588 réponses à ce sujet

[Dorrieb]

AmstradHero wrote...

And in DA2 there is no such shortcut. He implies that deeds do not matter, when the whole point of friendship versus rivalry is to weight up ALL THOSE DEEDS. The deeds do matter, he merely objects to the form in which they matter. It's a specious and inaccurate argument.

He implies no such thing. He doesn't even mention DA2 in that paragraph. You are inferring something that is not there.

[Dorrieb]

(double posted)

Modifié par Dorrieb, 27 février 2013 - 07:15 .

[imbs]

AmstradHero wrote...

Which is something that wasn't in DA2 at all.

So you think the rivalry/friendship counter wasnt merely a good/evil meter for specific companions then? That's exactly what it is, and I would say gifts and words were still too much of a factor in DA2 compared to actual deeds, but opinion aside the article writer does not make any claims anyway. He is as the other posted said just making a suggestion. It's actually impossible for him to be making a false claim.

Modifié par imbs, 27 février 2013 - 07:30 .

[AmstradHero]

DA2 had no gifts. Rivalry/Friendship is not a good/evil meter because it has nothing to do with an overarching consistent meter of morality as the nomenclature implies. Furthermore, it does not cast judgement as such a meter inherently does (which subsequently.reduces the perceived value of "grey" choices, because in a binary system, one must be "light" and the other "dark"), whereas this system allow choices to exist on varying axes for varying characters. Actions and choices are what affects that relationship with the character - it colours it, but does not ultimately determine the value therein. It is significantly more complex than many/most of the choices in The Witcher 1, where it is a simple binary system.

Lastly, making suggestions is fine. There is nothing wrong with that. However, passing opinion and personal judgement off as fact is not fine. The writing and tone of this piece does that, which is one of the many reasons it's a bad article.

I'm happy to accept that Richard is not a bad journalist. I'm potentially even willing to accept that he might be a good journalist. What I cannot accept, however, is that this is a good article, because it's not. Furthermore, I understand the reasons behind it not being a good article, but that doesn't mean I'm going to give it a pass because of that. It seems, however, that your unwilling to concede a single point against him or any aspect of his writing, which pretty much renders any attempt at discussion of the article moot. In other words, you're behaving much like the rabid fans you claim to despise. This thread should have died a long time ago, and I probably have to wear the lion's portion of the blame for not letting it die, but now, I'm out.

[MerinTB]

Still believe it was a great article. Don't agree with everything (I didn't find all of the Deep Roads boring, personally) and I know that some of that list won't happen (no voice for the main character - not from BioWare, anytime soon) ...

but the article is a good one.

People are being excessively and unfairly nitpicky. You disagree with the guy and his list, disagree away! But you not agreeing with him doesn't make it a bad article.

Trying to cherry-pick around what he says, especially attributing meanings and concepts to him that he did not put forth himself, is just self-assertion of the shady kind.

[Oberkaiser]

MerinTB wrote...

Still believe it was a great article. Don't agree with everything (I didn't find all of the Deep Roads boring, personally) and I know that some of that list won't happen (no voice for the main character - not from BioWare, anytime soon) ...

If the article is an opinion piece centered around a list, and I happen to think the list is "bad", then the article - for me, at least - is bad. If you wanted to judge the article objectively then it would have to have been written in a detached journalistic fashion, as in reporting on something without any personal input  from the author. Instead you're looking at some random, inconsequential person's opinion. Now, if you wanted to judge the literary style of the author you could do that, but keep in mind that they have proofreaders and not all editors, in fact, have a good way with the English language.

[Renmiri1]

imbs wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

Which is something that wasn't in DA2 at all.

So you think the rivalry/friendship counter wasnt merely a good/evil meter for specific companions then? That's exactly what it is, and I would say gifts and words were still too much of a factor in DA2 compared to actual deeds, but opinion aside the article writer does not make any claims anyway. He is as the other posted said just making a suggestion. It's actually impossible for him to be making a false claim.

