167 réponses à ce sujet

[Nomen Mendax]

Sir JK wrote...
...

Sylvius the Mad wrote... 
No it doesn't.  That's the point.  If the PC shouldn't know how his companions feel about something (and there's often no reason why the PC would know that), then there's no roleplaying benefit in providing the player with that information.

That's why I would like to turn the relationship meter off.  It's not possible to know how pther people feel.  As such, I would rather the game not tell me.

But if my character does seek that information? Ignoring information provided to you is all well and fine. But if it is information I need for my character should it not be available to me? What if I have a character that does try to read the non-verbal communication of other character to try to get a sense of how they think (regardless of whether this is a fool's errand or not)? What if I have the type that would constantly ask for opinions and thoughts out of a desire to appease his/her friends but is not provided the option to do so ?
You know, characters that actively or indirectly actually seeks to know how others think.

If the information is not available at all... am I not effectively prohibited from playing such characters?

But Sylvius was suggesting that there should be an option to turn off the meter, not remove it for everyone.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And assumign that your assumption is correct isn't arrogant?

You keep hiding behind behind teh percieved avoidance of arrogance, but it's pointless.
Either you belive your analysis/view is correct or not. Period.
That isn't arrogance. That is normal.

Arrogance is when you refuse to belive you COULD be wrong, even when faced with contrary evidence.

You're misattributing my complaint about arrogance.  It's not arrogant of me to think I'm better at logic that some people - I'm demonstrably pretty good at logic.  But there's no justification at all for any belief that I know their thoughts, so believing that I do is at best arrogant, and at worst foolish.

Hence, since there is a possiblity that you (and the othe person) are wrong, it comes to weighing consequences.
- If I'm right and stop him, I saved his life and he'll be thankfull...probably
- If I'm right and didn't stop him, he's dead - something he didnt' want.
- If I'm wrong and stopped him, he will be angry - but nothing is stopping him from attempting suicide again, so no harm really done. And who cares if he's angry at you if he's gonna kill himself? He's about to remove himself from your life anyway. Or he may change his mind...
- If I'm wrong and didn't stop him, he's dead and not a factor in my life anymore.

Given the 4 possible outcomes, the 1st option is the best option to take.

I'd still feel like a jerk for doing it.

Also, assuming that humans behave ratioanlly all the time is provably false. Humans can be exceptioanlly irrational at times.
So given that your basic premise is incorrect, how can any deduction you draw from it be correct?

If people don't behave rationally, then they've eliminated any reason for me to care about their welfare.  It is the capacity for rational thought that gives humans value.  As such, it makes sense to ignore those circumstances wherein people aren't behaving rationally, as they would then no longer matter.

[Sylvianus]

In DAII without the relationship meter, we couldn't understand at all why Fenris, Anders, or Merril, or Aveline didn't follow some PCs  in the end of the game and why they did with some other folks .

For example, Merril, 50 % rivalry, 50 % friendship. It isn't enough either way to have her at our side if we choose the templars and the same for Anders for example. Or Fenris with mages.

If I'd learn that some people suceeded to have them at their side, and not me, I would find it weird since I can't rely on anything to find out how much it is different between our results. I would be afraid to give my true opinion in another playthrought, and I would say everything to please my companions to achieve this goal, having them at my side. ( since I can't know where I am with them ) This isn't the point, neither fun.

So I don't care, but if relationships do play an important role, then the relationship meter needs to be there too. That's about clarity and transparency in the game. It is far more important than the immersion which is really not spoiled by this small detail in my opinion.

If there's an option, then okay.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 12 septembre 2012 - 06:57 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You're misattributing my complaint about arrogance.  It's not arrogant of me to think I'm better at logic that some people - I'm demonstrably pretty good at logic.  But there's no justification at all for any belief that I know their thoughts, so believing that I do is at best arrogant, and at worst foolish.

I'm not misattributing anything.

Living > dying. It's a pretty simple concept.
I'm assuming that living is better for them than dying.

Hence, since there is a possiblity that you (and the othe person) are wrong, it comes to weighing consequences.
- If I'm right and stop him, I saved his life and he'll be thankfull...probably
- If I'm right and didn't stop him, he's dead - something he didnt' want.
- If I'm wrong and stopped him, he will be angry - but nothing is stopping him from attempting suicide again, so no harm really done. And who cares if he's angry at you if he's gonna kill himself? He's about to remove himself from your life anyway. Or he may change his mind...
- If I'm wrong and didn't stop him, he's dead and not a factor in my life anymore.

