225 réponses à ce sujet

[Cajeb]

David Gaider wrote...

Everwarden wrote...
The tones were completely different though. He might have (well, almost certainly did, considering the venom in his posts) taken personal offense to what I said, but I was being playfully sarcastic when I said:

Ah, yes. So it's quite all right to read my posts in the tone of Darth Vader, or applying any other tone that you imagine I have, but your posts should be considered harmless and playful?

Do tell.

You are a professional. Act like one. He is a nobody and he will continue to act like one. If you have a problem wih his actions you are an authority and it is within your or your companies capacity to remove any of his posts that you find offensive. It is not acceptable for you, the professional representative of your company, to sink down to a forumite's level.

[Everwarden]

MortalEngines wrote...

Yes, exactly David, it's not fair to judge you one way and then judge himself by another.

Actually, even if my post had appeared to be an entirely serious, sober rant about evil David Gaider's conspiracy to ruin my Dragon Age experience, it's still fair to judge a professional representing a major company to a different standard than some guy on the internet. 

[Shadowskill]

Lol a lot of ****ing in this thread it seems, don't know why your complaining so much not like bioware said everything you do will be in da 2.

Fact is she is alive if your that unhappy don't play the game simple as.

Modifié par Shadowskill, 17 mars 2011 - 06:24 .

[Everwarden]

Cajeb wrote...
 It is not acceptable for you, the professional representative of your company, to sink down to a forumite's level. 

...hey! 

I don't know whether or not that's an insult or not. 

[Everwarden]

Aw. I killed the thread

[da0Xeffect2]

Definitely don't have a problem with Leliana coming back. I'm sure there is a reason for her 'revival'. I mean there is a dwarf who somehow shows up right before a boss battle surrounded by death and we are surprised by this? Apparently if Alistair or Zevran are dead, they shouldn't be there in the first place so it's a glitch. Problem solved in my book.

[YohkoOhno]

Actually, even if my post had appeared to be an entirely serious, sober rant about evil David Gaider's conspiracy to ruin my Dragon Age experience, it's still fair to judge a professional representing a major company to a different standard than some guy on the internet.

No it's not.

I can understand if somebody is rude first, but I don't believe one person is "higher" than the others, in other words, has to obey a so-called "higher standard" of manners. What I see lately is people thinking they get to be rude, snotty, curt, sarcastic, or angry and not get the same treatment in kind.  

The Golden Rule only works if you yourself obey it.  Quite frankly, if someone is rude or snotty to a store clerk, they should be allowed to at least fight back or defend themselves.  I've seen managers take a new stance lately.  Being nice and courteous to a customer does not mean the clerk or whatever needs to engage the customer in the verbal version of fellatio.  

Modifié par YohkoOhno, 17 mars 2011 - 06:45 .

[Cajeb]

You do not have to submit to a customer. You can stand strong and be clear on your stance and even exercise your power to remove a customer. However, you should not cross that line into being petty or insulting. If he was offended by the poster's posts he could feel free to flag them for moderation, to respond with a reasoned explanation, or to just firmly put an end to the conversation. Being insulting accomplishes nothing

[Everwarden]

YohkoOhno wrote...

Actually, even if my post had appeared to be an entirely serious, sober rant about evil David Gaider's conspiracy to ruin my Dragon Age experience, it's still fair to judge a professional representing a major company to a different standard than some guy on the internet.

No it's not.

I can understand if somebody is rude first, but I don't believe one person is "higher" than the others, in other words, has to obey a so-called "higher standard" of manners. What I see lately is people thinking they get to be rude, snotty, curt, sarcastic, or angry and not get the same treatment in kind.  

The Golden Rule only works if you yourself obey it.  Quite frankly, if someone is rude or snotty to a store clerk, they should be allowed to at least fight back or defend themselves.  I've seen managers take a new stance lately.  Being nice and courteous to a customer does not mean the clerk or whatever needs to engage the customer in the verbal version of fellatio.  

Fair enough. I can certainly see that position, but it does seem (at least to me) that a higher up up a major company should be held to a higher standard.

Regardless, read the posts in question and judge for yourself which one has a tongue-in-cheek tone and which doesn't. Even with the same standard asserting that the posts in question are equal still doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. 

