Look up what "argument from ignorance" means. The term is not to be taken literally.
I disagree, options are always good.
The problem is, as you allude to, is that it costs a lot of money to put those options in, and it influences the games design. That is the bigger issue at hand; not the whole fabrication of "we lose resources for this or that" regarding game options, but rather the implementation and practicality of such options.
For example, the tactical camera in Inquisition influences character abilities and class builds in a lot of ways, eliminating sustained abilities in favor of passives or direct actions that are designed for tactical play and third person play. Stuff like the fire and ice walls and mines, the grappling chain, and the buffs/debuffs are all made to cater to both.
So the better question is how will these options be implemented? I feel like how Inquisition did conversations, only the major story decisions in-game literally spelled out for you what is going to happen; as a fair middle ground. That is a toggle in Inquisition, it can be a toggle in Andromeda.
No sorry options are not inherently good. There are moral and mechanical options that should NOT be available to players period they should not be options. i honestly didn't think I had to list the ridiculous and extreme examples of options that are harmful or imped enjoyment or simply eliminate the purpose of the game but this is the internet so obviously I did. Options are not good just because they give you choice some are just wrong period.
You shouldn't have the option to rape every woman you see in the game in graphic detail. You shouldn't be able to engage in pedaphilia as the player. I don't care if you want to play "the worst possible human being" as a role play experiment. You shouldn't have the option in multiplayer to pause the game for an hour. You shouldn't have the option to press a single button and jump to the end of the game.
There is nothing inherent about options that makes them good. Some are bad, some are insignificant, some are great. They all come at a cost and that cost can make any option bad. Which means all options should be evaluated by their own merits not on the assumption they are all good.
No sorry options are not inherently good. There are moral and mechanical options that should NOT be available to players period they should not be options. i honestly didn't think I had to list the ridiculous and extreme examples of options that are harmful or imped enjoyment or simply eliminate the purpose of the game but this is the internet so obviously I did. Options are not good just because they give you choice some are just wrong period.
You shouldn't have the option to rape every woman you see in the game in graphic detail. You shouldn't be able to engage in pedaphilia as the player. I don't care if you want to play "the worst possible human being" as a role play experiment. You shouldn't have the option in multiplayer to pause the game for an hour. You shouldn't have the option to press a single button and jump to the end of the game.
There is nothing inherent about options that makes them good. Some are bad, some are insignificant, some are great. They all come at a cost and that cost can make any option bad. Which means all options should be evaluated by their own merits not on the assumption they are all good.
You use extreme examples though, that's not what I am even referring to, and not really tangential to the discussion. Having options in a game is not a "always bad" thing because some options are always bad. The assumption that you make, that options are inherently not good, is a false one by your own premise; of course some aren't good, thats why they are never options in the first place, never brought up in discussion, or never even on the table in sensible game design.
Simply put, those options you bring up, the extreme examples, don't exist for a reason as something possible, so it's not really relevant to mention them, nor is it really relevant to use them as a reason for no options at all.
What I am talking about is what Sylvius brought up, which can go either way, depends on how BioWare implements it. I think the aforementioned compromise is the best solution in the end though.
nah i like how it was done for mass effect 2 and 3.
i honestly think that deciding to do something as an action is straight forward. executing it is more complex. and the difference between showing full lines and just showing main idea of the line is likened to that decision vs execution process.
i like to pick a main idea and then hear how its executed by my character, indulging in my character's personality as the words come out from their mouth.
reading off entire lines before you decide is just like skipping the fun
There's plenty of social science and economics literature about situations where more options can lead to less satisfaction. It's kind of a hot topic lately.
But is it actually true, or only theories?
I fully admit I don't know too much about the field, but I can say I have heard of the Paradox of Choice.Most of that has been seen as pseudo-factual from what I understand; they found no link to more choices and anxiety, although the variance for such parameters is high.
