583 réponses à ce sujet

[o Ventus]

I think I can save some time here. Sylvius' position, as I undrstand it, is that what the writers think the NPCs hear when the PC speaks is irrelevant. He's going to make his own mental model for why the NPCs react the way they do anyway, and it doesn't really matter if that model diverges from the writers' understanding of that conversation.

This isn't my preferred approach to interpretation, but it works on its own terms.

 

That's stupid. Why bother playing a video game then (with voiced NPCs and a voiced PC to deliver the tone and message) if you're just going to imagine something else?

[Sylvius the Mad]

If you're already ignoring a big chunk of the personal interactions that happen in the game - NPC reactions - then why not ignore the delivery of the protagonist's dialogue, too?

I'm not ignoring the NPC reactions. The NPC reactions are vital.

I'm just not pretending to be able to read the NPCs' minds.

And no, we don't decide how a line is delivered. There is no mechanism in Origins to tell the game how a line was delivered, yet it certainly was delivery in a particular way in the fictional reality told to us by the game. It's like saying there are no toilets on the starship Enterprise because we don't ever see someone use them in Star Trek. An aspect of the setting that would be congruent with reality but only implied to exists can't be taken to not exist.

There's no inconguity. The only incongruity appears if the PC speaks without you knowing why, which is inevitable if you rely on the game to tell you how a line is delivered.

re: restrictions
How do you figure? Hawke and Shepard are much more strongly defined as characters than the far more vague protagonists in Origins and Inquisition, and as such they offer clear guidelines on what would be appropriate ideas about them and what not. And I've made tons of character-driven decisions in all the ME and DA games. I'm not sure I understand your issue here.

Hawke amd Shepard are much more strpngly defined, but not in a way the player can discern until it's too late.

I wanted Shepard to withhold information from Udina, but I couldn't do that.

I wanted Hawke to be civil when dealing with the slavers in Kirkwall, but I couldn't do that.

I wanted Shepard to be civil when talking to The Illusive Man, but I couldn't do that.

There was no way to construct a character personality in advance and then stay true to it. There was no way, moment to moment, to predict how any given line would be delivered, or even what it would say.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That's stupid. Why bother playing a video game then (with voiced NPCs and a voiced PC to deliver the tone and message) if you're just going to imagine something else?

The thing I'm imagining, the thoughts of the characters, isn't actually in the game anywhere.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Yeah, that's why his approach seems so strange to me. If nothing that happens "actually" happens, then it doesn't matter whether a line is textually paraphrased, spoken, or signed in ASL. So why argue the evils of voice and paraphrase when you're ignoring what's being said anyway?

I'm not ignoring what's being said any more than I ignore what other people say in the real world.

I just recognise that I can't know why they said it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

And I respect that it works for them, but I do disagree with it.

Generally speaking, whatever floats someone's boat. That said, this has been some of the most civil and interesting discussion this thread has produced, and while I respect their opinion, and them, as they seem like a rather fine mage, if a bit mad, I disagree with their stance and interpretation.

Please don't use plural pronouns to refer to me. I am not a group.

I do not care which gender I am assigned, but I insist on retaining my individuality.

[StanojeZ]

Please don't use plural pronouns to refer to me. I am not a group.

I do not care which gender I am assigned, but I insist on retaining my individuality.

 

 

The other poster isn't referring to you as a group. "They" has been used to refer to individuals of indeterminate gender for centuries. There's a list of citations going back to Shakespeare and further on Wiki: http://en.wikipedia....i/Singular_they. It was out of style for a good amount of time but is coming back into use lately.

[StanojeZ]

I'm not ignoring what's being said any more than I ignore what other people say in the real world.

I just recognise that I can't know why they said it.

 

In the real world you can't, because people are complicated and don't even know their own minds, much less that of someone else.

 

It's perfectly possible to understand why a fictional character is written to react in a certain way, though.

[AlanC9]

The other poster isn't referring to you as a group. "They" has been used to refer to individuals of indeterminate gender for centuries. There's a list of citations going back to Shakespeare and further on Wiki: http://en.wikipedia....i/Singular_they. It was out of style for a good amount of time but is coming back into use lately.

