56 réponses à ce sujet

[Aldandil]

Satyricon331 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Johnny20 wrote...
So, where was the Black City in Dragon Age 2? Ha, it's been bugging me since playing it.

Had you walked outside and looked into the sky, you would have seen it. The Black City being visible from any point in the Fade does not mean it can also be seen through walls.

That reconciliation just makes me... discomforted.  It implies that you're not in the Fade when you're in an apparently wall-enclosed space.

The Codex entry was by Enchanter Mirdromel, so apparently he's just not speaking carefully/literally.  Or perhaps he's never been in an inside area in the Fade.

If you looked the other way in Origins, you didn't see it anymore. You couldn't see it through solid objects either. I think the enchanter means that you can see it anywhere, within the bounds of common sense.

[Wulfram]

Aldandil wrote...

If you looked the other way in Origins, you didn't see it anymore. You couldn't see it through solid objects either. I think the enchanter means that you can see it anywhere, within the bounds of common sense.

Common Sense?  In the fade?

[Darth Krytie]

Wulfram wrote...

Aldandil wrote...

If you looked the other way in Origins, you didn't see it anymore. You couldn't see it through solid objects either. I think the enchanter means that you can see it anywhere, within the bounds of common sense.

Common Sense?  In the fade?

Common sense=practical judgement that does not require specialist knowledge. So, yes, common sense.

[Aldandil]

Wulfram wrote...

Aldandil wrote...

If you looked the other way in Origins, you didn't see it anymore. You couldn't see it through solid objects either. I think the enchanter means that you can see it anywhere, within the bounds of common sense.

Common Sense?  In the fade?

Well, things like gravity tends to work, at least locally . I was mostly refering to what the enchanter said. I'm thinking he expected his writing to be interpreted with common sense. Or he was a nut. Whatever the reader prefers...

[Satyricon331]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Satyricon331 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Johnny20 wrote...
So, where was the Black City in Dragon Age 2? Ha, it's been bugging me since playing it.

Had you walked outside and looked into the sky, you would have seen it. The Black City being visible from any point in the Fade does not mean it can also be seen through walls.

That reconciliation just makes me... discomforted.

I don't think you mean 'reconciliation.'

I don't agree with you here.  He was reconciling two points that were at an apparent tension.

Maria Caliban wrote...

It implies that you're not in the Fade when you're in an apparently wall-enclosed space.

No, it doesn't.

It means that something can block your view. If you go outside in the Fade and stick your hands over your eyes, you probably can't see the Black City, but you're still in the Fade.

Logically, it does (unless you take the predicate "is visible" to mean "visible" but not with respect to any observer - but then anything that can reflect light etc "is visible" even if it (and its reflected light) exists in a domain that nobody could ever be).  I can provide the predicate-logic argument if you'd like.  Its common-sense interpretation makes allowances for objects that block the visibility, which is to say the Enchanter wasn't speaking literally, like I said.  

[Shamajotsi]

Johnny20 wrote...
So, where was the Black City in Dragon Age 2?

Nice try, Tevinter Imperium  !

To stay on-topic, though, as we couldn't see the Black City through the walls in DA:O, I don't think we should've been able to do so in DA2.

I would love, however, to get at least a tiny "outdoors fade" level in any upcoming expansion/DLC, so that I see how it would look like with the new art direction of the sequel .

[LyndseyCousland]

The Angry One wrote...

You know that Reaper derelict in Mass Effect 2? That was the Black City. Shepard destroyed it.

Ahaha!

[David Gaider]

Satyricon331 wrote...
The Codex entry was by Enchanter Mirdromel, so apparently he's just not speaking carefully/literally.  Or perhaps he's never been in an inside area in the Fade.

I think you're trying to read something into it that isn't there.

If someone was writing about our world to someone who had never been there, could you not describe this amazing yellow orb in the sky? Visible and stationary no matter where you traveled? Yes, you could specify that if you were inside a building or if anything else blocked your view of the sky then that yellow orb would in fact not be visible... but just what kind of pedantic audience would you be writing for, exactly? If you could, in fact, see the Black City through walls and fog and even when you closed your eyes, that would probably be worthy of specific note... not the opposite.

[Avissel]

David Gaider wrote...

 but just what kind of pedantic audience would you be writing for, exactly?

Come here often do ya?

[Satyricon331]

David Gaider wrote...

Satyricon331 wrote...
The Codex entry was by Enchanter Mirdromel, so apparently he's just not speaking carefully/literally.  Or perhaps he's never been in an inside area in the Fade.

I think you're trying to read something into it that isn't there.

