sarcastic. I want to know which post to refernce back to to keep on discussing.

That'd be a good place to return to, yep.

[the_one_54321]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
it's the opposite. Not a lot of changes being made at the time of the choice, but it works with the story presented. It's just another constraint you have to work with.

But in DAII, it's still someone else making that choice for you. This is a technicality, but it is the technicality he's hung up on, so it's important to address.

[hoorayforicecream]

the_one_54321 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
it's the opposite. Not a lot of changes being made at the time of the choice, but it works with the story presented. It's just another constraint you have to work with.

But in DAII, it's still someone else making that choice for you. This is a technicality, but it is the technicality he's hung up on, so it's important to address.

It is a constraint that every RPG Bioware's made has had. It wasn't my choice to confront Sarevok in Baldur's Gate, nor was it mine to confront Irenicus and Melissan in BG2, or the Archdemon in DAO. The constraints have always been there, and I'm not sure it's possible to address it entirely.

[Adanu]

I'm almost totally sure Sylvius is just trolling everyone here at this point.

Mods, you should lock this. The OP was just another opinionated forumite who wanted tp express and now it's just being trolled.

[the_one_54321]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
It is a constraint that every RPG Bioware's made has had. It wasn't my choice to confront Sarevok in Baldur's Gate, nor was it mine to confront Irenicus and Melissan in BG2, or the Archdemon in DAO. The constraints have always been there, and I'm not sure it's possible to address it entirely.

Two things;

1. Parapharsing dialog choices with a voiced response causes this to happen more frequently.

2. Did every dialog path lead the warden saying "I will fight the blight?" I typically only use one or two of the dialog trees, so I don't know if every one of them leads to this response.

[seraphymon]

i dont think sylvius is trolling, i think alot of others are though.

[hoorayforicecream]

the_one_54321 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
It is a constraint that every RPG Bioware's made has had. It wasn't my choice to confront Sarevok in Baldur's Gate, nor was it mine to confront Irenicus and Melissan in BG2, or the Archdemon in DAO. The constraints have always been there, and I'm not sure it's possible to address it entirely.

Two things;

1. Parapharsing dialog choices with a voiced response causes this to happen more frequently.

2. Did every dialog path lead the warden saying "I will fight the blight?" I typically only use one or two of the dialog trees, so I don't know if every one of them leads to this response.

1. The degree to which it offends will vary from person to person. As I've stated before, most of the time it's fine (for me). Sometimes it will be messed up. In those cases, I hope they add a rewind feature, since it's unfeasible to expect QA to catch them all.
2. Yes. It's a textbook "But thou must" scenario.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 27 mars 2012 - 10:39 .

[Maria Caliban]

Adanu wrote...

I'm almost totally sure Sylvius is just trolling everyone here at this point.

No, Sylvius is not a troll.

[Sylvius the Mad]

IAmTheMP wrote...

Except some of us see DA:O as being the closest to achieving that and want to go back in that direction.  As it stands now, my particular side hasn't really gotten a compromise on voice, paraphrase/exact, paraphrase/exact toggle, noncommittal tone, nor autodialogue to make less control easier to swallow.

DAO was the compromise.  If we're looking for the happy medium between cinematic story-telling and old-school roleplaying, DAO was it..

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

It is a constraint that every RPG Bioware's made has had. It wasn't my choice to confront Sarevok in Baldur's Gate, nor was it mine to confront Irenicus and Melissan in BG2, or the Archdemon in DAO.

Yes it was.  In those games, the PC did those things because you told the PC to do it.

You're doing what the_one was earlier; you're conflating a lack of freedom and a lack of control.  Just because there's only one option available doesn't mean you have to choose it.

The constraints have always been there, and I'm not sure it's possible to address it entirely.

Constraints aren't the problem.  It doesn't matter here that Hawke can only do a select few things.  What matters is that he does them without the player's input.