Given the 4 possible outcomes, the 1st option is the best option to take.

I'd still feel like a jerk for doing it.

Well, we already proven you are a statystical anomaly.
I recall in previous threads that your thought processes are ...warped.

Also, assuming that humans behave ratioanlly all the time is provably false. Humans can be exceptioanlly irrational at times.
So given that your basic premise is incorrect, how can any deduction you draw from it be correct?

If people don't behave rationally, then they've eliminated any reason for me to care about their welfare.  It is the capacity for rational thought that gives humans value.  As such, it makes sense to ignore those circumstances wherein people aren't behaving rationally, as they would then no longer matter.

What? That doesn't make your premise correct.
Also, you assing value to human life based only on ratioanl behavior - something that's PROVEN to not be a constant. According to you, if for any reason - alchocol, stress, depression - I do something irrational, my life is utterly worthless.

Seriously, you lack any and all empathy. You lack care for fellow human beings - to you everything is selfish and calculated.
Honestly I dredd the thought to think like you.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I'm not misattributing anything.

Living > dying. It's a pretty simple concept.
I'm assuming that living is better for them than dying.

That clears that up nicely.  I'm refusing to assume that I know their preferences better than they do, and I'm refusing to assume that they will make bad decisions.  You're assuming either that they can't make good decisions for themselves, or that you know their preferences better than they do.

I consider my position to be the more morally defensible one.

I'd still feel like a jerk for doing it.

Well, we already proven you are a statystical anomaly.
I recall in previous threads that your thought processes are ...warped.

I'm just following the logic.  Once I've established what it is about people that has value, that informs all of the subsequent steps.

What do you think it is that gives humans value?

What? That doesn't make your premise correct.

Correct.  But it prevents the consequences of my premise being incorrect from having any moral cost.

We can't know the minds of others, so I've designed my approach to avoid negaitve outcomes regardless of the minds of others.

Also, you assing value to human life based only on ratioanl behavior - something that's PROVEN to not be a constant. According to you, if for any reason - alchocol, stress, depression - I do something irrational, my life is utterly worthless.

That's not what I said.  I said it was the capacity for rational thought that gives you value, not the act of thinking rationally.

Seriously, you lack any and all empathy.

So do you.  So does everyone.  Empathy isn't real.

You lack care for fellow human beings

That directly conrtradicts what I've said above.  The difference is that I know why I value humans, and as such I can apply my standards more consistently.

to you everything is selfish and calculated.

Selfishness is a necessary consequence of free will.  Every choice you freely make is a selfish one.

Honestly I dredd the thought to think like you.

I am the law.

[Nomen Mendax]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Honestly I dredd the thought to think like you.

I am the law.

That made me chuckle.

[ohnotherancor]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Honestly I dredd the thought to think like you.

I am the law.

This exchange made my day.

On topic:
I support toggles for a thing like this. Some games that lacked a visible relationship meter worked perfectly without it (Planescape: Torment), but others had me wishing for more apparent documentation (Neverwinter Nights 2).

I am a little sad to hear the rumors of BioWare devs going back to the approval system, though. I thought the friendship/rivalry system was one of the best parts of DA 2 and could've become pretty great if improved upon.

[nightscrawl]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I wouldn't call Anders a good example, as he doesn't really hate the player.
He's not actively trying to decieve him - he just keeps some thing to himself.

Remember that Rivalry isn't hate.

I wasn't really trying to connect it with the meter in that instance, merely using the deception as the example.

However, since you bring it up, a deceptive person doesn't necessarily have to hate the PC. They can just be out for their own self-interest, be part of a larger plot against the PC, or be actively working with the PC's enemies. There are various motivations for doing something, and your personal feelings about a specific person is only one of those potential motivations. Bringing this back to the meter issue, I still don't think that showing a meter in that instance makes it difficult to have that kind of a story or NPC.

