337 réponses à ce sujet

[Masako52]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Two points, John.

First, the structure of the story doesn't matter.  You may well present us with a very focussed narrative where there isn't a wide variety of available options.  What matters is who's telling the story.  The player should be the one telling the story.  The player creates the narrative as he plays; it might always be the narrative you guys envisioned, but it's the player who is creating it as he progresses through the game.

That's what DA2 did wrong.  DA2's story gets told despite the player's work, not because of it.  The player develops his character and it doesn't matter because DA2 forces Hawke to act in ways that blatantly contradict that character design.  The player forms opinions (on Hawke's behalf) regarding the character's Hawke meets, and then DA2 forces Hawke to act in ways that run contrary to those opinions.

....

Second, authorial intent doesn't matter in any narrative nedium.  Once the story is in the hands of the reader, it's entirely up to the reader to experience it.  What he draws from the story is based on what's actually in the story.  The author's intent has no direct connection to the story the reader sees.

Tbh it seems like you're interested in a very, very specific type of game and storytelling. You're presenting something that's entirely opinion (the narrative being told by someone else as a story) as something that made DA2 "fail". Please. The Warden was also "forced to act" a certain way - forced to stop the Blight, forced to go around gathering an army, forced to even become a Warden. Is the fact that I didn't have a choice to refuse to do the ritual a failing of DAO? No, of course not. Because the game is trying to tell a story, and I think the player's choice is important, but it needs to fall within the realm of the bigger story being told.

It isn't that DA2 couldn't have had more choice - DA2 had significantly less time in development, and though Hawke CAN make a lot of choices (yes, it's true, despite what the haters would lead you to believe on these boards) sure, they're not going to ultimately change any of the overall plot. But frankly, from your posts, you seem to be a supporter of 100% player choice - and I find that not only lacking in practicality, but problematic to effective storytelling. Since I believe storytelling (along with gameplay) is the most important part of an RPG, I'm not bothered by some restriction.

As far as the presentation of the storytelling, I was also initially turned off by the Varric storyteller, but now from a literary standpoint I think it makes it more interesting. Additionally, it ties the game together in its three acts, which might have felt messy without the storytelling, especially since the Acts can feel unrelated - Varric explains their relation and why he's choosing to talk about this section of Hawke's decade at Kirkwall. I don't think Varric's storytelling gives anything significant away that the player is then expected to achieve, not much more than hints to the final conflicts. At any rate, I don't think having a storyteller is so unique a medium of presenting plot. Would I have still preferred not to have the storytelling? Maybe so, but I would also prefer the game without time gaps in the first place - to me, that was the effort that was the least rewarding for DA2, I didn't have any sense of impact or change within the city, nor do I see what really was the point of that ... but now I'm getting off topic.

Anyway, about the voiced protagonist... since I liked the voices, I was never bothered. DAO's silent protagonist was fine, but I hate those awkward moments when it seems like the Warden should be doing his/her own talking but instead someone is talking for him/her. To me, that yanks me out of the story with annoyance. Since the DA games are SO character based - indeed, that's my favorite element of the game, the characters and the dynamics between them - it seems more appropriate to me to have a protagonist that's actually able to interact with them. DA2 is even more a character drama than Origins - the fates of your companions are so extremely variable, so frankly it seems appropriate to have Hawke have a voice.

On the other hand, it would be cool to give the player multiple voices to choose from in character creation... I don't know how practical that is, but that would certainly be nice.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Masako52 wrote...

Tbh it seems like you're interested in a very, very specific type of game and storytelling.

So specific that it was served well by every BioWare RPG prior to them voicing the protagonist.  And many others before them.

It's not specific at all.  It's simply the desire to create a character and have him be the character I want him to be.

You're presenting something that's entirely opinion (the narrative being told by someone else as a story) as something that made DA2 "fail". Please.

It's roleplaying.  If I'm being told what my character does as opposed to choosing that myself, then what exactly is my job as player?

The Warden was also "forced to act" a certain way - forced to stop the Blight, forced to go around gathering an army, forced to even become a Warden.

I'll give you becoming a Warden - the game probably should have given you the option to resist the joining and be forced into it - but the other two are obviously false.  DAO does not force the PC to gather armies.  DAO does not force the PC to stop the Blight.  Both of those things happen in DAO only because the player chooses to have his character do them.  He's not presented with other meaningful options, but at no point in DAO does the player ask his character to do something else and instead sees him gathering armies.

