769 réponses à ce sujet

[straykat]

Lake and cactus in a desert? What could go wrong?

 

Run to it.

[TheN7Penguin]

Lake and cactus in a desert? What could go wrong?

 

Run to it.

 

Dude have you ever played Fallout 4? You don't run to things sticking out of or near lakes. You'll get attacked by giant monsters. True story.

[straykat]

Dude have you ever played Fallout 4? You don't run to things sticking out of or near lakes. You'll get attacked by giant monsters. True story.

 

I haven't actually.. need to.

[TheN7Penguin]

I haven't actually.. need to.

 

Yes you do. I'm warning you though. Giant monsters will attack.

[straykat]

I've owned it since launch... I've just been distracted.

 

 

Speaking of which, Courtenay Taylor is a good reason we shouldn't have silent protagonists.

[TheN7Penguin]

I've owned it since launch... I've just been distracted.

 

 

Speaking of which, Courtenay Taylor is a good reason we shouldn't have silent protagonists.

 

Ah, play it and go check out Swan's Pond. 10mm pistol is the best thing to use. You won't be disappointed.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I fundamentally disagree. A fictional world needs to build it's own rules and reality, and those are the decided by the creator.

It all just sounds to me like you're asking for control of a creator without having to deal with the responsibilities and constraints of one.

I am a creator. The creation of the narrative is a collaborative enterprise. It must be, since I'm the one making choices for my character.

In this case, it's just one character who's starting to talk by default, and your control over that character was always limited. It must be limited to some degree, or there can't be a story.

Of course there can be a story. It just won't be the same story for all players or all playthroughs.

This dramatically increases replayability, as well.

[Sylvius the Mad]

What a wonderful way to see the world.

Regardless, does this mean that I've proven to you that assuming tone for mute protagonists can't actually be considered a feature?

Not at all. It's a thing we can do.

We don't all do it, but doing it is possible (as demonstrated by me doing it).

We're not talking about ME1, we're talking about the series as a whole. How much of Mass Effect as it is now would BioWare need to change so that the series would appeal to you? Would you consider ME3 a good game if it had a mute protagonist?

ME1 would just need the voice and paraphrase removed.

ME2 would also need that, plus an overhaul of the interrupt system to allow the player more control over what they are actually do and whether they are selected. A text description and an auto-pause would do.

ME3 is relentlessly awful. I see no way to fix it. There are dozens of moments within the game where Shepard makes meaningful decisions, but the player is granted control over perhaps 5 of them.

What audience? I thought you said groups didn't exist.

They don't. They exhibit no characteristics beyond those held by their constituent individual entities.

That doesn't stop me from describing multiples of those entities in the aggregate. That doesn't make them a new entity (a group) though.

In fact, how do you even know you can sway this alleged audience if you don't know how humans behave?

Who said I did?

There's empirical evidence that casual fans of a thing can be influenced by the tenor of the community of hardcore fans of that thing (I read the study perhaps 7 years ago). I'm trying to demonstate dissent within that community.

Different bubble universes seems like different to me.

If I were to show you two painting which were absolutely identical in every way, would there be a difference between them?

Now imagine one of them is an original painting, and the other is a perfect copy. Is there a difference now?

Of course not. The two things are absolutely identical, as I established earlier.

The same is true of the universes. If there's no discernible difference, is there a difference? How could you tell? If you can't tell, why would you think there's a difference?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Is the difficulty of compartmentalization the right question in the first place?

I suppose this depends on the precise definition of compartmentalization. I can use a chain of reasoning without actually believing in the premises of that reasoning. If that counts as compartmentalization, then I find compartmentalization easy. But if compartmentalization requires me to stop realizing that those premises are b.s., then I can't do it at all.

I'd say you can do it.

I take the next step of realizing that all premises are b.s.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm not sure the inductivist turkey is all that relevant for this. Falsifiability is important, but all that basically tells us is that induction doesn't work perfectly. But unless you got something that works better, it's the best we got.

If it doesn't work perfectly, then it's not logically sound.

Unsound reasoning is indefensible. Point proven.

[Catastrophy]

I've owned it since launch... I've just been distracted.

 

 

Speaking of which, Courtenay Taylor is a good reason we shouldn't have silent protagonists.

Yes, she did a great job. And also you can start off right away in survival difficulty. The wait was worth it.

Edit: Try out the drunk VOs!

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wait... we're not seriously questioning whether induction works, are we?

A conclusion reached through induction is a conclusion you didn't have to draw. Therefore, drawing it is a choice. You are responsible for the consequences of drawing that conclusion, particularly if doing so harms your enjoyment of the game.

By adjusting your standard of evidence, you can change which conclusions you will draw as you play. Try playing a character with a standard of evidence that is different from yours.

[Sylvius the Mad]

You do know that gravity has conclusive evidence as to its existence, right?

If you have conclusive evidence, you don't believe. You know.

Please tell me you don't deny the existence of gravity.

Of course not. It's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist.

[Cyonan]

If you have conclusive evidence, you don't believe. You know.
Of course not. It's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist.

 

You've denied the existence of some equally ridiculous stuff, so I had to check.

 

If it doesn't work perfectly, then it's not logically sound.

Unsound reasoning is indefensible. Point proven.

 

You cannot conclusively prove that all Human minds can compartmentalize or that how your brain processes information is a choice we consciously make, thus you are at best using inductive reasoning to reach that conclusion.

 

Therefor your argument uses unsound reasoning and is indefensible.

[Il Divo]

If it doesn't work perfectly, then it's not logically sound.