Not at all. Rivalry in the case of Anders was actually good, as was in the case of Merril. Bad was to let them go on with their mistaken ways.

You and the article writer seem to be confusing DA with Mass Effect.

[MerinTB]

Oberkaiser wrote...
If the article is an opinion piece centered around a list, and I happen to think the list is "bad", then the article - for me, at least - is bad.

So, you disagree and therefore it is bad.

"I don't like that - ergo, it's bad."
"But, it isn't bad.  It is just about things you don't like.  That means you don't like it, not that it was badly done."
"No.  My opinion.  In my opinion, since I don't like it, it is bad.  You can't tell me my opinion is wrong!"
"Okay, sure, your opinion is your own.  In your mind the thing is "bad" because you don't like it.  And now, in my mind, you are a purple martian because you make bad arguments."
"But... I'm not purple, nor a martian."
"Ah, but in my mind, since you are making bad arguments, my opinion is that you are purple martian.  You can't tell me my opinion is wrong."
"But... whether I'm a purple martian or not has nothing to do with you thinking my argument is bad!"
"You don't say?"

[Travie]

Renmiri1 wrote...

imbs wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

Which is something that wasn't in DA2 at all.

So you think the rivalry/friendship counter wasnt merely a good/evil meter for specific companions then? That's exactly what it is, and I would say gifts and words were still too much of a factor in DA2 compared to actual deeds, but opinion aside the article writer does not make any claims anyway. He is as the other posted said just making a suggestion. It's actually impossible for him to be making a false claim.

Not at all. Rivalry in the case of Anders was actually good, as was in the case of Merril. Bad was to let them go on with their mistaken ways.

You and the article writer seem to be confusing DA with Mass Effect.

He may be wrong (in some respects) about the effects of the rivalry system, but I don't think they are confusing the two games in any way. 

If you only played through the game once (hats off to anyone who could stomache it twice) a good/evil meter is exactly what the rivalry system felt like. 

[Dorrieb]

AmstradHero wrote...

DA2 had no gifts. Rivalry/Friendship is not a good/evil meter because it has nothing to do with an overarching consistent meter of morality as the nomenclature implies.

Fair enough. You are absolutely and unequivocally right there. To be clear, you are saying that DA2 did not have any kind of a good/evil meter, and you are utterly correct in saying that because it is a correct thing to say and therefore you are correct to say it.

Where you stumble and drop the keys though, is in this: The article does not say that it does.

Oh, but does it imply it? No. Surely it suggests...? No. Isn't there at least a hint that...? Nope, not even a whisper of it. All it says is 'No light/dark side counter'. It doesn't say 'Get rid of DA2's light/dark side counter', for example. Or 'No light/dark side counter like DA2 had', does it? All it says is that there shouldn't be one. The author knows that there was no light/dark counter in DAO or DA2. All he is saying is that he hopes there won't be one in DA3 either.
It is nothing more than 'In case they are thinking of introducing this into DA3, I hope they don't.'

Anyway, you cited this as an example of a 'claim that is patently false'. This is only to show you that it is not a claim of any sort, false or otherwise. I shouldn't think this counts as any sort of 'bad behaviour' on my part.

Filament wrote...
lol he was obviously implying DAO/2 included
a "light/darkside counter" with their influence systems if you follow
basic reading comprehension.

He was obviously not, and I believe my reading comprehension to be at least fair.

[MerinTB]

Dorrieb wrote...
I believe my reading comprehension to be at least fair.

I'd say more than fair.

[Kidd]

This topic has geared up its fiery gears since I was here the last time and we were all trying to verbally hold hands. Can we get back to that?

Dorrieb wrote...

The author knows that there was no light/dark counter in DAO or DA2. All he is saying is that he hopes there won't be one in DA3 either.

