208 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

But that's important. Everything that isn't necessarily false is possibly true. That gives you tremendous power over how you choose to perceive the game world.

 

Possibly true is a meaningless notion, because it keeps logical opposites on the same footing. When your existence and non-existence are equivalents that I have no rational basis to distinguish between, the entire standard of knowledge is valueless. I simply cannot use it to make decisions, meaning I need another unrelated concept of certitude in knowledge to actually distinguish between alternatives. 

 

Travel distance. Travel time. Viewable distance. Fog of war. You're saying that none of those are abstract?

And again, why do I care what the designers' intent might have been?

 

In games like DA that work on modules, we can tell that travel distance or travel time are abstracted, but not view-able distance (and fog of war, when it exists, clearly is an abstraction). 

 

But then we have games like Skyrim that introduce sheer insanity with how they handle distance, time and travel/movement, creating an incoherent mess of a game world (much like any open world game with a night/day cycle). 

[In Exile]

I think better design is the solution over telling a customer to suck it up. Easier, too. Don't give people the option for the Rainbow and Sunshine, but don't make the options totally Dark and Depressing, either. Make them decision people can truly identify with... And then watch them tear each other apart on the forums! Brilliant!

 

The only way you can sell those options, though, is to also have dark and depressing and rainbow and sunshine options. You just have to make players earn their happy ending to certain quests.

 

My favourite example is form TW1 which, despite its absolutely cracksack world, has a very sweet ending to a mid-game werewolf quest when you (eventually) core the werewolf. It's one of the few unequivocally bright spots of the game, though as a player you have to at minimum give up an upgrade to get it. It's a powerful moment, though, precisely because good endings like that are rare. 

 

A different example is the pure paragon end to the Tunchanka arc in ME3. It ends on a pretty big message of hope, but it comes with one very poignant sacrifice by a very fan loved character. I'd say that's a Rainbow and Sunshine moment. 

[Fast Jimmy]

The only way you can sell those options, though, is to also have dark and depressing and rainbow and sunshine options. You just have to make players earn their happy ending to certain quests.
 
My favourite example is form TW1 which, despite its absolutely cracksack world, has a very sweet ending to a mid-game werewolf quest when you (eventually) core the werewolf. It's one of the few unequivocally bright spots of the game, though as a player you have to at minimum give up an upgrade to get it. It's a powerful moment, though, precisely because good endings like that are rare. 
 
A different example is the pure paragon end to the Tunchanka arc in ME3. It ends on a pretty big message of hope, but it comes with one very poignant sacrifice by a very fan loved character. I'd say that's a Rainbow and Sunshine moment.

I'd say earning the happiness is good, but dangerous.

If earning means killing X mooks in Y minutes without Z dying, then that is going to open itself up to manipulation and, depending on the difficulty of said manipulation, complaints about it being tedious. Again, Permadeath and save scumming.

And having a good, happy single outcome to a quest is not bad. It's actually really good. And you can have choices to a quest that are both happy, as well. I think the problem really only comes about when you have options for how something will end and include a morally difficult choice right next to ethical "no-brainer" one. It doesn't mean there can't be happy in the game or that everything has to be grim-dark... but choices must be equitable or else they run the risk of not being choices at all.

[In Exile]

I'd say earning the happiness is good, but dangerous.

If earning means killing X mooks in Y minutes without Z dying, then that is going to open itself up to manipulation and, depending on the difficulty of said manipulation, complaints about it being tedious. Again, Permadeath and save scumming.

And having a good, happy single outcome to a quest is not bad. It's actually really good. And you can have choices to a quest that are both happy, as well. I think the problem really only comes about when you have options for how something will end and include a morally difficult choice right next to ethical "no-brainer" one. It doesn't mean there can't be happy in the game or that everything has to be grim-dark... but choices must be equitable or else they run the risk of not being choices at all.

