293 réponses à ce sujet

[Kingthlayer]

With a voiced character, I can't see myself being a fan of this, in Witcher 1 for example the full line is written out that you choose, and then said by Geralt.  It's hearing the same thing twice(well reading once and hearing once unless you read out loud)

 

But as an option for players who want it, I don't see why not.  The full lines of dialogue are written out already in subtitles, it shouldn't be too difficult(as long as the game is designed this way from the beginning) for an option to have the subtitles show up scrolling over the summary option instead of having it show up after clicking it.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

I don't think it was. I think that was the clarification system they made which tells the player what action they're taking at a big moment.

 

It didn't really do anything for anyone and it wasn't a solution to the problem people had.

 

Ironically a lot people who don't like the paragon/renegade morality system in the previous games now they seem to want a new morality system for the dialogue wheel. I don't if that is funny or sad. 

[CrutchCricket]

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.

I think you choosing to ignore evidence renders this discussion more pointless than any semantics I might've played with.

[Nomen Mendax]

I think you choosing to ignore evidence renders this discussion more pointless than any semantics I might've played with.

I think that emphasizes the point that different people play these games in different ways. Of particular relevance is that some people have a stronger internal narrative than others. So if the game provides evidence for some mental state of the PC (Shepard appears to be indifferent to Asari) that evidence might be contradicted by the stronger evidence of the player's internal narrative (Shepard hates Asari). Thinking about it, explained away probably better explains what I'm trying to say than ignored. 

 

You might say (I'm not saying you would) that the player's internal narrative doesn't count as evidence because its not referenced in the game at all or that it doesn't reflect the writers intent. I'd respond by saying that neither of those things are particularly relevant since everything that is happening in the game is in the player's imagination. A well written (IMHO obviously) RPG should avoid describing the mental state or motivations of the PC, that's the players job. An example of this is the ME3 dream sequences which I felt should have been avoided (I also found them rather trite, but that's a separate objection).

[AlanC9]

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.

 
Um... yeah, I've talked to Sylvius.
 
And, again,this simply isn't the fallacy you think it is. It looks to me like you aren't able to be able to keep the arguments straight -- you keep responding to propositions that aren't being made by anyone.
 
Let me try running it down for you again.
 
1: There is no "real" personality for Shepard. Every player constructs his own personality for his Shepards. The author(s) may have had something in mind, but that's only relevant if the player wishes that to be so. (I personally do that because of the modelling concerns I mentioned upthread, but that's an approach that serves my needs -- nobody else has to adopt it if it doesn't work for them.)
 
2: Sylvius wishes Shepard to have personality trait X. (Doesn't matter why.)
 
3: What condition would prevent Sylvius from declaring that X is true for this particular Shepard? He's free to posit anything that's possible for Shepard, isn't he? Only actual proof that it is impossible for X to be true can prevent  Sylvius from making X true for this Shepard.
 
Where's the fallacy? 
 
 

But anyway, no he really can't establish anything of the sort. The possibility is ruled out by the certainty of its opposite.

Well, this is at least a reasonable approach to the argument. I'll let Sylvius handle whether or not it's true.

[CrutchCricket]

I think that emphasizes the point that different people play these games in different ways. Of particular relevance is that some people have a stronger internal narrative than others. So if the game provides evidence for some mental state of the PC (Shepard appears to be indifferent to Asari) that evidence might be contradicted by the stronger evidence of the player's internal narrative (Shepard hates Asari). Thinking about it, explained away probably better explains what I'm trying to say than ignored. 
 
You might say (I'm not saying you would) that the player's internal narrative doesn't count as evidence because its not referenced in the game at all or that it doesn't reflect the writers intent. I'd respond by saying that neither of those things are particularly relevant since everything that is happening in the game is in the player's imagination. A well written (IMHO obviously) RPG should avoid describing the mental state or motivations of the PC, that's the players job. An example of this is the ME3 dream sequences which I felt should have been avoided (I also found them rather trite, but that's a separate objection).

So headcanon is now "stronger evidence" than in-game fact? Seriously?
 
Internal narrative isn't evidence of anything, really, because you don't need to prove anything to yourself. It has nothing to do with writer intent. You are free to think what you want about the game and the character, so long as it's not outright contradicted by the narrative. The fact that your experience of the narrative is subjective doesn't support you disregarding what's objectively there (the narrative itself). In fact it weakens it. That's like saying I see a girl in front of me and she's wearing a blue shirt. But I'm imagining she's wearing a red shirt, so that vision takes precedence, therefore she's wearing a red shirt. It's ludicrous. Reality and perception don't work that way.
 