Is the fact that I didn't have a choice to refuse to do the ritual a failing of DAO? No, of course not.

Yes, it is, but a fairly minor one.

Because the game is trying to tell a story, and I think the player's choice is important, but it needs to fall within the realm of the bigger story being told.

That's the mistake.  The game shouldn't be trying to tell a story at all.  teh game should be facilitating the player's telling of a story, even if that story is the one the writers wrote.

And that's what DAO does.  In DA2, I don't know how Hawke feels about anything.  DAO allows me to simply decide how the Warden feels, and have all of his behaviour conform to that, but DA2 routinely has Hawke act without my input, thus risking contradicting that feeling I established.

The ME games do exactly the same thing.

It isn't that DA2 couldn't have had more choice - DA2 had significantly less time in development, and though Hawke CAN make a lot of choices (yes, it's true, despite what the haters would lead you to believe on these boards) sure, they're not going to ultimately change any of the overall plot. But frankly, from your posts, you seem to be a supporter of 100% player choice - and I find that not only lacking in practicality, but problematic to effective storytelling. Since I believe storytelling (along with gameplay) is the most important part of an RPG, I'm not bothered by some restriction.

I think roleplaying is the most important part of a roleplaying game, and everything else should be subservient to that.

As far as the presentation of the storytelling, I was also initially turned off by the Varric storyteller, but now from a literary standpoint I think it makes it more interesting. Additionally, it ties the game together in its three acts, which might have felt messy without the storytelling, especially since the Acts can feel unrelated - Varric explains their relation and why he's choosing to talk about this section of Hawke's decade at Kirkwall. I don't think Varric's storytelling gives anything significant away that the player is then expected to achieve, not much more than hints to the final conflicts. At any rate, I don't think having a storyteller is so unique a medium of presenting plot. Would I have still preferred not to have the storytelling? Maybe so, but I would also prefer the game without time gaps in the first place - to me, that was the effort that was the least rewarding for DA2, I didn't have any sense of impact or change within the city, nor do I see what really was the point of that ... but now I'm getting off topic.

I'm glad you did.  I quite like the Varric framing mechanic.  It allows the player to ignore many details of the game as being irrelvant to his character, and instead decide that Varric is simply lying.

However, so much of DA2 (nearly all of it) lacks any meaningful player input at all that vast swaths of the game can become that irrelevant filler, thus reducing hours and hours of gameplay to pointless busywork.  Quest after quest were things my Hawke would not have done (or even cared about), and thus I had no interest in them.

Those things should be sidequests.  In this respect, I prefer games with shorter main quests and more extensive side-quest content.  More of the game should be optional.  When less of the PC's path is pre-determined, the player has greater roleplaying freedom.

The player's character design is paramount.  This requires a coherent setting with an internally consistent ruleset, and a narrative style that does not ever tell the player what his character is doing.  And that includes phrasing and tone.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The writers and cinematic designers do not and can not know why any given PC is doing anything. Whatever event is being modelled in a cutscene or conversation, the PC's motives are only ever known to the player, and thus the design of the scene cannot take those motives into account. Anything that would convey those motives explicitly, therefore, cannot be a component of the scene without potentially breaking the character.

This is important. The PC's are only ever known to the player. This is necessarily true. To deny this requires that the player not know his own character, and thus not be capable of making any decision for his character.

[MerinTB]

IMO, in an RPG, cut scenes only work when the player-created character is NOT involved. But that's just my opinion.

[HanErlik]

Silent Protoganist is a bad word because devs can easily please "Omfg, my character is speaking!!!!" crowd unlike the hardcore RPG player. Just give them two or three options and they will not complain.

Modifié par HanErlik, 01 mars 2012 - 08:41 .

[fchopin]

MerinTB wrote...

IMO, in an RPG, cut scenes only work when the player-created character is NOT involved. But that's just my opinion.

Cut scenes also work if you have a defined player character like Geralt or any defined character who will act according to his or her character.

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

fchopin wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

IMO, in an RPG, cut scenes only work when the player-created character is NOT involved. But that's just my opinion.

Cut scenes also work if you have a defined player character like Geralt or any defined character who will act according to his or her character.

+1

Either have the character be a defined character, or give us the tools we need to define the character. Splitting the difference just leads to a tug of war between the player and the writer over the character's identity.

[Plaintiff]

I like voiced protagonists generally.