 

I agree with all your points. All I meant by "earn your happy ending" was that there should be quests that end in something other than a costly victory, so that a) the player feels some elation and it helps sell the darker moments as not being contrived. 

 

Of course, if everything has a basically happy ending option, you get the ME3 problem where the ending might just not really mesh with the rest of the game. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Possibly true is a meaningless notion, because it keeps logical opposites on the same footing. When your existence and non-existence are equivalents that I have no rational basis to distinguish between, the entire standard of knowledge is valueless. I simply cannot use it to make decisions, meaning I need another unrelated concept of certitude in knowledge to actually distinguish between alternatives.

We do. Your preferences.

The wonderful thing about game worlds is that things can be true simply because you wish them to be.

By the way, did you just dismiss the entire field of modal logic?

[In Exile]

We do. Your preferences. The wonderful thing about game worlds is that things can be true simply because you wish them to be.

 

Preferences are a clearly useless standard, though. Preferences would justify clearly absurd results, like Duncan being alive or Alistair being an alien meatsuit controlled by remote control. 

 

By the way, did you just dismiss the entire field of modal logic?

 

All that modal logic is capable of doing is unpacking, i.e., finding out what is implied by things I already hold to be true. But it does not help me in discovering what is actually true. Indeed, to even use modal logic I have to presuppose it's correctness. It's exactly like induction in that regard (but induction allows me to make informed guesses about the world).  

[AlanC9]

This really is the issue.
But dangling a perfect plot outcome to the player will cause them to consider anything else as unacceptable and any roadblock out in front of them preventing them from getting it as tedium or articial. That's why it's best to avoid such perfect options altogether.

I guess you're right. Note that 36% of ME3 players got the optimal resolution at Rannoch, while 39.6% earned a Long Service Medal, which you get from playing the ME2 import you need for that resolution. I suppose some players could have imported and quit after Rannoch, but I doubt that would be very many.

[Bob from Accounting]

It doesn't mean there can't be happy in the game or that everything has to be grim-dark... but choices must be equitable or else they run the risk of not being choices at all.

 

That's absurd.

 

 

And then watch them tear each other apart on the forums! Brilliant!

 

This might be even remotely convincing if it wasn't for the simple fact that players arguing this sort of thing on even the most civilized forums is a quagmire of delusional thinking, hypocrisy, and plain dumb reasoning. 99% of these 'debates' are people shouting at each other the other side is idiotic. So it's not something I have a lot of sympathy for.

 

Consider: The overwhelmingly majority of people who participate in such things are meek, law abiding males who would wet themselves at the idea of so much of a fistfight. What does that tell you about how much they really buy into their own their support for 'evil' options that routinely include such things as murder, genocide, and overwhelmingly violence in response to trivial offenses?

[AlanC9]

That's absurd.

I thought it was pretty sensible. If one option is good and one option sucks, it isn't much of a choice.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Preferences are a clearly useless standard, though. Preferences would justify clearly absurd results, like Duncan being alive or Alistair being an alien meatsuit controlled by remote control.

You're being inconsistent. We just established that demonstrable absurdity is nigh impossible.

We can't judge this standard by some other standard.

All that modal logic is capable of doing is unpacking, i.e., finding out what is implied by things I already hold to be true. But it does not help me in discovering what is actually true. Indeed, to even use modal logic I have to presuppose it's correctness. It's exactly like induction in that regard (but induction allows me to make informed guesses about the world).

That's true of literally all systems of reasoning. How can that be a fault?

[Bob from Accounting]

It isn't much a choice if they're equal.

 

How is a narrative supposed to say anything meaningful or powerful about two options if it's shackled to 'equality'?

 

You're thinking the end product and goal is what the player 'decides.' That the player's decision is the pot at the end of the rainbow, the climax this is all leading to. It isn't. What the player decides is not important at all. What matters is what the narrative has to say.

[Sylvius the Mad]

It isn't much a choice if they're equal.