I suspect this entire discussion is just getting bogged down in inane details and tangents. So let's try getting back to the main topic. I agree with you that RPGs should not prescribe a mental state or plot relevant preferences, where by definition that's supposed to be up to the player. I hated the dream sequences too. With a passion. And the forced emotional bullshit at Thessia. And the autodialogue. But that being said there are necessary limits to what the game can let the player express. That's fine because some things don't have to be expressed to fit into the roleplay experience. If you think I disagreed on this, it was a misunderstanding. But regardless of all this, one thing the player cannot do is outright contradict, or overwrite expressions* of the game, whether they be characterization or plot or whatever. If you do that, you're no longer engaging the narrative, you're just spinning off in your own derivative fantasies. Which might be fun or valid for you but have little basis for common discussion. Or value, apart from idle conversation.
 
*I saw the term "explain away" in your post. This is the one workaround you might be able to use, if you can plausibly manage it, to get past a stated fact in the narrative you'd like to change without negating it altogether. If you can use in-universe justification to explain a change from the way things are presented to the way you want them to be, that's cool (and fun to think about). But that's not always possible, and the examples we're discussing fall into this category.
 

And, again,this simply isn't the fallacy you think it is. It looks to me like you aren't able to be able to keep the arguments straight -- you keep responding to propositions that aren't being made by anyone.

I've been responding to and quoting direct phrases.What more do you want?
 

1: There is no "real" personality for Shepard. Every player constructs his own personality for his Shepards. The author(s) may have had something in mind, but that's only relevant if the player wishes that to be so.

Writer intent may be irrelevant. Stated fact in-game is not. As discussed above.
 

2: Sylvius wishes Shepard to have personality trait X. (Doesn't matter why.)

3: What condition would prevent Sylvius from declaring that X is true for this particular Shepard? He's free to posit anything that's possible for Shepard, isn't he? Only actual proof that it is impossible for X to be true can prevent Sylvius from making X true for this Shepard.

Where's the fallacy?

The fallacy is how he stated it. Somewhere along the way this was changed to "possibility" which indeed slips out of fallacy range. But it's still false because the opposite is proven true.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

Better paraphrasing would be fine.

However, it will be as good as full text only if we can predict the actual line with perfect accuracy.

I'm not willing to give up anything to get the paraphrase, because the paraphrase gives me nothing in return. Since the full text lets us predict the literal content of line with perfect accuracy, that is the standard by which I judge the paraphrase.

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.

That's exactly my point. Finally you get it.

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.

Did you ever play these games before the NPCs were voiced? Or NWN, where the NPCs are partially voiced (usually the first sentence or two of important conversations were voiced, but the rest was silent)?

I play all games the way I played those games. That the NPC speaks or doesn't (or does inconsistently, as in NWN) is merely part of the user interface.

Do you insist that the targeting reticule exists in the game world, too?

Yes, the option we expect would gain us allies. Are you just being facetiously literal?

I'm being precise. This whole discussionn hinges on fine distinctions and definitions. Precision matter. Words have meaning.

My examples are evidence that the game decides some of your mindset.

It can, if you let it. I try not to let it.

That said, all of your examples are from games with a voiced protagonist and paraphrases. What point are you trying to make? That they deprive us of roleplaying freedom?

Yes, yes they do. That's why I'm complaining about them.

[Sylvius the Mad]

So headcanon is now "stronger evidence" than in-game fact? Seriously?

From the point of view of the player character, of course.

You know the contents of your mind. You only perceive the world around you.

*I saw the term "explain away" in your post. This is the one workaround you might be able to use, if you can plausibly manage it, to get past a stated fact in the narrative you'd like to change without negating it altogether. If you can use in-universe justification to explain a change from the way things are presented to the way you want them to be, that's cool (and fun to think about).

That's what I've been talking about the whole time.

But that's not always possible, and the examples we're discussing fall into this category.

It's possible whenever the player thinks it is. We each use the standard of evidence we prefer.

Writer intent may be irrelevant. Stated fact in-game is not.

I would agree, with the caveat that we need to be clear on what facts are actually stated in the game.

The actual words Shepard uses - those are facts.

The intent behind those words - those are not.

That Shepard says something is true does not make it so, even if Shepard is talking abiut himself. He could always be lying (or trying to lie) if you decide he is. Even if his actions support his claims, he could be playing a long game. He could be trying to deceive the people around him.

We always get to decide that.

[Nomen Mendax]

So headcanon is now "stronger evidence" than in-game fact? Seriously?
 
Internal narrative isn't evidence of anything, really, because you don't need to prove anything to yourself. It has nothing to do with writer intent. You are free to think what you want about the game and the character, so long as it's not outright contradicted by the narrative. The fact that your experience of the narrative is subjective doesn't support you disregarding what's objectively there (the narrative itself). In fact it weakens it. That's like saying I see a girl in front of me and she's wearing a blue shirt. But I'm imagining she's wearing a red shirt, so that vision takes precedence, therefore she's wearing a red shirt. It's ludicrous. Reality and perception don't work that way.

