334 réponses à ce sujet

[KiraVaela]

Maybe buying console would fix our issues with this game..

[Spectre Impersonator]

Maybe buying console would fix our issues with this game..

As someone who played on an Xbox 1, I can tell you that buying a console will not help you a bit. It's still buggy and boring.

[Il Divo]

 

A fair argument regarding the word budget, but I guarantee folks will complain about the lack of characters then, especially considering nine has been the magic number since Knights of the Old Republic. Not to mention folks like options regarding companions, so that is not going to change any time soon.

 

This was my issue. Fewer companions may in theory allow the player to get to know everyone more, but for each comrade you dislike, that's an opportunity cost. ME1 presented me with this issue. I couldn't stand anyone other than Wrex and Garrus. I also can't say I spent drastically more time with them compared to any other Bioware game with a larger cast. 

[atlantico]

First three mainly.

 

But you wrote: "Most of these options", not "half of these options". Regardless, political correctness, M-rated games and gameplay are not subjective things. What you think is political correctness, M-rated material and gameplay, that is subjective. 

 

Things you can have an opinion of are in and of themselves, not automatically subjective.

[LinksOcarina]

But you wrote: "Most of these options", not "half of these options". Regardless, political correctness, M-rated games and gameplay are not subjective things. What you think is political correctness, M-rated material and gameplay, that is subjective. 

 

Things you can have an opinion of are in and of themselves, not automatically subjective.

 

I am saying gameplay mechanics and preferences to them are subjective, and the liklihood of BioWare changing the formula of their presentation to cater to a specific measure of the audience is not going to happen. 

 

And yes, political correctness, M rated games and gameplay are subjective. You are delusional if you think otherwise because there is no objectivity in commercial art. That is why it's an opinion man, they are automatically subjective in this field because it is a subjective medium.

 

There is no absolute truth or way to do things. There is only preference and taste. 

[atlantico]

I am saying gameplay mechanics and preferences to them are subjective, and the liklihood of BioWare changing the formula of their presentation to cater to a specific measure of the audience is not going to happen. 

 

And yes, political correctness, M rated games and gameplay are subjective. You are delusional if you think otherwise because there is no objectivity in commercial art. That is why it's an opinion man, they are automatically subjective in this field because it is a subjective medium.

 

There is no absolute truth or way to do things. There is only preference and taste. 

Yes, you are saying gameplay mechanics and preferences to them are subjective, and I'm saying that at the same time gameplay mechanics are objective entities. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

Your like or dislike of them is quite irrelevant, to their functions, features, appearance or other objective attributes. Also, on what do you base your assumption that this mess that Bioware is currently pushing is not subject to change? Your opinion?

 

Of course political correctness is objective, because it can be defined.

Same goes for ratings that are based on definitions. They're made to be objective.

 

It's just too cheap and too naive to think that there's no absolute truth to things that are by design made to have absolute truth. It's not just cheap, it's simplistic and intellectually lazy.

[AlanC9]

Of course political correctness is objective, because it can be defined.

I've never seen a definition of that which didn't require a whole bunch of subjective value judgements to use. Objective, sure, but the subjective components do all the work.

[LinksOcarina]

Yes, you are saying gameplay mechanics and preferences to them are subjective, and I'm saying that at the same time gameplay mechanics are objective entities. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

Your like or dislike of them is quite irrelevant, to their functions, features, appearance or other objective attributes. Also, on what do you base your assumption that this mess that Bioware is currently pushing is not subject to change? Your opinion?

 

Of course political correctness is objective, because it can be defined.

Same goes for ratings that are based on definitions. They're made to be objective.

 

It's just too cheap and too naive to think that there's no absolute truth to things that are by design made to have absolute truth. It's not just cheap, it's simplistic and intellectually lazy.

 

You are being intellectually dishonest if you presume they are objective as well.

 

See, you are right, my like or dislike of how gameplay mechanics work is subjective. This is also why I didn't really comment on that aspect fully because it is an opinion. the problem stems from the belief that such mechanics are objective.

 

An example."It is objectively better to use the B button to jump than A." This is a loaded statement because the preference of the person stating it is advocating only one way to design a control scheme for a game. So any game where A, C, X or Y are the jump button, would be objectively bad if this was true. The function is the same, but mapped elsewhere.

 

In fact, functions, while they are designed for a specific purpose, are not objectively necessary for the game itself. A game like Inquisition, for example, has the tactical camera, which is designed for the purpose of pause and play tactics using. You don't need it to play the game. 

 

The part that is subjective, however, is the design itself. Saying "The tactical cam is broken because it doesn't zoom out properly" is a subjective statement. A preference to how long or short you want the zoom of the tactical camera, for example. There is nothing objectively wrong with the tactical camera, because the design of the tactical camera is to play the game with pause and play tactics and field control. The purpose of the camera is fulfilled, you can play it that way. The subjective complaints are the argued shortcomings of the mechanic itself by some people. Those are two different things. 

