150 réponses à ce sujet

[BelgusTradis]

 Bowstring lovers... 

[wolvklawz]

I bet it stems from the apocalyptic days of Diablo 2 and the issues that took place trying to aquire a windforce. All those poor desperate players, trading their hard earned SoJ's for a Windforce that had been duped or copied, having it vanish days later. So the player was forced...literally FORCED :police:to run a pindlebot, just with the hopes of actually finding one so....they could kill cows . It was a tragedy....

Modifié par wolvklawz, 03 mars 2011 - 02:44 .

[cracshddd]

Anathemic wrote...

cracshddd wrote...

This is a discussion, there don't have to be "sides", kid

Discussion
1 : consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate 2 : a formal treatment of a topic in speech or writing
-Merriam Webster dictionary

Debate
1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints 2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers. 3.deliberation; consideration. 4. Archaic . strife; contention.

-Dictionary.com

-----------------------------------

What was that again?

You are quoting dictionary websites to no effect now. The part you highlighted only supports what I was saying further, not that any of this matters at all annyways. Your lack of a proper education is hardly an appropriate topic for a forum about a video game. We can continue our "discussion" about your idiocy on retard.com.

[Anathemic]

cracshddd wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

cracshddd wrote...

This is a discussion, there don't have to be "sides", kid

Discussion
1 : consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate 2 : a formal treatment of a topic in speech or writing
-Merriam Webster dictionary

Debate
1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints 2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers. 3.deliberation; consideration. 4. Archaic . strife; contention.

-Dictionary.com

-----------------------------------

What was that again?

You are quoting dictionary websites to no effect now. The part you highlighted only supports what I was saying further, not that any of this matters at all annyways. Your lack of a proper education is hardly an appropriate topic for a forum about a video game. We can continue our "discussion" about your idiocy on retard.com.

I quoted the definitions because I assumed you didn't understand the definition of discussion.

As with the dicussion definition quote, it is stated that discussion is a consideration of an open question usually in informal debate.

Since discussion is 'usually an informal debate' I quoted the definition of debate. And the bolded parts in the debate definition supports opposing viewpoints AKA 'sides', thus proving your statement false that in discussions "there dont' have to be sides".

Modifié par Anathemic, 03 mars 2011 - 02:46 .

[cracshddd]

The key word is in the first definition is "usually", and both of your definitions you used dont even stem from the same source, which is another problem with your argument.

[didymos1120]

Anathemic wrote...
1st statment : I didn't notice bows had strings lol
2nd statement: Clipping issues with bowstrings are noticable

Statement one is not the negation of statement two.   Or if you prefer: that ain't no contradiction. 

[Radwar]

The OP made a great post & brought up something very important, why aren't there bowstrings in DAO & DA2?

Good for you, OP.

[Anathemic]

cracshddd wrote...

The key word is in the first definition is "usually", and both of your definitions you used dont even stem from the same source, which is another problem with your argument.

Cool, so it is logical to assume that dicussions can take the form of having sides, which this thread was going, I don't see why you are outright denying it when it's true.

And I don't see the problem with using multiple sources since both are credible, but if you must I will quote the opposites and still make the same effect

---------------------

Dicussion
an act or instance of discussing;  consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., especially to explore solutions; informal debate.

-Dictionary.com

Debate
a contention by words or arguments: as
a[/i] : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure
b[/i] : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides

-Mearriam Webster dictionary

[Anathemic]

didymos1120 wrote...

Anathemic wrote...
1st statment : I didn't notice bows had strings lol
2nd statement: Clipping issues with bowstrings are noticable

Statement one is not the negation of statement two.   Or if you prefer: that ain't no contradiction. 

What? Statement 2 is the contradiction of statement 1. Statement 1 states that bow string aren't noticable in the first place. Statment 2 states that bowstrings are noticable in terms of clipping issues.

[JohnstonJim]

Edit: Post removed. 

Modifié par Chris Priestly, 03 mars 2011 - 05:07 .

[sonsonthebia07]

drahelvete wrote...

To be honest, I never even noticed that there were no bowstrings in DA:O. Not until someone on this forum pointed it out. Now I can't stop noticing it.

Also: Gief scabbards, please!

I still haven't noticed it. Shhhh.

[Suron]

it's stupid that they're not there. It was lazy in DA:O and inexcusable in DA2.

But as said why should they waste the resources and time on such a thing when it won't bring them more $$

bowstring DLC, coming 2 mo's after release...560 BWPs (hey it's no worse then horse armor from Oblivion)

but yah...I can't believe they didn't bother with them again....how can you be proud of such an obvious thing that only makes you look like an amateur.

There's much older games that have bowstrings...

Ah yes "Bowstrings" BioWares empty pockets have dismissed that claim.

[Fangirl17]

Suron wrote...

Ah yes "Bowstrings" BioWares empty pockets have dismissed that claim.

Hahahaha x3 I love this.

Er anyways, Im guessing they dont want to do the animatons required but hey,thats ok with me.I just pretend there're really thin and you cant see the string or I just try not to focus on it at all.