I hated the wheel in Me1 I have since learned to tolerate it. I don't like it but I can admit that the number of WTF moments in Bioware games have been on the decline over the last 8 years. And as of DA:I I can't recall any WTF moments which isn't to say there were none, as i haven't explored all content in the game. I also can't remember everything in the game. I only claim not to recall/remember any WTF moments in DA:I but remembers lots in ME1 and DA2. Yet I can accept that they did tests and they got results that show reading the entire line then waiting for it to acted by the voice actor was tested as not fun at all.
So are you belief based or fact based in your thinking those are your only options if you believe bioware is truthful about their results.
People are different. I believe Bioware tested their paraphrase system with a focus group and found that people preferred not to see the full line. That's what I recall reading when DG talked about it and that's all I've heard they did. You seem to be confusing *testing with a focus group* with *rigorous experiment with a sufficiently large sample size to draw a statistical conclusion* when the two things are not remotely similar. Not that I expect them to be performing experiments, that's not the business they are in. But that's the condition you need to use the word fact in this discussion in the way you are using it.
I firmly believe:
None of these should be controversial statements and none of them are in any contradicted by any evidence I've read on this subject. The only reason this thread hasn't died yet is that a small number of people seem determined to convince people who would prefer to read the full line that they are wrong.
If I like Marmite and a focus group found that people hate Marmite would you tell me I actually hated it? Because that's pretty much your argument here.
I'm saying there is no proof of x there is proof of y. x and y are mutually exclusive, therefore y. You want to claim x in this case, you have to prove x, or prove that the middle premise (x and y are mutually exclusive) is false. You can't do the former, because the game won't let you. And the latter is self evident.
And for those following at home:
x is Shepard hates the asari
y is Shepard likes or is ambivalent or tolerates the asari.
x1 is Shepard apathetic towards the galaxy
y1 is Shepard cares about saving the galaxy
Proof of y (or evidence, if you're pedantic): Shepard's reactions post-Thessia, his mostly deferential treatment of the Councilor (he can be angry at the Council but never singles out the asari- compare that with "depends on the species, turian", and calling out the salarians on genophage related conversations).
Proof of x: ???
Proof of y1: Anything Shepard says about the Reapers.
Proof of x1: ???
There's experimental data. What I've seen is not so much about anxiety per se as it is getting killed on the transaction costs. You can end up spending a lot of effort sorting through options without much payoff.But is it actually true, or only theories?
I fully admit I don't know too much about the field, but I can say I have heard of the Paradox of Choice.Most of that has been seen as pseudo-factual from what I understand; they found no link to more choices and anxiety, although the variance for such parameters is high.
Christ, are people comparing knowing what your character is actually going to say to engaging in pedophilia?
Wrong. They look weird to any who know a "weirdness" has occured.
An example: I called a buddy to come meet up with us. I got his voicemail. I meant to say "Hey [his name], it's [my name], wanted to see what you were up to..." and so on. It came out "Hey [my name], it's [his name]..." and the rest was garbled because my friends were dying with laughter. It took me a split second to realize what I said, but when I did I was more puzzled than anyone.
That's colloquially called a brain fart. Other variations occur when you're saying something and all of a sudden you just blank, losing your train of thought. Don't bother telling me it doesn't happen to you, because I won't believe it. It's common, it happens to everyone, and everyone just chuckles and goes on with their day.
Does it happen every time you have a conversation?
Because that's about how often the paraphrase fails for me.
Being predictable is about knowing what someone does, not why they do it (though the why could help). And no, like I just said there are cases where we don't know what we do.
But there are also cases where we can't predict others, because they're acting for reasons of which we're unaware.
And that's why I think the silent protagonist works. Whenever the NPCs don't react appropriately given the tone I've imagined, there are possible explanations for that. And I don't need to invent them, because I don't need to believe I can read their minds. Sometimes people do things I don't expect and can't explain. So why is it a problem when that happens in a silent protagonist game?
So in real world conversations one person never talks and the other carries on like they did? Where do you live, where you see this?
In the silent protagonist game, they both talk. One of those people talking just isn't modeled in the game. That doesn't mean it's not happened - just that we don't see it.
Like eating. The characters eat. We don't see it. Do you think the characters don't eat?
You do obvserve him from the outside, literally, as you're watching a screen. That does not preclude inhabiting (or maybe sharing is a better word) his mind.
