173 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

*but in my preference with accuracy.

[upsettingshorts]

Aulis Vaara wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Confirmation bias, over-simplifying, imagining evidence, hyperbole, opinions masquerading as fact, and a handful of cliches.

I do enjoy hitting BSN bingo reading just one post.

Yes, my point was oversimplified, however, the fact remains that having categories pigeonholes all conversation options into those categories. Not having categories allows for much more context driven, and thus organic, conversations.

On top of that, the player actually has to think how he can achieve what he wants to, rather than just selecting blue, red, or heart whenever they come up.

Maybe you should try actually discussing the ideas next time, it is much more useful than throwing random words around. Oh, and I oversimplified, because I don't think people are stupid.

The problem is when you make a post like that it says to me that if I'm going to have a discussion with you, I'm going to have to explain, again - the number of times I've done this on these boards is higher than you can imagine - how the system works in DAO, how it works in DA2, the ways in which they are very similar, and the ways in which they are very different, and who prefers each set of features and why before we even get into a discussion about the ideas.

I wasn't throwing out "random words" but a list of assumptions we would have to undo before we even had a discussion.  If it comes off like I' singling you out, well, it's nothing personal.  You're hardly the only one, and if yours was the only post that ever made those same kind of comments, I probably would have paid it no mind.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 24 septembre 2012 - 05:04 .

[eroeru]

^ You keep explaining and enlightening others how the systems worked, yet you yourself don't have a clue, thank you very much.

[upsettingshorts]

eroeru wrote...

^ You keep explaining and enlightening others how the systems worked, yet you yourself don't have a clue, thank you very much.

I have a wealth of clues, gathered from actually listening to people who both love and hate the DA2/Origins approaches.

Shocking how that happens.

Your error is a common one in that it makes assumptions about what the DA2 system does, what kinds of players enjoy it, and why.  It has nothing to do with one system being "dumber" and nothing to do with one group of people preferring a more hands-off approach, both of which are assumptions contained in your post

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 24 septembre 2012 - 05:11 .

[Aulis Vaara]

@Upsettingshorts : you remind me of a passive-aggressive person. Impossible to have a conversation with because they keep expecting you to magically know how they feel.

Feel free to point out how I made any of those assumptions. I'm very curious to learn about my misconceptions.

@eroeru : high five!

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Why?  Why break character?  My reaction to that is to stay in character and think "Leliana's delusional."

What happens when you play a different character next who is flirting with Leliana, and she has exactly the same response?  She's no longer delusional, but responds appropriately.

Which character is broken then?  Are there two Lelianas?  As many Lelianas as you have interpretations of that line?  Infinite Lelianas?

It doesn't matter how many Lelianas there are (though I see no reason to assume there aren't infinite possile Lelianas).  It only matters how your PC perceives Leliana.

You continue to look at the game's content from the point of view of a player, not a character.

At least in the approach that blames a misinterpretation on the part of the player, Leliana remains consistent and unmangled by the contortions of imaginitive re-interpretation of line reads.

There's no reason in even applying the concept of consistency across multiple playthroughs.  Each playthrough is a separate and unrelated reality.  You perceive inconsistency because you're using your knowledge of what Leliana was like in one universe and applying it to Leliana in another universe.  Its not the same character - there's no reason to expect similarity.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Attempting to interpret writer intent allows for a more fluid story experience. Because you don't need to assume that a number of characters have mental or serious communication issues.

You never needed to assume that.  You just needed not to assume that you can read their minds.

[tmp7704]

Todd23 wrote...

Why not have two options? Each dialogue you pick not only what to say, but how you say it?

This was suggested before DA2 launch; Mr.Gaider's response was however it'd cause either the user interface used in the dialogues more cumbersome, or a number of different responses available to the player would have to be reduced. There's also potential issue of recording extra lines for those variations, like others mentioned.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Leliana should always be exactly the same person every time I sfart a new game.

I completely disagree.  That's a wholly unnecessary limitation, and one that interferes with roleplaying.

[upsettingshorts]

Aulis Vaara wrote...

@Upsettingshorts : you remind me of a passive-aggressive person. Impossible to have a conversation with because they keep expecting you to magically know how they feel.

Feel free to point out how I made any of those assumptions. I'm very curious to learn about my misconceptions.

It's more that I've learned to spot people who aren't going to be willing to put in the effort to unlearn whatever perceptions they've internalized about DAO/DA2, usually because they don't think there's any issue with them.  There are - to use the term again - a set of clues like the term "dumbed down" that pretty much send up a red flag.  I'm perfectly willing to have a discussion with anyone who wants to have one, like Sylvius.  Although not right now, since I'm gonna go do some GW2ing and responding to Sylvius generally requires some thought first.

But yeah, the dozens of people with whom I've had productive discussions about these games would beg to differ.