How is a narrative supposed to say anything meaningful or powerful about two options if it's shackled to 'equality'?

You're thinking the end product and goal is what the player 'decides.' That the player's decision is the pot at the end of the rainbow, the climax this is all leading to. It isn't. What the player decides is not important at all. What matters is what the narrative has to say.

The narrative is a direct descendant of the player's choices.

There is no other relevant narrative.

[Bob from Accounting]

Here is what I absolutely despise. How many times have you seen this happen?

 

You meet Alice. You meet Bob. Alice and Bob are 'grey.' Alice has A, B, and C good qualities, I, J, and K bad qualities, and hates Bob for X, Y and Z reasons. Bob has A, B, and C good qualities, I, J, and K bad qualities, and hates Alice for X, Y and Z reasons.

 

Alice and Bob each tell you to go kill (or otherwise side against) the other. The choice is 'grey.' The both have their upsides and downsides. There's no 'right answer.'

 

At this point, you might as well turn off the game. Because there's no story here. There's no resolution. There's no meaningful conflict. All that's happening is the player going to Alice or Bob's camp and shooting everyone inside.

 

It's as if these writers think that merely by having two 'grey' opposing factions, they've said something so unimaginatively profound and intellectual there's no need to tell an actual story. Never at any point do Alice and Bob's ideals and traits ever conflict with one another in a meaningful way. Never is any actual meaningful resolution to the conflict reached. Never is any truth or insight revealed.

 

A setting is not a story. Two people who don't like each other is not a story. It's a setting. It's a decent start, but you have to have their ideals conflict in a meaningful way, and the narrator should have a truth to enunciate. There must be a resolution.

 

Unfortunately, this is absolutely and utterly rampant in video games. Just looking at the boxes besides me. New Vegas. Skyrim. BioShock.

[Bob from Accounting]

It amazes me how many people buy into the idea that a dumber narrator equals a smarter story. Yet that's overwhelmingly what people seem to think and demand.

 

If you have nothing meaningful to say about the events or characters in your story...you shouldn't be telling a story about them.

[In Exile]

You're being inconsistent. We just established that demonstrable absurdity is nigh impossible.

We can't judge this standard by some other standard

 

I'm judging it by the same standard in both cases: it's utility in interacting with the world. We know things that must be true about the DA setting: Duncan dies. If we used your standard, there would be no way to justify what must be true about the setting. 

 

That's true of literally all systems of reasoning. How can that be a fault?

 

Are we talking about systems of inference not being self-justifying? Or about them being limited to only exploring premises that we presuppose? Because while the former is true, the latter is not. Both inference to the best explanation and induction allow us to go beyond the premises we start out with. 

[In Exile]

Here is what I absolutely despise. How many times have you seen this happen?

 

You meet Alice. You meet Bob. Alice and Bob are 'grey.' Alice has A, B, and C good qualities, I, J, and K bad qualities, and hates Bob for X, Y and Z reasons. Bob has A, B, and C good qualities, I, J, and K bad qualities, and hates Alice for X, Y and Z reasons.

 

But most games don't give characters the same good and bad qualities. They give them different good and bad qualities. Therein lies the tension. This is where your analogy fails. 

[Bob from Accounting]

But most games don't give characters the same good and bad qualities. They give them different good and bad qualities. Therein lies the tension. This is where your analogy fails. 

 

I know that. How does it matter? The story still has nothing of meaning to say about them. There's still no meaningful conflict. No meaningful resolution. No truth or insight revealed.

 

Perhaps I should have used A', B'  etc.

 

Also, I'm not the best at the strict definition of these terms, but I don't think this is an analogy. It's literally what happens.

[In Exile]

I know that. How does it matter? The story still has nothing of meaning to say about them. There's still no meaningful conflict. No meaningful resolution. No truth or insight revealed.

 

Perhaps I should have used A', B'  etc.

 

Also, I'm not the best at the strict definition of these terms, but I don't think this is an analogy. It's literally what happens.

