485 réponses à ce sujet

[Blastback]

Maria Caliban wrote...

The Warden is the only surviving member of a super order who saves 'the world' from an ancient, mindless evil. You can sacrifice yourself, or you can have sex with a woman, or convince someone else to have sex with her, or sacrifice a companion.

Hawke is a refugee who rose to prominence in a city but was ultimately a pawn of history.

The first is a massive ego stroke on two legs. The second is a regular character.

But I like the ego stroke.  It makes me feel happy!

My problem with Hawke, aside from the feeling that s/he was to predetermined, was that ultimatly it felt like my actions and choices didn't matter.  I wasn't the one shaping events, I was just watching them play out.  I know some people loved this becuase it was diffrent, but for me, it was completely unenjoyable.  I can enjoy it in a book or movie, but not in a game, where I'm living out the situation. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

You people may as well be conversing with the fairies in your garden for all the sense your approach makes.

And yet we do not encounter 5-10 serious misunderstandings per day with our fellow normal humans.

Does that not give you pause in the slightest?

I think I've encountered 5-10 misunderstandings today just from the BSM forums alone, so I'm not sure how you can say it is totally implausible. "Serious" misunderstandings are not what I am talking about. I'm not suggesting that I am saying apples and you think I am saying rabid wolves. Just slight mistakes or misunderstandings about intent or tone, or even subject. 

"Man, they are killing me today."

"Who, your customers?"

"No, my in-laws. They are coming in town and are emailing me non-stop."

This is an example of miscommunication. It is not earth shattering. It is common. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 02 mai 2012 - 07:52 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

And yet we do not encounter 5-10 serious misunderstandings per day with our fellow normal humans.

I don't think I said serious, and I don't think you're measuring them carefully.

As I said, I expect most people rationalise away errors in interpretation.  Confirmation bias is very powerful.

Does that not give you pause in the slightest?

I astounds me.  I've examined my approach very carefully.  My approach makes perfect sense.

Your approach only makes sense if you believe you can read people's minds.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

"At the core of any well-founded belief lies belief that is unfounded."

Right back at ya.

My position rests more heavily upon the absence of belief, specifically to guard against confirmation bias.

[Maria Caliban]

Blastback wrote...

But I like the ego stroke.  It makes me feel happy!

My problem with Hawke, aside from the feeling that s/he was to predetermined, was that ultimatly it felt like my actions and choices didn't matter.  I wasn't the one shaping events, I was just watching them play out.  I know some people loved this becuase it was diffrent, but for me, it was completely unenjoyable.  I can enjoy it in a book or movie, but not in a game, where I'm living out the situation. 

There's nothing inherently wrong with ego stroking. I liked ME because I felt like a kick-ass hero who was going to save the entire galaxy from destruction.

There are times where I feel that games are dominated by action heroes and wish for something different, but that's not to imply there's something wrong with action heroes.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

As I said, I expect most people rationalise away errors in interpretation.  Confirmation bias is very powerful.

Rationalize away?  Perhaps, but it depends on the context.  But also work their way through, as there's usually some evidence (if not a great deal of it) that they were misunderstood.

But really, can you throw any stones when it comes to rationalizing away errors?  By your estimation, it's always someone else's fault if you're misinterpreted, isn't it?   

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Your approach only makes sense if you believe you can read people's minds.

It makes sense because of constant feedback.  It's a process.  The evidence I refer to never stops being gathered, ever.  People who socialize more are better at socializing as a result, it's a skill.  It's something that can be learned.

Whether or not it makes sense isn't even relevant.  It's whether or not it works with any consistency.  I'd talk about how it's intuitive here, but then you don't really buy into that concept either.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

My position rests more heavily upon the absence of belief, specifically to guard against confirmation bias.

It also doesn't work.  Interaction often relies on a shared set of (often arbitrary) assumptions, which is why people experience culture shock.  I imagine when you meet new people for the first time, it takes them a longer-than-average time to get used to you for the same reason.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 mai 2012 - 08:57 .

