An RPG in 2023 with a mute protagonist???

[Miauzi]

Vor 11 Minuten sagte Björnk:

Vielleicht meinte er damit, dass die zeitgenössischen heruntergekommenen RPGs, die den Spieler als Idioten behandeln, nicht Grund genug sind, das gesamte Genre aufzugeben, weil das in der Vergangenheit nicht so war?

 

Thank you - because of the translator it is sometimes difficult to formulate something like this.

Yes - RPG and quest pointer don't belong together in principle - that's why I'm infinitely glad that there are mod authors for Skyrim or Fallout, for example - who do without it.

 

 

[Miauzi]

Vor 11 Minuten sagte Jellyfish505:

 

Nach dieser Logik ist jedes Spiel mit einer Waffe ein FPS, was die Klassifizierung ziemlich sinnlos macht. Die Tatsache, dass Bumpf es als FPS bezeichnen könnte, bedeutet nur, dass das Marketing ein möglichst breites Netz auswerfen möchte. Ein Tisch kann ein Schutzschild sein, wenn man ihn in die Hand nimmt und als solchen verwendet. Ich nehme an, IKEA ist etwas weniger unaufrichtig als Spielefirmen, indem er diese nützliche Funktion im Falle eines Einbruchs nicht bewirbt. Es ist sinnlos, von Ihren ansonsten guten Punkten abzuschweifen, aber ich habe es bereits so geschrieben ...

 

The problem is that the boundaries are fluid - but many people can't deal with something like that. For them, something has to be either "black" or "white" - they can't handle "grey" at all.

When it becomes "colourful" - that is, when several things mix to form something new - it's completely over...

...but that's when my interest starts.

Why?

Because with my 61 years of life I can look back on almost 40 years with computers and games on the computer ... I started on pixelated 8-bit graphics with 8-bit sound.

Just because the graphics and sound have improved - doesn't mean the games have improved for me!

[bjornk]

21 minutes ago, Jellyfish505 said:

By that logic, any game with a gun is an FPS

Not unless it's an FPS.

 

21 minutes ago, Jellyfish505 said:

making the classification fairly pointless.

 

Genre classifications are not as rigid or strict as you thought and there are no rules to dictate that a game has to be classified as one specific genre only.

 

21 minutes ago, Jellyfish505 said:

The fact company bumpf might call it an FPS just means marketing wants to throw as wide a net as possible.

 

Unless it's an FPS, it'd be false advertisement, so no.

 

21 minutes ago, Jellyfish505 said:

A table can be a shield if you pick it up & use it as one

 

Except, no one would call a table a shield even if it's possible to use it as such.

 

I believe you have nothing left to add at this point, and you're just trolling.

 

Edited July 25, 2023 by bjornk

[Lyman the Lunatic]

1 hour ago, bjornk said:

Perhaps what he meant by that is the comtemporary dumbed-down RPGs treating the player as an idiot isn't enough reason to ditch the entire genre cause it wasn't like this in the past?

I will preface to my opening statement that I don't like RPGs in general. However, I notice that in more modern "RPG" games, you no longer need to pay attention to the characters anymore. There is no reason to be invested, you can just press skip & wait for the BIG BOLD TEXT TO TELL YOU WHAT TO DO!!!

We can just play a hack & slash side scroller if you're just playing the game for the combat. Metroidvania or Roguelike also introduce the skill tree & inventory. You'll get more fun & no need to wait for the cutscene to be over.

At least in the old game, I can get why people play RPGs, you like the characters, you like the story, you want to see how it ends. Now, you're just getting yourself through the combat, it's a waste of time. You have no influence on the plot, some games even make your NPC friend talking & doing all the decisions for you. You're not the main character, you're just the courier or the errand boy/girl. You can just get a real job instead, because you'll get paid for your time.

