139 réponses à ce sujet

[highcastle]

Vhaius wrote...

shaneho78 wrote...

Quote "They react to any perceived change as bad. Anything that potentially means that they're not being catered to specifically, they react badly at. " Strike a chord with anyone?

Yes, the lead writer ended his sentence with a preposition.

And that's an offense up with which we should not put!

Seriously though, nothing new under the sun, but it's always nice to hear from the writers.

[errant_knight]

I think it's time to stop using 'perceived.' We've played the demo. We know.

[Lumikki]

OP, thanks for post. React to change badly, Yeah they seem to. Sometimes change is good and sometimes bad. How ever, changes happens all the time. Thanks for David Gaider taking time to answer questions.

Modifié par Lumikki, 03 mars 2011 - 05:06 .

[WilliamShatner]

This interview should win an award for banality.

[Vhaius]

Glaucon wrote...

Vhaius wrote...

shaneho78 wrote...

Quote "They react to any perceived change as bad. Anything that potentially means that they're not being catered to specifically, they react badly at. " Strike a chord with anyone?

Yes, the lead writer ended his sentence with a preposition.

Good job he wasn't speaking Latin then.  As he was using English, and that language allows such a thing, I have no issue with it.

You have a point, I do not agree with.

[Maverick827]

Vhaius wrote...

shaneho78 wrote...



Quote "They react to any perceived change as bad. Anything that
potentially means that they're not being catered to specifically, they react
badly at. " Strike a chord with anyone?

Yes, the lead writer ended his sentence with a preposition.

<GrammarWarden>



It is actually perfectly acceptable English to end a sentence with a
preposition.  The common anecdote associated with this issue is Winston
Churchill's famous line: "This is the sort of English up with which I will
not put."  This sentence highlights how this grammar rule is not
quite applicable to English.



The rule itself is a carryover from Latin.  In Latin, there is a
hard rule which states that a preposition cannot be separated from its object
noun or noun phrase.  Take for example the common Latin phrase "post
hoc ergo propter hoc," which translates to "after this, therefore
because of this."  In this sentence, both "post" and "propter"
are prepositions ("after" and "because of").  



These prepositions modify the Latin word "hoc," which means
"this" (technically the word is "hic," but these particular
prepositions force their object nouns into the ablative form, and the ablative
of "hic" is "hoc").  Notice how the prepositions
directly precede their object nouns; this is also common/proper Latin grammar.
 Thus, it would be impossible to end a sentence with a preposition, as it
must always be followed by its object noun.



</GrammarWarden>

[JohnstonMR]

Suron wrote...

shaneho78 wrote...

Quote "They react to any perceived change as bad. Anything that potentially means that they're not being catered to specifically, they react badly at. " Strike a chord with anyone?

other then the fact Gaider brings that up at any sign of a similar question, no not really.

If anything, as I said, it's just tiring to hear.  Because he says it EVERY time a similar question is asked him.

It's obvious hit his nerve.  And he's overtly defensive.

He may say it too often, but it's also entirely true. 

[TwistedComplex]

This thread is now about David Gaider and grammar
3..
2..
1..

[magicwins]

Gaider at his diplomatic best

[JohnstonMR]

Maverick827 wrote...

Vhaius wrote...

shaneho78 wrote...
Quote "They react to any perceived change as bad. Anything that
potentially means that they're not being catered to specifically, they react
badly at. " Strike a chord with anyone?

Yes, the lead writer ended his sentence with a preposition.

<GrammarWarden>

It is actually perfectly acceptable English to end a sentence with a
preposition.  The common anecdote associated with this issue is Winston
Churchill's famous line: "This is the sort of English up with which I will
not put."  This sentence highlights how this grammar rule is not
quite applicable to English.

The rule itself is a carryover from Latin.  In Latin, there is a
hard rule which states that a preposition cannot be separated from its object
noun or noun phrase.  Take for example the common Latin phrase "post
hoc ergo propter hoc," which translates to "after this, therefore
because of this."  In this sentence, both "post" and "propter"
are prepositions ("after" and "because of").  