[Blastback]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Blastback wrote...

But I like the ego stroke.  It makes me feel happy!

My problem with Hawke, aside from the feeling that s/he was to predetermined, was that ultimatly it felt like my actions and choices didn't matter.  I wasn't the one shaping events, I was just watching them play out.  I know some people loved this becuase it was diffrent, but for me, it was completely unenjoyable.  I can enjoy it in a book or movie, but not in a game, where I'm living out the situation. 

There's nothing inherently wrong with ego stroking. I liked ME because I felt like a kick-ass hero who was going to save the entire galaxy from destruction.

There are times where I feel that games are dominated by action heroes and wish for something different, but that's not to imply there's something wrong with action heroes.

I totally get that.  I just don't like how DA2 did it. 

Edit: honestly Sylvius, I think you overanalyse conversation way to much.  When I'm talking to someone, I don't think about principles like confirmation bias.  I just talk.  And I keep talking until I've made certain that everyone knows what all parties are saying.

Modifié par Blastback, 02 mai 2012 - 08:50 .

[Maria Caliban]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Sidney wrote...

The more they "limit" the game the better story they can tell - because things have to be less generic in responses. A mage centric Hawke in Kirkwall story would have been much better but you see the way people react to not being able to pick an elf they'd go nuts not being able to pick rogue or warrior.

I am of the mind that they severely limited the story of DA2 (one location, set protagonist, severely railroaded outcomes and conclusions) and I think the story was weaker than it was in DAO. I respect what they tried to do with the narrative, but its final product felt disjointed and muddled. 

So more choice =/= less story.

I'd say that DA:O didn't have a strong story because it gave the PC many options, and DA II didn't have a weaker story because it game the PC fewer options.

The strength of DA:O's story was that it had a powerful antagonist and a clear goal. That the PC was generic didn't matter because the Blight endangers everyone.

However, there are lots of stories you simply can't tell with a generic PC.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time only works when you have the son of a great king who's blinded by his arrogance and desire for glory. He makes a mistake that leads to the death of his father and soldiers he called friends, and the rest of the story isn't just about him reclaiming the sands of time, but learning humility and trust.

Silent Hill 2 is about a man overwhelmed with grief over the death of his wife. Depending on your actions within the game, he either kills himself, finds redemption, or is forced to relive her loss another time.

If the PC is an empty vessel for players to fill, then the main character of the story has no psychological depth. The story suffers. Even if it's a 'save the world' plot.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Rationalize away?  Perhaps, but it depends on the context.  But also work their way through, as there's usually some evidence (if not a great deal of it) that they were misunderstood. 

But really, can you throw any stones when it comes to rationalizing away errors?  By your estimation, it's always someone else's fault if you're misinterpreted, isn't it?  

By definition, yes.  If someone misinterprets me, then it was obviously their mistake.

but if a conversation goes wrong, it's not immediately apparent either that it happened or whose fault it was.  Maybe the thing I said didn't actually lead to the conclusion I thought it did.  It simply isn't possible to do an exhaustive logical analysis of everything I ever say before I say it.

But figuring out what went wrong typically involves existing the conversation and going over what happened on my own.  I and my listener might even disagree as to whether there was a misunderstanding, and it could take some time to determine whether either of us is correct.

It makes sense because of constant feedback.  It's a process.  The evidence I refer to never stops being gathered, ever. 

Gathering the data and analysing the data are two different things.  All the data in the world isn't going to help you if you misuse it.

People who socialize more are better at socializing as a result, it's a skill.  It's something that can be learned.

Even that I think is shallow analysis.  I'm not yet convinced that socialisation exists.

Whether or not it makes sense isn't even relevant.

 
If it doesn't make sense then there's no way to have confidence in its result.  How do you know what your conclusion is if you can't describe the reasoning that leads to that conclusion?

It's whether or not it works with any consistency.

