3855 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Drasanil wrote...
That's a good question actually, you yourself cited reactivity, but how much is enough? I remember you making the point that DA:O was very limited in this respect, but personally for me that was enough. I never played the human noble origin past the actual origin, so I never felt rightly or wrongly that it was the default story from which all differences branched.

If you had, you would see that it was. But even without that, I think I would have felt it wasn't reactive enough.

Playing through with my city elf and dalish, I felt there had ample reactivity, even though I know cognitively not much changed. In part this was because I never experienced the 'assumed base line' from which those storiesdiffer, but also because my character's identity was referenced enough to set her apart subconciously.

For me, "subconciously" setting apart characters is irrelevant, because if I actually had freedom (i.e., as a writer would) I would have entirely different stories and quest-lines for characters. But games can't ever give you that freedom. Skyrim isn't freeing in that sense - you can just do everything with everyone, so it's just a matter of more self-imposed limitations. Which for me is the opposite of fun.

Now as for exactly how much is enough is a bit harder to quantify. To cite a hypothetical DA2 in which race choices had been included, even if the family had remained nearly identical, I feel it wouldn't have taken all that much to prove sufficient, in large part because I would likely have never played Human Hawke and so wouldn't have had a percieved default with which to compare it to.

Whereas for me, unless things were radically different (and they would have to be - dwarf Hawke would have no mages in his family) I wouldn't feel that the choice was satisfactory.

For Elves: Have Hawke become Haren of the alienge for elves, instead of getting a mansion. Have Carver get recruited as an informant keeping an eye on mages instead of an actual templar. In essence getting the glaring issues out of the way.

For Dwarves: Have Hawke collect some old family debts or blackmail a couple of people to reinstablish his family instead of persuing the noble line. Have Bethany become a lyrium smuggler in the carta, so she still has a reason to get jailed by the templars, Carver just always dies in this case since you can't have mage dwarves. 

See, to me, these all feel exactly like people feel about apostate Hawke - the game failing to give enough weight and credence to what it means to have a different race protagonist.

[In Exile]

Satyricon331 wrote...
I'm not sure I see what the "but" is there for.  The information in the games is insufficient to dispose the matter either way, so people are free to play either way.

I've always disagreed with this stance on games.

And I'm not sure what evidence you have in mind.  The species seem to have similar intelligence levels and emotional complexes (except maybe the Qunari/kossith), but I haven't seen much of anything else.  I don't think there's anything in the game that says they're all, uh, "boundedly rational" in the same ways.

You can't speak about "intelligence" and "emotion" in any meaningful sense without speaking about modes of thought. These are not separable. The Qunari are actually an excellent example of this: they are about the once race that at least seems different enough in the way they approach problems to make the argument that they are at least somewhat different.

And if Bioware did make the races cognitive clones that way, it'd be pretty lame.  They need to have some mental differences.

That would be impossible without either making it so subtle as to be silly, or running up into the trouble of having to think what a portrayal like that would mean.

I'm just not sure what you're trying to say here?  You've drawn to analogies I don't see at all, and I'm not sure what you're tying it into.  Comparing a Warden to Garahel - whose feats are legendary, and so partly probably a matter of hyperbole - isn't analogous imo to comparing a mage to Flemeth. 

The idea that there is a "legend" aspect to all of this is what's, first of all, completely unjustified. We see what the high dragon and archdemon can do in-game, how much they can kill, what they can ruin. It's exactly like Flemeth - because we never see her do anything but turn into a dragon. And yet the very idea is the extent to which these individuals are above common men and women

But to make sense of it - are you saying you think a Nobel laureate is a superhuman badass?  Maybe it's just that we have a different sense of what that phrase means.  I'd never view a Nobel laureate that way - just extremely capable and a bit lucky, just like I prefer PCs to be.

Extremely capable, to that degree, is basically superhuman. We are talking about people that are 1 in 10,000, or more. There is a gap in understanding and thought that the average person will never begin to approach with a genius. It's like comparing a child to an adult.

To say that the PC is even close to average is absurd. It's like saying Lebron James is extremely. He's at a level almost all living humans won't ever be able to come close to.

I don't think the game's long enough to have the Warden's death count in the 1000s, but the Deep Roads is a great example. 

No, DA:O actually keeps track of that. You kill over 1000 enemies in-game, and about 670 darkspawn in a single playthrough.

They're largely empty thanks to the Blight, so it's much easier-going than normal.  A human would have a huge problem since there's no vitamin D for an extended period - so either I take all non-humans, or I have at least one mage so I can rationalize it as them producing UV magic the game leaves unmodelled.  But I'd never take a non-mage human PC, Alistair, Leliana, and, say, Dog.  It'd bother me too much.

That's absurd. A human would be burned alive by the first fireball, or would freeze to death, or would just break most of their bones and die from internal hemmoraging the first time they're hit by an ogre. And let's not even get into what that CHOMP! attack the dragon has would do to flesh and bone.

You're drawing such arbitrary lines. I don't want to bellite your taste. But to me this is the thing that does make dwarves (or non-humans) superhuman - they can literally survive, in your lore, in places where humans can't.

Well, fair point about Varric, but that just means I find his storytelling unbearable.  

That was a joke.

Modifié par In Exile, 08 janvier 2013 - 06:22 .

[MisterJB]

Faerunner wrote...
BioWare even came up with contrived reasons to make Thedas a Tolkien knock-off. Elves used to dominate the surface until humans took their land and freedom, Dwarves used to dominate the underground until darkspawn flooded their tunnels and taigs, the Qunari almost took over the surface until humans drove them back, and now the story HAPPENS to take place while humans are the top dogs, and involve mostly human settlements and characters? How original.

Eh, whatever.