These prepositions modify the Latin word "hoc," which means
"this" (technically the word is "hic," but these particular
prepositions force their object nouns into the ablative form, and the ablative
of "hic" is "hoc").  Notice how the prepositions
directly precede their object nouns; this is also common/proper Latin grammar.
 Thus, it would be impossible to end a sentence with a preposition, as it
must always be followed by its object noun.
</GrammarWarden>

It's amazing to this English teacher how few people really understand how the "rules" of English grammar were created.  We have a lot of stupid "rules" created in the 18th century by well-meaning but misguided grammarians, this is but one of them.

[JohnstonMR]

errant_knight wrote...

I think it's time to stop using 'perceived.' We've played the demo. We know.

No, you THINK you know.  You have an idea--but that idea might change when you stop making judgments of a 50-60 hour game based on a 30 minute demo. 

[moilami]

TwistedComplex wrote...

This thread is now about David Gaider and grammar
3..
2..
1..

I find grammar to be much more interesting than DA2, to be honest. Maybe it is because I have accepted how my Hawke will look in DA2:

[Image used as emote/commentary removed as spam]


Not dumbed down! Just made "accessible".

Modifié par Selene Moonsong, 03 mars 2011 - 11:55 .

[Ace Attorney]

 Best part:

DN: Do you worry about alienating the fans who made Bioware so successful, the people who have been following the company's work since the days when you were a PC RPG powerhouse?

Gaider: That's the challenge. Your average RPG fan, the person who is hardcore – and I can understand where they're coming from – you look at the games that are coming out and you have a fear. A lot of them are PC fans, and you see the thing you're interested in as a group. You feel like you're being marginalized.

They react to any perceived change as bad. Anything that potentially means that they're not being catered to specifically, they react badly at. The idea is to reassure them that maybe it's not as bad as they think. The idea is to make it accessible without losing what makes the RPG special.

You can't please everybody. You have to say this is what we're making. A lot of is at the end of the day, you have to think about who your market segment is. When we say we have to make an RPG accessible, we want to think about what sort of player experience do you want.

(Ed's Note: Another success for "Dragon Age II." It gently straddles the line between action RPG gameplay and a handy ability to pause and issue orders to teammates, similar to a more turn-based style of play.)

[Elemental Reaction]

Back to original topic of discussion. Is it true that the armor system in DA2 is different in the fact that you can't customize party characters armor like in Origins?

Modifié par Elemental Reaction, 03 mars 2011 - 05:48 .

[LdyShayna]

JohnstonMR wrote...
No, you THINK you know.  You have an idea--but that idea might change when you stop making judgments of a 50-60 hour game based on a 30 minute demo. 

Respectfully, I know how combat feels to me - too frantic and fundamentally unfun, even with pause and play.  I could over-look even that, however, but I alao know how I feel about the dialog wheel.  And yes, I noticed the changes from Mass Effect.  More experience with it is not going to warm me to it.

These are changes that I have thought about a great deal, and just do not like.  Of course, if I don't like it, it can't be because my preferences lie elsewhere. Noooo...must be because I irrationally hate change. 

Bah.

Yes, I do feel marginalized, but I've always acknowledged that my tastes are not shared by a majority of consumers.  This does not, however, make my objections and tastes ipso facto irrational.

[LdyShayna]

Elemental Reaction wrote...

Back to original topic of discussion. Is it true that the armor system in DA2 is different in the fact that you can't customize party characters armor like in Origins?

Yes.

[Merced652]

Elemental Reaction wrote...

Back to original topic of discussion. Is it true that the armor system in DA2 is different in the fact that you can't customize party characters armor like in Origins?

Its true, but you can like.. socket their gear CHYEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[JohnstonMR]

LdyShayna wrote...

JohnstonMR wrote...
No, you THINK you know.  You have an idea--but that idea might change when you stop making judgments of a 50-60 hour game based on a 30 minute demo. 

Respectfully, I know how combat feels to me - too frantic and fundamentally unfun, even with pause and play.  I could over-look even that, however, but I alao know how I feel about the dialog wheel.  And yes, I noticed the changes from Mass Effect.  More experience with it is not going to warm me to it.

These are changes that I have thought about a great deal, and just do not like.  Of course, if I don't like it, it can't be because my preferences lie elsewhere. Noooo...must be because I irrationally hate change. 

