84 réponses à ce sujet

[pdusen]

So you think it's intentional?
I wish that opinion were widely held. People often tell me I've implied something when I've intended no such thing.
If I were to acknowledge it was real, I would choose not to do it.
But I claim it's not real because there appears to be no reliable way to determine when other people have done it.

Well, recognizing and identifying an implication is somewhat like code-breaking. People can, and do, get it wrong, either by thinking a person is implying something when they're not or by misunderstanding an actual implication. But like encoded messages, it is quite real.

[pdusen]

Come on, I can use this same argument for why ME should move back to dice roll based shooting and still be more right than you.

 

Thanks for that valuable contribution to this discussion.

 

Because he's not you, and because you populate his mind (including the parts of which he's not aware).
I find it really odd, though, that you don't know what you're going to say before you say it. I tend to construct whole sentences in advance and then just roll them out when they're appropriate.
Conversations I haven't rehearsed tend to paralyze me.

That sounds exhausting. I run into unexpected conversations every day, so I couldn't function if I depended on 100% pre-planned responses.

I can't tell whether the line I'm ostensibly choosing will conform to that sentiment. Partly because I refuse to be constrained in my choice of sentiment.
I didn't need to be constrained with the silent protagonist. I'm not going to be constrained now.

Actually, you did. It's a fact of the medium. I'm not sure why you think the change in presentation changes that fact. The sentiments you can express are only ever the ones the writer has given you to choose from.

The goal with paraphrases is that the sentiment they express is identical to the one the full line expresses. Obviously, they can sometimes fail to do that, but as you noted, DAI showed a marked improvement in that regard.

Only if you get to define what ambiguous means.
My point there was to demonstrate that we're trying to use the paraphrases to do different things. You're using them to discover what Shepard is trying to say. I'm using them to determine what Shepard will actually say.
They may well do the former well. They do the latter terribly.

Fair enough, since we apparently have real-life conversations in fundamentally different ways.

[AlanC9]

Which part of "Don't take picture too literally to your heart because it serves just as plain example and even though it was just example it is enough to show problem with dialogue wheel people have" wasn't clear in here again

You keep talking about that picture; you did it with me a bit upthread.

You don't seem to be able to grasp a simple concept: nobody else is talking about that picture. They're disagreeing about the existence of the problem itself. It's not that the picture is a bad illustration of the position, it's that the position itself is bad.

The odd thing is that you seemed to get this a few posts ago.

Edit: by "the position itself is bad," I don't mean to suggest that you (and Sylvius et al.) aren't having a real problem. I'm merely saying that a lot of us don't have your problem.

[In Exile]

It's clear what the paraphrase means. But what the paraphrase means doesn't really matter.

What matters is what the content of the full line is. The only purpose of the paraphrase is to convey the content of the full line.

 

No. The purpose of the paraphrase is to convey information. That is the same purpose as a tone icon, or tone denotation (with respect to the latter, I mean something akin to [Passionate] in Pillars of Eternity). This would be the same purpose ascribed to intention denotations, such as [Lie] in older RPGs. 

 

I think it is. For any line of text, there are a great many possible reasons why it might be spoken. All the player needs to do is find the line for which there is a possible intent which is compatible with his character.

As such, for each list of 3 dialogue options, there are in fact vastly more possible reasons behind those lines, and the player gets to choose among that huge group.

Not letting us see the lines makes it much harder to determine what the set of possible justifications is.
Always appreciated.

I'm terrible at linguistic pragmatics. I openly question whether they're real.

 

You can't question whether linguistic pragmatics are real if you accept accept grammar. But that's besides the point. 

 

The issue is not about intent, only. If intent were sufficient, then we wouldn't need dialogue at all - we could simply use descriptions of intent in conversation. We require information. The information we intend to convey in conversation is not the same as the series of words that we use. It includes tone, body language, expression. 

