5 réponses à ce sujet

[Todd23]

In Dragon Age, all of your protagonists had to be completely remorseless and not care if anyone dies. Except for Hawke when it came to his immediate family. As a matter of fact, no one seemed to care about death save for Talisand Leliana. I was wondering if this time we can at least care if we kill someone. Rather than hear one of our companions say something about "keeping score".

[Allan Schumacher]

We are exploring ways to allow the player to better react in a variety of ways to big events.

Has the fallback of ultimately "You can only select these reactions at the times that we allow you to" with the benefit of "At least for these choices, you're given a bit more flexibility in how you react."

Not a perfect solution, and still being investigated, but it is something that I think is a good thing to investigate.

[Allan Schumacher]

There may have been a tech limitation on crying with Eclipse. Does it happen anywhere? I can't recall any scenes in DAO or DA2....

[Allan Schumacher]

As is language and communication in general.

[Allan Schumacher]

I don't think communication exists

Bollocks. You're communicating right now.

Since you're a fan of formal definitions, you can find some here: http://en.wikipedia....i/Communication and http://www.merriam-w...y/communication

Those even use only words, so I am comfortable in trusting that you should have a reasonably high degree of confidence that they are less ambiguous and an accurate definition of the word, communication.


What you've done is created a model of what you think communication is. What I think I see, however, is a belief that your model is accurate because it's what you created, and you demonstrate the typical human quality of assuming that because you logically deduced it, it must be true (since otherwise there's cognitive dissonance, something the brain isn't too fond of and tries to reconcile by either excluding perspectives that do not align as being somehow incorrect or not applicable, or shifting one's own perspectives to be in alignment with the new set of information).

Communication, which as defined is an expression of information, messages, or thoughts by means of speech, visuals, writing, signals, or behaviour, is a function of each of those elements. One could even argue that it is gestalt; it's greater than the sum of its parts.

When communicating, it's the sum of all the speech, visuals, writing, signals, and behaviour that are present. Using only words means that the other aspects of communication have been omitted, but not that they are irrelevant. They provide additional information and context which may be essential to understanding the message being expressed. Depending on the message being expressed, they may not.

Using only words does not remove ambiguity. As with all communication, ambiguity only exists since the speaker and the listener are two different people. With full understanding of myself, I never find the things that I write ambiguous. Especially not as I write them. That doesn't mean that everyone else will understand the message I am expressing.

There's the obvious barriers: language. If I don't understand the language, the words expressed to me are meaningless. However, based just on experience, I have successfully communicated to people despite not understanding the language (I have a funny story about being in a hospital in Punta Cana). Clearly communication doesn't require words. Therefore, it must be possible to communicate without words.

There's also cultural nomenclatures. Colloquialisms that exist in one part of the world, but not the other, despite the same use of the language. These may even evolve within the same culture. Say "humbug" now in the UK, and you get a different reaction than you did a couple centuries ago. Sometimes the same word can mean different things depending on time and location. There's one famous curse word that has a plethora of applications.


When people try to be as unambiguous as possible with their words, it rarely comes across as natural. You'll tend to see this sort of stuff in legalese in binding contracts and so forth. The attempt to remove ambiguity is essential to making sure the terms of the contract are clear for all parties, and perhaps more importantly, in the court of law. This ambiguity is not guaranteed, however, and often requires more than a single person to contribute to it in order for it to be done so.

Even if one has an infallible trust in the ability for men to communicate in unambiguous ways using only words, reality doesn't reflect that. In this point, it simply becomes a logic experiment that contemplates a model that is not an accurate representation of reality. This can be useful sometimes (physical sciences always create models to help simplify situations for ease of understanding - friction was rarely something considered in my Physics classes, but it always exists in reality).


Words in communication have always been imprecise. For example: "I think the movie Pearl Harbour was fantastic" If I give you only one chance to describe what I am trying to express with that sentence, can you be absolutely certain that you'll be correct and that there isn't some other message I am trying to express?

[Allan Schumacher]

Though, I suppose I can find applicability there. Language, like mathematics, is a theoretical construct. It has the potential for a complete lack of ambiguity, and perfect precision. As such, failing to use it in that way is a choice, not a requirement.

Language is not a theoretical construct. It's simply a means of conveying messages. The only difference verbal words have compared to body language is that they are more consciously driven. And we already know the level of assurances mankind has in something when he feels he's in total control (which he is moreso with spoken words, than with unspoken body language).

Mathematics is universal, language is not. The only way the number 2 stops meaning 2 in mathematics is because we've redefined what 2 means in our language. Mathematics itself is unaffected. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Body language can be used unambiguously as well (sign language). We just don't because we consider vocalization to be our primary form of communicating. The thing is, verbal communication suffers from the same unconscious ambiguities that exist in body language, since when we speak we don't just use words, but also our voice. Two different people saying the exact same thing, with even the exact same inflections in their voice, can communicate different things to an inherently flawed observer (another human being).

Words become less ambiguous when they are written; even more so when they are typed. Though the only way for them to be truly unambiguous is if the reader were devoid of any sort of bias. This is impossible in a universal sense.


I also disagree that it's a choice for us to not use language as precisely as you wish it could be. Much of what we perceive isn't consciously noticed, but that doesn't mean that it isn't perceived by our senses. I'm not choosing to ignore that I feel a chair pressed against my bum and my back. People don't even have absolute control over their conscious thoughts (as much as we like to think we do, and as much as the thought that we don't scares us).

Furthermore, the only way to truly remove body language as a way of communicating is to outright remove emotion from the picture. I don't typically smile because I choose to. I smile because it's often an involuntary reaction to something I have perceived. Any model that assumes emotion is not part of the equation is not going to accurately reflect reality.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 02 février 2013 - 09:17 .