Except that the DA attempts to subvert the original Tolkien formula. When Lord of the Rings starts, elves and dwarves are the top dogs in Middle Earth. The elves especially are constantly described as blessed by the Valar in many ways. Their kingdoms are some of the few places safe from Sauron and his forces.
The humans have Arnor to the North which has been destroyed by the Witch King, Gondor and Rohan to the South, which are in decline and threatened to be wiped out by Sauron and Saruman and Dale to the East which lives in the shadow of the greater dwarven kingdom of Erebor.
Lord of the Rings is actually about the eventual decline of the elder races and the rise of Men but that doesn't happen until Aragorn reunites both Arnor and Gondor which only happens in the end of the Return of the King.

In DA, however, neither the elves nor the dwarves are that much special compared to humanity and their societies have been much eclipsed by the human species. DA is a subversion of the typical Tolkien mythos, not a rip off.

[Satyricon331]

In Exile wrote...
I've always disagreed with this stance on games.

There's no logical basis for excluding either view, so I don't see what your disagreement is.

You can't speak about "intelligence" and "emotion" in any meaningful sense without speaking about modes of thought. These are not separable. [...] That would be impossible without either making it so subtle as to be silly, or running up into the trouble of having to think what a portrayal like that would mean.

They have comparable levels of intelligence and broadly similar emotional complexes, therefore they have only the same modes of thought, even independently of species?  That's a sweeping empirical claim; show me the evidence - particularly as it relates to the specific cognitive issue I was discussing.

The idea that there is a "legend" aspect to all of this is what's, first of all, completely unjustified. We see what the high dragon and archdemon can do in-game, how much they can kill, what they can ruin. It's exactly like Flemeth - because we never see her do anything but turn into a dragon. And yet the very idea is the extent to which these individuals are above common men and women

Legend, to describe Garahel, was your word.  But I think this point really ties into the next bit:

Extremely capable, to that degree, is basically superhuman. We are talking about people that are 1 in 10,000, or more. There is a gap in understanding and thought that the average person will never begin to approach with a genius. It's like comparing a child to an adult.

To say that the PC is even close to average is absurd. It's like saying Lebron James is extremely. He's at a level almost all living humans won't ever be able to come close to.

Here we don't disagree, except about how we construe the term "superhuman."  I didn't discuss the PC as an average character.  Nobel laureates represent the best in human minds, but I take the word superhuman as just something beyond human abilities, so I don't view them as superhuman.  I'm fine taking the PC as the best her/his race has to offer (and with Duncan running around, it's by selection).  I'm not fine thinking a human PC is capable of something humans aren't remotely capable of at all.

That's absurd. A human would be burned alive by the first fireball, or would freeze to death, or would just break most of their bones and die from internal hemmoraging the first time they're hit by an ogre. And let's not even get into what that CHOMP! attack the dragon has would do to flesh and bone.

You're drawing such arbitrary lines. I don't want to bellite your taste. But to me this is the thing that does make dwarves (or non-humans) superhuman - they can literally survive, in your lore, in places where humans can't.

Well, first of all, I do draw a line around combat mechanisms.  That is arbitrary, and it's exactly why Sylvius and I complained a bit about the need to do so at one point, though I doubt Bioware would ever make combat a perfectly natural part of the world.  I think what I'd like would be to have more illusionary magic and rogue ninja-like capabilities so you could operate a bit like special ops, or historical ninja, taking out large numbers of enemies in a way that bypasses the numerical disadvantage.  It'd work for the darkspawn at least, but I'm pessimistic about future games; I'd expect it to be even more of an issue as we get to the mage-templar conflict and the Qunari invasion.  But to get to your substantive point - it's exactly because they're non-human that I'm fine with them being "superhuman," surviving where humans can't.  That was my whole premise (I stated my dislike of superhuman humans, recall), so again I'm not sure why you're objecting.  

[In Exile]

Satyricon331 wrote...
There's no logical basis for excluding either view, so I don't see what your disagreement is.

Precisely that.

They have comparable levels of intelligence and broadly similar emotional complexes, therefore they have only the same modes of thought, even independently of species?  That's a sweeping empirical claim; show me the evidence - particularly as it relates to the specific cognitive issue I was discussing.

Again, you're talking about it in too general terms. We should be talking about things like "insight" and "g", and various other mechanisms. And there's no empirical evidence I can show you - because there's no comparably sapient species to humans out there.

The best we can do are apes or pidegons - and there, we can show that their thought process is nowhere near as alien as people will assume. It's been years, so it'll take time to give links - I have to boot up my old computer and see where my papers are at.

Legend, to describe Garahel, was your word.

Yes, but I'm not using it to mean exageration. I'm using it to mean one-of-a-kind.

Here we don't disagree, except about how we construe the term "superhuman."  I didn't discuss the PC as an average character.  Nobel laureates represent the best in human minds, but I take the word superhuman as just something beyond human abilities, so I don't view them as superhuman.  I'm fine taking the PC as the best her/his race has to offer (and with Duncan running around, it's by selection).  I'm not fine thinking a human PC is capable of something humans aren't remotely capable of at all.

But they aren't. That's the point. Being the best you can offer means exactly tha you can do what most aren't capable of doing at all. That's what it means almost defintionally.

Let's take Lebron as an example. His height, strength, jumping, speed... these are all things that most humans aren't remotely capable of. Or Usain Bolt and his speed. Most of us alive couldn't even come close to that speed. He's not superhuman in the sense that he's Thor, but he's still at a level beyond us.

Well, first of all, I do draw a line around combat mechanisms.  That is arbitrary, and it's exactly why Sylvius and I complained a bit about the need to do so at one point, though I doubt Bioware would ever make combat a perfectly natural part of the world. 

There's no way to do that without completely changing the genre of game. We'd need to do away with HP, and then try to come up with a plausible scenario where a basically invincible fire breathing and flying tank could be killed by a guy with a sword where so much as a flick of its tail could break all of the bones in his or her body.

I think what I'd like would be to have more illusionary magic and rogue ninja-like capabilities so you could operate a bit like special ops, or historical ninja, taking out large numbers of enemies in a way that bypasses the numerical disadvantage. 