I disagree with the notion that players "make their own stories". They clearly don't, since all the material is already there. Sure, you have choices. You have choices in an interactive novel too, but that doesn't mean you made the story. You can argue the whole "death of the author" thing until you're blue in the face, but the fact is that you didn't do the work, you're just enjoying it.

I also don't think that having a fixed, voiced character is harmful to roleplaying, but my definition of the concept is extremely loose, and everyone else I've encountered seems to have a much narrower idea of it, with a strict set of criteria that must be met. So strict, in fact, that I don't think any videogame could rightly be defined as an "RPG" if we were going that way, because player choice is limited by necessity and always will be.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 01 mars 2012 - 02:26 .

[Lynata]

I'm a hardcore roleplayer, and I don't mind a voiced protagonist. Of course I'd prefer a selection of voices to pick from (a la NWN1), but given the amount of dialogue this is just where realism comes in and we just have to accept the usual limitations.

All in all, I believe it is a simple matter of personal preferences. Some people like to read the dialogue like a book, others like to watch it like a movie. I belong to the latter group as I am already presented with a visual impression, so I may as well go all the way. Doesn't change that I like to read books just as much (currently enjoying "Asunder") or that I enjoy chat-based RPGs and emoting stuff in MMOs.

Perhaps it is also simply based on how we think the voice actor sounds, if it fits to the character we have in mind. Fortunately, in DA2 and ME this has always been the case for me, but I could see a lot of people thinking differently and thus going for "voice acting sucks" when it might subconsciously just be a case of "I'd have preferred another voice actor".

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
DAO does not force the PC to gather armies.  DAO does not force the PC to stop the Blight.  Both of those things happen in DAO only because the player chooses to have his character do them.  He's not presented with other meaningful options, but at no point in DAO does the player ask his character to do something else and instead sees him gathering armies.

By the same logic DA2 does not force the character to be voiced. Simply skip the cutscenes and never talk to any NPC. 

Computer games always restrict player characters in certain ways, simply because we have not yet developed an AI that can do the kind of improvising that a human GM at an oldschool table P&P is capable of. Everything needs to be pre-defined, from the character's abilities to the NPC's reactions. If people are complaining about a predefined voice, they may as well do so about the selection of predefined dialogues to choose from. In fact, I do believe this is an even more serious issue, as actions define your characters' personality much more than a voice could do.

Jo Wyatt & Jennifer Hale ftw!

Modifié par Lynata, 01 mars 2012 - 03:21 .

[Yrkoon]

Lynata wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
DAO does not force the PC to gather armies.  DAO does not force the PC to stop the Blight.  Both of those things happen in DAO only because the player chooses to have his character do them.  He's not presented with other meaningful options, but at no point in DAO does the player ask his character to do something else and instead sees him gathering armies.

By the same logic DA2 does not force the character to be voiced. Simply skip the cutscenes and never talk to any NPC. 

Really?

  I  Still haven't figured out a way to 'skip' any of the   incessant  NON-cutscene banter that Hawke is FORCED to have without player input.  My last memory of DA2 was that ridiculous  rant that Hawke went on, when he found a note  mentioning the Wounded coast.

The player could do NOTHING to stop  their own character   from spewing  a pun-induced monologue about The Wounded coast:  "Hey, is that next to injured cliffs?   Or the Limping woods?   Or massive head trauma bay?  Har Har!"

Modifié par Yrkoon, 01 mars 2012 - 04:12 .

[esper]

Yrkoon wrote...

Lynata wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
DAO does not force the PC to gather armies.  DAO does not force the PC to stop the Blight.  Both of those things happen in DAO only because the player chooses to have his character do them.  He's not presented with other meaningful options, but at no point in DAO does the player ask his character to do something else and instead sees him gathering armies.

By the same logic DA2 does not force the character to be voiced. Simply skip the cutscenes and never talk to any NPC. 

Really?

  I  Still haven't figured out a way to 'skip' any of the   incessant  NON-cutscene banter that Hawke is FORCED to have without player input.  My last memory of DA2 was that ridiculous  rant that Hawke went on, when he found a note  mentioning the Wounded coast.

The player could do NOTHING to stop  their own character   from spewing  a pun-induced monologue about The Wounded coast:  "Hey, is that next to injured cliffs?   Or the Limping woods?   Or massive head trauma bay?  Har Har!"

I know how to. Don't play sarcastic. My diplomatic/agressive Hawkes never said such a thing.

[Frybread76]

[Inappropriate condescension removed]

Modifié par JohnEpler, 01 mars 2012 - 05:58 .