If someone was writing about our world to someone who had never been there, could you not describe this amazing yellow orb in the sky? Visible and stationary no matter where you traveled? Yes, you could specify that if you were inside a building or if anything else blocked your view of the sky then that yellow orb would in fact not be visible... but just what kind of pedantic audience would you be writing for, exactly? If you could, in fact, see the Black City through walls and fog and even when you closed your eyes, that would probably be worthy of specific note... not the opposite.

  Which just seems to say that the Enchanter wasn't speaking literally, like I said.  What specifically am I reading into it that isn't there?  The OP's objection seems to take the passage literally, I don't think it's literally true, and apparently you don't think it's literally true given your discussion here. 

[Andronic0s]

I am pretty sure the part with the sloth demon is in a backyard area with no roof, I did not bothered to check if the black city is visible there though, maybe somebody else can check?

[Icinix]

Satyricon331 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Satyricon331 wrote...
The Codex entry was by Enchanter Mirdromel, so apparently he's just not speaking carefully/literally.  Or perhaps he's never been in an inside area in the Fade.

I think you're trying to read something into it that isn't there.

If someone was writing about our world to someone who had never been there, could you not describe this amazing yellow orb in the sky? Visible and stationary no matter where you traveled? Yes, you could specify that if you were inside a building or if anything else blocked your view of the sky then that yellow orb would in fact not be visible... but just what kind of pedantic audience would you be writing for, exactly? If you could, in fact, see the Black City through walls and fog and even when you closed your eyes, that would probably be worthy of specific note... not the opposite.

  Which just seems to say that the Enchanter wasn't speaking literally, like I said.  What specifically am I reading into it that isn't there?  The OP's objection seems to take the passage literally, I don't think it's literally true, and apparently you don't think it's literally true given your discussion here. 

The enchanter was speaking poetically.

[Maria Caliban]

Literal: Being or reflecting the essential or genuine character of something.

The essential nature of the Black City is that it can be viewed from any point in the Fade. That said, if you close your eyes, you can't see it. If you stick a wall between it and you, you can't see it.

Here's another one, "Females can give birth to children." It's a literally true statement. But there are females who, due to age or health, cannot give birth.

[Satyricon331]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Literal: Being or reflecting the essential or genuine character of something.

The essential nature of the Black City is that it can be viewed from any point in the Fade. That said, if you close your eyes, you can't see it. If you stick a wall between it and you, you can't see it.

Here's another one, "Females can give birth to children." It's a literally true statement. But there are females who, due to age or health, cannot give birth.

Honestly it's very surprising to me that you'd argue a Codex entry is literally true.  I think your definition of "literal" is misleading, since the term ordinarily concerns the essential or strict meaning/"character" of the words, not "something" in general (edit: and just to emphasize, your birth example plays on an ambiguity of sets - whetehr you construct a set-related phrase as a first or second-order statement).  At the least, I think we agree that there are some points in the Fade where you can't see the Black City because of obstructions.  I think that means that passage in the Codex is not something people should take as being literally true, but if you really don't like that use of the term "literal" and prefer your definition I'm willing to say "as being absolutely true" or whatever.  

edit: I'll add, I thought it was a commonplace that you can't take the Codex entries too much to heart, so it's really surprising people are objecting to the things I've said.  I thought - and still think - it's pretty obvious.

Modifié par Satyricon331, 08 avril 2011 - 03:39 .

[The Angry One]

What is the problem here. It can be seen from any point in the Fade unless there's something in the way. The Fade does not give you x-ray vision.

[WhiteKnyght]

In Origins its in the sky in the distance.

In Awakening its right across the lake behind the Baroness' manor in Blackmarsh Undying.

[Maria Caliban]

Satyricon331 wrote...

Honestly it's very surprising to me that you'd argue a Codex entry is literally true.

I'm arguing that a Codex entry is literal.

I said, "Female can give birth" is literally true. The Codex entry may or may not be true, we haven't gone to every area in the Fade, but it is literal.

I think your definition of "literal" is misleading, since the term ordinarily concerns the essential or strict meaning/"character" of the words, not "something" in general.

The term literal is in contrast to figurative. Literal does not mean 'true' or 'in all cases.'

"I am happy," is a literal statement. It doesn't mean: "I am happy all the time."

"Roses are red," is a literal statement. It doesn't mean: "All roses are red."

"There are fishes in the sea," is a literal statement. It doesn't mean: "There are fishes in the sea and nowhere else."

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 08 avril 2011 - 03:49 .

[Satyricon331]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Satyricon331 wrote...

Honestly it's very surprising to me that you'd argue a Codex entry is literally true.

I'm arguing that a Codex entry is literal.

I said, "Female can give birth" is literally true. The Codex entry may or may not be true, we haven't gone to every area in the Fade, but it is literal.

I think your definition of "literal" is misleading, since the term ordinarily concerns the essential or strict meaning/"character" of the words, not "something" in general.