Unsound reasoning is indefensible. Point proven.

 

Without induction, you wouldn't be able to do science. Point proven. 

 

As I said, point to a better tool and you might have an argument. 

[KaiserShep]

All this stuff about compartmentalization and the power of imagination and such is nice and all, but I sure as hell am glad that the silent protagonist is dead as a doornail in BioWare's body of work. I thoroughly dislike the clash between audible NPC's and strictly text protag. 

[Il Divo]

There's empirical evidence that casual fans of a thing can be influenced by the tenor of the community of hardcore fans of that thing (I read the study perhaps 7 years ago). I'm trying to demonstate dissent within that community.

 

This requires induction. 

[sjsharp2011]

No option to romance it in a BioWare game?

 

Pre-order cancelled.

you wantto have sex with a cactus. very thorny

[Sylvius the Mad]

You cannot conclusively prove that all Human minds can compartmentalize or that how your brain processes information is a choice we consciously make, thus you are at best using inductive reasoning to reach that conclusion.

Therefor your argument uses unsound reasoning and is indefensible.

As I said, it never occurred to me that people couldn't compartmentalize. It's such a basic part of so many things.

As for how one's brain works, I'll concede that I'm assuming that people have free will. If they don't, all of this is moot anyway.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Without induction, you wouldn't be able to do science. Point proven.

That's nonsense. Verificationist science wouldn't work, but verificationist science arguable isn't science. Wasn't that Karl Popper's whole point?

Falsification does not require logical induction. It's a purely deductive process.

[Il Divo]

That's nonsense. Verificationist science wouldn't work, but verificationist science arguable isn't science. Wasn't that Karl Popper's whole point?

Falsification does not require logical induction. It's a purely deductive process.

 

Karl Popper was completely wrong on that whole point. Falsification is built on induction - he's basically using the same concept, but changing the some of the words around, which doesn't solve Hume's problem of induction. 

 

The inductivist turkey is intended to demonstrate that you can't predicate future events on the success (or failure) of past predictions: case in point, the turkey thought he was going to be fed breakfast that morning, but instead he ended up as breakfast that morning. All that means, with Popper's theory in mind, is that the turkey will assume he's going to be fed, until he realizes he's about to be eaten, which would cause him to rewrite his theory. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

This requires induction.

The evidence doesn't, no. Evidence requires no induction to be collected, and correlations can be seen without induction.

Believing that evidence to be predictive does require induction, yes, but I didn't claim that it was.

[RoboticWater]

Not at all. It's a thing we can do.

We don't all do it, but doing it is possible (as demonstrated by me doing it).

How inductive of you to assume that everyone can do a thing just because you can.
 

ME1 would just need the voice and paraphrase removed.

ME2 would also need that, plus an overhaul of the interrupt system to allow the player more control over what they are actually do and whether they are selected. A text description and an auto-pause would do.

ME3 is relentlessly awful. I see no way to fix it. There are dozens of moments within the game where Shepard makes meaningful decisions, but the player is granted control over perhaps 5 of them.

Precisely my point. Mass Effect has strayed further and further from the kind of game you want to play. If the series has strayed so far from the kind of game you want to play, why not just cut your losses?
 

They don't. They exhibit no characteristics beyond those held by their constituent individual entities.

That doesn't stop me from describing multiples of those entities in the aggregate. That doesn't make them a new entity (a group) though.

What you've described just now is the definition of a group. The fact that you can aggregate people together means that you can run psychological tests on that aggregate.
 

There's empirical evidence that casual fans of a thing can be influenced by the tenor of the community of hardcore fans of that thing (I read the study perhaps 7 years ago). I'm trying to demonstate dissent within that community.

How can you deny the validity of psychological research, yet use this psychological research as the basis of your argument?
 

The same is true of the universes. If there's no discernible difference, is there a difference? How could you tell? If you can't tell, why would you think there's a difference?

The difference is that one created first is labeled original, and the other is labeled copy.

[Il Divo]

The evidence doesn't, no. Evidence requires no induction to be collected, and correlations can be seen without induction.

Believing that evidence to be predictive does require induction, yes, but I didn't claim that it was.

 

So you don't believe that the evidence is predictive, but you're using the evidence to support your activity of trying to convince Bioware to use a silent protagonist? 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Karl Popper was completely wrong on that whole point. Falsification is built on induction - he's basically using the same concept, but changing the some of the words around.

He's explicitly assuming that the physical laws of the universe are constant (else the entire scientific endeavour would be pointless). Given that they are constant, a false results shows you conclusively what they are not. A positive result tells you nothing.

The inductivist turkey is intended to demonstrate that you can't predicate future events on the success (or failure) of past predictions: case in point, the turkey thought he was going to be fed breakfast that morning, but instead he ended up as breakfast that morning.

Success and failure work very differently here. If the turkey had concluded that he is never fed breakfast based on a failure (or a string of failures) he would have been equally wrong. But if he were to conclude that it is not the case that he is always fed, then he would have been correct, as this would have been demonstrably true.

Falsification can conclusively prove the falsehood of universal claims. It is not the case that the turkey is always fed. That we can prove.

All falsification does is state that we can regard a theory as false, if it's predictions fail under an assumed set of conditions - which relies on induction. It doesn't solve Hume's problem of induction, in any meaningful way. To return to the turkey scenario, all that means is the turkey should assume he's going to be fed that morning - until he realizes he's about to be eaten, which would cause him to change his theory.

The turkey should assume nothing. Every day, it is testing the theory that it is always fed. He learns nothing until that theory fails.