You mean poisoning their water so you don't have to fight them, or a 3 on 1 fight meaning almost guaranteed death or crippling injury, and where a single cut by a sword could fester into a deadly wound?

It'd work for the darkspawn at least, but I'm pessimistic about future games; I'd expect it to be even more of an issue as we get to the mage-templar conflict and the Qunari invasion.  But to get to your substantive point - it's exactly because they're non-human that I'm fine with them being "superhuman," surviving where humans can't.  That was my whole premise (I stated my dislike of superhuman humans, recall), so again I'm not sure why you're objecting. 

I'm objecting to the idea that pretending like non-humans are a series of ubermensch is somehow a solution to not liking humans for being superhuman. In DA:O dwarves are midgets with beards who would then be superhuman, and elves are shorter humans with pointy ears who are also superhuman.

If we suddenly took a page out of a RPG, and started calling all humans something else, like "Theodosians", but they looked human, could you suddenly pretend they could make vitamin D undeground? These are all arbitrary lines. What I'm trying to get at is that I just don't understand how your stance makes sense, from your own POV.

[Satyricon331]

In Exile wrote...
Precisely that.

If you think the game has such information, you could have saved a lot of time by sharing it rather than hiding it for so long.

And there's no empirical evidence I can show you - because there's no comparably sapient species to humans out there.

In other words, you overreached the scope of claims you can support.

But they aren't. That's the point. Being the best you can offer means exactly tha you can do what most aren't capable of doing at all. That's what it means almost defintionally.

Let's take Lebron as an example. His height, strength, jumping, speed... these are all things that most humans aren't remotely capable of. Or Usain Bolt and his speed. Most of us alive couldn't even come close to that speed. He's not superhuman in the sense that he's Thor, but he's still at a level beyond us.

For that first sentence, what aren't what?  But your entire passage here (except perhaps those first two sentences) doesn't contradict anything I've said.  The third sentence is obvious; the fourth is a rhetorical flourish; the following paragraph is again obvious.  I mean, you're going on in this sub-thread but haven't established a point of disagreement here. 

You mean poisoning their water so you don't have to fight them, or a 3 on 1 fight meaning almost guaranteed death or crippling injury, and where a single cut by a sword could fester into a deadly wound?

If I had any expectation you'd do something other than disagree just for the sake of disagreeing, I'd unpack it a bit.

I'm objecting to the idea that pretending like non-humans are a series of ubermensch is somehow a solution to not liking humans for being superhuman. In DA:O dwarves are midgets with beards who would then be superhuman, and elves are shorter humans with pointy ears who are also superhuman.

If we suddenly took a page out of a RPG, and started calling all humans something else, like "Theodosians", but they looked human, could you suddenly pretend they could make vitamin D undeground? These are all arbitrary lines. What I'm trying to get at is that I just don't understand how your stance makes sense, from your own POV.

What's far more arbitrary is taking humans and pretending they're capable of just anything.  It's surprising (well, maybe that's not the right word - this is the internet) to me that you'd say you care about arbitrariness and then turn around and say some humans don't need vitamin D.  Having a human-like species by another name would be better than what's there (though it wouldn't be great since it'd be observationally indistinct from having humans that just use a different word for "human," which would leave the same problem as before), but I'm fine thinking non-humans have broader distributions for some traits, or lack some traits and have others that humans don;t.  My view is simply that human capabilities don't define the space of all possible capabilities for species (I'd think that's obvious), and where the game mandates the PC depart from human capabilities, I'd rather have the PC who does so be non-human.  I'm mitigating arbitrariness, as I see it - I don't think it's avoidable altogether, but since you evidently do I'd like to hear how you avoid altogether the arbitrariness of humans capable of non-human feats.

[In Exile]

Satyricon331 wrote...
If you think the game has such information, you could have saved a lot of time by sharing it rather than hiding it for so long.

No, my basis for disagreement is that two logically possible outcomes means that it should lie with the player to pick between them. I don't think the game world itself should vary based on the whims of the player. My disagreement with you here is on whether or not you are entitled to draw such inferences from the absence of evidence.

In other words, you overreached the scope of claims you can support.

What? No. I'm saying you're begging the question. You're asking for empirical evidence of a phenomenon that does not exist. All that we have are conjectures based on what we know about human cognition, and that's that any cognition that's "like ours" is uniquely related to a series of complex cognitive mechanics.

There's absolutely no basis for the suggestion that you can have an entity with identical capacities - in terms of emotional scope and intelligence - and yet have them differ radically on one trait.

I might as well say that we can postulate that an AI would lack sapience because it's computational power is would be so high that the very necessary precondition for consciouness would be negated. Which is a defensible thesis in theory, and also meaningless in practice.

For that first sentence, what aren't what?

Your statemement was: "I'm not fine thinking a human PC is capable of something humans aren't remotely capable of at all."

A human PC is capable of something humans aren't remotely capable of - that's the very source of their mental, or magical, or physical talent: 99.99th percentile stuff. If you accept a setting that has people literally shoot fire from their hands, then starting to talk about biochemistry seems to be creating a pointless dillema.

So as I expand on below, my comments here relate to superhuman in the superhuman feat sense that the PC engages in. If you think of superhuman as in non-human scientifically speaking, well, that misses the entire point of the fantasy genre (and this type of fiction as a whole, which doesn't pretend to be scientifically accurate).

But your entire passage here (except perhaps those first two sentences) doesn't contradict anything I've said.

You started with the presumption that the feats of the player were somehow overstated (cf. comments about the high dragon's prowess being overstated by stories) so as to make the player's level of ability not so different from the mean. But the game, and setting, don't support that.

The third sentence is obvious; 

Not so obvious, apparently, since we're having this debate.

I mean, you're going on in this sub-thread but haven't established a point of disagreement here. 