If you don't understand the process then you can't know that.  You don't know what variables might affect the outcome, so any possible consistency is a mystery to you.

I'd talk about how it's intuitive here, but then you don't really buy into that concept either.

If you're going to appeal to intuition, then we may as well just stop having this conversation.  Intuition is no different from just making stuff up.

It also doesn't work.  Interaction often relies on a shared set of (often arbitrary) assumptions, which is why people experience culture shock.

Great.  Let's make those assumptions explicit and then we can get somewhere.

Where can I find a list?

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 02 mai 2012 - 09:31 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

However, there are lots of stories you simply can't tell with a generic PC.

I insist that those stories that can't be told in a roleplaying game.  BioWare should stop trying.

The goal should be to provide platyer agency.  What story they want to tell around that player agency is up to them, but any story that destroys that player agency is incompatible with a roleplaying game's core function.

[Curlain]

Blastback wrote...


Edit: honestly Sylvius, I think you overanalyse conversation way to much.  When I'm talking to someone, I don't think about principles like confirmation bias.  I just talk.  And I keep talking until I've made certain that everyone knows what all parties are saying.

This isn't always as obvious as it might seem though.  Sometimes you only may think all parties understands what has been said, when it might not the case.  An anecdotal example(s?) from my personal experience, sometimes I don't quite hear what someone says and it's key aspect to what they just said to me (or sometimes they have a thick accent to me and I don't fully understand what they said etc).  Allot of times, if the conversation wasn't vital, I often just respond with a generic response that roughly fits the topic of the conversation, or smile and nod etc, rather then go through the whole asking them to repeat themselves etc. That way, they don't think I was ignoring them or not listening (which I wasn't intentionally), but we don't spend ages go over an ultimately trival conversation.  It's rather interesting how people seem to accept such responses and assume perfect understanding in relation to the conversation.

Again, this is anecdotal however.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Curlain wrote...

 An anecdotal example(s?) from my personal experience, sometimes I don't quite hear what someone says and it's key aspect to what they just said to me (or sometimes they have a thick accent to me and I don't fully understand what they said etc).  Allot of times, if the conversation wasn't vital, I often just respond with a generic response that roughly fits the topic of the conversation, or smile and nod etc, rather then go through the whole asking them to repeat themselves etc. That way, they don't think I was ignoring them or not listening (which I wasn't intentionally), but we don't spend ages go over an ultimately trival conversation. 

Exactly.  I do this all the time.

Also, sometimes I'm intentionally non-committal.  I see most conversation as adversarial, so I try to avoid giving away too much.

[Wulfram]

Hawke doesn't feel like a "regular character". They feel like they're presented to us as much or more of an "ego stroke on legs" as the Warden, but fail to live up to the billing.

Modifié par Wulfram, 02 mai 2012 - 09:47 .

[Maria Caliban]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

However, there are lots of stories you simply can't tell with a generic PC.

I insist that those stories that can't be told in a roleplaying game.  BioWare should stop trying.

The goal should be to provide platyer agency.  What story they want to tell around that player agency is up to them, but any story that destroys that player agency is incompatible with a roleplaying game's core function.

It's not particularly what I want, but that's a fair.

Wulfram wrote...

Hawke doesn't feel like a "regular character". They feel like they're presented to us as much or more of an "ego stroke on legs" as the Warden, but fail to live up to the billing.

The marketing for Dragon Age 2 was that you'd Rise to Power and shape the city of Kirkwall as you did so. The ads did show a 'God Among Men' character.

The game itself never seemed to suggest that. You became a person of some influence in the later chapters, but you never see the really important people treating you with respect.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 02 mai 2012 - 10:12 .

[Wulfram]

Your introduction to Hawke, in game, is

Your precious Chantry's fallen to pieces, and put the entire world on the brink of war. And you need the one person who could help you put it back together.

And it's not like you can say the game's point was to subvert this - Cassandra still thinks Hawke's the woman for the job after she's heard the whole story.