If I were sharing his mind, I'd know what he was going to say at least some of the time.
Hope implies a level of doubt regarding success. I never doubt I will be understood. Indeed someone misunderstanding me is more of a surprise than successful communication. That's because success, not failure is the routine.
I expect neither, because I can predict neither. Nor can I usually tell them apart, because I can't read people's minds.
No I just don't bother differentiating when I'm discussing the game. Saying "I" is shorter than saying "my Shepard". Helps, that I only really have one variation on the character.
But you were describing outcomes, and Shepard isn't aware of the outcomes when the choices are made.
Shepard might choose the options she expects will provide her with more allies. You said the you chose the option which would. That's a very different thing.
You asked for evidence that Shepard doesn't think something. In other words you asked me to prove a negative. That's shifting the burder of proof.
My point there was that we can't prove that. As such, it's absurd to hold it to be true.
I'm saying there is no proof of x there is proof of y. x and y are mutually exclusive, therefore y.
But there is no proof of Y. There's some evidence for Y, and less (or none) for X. But unless the evidence for Y is conclusive (i.e. it is actually proof), there's no reason to claim that Y must be true and X must be false.
Either could be true. We lack sufficient evidence to determine it. As such, we're free to act as if the one we prefer is true. We don't need to believe something is true in order to act as if it is.
You want to claim x in this case, you have to prove x, or prove that the middle premise (x and y are mutually exclusive) is false. You can't do the former, because the game won't let you. And the latter is self evident.And for those following at home:
x is Shepard hates the asari
y is Shepard likes or is ambivalent or tolerates the asari.
x1 is Shepard apathetic towards the galaxyy1 is Shepard cares about saving the galaxy
Proof of y (or evidence, if you're pedantic): Shepard's reactions post-Thessia, his mostly deferential treatment of the Councilor (he can be angry at the Council but never singles out the asari- compare that with "depends on the species, turian", and calling out the salarians on genophage related conversations).
Proof of x: ???Proof of y1: Anything Shepard says about the Reapers.
Proof of x1: ???
Nothing is self-evident.
The difference between evidence and proof is a mile wide. You cannot use those words interchangeably unless you don't know what they mean or you're trying to be misunderstood.
Only to the extent allowed by the narrative. I can agree the limits should be minimal and should only be what's required to plausibly keep you in the narrative. They automated quite a bit past that in ME3 and it's not like they haven't been called out on it.
It's not possibly true in this case because its opposite has been shown to be true. I cannot make this any clearer.
And please don't go putting words in my mouth. We are talking about two very specific examples here, examples that are defined in the game, whether you like it or not. Overgeneralizing my point will get you nowhere.
I don't care about your examples. I care about the generalities. We can instantiate from generalities. But discussing instances gives us nothing from which we can universally generalize.
What is the point of using examples at all?
You really need to stop misusing "proof" this way. It's getting in the way of the substance.
There's substance?
No, sorry options are not inherently good.
No, they're not inherently good value. They might not be worth it. But they are still, all else being equal, good.
Look at poverty. Poverty is bad. But the optimal level of poverty isn't zero. But that doesn't stop it from being bad.
If I like Marmite and a focus group found that people hate Marmite would you tell me I actually hated it? Because that's pretty much your argument here.
Especially if they used it wrong and put too much on their toast.
And that's why I think the silent protagonist works. Whenever the NPCs don't react appropriately given the tone I've imagined, there are possible explanations for that. And I don't need to invent them, because I don't need to believe I can read their minds. Sometimes people do things I don't expect and can't explain. So why is it a problem when that happens in a silent protagonist game?
I'm not sure "reading their minds" is the best metaphor there -- assuming that was a metaphor and not the literally intended meaning.
It was the literally intended meaning.
I don't see how anyone could ever be confident about what conclusions other people drew without literally reading their minds. People are simply too complex to model in this way.
As evidence for this, I have the endless mischaracterization of things I've said when they're relayed by other people. Even when I'm extremely precise, and have even given specific advice on how to interpret the things I say, but then people still get them wrong every single day - sometimes repeatedly in the same conversation.