BUT, an interesting dynamic with the deceptive companion would be one in which we can drastically alter the story based on our relationship with the pivotal person. Let's say, per the motivation list above, that this person is working for the enemy (much like Katriel in The Stolen Throne, or somewhat similarly with Zevran in DAO). The person meets you with the intention of doing their job, having no feelings about you whatsoever. Over time they get to know you and one of several things can happen: (1) they start to like or respect you and begin to feel massive guilt about the deception; (2) they despise you and are happy they are going to eventually hurt you via the deception; (3) their outside motivation so far exceeds anything else as to make their personal feelings insignificant so they continue with the deception no matter what; or (4) they really won't give a fig one way or the other, only how they can profit, suggesting that their friendliness toward you (which you see on the meter) is also a deception.

Keep in mind that the display of the meter, even if it displays accurate information about the NPC's feelings for you, has no bearing on the final actions for points 3 and 4. So even if the person likes your PC, the deception very well might still follow through. That is how the writers deceive the player, instead of the NPC deceiving the PC.

The next part depends on how the writers want the game to be played, and also how they want that NPC to be. They very well could work it so that our relationship sways the companion over time, in the way that Katriel decided to help Maric and how Zevran chose the Warden when the pivotal moment arose. Or they could have it so that our actions don't change anything. This last option would be my preference, mainly because it goes against the "the PC must be able to 'fix' everything" mentality.

Which is where the camp comes in.
After every chapter/large quest..plot arc..whatever... you heve the party talking about it.

Can be used ot add mroe depth, give more dialogue and provide more insight into characters, even for those you didn't bring along.

While I agree that the party camp does have the benefits of follower interaction amongst themselves, I was never that crazy about it. I felt that it was appropriate for DAO because of the setting for that game. On the other hand, I did enjoy the followers having thier own "place" in Kirkwall. Since DA2 spanned over several years, I felt it made sense in that the companions have lives outside of following Hawke around. Several references are made in dialogue and in party banter to the followers doing things without Hawke. I felt that was right for a setting like DA2.

Supposedly for DA3 we are not going to have a huge time frame as in DA2, so perhaps a similar party camp will be appropriate again.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 13 septembre 2012 - 05:57 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I'm not misattributing anything.

Living > dying. It's a pretty simple concept.
I'm assuming that living is better for them than dying.[/quote]
That clears that up nicely.  I'm refusing to assume that I know their preferences better than they do, and I'm refusing to assume that they will make bad decisions.  You're assuming either that they can't make good decisions for themselves, or that you know their preferences better than they do.

I consider my position to be the more morally defensible one.[/quote]



Yeah right...maybe for your own twisted morals.
But we already established that your morals are not normal human set of morals.

And no. I'm not assuming that they can't make good decisions for themselves. I'm assuming that they can make mistakes, like everyone else.



[quote][quote]
Well, we already proven you are a statystical anomaly.
I recall in previous threads that your thought processes are ...warped.[/quote]
I'm just following the logic.  Once I've established what it is about people that has value, that informs all of the subsequent steps.

What do you think it is that gives humans value?[/quote]

Nothing..and everything.
This isn't math.
Youre approach to humanity wihout empathy is a hollow thing.

[quote]
[quote]What? That doesn't make your premise correct.[/quote]
Correct.  But it prevents the consequences of my premise being incorrect from having any moral cost.

We can't know the minds of others, so I've designed my approach to avoid negaitve outcomes regardless of the minds of others.[/quote]

Nope. You are wrong. How are you avoiding negative outcomes?
I clearly given 4 possible outcomes and your choice is NOT without negatives. Quite the opposite.

If you're wrong a man dies and he didn't want to die. How is that NOT a negative?
If I'm wrong a mans death is slighly postponed.

And you are seriously telling me you are avoiding negatives????


[quote]
[quote]Also, you assing value to human life based only on ratioanl behavior - something that's PROVEN to not be a constant. According to you, if for any reason - alchocol, stress, depression - I do something irrational, my life is utterly worthless.[/quote]
That's not what I said.  I said it was the capacity for rational thought that gives you value, not the act of thinking rationally.[/quote]

No, what you said is:
"If people don't behave rationally, then they've eliminated any reason
for me to care about their welfare.  It is the capacity for rational
thought that gives humans value.  As such, it makes sense to ignore
those circumstances wherein people aren't behaving rationally, as they
would then no longer matter."

Basicly if people dont' behave rationally, who gives a frak about them.


[quote]
[quote]Seriously, you lack any and all empathy.[/quote]
So do you.  So does everyone.  Empathy isn't real.[/quote]

Dude. I know you were born frakked up and lacking empathy, but don't assume everyone is like you.
You refuse to believe empathy is real? Fine.
But I do have it. And normal people have it.



