196 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

tmp7704 wrote...

Though you could probably look at it, it does make them receive the identical treatment the white people get in this regard.

Yes.  Characters of all colours are now denied the feature that was available to those of all but one exact shade in DAO.

Thestral wrote...

Huh? I thought they were being sarcastic.

Who is "they"?

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I can say this with more confidence than almost every other post I've ever written on any board:  The number of people who want the skin color of their player to be reflected in their family vastly outnumbers the ones who want them to be unrecognized, adopted orphans.

I don't see how that's at all relevant.  The reporting has still been one-sided.

The idea that a reporter ought to consider that there's one guy - literally in this case - on one message board who liked it the old way isn't something they can professionally account for, or their article would end up being 90% qualifiers and 10% information.

They're giving their impression to their audience.  They probably wanted that change, and they probably - reasonably - expect their audience would be excited for it as well.  It is not their place to either account for all possible perspectives on all changes, nor attempt to convert more people into accepting your unusual position on the issue.

Nor is it their place to foist their value-judgments upon us.  It is their place to report the facts of the matter and leave the judgment to us.

Did we gain the ability to choose the PC's colour?  No.  We already had that.
Did we gain the ability to have the PC's colour match his family's?  No.  We already had that.
Did we gain the ability to do both of those things at once?  Yes.
Did we lose the ability to have the PC's colour not match his family's?  Yes.  We lost that.

There.  I've just described the state of things without projecting my values onto it.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 21 décembre 2010 - 07:24 .

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Did we gain the ability to choose the PC's colour?  No.  We already had that.
Did we gain the ability to have the PC's colour match his family's?  No.  We already had that.
Did we gain the ability to do both of those things at once?  Yes.
Did we lose the ability to have the PC's colour not match his family's?  Yes.  We lost that.

There.  I've just described the state of things without projecting my values onto it.

I'd say that listing the bolded change in a fashion that suggests it is as equally important as the others is just such a projection. 

That being said, I stand by what I said about the previewer's role in writing their impressions for their audience.  They are not the Associated Press.  It is an opinion piece.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I'd say that listing the bolded change in a fashion that suggests it is as equally important as the others is just such a projection.

My original phrasing was "All we've gained is the ability to do both of those at once."  The phrasing I ultimately used was far mor eeven-handed.

It's a fact.  I listed it alongside other facts using an equivalent format.  How could that possibly be a projection of values?

That being said, I stand by what I said about the previewer's role in writing their impressions for their audience.  They are not the Associated Press.

Even here, though, people go on and on about what a great change this is and how it obviously should have been made.

But that's not obvious at all without assuming that the feature we lost is unimportant.  Those claims can only make sense where a feature is added without losing another (for example, if DA2 featured a quest journal where DAO had not - that would be something people could credibly claim to be an objective good - they wouldn't necessarily be right, but at least the claims would be credible).

It is an opinion piece

Any idea where I can read game previews that aren't opinion pieces?  Because those would be far more valuable.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

It's a fact.  I listed it alongside other facts using an equivalent format.  How could that possibly be a projection of values?

Because the facts aren't of equivalent importance to most people.  Your listing of them as such is a statement of your interpretation of their equivalence. 

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But that's not obvious at all without assuming that the feature we lost is unimportant. 

Value judgement:  It absolutely was.  Often, things you view as features I view as limitations or failings  But we've been over that.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Any idea where I can read game previews that aren't opinion pieces?

Nope.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 décembre 2010 - 07:54 .

[HolyAvenger]

If we're gonna have a sibling NPC I like the colour thing being fixed.

[PsychoBlonde]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But that's not obvious at all without assuming that the feature we lost is unimportant.  Those claims can only make sense where a feature is added without losing another (for example, if DA2 featured a quest journal where DAO had not - that would be something people could credibly claim to be an objective good - they wouldn't necessarily be right, but at least the claims would be credible).

Whether or not something is credible has no bearing on whether or not it is accurate or valuable.  Demanding credibility is substituting your personal judgment on how believable a given person is for the actual value of what they have to say. 

Personally, I don't find you credible at all.  You might as well claim that installing wheels on your chair removes the "feature" of having it scratch up the floor and get stuck on the rug, causing you to fall over.  This is not a feature.  This is a bug.  Insisting on weighing the "merits" of this "feature" without any context as if they were inherently equal is defective evaluation.

Now, if you actually have two different situations, such as a flat, smooth floor and a carpet floor that turns into hardwood where a standard chair and a rolly chair would have significantly different qualities, then you can debate the merits of each.  But without context, you can't even determine whether something is a feature or a bug.  You can't even begin to create a list.