[hawat333]

For the bug report tag,
Having Hardened Alistair and Anora married AND Loghain alive, I still get the Generic Grey Warden Guy With The Funny Mustache instead of my good old Adversary who is supposed to show up there.
(Or maybe I was misinformed, and he shouldn't show up at all)

[Vukodlak]

hawat333 wrote...

For the bug report tag,
Having Hardened Alistair and Anora married AND Loghain alive, I still get the Generic Grey Warden Guy With The Funny Mustache instead of my good old Adversary who is supposed to show up there.
(Or maybe I was misinformed, and he shouldn't show up at all)

You were misinformed its always Shroud who shows up in the deep roads.

[Everwarden]

hawat333 wrote...

For the bug report tag,
Having Hardened Alistair and Anora married AND Loghain alive, I still get the Generic Grey Warden Guy With The Funny Mustache instead of my good old Adversary who is supposed to show up there.
(Or maybe I was misinformed, and he shouldn't show up at all)

I also thought that you always had to kill Loghain for Alistair to stay. 

[Noatz]

I think in the end given the large amount of choices and potential storyline threads that can spawn from a game like Origins a certain amount of retconning is necessary (to a point) for ensuring that the plot of the Dragon Age series can progress as Bioware want it to.

This is the primary reason I suspect as to why DA2 as a whole has less far reaching choices (in the manner of the hero may or may not die in the end). There are still decisions such as whether or not Anders survives that can impact later games without affecting the primary plotline, but having dramatic changes to endings makes it massively difficult to tell a story. Don't hate them for reducing the variety of endings without first considering the sheer amount of witing and voice acting keeping them entails.

In Mass Effect it is easier for them because it is only going to be 3 games. Therefore they can add large decisions with far reaching consequences at the end of each game, and still be able to tell the story as it happened in each edventuality (although even here it will be a little awkward considering the amount of... branches open after the events at the end of ME1 and 2). Dragon Age I believe will be a somewhat longer series so in order to actually tell their story they must enforce some linearity (and in the case of the open ended Origins, impose a few retcons).

[hakwea]

The major issue with a "retcon" for dead characters is the precedent it sets. No part of the storyline is safe, because how are we as costumers to know what is "set in stone" to the writers. And its clear from the attitudes of one such writer, that they don't care at all what they tell us because they have no qualms with changing the story, I'm not sure what "injured customer" is supposed to mean but it can't be anything but a veiled insult given the context. What needs to be remembered is that the eqo of success and power of creation doesn't give them immunity from the same "injured writer" cross.

In DA3 they could bring back the first arch demon saying "Oh events didn't happen the way you thought". Or they could bring back mother saying "oh events didn't happen the way you were shown".

When you show that in a game of choices, the choices don't matter. You are left with no choices and no story elements that continue the story. You are forced to look at each new game as an isolated story. One that takes place in its own universe because what continues from the first is decided by a coin toss. (Coin toss doesn't mean a literal coin toss, just to reference the random nature of being able to know what ACTUALLY happened and what we experienced as happening).

[da0Xeffect2]

hawat333 wrote...

For the bug report tag,
Having Hardened Alistair and Anora married AND Loghain alive, I still get the Generic Grey Warden Guy With The Funny Mustache instead of my good old Adversary who is supposed to show up there.
(Or maybe I was misinformed, and he shouldn't show up at all)

Alistair is still Alistair. His only resentment is towards the Warden should he be a mean Warden or let Loghain live. He is talking to Hawke, someone he has never met before, so it's obvious he is not a mean and nasty king despite all that's happened.

Edit: my bad misread the post.

Modifié par da0Xeffect2, 17 mars 2011 - 06:58 .

[Vukodlak]

hakwea wrote...

The major issue with a "retcon" for dead
characters is the precedent it sets. No part of the storyline is safe,
because how are we as costumers to know what is "set in stone" to the
writers. And its clear from the attitudes of one such writer, that they
don't care at all what they tell us because they have no qualms with
changing the story, I'm not sure what "injured customer" is supposed to
mean but it can't be anything but a veiled insult given the context.
What needs to be remembered is that the eqo of success and power of
creation doesn't give them immunity from the same "injured writer"
cross.

In DA3 they could bring back the first arch demon saying
"Oh events didn't happen the way you thought". Or they could bring back
mother saying "oh events didn't happen the way you were shown".