And I don't understand why people who play videogames feel the need to defend the games even if they are bad, either. That's not love, that's abuse. I am ditching on the modern trend of videogames, not the RPG genre. And if anyone who thins that way, I wonder if they even love RPGs in general. I don't even like RPGs, but I used to be able to understand why people like some of the old games. But games these days? I just think most of the "fanboys" are just the developers or some schmo paid by the publishers to defend the games from criticism. 

[Jellyfish505]

8 hours ago, Miauzi said:

The problem is that the boundaries are fluid - but many people can't deal with something like that. For them, something has to be either "black" or "white" - they can't handle "grey" at all.

 

Nah, I just know marketing department bvllshit when I see it, which is why Bjornk showing what the games are tagged as to make his point actually just shows why companies do it: because it works on some people. A tag that puts FO4 & Quake in the same category is designed to mislead not enlighten.

[DocClox]

14 hours ago, bjornk said:

Whether or not you associate yourself with the character you create and control is irrelevant, because it's in your mind, the game doesn't know that, another player sharing the adventure with you in a D&D session or in a co-op game wouldn't know that. It has nothing to do with the game being an RPG.

 

I'd agree that it's not a necessary part of role-playing. On the other hand, it is very much relevant to me, because that is the way I do it.  I don't want to be sat at my computer watching my character do stuff. I want to be there, immersed in the role.

 

Immersion and dissociation are antithetical to one another, yes? Can we agree on that?

 

14 hours ago, bjornk said:

The reason why I see "disassociation" as a better role-playing experience is because it makes it easier to role-play as other races or genders, as someone who is completely different than who you really are, gives you an opportunity to be someone completely different. If your characters are always similar or identical to you, just in a different role, it would be a rather limiting, unimaginative way of role-playing.

 

Not my experience. I've role-played square-jawed heroes, devious assassins, brave Nord Spearmaidens, timid herbalist girls, cowardly merchants and domineering vampires, and I'm not infrequently surprised by what my character does. I don't find I need that layer of insulation from the role in order for my imagination to function. Of course, not everyone is wired the same way.

[bjornk]

21 minutes ago, Jellyfish505 said:

Nah, I just know marketing department bvllshit when I see it, which is why Bjornk showing what the games are tagged as to make his point actually just shows why companies do it: because it works on some people. A tag that puts FO4 & Quake in the same category is designed to mislead not enlighten.

 

It's "marketing bullshit" to you because you've never heard of any game that combines multiple genres before, and now you're implying that I'm too dumb to tell whether a game is a FPS or not. Great. Quake is not an RPG, whereas FO4 is an FPS as well as an RPG, There's nothing misleading about any of those tags, they just prove the opposite of what you claim.

 

Take a look at the link below before posting any more nonsense.

 

Quote

An action role-playing game (often abbreviated action RPG or ARPG) is a subgenre of video games that combines core elements from both the action game and role-playing genre.

 

Quote

Role-playing shooter

Shooter-based action RPGs include Strife (1996), System Shock 2 (1999), the Deus Ex series (2000 onwards)...
Other RPS games include the Mass Effect series (2007 onwards), Fallout 3 and subsequent Fallout titles (2008 onwards)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_role-playing_game#Role-playing_shooter

 

[bjornk]

23 minutes ago, DocClox said:

Immersion and dissociation are antithetical to one another, yes? Can we agree on that?

 

Of course, not everyone is wired the same way.

No, we can't, because "not everyone is wired the same way".

[DocClox]

38 minutes ago, bjornk said:

No, we can't, because "not everyone is wired the same way".

 

Antonyms are antonyms though. If you cannot distinguish between black and white, then you're either blind, or else you have a severe neurological dysfunction.

 

Which would admittedly count as "not being wired the same way".

[bjornk]

55 minutes ago, DocClox said:

 

Antonyms are antonyms though. If you cannot distinguish between black and white, then you're either blind, or else you have a severe neurological dysfunction.

Or perhaps there's no such thing as black and white and they're just your brain's interpretation of the amount of light your eyes can detect.

 

Unlike you, disassociation doesn't affect my immersion at all, so immersion is obviously a completely subjective concept.