[JustS]

I actually read somewhere that it was EA's choice. They are after all..evil. And all evil people hate visible bow strings.


(p.s. On a serious note.. would be nice to ahve bow strings in the game if they are not there )

[MonkeyLungs]

I didn't like it in DAO and it still isn't cool. Bows have strings. They are the very reason the bow fires an arrow. Important detail.

[Mad Method]

Anathemic wrote...

I quoted the definitions because I assumed you didn't understand the definition of discussion.

As with the dicussion definition quote, it is stated that discussion is a consideration of an open question usually in informal debate.

Since discussion is 'usually an informal debate' I quoted the definition of debate. And the bolded parts in the debate definition supports opposing viewpoints AKA 'sides', thus proving your statement false that in discussions "there dont' have to be sides".

More silliness. Alright, lets stress your errors:

1) Dictionary.com is error-prone. I know this first-hand.
2) He said "there don't have to be sides" The Mirriam Webster said a discussion is "usually informal debate". Usually does not at all mean necessarily. In fact, usually indicates that there are exceptions. So no, he's right. You're wrong. By your own dictionary, no less.

Anathemic wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Anathemic wrote...
1st statment : I didn't notice bows had strings lol
2nd statement: Clipping issues with bowstrings are noticable

Statement one is not the negation of statement two.   Or if you prefer: that ain't no contradiction.

What? Statement 2 is the contradiction of statement 1. Statement 1 states that bow string aren't noticable in the first place. Statment 2 states that bowstrings are noticable in terms of clipping issues.

The problem lies with your reading comprehension, just like with the dictionary. Lets properly paraphrase the statements:

Statement #1: People don't really notice the absence of bowstrings.
Statement #2: People do really notice bowstrings with bad clipping.

So we see, there was no contradiction involved. It leads back to his original logic that Bioware took the easy road out and instead of having bowstrings with bad clipping, they decided on no bowstrings at all since that's easier to bear. (The proper route would be fixing clipping.) All the same I'm pretty sure there was a dev post somewhere in the days before DAO release that they didn't do bowstrings because they weren't willing to go through with the effort of changing their engine to give weapons their own animations. You should notice the bows don't recurve either. And I don't think there would be any exceptional difficulty with making sure bowstrings don't clip.

Modifié par Mad Method, 03 mars 2011 - 03:37 .

[Scarecrow33]

Why is this topic 6 pages long?
And does anyone really care?

[Anathemic]

Mad Method wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

I quoted the definitions because I assumed you didn't understand the definition of discussion.

As with the dicussion definition quote, it is stated that discussion is a consideration of an open question usually in informal debate.

Since discussion is 'usually an informal debate' I quoted the definition of debate. And the bolded parts in the debate definition supports opposing viewpoints AKA 'sides', thus proving your statement false that in discussions "there dont' have to be sides".

More silliness. Alright, lets stress your errors:

1) Dictionary.com is error-prone. I know this first-hand.
2) He said "there don't have to be sides" The Mirriam Webster said a discussion is "usually informal debate". Usually does not at all mean necessarily. In fact, usually indicates that there are exceptions. So no, he's right. You're wrong. By your own dictionary, no less.

Anathemic wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Anathemic wrote...
1st statment : I didn't notice bows had strings lol
2nd statement: Clipping issues with bowstrings are noticable

Statement one is not the negation of statement two.   Or if you prefer: that ain't no contradiction.

What? Statement 2 is the contradiction of statement 1. Statement 1 states that bow string aren't noticable in the first place. Statment 2 states that bowstrings are noticable in terms of clipping issues.

The problem lies with your reading comprehension, just like with the dictionary. Lets properly paraphrase the statements:

Statement #1: People don't really notice the absence of bowstrings.
Statement #2: People do really notice bowstrings with bad clipping.

So we see, there was no contradiction involved. It leads back to his original logic that Bioware took the easy road out and instead of having bowstrings with bad clipping, they decided on no bowstrings at all since that's easier to bear. All the same I'm pretty sure there was a dev post somewhere in the days before DAO release that they didn't do bowstrings because they weren't willing to go through with the effort of changing their engine to give weapons their own animations. You should notice the bows don't recurve either.

Hmm alright, but I still can make the same point with pure merriam webster definitions.

Yes I know what usually means, however in this thread there is a debate and in this debate people take the sides of 'against bowstrings' or 'for bowstrings' I was merely pointing out why he's denying the obvious.

As for the contradictory part statement 2 contradicts stament 1 still. If people don't notice the presences or absence of bowstrings (the lack of notification of present bowstrings can be implied since the player can't whether the bowstring is there or not [as stated repeatedly in this thread]) then statement 2 contradicts because if you can't decipher the absence/presence of bowstrings in the first place then why go so far as explain an issue that occurs when you do notice the presence of bowstrings?

It's hypocritical still.

[Mad Method]

Even if you feel a discussion entails opposing viewpoints, it still, as he initially stated, doesn't require us to divide into opposing camps - because we can freely entertain both sides of the argument if we please.

