379 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

See what I mean, leonia?

[AlanC9]

Anyone know when the spelling shifted to "fanboi"? Is it some sort of attempt to be PC and gender-neutral?

Darkhour wrote...

Look up "deflect", fanboi.  Can't be any more direct than I was.

Modifié par AlanC9, 05 décembre 2010 - 05:37 .

[Darkhour]

AlanC9 wrote...

It doesn't matter. Someone like Darkhour would just say that Bio was lying regardless of what information you produce.

What's always mystified me is that Darkhour's position requires Bio to be not just greedy, but stupid. They've always known there was going to be day 1 DLC. Making the game in one big lump and then cutting stuff out for the DLC makes QA harder for Bioware. They've got no reason not to keep the projects separate, and good reason to do so.

Sometimes I think that the conspiracy theorists have never actually worked in their lives. Besides burger-flipping, I guess. Although come to think of it, even someone who works at McDonalds would know that different stations work independently.

You're making the idiotic assumption that they would have to make a complete game and THEN go through the trouble of "phyiscally" ripping the content out.  They wrote the character, script, etc. along with the rest of the game. The DLC was always "phyiscally" seperate from the rest of the game, but it's content is produced alongside it, ready to be integrated. They could have done the same thing with Zevran, Sten or Oghren. In that case, those characters would be developed as DLC from the get go, but their inclusion in the game would still be a part of the overall INITIAL developement of Dragon Age.

If this is going over your head let me know.
 

Modifié par Darkhour, 05 décembre 2010 - 05:36 .

[Ziggeh]

AlanC9 wrote...

Anyone know when the spelling shifted to "fanboi"? Is is some sort of attempt to be PC and gender-neutral?

I can't help feeling that "fanboy" is much like godwin's law. As soon as you start using it you've lost the argument. But I suppose that's the case of most ad hominem.

[Darkhour]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Anyone know when the spelling shifted to "fanboi"? Is is some sort of attempt to be PC and gender-neutral?

I can't help feeling that "fanboy" is much like godwin's law. As soon as you start using it you've lost the argument. But I suppose that's the case of most ad hominem.

Fanboi: Geek Term related to forum users who think a product/company/person can do no wrong.

Ad Hominem:

AlanC9 wrote...
Sometimes I think that the conspiracy theorists have never actually worked in their lives. Besides burger-flipping, I guess. Although come to think of it, even someone who works at McDonalds would know that different stations work independently.

[Ziggeh]

Darkhour wrote...

Fanboi: Geek Term related to forum users who think a product/company/person can do no wrong.

Yes. Thank you for the dictionary definition. I mean that it is almost always wielded in lieu of an actual argument.

Darkhour wrote...
Ad Hominem:

AlanC9 wrote...
Sometimes I think that the conspiracy theorists have never actually worked in their lives. Besides burger-flipping, I guess. Although come to think of it, even someone who works at McDonalds would know that different stations work independently.

Important thing to note about ad hominem, it's not alway a fallacy. Understanding how businesses work is pretty relevant when discussing business practices, and not understanding them leads to a number of flawed arguments.

Not that I think yours is, I think it's somewhat of a suspicious coincidence that, unlike the other companions, aside from a few lines of dialogue shale's content exists entirely outside of previously established locations, but I do think you're actively detracting from the argument you're trying to make by taking the clumsy and common "I'm right because you're idiots" branch of debating tactics.

It makes you impossible to take seriously and makes you look like a putz. God bless Yiddish.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 05 décembre 2010 - 06:05 .

[Piecake]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Darkhour wrote...

Fanboi: Geek Term related to forum users who think a product/company/person can do no wrong.

Yes. Thank you for the dictionary definition. I mean that it is almost always wielded in lieu of an actual argument.

Darkhour wrote...
Ad Hominem:

AlanC9 wrote...
Sometimes I think that the conspiracy theorists have never actually worked in their lives. Besides burger-flipping, I guess. Although come to think of it, even someone who works at McDonalds would know that different stations work independently.

Important thing to note about ad hominem, it's not alway a fallacy. Understanding how businesses work is pretty relevant when discussing business practices, and not understanding them leads to a number of flawed arguments.