Edited July 26, 2023 by bjornk

[DocClox]

6 minutes ago, bjornk said:

Or perhaps there's no such thing as black and white and they're just your brain's interpretation of the amount of light your eyes can detect.

 

Or perhaps some concepts are in fact diametrically opposed to one another, and no amount of subjectivity is ever going to change that.

 

You cannot be, at the same time, swimming in the ocean and also standing on the shore watching the ocean. You're either immersed, or you're out of it.

[Miauzi]

Vor 6 Minuten sagte Bjornk:

Oder vielleicht gibt es so etwas wie Schwarz und Weiß nicht und sie sind nur die Interpretation Ihres Gehirns über die Lichtmenge, die Ihre Augen wahrnehmen können.

 

It already exists - but they are just "special cases" of "grey" or "colorful"

Only "black" and "white" or a dominance over everything else exists only in the imagination of "simple" minds - because their brains are overwhelmed with the actual complexities of reality... and they are looking for simple solutions

Categorizing the world in order to better understand it...is an important part of the cognition process...but then leaving it at that or even taking the "category" as the ultimate truth...is the exact opposite of " I want to understand the world better"

[bjornk]

4 minutes ago, DocClox said:

Or perhaps some concepts are in fact diametrically opposed to one another, and no amount of subjectivity is ever going to change that.

 

You cannot be, at the same time, swimming in the ocean and also standing on the shore watching the ocean. You're either immersed, or you're out of it.

 

Except what you think as diametrically opposed may be subjective and not factual. And I don't have to swim in the ocean, I can just stand or sit in water if I want to immerse myself, and if I want to swim, I don't have to swim the way you do.

[DocClox]

12 minutes ago, bjornk said:

if I want to swim, I don't have to swim the way you do.

 

I'm not asking you to swim the way I do. I am questioning your ability to be in two different places at the same time.

 

Or are you not required to inhabit the space-time continuum in the same way that I do?

[bjornk]

19 minutes ago, Miauzi said:

Only "black" and "white" or a dominance over everything else exists only in the imagination of "simple" minds - because their brains are overwhelmed with the actual complexities of reality... and they are looking for simple solutions

Categorizing the world in order to better understand it...is an important part of the cognition process...but then leaving it at that or even taking the "category" as the ultimate truth...is the exact opposite of " I want to understand the world better"

 

One piece of wisdom I have managed to gather throughout my life, which is similar to what you say, is that, strong opinions are an indication of ignorance, simply because the more you know, the more difficult it becomes to form strong opinions. I too have many strong opinions on very many things in life and that's because I'm ignorant about very many things in life, but at least, this piece of wisdom occasionally reminds me to question my opinions and beliefs. Although, I don't think I do that as often as I should.

 

[bjornk]

25 minutes ago, DocClox said:

 

I'm not asking you to swim the way I do. I am questioning your ability to be in two different places at the same time.

 

Or are you not required to inhabit the space-time continuum in the same way that I do?

 

You're just wasting everyone's time about something I have already answered. Your idea about being immersed in a game, or being in the ocean or whatever, is different than mine. Simple as that. Shouldn't be this difficult to understand. In this thread I have specifically avoided preaching about how people should role-play in a role-playing game, I have only talked about what I preferred. You, on the other hand, seem to expect everyone else to adopt your idea of "immersion" in a quite pretentious and annoying way. Which reminds me of people who can only feel "immersed" in a game if they play in first person view.

 

 

Edited July 26, 2023 by bjornk

[Miauzi]

Vor 7 Minuten sagte Bjornk:

 

Eine Weisheit, die ich im Laufe meines Lebens gesammelt habe und die Ihrer Aussage ähnelt, ist, dass starke Meinungen ein Zeichen von Unwissenheit sind, einfach weil es umso schwieriger wird, sich eine starke Meinung zu bilden, je mehr man weiß. Auch ich habe zu sehr vielen Dingen im Leben eine starke Meinung, und das liegt daran, dass ich über sehr viele Dinge im Leben keine Ahnung habe, aber zumindest erinnert mich diese Weisheit gelegentlich daran, meine Meinungen und Überzeugungen zu hinterfragen. Allerdings glaube ich nicht, dass ich das so oft mache, wie ich sollte.