Agreed. I can see how the misunderstanding happens, but he never actually said that. And it's unfair to assume he said things that are flat-out wrong when there are no erroneous facts in the text proper.

[Renmiri1]

Dorrieb wrote...


Where you stumble and drop the keys though, is in this: The article does not say that it does.

Oh, but does it imply it? No. Surely it suggests...? No. Isn't there at least a hint that...? Nope, not even a whisper of it. All it says is 'No light/dark side counter'. It doesn't say 'Get rid of DA2's light/dark side counter', for example. Or 'No light/dark side counter like DA2 had', does it? All it says is that there shouldn't be one. The author knows that there was no light/dark counter in DAO or DA2. All he is saying is that he hopes there won't be one in DA3 either.
It is nothing more than 'In case they are thinking of introducing this into DA3, I hope they don't.'

He was obviously not, and I believe my reading comprehension to be at least fair.

from the article

Any system where you can commit atrocities and make up for it by handing over a few presents is a system in sore need of being ripped out and replaced

One can not rip out and replace a component that isn't there.

He said in his own words that the system was part of DA's system and had to be ripped out and replaced.

Care to tell me how your reading comprehension missed that ?

[imbs]

AmstradHero wrote...

DA2 had no gifts. Rivalry/Friendship is not a good/evil meter because it has nothing to do with an overarching consistent meter of morality as the nomenclature implies. Furthermore, it does not cast judgement as such a meter inherently does (which subsequently.reduces the perceived value of "grey" choices, because in a binary system, one must be "light" and the other "dark"), whereas this system allow choices to exist on varying axes for varying characters. Actions and choices are what affects that relationship with the character - it colours it, but does not ultimately determine the value therein. It is significantly more complex than many/most of the choices in The Witcher 1, where it is a simple binary system.

Except whilst it isn't a consistent meter of morality it is a consistent meter of how much of an antagonist/yes man you are for the particular characters. And like the dark side/light side meter, it's a good idea to either be completely antagonistic towards a person or completely agree with everything they think/say. It makes sense in Star wars. It doesn't make sense in DA2. Infact I'd say DA2's system is eveen worse than the evil/light system because it makes so little sense.

You get the very weird dynamic where if you are nice to someone all the time they love you, be an utter **** to them for the sake of it and they love you, or be half n half in which case they hate you. It's not quite as simple as this but for all intensive purposes it doesn't make much sense at all, and IS childish (in my opinion).

PS - There are most certainly gifts. It's not as much of a joke of a system as DAO's was, but it is still there.

[The Hierophant]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Dorrieb wrote...


Where you stumble and drop the keys though, is in this: The article does not say that it does.

Oh, but does it imply it? No. Surely it suggests...? No. Isn't there at least a hint that...? Nope, not even a whisper of it. All it says is 'No light/dark side counter'. It doesn't say 'Get rid of DA2's light/dark side counter', for example. Or 'No light/dark side counter like DA2 had', does it? All it says is that there shouldn't be one. The author knows that there was no light/dark counter in DAO or DA2. All he is saying is that he hopes there won't be one in DA3 either.
It is nothing more than 'In case they are thinking of introducing this into DA3, I hope they don't.'

He was obviously not, and I believe my reading comprehension to be at least fair.

from the article

Any system where you can commit atrocities and make up for it by handing over a few presents is a system in sore need of being ripped out and replaced

One can not rip out and replace a component that isn't there.

He said in his own words that the system was part of DA's system and had to be ripped out and replaced.

Care to tell me how your reading comprehension missed that ?

I see where the author is coming from about DA2 as some of the companion quests involve gifts that give + friendship/rivalry in a system where negatives don't exist. You can play a hardcore anti mage Templar supporter who's antagonistic towards Merrill and Anders yet they won't leave your party unless you kick them out(Anders), or near the end of Act 3. Plus when their Friendship/Rivalry is maxed they could help you in Act 3 when you side with Meredith. 