The term literal is in contrast to figurative. Literal does not mean 'true' or 'in all cases.'

"I am happy," is a literal statement. It doesn't mean: "I am happy all the time."

"Roses are red," is a literal statement. It doesn't mean: "All roses are red."

"There are fishes in the sea," is a literal statement. It doesn't mean: "There are fishes in the sea and nowhere else."

I would have thought that my willingness to use your... innovative... approach to the term "literal" would have been enough, but since you're determined to disagree anyway, I too disagree.  And your examples are all over the place.  (edit: I don't mean to sound abrasive.   I just don't really understand where you're coming from, I guess.)

"I am happy" is an instantiated monadic-predicate statement.  It literally means the predicate "is happy" holds for the speaker.  If the speaker is happy, then the statement's literal meaning is true.  You can take the statement literally.

"Roses are red" plays on an ambiguity in the construction of some set-concerning statements.  The first-order interpretation renders it false, as the predicate "is red" would then apply to each object in the set of roses.  The second-order interpretation constructs the predicate to apply to the set of roses, but since sets are an abstraction and have no color, you can't take the statement literally.

"There are fishes in the sea" has the literal meaning that there exists fish such that the predicate "is in the sea" holds for each.  You're right it doesn't mean that fish exist nowhere else because the sentence uses the existential quantifier rather than the universal one.  So, the sentence's literal meaning is true.  You can take the statement literally.

Modifié par Satyricon331, 08 avril 2011 - 04:05 .

[PantheraOnca]

You both need to stop talking about the word literal.

That is a true statement, literal or otherwise.

[Naughty Bear]

Johnny20 wrote...

From an Origins codex entry:

No traveler to the Fade can fail to spot the Black City.
It is one of the few constants of that ever-changing place. No matter
where one might be, the city is visible. Always far off, for it seems
that the only rule of geography in the Fade is that all points are
equidistant from the Black City.

So, where was the Black City in Dragon Age 2? Ha, it's been bugging me since playing it.

Did Bioware intentionally retcon this bit of lore, or did they just merely forget? Any thoughts on this subject?

Next time you have that feeling that your anus is about to throw up, go on the toilet, sit down on it and wait for you body to spew out the solids.

Have a glace inside the bowl and there, is the black city in its full glory.

[Unhappy-peach]

Naughty Bear wrote...

Johnny20 wrote...

From an Origins codex entry:

No traveler to the Fade can fail to spot the Black City.
It is one of the few constants of that ever-changing place. No matter
where one might be, the city is visible. Always far off, for it seems
that the only rule of geography in the Fade is that all points are
equidistant from the Black City.

So, where was the Black City in Dragon Age 2? Ha, it's been bugging me since playing it.

Did Bioware intentionally retcon this bit of lore, or did they just merely forget? Any thoughts on this subject?

Next time you have that feeling that your anus is about to throw up, go on the toilet, sit down on it and wait for you body to spew out the solids.

Have a glace inside the bowl and there, is the black city in its full glory.

^ THIS. lol

[The Angry One]

I see the Black City! All is well.



OMG I CANNOT SEE THE BLACK CITY WHY DO THE WRITERS LIE.

[Johnny20]

Naughty Bear wrote...

Johnny20 wrote...

From an Origins codex entry:

No traveler to the Fade can fail to spot the Black City.
It is one of the few constants of that ever-changing place. No matter
where one might be, the city is visible. Always far off, for it seems
that the only rule of geography in the Fade is that all points are
equidistant from the Black City.

So, where was the Black City in Dragon Age 2? Ha, it's been bugging me since playing it.

Did Bioware intentionally retcon this bit of lore, or did they just merely forget? Any thoughts on this subject?

Next time you have that feeling that your anus is about to throw up, go on the toilet, sit down on it and wait for you body to spew out the solids.

Have a glace inside the bowl and there, is the black city in its full glory.

How witty you are.

[PantheraOnca]

The Angry One wrote...

I see the Black City! All is well.

/snip

OMG I CANNOT SEE THE BLACK CITY WHY DO THE WRITERS LIE.

/snip

OMG DURTEE LYARZ!@!#~!!!!~!!!~!!11`!~!~!!

[Johnny20]

[/quote]

[quote]OMG I CANNOT SEE THE BLACK CITY WHY DO THE WRITERS LIE.[/quote]

I'd just like to say, I didn't moan or cry about it no being there, I simply asked because I was interested. Was it intentional? I didn't know, I didn't know why it wasn't there and asked politely. There is no need to portray the question as if asked by a whining child on the internet.


Also, at this point it might be a good idea for someone to lock this baby up. My question has been answerd and the children are starting to ruin it and turn it into something it wasn't intended to be.

Modifié par Johnny20, 08 avril 2011 - 05:19 .