254 réponses à ce sujet

[lil yonce]

Kearse.

[NoForgiveness]

Snow.

[NoForgiveness]

actually maybe not. it only works with lord in front of it. or Jon. maybe Stark instead?

Modifié par MR_PN, 19 avril 2013 - 04:30 .

[lil yonce]

Anton.

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

You don't think it would be unnatural if the PC were be the only person in the game who is never addressed by name?

You think it would?  Are you compiling actuarial tables as you play, keeping track of everyone's speech patterns?

As long as the way the NPC dialogue was written to avoid the PC name wasn't awkward, I doubt anyone would notice, particularly if the NPC names themselves were also used sparingly.

I'd find that to be the very textbook example of unnatural.

Again, the ideal solution is simply not to voice anyone, but since that option isn't on the table I'm not wasting time on it.

So now, in addition to needing more writer zots, you also need additional cinematic designer zots. I dislike your cinematic direction, and think it is more suited to a cartoon show.

There are no extra zots.  All of the conversations are cinematic now.  They already use camera tricks to direct your attention.  And apparently they're doing it well, since you don't seem to notice it.

I dispute that it sounds more natural. People call my name all the time when addressing me. When they say good morning, when they acknowledge my presence, when they ask my opinion, when we are in a group, all sorts of times on a daily basis. Your experience is not universal.

Nor is yours.  That's my point.  Since we're all using natural language (presumably), the extensive use of proper names is therefore not mandatory.  As such, games can avoid it.

Unless you have some specific desire to have the game's dialogue to conform to your own experience for its own sake (which seems awfully self-serving), there is no basis for your position.

So you tell people to read a play, then dismiss two of the most famous classical plays out there - the sort that people, when told to read a play, would most likely turn to. But what other examples would I need to prove you wrong that you wouldn't dismiss? Should I point at Wicked?

Glinda: Elphie, wait! Where are you going?
Elphaba: Oh no! There are no more stairs! This might be the attic...
Glinda: Elphaba, listen to me...
Elphaba: I have to barricade the door! She Picks Up A Broom And Places It Over A Trap Door.
Glinda: Elphaba, why couldn't you have stayed calm for once instead of flying off the handle?

Chicago?

[Roxie Hart]

Say it again, Fred.

[Fred Casely]

Jesus.

[Roxie Hart]

Hey, why is the hurry? Amos ain't be home until midnight. Freddie? Fred? Hey, you know, I don't like you to feel like I'm nagging or anything. But don't you think it's about time for me to meet your friend down at the Onyx? It's been a month since you told him about me. I know. Cause that was the night they met Kelly, plus her husband and her sister. You know, they said you found them in a kit together. Guess from where it from. Amos opened it to somebody else. I throw him a party. - You're not going away, right?

[Fred Casely]

- It's getting late.

I said a play, not a musical.

But fine. If it isn't Romeo and Juliet, Death of a Salesman, Chicago, or Wicked, please give some examples of well-known plays where nobody addresses anyone by name and everyone speaks "naturally". I've given four by different playwrights that have all achieved some form of notoriety. You could at least put up a few to support your thesis, especially after telling people to "read a play".

Your anecdote (and you've offered only one applicable example - Death of a Salesman) is not a useful dataset.  It is an anecdote, and one chosen specifically to support your position.

In Waiting for Godot, Vladimir and Estragon don't use each other's names (or their own) even once at any point in the whole first act.

We can toss examples back and forth until the end of time, but examples don't address the core point - people don't necessarily use each others names incessantly.  And if they don't have to, then BioWare doesn't need to write them that way.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 19 avril 2013 - 06:13 .

[upsettingshorts]

I thought the core point was a disagreement over players who value imagined content (customized names not mentioned outside of save game labels) and players who value explicit content (names spoken by characters).

You see, as the latter, I would gladly give up custom names for the chance to hear the given name of the protagonist in a single appropriate instance.  Let alone however many the back-and-forth of examples is implying we would need in order to justify such a thing.

That's how little I value custom names in the current setup.  Give me a text-based game and sure, CHARNAME all the way.  But I'd rather have a voiced game.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 19 avril 2013 - 08:44 .

[PeterBazooka]

Costello.

[lil yonce]

Van Treese.

[tonofluck21]

Crawford.

Inquisitor Crawford

Lord Crawford

Knight Commander Crawford

First Enchanter Crawford

It seems to have a nice ring to it.

Modifié par tonofluck21, 19 avril 2013 - 08:17 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

You don't think it would be unnatural if the PC were be the only person in the game who is never addressed by name?

You think it would?  Are you compiling actuarial tables as you play, keeping track of everyone's speech patterns?

As long as the way the NPC dialogue was written to avoid the PC name wasn't awkward, I doubt anyone would notice, particularly if the NPC names themselves were also used sparingly.