Not that I think yours is, I think it's somewhat of a suspicious coincidence that, unlike the other companions, aside from a few lines of dialogue shale's content exists entirely outside of previously established locations, but I do think you're actively detracting from the argument you're trying to make by taking the clumsy and common "I'm right because you're idiots" branch of debating tactics.

It makes you impossible to take seriously and makes you look like a putz. God bless Yiddish.

I blame cable news

[AlanC9]

Well, it's either respond to Darkhour or watch Diddy on SNL

Darkhour wrote...

You're making the idiotic assumption that they would have to make a complete game and THEN go through the trouble of "phyiscally" ripping the content out.  They wrote the character, script, etc. along with the rest of the game. The DLC was always "phyiscally" seperate from the rest of the game, but it's content is produced alongside it, ready to be integrated. They could have done the same thing with Zevran, Sten or Oghren. In that case, those characters would be developed as DLC from the get go, but their inclusion in the game would still be a part of the overall INITIAL developement of Dragon Age.

If this is going over your head let me know.
 

Exactly what is the point of putting "physically" in there? Even in quotes, I don't know what you're trying to convey. Obviously the Shale content isn't in the edition on the DVD, so it has been removed.

Or are you saying that all the characters were fully developed separately and then integrated late in the process? Or only the non-critical characters? If so, on what evidence? From the way files are segregated in the toolset, Bio doesn't operate that way; it look like they break up development by quest lines. I'm only talking about the technical design work, obviously -- it's well-known that individual characters aren't written by different people in different areas.

Now, this means that Bio did make themselves a headache when they removed Shale, since we're all in agreement that Shale was part of the original plan. Bio says they did that because they had to, since Shale wasn't working. I believe them. Every Bio game ever has shipped with content that had to be cut because they couldn't finish that content. Is there any rational basis for thinking that DAO was different? At least with Shale we actually got the content -- and for free, I should add.

Anyway, who cares? Let's say that the paranoid conspiracy ranting is actually right, and Shale was suddenly cut only because evil Bio decided to make day 1 DLC. Since Bio knows that they'll be doing day 1 DLC in the future, whatever's going into the DLC will be planned from project inception as part of the DLC, for obvious reasons. That stuff will never be part of the original plan for DA2 or anything else.

[AlanC9]

Darkhour wrote...
Fanboi: Geek Term related to forum users who think a product/company/person can do no wrong.

Right. But it used to be fanboy. Why did the geeks change the spelling?

It's pretty lame, so I'm not planning to use it myself. Just curious.

Ad Hominem:

AlanC9 wrote...
Sometimes I think that the conspiracy theorists have never actually worked in their lives. Besides burger-flipping, I guess. Although come to think of it, even someone who works at McDonalds would know that different stations work independently.

Is it really ad hominem to say that people's posts suggest total ignorance of how project management actually works? If so, I'll plead guilty -- without retracting the observation, however.

[AlanC9]

ziggehunderslash wrote...
 I think it's somewhat of a suspicious coincidence that, unlike the other companions, aside from a few lines of dialogue shale's content exists entirely outside of previously established locations

Actually, this is what makes me think that Bio's telling the truth. My take on the process is that the separate main quest areas are worked on individually, with companion interjections and so forth being patched in after the base convos are working. If Shale's remarks were ever in those convos Bio would have them in the DLC, since copying out a backup version of the existing convo before removing Shale's lines is the obvious way to go about pulling the character to DLC. Since Shale doesn't have lines in those convos there were never any lines there, which means that Shale was cut before companion dialog integration.

[Leonia]

I go off to watch the cricket for a few hours (it was rained out so got to watch the highlights from a year when we were actually winning, yay!) and this thread devolves entirely. Well done.

[Bryy_Miller]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Anyone know when the spelling shifted to "fanboi"? Is is some sort of attempt to be PC and gender-neutral?

I can't help feeling that "fanboy" is much like godwin's law. As soon as you start using it you've lost the argument. But I suppose that's the case of most ad hominem.

Well, no. Godwin's Law is an abstract concept, whereas Fanboy is in relation to how someone acts. There's a world of difference between comparing someone a **** because they either are for or against something, and being unhealthily obsessed with a game series so much that you either make scary sexual fanfics about a character, or talk about how everyone that likes other games is biologically stupid. The major thing with the fanboy is that they often think that they know better than the people making the product for them. Godwin's Law is not a personality.