[Mr Fixit]

Frybread76 wrote...

Because the kiddies have no imagination and need to be spoonfed everything to have an "immersive" experience.

I think you missed the forum. Such brilliant use of English language you just demonstrated is par for the course over in ME3 forums.

Modifié par Mr Fixit, 01 mars 2012 - 04:49 .

[Lynata]

Yrkoon wrote...
I  Still haven't figured out a way to 'skip' any of the   incessant  NON-cutscene banter that Hawke is FORCED to have without player input.  My last memory of DA2 was that ridiculous  rant that Hawke went on, when he found a note  mentioning the Wounded coast.

I don't think you'd actually get that far if you do like I said and never talk to any NPC.

Of course this would basically mean no progress in the game at all, but it's the same as the suggestion above about simply choosing not to stop the Blight or gather any armies. A lack of choices is not equivalent to freedom - but that goes for DA2 as much as it goes for DA:O, so I don't see why the issue of the protagonist's voice is measured differently from story railroading. You're forced either way (for I'm sure we will all agree that "not playing" isn't exactly an option regardless of the game), just that it appears to bother some people more than others.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lynata wrote...

Of course this would basically mean no progress in the game at all, but it's the same as the suggestion above about simply choosing not to stop the Blight or gather any armies.

I didn't claiom you could choose not to stop the Blight or gather armies.  I claimed that you weren't forced to do it.  I claimed that if you did it, it was because you chose to do so.

I am not claiming that in order for something to be a player choice there must have been another available alternative.  I'm saying that the player needs to be the one who makes the decision, even if the decision is pre-decided.

A lack of choices is not equivalent to freedom - but that goes for DA2 as much as it goes for DA:O, so I don't see why the issue of the protagonist's voice is measured differently from story railroading. You're forced either way (for I'm sure we will all agree that "not playing" isn't exactly an option regardless of the game), just that it appears to bother some people more than others.

You are not forced either way.  DA2 asks you if you want to do a quest and then puts it in your journal (under Main Quests) regardless of what you choose.  DA2 forces Hawke to say things that the player did not tell him to say.

Here's what we need.  We need the PC to deliver each line as the player chooses him to deliver it.  This can be achieved either by eliminating the voice or by making explicit exactly how each line will be delivered (so the player can make an informed choice among them).  We need to see the full text.  And we need to lose the segementation in the journal into different quest types.  Ideally, we would also not ask the PC whether he wants to do main quests - instead, simply have the PC learn about the quest and then drop it in the journal without asking him.

This would allow the player to be the one driving the narrative, rather than simply watching it happen as a passive observer.

[jackofalltrades456]

I'll only support a voiced protagonist if they're Orlesian.

I've always wanted to have a french accent.....

[Lynata]

I think we're talking past each other here. My post was sarcasm - just as you aren't forced to stop the Blight, you aren't forced to listen to the voiced protagonist by doing the same thing you could do in DA:O: stopping to advance the game.

As for what "we" "need" - I don't agree, but I'm sure that was to be expected. We all have different perceptions about the issue and as such different preferences on what we'd like to see in the future.

For what it's worth, it could easily be compromised by including a "hero voice off" option in the game menu which automatically replaces the dialogue preview with the actual text - the lines would have to be written anyways. That being said, this very suggestion has been made so many times it's older than Andraste's bones.

[MerinTB]

fchopin wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
IMO, in an RPG, cut scenes only work when the player-created character is NOT involved. But that's just my opinion.

Cut scenes also work if you have a defined player character like Geralt or any defined character who will act according to his or her character.

Fair enough.  I'd argue that with a pre-defined PC that "RPG" isn't the descriptor I'd use - it'd be a game with RPG elements (as creating a character is pretty much key to me for an RPG, but that's just me), but RPGs can have pre-defined characters (many table-top RPGs come with pre-mades, or are set in established worlds like Marvel, Robotech, Supernatural, etc., and allow you to play the characters from teh series/setting) and in those cases they really AREN'T your characters to design personalities for, and I'd accept game cut scenes taking away my control of the character.

[MerinTB]

Much of the discussion here seems to boil down to two words -

Hobson's choice.

Not really a false choice, but I don't think "play the game or don't" really should count as "the game offers you choices."

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lynata wrote...

I think we're talking past each other here. My post was sarcasm - just as you aren't forced to stop the Blight, you aren't forced to listen to the voiced protagonist by doing the same thing you could do in DA:O: stopping to advance the game.