I thought I made it quite clear: I don't think your justification for non-human characters is (a) justified; and ( logically coherent, because you're making them into exactly what you ostensibly loathe: superhumans.

What's far more arbitrary is taking humans and pretending they're capable of just anything.

That's the very nature of this media. We ignore medicine, physics; we introduce fantastical elements like magic. Humans are capable of superhuman feats by definitionally in this setting.

It's surprising (well, maybe that's not the right word - this is the internet) to me that you'd say you care about arbitrariness and then turn around and say some humans don't need vitamin D.

I didn't say that. First of all, the vitamin D point wasn't even something I had in mind until you brought it up; before that, I was under the impression we were using superhuman in the sense that it's always used: to denote a level of ability far beyond that of a 'regular' human, e.g. Charles Atlas superpowers (to quote TV tropes).

Beyond that, I only said that you invented this problem: that "vitamin D" is even a sensible concept in the setting of DA:O and something which requires us to create non-human ubermensch to solve. It's a problem that isn't needed, to which you've created a solution that is absurd and contradicts the very established setting, which is that humans have absolutely no problem surviving in the Deep Roads.

Having a human-like species by another name would be better than what's there (though it wouldn't be great since it'd be observationally indistinct from having humans that just use a different word for "human," which would leave the same problem as before), but I'm fine thinking non-humans have broader distributions for some traits, or lack some traits and have others that humans don;t.

That point was rhetorical flourish; or more specifically it was meant to be an absurd statement to illustrate the absurdity of your position. You are, quite honestly, telling me that having something with pointy ears that looks like you or me and calling it "elf" means that somehow it can be an ubermensch and it no longer feels like the game is populated with superhumans?

My view is simply that human capabilities don't define the space of all possible capabilities for species (I'd think that's obvious), and where the game mandates the PC depart from human capabilities, I'd rather have the PC who does so be non-human.  I'm mitigating arbitrariness, as I see it - I don't think it's avoidable altogether, but since you evidently do I'd like to hear how you avoid altogether the arbitrariness of humans capable of non-human feats.

Well, I would like the setting to be internally consistent. Since your solution is to contract the lore by creating non-human races of genetically (so to speak; genetics is obviously not a real thing in Thedas, as far as we know) races, that's problematic in and of itself. Not to mention that how you actually deal with the game itself is absurd: I can freeze Cautherin, set her on fire, electrocute her, paralyze her, crush her bones, repeatedly shot arrows through her, and yet she will not die. This is not a human being.

Yet somehow you treat this gameplay mechanism as not being indicative of the true state of the world, but feel that some artificial problem like vitamin D in the deep roads, which is not a problem even recognized by the setting, is a problem, and create a solution that requires postulating that entire races are superhuman.

Because there's no other solution here, following on your point. Either dwarves or elves are, as a race, superhuman, or there is something even more absurd going on by making your PC biochemically unique.

Modifié par In Exile, 08 janvier 2013 - 09:42 .

[Satyricon331]

In Exile wrote...
No, my basis for disagreement is that two logically possible outcomes means that it should lie with the player to pick between them. I don't think the game world itself should vary based on the whims of the player. My disagreement with you here is on whether or not you are entitled to draw such inferences from the absence of evidence.

Well, you're making normative assertions here, but you don't have a normative argument.  Really, if you have a problem there you need to make the argument already.  

What? No. I'm saying you're begging the question. You're asking for empirical evidence of a phenomenon that does not exist. All that we have are conjectures based on what we know about human cognition, and that's that any cognition that's "like ours" is uniquely related to a series of complex cognitive mechanics. 

There's absolutely no basis for the suggestion that you can have an entity with identical capacities - in terms of emotional scope and intelligence - and yet have them differ radically on one trait.

I might as well say that we can postulate that an AI would lack sapience because it's computational power is would be so high that the very necessary precondition for consciouness would be negated. Which is a defensible thesis in theory, and also meaningless in practice.

This is really an objection that ties into your normative issue above.  I'll agree that if players ought not to fill in issues the game leaves open per their own preference, then even though the game offers no logical basis for deducing the matter, there may be some "true" answer about what the non-humans' cognition is like out there in some normative Platonic realm of games.  But you have a long way to go before you've established that point.  And frankly, you should have saved the time by just cutting to the chase.

If you accept a setting that has people literally shoot fire from their hands, then starting to talk about biochemistry seems to be creating a pointless dillema.

That's just the old idea that once you accept magic, anything should go.  My own preference is, outside the black-box of magic, to minimize the differences in physics etc. so the world operates in a recognizable way, and for other perks - though I guess that's neither here nor there since, again, that would hinge on whether I should construe the game in ways I prefer, which this hypothetical normative argument you may offer at some point would have to address.
 

Your statemement was: "I'm not fine thinking a human PC is capable of something humans aren't remotely capable of at all." A human PC is capable of something humans aren't remotely capable of - that's the very source of their mental, or magical, or physical talent: 99.99th percentile stuff. [...] You started with the presumption that the feats of the player were somehow overstated (cf. comments about the high dragon's prowess being overstated by stories) so as to make the player's level of ability not so different from the mean. But the game, and setting, don't support that.

Not from the mean - I never mentioned mean or average (I pointed this out before).  As I said, I'm fine thinking the PC is like the Nobel laureates (or Lebron James) of its race.  I'm concerned where that upper bound is rather than the mean.

I thought I made it quite clear: I don't think your justification for non-human characters is (a) justified; and ( logically coherent, because you're making them into exactly what you ostensibly loathe: superhumans.

If you mean justified in the lore, I agree, but I don't think the lore is dispositive either way.  You seem to think it isn't but I "ought" to pretend as if it were, but you haven't presented any explanation why - again it hinges on this normative argument you've yet to offer.  And, for the third time, it was superhuman humans that bother me.

What's far more arbitrary is taking humans and pretending they're capable of just anything.