I just don't really like being surprised in this respect. The PC is ostensibly my character, and the draw of these games is directing the story line - something typically, though not universally, achieved through dialogue choices. The plotline can - and will, I hope, surprise me. But the choices I'm making and the things that I'm saying should not.
I can live with better paraphrases (and they have gotten better - they were godawful through DA2). But the ability to see what we're saying exactly would always be ideal.
This is pretty much done in TW games - voiced, but you say precisely what you select - although there is also a good amount of autodialogue in those games as well.
The difference between proof and evidence is absolutely not pedantry. In your example, if Shepard is deferential to the Asari councilor it could indeed be cited as evidence that he/she is at worst ambivalent to her. But Shepard could have a bitter hatred of Asari that he/she wishes to remain hidden; in fact, Shepard's outburst to the Turian could even be part of this attempt to hide his/her true feelings. There isn't (and nor should there be) anything in the game that contradicts this*.
*That's not entirely true since if Shepard sleeps with Liara you'd think she might notice in the joining and say something - but even that is just more evidence (though stronger evidence) and not proof.
Sleeping with Liara is not required. You necessarily meld with her as part of the plot regardless in ME1 and optionally in ME3 via the gift. Though obviously it's not the same, it's still mind to mind contact of the type you're describing. You also meld with Shiala when she passes the Cipher to you.
And I do not reneg on any words I have used. Though I've resorted to a logical structure to express an idea, I never invoked the concept of formal proof. Proof is merely sufficient evidence for truth of an assertion. The relevant mandatory actions you take throughout the plot is sufficient evidence for my claims. I admit I've used the words interchangeably as short hand but given the analysis I don't that matters.
But Sylvius wasn't committing the actual fallacy in the first place. I was responding to the sloppy version of the term you yourself were using. Or anyway, that's what I thought you were doing, since on further review it look like you were using the term properly, but were just flat-out wrong about what Sylvius was asserting.
Yes he was. He literally said: "We just need the lack of disproof." That's almost word for word the definition of argument from ignorance. It seems I didn't give you the best quote last time. But this should've still been obvious.
Christ, are people comparing knowing what your character is actually going to say to engaging in pedophilia?
Really? I've been ignoring other posts because there's a lot to sift through with direct replies, but if that's what this thread is coming to maybe it's time to back out. And call the mods with flamethrowers.
Does it happen every time you have a conversation?
Because that's about how often the paraphrase fails for me.
I still find this unlikely (especially in ME) but since I don't know DA, maybe they really are that bad there. Still, better paraphrasing would be a sufficient solutions. Let me know if you ever have an argument for going further.
But there are also cases where we can't predict others, because they're acting for reasons of which we're unaware.
And that's why I think the silent protagonist works. Whenever the NPCs don't react appropriately given the tone I've imagined, there are possible explanations for that. And I don't need to invent them, because I don't need to believe I can read their minds. Sometimes people do things I don't expect and can't explain. So why is it a problem when that happens in a silent protagonist game?
Again you resort too much to absolutes. What's this reading minds business? Whether you successfully predict an NPC's action or not, you still engage in the same thing- speculation, deduction and/or plain old guess work. You consistently demand a certainty that doesn't exist in any level of human interaction, real or fictional.
In any case prediction isn't the problem with silent protagonists.
In the silent protagonist game, they both talk. One of those people talking just isn't modeled in the game. That doesn't mean it's not happened - just that we don't see it.
Like eating. The characters eat. We don't see it. Do you think the characters don't eat?
No they very clearly don't talk. One person talks. The other person just stares and somehow the answer is beamed into the talker's mind. If no one talked, and I was just reading transcripts of conversations, that'd be one thing. But then we're talking about text adventure games. Or reading a book. The inconsistency is insurmountably jarring.
Your analogy would be more like this: You're shown at a table but without animations for eating. Food just appears in your mouth, or disappears from your plate. It's bizarre. Either do it all, or don't do it at all.
But you were describing outcomes, and Shepard isn't aware of the outcomes when the choices are made.