Modifié par Bryy_Miller, 05 décembre 2010 - 08:46 .

[Darkhour]

AlanC9 wrote...

Well, it's either respond to Darkhour or watch Diddy on SNL

His lady friends had some nice curves, no?

AlanC9 wrote...

Darkhour wrote...

You're making the idiotic assumption that they would have to make a complete game and THEN go through the trouble of "phyiscally" ripping the content out.  They wrote the character, script, etc. along with the rest of the game. The DLC was always "phyiscally" seperate from the rest of the game, but it's content is produced alongside it, ready to be integrated. They could have done the same thing with Zevran, Sten or Oghren. In that case, those characters would be developed as DLC from the get go, but their inclusion in the game would still be a part of the overall INITIAL developement of Dragon Age.

If this is going over your head let me know.
 

Exactly what is the point of putting "physically" in there? Even in quotes, I don't know what you're trying to convey. Obviously the Shale content isn't in the edition on the DVD, so it has been removed.

To be removed would mean Shale was taken out and thrown away.

Hmm, how can I explain this to a person of your handicap???

Let's say Star Wars: A New Hope was made into a game.  And lets say C3P0 was included only as pre-order DLC bonus character. When they first started developing the game C3P0 was made seperatedly as DLC content from the start, BUT that does not change the fact that C3P0 was always written in as part of the story.  C3P0 is not some afterthought.

No, he was never removed physically from the game disk. That is, they didn't pull the files and codes out of the game disk and then put them on a server as DLC.  But the files were developed alongside with the main game data with the intention of integrating the two into an intended whole. The purpose of doing this is to promote pre-orders and discourage pirating. But a side effect is that it screws over people who don't pre-order because they are paying extra for what amounts to the core DA:O game.  It's not a genuine bonus.

Bio says they did that because they had to, since Shale wasn't working.

So why isn't Shale free to everyone?

Shale wasn't working, but working well enough to be promised to pre-orderers on release. Riiiiight, they had to.

Anyway, who cares? Let's say that the paranoid conspiracy ranting is actually right

A paranoid conspiracy?  Is it now a conspiracy for a company to do things that earn them more profit? I was unaware that EA-Bioware was a non-profit organization and all their proceeds went to charity. I think the term "fanboi" is an apt description of certain people here. Call it an ad hominem if you want.  If you think they are making games out of the goodness of their hearts you've earned the title.

And exactly what would I be "paranoid" about?  I want you think about this carefully.

Modifié par Darkhour, 05 décembre 2010 - 02:46 .

[Snoteye]

Darkhour wrote...

So why isn't Shale free to everyone?

Shale is free to everyone -- that buys the game new. The reason Shale isn't free-free is to discourage second-hand sales.

Darkhour wrote...

Shale wasn't working, but working well enough to be promised to pre-orderers on release. Riiiiight, they had to.

Shale wasn't working for the original release date. Half a year before the actual release date. Shale was only day-one DLC because DA:O was late. Supposedly. That's the official story and regardless of any ulterior motives that is what we have to go by, but no one can deny that the story doesn't at the very least add up. Either way, pre-ordering never figured into it.

Modifié par Snoteye, 05 décembre 2010 - 02:50 .

[Darkhour]

[quote]Snoteye wrote...

[quote]Darkhour wrote...

So why isn't Shale free to everyone?[/quote]Shale is free to everyone -- that buys the game new. The reason Shale isn't free-free is to discourage second-hand sales.[/quote]

The Shale DLC is free to everyone... except when it's not.  That gave me a chuckle.

So pre-order second-hand sales aren't discourage since pre-orderers didn't pay extra? Could you please explain to me how paying for the Shale DLC discourages the sale/purchase of used games for those who did not pre-order? For instance, would you rather pay full price plus the cost of the Shale DLC (assuming a buyer even cares about Shale) or pay half the price and purchase the Shale DLC?  Am I missing something? 

Seems like a one-time use registration code for the game disk that would be necessary to get additional content would be the logical deterent, if a person cared about DLC.