That's the very nature of this media. We ignore medicine, physics; we introduce fantastical elements like magic. Humans are capable of superhuman feats by definitionally in this setting. [..] First of all, the vitamin D point wasn't even something I had in mind until you brought it up; before that, I was under the impression we were using superhuman in the sense that it's always used: to denote a level of ability far beyond that of a 'regular' human, e.g. Charles Atlas superpowers (to quote TV tropes). 

Beyond that, I only said that you invented this problem: that "vitamin D" is even a sensible concept in the setting of DA:O and something which requires us to create non-human ubermensch to solve. It's a problem that isn't needed, to which you've created a solution that is absurd and contradicts the very established setting, which is that humans have absolutely no problem surviving in the Deep Roads.

Look, saying humans are capable of things that humans aren't capable of is arbitrary, and I prefer to mitigate the arbitrariness.  You seem to embrace it, and then turn around and complain I haven't eliminated arbitrariness altogether.  Further, you keep saying my approach is "absurd" and "contradictory" - show me the A-and-not-A contradiction already.  You've gone on and on asserting that point repeatedly as if I'm supposed to just take your word for it.  (And as for superhuman, I don't see why you'd operate under that impression when I already pointed out that we were using the word differently - and I'll point out that while Merriam-Webster has both our definitions, mine's the first, which implies it's more common,)  And no, I don't think not needing vitamin D or sunlight generally makes you an ubermensch.  It's that extrapolation that's absurd.

Well, I would like the setting to be internally consistent. Since your solution is to contract the lore by creating non-human races of genetically (so to speak; genetics is obviously not a real thing in Thedas, as far as we know) races, that's problematic in and of itself. Not to mention that how you actually deal with the game itself is absurd: I can freeze Cautherin, set her on fire, electrocute her, paralyze her, crush her bones, repeatedly shot arrows through her, and yet she will not die. This is not a human being.

Yet somehow you treat this gameplay mechanism as not being indicative of the true state of the world, but feel that some artificial problem like vitamin D in the deep roads, which is not a problem even recognized by the setting, is a problem, and create a solution that requires postulating that entire races are superhuman.

Because there's no other solution here, following on your point. Either dwarves or elves are, as a race, superhuman, or there is something even more absurd going on by making your PC biochemically unique.

Again, since you seem to think that you have a way of eliminating arbitrariness, show me how you do better, and then explain why I should care via that normative argument you've yet to develop above.  I think that taking humans and making them all ubermensch is more arbitrary than taking non-humans (who don't have human standards to begin with) and making them ubermensch; you're only real objection so far is that the lore doesn't explicitly support it (and I suppose, that you prefer integrating combat gameplay into racial capabilities, which leaves you the problem of the Murder Knife.)  So, it looks like it'll hinge on that normative argument.  (Anyway, this is my last one for tonight.  I'll pick it up tomorrow.)

[AstraDrakkar]

Having a human only protagonist is very disappointing, but not deal breaking for me. I usually played DAO as a human, but once it started to get dull I changed to an elven protagonist and it let me see things from a different perspective. I feel having a human only protagonist will limit my options (no matter what Bioware promises), therefore making DA3 a shorter lived game.

Maybe I'm wrong and Bioware will find a way to give me all those "options that count" as they have promised, but I'm skeptical.

[schnln01]

I am very disappointed that the protagonist is human only. I'm a human all day, every day, so I prefer the option to choose to be something else in games. It isn't a deal-breaker for Dragon Age 3, but if Dragon Age 4 and beyond are going to continue the human only trend then it may be time for me and the series to part ways.

[ScotGaymer]

I am dissapointed by this.

I prefer to play as an Elf where possible. Or SpaceElves when I can lol.

It isn't a deal breaker, but it does compound my "not going to preorder and wait till post release reviews before purchase" decision.

[Lindum]

I am also, very disappointed that we will be restricted to being a human again in Dragon Age Three.

The decison to use a human protagonist, has lowered my expections greatly and has heighten my fears that Dragon Age Three's protagonist will be utilised for future Dragon Age games.

Hopefully, my fears are unfounded and racial choice will be included in Dragon Age Four. Because the option to select your race in Dragon Age Origins helped add depth to the game and gave the player a choice before one actually started playing the game.

[LinksOcarina]

It seems like people are upset more about the restrictions over the fact that its a human only character.

Interesting observation methinks...

[Fast Jimmy]

LinksOcarina wrote...

It seems like people are upset more about the restrictions over the fact that its a human only character.

Interesting observation methinks...

I agree. If the announcement was that we would have four different nationalities, Ferelden, Free Martian, Orlesian or Tevinter (with the side note that we would be all human), this would likely be met with lots of excitement. 

The fact that all we know is that we are human with scant information of these "backgrounds" just means less choice than what was offered in previous games. I don't think it's anti-human sentiment. It's pro-choice sentiment. 



Errr... in the most non-RL-way possible. 

[LinksOcarina]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

It seems like people are upset more about the restrictions over the fact that its a human only character.

Interesting observation methinks...

I agree. If the announcement was that we would have four different nationalities, Ferelden, Free Martian, Orlesian or Tevinter (with the side note that we would be all human), this would likely be met with lots of excitement. 

The fact that all we know is that we are human with scant information of these "backgrounds" just means less choice than what was offered in previous games. I don't think it's anti-human sentiment. It's pro-choice sentiment. 

Errr... in the most non-RL-way possible. 

I am curious, did you play the Dragon Age Table Top? Or even older, the Warhammer tabletop RPG 

[Fast Jimmy]

I did not.

[LinksOcarina]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I did not.

Well, both, of course, had limited options regarding character creation because there were only limited amounts of races you can play.

But both compensated by creating a career/background system that allowed for advancement as well, and it honestly works a LOT better than the rigid system's we normally see in Dungeons and Dragons.