 

I am a child of the space age - shortly before my birth "Yuri Gagarin" took off on his flight - which made him the first human to orbit the earth in space.

"Spunik 1" started a few years earlier - which caused the government of my country to introduce the subject "astronomy" ... my father was part of the first training course (via distance learning).

In 1969, when I was just 7 years old, my father and I watched NASA's moon landings... live on TV.

He kept his specialist books - he was also a geography teacher - in a huge cupboard in my "kids" room ... they were just as much a part of my reading material as I was growing up, just like the stories of Jules Verne.

If I compare the state of knowledge about the universe at that time ... I experience huge upheavals every few years ... scientific theories are either completely disproved or sensationally confirmed by new observations.

My father still taught - that the rings of Saturn are unique among the planets... which was the generally accepted knowledge at the time.

However, with the planetary probes of NASA, ring systems were found on all large gas planets.

With their observations, the last planetary probe on Saturn provided the insight - that these large rings are unstable and have a maximum "lifespan" of a few million years ... so we're damn lucky as humanity - that this phenomenon is closing right now watch is

When I did my Abitur at school almost 45 years ago ... I had the subject "Philosophy" and learned that you can RECOGNIZE the world - but that knowledge about it is never permanently "chiseled in stone". I only really learned what that means in the course of my life.

 

 

Original in meiner deutschen Muttersprache

Spoiler

Ich bin ein Kind des Raumfahrt-Zeitalters - kurz vor meiner Geburt startete "Juri Gagarin" zu seinem Flug - der ihn zum ersten Menschen machte der die Erde im All umkreiste.

 

Einige Jahre zuvor startete "Spunik 1" - was die Regierung meines Landes veranlasste das Unterrichtsfach "Astronomie" einzuführen ... mein Vater gehörte zum ersten Ausbildungs-Lehrgang (via Fernstudium).

 

Im Jahr 1969 - ich war gerade mal 7 Jahre alt - erlebte ich gemeinsam mit meinem Vater die Mondlandungen der NASA ... in Live-Schaltungen im Fernsehen.

 

Seine Fachbücher - er war auch Geografie-Lehrer - bewahrte er in einem riesigen Schrank in meinem "Kinder"-Zimmer auf ... sie gehörten genauso wie die Erzhälungen von Jules Verne zu meinem Lesestoff bis ins Erwachsen-Alter.

 

Wenn ich den damaligen Stand des Wissens um das Universum vergleiche ... erlebe ich alle paar Jahre gewaltige Umbrüche ... wissenschaftliche Theorien werden reihenweise durch neue Beobachtungen entweder komplett widerlegt oder auf sensationelle Weise bestätigt.

 

Mein Vater lehrte noch - dass die Ringe des Saturn etwas einmaliges unter den Planeten sind ... was damals die allgemein akzeptierte Erkenntnis war.

 

Mit den Planeten-Sonden der NASA fand man aber bei allen großen Gas-Planeten Ringsysteme.

 

Die letzten Planeten-Sonde am Saturn lieferte mit ihren Beobachtungen die Erkenntnis - dass diese großen Ringe instabil sind und eine maximale "Lebensdauer" von wenigen Mio Jahren haben ... also haben wir ein Scheiss-Glück als Menschheit - dass dieses Phänomen gerade jetzt zu beobachten ist.

 

Als ich vor fast 45 Jahren mein Abitur in der Schule machte ... hatte ich das Fach "Philosophie" und lernte das man die Welt ERKENNEN kann - dass aber das Wissen darüber niemals dauerhaft "in Stein gemeiselt" ist. Was das bedeutet habe ich erst im Laufe meines Lebens wirklich gelernt.