I am sorry, I disagree. I notice when the NPCs address the warden, Hawke, and the companions. It is a natural occurrence to me. Having them address everyone else besides my character for 30+ hours would stick out as unnatural to me.

So now, in addition to needing more writer zots, you also need additional cinematic designer zots. I dislike your cinematic direction, and think it is more suited to a cartoon show.

There are no extra zots.  All of the conversations are cinematic now.  They already use camera tricks to direct your attention.  And apparently they're doing it well, since you don't seem to notice it.

Wrong. Adding additional restrictions that weren't there before requires additional effort in order to make the content conform to said restrictions.

I dispute that it sounds more natural. People call my name all the time when addressing me. When they say good morning, when they acknowledge my presence, when they ask my opinion, when we are in a group, all sorts of times on a daily basis. Your experience is not universal.

Nor is yours.  That's my point.  Since we're all using natural language (presumably), the extensive use of proper names is therefore not mandatory.  As such, games can avoid it.

Unless you have some specific desire to have the game's dialogue to conform to your own experience for its own sake (which seems awfully self-serving), there is no basis for your position.

But just because they can doesn't mean they should. The basis for my position is personal preference. I freely admit that. The thing is, yours is too. You prefer them to support your preferred style of play, or at least not make it impossible to do so. This is your preference. My verisimilitude is more valuable to me than yours. Your playstyle is more valuable to you than my verisimilitude.

Your anecdote (and you've offered only one applicable example - Death of a Salesman) is not a useful dataset.  It is an anecdote, and one chosen specifically to support your position.

In Waiting for Godot, Vladimir and Estragon don't use each other's names (or their own) even once at any point in the whole first act.

Wrong, Vladimir calls Estragon "Gogo" several times in act 1. And are you seriously using "Waiting for Godot" as an example of people speaking naturally?

We can toss examples back and forth until the end of time, but examples don't address the core point - people don't necessarily use each others names incessantly.  And if they don't have to, then BioWare doesn't need to write them that way.

Not using names incessantly is not equivalent to not using them at all. And just because the writers don't need to do something doesn't mean they shouldn't. Your argument is fallacious - you're positing that because they don't need to do something, that they shouldn't do it. There is no basis for this, because the goal in making a game is not to do that which is strictly necessary, but to make that which is fun for the user.

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I am sorry, I disagree. I notice when the NPCs address the warden, Hawke, and the companions. It is a natural occurrence to me. Having them address everyone else besides my character for 30+ hours would stick out as unnatural to me.

They wouldn't be addressing everyone else very often, though.  The use of proper names overall would be minimised.

Wrong. Adding additional restrictions that weren't there before requires additional effort in order to make the content conform to said restrictions.

This is only relevant if they're currently not making their best effort to convey their message in each scene.

But just because they can doesn't mean they should.

No one is claiming that.  But your basis for arguing that they shouldn't is that it isn't possible.  Since it clearly is, you are now forced to appeal to...

The basis for my position is personal preference. I freely admit that.

Exactly.

The thing is, yours is too. You prefer them to support your preferred style of play, or at least not make it impossible to do so. This is your preference. My verisimilitude is more valuable to me than yours. Your playstyle is more valuable to you than my verisimilitude.

But my suggestion still allows your playstyle.  Your suggestion does not allow mine.  My suggestion carries fewer opportunity costs.

Wrong, Vladimir calls Estragon "Gogo" several times in act 1.

A nickname.  A nickname that could easily be assigned by the writers without impeding the player's ability to select a name himself.  Or, failing that, Vladimir could be the PC.  Estragon never addresses Vladimir by anything at all.

And are you seriously using "Waiting for Godot" as an example of people speaking naturally?

Unless you're prepared to offer a formal definition of natural speech, yes.

Not using names incessantly is not equivalent to not using them at all. And just because the writers don't need to do something doesn't mean they shouldn't. Your argument is fallacious - you're positing that because they don't need to do something, that they shouldn't do it.

No, I am not arguing that.  I'm demonstrating that they can do something as a means to defeat your assertion that they cannot.  Once we've established the possibility of that design, we then can address its merits.  Those merits are the reason they should - not simply that they can.

There is no basis for this, because the goal in making a game is not to do that which is strictly necessary, but to make that which is fun for the user.

Not all users find the same things fun.  If you want a game that is fun for the greatest range of users, then you need to accommodate a broader range of playstyles.  My suggestion does that.  Yours does not.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 19 avril 2013 - 08:41 .

[hoorayforicecream]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

[quote]hoorayforicecream wrote...

I am sorry, I disagree. I notice when the NPCs address the warden, Hawke, and the companions. It is a natural occurrence to me. Having them address everyone else besides my character for 30+ hours would stick out as unnatural to me.[/quote]
They wouldn't be addressing everyone else very often, though.  The use of proper names overall would be minimised.[/quote]

But not excised.