Its nice to know we in at least partial agreement. But my internal narrative is definitely better evidence of the mental state of my character than inferences I make from the PC's in game behaviour. I know the mental state of my character (since I'm inventing it after all) whereas the game isn't stating anything explicit about the character's mental state. And this is where this whole conversation about proof and evidence (and facts) comes in. The game doesn't state anything explicitly about the PCs mental state (dream sequences aside). Therefore I'm free to infer what I want about Shepard's motives from what I see in the game (although this may require more or less effort). 

 

So I'm not trying to claim that what happens in the game didn't happen (or that the girl in the blue shirt is really wearing red). Although, as an aside, that's pretty much what proponents of the Indoctrination Theory are doing. 

 

I do take issue with some of your statements (which may just be your rhetorical style). I'm free to play the game how I like, and if I want to RP that the PC is an overweight insurance executive having a delusional episode where he thinks he's a female soldier who hates Asari in a war against the Reapers that's my prerogative (incidentally I don't wish to do this). My playthrough of delusional Bob is just as valid as yours of paragon Shepard. Also, none of our playthroughs  have any value save whatever pleasure we get from them.

[CrutchCricket]

That's exactly my point. Finally you get it.

What? You've been going on about absolutes for three pages. How is this your point?
 

Did you ever play these games before the NPCs were voiced? Or NWN, where the NPCs are partially voiced (usually the first sentence or two of important conversations were voiced, but the rest was silent)?

I play all games the way I played those games. That the NPC speaks or doesn't (or does inconsistently, as in NWN) is merely part of the user interface.

Do you insist that the targeting reticule exists in the game world, too?

Nope, and that was one of the reasons. The most I've done is Oblivion/Skyrim and even there I had to pretend my character was telepathic for some reason. Being a (dark) elf made that sort of possible, but that's not always the case.

The targeting reticule does not interact with anything. That being said I do appreciate when it's incorporated in-universe, with the HUD actually being a part of the PC's helmet overlay.

Funny how you think I'm being unreasonable now.
 

I'm being precise. This whole discussionn hinges on fine distinctions and definitions. Precision matter. Words have meaning.

Words have the meaning we assign them. I think you knew perfectly well what I was saying. Deny it all you want. It doesn't matter.
 

That said, all of your examples are from games with a voiced protagonist and paraphrases. What point are you trying to make? That they deprive us of roleplaying freedom?

Yes, yes they do. That's why I'm complaining about them.

That's a rather clumsy shift. You were not deprived of roleplaying freedom due to voiced protagonists and paraphrasing. You were deprived because Bioware wrote it thus. Voiced protagonists and paraphrasing have nothing to do with it.
 

From the point of view of the player character, of course.

You know the contents of your mind. You only perceive the world around you.

Do you?

Spoiler

You don't, actually.

 
I'd get into this philosophy with you but I really don't think I'd see much return on my investment.
 

I would agree, with the caveat that we need to be clear on what facts are actually stated in the game.

The actual words Shepard uses - those are facts.

The intent behind those words - those are not.

That Shepard says something is true does not make it so, even if Shepard is talking abiut himself. He could always be lying (or trying to lie) if you decide he is. Even if his actions support his claims, he could be playing a long game. He could be trying to deceive the people around him.

Theoretically, yes.

 

But this is not a plausible interpretation in the examples I mentioned.

[CrutchCricket]

Its nice to know we in at least partial agreement. But my internal narrative is definitely better evidence of the mental state of my character than inferences I make from the PC's in game behaviour. I know the mental state of my character (since I'm inventing it after all) whereas the game isn't stating anything explicit about the character's mental state. And this is where this whole conversation about proof and evidence (and facts) comes in. The game doesn't state anything explicitly about the PCs mental state (dream sequences aside). Therefore I'm free to infer what I want about Shepard's motives from what I see in the game (although this may require more or less effort).

You're not inventing it from scratch however. And the prebuilt parts you do not get to just ignore. In this case Bioware has defined more about the character than they should. We agree that's an RPG faux pas. Still doesn't mean you can ignore, or rather negate it though. It's there, it's set. 
 

So I'm not trying to claim that what happens in the game didn't happen (or that the girl in the blue shirt is really wearing red). Although, as an aside, that's pretty much what proponents of the Indoctrination Theory are doing.

And look how well that turned out for them. 
 