[quote]Darkhour wrote...

Shale wasn't working, but working well enough to be promised to pre-orderers on release. Riiiiight, they had to.[/quote]Shale wasn't working for the original release date. Half a year before the actual release date. Shale was only day-one DLC because DA:O was late. Supposedly. That's the official story and regardless of any ulterior motives that is what we have to go by, but no one can deny that the story doesn't at the very least add up. Either way, pre-ordering never figured into it.[/quote]

We have to take the word of those whose integrity, or lack thereof, is in question? Umm, no we don't.  It doesn't work that way.  If that were the case we would have to accept that Bioware staff is inherently incapable of lying. Last I checked they were human beings.

And why or how exactly was Shale not working?  Did video game golems go on strike?

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...

Actually, this is what makes me think that Bio's telling the truth. My take on the process is that the separate main quest areas are worked on individually, with companion interjections and so forth being patched in after the base convos are working. If Shale's remarks were ever in those convos Bio would have them in the DLC, since copying out a backup version of the existing convo before removing Shale's lines is the obvious way to go about pulling the character to DLC. Since Shale doesn't have lines in those convos there were never any lines there, which means that Shale was cut before companion dialog integration.

Shale was, I believe, originally in Redcliffe or some other integrated area. When Shale was cut and then added back in, Honnleath was created.

[In Exile]

Darkhour wrote...
The Shale DLC is free to everyone... except when it's not.  That gave me a chuckle.

So pre-order second-hand sales aren't discourage since pre-orderers didn't pay extra? Could you please explain to me how paying for the Shale DLC discourages the sale/purchase of used games for those who did not pre-order? For instance, would you rather pay full price plus the cost of the Shale DLC (assuming a buyer even cares about Shale) or pay half the price and purchase the Shale DLC?  Am I missing something? 

Seems like a one-time use registration code for the game disk that would be necessary to get additional content would be the logical deterent, if a person cared about DLC.

Second hand sales are discouraged because the publisher/developer do not actually profit of the sale. So when you buy a used copy of DA:O and buy Shale for $10, Bioware/EA has actually one made $10 on that sale.

Their justification of clamping down on second hand sales is to profit directly from the copy. I'm not sure I understand your point.

We have to take the word of those whose integrity, or lack thereof, is in question? Umm, no we don't.  It doesn't work that way.  If that were the case we would have to accept that Bioware staff is inherently incapable of lying. Last I checked they were human beings.

And why or how exactly was Shale not working?  Did video game golems go on strike?

No, it was bugged. Like the extended content on Therum in ME1. We were supposed to get a full plot world with Prothean ruins, but that content wouldn't work so after you save Liara you get warped to the end of the level.

I suppose you could always assume Bioware was lying, but why? We know they're using release date DLC for DA2, and you've already object the logical way to the practice (i.e. built the character concept out of the gate and then built it separately from the main game). The counter to that is that Bioware claims the project $10 DLC is funded out of a DLC budget separate from the main game, but whether or not you believe that I suppose goes right back to the lying.

We have a perfectly reasonable explanation of everyting they do without calling their integrity into queston, so why would we do this?

ETA:

Basically, Bioware is saying that the DLC absolutely was made out of the game with the purpose of it being DLC and for project $10, but they argue that the funding and design come from a separate DLC-only budget that exists because DLC is being demanded. Had there been no DLC, there would have been no work (post-DA:O) to put in the DLC character because that would be outside the scope of DA2.

That's the point at issue. And like always, you could say the company is lying, but where does that get you?

Modifié par In Exile, 06 décembre 2010 - 02:53 .

[upsettingshorts]

Darkhour wrote...
We have to take the word of those whose integrity, or lack thereof, is in question? Umm, no we don't.  It doesn't work that way.  If that were the case we would have to accept that Bioware staff is inherently incapable of lying. Last I checked they were human beings.

That's not the approach I take.  While I definitely take anything a company's marketing says with a grain of salt (read: I pretty much assume they're full of ****) I'm not as willing to dismiss what Bioware folk personally tell us on the forums.  I think if they had something to hide, they simply wouldn't say anything.  Guys like Mike Laidlaw and David Gaider are under no obligation to post here at all.  