[quote]
[quote]Wrong. Adding additional restrictions that weren't there before requires additional effort in order to make the content conform to said restrictions.[/quote]
This is only relevant if they're currently not making their best effort to convey their message in each scene.[/quote]

I disagree. It is relevant, because it would take additional effort to deal with additional constraints. In doing so, it would result in less overall content. Perhaps not a great deal, but I would still rather minimize any unnecessary constraints in the interests of maximizing the content over time they can produce.

[quote]
[quote]But just because they can doesn't mean they should.[/quote]
No one is claiming that.  But your basis for arguing that they shouldn't is that it isn't possible.  Since it clearly is, you are now forced to appeal to...[/quote]

Wrong. I never said that it isn't possible. I said that doing so breaks versimilitude and immersion for me, and I do not want that. I recently watched a season of the TV show "24", where there was a terrorist cell that operated out of an unnamed middle-eastern country. It was clear that the producers of the show made this decision on purpose. The viewer is free to imagine whatever nation they want. However, the more they mentioned and interacted with characters from this unnamed middle-eastern country, the more the fact they refused to name it stuck out like a sore thumb. This is what I wish to avoid, because it breaks the believability when even the President of the United States refuses to name the country of the Prime Minister he's speaking with.

[quote]
[quote]The basis for my position is personal preference. I freely admit that.[/quote]
Exactly.
[quote]The thing is, yours is too. You prefer them to support your preferred style of play, or at least not make it impossible to do so. This is your preference. My verisimilitude is more valuable to me than yours. Your playstyle is more valuable to you than my verisimilitude.[/quote]
But my suggestion still allows your playstyle. [/quote]

It does not.

[quote]Your suggestion does not allow mine.  My suggestion carries fewer opportunity costs.[/quote]

For you. Your suggestion does not allow my playstyle.

[quote]
[quote]Wrong, Vladimir calls Estragon "Gogo" several times in act 1. [/quote]
A nickname.  A nickname that could easily be assigned by the writers without impeding the player's ability to select a name himself.  Or, failing that, Vladimir could be the PC.  Estragon never addresses Vladimir by anything at all.[/quote]

Too many nicknames causes weirdness. Especially in the case of romance - it is extremely offputting if one's lover never addresses one by name, especially when one meets and goes through an entire romance over the course of the game.

[quote]
[quote]And are you seriously using "Waiting for Godot" as an example of people speaking naturally?[/quote]
Unless you're prepared to offer a formal definition of natural speech, yes.[/quote]

Waiting for Godot is an extremely stylized, surrealist modern play. I dispute your accepted definition of natural speech if you accept the dialogue in Waiting for Godot as natural, but Death of a Salesman as unnatural. I find the opposite case to be true - I found that the conversations between Willy and Linda to be much more natural than Estragon and Vladimir.

[quote]
[quote]Not using names incessantly is not equivalent to not using them at all. And just because the writers don't need to do something doesn't mean they shouldn't. Your argument is fallacious - you're positing that because they don't need to do something, that they shouldn't do it.[/quote]
No, I am not arguing that.  I'm demonstrating that they can do something as a means to defeat your assertion that they cannot.  Once we've established the possibility of that design, we then can address its merits.  Those merits are the reason they should - not simply that they can.[/quote]

What assertion have I made that that they cannot? I never said that. I said that it is unnatural to never refer to a character by name, and that its absence breaks verisimilitude. I never said that it is impossible to do so, just that it is immersion-breaking to do so.

[quote]
[quote]There is no basis for this, because the goal in making a game is not to do that which is strictly necessary, but to make that which is fun for the user.[/quote]
Not all users find the same things fun.  If you want a game that is fun for the greatest range of users, then you need to accommodate a broader range of playstyles.  My suggestion does that.  Yours does not.
[/quote]

The only way you could show that your suggestion actually does this is with empirical data. You would have to show, with actual research evidence, that more people would find it more fun to do your suggestion. Since that is unfeasible, the best you can do is accept it as being your preference and no more.

But by all means, go ahead and conduct your research. I await your results.

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Not all users find the same things fun.  If you want a game that is fun for the greatest range of users, then you need to accommodate a broader range of playstyles.  My suggestion does that.  Yours does not.

The only way you could show that your suggestion actually does this is with empirical data. You would have to show, with actual research evidence, that more people would find it more fun to do your suggestion. Since that is unfeasible, the best you can do is accept it as being your preference and no more.

But by all means, go ahead and conduct your research. I await your results.

Do you at least accept the initial premise that, since not all players enjoy the same things, the way to satisfy the greatest number of players is to offer a variety of playstyles?  If so, then we at least have some basis from which to work.

I found that the conversations between Willy and Linda to be much more natural than Estragon and Vladimir.

Who thought that statement would ever be uttered on BSN?