I do take issue with some of your statements (which may just be your rhetorical style). I'm free to play the game how I like, and if I want to RP that the PC is an overweight insurance executive having a delusional episode where he thinks he's a female soldier who hates Asari in a war against the Reapers that's my prerogative (incidentally I don't wish to do this). My playthrough of delusional Bob is just as valid as yours of paragon Shepard. Also, none of our playthroughs  have any value save whatever pleasure we get from them.

I made no motion to stop you. But other than you telling me that's what you're doing we have no common ground for discussion, and nothing to really be gained from trying.

[Equalitas]

If the wheel will still exist in ME4

[Sylvius the Mad]

What? You've been going on about absolutes for three pages. How is this your point?

In the absence of absolutes, we have ambiguity. You were previously denying ambiguity.

If there's ambiguity (which you've now conceded), we can resolve that ambiguity however we like.

Words have the meaning we assign them. I think you knew perfectly well what I was saying. Deny it all you want. It doesn't matter.

I knew exactly what you were saying. I didn't know what you meant.

People often fail to perceive their characters as distinct from themselves, instead using them like avatars. Those player choose in-game options because of their own preferences, not those of their characters.

And it's a very important difference.

That's a rather clumsy shift. You were not deprived of roleplaying freedom due to voiced protagonists and paraphrasing. You were deprived because Bioware wrote it thus. Voiced protagonists and paraphrasing have nothing to do with it.

Then why did it work so well with silent protagonists?

I could go through the same conversation with the same NPC, choosing the same dialogue options, but this time for very different reasons (because I was playing a very different character) and the entire tenor of the conversation would change. My characters would draw very different conclusions about the NPC, even though the NPC said exactly the same thing in exactly the same way to both. But not in response to the same thing, because the tone and delivery of the PC's lines were different (because I was free to resolve that ambiguity).

Remember, ambiguity is merely the lack of certainty.

Do you?

Spoiler

You don't, actually.

I'd get into this philosophy with you but I really don't think I'd see much return on my investment.

For all intents and purposes you do. To the extent that you can know anything, you do.

Do you often consciously doubt your own thoughts?

I don't.

Theoretically, yes.

But this is not a plausible interpretation in the examples I mentioned.

The only relevant standard is one of possibility, not plausibility.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Still doesn't mean you can ignore, or rather negate it though. It's there, it's set.

Why can't we ignore it?

In the days before full text dialogue options, we had keywords. We'd either choose them from a list, or type them in directly. NAME. JOB. HEAL. That was how most conversations started in Ultima IV.

Were we required to believe that our character was speaking only that single word each time? Of course not. They were abstractions.

Just as hit points and inventory (or weight) limits are abstractions.

So why can't the full text be an abstraction as well? Why can't the spoken lines be abstractions? Why can't the cinematics be abstractions?

Is there somewhere before which we have to draw that line? Where? Or can each player decide for himself?

[Ahglock]

Completely unrelated but I will give you all the likes if you add a <Ha ha ha!> to your signature.

Strikes again! Ha! Ha! Ha!

Shadowron. I'd love to see a bioware game in that setting.

[Lonely Heart Poet]

I wouldn't care this, because I like to play Mass Effect trilogy all and all over again to experience what I have missed with different answers - and I find new things in every playtrough. That thing would in some level destroy the surprise effect.

I must add that some lines still were little misleading in Mass Effect... I ended up scream to a baby Grunts face when I just tried to ask if he is going to harm Garrus.

[Lady Luminous]

If the summarizing was better, they wouldn't need to type out the whole line. It would be slightly irritating to have my character read out the exact line I just read.

But I hate it when something entirely unexpected comes out of my character's mouth. If the summarizing is on point, then I'll be happy.

[DieselJet]

I would hate it. I don't want to read the line word for word, then hear Shepard say it. It would be tiresome. I would honestly prefer non voiced dialogue to that. 

[RatThing]

I support this. Too many times the spoken line ended up being not what i expected. Worst example, talking to Xen during Tali's trial. Dialogue wheel: "Do you think Rael Zorah was right? Spoken line. "Do you support experiment on living beings?". I most certainly did not intend to declare Geth living beings, I only wanted Xen's opinion on the experiments. Another example is in ME1 on Eden Prime. A dialogue option meant to ask Anderson whether we can trust Nihlus (renegade option). The final line however revealed Shepard having resentments against Turians in general and not simply being suspicious of Nihlus. Also not what I intended. 

I don't mind reading the full lines if that means I have more control over my character. I mean I take my time to decide what to answer anyways. And if I let my character taking a stand for something I want to know that beforehand.  

 

 

I would hate it. I don't want to read the line word for word, then hear Shepard say it. It would be tiresome. I would honestly prefer non voiced dialogue to that. 

 

Watch the example OP has given. You don't have to read the full lines if you don't want to. Short form on the dialogue wheel, full lines underneath. I think it'd be the perfect system.