[quote]
[quote]You lack care for fellow human beings[/quote]
That directly conrtradicts what I've said above.  The difference is that I know why I value humans, and as such I can apply my standards more consistently.[/quote]

What you said contradicts what you've shown.



[quote]
[quote]to you everything is selfish and calculated.[/quote]
Selfishness is a necessary consequence of free will.  Every choice you freely make is a selfish one.[/quote]

Your worldview is dark, depressingand wrong.



[quote]
[quote]Honestly I dredd the thought to think like you.[/quote]I am the law.[/quote]

More like the LAWL.

I honestly don't know watehr to laugh at you or pitty you. Probably the latter.

[Lotion Soronarr]

nightscrawl wrote...
However, since you bring it up, a deceptive person doesn't necessarily have to hate the PC. They can just be out for their own self-interest, be part of a larger plot against the PC, or be actively working with the PC's enemies.

No he doesnt' have to, but how do you model one such person if you want such a character?
You cannot have a character like Thalia Al'Ghul.
you cannot have a character that hates your guts, because you know it immediately.
You cannto have truly duplicious characters that say one thing and mean another - because you'll see by the relationship meter they are lying.

PC spares a enemy soldier
*Duplicious character*: Good work <charname>, letting him go was the right thing. (-20 approval)

BUT, an interesting dynamic with the deceptive companion would be one in which we can drastically alter the story based on our relationship with the pivotal person. Let's say, per the motivation list above, that this person is working for the enemy (much like Katriel in The Stolen Throne, or somewhat similarly with Zevran in DAO). The person meets you with the intention of doing their job, having no feelings about you whatsoever. Over time they get to know you and one of several things can happen: (1) they start to like or respect you and begin to feel massive guilt about the deception; (2) they despise you and are happy they are going to eventually hurt you via the deception; (3) their outside motivation so far exceeds anything else as to make their personal feelings insignificant so they continue with the deception no matter what; or (4) they really won't give a fig one way or the other, only how they can profit, suggesting that their friendliness toward you (which you see on the meter) is also a deception.

Keep in mind that the display of the meter, even if it displays accurate information about the NPC's feelings for you, has no bearing on the final actions for points 3 and 4. So even if the person likes your PC, the deception very well might still follow through. That is how the writers deceive the player, instead of the NPC deceiving the PC.

I still don't think we should be seeing the accurate meter, because that is simply something poeple DON'T KNOW.

While I agree that the party camp does have the benefits of follower interaction amongst themselves, I was never that crazy about it.

I loved the camp. Gives the whole "group/family" feelign and provides a lot of opportunity for inter-party interaction

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Yeah right...maybe for your own twisted morals.
But we already established that your morals are not normal human set of morals.

And no. I'm not assuming that they can't make good decisions for themselves. I'm assuming that they can make mistakes, like everyone else.

No, you're assuming that they are making a mistake.  And that's the thing I find offensive.

What do you think it is that gives humans value?

Nothing..and everything.

So you don't know.  You're unaware of the basis for your own position.  Really?

This isn't math.

Everything is math.

We can't know the minds of others, so I've designed my approach to avoid negaitve outcomes regardless of the minds of others.

Nope. You are wrong. How are you avoiding negative outcomes?
I clearly given 4 possible outcomes and your choice is NOT without negatives. Quite the opposite.

If you're wrong a man dies and he didn't want to die. How is that NOT a negative?
If I'm wrong a mans death is slighly postponed.

You're applying your own moral system to my reasoning.  If you stop doing that you'll be able to follow the reasoning better.

That outcome isn't negative because it's morally neutral.  Morally has no relevance in this case.  Read my definition of the source of human value again.   I've defined human value in terms such that people who wilfully behave contrary to their own preferences lack it.

Dude. I know you were born frakked up and lacking empathy, but don't assume everyone is like you.

They're not.  Most of them believe in empathy.

But what you call empathy isn't what you think it is.  You're just projecting your own feelings onto others and then incorrectly perceiving them as the other person's emotions.  That's what mirror neurons do, and that's the source of empathy.  But that they feed you false information about the emotional states of people who are relevantly dissimilar from you - the autistic are a good example, so are psychopaths - shows that you're not actually able to perceive the feelings of others.