By giving you their opinions, what these previewers actually are giving you is that context which you can use to form your own highly specialized predictions.  If the quality you are looking for is pretty specific, a single preview can tell you what you need to know.  If it's more vague or ephemeral, you may need to read a lot of previews to build up the context.

Those of us who accept that the game will always have a certain operational context will consider some things to be features and other things to be non-features or even bugs.  You want to have it both ways--to pick what's a feature and what's a bug basically at random.  But this is self-defeating, because ultimately it means that to you, the game *has no features*.  Granted, this seems to be what you want.  But then why play with someone else's product at all?

[Tamyn]

I wish the family's eye colors and hair colors changed with yours, not just their skin. My Hawke is still going to stand out obviously. And what is a "body style"? Will being a warrior or mage cause the sibs to gain or lose muscle mass?

Modifié par Tamyn, 21 décembre 2010 - 09:57 .

[GodWood]

Tamyn wrote...
I wish the family's eye colors and hair colors changed with yours, not just their skin. My Hawke is still going to stand out obviously.

Has it been confirmed only the skin changes?

And what is a "body style"? Will being a warrior or mage cause the sibs to gain or lose muscle mass?

I believe Chris Priestly confirmed Hawke's 'body style' remains the same regardless of class.

[Synthorasnow]

GodWood wrote...

Tamyn wrote...
I wish the family's eye colors and hair colors changed with yours, not just their skin. My Hawke is still going to stand out obviously.

Has it been confirmed only the skin changes?

And what is a "body style"? Will being a warrior or mage cause the sibs to gain or lose muscle mass?

I believe Chris Priestly confirmed Hawke's 'body style' remains the same regardless of class.

Only the skin changes afaik. But i don't see there any problems - bethanys and carvers hair color fit into every skin change - and about eye and hair color? That's not important.
Me and my sisters have different eye and hair color (for example).

Yes it's confirmed, that his / her "body style" remains the same.

Modifié par Synthorasnow, 21 décembre 2010 - 11:03 .

[Seagloom]

Do we know if Bethany and Carver's faces change any depending on what we do with our Hawke? It would be interesting if they did. I am happy enough that skin coloring conforms at any rate. Not this is new information, but I want to thank the people who worked hard to implement it. Since I usually create characters that are a bit darker to match my skin tone, it would have been jarring to deal with the human noble factor all game.

[TMZuk]

Nothing we did not know here either. Doh, does none of the reviewers dare to ask critical questions? I mean, wether you like the direction the game is headed in or not, it is boring reading different worded repetitions of the sale-slogans.

[Qset]

Tamyn wrote...

I wish the family's eye colors and hair colors changed with yours, not just their skin. My Hawke is still going to stand out obviously. And what is a "body style"? Will being a warrior or mage cause the sibs to gain or lose muscle mass?

There were dev quotes from a few weeks back that hinted/suggested that not just skin colour would change. I can't find the thread right now but I do remember jokes about big noses etc  and the dev's reponded with "hints", of course that might just have been misdirection on their part and it is only skin colour.

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In addition, one minor change that I thought was a subtle, yet important improvement is that, if you change your skin tone/body style, your family's does as well. That's right, brown people no longer must be orphans in the Dragon Age universe.

No, instead now Brown people are not allowed to be orphans, or different from their families in any visible way, regardless of how reasonable your justification for wanting it is.

I'm still upset about how one-sided the reporting on this is.

Just to step back a bit, why care? The reporter told you what you need to know. Whether he likes the feature or hates it, what's it to you?

Bias is bad when it leads to stuff not being reported or being reported wrong -- a certain US cable network comes to mind --  but other than that, what's the big deal..

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Because the facts aren't of equivalent importance to most people.  Your listing of them as such is a statement of your interpretation of their equivalence. 

The default (in the absence of a value judgment) is that all facts are equivalent.

Value judgement:  It absolutely was.  Often, things you view as features I view as limitations or failings  But we've been over that.

Except you can't possibly view this as a limitation or failing.  You can view the inability to choose colour and have it match as a failing - I'm not disputing that - but you can't possibly think it was somehow bad that the game allowed you to have a colour that didn't match your family.

AlanC9 wrote...

Just to step back a bit, why care? The reporter told you what you need to know. Whether he likes the feature or hates it, what's it to you?

Because one-sided assertions like these drive public opinion.  People are sheep.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Did we gain the ability to choose the PC's colour?  No.  We already had that.
Did we gain the ability to have the PC's colour match his family's?  No.  We already had that.
Did we gain the ability to do both of those things at once?  Yes.
Did we lose the ability to have the PC's colour not match his family's?  Yes.  We lost that.