 

 

[DocClox]

Immersed means to be submerged in something.  Dissociated from something is to be entirely separated. If you claim you can do both at once, then fair enough, I'm not going to call you a liar. But clearly you're not using the same dictionary as I am, and that rather limits the usefulness of your commentary.

 

If your words are going to mean whatever you want them to, whenever you want want them to, then I can't really trust anything you say, because I can have no idea what it is you're actually saying.

 

So, you know, whatever.  Have a blast. It's got nothing to do with me.

Edited July 26, 2023 by DocClox

[Miauzi]

Vor 12 Minuten sagte DocClox:

Eingetaucht bedeutet, in etwas eingetaucht zu sein. Von etwas losgelöst zu sein bedeutet, völlig getrennt zu sein. Wenn Sie behaupten, dass Sie beides gleichzeitig können, dann werde ich Sie fairerweise nicht als Lügner bezeichnen. Aber offensichtlich verwenden Sie nicht dasselbe Wörterbuch wie ich, und das schränkt den Nutzen Ihres Kommentars eher ein.

 

Wenn deine Worte das bedeuten sollen, was immer du willst, wann immer du willst, dann kann ich nicht wirklich vertrauen, was du sagst, weil ich keine Ahnung haben kann, was du eigentlich sagst.

 

Also, wissen Sie, was auch immer. Viel Spaß. Es hat nichts mit mir zu tun.

 

According to this definition, NO human can currently -> DIVE INTO a computer game

because for a full and true "immersion" it is necessary -> to bring ALL human senses into the game

Well - you obviously have a "deep dive" system?? Would you be so kind as to tell me who made it?

Thanks!

 

wenn Sie nicht in der Lage sind die Absurdität ihrer eigenen Aussage zu begreifen ... ist jeder weitere Austausch komplett sinnfrei

[DocClox]

13 minutes ago, Miauzi said:

because for a full and true "immersion" it is necessary -> to bring ALL human senses into the game

 

I thought the idiom was well understood. Is this a language issue?

 

It's your awareness that gets submerged. Like getting lost in a film (because you don't physically enter the movie screen) or wrapped up in a good book (most books aren't that big).

 

Tell me we're all special snowflakes and everyone's opinion is valid, fair enough, if you say so. But if we can't rely on a common set of dictionary definitions, if we scorn the very notion of shared definitions, then really, what is the point?

[bjornk]

Immersion: the fact of becoming completely involved in something

Example: "Total immersion in a videogame is almost like living another life."

 

disassociate: to consider as separate and not related

Example: "I can't dissociate the man from his political opinions - they're one and the same thing."

 

Immersion in a video game may mean different things to different people, people can immerse themselves in any video game, some of which may not even have a player character. I immerse myself in the game world in a role-playing game, not in the player character and if I disassociate myself from the player character doesn't mean that I completely detach myself from the game world. One could easily argue that immersion in a character would require looking at things from their perspective, in other words, when you're not playing in the first person view, to be able to see what they see, then you're already disassociated from the character, you're looking at it from outside, as a third person. If that's not how it works for you, then perhaps neither immersion or disassociation is absolute and there may be different levels to them or they may be completely subjective. When you conceptualize something in your mind and then decide to apply it to everyone else in a patronizing way, simply because it seemed like a universal thing to you, clearly goes against the not everyone wired the same way argument.

 

[DocClox]

11 hours ago, bjornk said:

Immersion: the fact of becoming completely involved in something

Example: "Total immersion in a videogame is almost like living another life."

 

disassociate: to consider as separate and not related

Example: "I can't dissociate the man from his political opinions - they're one and the same thing.

 

 

Finally! Something I can work with.

 

So: yes, you can immerse yourself in a subject or a body  of work, This is what you seem to be describing. You can also, and this is a different use of the word, immerrse yourself in a particular work; immerse yourself experientially rather than merely intellectually.