Empathy doesn't do what you think it does.

Selfishness is a necessary consequence of free will.  Every choice you freely make is a selfish one.

Your worldview is dark, depressingand wrong.

Why do you do anything?  Because you want to. 

That's selfishness.  And to deny the emboldened passage above is to deny free will.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 13 septembre 2012 - 07:13 .

[GodWood]

I never imagined Sylvius to be the type to believe in Free Will.

[eroeru]

There's necessarily nothing of belief in the sense of "faith" regarding free will. It in fact is a phenomenon, and science has its own explanation to it (hard-wired neuron-work).

If a person talks about free will, he usually doesn't have a statement about how it exactly works. Scientists do so only in merit of their whole program being based on a kind of determinism (which is in many cases surely a good stance, as they've/we've shown, but does not deal with culture or the human mind essentially, they do so from objective data, which doesn't say anything about the often as-pure-subjectivity and from-subjectivity defined free will).

sorry for the off-topic

Modifié par eroeru, 13 septembre 2012 - 01:16 .

[SpunkyMonkey]

Lose the meter, so long as the player has some way of gauging if the person likes them or not (body language, tone of voice etc.) then that'll be fine

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Yeah right...maybe for your own twisted morals.
But we already established that your morals are not normal human set of morals.

And no. I'm not assuming that they can't make good decisions for themselves. I'm assuming that they can make mistakes, like everyone else.

No, you're assuming that they are making a mistake.  And that's the thing I find offensive.

Assuming I have good grounds to think they are making a mistake...so what?

And I find it offensive that you find it offensive.
Because you cleary think that you are superior..which is arrogant.

What do you think it is that gives humans value?

Nothing..and everything.

So you don't know.  You're unaware of the basis for your own position.  Really?

Nope. I just don't think the entirety of a human being can be easily summed up.

Everything is math.

No it isn't.

If you're wrong a man dies and he didn't want to die. How is that NOT a negative?
If I'm wrong a mans death is slighly postponed.

You're applying your own moral system to my reasoning.  If you stop doing that you'll be able to follow the reasoning better.

That outcome isn't negative because it's morally neutral.  Morally has no relevance in this case.  Read my definition of the source of human value again.   I've defined human value in terms such that people who wilfully behave contrary to their own preferences lack it.

You make no sense whatsoever.

They're not.  Most of them believe in empathy.

But what you call empathy isn't what you think it is.  You're just projecting your own feelings onto others and then incorrectly perceiving them as the other person's emotions.  That's what mirror neurons do, and that's the source of empathy.  But that they feed you false information about the emotional states of people who are relevantly dissimilar from you - the autistic are a good example, so are psychopaths - shows that you're not actually able to perceive the feelings of others.

I don't need a lecture from you - of all people.
You are the LAST person on this planet to have a say on empathy or humantiy.

What you think is empathy and how humans work isn't what you think. Having a such a vastly different mindeset I don't think you are even capable of grasping it.

Like trying to decsribe colors to a blind person.

Why do you do anything?  Because you want to. 

That's selfishness.  And to deny the emboldened passage above is to deny free will.

I spit on your definitions...they are so braod that they make many concepts and words totally meaningless.

Your universe is totally black, because white doesn't even exist. It cannot exist.
If EVERYTHING is selfish, then the word itself looses meaning, sicne it has no opposite.

****

But this pointles discussion has gone on long enough.
I'm not about to continue debating with you the philospohy and morality when that has little to do with the thread. There has been enough de-railing.
Besides I'm getting tired of this

If you really feel you MUST continue this, there are PM's. Altouhg keep in mind that I probably won't bother anwering.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 13 septembre 2012 - 01:25 .

[Sylvianus]

Yeah, better stop the discussion here. I feel that it isn't anymore about what would be fine in the next game.

[GodWood]

eroeru wrote...
There's necessarily nothing of belief in the sense of "faith" regarding free will. It in fact is a phenomenon, and science has its own explanation to it (hard-wired neuron-work).

I've heard of no such things. Only theories that speculate the possibility of their being a type of randomness on a micro level which evetually becomes deterministic on a macro level (So at best indeterministic) meaning still no free will.

[Allan Schumacher]

Here's a tip. Telling other people how they should or should not be feeling, and placing qualification on whether or not their perspectives have merit is a fool's errand. It also has no place on this board.

Locking.