When
you show that in a game of choices, the choices don't matter. You are
left with no choices and no story elements that continue the story. You
are forced to look at each new game as an isolated story. One that takes
place in its own universe because what continues from the first is
decided by a coin toss. (Coin toss doesn't mean a literal coin toss,
just to reference the random nature of being able to know what ACTUALLY
happened and what we experienced as happening).

Your
ranting non-sense, plenty of games have multiple ending and the sequal
comes along and decides which was canon. Dragon Age and Mass Effect are
really the first time you have any say whats so ever. And didn't David
say Zeveran, Leliena and Alistair appearing though they should be dead
is a bug. Hell one of the predefiend imports lists him as dead.

Everwarden wrote...

hawat333 wrote...

For the bug report tag,
Having Hardened Alistair and Anora married AND Loghain alive, I still get the Generic Grey Warden Guy With The Funny Mustache instead of my good old Adversary who is supposed to show up there.
(Or maybe I was misinformed, and he shouldn't show up at all)

I also thought that you always had to kill Loghain for Alistair to stay. 

If Alistair becomes King and married Anora then Loghain can live, [it also ends your friendship with him]. Alistair still leaves the wardens but he remains as King

Modifié par Vukodlak, 17 mars 2011 - 07:06 .

[Vukodlak]

Modifié par Vukodlak, 17 mars 2011 - 07:06 .

[hakwea]

Vukodlak wrote...

Your ranting non-sense, plenty of games have multiple ending and the sequal
comes along and decides which was canon. Dragon Age and Mass Effect are
really the first time you have any say whats so ever. And didn't David
say Zeveran, Leliena and Alistair appearing though they should be dead
is a bug. Hell one of the predefiend imports lists him as dead.

If you are going to insult me about ranting and non-sense then I can at least tell you to read the entire thread before responding. They brought leliena back even for characters that killed her. Allistar and Zeveran are the only ones of the three they left as dead if they were killed.

This isn't other games. Bioware has been hyping and marketting how choices matter. Everything out of the company in the past few years always talks about choices they allow in their games. Multiple endings not being carried through is an acceptable change, though really shouldn't be an issue anymore. Why can't bioware write and account for all story endings? Why offer multiple endings if they aren't going to account for them? It is just stupid to do so. If they are going to force the next telling of the story to pick one ending, then force that ending.

Change the minor details, not the Major ones. They can eassily account for ways the ending  happens if they still force one specific ending. Just like they shouldn't have brought a dead character back in a sequel when you kill her in the previous one.

The excuse being given by bioware is "Things don't happen the way you think they do". So apparently killing someone doesn't mean you actually kill them if bioware says so. Do you not get how dangerous that is to the story? It means anything can happen and anything can change "because it didn't happen they way you think it did".

It means bioware could make DA3 have the archdemon from the first blight return as some super powerful archdemon because we didn't really kill him. It just looked like we did. If you want to give people choices, then honor those choices. Otherwise don't allow them. It is that simple

http://social.biowar...6589945#6590228
http://social.biowar...89945/2#6592174
" It will, in fact, pretty much always work out the way we think it should-- and that includes bringing characters we like back."

Seems stupid to offer choices if they are just going to ignore them, doesn't it?

Modifié par hakwea, 17 mars 2011 - 07:19 .

[Shadowskill]

Side note you did not kill the archdemon his soul went somewhere else depending on how you played etc Your main char or ali killed it and died then it died, if i am remembering right.

Modifié par Shadowskill, 17 mars 2011 - 07:28 .

[Noatz]

hakwea wrote...

If you are going to insult me about ranting and non-sense then I can at least tell you to read the entire thread before responding. They brought leliena back even for characters that killed her. Allistar and Zeveran are the only ones of the three they left as dead if they were killed.

This isn't other games. Bioware has been hyping and marketting how choices matter. Everything out of the company in the past few years always talks about choices they allow in their games. Multiple endings not being carried through is an acceptable change, though really shouldn't be an issue anymore. Why can't bioware write and account for all story endings? Why offer multiple endings if they aren't going to account for them? It is just stupid to do so. If they are going to force the next telling of the story to pick one ending, then force that ending.

Change the minor details, not the Major ones. They can eassily account for ways the ending  happens if they still force one specific ending. Just like they shouldn't have brought a dead character back in a sequel when you kill her in the previous one.

The excuse being given by bioware is "Things don't happen the way you think they do". So apparently killing someone doesn't mean you actually kill them if bioware says so. Do you not get how dangerous that is to the story? It means anything can happen and anything can change "because it didn't happen they way you think it did".