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Do you at least accept the initial premise that, since not all players enjoy the same things, the way to satisfy the greatest number of players is to offer a variety of playstyles?  If so, then we at least have some basis from which to work.

I'd like to contest that thesis - it assumes that there is no substantive difference between the kind of implementation a feature has when it's the sole feature, versus when it's one of multiple features. For example, I might find that a game that offers a variety of plastyles is shallow re: my preferred feature.

So we could imagine a game that offers a variety of options to fail to satisfy anyone, by not giving sufficient depth to make any one person who wants a particular feature happy.

Several assumptions of course, but let's keep it to the above. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Then let's add the phrase "all else being equal" to my initial question. I want to establish whether satisfying more players is better than satisfying fewer players before we delve into the mechanics of whether doing such a thing is possible.

[Matthew Ryder]

Paratus (Latin: Prepared)
Certa (Latin: Swift)
Cito (Latin: Silent)
Admonitio (Latin: Warning)
Ardua (Latin: Adversity)
Astra (Latin: Stars)

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Then let's add the phrase "all else being equal" to my initial question. I want to establish whether satisfying more players is better than satisfying fewer players before we delve into the mechanics of whether doing such a thing is possible.

I still think that loads the question. I just don't think there's a need to concede the initial idea, namely that more options can satisfy more people.  

But I'm derailing your debate, and I apologize. It's a very interesting one. So don't worry about me! 

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Not all users find the same things fun.  If you want a game that is fun for the greatest range of users, then you need to accommodate a broader range of playstyles.  My suggestion does that.  Yours does not.

The only way you could show that your suggestion actually does this is with empirical data. You would have to show, with actual research evidence, that more people would find it more fun to do your suggestion. Since that is unfeasible, the best you can do is accept it as being your preference and no more.

But by all means, go ahead and conduct your research. I await your results.

Do you at least accept the initial premise that, since not all players enjoy the same things, the way to satisfy the greatest number of players is to offer a variety of playstyles?  If so, then we at least have some basis from which to work.

I do not. Suppose there are four playstyles: A, B, C, D.

There are 10 people who like playstyle A.
There are 10 people who like playstyle B.
There are 10 people who like playstyle C.
There are 5,000,000 people who like playstyle D.

If you offer playstyles A, B, and C, you are offering a greater variety of playstyles than simply offering playstyle D, but if you offer playstyle D, you are satisfying more players than if you offered A, B, and C together, despite offering fewer overall playstyles.

Since you cannot tell how many people like which playstyle, you cannot assume that initial premise.

Edit: If you want to say "all else being equal", as in "everyone likes each playstyle equally", then I would agree. However, you cannot assume that when discussing real-world game development choices, and basing real-world game development choices on theoretical target audiences is a recipe for failure.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 19 avril 2013 - 11:00 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

I was thinking more about satisfying them equally. Is satisfying 5,000,030 players better than satisfying 5,000,000 players to exactly the same same degree?

[Fast Jimmy]

Youth4Ever wrote...

Van Treese.

Ha! I know where you got this from. 

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I was thinking more about satisfying them equally. Is satisfying 5,000,030 players better than satisfying 5,000,000 players to exactly the same same degree?

That's not what you were offering, though. Like I said before, your preference breaks my verisimilitude. Your suggestion does not provide me that opportunity. The only way that you would gain my satisfaction is through your loss. When that is the case, as a developer, you have a choice:

1. Make it the way you think the most people want it
2. Make it the way you want it
3. Make it the way an arbitrary group or person wants it

While you seem to think that #1 is the way to go, I actually believe #2 is the way to go since that makes for more passionate and happier devs, which translates to higher quality of workmanship. In my development experience, the results of what you're suggesting typically end up as #3.

Edit: To directly answer your question, satisfying 5,000,030 would be better. However, when the proposal is actually mutually exclusive, you won't get it. That is why there is no A, B, C, D option. There is only A+B+C, or D.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 19 avril 2013 - 11:26 .

[ObserverStatus]

Don't mean to be unoriginal, but it totally should be "Recon".

[Straw Nihilist]

bobobo878 wrote...

Don't mean to be unoriginal, but it totally should be "Recon".

Middle name "Clopper*

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I was thinking more about satisfying them equally. Is satisfying 5,000,030 players better than satisfying 5,000,000 players to exactly the same same degree?

That's not what you were offering, though.

It's what I'm asking now.  Answer the question.  Is it better to satisfy a larger group if satisfying that larger group  carries no costs for anyone?

If you disagree with that, I'd like to know why.  If you agree, however, then we can talk about which features carry which costs, and for whom.

edit: I see you agree.  Good.  Now we're getting somewhere.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 19 avril 2013 - 11:28 .

[ejoslin]

Frank-n-Furter. My apologies if many people have suggested this perfect name already -- I haven't read the thread yet.