Shepard might choose the options she expects will provide her with more allies. You said the you chose the option which would. That's a very different thing.
Yes, the option we expect would gain us allies. Are you just being facetiously literal?
But there is no proof of Y. There's some evidence for Y, and less (or none) for X. But unless the evidence for Y is conclusive (i.e. it is actually proof), there's no reason to claim that Y must be true and X must be false.
Yes there is. I've already listed it. And it has been discussed and complained about ad nauseum on this forum.
I don't care about your examples. I care about the generalities. We can instantiate from generalities. But discussing instances gives us nothing from which we can universally generalize.
What is the point of using examples at all?
My examples are evidence that the game decides some of your mindset. Thus your claim that you decide all of your mindset is proven false. And there's nothing your weird rhetoric can do about that.
There's experimental data. What I've seen is not so much about anxiety per se as it is getting killed on the transaction costs. You can end up spending a lot of effort sorting through options without much payoff.
Of course, you could say that's a problem with the decision-making strategy too. See, for instance, players taking a completionist approach to DAI even when they don't like doing the miscellaneous quests and don't benefit from them.
That is actually quite interesting.
Yes he was. He literally said: "We just need the lack of disproof." That's almost word for word the definition of argument from ignorance. It seems I didn't give you the best quote last time. But this should've still been obvious.
For the most part, Geralt will literally say what is written on the screen (and at times, add a bit more of that particular sentiment).
Just do it, give an option to see the full line upon hover.
I have no idea why this isn't the standard yet. Do it.
For Mass Effect I don't mind them cutting the lines to a line.... provided that line aptly sums up the nature of the chosen dialogue.... But, and this is just a flavour thing in my eyes that harks back to the days of adventure gaming in a variety of formats.... Hack and Slash, Dungeons and Dragons type games feel more, old style, tying into the medievalesque setting of the adventure when they give you the full dialogue......
It's not like I don't have time to read, or skim and choose..... Dialogue will sit there until I make a choice. Interrupts serve as the QTE outside of dialogue options. The tools are al there for BW to give the players options in how they interact with the game. The only thing I see as the limiting factor is how much development time they are willing to create means of interacting with said tools.
If they bother to develop the tools at all. ME3... Doors. Used to be interactable objects. Then reduced to cutscene's. They could have developed interactable doors for the Role Play fans and cut the hacking aspect out by selecting play style mode at the beginning of the game. Instead, they chose one overarching model of play that satisfied one group of fans and left the others wanting.
Not that I'm without sympathy for the Dev's who had to make choices in what to develop for the game..... given that they were hard pressed to create a game with the deadlines they had. But as much as their gaems are pretty and full of content, the bioware RP interactive aspect between game and player seems to have been pushed aside to focus on play by the numbers gaming.
Seriously.... Leviathan DLC. Investigaing the lab. Why not use the Omni tool to ping and have a directional light indicate where the evidence is instead of walking around looking for reticles? Batman's Omni' tool style gadget seems to work much better than the ones in Mass Effect.
We just need the lack of disproof to establish that a possibility exists, yep. How is that a fallacy? He doesn't need certainty on his side, since he can establish the existence of the postulated beliefs by fiat if a possibility for those beliefs exists.
The burden of proof is yours, and always has been.
Underlined: Have you talked to this guy? Everything is certainty with him. "We need lack of dispoof" followed by "what evidence do you have that Shepard doesn't think something" is textbook fallacy. If he meant "possibility" well I guess he was just misunderstood, which neatly supports some other arguments I'm having with him.
But anyway, no he really can't establish anything of the sort. The possibility is ruled out by the certainty of its opposite.
And I do not reneg on any words I have used. Though I've resorted to a logical structure to express an idea, I never invoked the concept of formal proof. Proof is merely sufficient evidence for truth of an assertion. The relevant mandatory actions you take throughout the plot is sufficient evidence for my claims. I admit I've used the words interchangeably as short hand but given the analysis I don't that matters.
If you are not going to concede that there is an important difference between proof and evidence the discussion is pointless. We can choose to ignore evidence, or rather we can discount evidence given our knowledge of the PCs mental state.
Retour en haut