Since you asked though, here's why my post says what it did:

Aulis Vaara wrote...

classifying all possible conversation options into six categories dumbs down interaction to absurd levels. 

  

Here's the hyperbole, also some confirmation bias but that'd be harder to explain.  The short version is that the writers have gone on record as saying they've always provided much the same level of intended response categories even in full-text/silent protag games, they just weren't labeled as such.

Of course Sylvius would and does argue their intent doesn't matter, but that's not quite the same thing as what you're saying.

The bias comes from assuming that because there are shapes and colors and a new presentation, it must be new and dumb.

Aulis Vaara wrote...

There's no coy category? Oh well, too bad, you're never going to able to do that.

There's a fair point, however - and I usually defer to In Exile on this argument since he's better at it - DAO did sarcasm extremely poorly.  David Gaider himself often argues that DAO (well, silent protagonists in general) also did assertive characters poorly. So the implication you're making isn't as solid as I imagine you presume it is.

Aulis Vaara wrote...

Want to advance your romance? Here pick this option!

Here's the over-simplifying.  Not the nature of the feature, but why it was implemented in the first place.  It is, in essence, a compromise for the sake of clarity.  It does "dumb down" to an extent, but because the "problem" of ninjamances has been a common complaint since basically Jade Empire, they did something about it because people wanted them to.  

It's less about knowing how to advance a romance and more about knowing how to avoid one.

Aulis Vaara wrote...

In Dragon Age: Origins you had interesting conversations, you had to get to know the characters, and you weren't playing one of three character archetypes.

Here's some opinion masquerading as fact (the notion that DAO conversations were interesting whereas the DA2 ones were not), and some more over-simplifying with a bit of a cliche.  I have talked about the problems with "you are playing three character archetypes" at length.  

Aulis Vaara wrote...

You played a real person and NPC's were real people with real feelings and real preferences.

Imagining evidence, though I think in hindsight it would have been more accurate to say "inventing wildly subjective, vague standards as to what constitutes a real person so my opinions can masquerade as fact."

Aulis Vaara wrote...

In Dragon Age II, they're all just caricatures.

Same problem as the previous statement, really.  The burden of proof would be on you for defending this kind of distinction.  You'll have to create a set of standards upon which a "real person" character is distinct from a "caricature" - good luck getting all people here to agree to that definition, by the way - and then use evidence from both games to establish why DAO has one and DA2 has the other.  It'd be more efficient and defensible to say "I liked DAO's companions better because X, Y, Z."

So if you want to have an actual discussion, let's start with... all that.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 24 septembre 2012 - 06:14 .

[SteveGarbage]

I vehemently disagree. Here's why, if you remove the icons, then you get all these kinds of threads:
"I clicked on the paraphrase and my character said/did something that I didn't want them to because I wasn't sure what it meant WHINE WHINE."

Considering this is the first thread I've seen anti-icon vs. a million threads of anti-paraphrase, I'm going to stick by the icons to help people understand what kind of response that paraphrase is going to deliver. It's a good development for the dialogue wheel.

[legbamel]

If you pick your responses based on icons rather than context and RPing what your character would actually say in a particular instance, of course you end up with a charicature. Almost no one is angry or flippant oroptimistic in every circumstance without some sort of pathology. Why would you RP that way?

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Leliana should always be exactly the same person every time I sfart a new game.

I completely disagree.  That's a wholly unnecessary limitation, and one that interferes with roleplaying.

You're not born into a new world every time you start a new game. You should be able to assume that it will be the same world with the same people in it every time you start a new game. Making the world a variable slate is what interfears with roleplaying because your character cannot apply the knowledge s/he should have simply be being alive in the world. 

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Attempting to interpret writer intent allows for a more fluid story experience. Because you don't need to assume that a number of characters have mental or serious communication issues.

You never needed to assume that.  You just needed not to assume that you can read their minds.

Your go-to response to an NPC that responds as though you said something you didn't intend to say is to assume that the NPC has problems with ckmprehension.

[eroeru]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Your error is a common one in that it makes assumptions about what the DA2 system does, what kinds of players enjoy it, and why. 

1. Of course I make assumptions and try to build upon them. I've worked out opinions like this for quite a time - I find them sufficiently tried and developed, yet if you can give some answers in opposition that actually mean something (thus far you haven't in answer to me - for example "persons are complex!" has nothing to do with different Hawkes breaking continuity of character), then I'd be happy. You're a bit dumb in making the statement that people who oppose your ideas hold on to them too much so. That's very bad rhetoric, an ad hominem fallacy really.

2. I haven't made a statement about what kinds of players enjoy DA2's system. My claims have had nothing to do with that nor calling DA2 stupid. It's cheap, and I'm frustrated by many aspects of it, which I and others argue are very identifyable and analyzable problems. We do just that - analyze and make explicit, nothing else is in my agenda thank you very much.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

You're not born into a new world every time you start a new game. You should be able to assume that it will be the same world with the same people in it every time you start a new game.