For example, in the 2nd edition of the Warhammer Tabletop (not the Fantasy Flight version, which is crap) you can only be humans, elves, dwarves or halflings, but you had 60 different careers to choose from which range the gamut from wizard apprentice, warpriest, scout, hunter, charcolburner, farmer, bonepicker, and guardsman. Half of the classes weren't even combat based, they were essentially unskilled laborers.

In Dragon Age, the first book had I think only seven backgrounds, while the second book had an additional 15, and added Qunari. It was things like Avvar hillsman, Rivaini Trader, Orleasian Explorer, Tal-Vashoth Warrior, Surface Dwarf or Castless Dwarf, etc.

So there is a lot of potential for backgrounds, even as specific as what you did before, to give variety to skills and whatnot. It just depends on how many and what their implementation is, but it is not exactly restrictive unless they have specific guidelines like D&D that you follow, I.E only a Rivaini Trader can be a rogue or something. 

[In Exile]

[quote]Satyricon331 wrote...
Well, you're making normative assertions here, but you don't have a normative argument.  Really, if you have a problem there you need to make the argument already. [/quote]

I'm not making an argument. I stated a preference, to which you seemed to object to.

[quote]This is really an objection that ties into your normative issue above. [/quote]

No, it isn't. And your stating it this way does not make it so.

[quote] I'll agree that if players ought not to fill in issues the game leaves open per their own preference, then even though the game offers no logical basis for deducing the matter, there may be some "true" answer about what the non-humans' cognition is like out there in some normative Platonic realm of games. [/quote]

If you want to start from the pressuposition that anything approaching what we consider scientific is a basis for rationally justified inferences in the DA setting, then you have to concede that your understanding of these entities is what we have IRL. And once you do that, your position is indefensible. It is no different than your absurd vitam D point. If you want to take a biochemical fact about humans as being somehow binding on the DA lore, then you can't invent biochemical properties - you have to take the behaviour of vitamin D as is. This is the very nature of your objection - biochemical processes must operate the same.

Let's unpact this point. Humans can produce vitamin D from cholesterol, when exposure to the 'sun' is adequate. But the 'sun' is not a mystical entity. It has a set of radiation spectra that induce the body to produce this sort of biochemical compound. So presumably your supposition is that non-humans have different cues. And maybe you could justify this with the dwarves, but then this requires you either supposing that they originated above ground or that they are entirely separate from the other humanoid races and evolved covergenty to look like them and cross breed. Which is a point so absurd that it violates all we know about evolution.

But let's suppose your theory doesn't competely violate this law of nature. It has another problem. Why should either elves or qunari share this biochemical mechanism with qunari? They evolved above ground, in the sunlight.

More importantly, humans can acquire vitamin D entirely from their diet and survive. This is atypical in practice, and to be honest I am not familiar with what the long-term health consequences of doing so are. I believe there are concerns about cardiac conditions. But that point is notwithstanding - what is relevant here is that not only are you wrong about the biochemical mechanis, and not only have you invented a problem that is not even an IRL problem, but you are doing it in such a way that contradicts the lore.

So it seems that if you want to take a rule that approaches a law of nature in science, and then postulate that it applies to the DA setting, you can't turn around and say that because we call this entity "elf" or "dwarf" that suddenly the rule ceases to apply to them as if they have some magical property tht says "STOP!" on it is absurd, and arbitrary.

[quote]But you have a long way to go before you've established that point.  And frankly, you should have saved the time by just cutting to the chase. [/quote]

There is no normative argument to make. It flows fromy our premise that any a law of nature here is a law of nature in the DA setting.

[quote]That's just the old idea that once you accept magic, anything should go.  [/quote]

No, it isn't. It is the claim that if you wish to postulate that laws of nature which directly contradict the lore are part of it, then you have a conceptual problem because magic itself contradicts our laws of nature. So you have to provide some defence of why it is that the laws of nature are on hold for magic, but are not on-hold for another established feature of the setting.

So far, your justification is that it suits your taste. But justifying something on the basis of how much you like it is the very essence of what makes it arbitrary.

[quote] My own preference is, outside the black-box of magic, to minimize the differences in physics etc. so the world operates in a recognizable way, [/quote]

As I said: you don't follow through on this. Part of it seems to derive from your ignorance about cognition. But that is neither here nor there.

There is no justification to assume that elves, dwarves and qunari are biochemically unique when compared with wolves, dogs and humans, especially when the lore indicates the contrary conclusion. Humans can survive in the Deep Roads indeterminately, as much as dwarves or any other race can. This is an established feature of the setting. So your assumption - that established features of the setting are somehow 'superhuman' - is nonsensical.

It's why I bring up magic as a counter-point: because this is a core feature of the setting which grants superhuman powers. Yet you seem to accept this willingly. But somehow want to draw a line at other features of the setting which, firstly, contradict your views by necessary implication, and secondly, require that you suspend the laws of nature without justification beyond "I like it that way".

[quote]and for other perks - though I guess that's neither here nor there since, again, that would hinge on whether I should construe the game in ways I prefer, which this hypothetical normative argument you may offer at some point would have to address. [/quote]

As I said: you can do whatever you want on the basis of your arbitrary preference. I simply said that I do not think a game should be designed that way, and I do not think that players are justified for making those inferences (for the same reasons, if you must know, why I don't think that people are justified in making inferences from the absence of evidence IRL).

[quote]Not from the mean - I never mentioned mean or average (I pointed this out before).  As I said, I'm fine thinking the PC is like the Nobel laureates (or Lebron James) of its race.  I'm concerned where that upper bound is rather than the mean.  [/quote]

This isn't about an upper bound when you talk about biochemistry. This is about you creating a class of traits between races that differs in kind (biochemistry) without in-game justificationf or it, indeed with evidence contradicting this, for the reason that... you think it's more consistent with the rules of nature, when nonetheless you bound those rules and don't consider the necessary implications of them in-game.