Modifié par The Hierophant, 27 février 2013 - 10:32 .

[cindercatz]

...
Everybody's misunderstanding the 'light side/ dark side' thing. (edit: except The Hierophant, ninja'd :-) , and imbs, good clear point) He never said DA2 had any kind of light/dark meter. What he did imply, correctly, was that the DA2 friend/rival system took from and was an iteration of the original light/dark meter from ye olden days. (which doesn't actually make it a light/dark meter, of course)

Just because he didn't spell out every nuance of what he meant doesn't mean he was incorrect or that there was no intent to refer to DA2, neither of which is true.

Besides, that whole arguement misses the point he was making entirely, which was that the relationship system was too simplistic. Any system that allows you to own slaves, support slavers, etc. and still earn romance and loyalty from Fenris and Isabella (and her meter actually granted friendship for pro-slavery stances, which is ludicrous considering her story), or support mages wholeheartedly and not earn Fenris' sharp antagonism, for instance, is far too simple a system.

I agree, and I put up a few posts here so many months ago outlining what I think would be an improvement. It was two meters, one for personal affinity and the other for stance alignment, along with individual events, actions, that can override any personal affinity or dislike the companion might have for the PC. This allows for a fond enemy or an antagonistic ally, for instance, for personal stances and individual actions to result in discreet underminings or outright betrayals, or personally begrudging full support, along with the existing potential of the DA system thus far.

That's all he was saying. The boiled down meter is too simplistic to get everything out of the storytelling, and the relationship system in particular. He didn't say it in the best way that he could. It never helps for your first critical descriptor to be the word "childish". The whole article was just slightly barbed. But that's what he meant. That's one of the better things on the list.

Also, unrelated, that oxm article linked earlier is pure reportage, yes, but the opinion wishlist article linked at the end of it is fairly comparable to this one. It is less antagonistic, yes, and it also has some nice items not in this one. If you combine the two and then remove some of the non-starters (deep roads and silent protag, to start with, among another one here and there I'm sure), you get a pretty good, though by no means comprehensive wishlist. The articles are written in different styles, but neither is 'bad journalism' or 'good journalism'. They are fairly harsh and slightly less harsh opinion, however, well enough written but also acerbic to the point that some people are taking offence. That's really the legitimate point of critique if you want one. But they're not bad journalism that must be shunned and shamed. Nobody should be comparing a biting tongue to eager war propaganda. Keep some context.

Modifié par cindercatz, 27 février 2013 - 10:57 .

[Dorrieb]

Renmiri1 wrote...
from the article

Any system where you can commit atrocities and make up for it by handing over a few presents is a system in sore need of being ripped out and replaced

One can not rip out and replace a component that isn't there.

He said in his own words that the system was part of DA's system and had to be ripped out and replaced.

Care to tell me how your reading comprehension missed that ?

He said in his own words that it had to be ripped out and replaced, but the bit in boldface is your own deduction. Does it refer to DA2, DA:O, or BioWare games in general?

[Renmiri1]

Dorrieb wrote...

Renmiri1 wrote...
from the article

Any system where you can commit atrocities and make up for it by handing over a few presents is a system in sore need of being ripped out and replaced

One can not rip out and replace a component that isn't there.

He said in his own words that the system was part of DA's system and had to be ripped out and replaced.

Care to tell me how your reading comprehension missed that ?

He said in his own words that it had to be ripped out and replaced, but the bit in boldface is your own deduction. Does it refer to DA2, DA:O, or BioWare games in general?

 The Nile.. that river in Egypt, you know..


So now his article wasn't about Dragon Age ? Color me surprised.

Childish. Boring. Should be ripped out entirely.

[Dorrieb]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

This topic has geared up its fiery gears since I was here the last time and we were all trying to verbally hold hands. Can we get back to that?

I hope so. Some people simply can't help getting in one more vindictive kick even after everyone has shaken hands, and that starts the whole thing all over again (which I'm guessing is the point).