Note that using "they" for a specific person of indeterminate gender doesn't have a long history; I figure it's likely that situation just didn't come up much until quite recently. My impression is that the current surge in this usage is being driven by people who reject the gender binary that's embedded in standard usage.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In the real world you can't, because people are complicated and don't even know their own minds, much less that of someone else.

It's perfectly possible to understand why a fictional character is written to react in a certain way, though.

That would be metagaming. If I'm in-character, I perceive the other characters as people, and judge them as such.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The other poster isn't referring to you as a group. "They" has been used to refer to individuals of indeterminate gender for centuries. There's a list of citations going back to Shakespeare and further on Wiki: http://en.wikipedia....i/Singular_they. It was out of style for a good amount of time but is coming back into use lately.

It's imprecise. The singular usage should be opposed on those grounds, regardless of how popular it is.

If individuals who reject gender assignation want a gender neutral pronoun, they're welcome to create a new one. Using plural pronouns is a bad idea.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Note that using "they" for a specific person of indeterminate gender doesn't have a long history; I figure it's likely that situation just didn't come up much until quite recently. My impression is that the current surge in this usage is being driven by people who reject the gender binary that's embedded in standard usage.

A gender-neutral singular pronoun would also be useful on the Internet where someone's gender isn't immediately apparent.

If I'd been referred to as "him" or "her" or even "it", I wouldn't have objected. But "they" is a trend that needs to be stopped.

[StanojeZ]

That would be metagaming. If I'm in-character, I perceive the other characters as people, and judge them as such.

 

See, that's not how it is for me. I'm not inhabiting a character, I'm roleplaying one within a specific story. How I think people would react is part of playing. It's like in improv acting, where you can come up with new stuff, but aren't allowed to contradict what someone else contributed.

[StanojeZ]

It's imprecise. The singular usage should be opposed on those grounds, regardless of how popular it is.

Most language is imprecise. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have poetry.  

If individuals who reject gender assignation want a gender neutral pronoun, they're welcome to create a new one. Using plural pronouns is a bad idea.

 
For me, it's about being polite. If I don't know someone's gender, I'm not going to default to male. That's rude towards about half the population.

[Sylvius the Mad]

See, that's not how it is for me. I'm not inhabiting a character, I'm roleplaying one within a specific story. How I think people would react is part of playing. It's like in improv acting, where you can come up with new stuff, but aren't allowed to contradict what someone else contributed.

That's a very different style. Your way makes it easier to tell a specific story (either yours or theirs). My way makes it easier to run the game like a simulation.

[StanojeZ]

That's a very different style. Your way makes it easier to tell a specific story (either yours or theirs). My way makes it easier to run the game like a simulation.

There's your problem, the games aren't simulations. You're only going to keep getting frustrated if you treat them as ones.

Hey, which pen&paper RPGs have you played/run?

[Sylvius the Mad]

There's your problem, the games aren't simulations. You're only going to keep getting frustrated if you treat them as ones.

I'm playing them like tabletop games, which I think should also be run as simulations. CRPGs, I think, should aspire to recreate the tabletop RPG experience without the need for other players.

Hey, which pen&paper RPGs have you played/run?

Ran and played:

AD&D
GURPS
Mythus

Played:

Vampire, the Masquerade
Battletech
Shadowrun
Star Wars (the old d6 game)

I'm probably forgetting some. I always wanted to play Paranoia.

[StanojeZ]

Ran and played:

AD&D
GURPS
Mythus

Played:

Vampire, the Masquerade
Battletech
Shadowrun
Star Wars (the old d6 game)

I'm probably forgetting some. I always wanted to play Paranoia.

You're old-school
I played Star Wars Saga, Mage: the Ascension, Exalted, Strands of Fate, Smallville, Marvel Heroic, and probably some others. Not much overlap between our gaming experiences!

Never played Paranoia either, but read a ton of stories about it, sounds like it was bonkers, yeah.

[phantomrachie]

Yeah, I will take my ball and leave. But anyway, typing from a smart phone is a pain in the backside so I tend to keep it short.

 

Short version: Combat mechanics (action combat, no tactics) and character leveling (no attributes). Those are the reasons for me. DA2 was kind of in the same corner but since it lacked companion customization it falls in the grey area, though it still is more a rpg than DAI.