Case in point?  There's a lot of stuff they either don't mention or are deliberately vague about.  They've been relatively clear on their development approach to day-one DLC, as much as I imagine they're allowed to be.  They've certainly been explicit enough that if many of the conspiracy theories being kicked around turned out to be true, then Bioware folk on these boards would have been spreading bold faced lies that they stood to gain little from.

Silence to me is far more interesting (or damning, depending on your perspective and the issue at hand) than explicit denial.  I'll give them the benefit of the doubt in that case, given the circumstances.

[Snoteye]

Darkhour wrote...

So pre-order second-hand sales aren't discourage since pre-orderers didn't pay extra? Could you please explain to me how paying for the Shale DLC discourages the sale/purchase of used games for those who did not pre-order? For instance, would you rather pay full price plus the cost of the Shale DLC (assuming a buyer even cares about Shale) or pay half the price and purchase the Shale DLC? Am I missing something?

I've never seen a retailer that lets you pre-order second-hand copies. There's a novel idea. I'll say again that you never had to pre-order to get Shale.

If the price I paid for DA:O was split between DA:O and the Shale DLC, then DA:O may well be the best buy I've ever made. Probably, though, what I paid for was more of the DA:O they initially had hoped to ship than it at first seemed they'd be able to, because DA:O was average price to me and I got more content that I expected. I was never going to pay for Shale because I don't invest in DLC on principle.

Darkhour wrote...

Seems like a one-time use registration code for the game disk that would be necessary to get additional content would be the logical deterent, if a person cared about DLC.

And get no money at all? As is, second-hand sales don't help EA, but second-hand sales accompanied by DLC sales do. It would be stupid to outright prevent people from using DLC unless they owned an original copy.

Darkhour wrote...

We have to take the word of those whose integrity, or lack thereof, is in question? Umm, no we don't. It doesn't work that way. If that were the case we would have to accept that Bioware staff is inherently incapable of lying. Last I checked they were human beings.

This is the very definition of a conspiracy theory. Based on no evidence whatsoever you are assuming Shale was purposefully kept out of the game, then to be made available for free to anyone that buys an original copy of the game. It is entirely possible that's what happened, but it sounds unlikely to say the least, and even if that is what happened I don't give a flying nug because I got what I wanted.

Darkhour wrote...

And why or how exactly was Shale not working? Did video game golems go on strike?

Programming is actually something that happens magically. Development time is just a ruse to create hype.

[Vylan Antagonist]

Darkhour wrote...
And why or how exactly was Shale not working?  Did video game golems go on strike?

From what I recall, Shale was initially standard golem size. This presented a number of problems with clipping and tight areas, rendering her a royal pain. The decision was made to cut her based on the time they had left on the table allocated for the project, but by designating her as part of project :10bux:, they were able to allocate additional development time to salvage her as a character.

I'm not really convinced that the Signature edition situation is identical, but I suppose it doesn't matter. It is what it is. Alea iacta est.

[In Exile]

Vylan Antagonist wrote...

I'm not really convinced that the Signature edition situation is identical, but I suppose it doesn't matter. It is what it is. Alea iacta est.

It isn't.

Bioware has been explicit that the DLC was designed as DLC from the start. We can argue whether that means they conceptualized DA2 as a whole then marked off content to be implemented as DLC from the full DA2 budget, or conceptualized the game and then determined what part of the concept would get DLC budget/attention and what part would get DA2 core attention, but the fact that DA2 had DLC from the start unlike Shale entirely is not something Bioware denies.

[AlanC9]

And of course, the only reason DAO didn't have day 1 DLC from project inception is that nobody had come up with the concept of day 1 DLC when that plan was drawn up in... 2004? At that point Bio hadn't even started releasing NWN Premium Modules, which were, I suppose, proof-of-concept for DLC.

[Bryy_Miller]

It always boggles my mind that people think video game companies are working on the same level as Enron or Countrywide.

[John Epler]

If you're incapable of engaging in discussions without insults and an overly hostile and combative tone, refrain from posting.



Civility and respect. That's all I ask.

[Viciousryry85]

If you pre-ordered the signature edition do you also receive the shield of Orlais and sword as well or is that for individuals that pre-order now before March?