15859 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sure.

 

I think you are better off with that access spreadsheet, not to mention this is all besides the point which is that your hostility towards TW is more likely grounded in an aversion to humans being too active (i.e. control tendencies) that are placated only by the serenity of the super control fantasy DA:I Land greater control over relationships that it offers.

 

Granted we aren't quite in Skyrim Land where literally every other thing in the universe is at your beck and call and your followers obey your every command (whether that's to slaughter innocents or bandits makes no difference), but it's still more in that direction.

 

Actually I saw this come up in the cheating thing with TW3 where both Triss and Yennefer get mad at your for trying to go with both, whereas DA characters kind of passively will go "Oh is so and so with you?" I think there are a few moments of aggression but mostly not.

 

Anyway I shall leave you to your parade of non-real divisions you are creating that are pretty much purely semantic.

I think that;s a different thing.

 

I have no need to control the characters I'm not playing.  Triss and Yennefer and Cassandra and Varric can do what they want.  If they want to make demands of my character, that's fine.  But my character's reaction to those demands needs to be something I control.

 

I actually wish the DAI NPCs reacted more, but they can't really do that because of DAI's cinematics and voice acting.  To show those reactions, we'd probably need to see the Inquisitor's behaviour as well, and that can't work without the writers taking control away from the player.

 

BioWare's pre-cinematic games handled this better, Baldur's Gate in particular.

[KaiserShep]

This is an entirely rational position I'm advancing here.

 

If I exist for the game to speak to, then I break the game's setting merely by existing.  The only way for the game world to be coherent is for me not to exist within it.

 

The logic is fairly straightforward.

 

 

​The only Blight within the Dragon Age is my own awareness of reality. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

The player character.

 

The entire idea behind the character creator and being able to choose your dialogue is to be able to role-play as any kind of character you want, yourself included.

 

This is one of the most asinine things I've seen on this site.

I have a bunch of knowledge the player character doesn't (not the least of which is that the player character isn't real).  We can't be the same thing.  And if I use that knowledge when playing, I'm metagaming.

 

I don't metagame.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The only Blight within the Dragon Age is my own awareness of reality. 

That is an excellent description of my position.

 

As the player, I shouldn't be aware that anything outside the game (including myself) exists.  So anything the game says to the player I'm liable not to notice, because I'm not aware of the player's perspective.

 

This is something ME did badly on Ilos.  The game tried to tell me, the player, that I should take the Mako on the trench run.  But since I wasn't paying any attention to my own point of view - I observed only Shepard's point of view - I was unaware that the game had tried to tell me anything.

[o Ventus]

I have a bunch of knowledge the player character doesn't (not the least of which is that the player character isn't real).

 

And? After you've played the game, you will never NOT have this knowledge. What's your point?

 

We can't be the same thing.  And if I use that knowledge when playing, I'm metagaming.

 

This is not even in the same ballpark as what I was saying.

 

 

That is an excellent description of my position.

 

 

As the player, I shouldn't be aware that anything outside the game (including myself) exists.

 

 

This is something ME did badly on Ilos.  The game tried to tell me, the player, that I should take the Mako on the trench run.  But since I wasn't paying any attention to my own point of view - I observed only Shepard's point of view - I was unaware that the game had tried to tell me anything.

 

I'm legitimately concerned for your mental health.

[Enigmatick]

For the record stuff like "Characters demanding to talk to you" is why I hope the in game conversations stay. Being able to simply walk away from those people is far more effective and satisfying if isn't a dialogue choice.

 

In fact, being able to initiate combat without a dialogue choice in those conversations would be welcome too.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm legitimately concerned for your mental health.

The psychosis you perceive is induced willfully, and only temporarily.

 

Really, it's just like running a thought experiment.  In a thought experiment, you assume all of the circumstances of the test (because you can't actually run the test - hence the need for a thought experiment).  That's what I'm doing.  I'm simply assuming that the only perspective available to me is that of the protagonist.

And? After you've played the game, you will never NOT have this knowledge. What's your point?

But I can ignore it.  I need not possess it for the purposes of playing the game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Guys please.. He had an opinion stop bashing him for it.

I don't think they're bashing me.

[Seraphim24]

Christ almighty could you be anymore condescending? On this same page you call him a control freak and now you're saying he's hostile to a game?
 

 

What I'm not allowed to ignore people's proffered explanations and substitute my own?

 

See what I mean? That's the kind of thing Witcher characters are more likely to do, and I rather enjoy it, whereas DA (again, not the best example, Skyrim would be) basically doesn't offer the same kind of back and forth, everything is catered directly to you and pretty much nothing offers any resistance whatsoever.

 

In TW, things push back, see how I pushed back? And you resisted? Must be DA fan then...

 

I don't think they're bashing me.

 

And this.

[Br3admax]

I think that;s a different thing.