[quote]If you mean justified in the lore, I agree, but I don't think the lore is dispositive either way.  You seem to think it isn't but I "ought" to pretend as if it were, but you haven't presented any explanation why - again it hinges on this normative argument you've yet to offer.  And, for the third time, it was superhuman humans that bother me. [/quote]

The problem, again, is one that you've created. As the scene with Duncan and the other GWs illustrates, as DA2 shows, there is no physiological limit to humans surviving in the Deep Roads. If you want to play the psuedo science game, we can just pressupose that the lyrium veins that exist throughout the deep roads radiate the same kind of UV radiation that  is necessary to stimulate the natural production of vitamin D by humans, and that this is how all species survive in the Deep Roads.

But this is all jargon, becuase this is (a) not a problem that is a live on in the setting and ( presupposes your own unfamiliarity with biochemistry.

[quote]Look, saying humans are capable of things that humans aren't capable of is arbitrary, and I prefer to mitigate the arbitrariness.   [/quote]

You keep repeating this point as if it had meaning. It does not. Some humans are capable of feats, on a spectrum, that most are not.

[quote]You seem to embrace it, and then turn around and complain I haven't eliminated arbitrariness altogether.  [/quote]

No, I don't. But I don't consider species some amorphous whole were if a feat is possible at some level of performance by the 99th percentile it is sudddenly a feat that is "possible" for the 40th percentile. You seem to make this assumption.

[quote]Further, you keep saying my approach is "absurd" and "contradictory" - show me the A-and-not-A contradiction already.  You've gone on and on asserting that point repeatedly as if I'm supposed to just take your word for it.  (And as for superhuman, I don't see why you'd operate under that impression when I already pointed out that we were using the word differently - and I'll point out that while Merriam-Webster has both our definitions, mine's the first, which implies it's more common,)  [/quote]

Consider this post, with it's somewhat simplistic overview of evolutionary biology and the biochemistry behind vitamin D production (where you can just suppose, for example, that the dwarves give you provisions that are rich in vitamin D so that you can obtain it all from your diet) a rejection of your absurd and psuedoscientific position.

[quote]And no, I don't think not needing vitamin D or sunlight generally makes you an ubermensch.  It's that extrapolation that's absurd.  [/quote]

Given that you speak of "superhuman" feats, and of non-humans being capable of them, the only conclusion to draw is that this is what they are. So far, your assumption is that dwarves are capable of surviving in places where humans are not.

[quote]Again, since you seem to think that you have a way of eliminating arbitrariness, show me how you do better, and then explain why I should care via that normative argument you've yet to develop above. [/quote]

You keep using this retort as if it has meaning - I don't need a normative argument when your view is inconsistent, per the above.

[quote]I think that taking humans and making them all ubermensch is more arbitrary than taking non-humans (who don't have human standards to begin with) and making them ubermensch;  [/quote]

If you presuppose that the laws of nature apply, then you are forcibly making them super human. You suppose, for example, that somehow their biochemistry is unique because... what? It certainly isn't justified by evolutionary theory, if we suppose that such a thing even exists in Thedas.

[quote]you're only real objection so far is that the lore doesn't explicitly support it (and I suppose, that you prefer integrating combat gameplay into racial capabilities, which leaves you the problem of the Murder Knife.)  So, it looks like it'll hinge on that normative argument.  (Anyway, this is my last one for tonight.  I'll pick it up tomorrow.)[/quote]

I don't know where your bracketed point comes from. I certainly don't have any problem with gameplay/story segregation. But you have to, by necessary implication, since you make such a big deal about superhuman feats.

And the gameplay as a whole is nothing but an endless series of superhuman feats, where the victory of the characters is possible largely because of what the gameplay allows. A Warden can solo the high dragon because the game does not allow it to pick you up and drop you from 500 feet down to your death.

Modifié par In Exile, 08 janvier 2013 - 08:20 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Interesting.

I would be very excited about a system like that. And I like Bioware's concept of keeping quiet about development until they have something concrete to show us.

That being said, it only leaves things open for the (seemingly) negative news to be out there now, with the rest "under wraps." Which is unfortunate.

[LinksOcarina]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Interesting.

I would be very excited about a system like that. And I like Bioware's concept of keeping quiet about development until they have something concrete to show us.

That being said, it only leaves things open for the (seemingly) negative news to be out there now, with the rest "under wraps." Which is unfortunate.

It's bound to happen. Just rise above it becuase its a guilty until proven innocent style mentality.

Which is a shame because it shouldn't be like that. 

[Fast Jimmy]

It is a shame.

The cynic in me says that mindset wasn't there until DA2 (and then reinforced with ME3), but that's hardly productive.

[Goatmanwashere]

I'm not the least bit disappointed. I mainly play as a human anyway if I get to choose (not that I would've minded if we were forced to play Elf, Dwarf, Qunari or Fex), and if Bioware thinks this is the best decision, then I will support it, since they have far more experience when it comes to game development and better know what they want to do.
It also makes it easier to have a voiced character, which I prefer to having multiple different races who might demand more voice actors.

[LinksOcarina]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

It is a shame.

The cynic in me says that mindset wasn't there until DA2 (and then reinforced with ME3), but that's hardly productive.

That mindset is always there. The problem is people notice it now because...well I don't know honestly.

But it was there ten years ago. It will be here now. 

[Satyricon331]

In Exile wrote...
I'm not making an argument. I stated a preference, to which you seemed to object to.

No, I stated a preference, and you objected to it ("I've always disagreed with this stance on games").  I'm not the one making the objections - I'm happy with people playing in ways that suits them.  Since you object to at least some of those playstyles, the onus is on you

No, it isn't. And your stating it this way does not make it so.