 

And yes those are base examples, but it's to hammer out the point: because of the very nature of game design being incredibly diverse due to the different uses of a camera, game control, base mechanics and presentation, each of these aspects is judged by the preference of the player, not by it's core design.

 

And yeah, it is subject to change by BioWare, but that's not really relevant here, is it? 

 

Political Correctness in of itself is objective, the presumed application of it into the game is not. In the case of Inquisition, is it assumed to be a factor into the game, an inference based on subjectivity; lack of desire demons as an example in the other thread were in.

 

The last factor is again the moniker of commercial art. This is not a car you are driving, an oven you are baking cookies in. Those machines are designed to work a certain way and are expected to because of their purpose. This is a video game designed for entertainment, and entertainment can come in different forms. It's like folks in the old debate of "real-time vs. turn-based combat." People have preferences, but both styles are mechanics that

 

A)  Can be implemented into the game as a core mechanic easily. 

B ) Be tweaked to fit the parameters of the game, or to try something new.

C) Use functions that fit the parameters of the games design as best as possible, sometimes changing the use of those said mechanics (new turn-based system, change in real-time speed, a hybrid of the two, so forth.)

D) Presented in a package that is designed in multiple fronts, from music to art, animation, gameplay, voice and sound, even online functionality now a days or DLC.

E) Will be enjoyed by some, and hated by others. There is simply no going around it.

 

That is why it is subjective. A car's function is to get you from point A to B, if it doesn't then there is something objectively wrong with the car. A games function is for you to enjoy and to play it. Your enjoyment is always a variable, and how much you play it depends on enjoyment.

[atlantico]

I've never seen a definition of that which didn't require a whole bunch of subjective value judgements to use.

 

I've never seen a definition of life which didn't require a whole bunch of subjective value judgements to use, but it objectively exists.

[atlantico]

You are being intellectually dishonest if you presume they are objective as well.

 

 

All that because I rightly called it intellectually lazy to claim that: "There is no absolute truth or way to do things. There is only preference and taste."

 

 

An example."It is objectively better to use the B button to jump than A." This is a loaded statement because the preference of the person stating it is advocating only one way to design a control scheme for a game. So any game where A, C, X or Y are the jump button, would be objectively bad if this was true. The function is the same, but mapped elsewhere.

 

 

 

So yeah, that's a loaded statement. Let's try again with something more "intellectually honest", shall we? 

 

It is objectively better to use a controller with DA:I than mouse and keyboard. This is not a loaded statement, nor is it subjective, the game was designed to be interfaced with a console controller and mouse and keyboard interface option is more limited in features (lacks certain interface options found when using a console controller) and was never designed to be used with keyboard and mouse. 

 

So while you can argue about subjective things like what button is better suited for jumping, objectively this interface in DA:I is worse for mouse and keyboard users. If for no other reason than missing features. One may objectively like the missing features, the limited interface and inappropriate interface for mouse and keyboard, but that's the subjective part. Objectively, I can't jog with m+k or fast-forward time in tac-cam if I use m+k for example. It's simply not there.

 

 

And yeah, it is subject to change by BioWare, but that's not really relevant here, is it? 

 

 

 

Sure, I was just wondering how you knew what was likely or unlikely to change. You stated it as a known fact that this or that would not happen. So how did you reach that conclusion, surely not by just .. guessing?

 

 

[AlanC9]

I've never seen a definition of life which didn't require a whole bunch of subjective value judgements to use, but it objectively exists.

Hey, if you're arguing that everything's fundamentally subjective, don't let me get in your way.

[LinksOcarina]

 

All that because I rightly called it intellectually lazy to claim that: "There is no absolute truth or way to do things. There is only preference and taste."

 

 

 

So yeah, that's a loaded statement. Let's try again with something more "intellectually honest", shall we? 

 

It is objectively better to use a controller with DA:I than mouse and keyboard. This is not a loaded statement, nor is it subjective, the game was designed to be interfaced with a console controller and mouse and keyboard interface option is more limited in features (lacks certain interface options found when using a console controller) and was never designed to be used with keyboard and mouse. 

 

So while you can argue about subjective things like what button is better suited for jumping, objectively this interface in DA:I is worse for mouse and keyboard users. If for no other reason than missing features. One may objectively like the missing features, the limited interface and inappropriate interface for mouse and keyboard, but that's the subjective part. Objectively, I can't jog with m+k or fast-forward time in tac-cam if I use m+k for example. It's simply not there.

 

 

 

Sure, I was just wondering how you knew what was likely or unlikely to change. You stated it as a known fact that this or that would not happen. So how did you reach that conclusion, surely not by just .. guessing?