Are you're still missing my point.  You can still play DAO without being forced to stop the Blight.  You cannot play DA2 without being forced to speak words you didn't choose.  The Warden never goes and gather armies without you telling him to do it first.  But Hawke routinely says and does things on his own without your input.

For what it's worth, it could easily be compromised by including a "hero voice off" option in the game menu which automatically replaces the dialogue preview with the actual text - the lines would have to be written anyways.

Absolutely.  Being able to turn the voice off would dramatically improve these games.  Disabling the voice would make Mass Effect one of my favourite games of the past 5 years, but with the voice I found the game frustrating throughout.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MerinTB wrote...

Much of the discussion here seems to boil down to two words -

Hobson's choice.

Not really a false choice, but I don't think "play the game or don't" really should count as "the game offers you choices."

But DA2 doesn't even give us that.  DA2 makes Hawke do things without even asking us first.

Hobson's choice is better than no choice at all.

[zyntifox]

Hmm, wierd. For a guy called Sylvius the mad he does make pretty good arguments.

[Lynata]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Are you're still missing my point.  You can still play DAO without being forced to stop the Blight.  You cannot play DA2 without being forced to speak words you didn't choose.  The Warden never goes and gather armies without you telling him to do it first.  But Hawke routinely says and does things on his own without your input.

No, I think you are missing my point. Given that stopping the Blight is part of DA:O you can not complete the game, so the only question is where you stop playing. Much like in DA2 if you want to avoid voiceovers.

You may argue that one occurs much later in the game than the other, but really ... let's stop splitting hairs, shall we? Absence of choice is absence of choice. And if you absolutely insist on me finding an earlier example we can go right back to the Origin stories which serve to railroad you into becoming a Grey Warden. Or every single dialogue and every single quest in every RPG ever where you thought you'd rather approach the issue in a different way.

If it bothers you that much, is there no way to simply disable voice audios and enabling subtitles? Apart from the potentially misleading context wheel, this should "fix" the issue completely, wouldn't it?
Try completing the DA:O City Elf Origin without killing anyone, though!

Modifié par Lynata, 01 mars 2012 - 08:15 .

[YohkoOhno]

The thing is, most RPGs are more comfortable nowadays to give you limited control--you control combat and skills, but not personality other than making limited choices.

RPG was never really about taking full control of a role--while silent protagonists allowed you more leeway to "fill in the blanks", computers are very limited in this day and age, you can't create plots "on the fly". The modern RPG is more about what Gary Gygax once called "role assumption". You assume a role rather than play it directly. As the game become more cinematic, this takes more control, and its more about assuming the role than having full control.

And for me, that's okay. Games have come a long way since the rouge-likes, the gold box games and Baldur's Gate days. I enjoy it more--I would never go back to the old days. For me, as long as I am entertained, things are okay.

Today's RPGs give you more meta control than anything else. You control tactics in combat. You control their specializations via loot and leveling/skill choices. You control the destiny of the characters by making choices--but the characters have some will of their own, and the story is presented in an interactive manner.

For me, this is okay and IMO it makes a superior game. For some it doesn't, but apparently more people like this than don't.

For some people, they want the silent protagonist so they can pretend in their head. For some, this is superior, but for others, it's not. I didn't think I would like the fixed protagonist games but after playing Mass Effect and The Witcher, along with non-RPGs that have even more limited choice experience like Assassin's Creed, I find today's gaming to be much more superior and innovative.

Maybe eventually we will have the true RPG, but that technology is probably a few decades away--once we can synthesize voices from actors--we are getting there--and develop more dynamic and emergent storytelling, we'll have it. But I think the current route being traveled will improve the genre a lot more.

[Rorschachinstein]

esper wrote...

Rorschachinstein wrote...

Silfren wrote...

ilcane87 wrote...

After a thorough read of this thread, here's just a little notice that I hope won't be taken the wrong way.

I only recently found out about the mess derived from that old interview, for nonsensical and spiteful reasons as far as I understand it, and I would, normally, add my voice in condemning all the harassers who apparently joined together in a madmen crusade against Miss Hepler.

But I'm afraid I can't do so in good faith, and here is why: it is next to impossible for me, as a newcomer to the whole situation, to get an idea of everything that actually transpired, because I keep getting the impression that a great number of users in this thread (namely, the disagreeing part) is being hastily silenced/censored, with very few uninformative exceptions.
I have also tried looking elsewhere on the forums, but I couldn't find any topic that allowed free discussion from the other side of the debate, and therefore I'm unable to make fair judgements until I read about it from outside sources.

