230 réponses à ce sujet

[Meltemph]

why would a total retcon be good?

It is not a total retcon and even if it was, a total retcon can be good if it makes it better.

no seriously, what is good about changing something visually so much that without being told, some people would be completely convinced they are looking at 2 completely different creatures?

Becasue they thought it looked better... Why else do you think? I like how they look now, and am glad they are no longer big humans.

now aside that, there was no reason to add gigantic horns to the Qunari to make them look not human where they could have just capitalized on what made them different to begin with (size and skin) why changing minor things

Their size was not that impressive(and was human like) and their skin was nothing, non-human like, just different.

Why people feel the need to make issues so dramatic is beyond me...

Modifié par Meltemph, 30 janvier 2011 - 10:45 .

[crimzontearz]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...
Is a retcon deemed ok because it's Bioware? And before anyone jumps and says "it's not a retcon".....be reminded that your REAL defense should be :"It's not a retcon, The chantry's recordings (and your codex) were just faulty because they just never saw them up close and if they did they were wearing helmets so they thought they were hoprnamental....and they were to much in a hurry after the wars to look at all the corpses that were left behind...." and so on and so forth until you have filled in all the holes left behind by this "new look"

Why do I get the impression that this was directed at me... <_<

It's not a retcon.
Period.
The only defense I need is that Retcon has a definition and giving the Qunari horns doesn't fit that defintion.

retcon /ret'kon/ [short for `retroactive continuity', from the Usenet
  newsgroup rec.arts.comics] 1. n. The common situation in pulp fiction
  (esp. comics or soap operas) where a new story `reveals' things about
  events in previous stories, usually leaving the `facts' the same (thus
  preserving continuity) while completely changing their interpretation.
  For example, revealing that a whole season of "Dallas" was a dream was a
  retcon. 2. vt. To write such a story about a character or fictitious
  object. "Byrne has retconned Superman's cape so that it is no longer
  unbreakable." "Marvelman's old adventures were retconned into synthetic
  dreams." "Swamp Thing was retconned from a transformed person into a
  sentient vegetable."


Qunari went from not having horns (never mentioned in codex/by people) to having horns. The explanation is that ALL the Qunari we met before were either born without OR if Tal Vashot they ripped them off (but no stumps were ever to be seen.....and in one case it was both apparently)

sounds like a retcon to me.....unless you are taking the fact that no one ever said directly in DAO that Qunari do not have horns as proof that they devs ALWAYS planned this

[Mikey_205]

It's about creating a sense of continuity and now having my suspension of disbelief eroded by a terrible retcon. I really hate retcon because I just think its an admission that enough wasn't done the first time around. Don't release something if you aren't happy to live with the quality. It also implies that insufficient planning was put into the system. This actually extends to the idea that you need to start at level 1 in every game. BG1 let you get powerful and BG2 let you get more powerful in the same system. I don't understand why Bioware feels the need to pull the rug out on half their stuff rather than do a little planning for gradual growth across two games or a trilogy as is more preferable in RPGs (this is more a moan about ME1 and 2).

[crimzontearz]

Meltemph wrote...

why would a total retcon be good?

It is not a total retcon and even if it was, a total retcon can be good if it makes it better.

no seriously, what is good about changing something visually so much that without being told, some people would be completely convinced they are looking at 2 completely different creatures?

Becasue they thought it looked better... Why else do you think? I like how they look now, and am glad they are no longer big humans.

now aside that, there was no reason to add gigantic horns to the Qunari to make them look not human where they could have just capitalized on what made them different to begin with (size and skin) why changing minor things

Their size was not that impressive(and was human like) and their skin was nothing, non-human like, just different.

Why people feel the need to make issues so dramatic is beyond me...

same reason as why some spazzed out about the fact that Gaider/Laidlaw said DA2 was an action RPG

Modifié par crimzontearz, 30 janvier 2011 - 10:48 .

[crimzontearz]

also the total retcon comment was referred more to the darkspawn than the Qunari

[Dark Specie]

Mikey_205 wrote...