 

 

 

 

 

It may be designed for a controller, but you can still play it with a mouse and keyboard which is more of the point. Again, the variable of enjoyment is how you feel it's implemented, which is a subjective taste, not an objective statement on what is better or worse by the design. 

 

Basically, when I see people out there playing on mouse and keyboard and not having too much of a problem, it flies against the argument of objectivity. It is not objectively worse or better than using a controller, it is a preference that the controller is better because of the said limitations you put up, limitations that you have personally, where others may not.

 

And yes I get that many do agree with you on those limitations, but that is again an aspect of the design that is subjective in its implementation. Is it good design? No it isn't, but that's a different thing completely. 

 

And I reached that conclusion through educated guessing. No way in hell BioWare is going to cater to PC only for a release because the PC marketbase is simply smaller, and because EA would push for multi-platform releases, and it is very unlikely they will reduce companion count, customization count and the like because of the fanbase. I am not sure why you ask that question when you already know the answers to it though.

 

ETA: You didn't rightly call out anything. There is still no absolute truth in a commercial medium. And that is an objective fact. 

[atlantico]

Hey, if you're arguing that everything's fundamentally subjective, don't let me get in your way.

 

Not at all, that's some other poster you're thinking of. My point was that the elements which make up an objective definition are not required to be objective and that this does not mean that the subjective elements infer subjectivity to the objective thing being defined. 

 

 

the variable of enjoyment is how you feel it's implemented, which is a subjective taste, not an objective statement on what is better or worse by the design. 

 

 

You can't separate the subjective experience of something with objective features of something. OK, fine.

[AlanC9]

Not at all, that's some other poster you're thinking of. My point was that the elements which make up an objective definition are not required to be objective and that this does not mean that the subjective elements infer subjectivity to the objective thing being defined.

So "political correctness" is objective right until the moment when you try to actually determine whether or not a particular thing can be described as an example of "political correctness." That's true, but isn't it also trivial?

This also leaves me not really clear about what you and LinksOcarina are arguing about, since he's talking about the subjective implementation.

[LinksOcarina]

Not at all, that's some other poster you're thinking of. My point was that the elements which make up an objective definition are not required to be objective and that this does not mean that the subjective elements infer subjectivity to the objective thing being defined. 

 

 

You can't separate the subjective experience of something with objective features of something. OK, fine.

 

Actually you can.

 

If a Romantic Comedy doesn't have a lot of comedy to it, then it's a bad movie. But if it makes your friends laugh, then to them it's a good movie. Again a base example, that's where the subjectivity lies.

 

It's there. You can interact, watch, play, guide, use it all you want. Your mileage comes from the personal taste of what you like. 

 

Another example. People for some reason love a game like Deadly Premonition because it's bad. Objectively you can argue it is a bad game, bad graphics, flaws in design, controls, and so forth. But folks love it because of those aspects, and other reasons as well. It's why such things as cult classics exist sometimes. 

 

The experience of good or bad controls always boils down to the player and what they are looking for in the controls, not the controls itself. if the controls for keyboard and mouse don't behave the way you want, I get it, but it doesn't make it objectively bad, it makes it bad for you.

 

I must say, this has been a good discussion though, thank for that at least. I think I am going to do something else for a while. 

[LinksOcarina]

So "political correctness" is objective right until the moment when you try to actually determine whether or not a particular thing can be described as an example of "political correctness." That's true, but isn't it also trivial?

This also leaves me not really clear about what you and LinksOcarina are arguing about, since he's talking about the subjective implementation.

 

Well you know what I have been talking about at least. Same thing I always talk about.

 

At least i'm consistent. Annoyingly so I bet. 

[atlantico]

So "political correctness" is objective right until the moment when you try to actually determine whether or not a particular thing can be described as an example of "political correctness." That's true, but isn't it also trivial?

 

Sure, it's very trivial but nevertheless I find it curious and worth discussing. DA:I and Bioware of today is so politically correct that it's on the receiving end of accolades from GLAAD. 

 

It could be toned down. 

 

And no, the term is not objective until it is defined, it's always objective. My comparison to the definition of life was not me being flippant, it can't be defined without subjective terms. Yet, it's always objective as a conceptual entity.

[atlantico]

 

 

The experience of good or bad controls always boils down to the player and what they are looking for in the controls, not the controls itself. if the controls for keyboard and mouse don't behave the way you want, I get it, but it doesn't make it objectively bad, it makes it bad for you.

 

I must say, this has been a good discussion though, thank for that at least. I think I am going to do something else for a while. 

 

Allrighty, have a nice evening!

[hong]

Not even close, besides there are varying degrees of "good" and "bad". A romantic comedy movie without any comedy can still be considered good due to a number of reasons that compensate for its lack of comedy - dialogue, storyline, acting, etc.