Since I'm positive that "Miss Hepler's side" is mostly in the right, in the interest of not giving newcomers like me the wrong impression of hiding facts, I would advise to limit the "cuts" to actual offensive statements, which is not synonimous of criticisms; there's no benefit in overdoing it, to either side.

The impression that a "great number of users...is being hastily silenced/censored" is true, but not without due cause. Posts have been deleted either because they are too far off-topic, are being combative and insulting, or are trying to sympathize with Hepler's attackers. Those are the only posts that have been deleted, and I'm speaking as someone whose own posts were included in that. It isn't necessary for you to advise Bioware in this regard, because they've alreayd been doing exactly that--deleting offensive posts, not constructively critical ones.

So I really don't think it is necessary for you to worry about people being unfairly censored as seems to be the case. The bottom line is that a LOT of people went after Hepler, leaving not only personal insults and sexist slurs, but calls for her termination from Bioware, and threats of violence not only against her, but her family as well. These attacks didn't simply take place online, either, but the abusers in question also took to calling her house phone. This went on for months, literally. Hepler responded by making one or two comments that called into question the virginity of her detractors and to accuse them of jealousy. That is the gist of what happened in a nutshell.

The only other "side" to this are people who want to talk about what Bioware and Hepler allegedly did to provoke the attacks, or to make Hepler's retorts morally equivalent to the many months' worth of abuse she was subjected to.

That shouldn't warrant deletion Amigos.

Actually it does. Half of those post were attacks themself and should not be tolerated, the other half were discussing gameplay and both pro- and against were removed since we went off topic there.

How does silencing voices of people trying to explain their actions help. Some of those posts were legit. A one sided view of things is trouble.

Silfren wrote...

Rorschachinstein wrote...

Silfren wrote...

ilcane87 wrote...

After a thorough read of this thread, here's just a little notice that I hope won't be taken the wrong way.

I only recently found out about the mess derived from that old interview, for nonsensical and spiteful reasons as far as I understand it, and I would, normally, add my voice in condemning all the harassers who apparently joined together in a madmen crusade against Miss Hepler.

But I'm afraid I can't do so in good faith, and here is why: it is next to impossible for me, as a newcomer to the whole situation, to get an idea of everything that actually transpired, because I keep getting the impression that a great number of users in this thread (namely, the disagreeing part) is being hastily silenced/censored, with very few uninformative exceptions.
I have also tried looking elsewhere on the forums, but I couldn't find any topic that allowed free discussion from the other side of the debate, and therefore I'm unable to make fair judgements until I read about it from outside sources.

Since I'm positive that "Miss Hepler's side" is mostly in the right, in the interest of not giving newcomers like me the wrong impression of hiding facts, I would advise to limit the "cuts" to actual offensive statements, which is not synonimous of criticisms; there's no benefit in overdoing it, to either side.

The impression that a "great number of users...is being hastily silenced/censored" is true, but not without due cause. Posts have been deleted either because they are too far off-topic, are being combative and insulting, or are trying to sympathize with Hepler's attackers. Those are the only posts that have been deleted, and I'm speaking as someone whose own posts were included in that. It isn't necessary for you to advise Bioware in this regard, because they've alreayd been doing exactly that--deleting offensive posts, not constructively critical ones.

So I really don't think it is necessary for you to worry about people being unfairly censored as seems to be the case. The bottom line is that a LOT of people went after Hepler, leaving not only personal insults and sexist slurs, but calls for her termination from Bioware, and threats of violence not only against her, but her family as well. These attacks didn't simply take place online, either, but the abusers in question also took to calling her house phone. This went on for months, literally. Hepler responded by making one or two comments that called into question the virginity of her detractors and to accuse them of jealousy. That is the gist of what happened in a nutshell.

The only other "side" to this are people who want to talk about what Bioware and Hepler allegedly did to provoke the attacks, or to make Hepler's retorts morally equivalent to the many months' worth of abuse she was subjected to.

That shouldn't warrant deletion Amigos.

Yes, it should. Sympathizing with Hepler's attackers amounts to sympathizing with people who engaged in abusive slurs against Hepler, and threats of violence against herself and her children. People who sympathize with people who engage in criminal behavior absolutely should be censored.

If you don't bother to let anyone explain both sides and just silence the people talking against you, you're only certifying that you won't know how to react if it ever happens again.