 

Let's take an example from the world of film. Suppose you were to immerse yourself in the life and works Stanley Kubrick. You watch his films, sure, but you also read his screenplays, biographies of the great director, you study his life and spend every spare moment trying to understand him a little better. A life immersed.

 

There is nothing in this state antithetical to dissociation. Fascinating as  Kubrick may be to you, you still need to turn away from your studies in order to buy groceries or pay the rent. If that's the lever of immersion you experience, then fair enough.

 

But there is a deeper sort of immersion. When you sit down to watch 2001 (let's say), there's a different sort of immersion applies. That;s the sort of immersion where the film itself consumes your attention almost completely. The sort of immersion where, were someone to come up behind you, tap you one the shoulder and say "hey! how's it going?", you'd jump out of your skin with surprise.

 

That, I believe is the sort of immersion that most people refer to when discussing computer games. And yes, unlike the broader sort of immersion, this is antithetical to dissociation. If you want to leave your seat in the cinema and go to buy popcorn, you need to dissociate from the film, or else the film would still hold all your attention and you would be constantly bumping into things. You cannot be buying popcorn in the lobby and simultaneously immersed in the film., although you can retain a degree of immersion in the life and works of Kubrick.

 

Now maybe you want to say to me "that's not something that happens to me". Maybe you want to say "that sort of immersion doesn't happen to anyone". People have said that to me before, and maybe there are some people who are for some reason incapable of reaching this level of focus. And maybe your idea of immersion in Skyrim is absent-mindedly pressing the craft button on a stack of 100 iron daggers while you focus all your attention on doing your tax returns in the other monitor. As I think we're agreed, we are all wired differently.

 

And if that works for you, if that's sufficient to your gaming needs, then all I can say is, Good Luck to you.

[bjornk]

19 hours ago, DocClox said:

Finally! Something I can work with.

We've had dictionaries for centuries.

 

19 hours ago, DocClox said:

So: yes, you can immerse yourself in a subject or a body  of work, This is what you seem to be describing.

 

Don't know what you're talking about, I specifically quoted an example from the dictionary that talks about immersion in video games.

 

19 hours ago, DocClox said:

You can also, and this is a different use of the word, immerrse yourself in a particular work; immerse yourself experientially rather than merely intellectually.

 

The word would still carry the same exact meaning as a verb.

immerse yourself in something: to become completely involved in something
 

19 hours ago, DocClox said:

Let's take an example from the world of film. Suppose you were to immerse yourself in the life and works Stanley Kubrick. You watch his films, sure, but you also read his screenplays, biographies of the great director, you study his life and spend every spare moment trying to understand him a little better. A life immersed.

 

There is nothing in this state antithetical to dissociation. Fascinating as  Kubrick may be to you, you still need to turn away from your studies in order to buy groceries or pay the rent. If that's the lever of immersion you experience, then fair enough.

That's exactly the level of immersion every normal/sane person would have, otherwise it would've been diagnosed as a mental issue, since one would have to be at least partially or perhaps completely detached from reality.

 

19 hours ago, DocClox said:

But there is a deeper sort of immersion. When you sit down to watch 2001 (let's say), there's a different sort of immersion applies. That;s the sort of immersion where the film itself consumes your attention almost completely. The sort of immersion where, were someone to come up behind you, tap you one the shoulder and say "hey! how's it going?", you'd jump out of your skin with surprise.

Depending on the person, it may be a comparatively deeper level of immersion than studying a particular subject, but when your phone or your doorbell rang while watching that movie, you'd still answer it no matter what level your mental involvement was. In other words, they are still absolutely the same thing.

 

19 hours ago, DocClox said:

That, I believe is the sort of immersion that most people refer to when discussing computer games. And yes, unlike the broader sort of immersion, this is antithetical to dissociation.

 

You started this whole argument in reply to my comment about dissociation from the player character. In that regard, there's absolutely nothing antithetical about immersion and dissociation. I'm not associating myself with the player character, but I'm still fully immersed in the game. I could've been playing a strategy game without a player character to identify with, and I would've been equally immersed in it, because of the reality it sucked me into. It would still give me the same immersive feeling of "being inside the game" despite the fact that I had no presence in the game world that the game could recognize.