It's about creating a sense of continuity and now having my suspension of disbelief eroded by a terrible retcon. I really hate retcon because I just think its an admission that enough wasn't done the first time around. Don't release something if you aren't happy to live with the quality. It also implies that insufficient planning was put into the system. This actually extends to the idea that you need to start at level 1 in every game. BG1 let you get powerful and BG2 let you get more powerful in the same system. I don't understand why Bioware feels the need to pull the rug out on half their stuff rather than do a little planning for gradual growth across two games or a trilogy as is more preferable in RPGs (this is more a moan about ME1 and 2).

Agreed. In ME 1 & ME 2, you never look at, say a Turian and wonder "What!? Is that really the same creature as we saw in the first game!?". If they weren't happy with how things tuurned out in DAO, then they really shouldn't have used'em... Meh.

At the very least we can hope that there won't be any more really big changes in the art like this in future DAO games...

[Jimmy Fury]

crimzontearz wrote...
sounds like a retcon to me.....unless you are taking the fact that no one ever said directly in DAO that Qunari do not have horns as proof that they devs ALWAYS planned this

I'm not repeating myself again this soon. Click back  3 pages. I already explained the difference between a change and a retcon.

-edit for correct number of pages back -

Modifié par Jimmy Fury, 30 janvier 2011 - 10:54 .

[Big Blue Car]

I'd prefer it if Biware straight-up said "Yeah we gave them horns, they all look evil now, we did this because the style of the Dragon Age franchise is allowed to evolve over time and we wanted something more memorable and distinctive for our semi-evil race than 'big black guys,".



It's the lame justifications for it that I think are stupid.

[crimzontearz]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...
sounds like a retcon to me.....unless you are taking the fact that no one ever said directly in DAO that Qunari do not have horns as proof that they devs ALWAYS planned this

I'm not repeating myself again this soon. Click back 2 pages. I already explained the difference between a change and a retcon.

what? are you serious?

how exactly was "continuity not affected"?

first off there IS such thing as visual continuity and secondly just because an explanation was created (as far fetched as it is) as per why we NEVER say a horned Qunari in DAO that does not make this any less of a retcon. Qunari went from no horns, to horns....retcon

Wolverine went from artificially implanted Adamantium claws to "they were bone spurs all along that just happened to be coated"...retcon

no matter how hard you try to create a difference that in this case does not exist 

[Meltemph]

It's about creating a sense of continuity and now having my suspension of disbelief eroded by a terrible retcon.

Really?  You don't think you are making this a little bit of too big of a deal?  They had you with, yellowish orange skin and tall is a different race from human, but this new look just... You just don't "believe it" anymore?   

I really hate retcon because I just think its an admission that enough wasn't done the first time around. Don't release something if you aren't happy to live with the quality.

Or it is an admission that after they released it, that they had a different take on it and want the setting to have a specific look.  Your second sentence just comes off as arrogant, as in you have room to talk when it comes to designing a entire setting...  Ya, ok you don't like it, that is fine, but don't try and claim you know "how it should be done".

It also implies that insufficient planning was put into the system. This actually extends to the idea that you need to start at level 1 in every game. BG1 let you get powerful and BG2 let you get more powerful in the same system. I don't understand why Bioware feels the need to pull the rug out on half their stuff rather than do a little planning for gradual growth across two games or a trilogy as is more preferable in RPGs (this is more a moan about ME1 and 2).

The hell are you even trying to say here?  That you know the perfect system or that you have a preference? Or are you honestly actually trying to compare the D&D rules systems with other mechanics?  The way they handled it was fine and most enjoyed it.  Why can't you just say "I didnt like the way they handled it", you must you act like you know better?

Modifié par Meltemph, 30 janvier 2011 - 11:00 .

[Sharn01]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

there is the difference between not liking the new look and not liking the fact that it was summarily changed.

Do I like the new darkspawn look? yes
Go I like the fact that if I was given 2 shots of Darkspawn Hurlocks, one from DA2 and one from DAO, I would have been convinced the two were not the same creature? no

It's the same with the Qunari. Anyone watching the trailer without knowing it is a Qunari wouldn't have guessed it is one.

i guess i'm either the exception or non-existent then.

So I am guessing you saw the trailer without ever visiting the Dragon Age boards or reading anything at all about DAII so that you didnt even have a hint that there was a change?  There was information on the forums as well as a lot of discussion about the change elsewhere regarding the new quinari look long before we ever saw any pics or the trailer.  Its one thing to have heard about it beforehand specifically, even if you didnt remember the change it would still be there subconsciously, and seeing it with no other information at all.