Hawke's also clearly established as the 2nd most powerful person in the city, and all the remaining powers in the city do court your support.

Modifié par Wulfram, 02 mai 2012 - 10:28 .

[Dessalines]

Wulfram wrote...

Your introduction to Hawke, in game, is

Your precious Chantry's fallen to pieces, and put the entire world on the brink of war. And you need the one person who could help you put it back together.

And it's not like you can say the game's point was to subvert this - Cassandra still thinks Hawke's the woman for the job after she's heard the whole story.

Hawke's also clearly established as the 2nd most powerful person in the city, and all the remaining powers in the city do court your support.

You realize that her vision of Hawke was way more grand than what was told:
He or She going to Kirkwall was not some master plan by some grand manipulator, but just some guy or girl that was just living his or her life.

Modifié par Dessalines, 02 mai 2012 - 10:40 .

[nightscrawl]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I think I've encountered 5-10 misunderstandings today just from the BSM forums alone, so I'm not sure how you can say it is totally implausible. "Serious" misunderstandings are not what I am talking about. I'm not suggesting that I am saying apples and you think I am saying rabid wolves. Just slight mistakes or misunderstandings about intent or tone, or even subject.

To be fair, written speech is more limiting in this regard. Not only does it require the writer to be clear, but also relies on the reader to have a similar intelligence level so that they understand what was written, can comprehend, and craft an appropriate response, then falling back on the first person to understand that the response was to what they had originally written. There is also a lack of gesture, facial expression, and vocal tone that is not conveyed in written speech, which leads to confusion -- especially on the internet -- regarding things like sarcasm and irony.

There have been many times on forums where I have written something and get a response that clearly showed the person either 1) didn't understand what I had written (which may or may not fall to an error on my part, as I am frequently too wordy), 2) didn't read the entirety of my statement, or 3) decided to pick specific pieces out of my statement they felt supported their own views and not taking the statement as a whole.

That's not to say confusion doesn't happen when talking face-to-face, it does, but it's easier to see and correct the confusion in that situation than it is on a forum.


--- minor SPOILER for Anders rivalmance ---


As an anecdote, one of the most bizarre dialogue scene I ever had in DA2 was during the Anders rivalmance. At the start of Act 3 I went to talk to Anders and you have the option to give him a key to the mansion. He responds angrily, saying that I'll finally understand the plight of mages when the templars show up to take him away. You then have your 3 dialogue options for personality, for which the diplomatic option has you say (amusingly no paraphrase here, just the exact words) "I love you!". Anders then responds with another angry statement about mages and ends the conversation.

It was a very "WTF! :blink:" moment for me, and one of the worst dialogue scenes I've encountered in the entire game. I ended up reloading to pick the aggressive response instead because it fit better with the overall conversation.

[Wulfram]

Dessalines wrote...

You realize that her vision of Hawke was way more grand than what was told:
He or She going to Kirkwall was not some master plan by some grand manipulator, but just some guy or girl that was just living his or her life.

But, as I pointed out, her opinion of Hawke hardly seems to decline as the story is told.  At the end, she still thinks Hawke is the person who could stop the war.

[Blastback]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Curlain wrote...

 An anecdotal example(s?) from my personal experience, sometimes I don't quite hear what someone says and it's key aspect to what they just said to me (or sometimes they have a thick accent to me and I don't fully understand what they said etc).  Allot of times, if the conversation wasn't vital, I often just respond with a generic response that roughly fits the topic of the conversation, or smile and nod etc, rather then go through the whole asking them to repeat themselves etc. That way, they don't think I was ignoring them or not listening (which I wasn't intentionally), but we don't spend ages go over an ultimately trival conversation. 

Exactly.  I do this all the time.

Also, sometimes I'm intentionally non-committal.  I see most conversation as adversarial, so I try to avoid giving away too much.

Why do you see conversations as adversarial?  Most of the time when I'm talking to someone, it's for the explicit purpose of sharing infromation. 