In the spirit of showing willing, I'll criticise the article myself:

Overall the writing is cramped, with too many ideas squeezed into to tight a format. Richard should have boiled it down to a handful of essentials and allowed them the space to breathe.

Then it starts with  'Fix The Dragon Age 2 Problems, Obviously,' which is a very poor start. 'Obviously' suggests that it did not need to be said, in which case why say it? Richard assumes that the reader knows and recognises the problems that he (and others) covered in a previous article, which is assuming far too much. An uninformed reader could easily read this as declaring what the gist of what follows is going to be, instead of something to be got out of the way so that we can deal with something else.

Under 'A Song of Guts and Maturity' Rich again loses clarity by trying to cram too much into three small paragraphs. What he is calling for is more of a grey-and-grey morality in storytelling, but someone who has not read his reviews of The Witcher 1 and 2 might think that he was calling for more nudity.

The 'No Light/Dark Side Counter' bit is again a telegraphed version of something he has elaborated on elsewhere. Far too telegraphed apparently, from the reaction to it.

'A Fresh And Motivating Story' he says next, followed by his own 'well, duh'. Adding 'well, duh' to a header is a bit like adding 'obviously', it didn't really need to be said.

Story and Game Integration is really only a compressed summary of what Rich himself wrote in a previous article, where he expressed it much better. For example, “But Elves Are Nymphomaniac Nudists In The Lore!” is shorthand for the transparent rationalisations game writers often use for introducing gratuitous elements, but here it seems to come out of nowhere.

The rest of the article follows suit. It is full of perceptive insights, in my opinion at least, but too full of them. The wheat gets lost amidst the chaff and everything is dealt with in so few words that clarity and some meaning is lost. I blame Twitter.

That being said, it is still a good article full of interesting insights, if not quite up to Richard's usual standards and requiring more than the usual effort from the reader.

See? You actually can criticise something without being an ignorant jerk.

[Renmiri1]

Dorrieb wrote...

See? You actually can criticise something without being an ignorant jerk.

I knew we would agree some day! 

[Dorrieb]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Dorrieb wrote...

See? You actually can criticise something without being an ignorant jerk.

I knew we would agree some day! 

Oh my sides, such wit! Have you thought about writing for the stage?

Let me see if I can match that. Um... okay, how's this? 'Yes, we agree that you are an ignorant jerk!'

Eh? Can I get a badummm-tishhh? No? Anyone? Awww...

I tried putting in a laughing smiley like yours, but it kept turning into a booing smiley and I had to throw him out. What's your secret?

[Dorrieb]

Filament wrote...
I'm just saying, unless he is in the habit of gross non-sequiturs, his reference to a system that DAO had of "handing over gifts to make everything better" and then showing a screenshot from DAO with a caption about DAO, all under the header of "no light/darkside meter," make it clear he's calling DAO's system an iteration of a light/darkside meter. I really don't understand how several people now could miss something so painfully simple.

I never said this was a factually incorrect statement because it isn't necessarily, which complicates this whole argument because half of you are justifying what he actually said while the other half are inexplicably just denying it.

Fair enough, that is reasonable.

[Renmiri1]

Dorrieb wrote...

Renmiri1 wrote...

Dorrieb wrote...

See? You actually can criticise something without being an ignorant jerk.

I knew we would agree some day! 

Oh my sides, such wit! Have you thought about writing for the stage?

Let me see if I can match that. Um... okay, how's this? 'Yes, we agree that you are an ignorant jerk!'

Eh? Can I get a badummm-tishhh? No? Anyone? Awww...

I tried putting in a laughing smiley like yours, but it kept turning into a booing smiley and I had to throw him out. What's your secret?

Err.. Not taking things personally ? Not much of a secret, most people know how to separate article authors identity from their own, even if they agree with the writer 100%

You should try it sometime. Will definitely improve your blood pressure, if not your debate skills.