Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9109930" data-attributes="member: 6790260">They aren't different actions. They're one action: move a piece. It has different flavors or whatever, but it's all one action.Also, "options" are quite different from "actions." Like, worlds apart. I'm not even sure how it's possible you could conflate the two. A menu has options on it, it doesn't have actions on it.At least one of the two must be an incorrect count though. Either there were 20 instances in which a person actually did have influence or control, or there were 8 instances in which a person actually did have influence or control, or some other nonnegative number of instances where a person actually did have influence or control. It's possible someone could have failed to notice an instance that did happen, but that would be them having a false negative. It's also possible someone could have erroneously counted an instance where a person did not actually have influence or control, in which case that would be a false positive.But there would have to be some finite, nonnegative number of instances where a person really did actually have influence or control. It could be zero, it could be twenty, it could be a thousand. (I assume we agree that an infinite set of such events is not possible?) Some number is the correct count of instances where a person actually did have influence or control.No. They are not. Either you have influence or control, or you don't. There are certainly degrees of influence and control. And I certainly agree that agency over events which have meaning is a key concern, as has been discussed previously. But if you have influence or control over the events in question, you have agency--it may just not be agency you are interested in. This should not be surprising. You have agency, for example, over which outfit you put on each morning. Does that outfit have meaning in any real sense? Not really. Yet it is still a demonstration of agency, and if (for example) you were forced to only wear a government-supplied uniform each day, you would have lost agency, even though that agency has very little meaning overall. It is a demonstration of agency to choose which foods you prepare for yourself--and it is a loss of agency to, for example, have to give up sugary sodas because medicine you are taking has induced diabetes. Is there meaning in choosing to drink sugary soda vs diet soda? I don't think anyone would argue that that is a choice with meaning to it, yet it is still a demonstration of agency.(I've had personal reasons for helping, and dealing with, someone losing a great deal of agency in this and related ways, despite the choices involved having little to no meaning involved. Meaning is not required for agency. It's just a relevant concern for the kinds of agency we're talking about here, the kinds relevant to game design.)Yes...I wasn't talking about READERS having agency. I was talking about AUTHORS having agency. A form of agency that radically differs from what I have over my own life.</blockquote>

Verification