We need to review this parto f the exchange.  I noted that elves and dwarves seemed broadly similar to humans in intelligence and emotions, but there wasn't anything in the game that established they have all the exact same departures from full rationality.  You then replied that having broadly similar intelligence and emotions mandated they do have just those same departures, which isn't a logical necessity and isn't a normative argument, so it seemed to me to be an empirical claim, but you didn't have any evidence and declared that viewing as empirical was "question-begging" and all that we had was conjecture based on human cognition, and then tried to shift the burden onto the skeptic.  Your idea that conjecture is dispositive is illogical, but I've been giving you repeated chances to salvage this point into something.  In any event, if it's not establishing a logical necessity, you do need to supplement it with an argument supporting your earlier "oughts" and "shoulds" - as in why I ought to conform to your conjectures there.

[...]So it seems that if you want to take a rule that
approaches a law of nature in science, and then postulate that it applies to
the DA setting, you can't turn around and say that because we call this entity
"elf" or "dwarf" that suddenly the rule ceases to apply to
them as if they have some magical property tht says "STOP!" on it is
absurd, and arbitrary.[...]

I appreciate your presenting an argument here.  For one thing, I didn't know you could survive on dietary vitamin D exclusively, and I'm glad to learn that, and it does change that deep roads issue.  But I don't have this premise that any law of nature here is a law of nature in the DA setting - I'm willing to drop one when there's a direct contradiction to an important lore point; see below.  And just to repeat a point you avoided, I see this process as mitigating arbitrariness - so no, it's not wholly to my taste, though even if it were I don't see the problem.  Also, I never claimed to have eliminated arbitrariness so several of your points aren't telling me anything I didn't already know.  

First, on this elves and dwarves point you have, this is exactly the issue above - you're conjecturing from humans that they must have the same vD requirements and storage limitations.  That doesn't logically follow, so barring empirical evidence it's an open logical possibility.  Perhaps the space of empirical options is narrower for all organisms than you'd think ex ante, and if so I'd change, but saying that sometimes there's science out there that I'm unfamiliar with doesn't entail these claims of yours that it's "absurd" or "pseudoscience" or a "contradiction."  

It is the claim that if you wish to postulate that laws of nature which directly contradict the lore are part of it, then you have a conceptual problem because magic itself contradicts our laws of nature. So you have to provide some defence of why it is that the laws of nature are on hold for magic, but are not on-hold for another established feature of the setting.

Earlier you mentioned internal coherence; I see a tradeoff between internal and "external" coherence created by having creatures they want us to view as human, and I prefer mitigating the external incoherence as much as I can get away with.  I don't see how I could get away with it with magic.  If you just ignore external coherence, then sure, there's no tradeoff, and the optimand is just to take DA humans as much ubermensch relative to terrestrial ones as anything in the game might suggest.  I think that's still arbitrary since the DA humans aren't human - it's partly analogous to taking the color blue in the DA world and having all the characters systematically term it "green," and I find it somewhat similarly annoying.  If they were to do that, I'd imagine there'd be people on BSN discussing some "green" armor as blue, or thinking of it that way, and yeah, it creates problems when dealing with the game relative to, say, training yourself to think of blue as green, but that's not a reason not to do it.

There is no justification to assume that elves, dwarves and qunari are biochemically unique when compared with wolves, dogs and humans, especially when the lore indicates the contrary conclusion. Humans can survive in the Deep Roads indeterminately, as much as dwarves or any other race can. This is an established feature of the setting. So your assumption - that established features of the setting are somehow 'superhuman' - is nonsensical. 

The lore implies biochemical non-uniqueness, sure, but it's insufficient to yield a logical deduction establishing it.  So again, we're left with why this conjecture should be dispositive.

This isn't about an upper bound when you talk about biochemistry. This is about you creating a class of traits between races that differs in kind (biochemistry) without in-game justificationf or it, indeed with evidence contradicting this, for the reason that... you think it's more consistent with the rules of nature, when nonetheless you bound those rules and don't consider the necessary implications of them in-game. [...] You keep repeating this point as if it had meaning. It does not. Some humans are capable of feats, on a spectrum, that most are not.

In upper bounds, I was relating back to the earlier points about cognitive and physical feats.  That's what the Lebron James/Nobel laureates thread was discussing.  There is an upper bound there, and again, I've never said anything that the idea that points like "Some humans are capable of feats, on a spectrum, that most are not" would contradict.

But I don't consider species some amorphous whole were if a feat is possible at some level of performance by the 99th percentile it is sudddenly a feat that is "possible" for the 40th percentile. You seem to make this assumption.

Nope.  This is all flatly wrong.  I don't care about the 40th percentile - as I indicated several times by now.

Consider this post, with it's somewhat simplistic overview of evolutionary biology and the biochemistry behind vitamin D production (where you can just suppose, for example, that the dwarves give you provisions that are rich in vitamin D so that you can obtain it all from your diet) a rejection of your absurd and psuedoscientific position.

That's not pseudoscience - I never purported to be doing procedures that produce empirical truth.  You throw these words around as though you have no idea what they mean.

I don't know where your bracketed point comes from. I certainly don't have any problem with gameplay/story segregation.

Well, you purported to care about arbitrariness and discussed internal coherence.

As I said: you can do whatever you want on the basis of your arbitrary preference. I simply said that I do not think a game should be designed that way, and I do not think that players are justified for making those inferences (for the same reasons, if you must know, why I don't think that people are justified in making inferences from the absence of evidence IRL).

I left this one for last because I find it baffling.  If you agree I can do what I want on the basis of my preference, what have you been going on about (and see the first point above)?  What were those earlier normative assertions (those "oughts" and "shoulds")?  You never mentioned anything about how they "should" design the game.  What inferences?  

[Fast Jimmy]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

It is a shame.

The cynic in me says that mindset wasn't there until DA2 (and then reinforced with ME3), but that's hardly productive.

That mindset is always there. The problem is people notice it now because...well I don't know honestly.

But it was there ten years ago. It will be here now. 

I don't know. I remember being excited and hopeful for the future of gaming. Now it seems as if the envelope is too expensive to push anymore, or that there is too much risk involved to offer choices or more reactivity. Not that this is entirely tied to the conversation at hand, but it's just an impression.