It means bioware could make DA3 have the archdemon from the first blight return as some super powerful archdemon because we didn't really kill him. It just looked like we did. If you want to give people choices, then honor those choices. Otherwise don't allow them. It is that simple

http://social.biowar...6589945#6590228
http://social.biowar...89945/2#6592174
" It will, in fact, pretty much always work out the way we think it should-- and that includes bringing characters we like back."

Seems stupid to offer choices if they are just going to ignore them, doesn't it?

Why do you think DA2 told the story of Hawke and how he escaped from Lothering (which is the one part of Origins where you do not get a say in what happens to the place), and did not carry on as a direct sequel to Origins or Awakening? Its because they do want your choices to matter, and because there are so many possible ways for Origins to end they can't reconcile this desire with carrying on the plot of the series. Even then there are events such as Morrigan's child which they may have to state happened from a lore standpoint regardless of your choice, or as is the talking point in this thread, the apparant death of Leliana in one of Origin's choice paths.

Bioware have two options. They can either do what they have done and "bring back" certain characters who may have died previously and enforce certain endings in Origins, or completely disconnect the rest of the games from anything that happened in Origins. If they do this then people will complain that Origins felt pointless because none of their choices have any effect on the world, whereas now people complain because their choices are apparantly ignored and thus have no effect on the world.

Regarding Leliana specifically you should also consider the case of Flemeth. Arriving from the events of Origins then in probably the majority of people's saves Flemeth was also dead following Morrigan's personal quest to find and kill her. Therefore while it was plausible to see her during Hawke's flight (which chronologically must have transpired shortly after she rescued the Warden), it is later revealed she transported herself, or part of it via the amulet and is now still at large. It is not so difficult to imagine similar circumstance allowing for Leliana to have survived (not in the case of esoteric magic but rather something that makes sense for Leliana - Andraste battle res or whatever). This example I feel embodies what Bioware mean by "Things don't happen the way you think they do".

Also saying they could bring back the Archdemon is entirely incomparable to them bringing back Leliana. Its a useful piece of exaggeration but it ignores the fact that the death of the Archdemon is something happens in every ending of Origins and therefore does not even support the point you are trying to make.

Modifié par Noatz, 17 mars 2011 - 07:56 .

[hakwea]

Noatz wrote...
Also saying they could bring back the Archdemon is entirely incomparable to them bringing back Leliana. Its a useful piece of exaggeration but it ignores the fact that the death of the Archdemon is something happens in every ending of Origins and therefore does not even support the point you are trying to make.

http://social.biowar...89945/2#6592174
"
It will, in fact, pretty much always work out the way we think it
should-- and that includes bringing characters we like back."

If they wanted to bring back the ArchDemon they would. This isn't about bringing back things that could be alive. It is about them stating that they will do whatever the hell they want if they want to. Which does mean they could bring back the same Archdemon from the first blight, even though every ending of origins has the archdemon dying.

If they want to protect "major lore figures" for potential appearences and uses in future games, expansions, or whatever then shouldn't they do so? The issue is as much about them bringing back whatever they want because they want to as it is about them not designing the story correctly in the first place.

It shouldn't be okay for them to bring back a character that they allowed a chance at dying just because. They should be held accountable for the story they told and the choices they allowed to be picked. If they really want a game to be choice driven then they should be expected to write the stories that add on to the first to account for those choices.

The word of one such bioware writer indicates thats not how they work. They don't care about your previous choices because it will always be the way they want. If they like having a choice invalidated they will. If they want Allistar to be king in DA3 they will do that. If they want the Qunari to control kirkwall in DA3 because it fits the story of DA3 better then will do that.

[mmmmmmPie]

Let's remember what we're dealing with here.

Twilight fan.
Bitter forum troll.

Modifié par mmmmmmPie, 17 mars 2011 - 08:13 .

[LumpOfCole]

I'm not entirely sure that I like the canon changing from game-to-game with reversed deaths so abruptly. I can definitely understand that frustration.

[Everwarden]

mmmmmmPie wrote...

Let's remember what we're dealing with here.

Twilight fan.
Bitter forum troll.

I laughed. Hard.

But that's still a really low blow. And I seriously doubt David Gaider likes Twilight. 

[MelfinaofOutlawStar]

Nathanial survived in my game but didn't show up in DA2 even though he's supposed to.