Modifié par Sharn01, 30 janvier 2011 - 11:00 .

[crimzontearz]

Sharn01 wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

there is the difference between not liking the new look and not liking the fact that it was summarily changed.

Do I like the new darkspawn look? yes
Go I like the fact that if I was given 2 shots of Darkspawn Hurlocks, one from DA2 and one from DAO, I would have been convinced the two were not the same creature? no

It's the same with the Qunari. Anyone watching the trailer without knowing it is a Qunari wouldn't have guessed it is one.

i guess i'm either the exception or non-existent then.

So I am guessing you saw the trailer without ever visiting the Dragon Age boards or reading anything at all about DAII so that you didnt even have a hint that there was a change?  There was information on the forums as well as a lot of discussion about the change elsewhere about  the new quinari look long before we ever saw any pics or the trailer.  Its one thing to have heard about it beforehand specifically, even if you didnt remember the change it would still be there subconsciously, and seeing it with no other information at all.

I tried for the lulz to swow two images, one of Sten in DAO and one of the Arishock in DA2 askinf if they thought they were part of the same race/specie/critter group...out of 10 (which I picked trying to make sure they did not play DAO) 9 said "uh....they look nothing alike" or something along those lines and the other one said "well if you are asking me it's obvious they are...and you are trying to make a point that it seems ridiculous. For what it's worth I agree with you and if I had never played DAO I'd have never guess those are Qunari"......she.......she had played DAO <_<  that was totally my bad LOL

[The Elder King]

Sharn01 wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

there is the difference between not liking the new look and not liking the fact that it was summarily changed.

Do I like the new darkspawn look? yes
Go I like the fact that if I was given 2 shots of Darkspawn Hurlocks, one from DA2 and one from DAO, I would have been convinced the two were not the same creature? no

It's the same with the Qunari. Anyone watching the trailer without knowing it is a Qunari wouldn't have guessed it is one.

i guess i'm either the exception or non-existent then.

So I am guessing you saw the trailer without ever visiting the Dragon Age boards or reading anything at all about DAII so that you didnt even have a hint that there was a change?  There was information on the forums as well as a lot of discussion about the change elsewhere regarding the new quinari look long before we ever saw any pics or the trailer.  Its one thing to have heard about it beforehand specifically, even if you didnt remember the change it would still be there subconsciously, and seeing it with no other information at all.

I have this account since the early 2010, but I never came to the forum before Nov-December 2010. When I saw the trailer I didn't know nothing about the new qunari look, and I recognized him as a qunari.

[Jimmy Fury]

crimzontearz wrote...
what? are you serious?

As a heart attack.

[Meltemph]

first off there IS such thing as visual continuity and secondly just because an explanation was created (as far fetched as it is) as per why we NEVER say a horned Qunari in DAO that does not make this any less of a retcon. Qunari went from no horns, to horns....retcon

They gave an explanation... You may not like it but that does not mean they didnt give you one. It could very easily just be that they did not have time/ability/ect to add a model of the Qunari with horns and because of that, that is why you saw them w/o horns.



Also you trying to harp on "visual continuity" on a brand new setting is just wanting to complain about something. Although to be honest, what should I expect, after seeing so many people fly off the handle with forgotten realms and other D&D lore changes...

[crimzontearz]

Meltemph wrote...

first off there IS such thing as visual continuity and secondly just because an explanation was created (as far fetched as it is) as per why we NEVER say a horned Qunari in DAO that does not make this any less of a retcon. Qunari went from no horns, to horns....retcon

They gave an explanation... You may not like it but that does not mean they didnt give you one. It could very easily just be that they did not have time/ability/ect to add a model of the Qunari with horns and because of that, that is why you saw them w/o horns.

Also you trying to harp on "visual continuity" on a brand new setting is just wanting to complain about something. Although to be honest, what should I expect, after seeing so many people fly off the handle with forgotten realms and other D&D lore changes...

wait how exactly is DA2 a brand new setting??

[Meltemph]

So crimzontearz, you never honestly wondered why the **** Ogres had horns? You NEVER wondered if qunari other then the ones you saw had horns? Cause I know I did. There was a consistent look between darkspawn until you got to Qunari.

[crimzontearz]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...
what? are you serious?