 

Analogy might not have been the right word - I was stumbling for the term a bit. Maybe example was better? Abstraction? 

 

When it comes to moral choices of that sort - using say F:NV as an example - there was nothing but commentary on those separate values. Everyone in the story comments about e.g. the differences between the Legion or the NCR, etc. In fact, I'd say that entire game is nothing more than the ideological conflicts between the various factions (plus the "old world" view that House embodies). 

 

Or take DA:O - the game's epilogue gives you a quite clear contrast between Bhelen and Harrowmont, which certainly is a commentary on the values that they represent and the choices that the player makes. 

 

I suppose my difficulty is just in seeing what you would see as a meaningful conflict or meaningful resolution. 

[Fast Jimmy]

It amazes me how many people buy into the idea that a dumber narrator equals a smarter story. Yet that's overwhelmingly what people seem to think and demand.
 
If you have nothing meaningful to say about the events or characters in your story...you shouldn't be telling a story about them.

Equality is in the eyes of the beholder, of course.

But your example is poor (although far from uncommon). There is no tension in this situation, no greater struggle. Just kill X or kill Y.

By contrast, a better example may be the Dark Ritual. In this, you are given the choice if death, either of you or the other Grey Warden companion, or life, at the expense of getting into a deal with a woman who has, by her own admission, been lying to you since the first day you met. And the result of such a deal (the OGB) possibly being something dangerous or unholy.

To different people, this can mean many different things. Did you romance Morrigan? Is trusting her as easy as trusting a close friend? Do you doubt her motives or her intentions for what could be a truly terrible power? Does your character have a reason to embrace life? Do they have a reason to resign to death? Would the want to protect the life of the other Warden, such as a romance with Allistair?

These are all questions that can vary from player to player and character to character. There are a lot of factors involved; many of which do not have a clear "oh, clearly the best solution is <blank>." That's equitable. That's balanced. It's not simply one edgy grey faction against another for reasons no one cares about and that result in only the death of one faction leader versus another.

[Bob from Accounting]

I romanced Morrigan, so I pretty much did feel that the ritual was overwhelmingly and clearly the best option.

[Zatche]

I know that. How does it matter? The story still has nothing of meaning to say about them. There's still no meaningful conflict. No meaningful resolution. No truth or insight revealed.

 

You seem to be suggesting that if a narration leaves itself open to different points of view, then it has nothing to say. I would argue that it has more to say. The narration can present pros and cons of two or more choices, encouraging the audience or player to think deeper on the issue. If the choice was easy, the player just accepts the good choice (or a bad one because har har har) and moves on without really being engaged.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm judging it by the same standard in both cases: it's utility in interacting with the world. We know things that must be true about the DA setting: Duncan dies. If we used your standard, there would be no way to justify what must be true about the setting.

And I'm saying that you can't tell what's necessarily true about the setting, and you have no defensible frame of reference with which to assess utility.

Are we talking about systems of inference not being self-justifying? Or about them being limited to only exploring premises that we presuppose? Because while the former is true, the latter is not. Both inference to the best explanation and induction allow us to go beyond the premises we start out with.

No, because the mechanism of inference is part of your presupposition.

 

This is just like our discussions about Karl Popper.  You need to count every single premise.

[Fast Jimmy]

I romanced Morrigan, so I pretty much did feel that the ritual was overwhelmingly and clearly the best option.

 

And I felt preserving the Anvil was overwhelmingly and clearly the best option.

 

Obviously many do not disagree. Which is why I think it was a good choice to offer.

[AlanC9]

It isn't much a choice if they're equal.

How is a narrative supposed to say anything meaningful or powerful about two options if it's shackled to 'equality'?

I didn't say anything about equal choices. I think the most interesting choices are those where different values are in opposition and you can't satisfy both values. Obviously, this wouldn't work for a straight-up utilitarian, but most of us aren't.