As for the contradictory part, no, he merely stated that people wouldn't be too bothered by the absence. He didn't state that people would barely notice its presence. And even if he did, a failure to notice a bowstring normally does not necessarily contradict the notion that a person would still notice a bowstring behaving abnormally.

Anyway, the real point I should like to get at with this is that it's hardly productive to be nitpicking and if you must nitpick, double-check your own logic first. It's what I do.

Moreover, as I stated in my previous post, I don't believe clipping is at the heart of why Bioware didn't implement bowstrings. I'm pretty positive I remember Bioware saying they didn't do it because they would have had to modify their engine to allow animated weapons, and that was too much effort for them.

Modifié par Mad Method, 03 mars 2011 - 03:56 .

[Arrtis]

Radwar wrote...

DAO didn't have them, and now DA2 doesn't have them aswell. I don't know why, it really irks me alot. It's the first thing I noticed in the new Exiled Prince screenshots on the Dragon Age 2 official webpage.


http://dragonage.bio.../exiled_prince/

THey hate comes form the price.
They hate comes from the little use it has.
It does not add up.

[chunkyman]

Scarecrow33 wrote...

Why is this topic 6 pages long?
And does anyone really care?

Apparently.

I like having bows with bowstrings. If they don't have them, it's fine. To me it's like a sword without a handle or an arrow without a tip. I like attention to detail. I'm capable of using my imagination, but I prefer to just have it actually there.

[Radwar]

Scarecrow33 wrote...

Why is this topic 6 pages long?
And does anyone really care?

Yes

[Anathemic]

Mad Method wrote...

Even if you feel a discussion entails opposing viewpoints, it still, as he initially stated, doesn't require us to divide into opposing camps - because we can freely entertain both sides of the argument if we please.

As for the contradictory part, no, he merely stated that people wouldn't be too bothered by the absence. He didn't state that people would barely notice its presence. And even if he did, a failure to notice a bowstring normally does not necessarily contradict the notion that a person would still notice a bowstring behaving abnormally.

Anyway, the real point I should like to get at with this is that it's hardly productive to be nitpicking and if you must nitpick, double-check your own logic first. It's what I do.

Moreover, as I stated in the last post, I don't believe clipping is at the heart of why Bioware didn't implement bowstrings. I'm pretty positive I remember Bioware saying they didn't do it because they would have had to modify their engine to allow animated weapons, and that was too much effort for them.

True he initially stated that but after my post he replied my definitions were pointless and didn't make sense, outright denying that there is a debate on this thread and people are taking sides.

As the discussion on this thread goes the people on 'against bowstrings' are arguing that they don't even notice the absence/presence of bowstrings. He stated that BioWare is not going to implement bowstrings because people will notice the clipping issues. Again, if you don't notice the bowstring is there or not in the first place how are you going to notice the clipping issues?

It is true that I didn't check the credibility of dictionary.com but my sources were still valid in context (dictionary.com had roughly the same definition as merraim webster). And my logic is still the original and it makes sense, so I don't know where you're going with this.

[Mad Method]

Anathemic wrote...

[A] True he initially stated that but after my post he replied my definitions were pointless and didn't make sense, [B] outright denying that there is a debate on this thread and people are taking sides.

Actually, he pointed out the same point I did: "The key word is in the first definition is 'usually.'" He also pointed out, with some validity, that it is bad form for you to use a dictionary to define one word and then use another dictionary to extend your point by defining a part of the first definition. Also, your A point does not logically lead to the B point. There is a big gap of logic there. We call this a non sequitur.

As the discussion on this thread goes the people on 'against bowstrings' are arguing that they don't even notice the absence/presence of bowstrings. He stated that BioWare is not going to implement bowstrings because people will notice the clipping issues. Again, if you don't notice the bowstring is there or not in the first place how are you going to notice the clipping issues?

Ah, as I thought, you're conflating absence with presence in terms of noticeability. Come on, if you're a nitpicker, you should have a keen eye for splitting hairs. An absent bowstring can be treated as merely indistinct to a player (as in "oh it's just too thin for me to see") and thus not get noticed particularly much. However, the presence of a bowstring certainly can be noticeable (as in "hey, I see that."), which is - I'm pretty sure - what he was thinking.

And even if you don't notice a bowstring normally, that doesn't mean you won't notice a bowstring that is just plain doing weird things. To compare: If there are ten trees on your screen, you might not notice all ten, but if one of them is upside down, there are good odds you'd notice that tree.

It is true that I didn't check the credibility of dictionary.com but my sources were still valid in context (dictionary.com had roughly the same definition as merraim webster). And my logic is still the original and it makes sense, so I don't know where you're going with this.

I've looked up with Mirriam Webster and it has its limits too.  If you want to split hairs across nuance, then the average dictionary isn't quite good enough. If you seriously want to have an authoritative dictionary on the English language, you should get the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary. Have a care: it's a dictionary in 20 volumes, plus 3 supplemental volumes. That's about as close as you'll get to a proper exhaustive dictionary of the English language.

Modifié par Mad Method, 03 mars 2011 - 05:04 .

[Radwar]

Wow, you two are really going at it.