Bah.

Yes, I do feel marginalized, but I've always acknowledged that my tastes are not shared by a majority of consumers.  This does not, however, make my objections and tastes ipso facto irrational.

Perhaps I came on too strong.  I understand your opinion, I just think it might change.  Even if it doesn't, though, you have a much more mature way of expressing it than many have used. 

[LdyShayna]

JohnstonMR wrote...
Perhaps I came on too strong.  I understand your opinion, I just think it might change.  Even if it doesn't, though, you have a much more mature way of expressing it than many have used. 

Heh.  Not just you.  Sorry.  I just keep hearing this accusation over and over, and it's pretty irritating.  No less irritating, I'm sure, than the one where people who like more action-like combat must be immature and unintelligent. 

Just prompted me to make a comment because David repeated it.  Again.  *sighs*

 

[In Exile]

Merced652 wrote...

I just giggle every time they bring up trying to get a certain demographic but they never tell us what that demographic is. Its like they are scared of telling us what we already know.

I think it's pretty easy to infer from what Gaider says:

The main thing to learn from "Dragon Age," it's a sort of lesson in RPGs
in general. To the hardcore RPG fan, they would shriek in horror, but
there are a lot of aspects for RPGs that make it a real hurdle. You hit
people with a lot of stats. For somebody who's already played RPGs, it's
a given. You don't worry about the barrier to entry.

One of the lessons that we've learned and are trying to do is taking a
thing and what people love about the genre, and figuring out ways to
bring people that aren't already fans into it. How to ease them into the
game.

When we say we have to make an RPG accessible, we want to think about
what sort of player experience do you want.

And the most illustrative things are:

DN: It seems like more and more open-ended RPGs are cropping
up these days. You guys keep things more focused. Is there a risk in the
open-ended RPG?
Gaider: It is hard. One part of an RPG is letting
the player tell their own story. That's something like "Fable." If
you're letting the player wander where they will and do what they will,
you le the player create the story in their head.In my experience, you can go too far down that side. You run the risk
of sort of depersonalizing it for the player. They can do lots of
things, but do they care?"
DN: So it's a balance between mixing in the new and carrying
over the old for the old guard. Any classic things, dating back to the
Baldur's Gate days, that haven't changed over the years?
Gaider: "Baldur's Gate 2," that was the first time
we had romances among party members. They were very successful. We've
always had some kind of romance since then.
Baldur's Gate had a lot of banter. They're having their own lives and
their own relationships. It's a great way to have a character grow,
that his party members aren't just appendages of the player. They have
their own personalities and stories. They're ciphers to make the player
care about the issues. The party members care about things going on in
the world. The way to give the player agency is to lead them.
Those are probably the strongest things.

As I have tried to say probably since DA2 was announced, what Bioware thinks is central to an the partially constrained RPG. What they think is important is the ability to customize a character to some extent, to have some exclusive quest content, to have in-game choices (including dialogues, relationships) and to have combat that, on some level, requires more than just hand-eye coordination and motor precision.

So they want to attract anyone who likes these things, independent of combat gameplay. Which is why you find all of the above features available in ME, ME2, DA:O, DA2, but you don't find combat gameplay similar.

[RPGamer13]

He means well, so why are people snapping at him?

And pointing out grammar errors: it had to be typed up and we don't know if he really said "at" or what would have sounded better "to", "react badly to".

[moilami]

RPGamer13 wrote...

He means well, so why are people snapping at him?

And pointing out grammar errors: it had to be typed up and we don't know if he really said "at" or what would have sounded better "to", "react badly to".

I would had not become trolled if he would not begun to say "jrpgs are good for u".

[PinkShoes]

I have a sort of crush on David Gaider

[Saibh]

moilami wrote...

I find grammar to be much more interesting than DA2, to be honest. Maybe it is because I have accepted how my Hawke will look in DA2:

Not dumbed down! Just made "accessible".

What exactly is the point of that image? What exactly does it prove, besides an inability to express rational argument? You're not the one who made it...er, I assume...so this really isn't directed at you, but why do people keep using it? It means nothing. I could stick a chicken head image on the Bhaalspawn, that doesn't prove my point, or further any of my efforts.