 

I have no need to control the characters I'm not playing.  Triss and Yennefer and Cassandra and Varric can do what they want.  If they want to make demands of my character, that's fine.  But my character's reaction to those demands needs to be something I control.

 

I actually wish the DAI NPCs reacted more, but they can't really do that because of DAI's cinematics and voice acting.  To show those reactions, we'd probably need to see the Inquisitor's behaviour as well, and that can't work without the writers taking control away from the player.

 

BioWare's pre-cinematic games handled this better, Baldur's Gate in particular.

Well Baldur's Gate has terrible writing, but that aside, the things that worked in Baldur's Gate won't work in a game in 2015. No one's going to stare at someone while they speak every other line while conversations make the world go static ending virtually all immersion, which was the point of making this an rpg in the first place. It works for games like PoE specifically because of things like nostalgia and, more importantly, PoE takes away from the rendering of characters fully into any form of immersive world. It won't work in the worlds BioWare is trying to create now, something I'm thankful for honestly. 

[Seraphim24]

Well Baldur's Gate has terrible writing, but that aside, the things that worked in Baldur's Gate won't work in a game in 2015. No one's going to stare at someone while they speak every other line while conversations make the world go static ending virtually all immersion, which was the point of making this an rpg in the first place. It works for games like PoE specifically because of things like nostalgia and, more importantly, PoE takes away from the rendering of characters fully into any form of immersive world. It won't work in the worlds BioWare is trying to create now, something I'm thankful for honestly. 

 

I'd still play BG today today over DA to be honest.

 

This whole "no one is going to stare at someone while they speak every other line," is kind of not a generalizable assumption there IMO.

[KaiserShep]

That is an excellent description of my position.

 

As the player, I shouldn't be aware that anything outside the game (including myself) exists.  So anything the game says to the player I'm liable not to notice, because I'm not aware of the player's perspective.

 

This is something ME did badly on Ilos.  The game tried to tell me, the player, that I should take the Mako on the trench run.  But since I wasn't paying any attention to my own point of view - I observed only Shepard's point of view - I was unaware that the game had tried to tell me anything.

 

Eh, it's just playing pretend through a digital puppet that's on an elaborate set of rails. When it comes to meta-knowledge, I do like to get into the moment and conjure up a mindset for my character that's in-line with his or her situation, but I don't think too hard about it. It's just whatever seems plausible for the character to think or say at any given moment. But then, I don't self-insert into whatever persona I'm playing, but rather treat it like a protagonist in a movie or TV show and I just decide what outcomes I like the most.

 

As for the Mako, I'm pretty certain that one of the companions will comment on the tank's firepower being helpful. 

[o Ventus]

The psychosis you perceive is induced willfully, and only temporarily.

Psychosis is also unhealthy to the degree of being dangerous both to the person suffering the psychosis and the people around them.

 

That's why they say that someone "suffers" from psychosis and not that someone is blessed with it.

 

This is so far divorced from my original point that I don't know why I'm bothering to continue, but if you can just flip a switch in your head and say to yourself "yep, I'm not me anymore, I'm [character]", that REALLY doesn't strike you as just a little bit out-of-touch with reality and how a healthy human brain works?

 

This whole "no one is going to stare at someone while they speak every other line," is kind of not a generalizable assumption there IMO.

 

An assumption is general by its very nature.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Eh, it's just playing pretend through a digital puppet that's on an elaborate set of rails. When it comes to meta-knowledge, I do like to get into the moment and conjure up a mindset for my character that's in-line with his or her situation, but I don't think too hard about it. It's just whatever seems plausible for the character to think or say at any given moment. But then, I don't self-insert into whatever persona I'm playing, but rather treat it like a protagonist in a movie or TV show and I just decide what outcomes I like the most.

I'm trying to recreate a tabletop roleplaying experience without the need for other players.  Being told what my character is doing is incompatible with that.  Being told what my character's opinions, motives, or goals are is incompatible with that.

As for the Mako, I'm pretty certain that one of the companions will comment on the tank's firepower being helpful.

Shepard thought Kaidan was being a crybaby, and ignored him.

[TheOgre]

I don't think they're bashing me.

Going to drop my post and hide it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

This is so far divorced from my original point that I don't know why I'm bothering to continue, but if you can just flip a switch in your head and say to yourself "yep, I'm not me anymore, I'm [character]", that REALLY doesn't strike you as just a little bit out-of-touch with reality and how a healthy human brain works?

1. I think the extent to which anyone thinks he is actually in touch with reality is merely a figment of his imagination.

 

2. I'm not generally a fan of how the typical human brain works.

 

3. Calling something "healthy" simply because it more closely resembles the majority seems like a dangerous precedent to set.

[o Ventus]

My friend, and others.. Calling someone's sanity into question is definitely a bash..
 

No, it isn't. Not unless you perceive it as such. Offense is taken, not given. It will be crystal clear when I'm bashing or criticizing someone, and this is not one of those times.

[Br3admax]

I'd still play BG today today over DA to be honest.