I'll admit, I'm not the best model for social interation however.  Clinical Social Anxiety.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Blastback wrote...

Why do you see conversations as adversarial?

I don't know what other people's motives are.

Most of the time when I'm talking to someone, it's for the explicit purpose of sharing infromation.

I want them to share information with me.  I don't necessarily want to share information with them. 

[LordBegrezen]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I want them to share information with me.  I don't necessarily want to share information with them. 

Now that's just cute. Of all the people I know, I can't think of a single one who would rather hear what I have to say than give me a piece of their mind. 

People just LOVE to tell other people what they think. And I'm not sure they really care if they are being misunderstood.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Blastback wrote...

But I like the ego stroke.  It makes me feel happy!

My problem with Hawke, aside from the feeling that s/he was to predetermined, was that ultimatly it felt like my actions and choices didn't matter.  I wasn't the one shaping events, I was just watching them play out.  I know some people loved this becuase it was diffrent, but for me, it was completely unenjoyable.  I can enjoy it in a book or movie, but not in a game, where I'm living out the situation. 

There's nothing inherently wrong with ego stroking. I liked ME because I felt like a kick-ass hero who was going to save the entire galaxy from destruction.

There are times where I feel that games are dominated by action heroes and wish for something different, but that's not to imply there's something wrong with action heroes.

Then I must have misunderstood you. I thought you deliberately insult the Warden.  I apologize..

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I'd say that DA:O didn't have a strong story because it gave the PC many options, and DA II didn't have a weaker story because it game the PC fewer options.

Then we may as well stop interacting with video games and just watch movies or read novels. Because when we  invest our time for long hours interactively with video games we expect to influence the story in some way. For some people minor variants would be suffice. For others it requres a lot more more than just A,B and C or Red, Green and Blue galatic explosion.   

Maria Caliban wrote...

The strength of DA:O's story was that it had a powerful antagonist and a clear goal. That the PC was generic didn't matter because the Blight endangers everyone.

The PC was deliberately made generic for flexibility as we do not know what and how people play their PC. Defining the PC and railroading the story is not the only answer for roleplaying. We see many sandbox games ( RPG or non-RPG ) strive on player free will on shaping their own story like TES. Others like strategy games features custom campaign with editors like Sid Meir's civilization, Heroes of Might and Magic, Romance of Three Kingdoms etc... Making your own story and live through your story is part of the theme commonly emphasized in D&D RPGs. It's also the foundation of TES ever since Arena.

Maria Caliban wrote...


However, there are lots of stories you simply can't tell with a generic PC.

That because the player is the one who tell  the stories through their generic PC.

. 

Maria Caliban wrote...

If the PC is an empty vessel for players to fill, then the main character of the story has no psychological depth. The story suffers. Even if it's a 'save the world' plot.

The main character of the story has psychological depth created by the players. The story and game mechanics are  tools to provide such character  They are not the main driving force even if they can be the main force. We see many players do not care for predetermined objective as long as the game provide necessary tools for them.  Simulation game like The Sims, FPS, Action games and Strategy games benefit from this. Pen and Paper and D&D lay their foundation base on this too. Modern day Action RPG? I don't know. It's unknown concept to me where the boundary between roleplaying and controling a character becomes blur.

Not to say that BioWare games or linear story driven games are bad. Like you said they have their advantages It's nice they add diversity to video games. Just make sure it had a purpose as interactive medium though. Otherwise we may as well just watch movie and read novel or comics book.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 03 mai 2012 - 03:04 .

[Dakota Strider]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

I'd say that DA:O didn't have a strong story because it gave the PC many options, and DA II didn't have a weaker story because it game the PC fewer options.

Then we may as well stop interacting with video games and just watch movies or read novels. Because when we  invest our time for long hours interactively with video games we expect to influence the story in some way. For some people minor variants would be suffice. For others it requres a lot more more than just A,B and C or Red, Green and Blue galatic explosion.   