 

The mistake you're making is associating immersion with having a personal representation in something, despite the fact that the very example you picked disproved it. You have no personal representation in the movie 2001 and yet you can feel fully immersed in it while watching it. Where does disassociation come into play in this example anyway? What would you be disassociating from while watching a movie in a way that would break your immersion? You have no presence in the movie, you are watching someone else's story and passively identifying with it, as you stated in your message below.

 

On 7/25/2023 at 9:12 PM, DocClox said:

Dissociation is exactly what I don't want. I want to be my character and be me as well, in that role. That's the point of the exercise.

 

If all I want is to passively identify with someone else's story, I can get that watching TV.

 

Going by your logic in this message, it would've been impossible for you to immerse yourself in anything that did not have something you could actively associate yourself with. If that's not the case for you, then you'll have to accept the fact that immersion and disassociation can coexist together.

 

19 hours ago, DocClox said:

If you want to leave your seat in the cinema and go to buy popcorn, you need to dissociate from the film, or else the film would still hold all your attention and you would be constantly bumping into things. You cannot be buying popcorn in the lobby and simultaneously immersed in the film., although you can retain a degree of immersion in the life and works of Kubrick.

It's amusing to watch you try to wiggle your way out by changing the context. Despite the fact that I've never used it in any other context in this thread, disassociating from the player character in an RPG, has somehow turned into disassociating from reality, or in fact turned into one cannot be doing two things at the same time cause apparently one can only have enough attention to do one thing at a time. Completely forgetting that you've talked about levels of immersion in the very same post. If you're gonna ignore the context in which I've used the word dissociation in this thread, then your statement "immersion and dissociation are antithetical" quite literally becomes meaningless. To be honest, there's nothing even remotely meaningful in this paragraph, which basically says "If you want to immerse yourself in a video game, you have to play it!", is literally the whole argument.
 

 

 

Edited July 28, 2023 by bjornk

[DocClox]

1 hour ago, bjornk said:

We've had dictionaries for centuries.

 

We have. We've also had shades of meaning and specialized usage of words in particular contexts.

 

 

1 hour ago, bjornk said:

You started this whole argument in reply to my comment about dissociation from the player character. In that regard, there's absolutely nothing antithetical about immersion and dissociation.

 

And once again, I'd strongly disagree. If I immerse myself in a role, I expect the same degree of immersion that I'd get from reading a good book or watching a good film. Staying dissociated from that role completely defeats that objective.

 

But if that's not the way you play, then (as I may have mentioned before) fair enough.

 

1 hour ago, bjornk said:

Despite the fact that I've never used it in any other context in this thread, disassociating from the player character in an RPG, has somehow turned into disassociating yourself from reality, or in fact turned into one cannot be doing two things at the same time cause apparently one can only have enough attention to do one thing at a time. Completely forgetting that you've talked about levels of immersion in the very same post.

 

Forgetting nothing. I've been trying to get through to you that these levels do exist (something you've only just now acknowledged), and at the deeper level of immersion there is indeed a conflict between immersion and dissociation. If you weren't so determined to turn this into a fight, you'd see that I've been trying to find some common ground between our two, very different ways of playing the game.

 

 

[Veniat]

1 hour ago, DocClox said:

And once again, I'd strongly disagree. If I immerse myself in a role, I expect the same degree of immersion that I'd get from reading a good book or watching a good film. Staying dissociated from that role completely defeats that objective.

As someone who's been dissociated both medically, and from being incredibly picky when reading fanfiction or playing games, I can't agree with this more.  Being dissociated is being immersed in the self, or being disconnected from what you're immersed in; I mean being dissociated literally means to be disconnected or detached from something, you can't be immersed in something, whilst simultaneously being detached from that same thing. 

They're completely antithetical to one another.