As a heart attack.

ok I'll bite

"how" exactly was the continuity not affected by this "change"?

[Meltemph]

crimzontearz wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

first off there IS such thing as visual continuity and secondly just because an explanation was created (as far fetched as it is) as per why we NEVER say a horned Qunari in DAO that does not make this any less of a retcon. Qunari went from no horns, to horns....retcon

They gave an explanation... You may not like it but that does not mean they didnt give you one. It could very easily just be that they did not have time/ability/ect to add a model of the Qunari with horns and because of that, that is why you saw them w/o horns.

Also you trying to harp on "visual continuity" on a brand new setting is just wanting to complain about something. Although to be honest, what should I expect, after seeing so many people fly off the handle with forgotten realms and other D&D lore changes...

wait how exactly is DA2 a brand new setting??

So you think Thedas(DA2) is not a new setting?  Really?

[Atakuma]

Meltemph wrote...

So crimzontearz, you never honestly wondered why the **** Ogres had horns? You NEVER wondered if qunari other then the ones you saw had horns? Cause I know I did. There was a consistent look between darkspawn until you got to Qunari.

Have you seen the shreiks?

[AlexXIV]

crimzontearz wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

there is the difference between not liking the new look and not liking the fact that it was summarily changed.

Do I like the new darkspawn look? yes
Go I like the fact that if I was given 2 shots of Darkspawn Hurlocks, one from DA2 and one from DAO, I would have been convinced the two were not the same creature? no

It's the same with the Qunari. Anyone watching the trailer without knowing it is a Qunari wouldn't have guessed it is one.

i guess i'm either the exception or non-existent then.

So I am guessing you saw the trailer without ever visiting the Dragon Age boards or reading anything at all about DAII so that you didnt even have a hint that there was a change?  There was information on the forums as well as a lot of discussion about the change elsewhere about  the new quinari look long before we ever saw any pics or the trailer.  Its one thing to have heard about it beforehand specifically, even if you didnt remember the change it would still be there subconsciously, and seeing it with no other information at all.

I tried for the lulz to swow two images, one of Sten in DAO and one of the Arishock in DA2 askinf if they thought they were part of the same race/specie/critter group...out of 10 (which I picked trying to make sure they did not play DAO) 9 said "uh....they look nothing alike" or something along those lines and the other one said "well if you are asking me it's obvious they are...and you are trying to make a point that it seems ridiculous. For what it's worth I agree with you and if I had never played DAO I'd have never guess those are Qunari"......she.......she had played DAO <_<  that was totally my bad LOL

Well tbh there is a chance that if you played DA:O you just assume they are Qunari because you wouldn't know what else it is. Depends on whether your first idea is that it is a new race and or special form of a known race. I mean my personal first idea was that it was a Qunari mage. Which was stupid, but my mind tried to make sense to the change.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 30 janvier 2011 - 11:08 .

[HervetVederskay]

  because I hate ****s.

[crimzontearz]

Meltemph wrote...

So crimzontearz, you never honestly wondered why the **** Ogres had horns? You NEVER wondered if qunari other then the ones you saw had horns? Cause I know I did. There was a consistent look between darkspawn until you got to Qunari.

no more than how I never wondered why shrieks have double mandibles and elves do not......

[Jimmy Fury]

crimzontearz wrote...
wait how exactly is DA2 a brand new setting??

You went to kirkwall in Origins did you?
Was it nice?



btw, i'm totally not serious. Well I am about the change not being a retcon... but not about this conversation. I refuse to subscribe to the notion that any retroactive change is a retcon because it exists solely to nerdrage for nerdrages sake. I stick with retroactive change to continuity. Additions to continuity are just an aspect of having writers that are human. People don't think of everything all at one time. If you don't give them the wiggle room to fill in some blanks later you're just going to get all furious about everything all the time. That's just an exhausting waste of perfectly good fury.
-edit because you ninja'd my response-
I already explained why the change doesn't effect continuity. I already said I wasn't going to repeat myself so soon.

Modifié par Jimmy Fury, 30 janvier 2011 - 11:12 .

[Meltemph]

 

Have you seen the shreiks?

They have pointy ears that seemed to fit, specially sense they were all "rogueish" to me.  /shrug

I mean, the shrieks didn't grow new body parts so to speak, they just looked less humanoid like.   Ogres were quite literally near completely different.