 

Your reasons for saying DA:I is not an RPG make no sense to me. I could name 10 RPGs off the top of my head that had no attribute points to distribute when you level and more action based combat. (I disagree that DA:I has no tactics, you can be tactical in DA:I it is your choice whether or not to be tactical)

 

No attribute points at leveling

All Final Fantasy games

Skyrim

All 3 Mass Effect games

All Zelda games

Lost Odyssey

Jade Empire (If I'm remembering correctly, its been awhile)

Baten Kaitos

 

More action based combat

Skyrim

Oblivion

FF12 & FF 13

All 3 Mass Effect games

All Zelda games

Jade Empire

Alpha Protocol

Fallout 3

Fallout New Vegas 

The Fable series.

 

Attribute points are the trademark of any RPG that is trying to emulate the leveling system of old school Pen & Paper RPGs and I think it is weird that BioWare dropped them from the Dragon Age series after having them in the previous two games, but attribute points do not make an RPG.

 

In fact there are a number of Pen & Paper RPGs that have dropped them, are they now not RPGs?

 

Perhaps when you are at a PC you could elaborate.

[In Exile]

That would be metagaming. If I'm in-character, I perceive the other characters as people, and judge them as such.

The difficulty with your approach (perfectly analogising between RPG dialogue and IRL conversation) is that the two are mechanically dissimilar. You're not getting the same information in each scenarios, your universe of possible responses is limited, and there are clear and definite underlying rules governing conversation in the RPG that do not exist IRL.

[Medhia_Nox]

@In Exile:  Those rules don't exist in tabletop either really.  

 

The problem I think is people hoping a cRPG will be tabletop.  

The numbers gamers who play tabletop as a computer game are often fine with cRPGs and bristle at the notion of excess story like DA:I (whether good or bad).  

 

The storyteller type rpers only have one cRPG that emulates tabletop and that's NWN's persistent worlds.  Hopefully Sword Coast Legends will capture lightning in a bottle again.

[CronoDragoon]

Jade Empire (If I'm remembering correctly, its been awhile)

 

JE had stats on level, though they weren't the traditional RPG stats so that might be why you don't remember them (Body, Spirit, Mind).

[AlanC9]

A gender-neutral singular pronoun would also be useful on the Internet where someone's gender isn't immediately apparent.

If I'd been referred to as "him" or "her" or even "it", I wouldn't have objected. But "they" is a trend that needs to be stopped.

I don't see any way to get back to defaulting to "him" anymore, or to switch over to "her." "It" might work, or any of the various unisex pronouns that have been proposed over the last century or so --- ze, co, and so forth. But "they" has a built-in advantage because it's already fairly well-established as the usage for an undefined person. I don't see how "they" can be stopped at this point.

[o Ventus]

The thing I'm imagining, the thoughts of the characters, isn't actually in the game anywhere.

 

And? This a fault of the game.... How?

[AlanC9]

The difficulty with your approach (perfectly analogising between RPG dialogue and IRL conversation) is that the two are mechanically dissimilar. You're not getting the same information in each scenarios, your universe of possible responses is limited, and there are clear and definite underlying rules governing conversation in the RPG that do not exist IRL.

I'm not sure this is necessarily a problem. If we think of an in-game conversation as a simulation of a real conversation, then it can be seen as a limited subset of the possible paths that conversation could have taken -- we're only considering the paths where the PC said one of the choices available in the game, rather than the infinite number of other possible responses. The rules governing conversation aren't a substantial issue, since simulations always abstract the actual mechanics of the event being simulated to some extent. (Suddenly I'm thinking of Borges' map.)

 

There still is an information "problem" with a silent protagonist, since what the PC is actually saying in the simulation is not completely determined -- the simulation responds the same way no matter what the tone was. Quotes there because this is only an issue if you're trying to use the simulation as a predictive tool. If you don't think that it makes any sense to talk of, e.g.,  the "real Alistair," or if you don't think that people, whether fictional or real, are predictable in the first place, then there's no real problem for you.

[Nomen Mendax]

And? This a fault of the game.... How?

it's not a fault, it's a feature.

 

And Paranoia is fun (haven't played it for years) - definitely not a game to get attached to your character though!