Maria Caliban wrote...

The strength of DA:O's story was that it had a powerful antagonist and a clear goal. That the PC was generic didn't matter because the Blight endangers everyone.

The PC was deliberately made generic for flexibility as we do not know what and how people play their PC. Defining the PC and railroading the story is not the only answer for roleplaying. We see many sandbox games ( RPG or non-RPG ) strive on player free will on shaping their own story like TES. Others like strategy games features custom campaign with editors like Sid Meir's civilization, Heroes of Might and Magic, Romance of Three Kingdoms etc... Making your own story and live through your story is part of the theme commonly emphasized in D&D RPGs. It's also the foundation of TES ever since Arena.

Maria Caliban wrote...


However, there are lots of stories you simply can't tell with a generic PC.

That because the player is the one who tell  the stories through their generic PC.

. 

Maria Caliban wrote...

If the PC is an empty vessel for players to fill, then the main character of the story has no psychological depth. The story suffers. Even if it's a 'save the world' plot.

The main character of the story has psychological depth created by the players. The story and game mechanics are  tools to provide such character  They are not the main driving force even if they can be the main force. We see many players do not care for predetermined objective as long as the game provide necessary tools for them.  Simulation game like The Sims, FPS, Action games and Strategy games benefit from this. Pen and Paper and D&D lay their foundation base on this too. Modern day Action RPG? I don't know. It's unknown concept to me where the boundary between roleplaying and controling a character becomes blur.

Not to say that BioWare games or linear story driven games are bad. Like you said they have their advantages It's nice they add diversity to video games. Just make sure it had a purpose as interactive medium though. Otherwise we may as well just watch movie and read novel or comics book.

Very well said.  You have had this discussion before, haven't you?

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Dakota Strider wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

I'd say that DA:O didn't have a strong story because it gave the PC many options, and DA II didn't have a weaker story because it game the PC fewer options.

Then we may as well stop interacting with video games and just watch movies or read novels. Because when we  invest our time for long hours interactively with video games we expect to influence the story in some way. For some people minor variants would be suffice. For others it requres a lot more more than just A,B and C or Red, Green and Blue galatic explosion.   

Maria Caliban wrote...

The strength of DA:O's story was that it had a powerful antagonist and a clear goal. That the PC was generic didn't matter because the Blight endangers everyone.

The PC was deliberately made generic for flexibility as we do not know what and how people play their PC. Defining the PC and railroading the story is not the only answer for roleplaying. We see many sandbox games ( RPG or non-RPG ) strive on player free will on shaping their own story like TES. Others like strategy games features custom campaign with editors like Sid Meir's civilization, Heroes of Might and Magic, Romance of Three Kingdoms etc... Making your own story and live through your story is part of the theme commonly emphasized in D&D RPGs. It's also the foundation of TES ever since Arena.

Maria Caliban wrote...


However, there are lots of stories you simply can't tell with a generic PC.

That because the player is the one who tell  the stories through their generic PC.

. 

Maria Caliban wrote...

If the PC is an empty vessel for players to fill, then the main character of the story has no psychological depth. The story suffers. Even if it's a 'save the world' plot.

The main character of the story has psychological depth created by the players. The story and game mechanics are  tools to provide such character  They are not the main driving force even if they can be the main force. We see many players do not care for predetermined objective as long as the game provide necessary tools for them.  Simulation game like The Sims, FPS, Action games and Strategy games benefit from this. Pen and Paper and D&D lay their foundation base on this too. Modern day Action RPG? I don't know. It's unknown concept to me where the boundary between roleplaying and controling a character becomes blur.

Not to say that BioWare games or linear story driven games are bad. Like you said they have their advantages It's nice they add diversity to video games. Just make sure it had a purpose as interactive medium though. Otherwise we may as well just watch movie and read novel or comics book.

Very well said.  You have had this discussion before, haven't you?

Hmm.. I'm not sure. Maybe. Hahahaha