Or it might simply be that "romantic comedy" is an inappropriate label to use.
 

Not true either, there's a difference between preference and quality - one can be objectively demonstrated, another cannot.

Both ultimately come down to subjective preference. It is simply a matter of which preferences to apply.

If a game implements systems that require you to tediously walk towards every single piece of loot to loot it, incessantly press the auto attack button to auto attack, requires you to move your melee character towards the target to attack them instead of automatically moving them, especially in the face of alternate, better, design choices (clicking towards loot, not needing to click a button to AA, your character moving automatically towards whoever they are directed to attack), then the game has a bad control scheme.

If a game reduces activity to a series of choices from menus, removes an element of control in directing the actions of the character, especially in the face of alternate, better, design choices, then the game has a bad control scheme.
 

Which control scheme sounds better? One that requires you to do more clunky and UNNECESSARY work, or one that does not and lets the game flow more freely?

The one that immerses you more in the game world, rather than turning objects into abstractions, of course.

Unless you can conjure an argument that DA:I's control scheme is good, with its non-stop clunkiness, then we can conclude that it's bad.

Ah yes, "objectively bad".

Now of course you can say that you prefer this control scheme - that does not make it functionally better, it just means you personally like it more.

No, it means it was designed with different objectives in mind.

Just like I prefer my 5 yo daughters inept but cute drawings over the Mona Lisa does not make her a better artist than Da Vinci.

You... have children?

[atlantico]

Or it might simply be that "romantic comedy" is an inappropriate label to use.
 

Ah like RPG is an inappropriate label to use on DA:I, I see where you're going with this!

 

I like the way you're thinking. 

[hong]

Ah like RPG is an inappropriate label to use on DA:I, I see where you're going with this!

But DAI is an RPG. It has all the necessary elements: violence, powerups, and bling. The hot gay sex is just icing on the cake.

I like the way you're thinking.

Indeed.

Ok, prove all of that.

Oh my, are you attempting to TROLL me?

[atlantico]

But DAI is an RPG. It has all the necessary elements: violence, powerups, and bling. The hot gay sex is just icing on the cake.
 

 

Wait, since when does an RPG need violence, powerups and bling, surely all it needs is hot gay sex. Instant RPG.

[hong]

Wait, since when does an RPG need violence, powerups and bling,

Ever since Wizardry, ofc.

surely all it needs is hot gay sex. Instant RPG.

So you're saying an RPG needs hot gay sex?

Easy man, I'll get back to you once you have proof.

Here is what you missed replying to the first time. I'm giving you a second chance because that's how nice a guy I am.

The term "fetch quest" is kinda problematic in itself, because it's one of those phrases that means whatever you want it to mean, as long as it's derogatory: like "rollplaying" or "dumbed down". But for the purposes of this post, I'll assume that when people talk about a fetch quest, they mean a simple task, obtained from an NPC of no import, that involves no meaningful interaction with the game world. So you talk to a guy in town who asks you to find 10 bear pelts, which you obtain by killing bears one after another, and then you bring them back to him.

Now most CRPGs, including DAI, are power fantasies. You kill hordes of bad guys and accumulate huge wealth on the way to saving the world. However, the guy in town doesn't care about any of that. He just wants those bear pelts, and as far as he's concerned you're no different to anyone else he sees. This creates a disconnect between what the game sets you up to be, and how you're actually treated.

The nice thing is that DAI fetch quests, for the most part, do not fit this template. Rather than talking to someone to initiate them, they're acquired automatically by entering an area, or reading some lore, or finding an item on the ground. You never talk to anyone, and hence there is no dissonant moment when the high-and-mighty Inquisitor gets treated as a random nobody. There are exceptions, but they're few in number.

So, what are these quests then? I see them as basically act as a way to draw you into exploring the map: uncovering the blank areas, looking for ways to get to the next ridge, and so on. The standard quests like rifts, shards and astrariums are intended for this, but most of the other quests can be approached in the same way. They are also puzzles: how do you get to that annoying shard up on the hill, or find the landmark that doesn't show? Figuring out the paths to these quest objects was something that gave me a surprising amount of satisfaction; no doubt because I was focused on the process rather than the goal. If I'd taken a traditional OCD/completionist approach focused on efficiency and mechanically crossing off each quest in the journal, I'd probably have become frustrated and given up before long.

Of course, this introduces its own dissonance, in that the high-and-mighty Inquisitor is running off into the countryside for no good reason. But I can live with this; it's a decision I've made on my own rather than something the game world imposes on me. And hey, what's the point of having ultimate power if you can't indulge yourself?

I'm also excluding the more substantial quests from the above: things like the helping the refugees in the Emerald Graves, or the townsfolk in the Emprise, for example. I doubt those would fit any reasonable person's conception of a fetch quest.