[In Exile]

Which part of "Don't take picture too literally to your heart because it serves just as plain example and even though it was just example it is enough to show problem with dialogue wheel people have" wasn't clear in here again 

 

But it doesn't illustrate your problem with the dialogue wheel. You say that you have "no clue" what Shepard will say or do. But that doesn't make sense - the paraphrase makes it generally clear what Shepard will say. Your problem is that it does not tell you with enough detail exactly what Shepard will say. But there is a huge gulf between "I cannot predict it with sufficient accuracy to be personally comfortable" and "it is unpredictable". 

 

This is the issue with your position. You haven't articulated a real issue with the paraphrase. We all have a general sense of it - that you think they are not sufficiently predictive or clear. But we're not having a real discussion about it.

 

A written line wouldn't tell you anything about what the character will do. This is why RPGs actually have descriptions of actions with their written lines - the DA:O example as I recall is [attack]. Actions are wholly separate from the content of the dialogue.

 

So you have two complaints, actually.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Well, recognizing and identifying an implication is somewhat like code-breaking. People can, and do, get it wrong, either by thinking a person is implying something when they're not or by misunderstanding an actual implication. But like encoded messages, it is quite real.

But with coded messages, there exists a cipher which will decrypt accurately.

Implication has no such cipher. There is no known decryption key which will always work.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That sounds exhausting. I run into unexpected conversations every day, so I couldn't function if I depended on 100% pre-planned responses.

I typically only have substantive interactions with 5-6 people in a given day, and they're usually the same people, so I know them pretty well. My kid understands me pretty well.

Actually, you did. It's a fact of the medium. I'm not sure why you think the change in presentation changes that fact. The sentiments you can express are only ever the ones the writer has given you to choose from.

That's nonsense. The full text dialogue options were merely things we could say. Why we were saying them was 100% up to us.

Asking a question? Why? Because you want the answer? Or because you want to find out what the other person thinks the answer is? Or because you're just avoiding the other options because they say things you'd rather not?

Questions are wonderfully noncommittal, so they're extremely useful conversational tools. They sound like meaningful responses without actually being meaningful.

And sometimes the NPCs would react unpredictably, just like real people. BioWare's silent protagonist dialogue system mimicked real world conversations just about perfectly. I don't see how we could improve upon them.

The goal with paraphrases is that the sentiment they express is identical to the one the full line expresses.

Sometimes they're not even the same type of sentence. The paraphrase with interrogative, butbthen the full line is declarative. Those bear no resemblance to each other.

Obviously, they can sometimes fail to do that, but as you noted, DAI showed a marked improvement in that regard.

It is much better, but it's still miles behind the full text options of the silent protagonist games.

[malloc]

If we have the options spelling out everything we're going to say, we might as well go back to silent protagonists.

Let us do that. Imagine how much freedom bioware would have without cinematics and recorded dialog. Creating reactivity would be extremely easier.

 

Js.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The information we intend to convey in conversation is not the same as the series of words that we use.

It is when I do it.

It includes tone, body language, expression.

Except when we're using text, which doesn't contain those things.

What about punctuation? What purpose does it serve? I maintain that punctuation is part of the necessary syntax of the language. But where is it in speech?

That's what subtitles are for.

[Hair Serious Business]

You keep talking about that picture; you did it with me a bit upthread.

You don't seem to be able to grasp a simple concept: nobody else is talking about that picture. They're disagreeing about the existence of the problem itself. It's not that the picture is a bad illustration of the position, it's that the position itself is bad.

The odd thing is that you seemed to get this a few posts ago.

Edit: by "the position itself is bad," I don't mean to suggest that you (and Sylvius et al.) aren't having a real problem. I'm merely saying that a lot of us don't have your problem.

 

Dear listen, we closed our argument(last I checked). We agreed to disagree! No need to go back in circles.

 

So I will ask you to not "input yourself" in discussion and arguments I may have with someone else that doesn't involve you in any matter but you do act like it does, especially without reading full conversation between us. No one needs '3rd wheel' no one mentioned in their arguments. Don't take this wrong way what I said, it is just awkward to see someone who wasn't called for trying to bump in somewhere, that is all.