There.  I've just described the state of things without projecting my values onto it.

You have made a value judgement. You did not account for the fact that that we can have every available shade of colour for the PC match, as opposed to having the ability do to so with only only one shade. Even if you want to exlucde the subjective valuation of this, you ought to include the mere empirical fact that this can now be done.

Modifié par In Exile, 21 décembre 2010 - 08:31 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Isn't that contained within my third point?

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Isn't that contained within my third point?

Being contained and being presented is not-equivalent.

You can infer it from (1) and (2) and (3) is a statement of this, but in such and such a way that makes it seem like a single as opposed to multiple feature.

Put another way, your presentation creates a sense of scale that we are comparing two equivalently worthwhile features to each other, which is in itself a valuation.

There is a fundamenal subjectivity to how we present empirical information, because of the mere fact we have to word it versus show the information.

[Wissenschaft]

God, people will whine about anything.

Nor is it their place to foist their value-judgments upon us. It is their place to report the facts of the matter and leave the judgment to us.

No, their job is to give their impression of the game and you can make of that what you will.

Modifié par Wissenschaft, 21 décembre 2010 - 09:04 .

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Just to step back a bit, why care? The reporter told you what you need to know. Whether he likes the feature or hates it, what's it to you?

Because one-sided assertions like these drive public opinion.  People are sheep.

I don't think people needed to be driven away from your position on this particular issue. Do you, really?

And when you say "people are sheep" do you include yourself?

[AlanC9]

Wissenschaft wrote...

God, people will whine about anything.

Nor is it their place to foist their value-judgments upon us. It is their place to report the facts of the matter and leave the judgment to us.

No, their job is to give their impression of the game and you can make of that what you will.

I believe Sylvius is making a distinction between news coverage of a game and reviews of a game. This is pretty standard in mainstream journalism. We're not at the review stage yet.

A mainstream journalist, if there ware such in gaming besides the guy at the NYT,  would probably have described the feature that matches Hawke's family to the player's design choices either by giving Bioware's intent with the feature, or by noting that many players complained that while DAO lets you pick the Warden's appearance, this can result in an appearance that was unrelated to family members' appearance. He wouldn't have brought his own opinion into it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

And when you say "people are sheep" do you include yourself?

I never include myself in any group whose existence I posit.

AlanC9 wrote...

I believe Sylvius is making a distinction between news coverage of a game and reviews of a game. This is pretty standard in mainstream journalism.

Yes, this.
But also the general descriptions of the features here on the forum.  People are far too willing, I think, to allow their biases to drive their descriptions of facts.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Being contained and being presented is not-equivalent.

I don't agree.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

AlanC9 wrote...

Davasar wrote...

PsychoBlonde wrote...
The REST of us likely aren't trying to write our own story and superimpose it over the events in the game, so we're more likely to be happy with characters that are more nuanced and detailed.  Granted, some may dislike that they only get to play one type of character (a human--well two if you count male/female as distinct enough to be different character types), but I think most people are okay with the fact that this means they'll get to play a human and the game will actually act like they're human instead of having to have the same situations work out in pretty much the same way no matter WHAT you're playing.

If you dont like the fact that the first game didnt do this, then blame the game makers.  We who wanted more then one race choice would have liked that other races be included, and the race matter how you stated above.

Instead of improving on an existing game feature, they took it out.

So again, blame the game makers.

Is "blame the game makers" your new catchphrase?

PsychoBlonde doesn't have to blame them for anything. She's happy with how things turned out.

But if you're unhappy, feel free to blame Bio for not having infinite zots, or maybe blame Bio for not cutting lots of other stuff from the game in order to give us more playable races.

If the game wasn't rushed through development to meet a firm set deadline maybe we would have had multiple race choices and the like. Sadly this didn't happen.

[In Exile]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

If the game wasn't rushed through development to meet a firm set deadline maybe we would have had multiple race choices and the like. Sadly this didn't happen.

A dwarf PC would not work due to the issue with magic. An elf would not, given the background of Hawke's mother in Kirkwall.

[Sylvius the Mad]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

If the game wasn't rushed through development to meet a firm set deadline maybe we would have had multiple race choices and the like.

I doubt that.

But it is strange that we got a release date announcement so early.  That's entirely unlike BioWare.  They typically will identify a target season (like "Holiday" or "Fall"), and then once that season has already begun we learn either that the game has been delayed or that it will be released within only a few weeks.