 

This whole "no one is going to stare at someone while they speak every other line," is kind of not a generalizable assumption there IMO.

You don't actually look at the character in Baldur's Gate, as the character hardly even exist beyond the random sprite created using a generic class insert. DA is an entirely different beast with rendered characters. They aren't even comparable, which was actually the point to the post I made, if you bothered to read it. Though if you like watching the awkard head animations made by N/PCs in BioWare games during idle for conversations on end while you have to read them all, all the power to you. 

[Enigmatick]

What I'm not allowed to ignore people's proffered explanations and substitute my own?

 

See what I mean? That's the kind of thing Witcher characters are more likely to do, and I rather enjoy it, whereas DA (again, not the best example, Skyrim would be) basically doesn't offer the same kind of back and forth, everything is catered directly to you and pretty much nothing offers any resistance whatsoever.

 

In TW, things push back, see how I pushed back? And you resisted? Must be DA fan then...

 

 

And this.

 

You being a **** and then trying to excuse it by spinning it into a criticism doesn't actually prove anything about either of the three games you mentioned, especially when you're as off base as you are about the bolded.

 

EDIT: Forgot there was a word filter, I'm sure you can guess what it was.

[Seraphim24]

My friend, and others.. Calling someone's sanity into question is definitely a bash..

Sylvius wants an experience where he can control whether or not his character reacts to ex. Event in a specific manner. To express sympathy for a character voluntarily as the player character. I.e,

Spoiler

When Geralt finds Vessimer dead

I personally disagree in said example. I think what happened was appropriate. But I'm not going to call someone's sanity into question.

 

I was kind of joking to be honest. You know, that's kind of a common character in fiction? The mad necromancer or something that's brilliant with numbers or something but bad with people or something? (Although I don't know that for a fact). He just reminds me of a Philosophy professor something I had with the if a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound sort of deal?

 

Sheesh, ease up there.

 

My personal experience is that "thought experiments" are a waste of everyone's time for the precise reason they are devoid of the context needed to solve them. The sole reason they exist to plague hapless students is because the answer was taken away from the beginning, the sense of reality you would normally use to solve them.

 

What we have in front of us, rather than this game, is a game that gives you total control over your character and affords greater ability to contain other people's reactions and expressions, and a game that gives you less control (pre-set PC, etc), consequently (and as Sylvius stated directly) the fact there was another character "doing their own thing" was bothersome (i.e. demanded greater degree of control).

[Seraphim24]

You don't actually look at the character in Baldur's Gate, as the character hardly even exist beyond the random sprite created using a generic class insert. DA is an entirely different beast with rendered characters. They aren't even comparable, which was actually the point to the post I made, if you bothered to read it. Though if you like watching the awkard head animations made by N/PCs in BioWare games during idle for conversations on end while you have to read them all, all the power to you. 

 

Yeah I don't care at all, those little random spirtes had a lot of personality, rendered characters are a waste of time and resources in many ways IMO.

[o Ventus]

1. I think the extent to which anyone thinks he is actually in touch with reality is merely a figment of his imagination.

 

If the person in question isn't healthy, sure. An insane person can think they're The Doctor. Regardless, your average person with no major mental health disorder can safely claim to know that they are real and that they exist. To say otherwise smacks of pretension and wanting to be a contrarian.

 

2. I'm not generally a fan of how the typical human brain works.

 

Yeah, I gathered as much.

 

 

3. Calling something "healthy" simply because it more closely resembles the majority seems like a dangerous precedent to set.

 

I think you mean the norm, not the majority. And speaking of the norm, there's a reason why it's called that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

No, it isn't. Not unless you perceive it as such.

How I perceive something does not change what it is.

 

As it happens, I did not perceive it at such.  I saw it as an opportunity to expand on my position.

[Sylvius the Mad]

My personal experience is that "thought experiments" are a waste of everyone's time for the precise reason they are devoid of the context needed to solve them. The sole reason they exist to plague hapless students is because the answer was taken away from the beginning, the sense of reality you would normally use to solve them.

That's the whole point of most philosophical thought experiments - to isolate some specific aspect of your reasoning.  If you get to appeal to reality, they become worthless.

[o Ventus]

How I perceive something does not change what it is.

 

As it happens, I did not perceive it at such.  I saw it as an opportunity to expand on my position.

 

I would argue that when the subject in question is not a physical thing that exists, that one's perception DOES change what it is. 

 

If I say something (example, when the weird things you say worry me), and another person claims to understand what I meant (when TheOgre said I was bashing you), that doesn't make what they said true because they don't know my intent unless I tell them. He perceives it to be me criticizing you, when I know I wasn't. You didn't take offense to my statement, so he's wrong on 2 accounts.

 

edit: Even though this has gone completely off-the-rails off-topic and completely divorced from The Witcher, it's still nice to have a legitimate discussion on something and not see either mindless ****posting or senseless criticism.