Why?

Making the world a variable slate is what interfears with roleplaying because your character cannot apply the knowledge s/he should have simply be being alive in the world.

That can be achieved by keeping all of the explicit content the same, as DAO does (as almost all games do).  In fact, I don't like games that change the explicit content between playthroughs.  Diablo's random dungeons really irritated me.

But the implicit content is entirely up to you.  Insisting that it can't change between playthroughs is lunacy.  Clearly it can.

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Attempting to interpret writer intent allows for a more fluid story experience. Because you don't need to assume that a number of characters have mental or serious communication issues.

You never needed to assume that.  You just needed not to assume that you can read their minds.

Your go-to response to an NPC that responds as though you said something you didn't intend to say is to assume that the NPC has problems with ckmprehension.

That's patently false.  Again, even that would require that I assume I can read the NPC's minds.  Why should I think I know why the NPCs do anything?  They're not me.  I don't control them.  And I don't have perfect knoweldge of their thoughts.

All I'm doing is not assuming that I know how they'll interpret what I say, which, of course, I don't, because no one ever knows that about other people.

You're incorrectly assuming an excluded middle.  Just because I refuse to accept one baseless assumption does not mean that I necessarily adopt a contrary baseless assumption.

[upsettingshorts]

eroeru wrote...

1. Of course I make assumptions and try to build upon them.

Where?   Feel free to respond to any of the specific issues I brought up.  Any of them, at all.

eroeru wrote...

You're a bit dumb in making the statement that people who oppose your ideas hold on to them too much so. That's very bad rhetoric, an ad hominem fallacy really.

Haha, wow. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 24 septembre 2012 - 07:42 .

[Todd23]

Derp

[eroeru]

What's wow?

[eroeru]

Upsettingshorts wrote...



It's more that I've learned to spot people who aren't going to be willing to put in the effort to unlearn whatever perceptions they've internalized about DAO/DA2, usually because they don't think there's any issue with them. 

This is just wow to be honest.

(now I see where I was strictly wrong -  "You're a bit dumb in making the statement that people who oppose your ideas hold on to them too much so. That's very bad rhetoric, an ad hominem fallacy really" should have "hold on to *their own* too much so").

You're just attacking, without nothing substantial to say. But you do make up some makebelief about how the posters you oppose think. Pointing at how an opponent thinks (in your opinion) in "favor of your point" is ad hominem already.

Modifié par eroeru, 24 septembre 2012 - 08:00 .

[SteveGarbage]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Leliana should always be exactly the same person every time I sfart a new game.

I completely disagree.  That's a wholly unnecessary limitation, and one that interferes with roleplaying.

You're not born into a new world every time you start a new game. You should be able to assume that it will be the same world with the same people in it every time you start a new game. Making the world a variable slate is what interfears with roleplaying because your character cannot apply the knowledge s/he should have simply be being alive in the world. 

This conversation has taken a turn for the interesting that has hooked me.

This is a yes and no situation. Yes, the characters and world generally are all the same on each playthrough, however, the interaction makes each playthrough a separate and new world (like multiple dimensions/realities).

Leliana is essentially the same character in every game. You meet her the exact same way in the Tavern in Lothering every time. However, depending on how you treat her, although she is hard-coded to have certain responses that are consistent throughout every play, for the role-player, her character is vastly different. She was a totally different person for my Chantry-loving city elf female who was totally girly with her and pro-Maker love and all that stuff than my current male Aeducan who tells her to cram all that Maker stuff. For my City Elf she stayed true to her new Chantry roots, whereas my Dwarf Noble pushed her back toward her barding lifestyle (which was useful to him).

I agree that every playthrough is new, kind of like the awesome movie Groundhog Day. All of those people and everything in that town is consistent from day to day since the same day is replaying over and over. The framework is the same, but the results are dramatically different depending on how you interact with it.

[upsettingshorts]

eroeru wrote...

This is just wow to be honest.

It's a challenge, a call to a bloody argument.  One you're still failing to meet by living up to the very low standards I expected you to.  Keep digging.  The opportunities for real discussion have been posted, and you've been ignoring them.

eroeru wrote... 

You're just attacking, without nothing substantial to say.

Hardly.  Try explaining yourself instead of trying to claim why you shouldn't.  The burden of proof is on you to explain why the post of yours I called out for being nonsense isn't nonsense.  Only once you do this can we have a discussion, until then there's only this, and this is off topic sniping.

[Allan Schumacher]

That about does it for this thread.

[lx_theo]

DO NOT REMOVE THEM, BW! Make them better. Evolve them rather than dumping a really good idea.