236 réponses à ce sujet

[Steppenwolf]

In Exile wrote...

BasilKarlo wrote...

"Hey Shepard, we found a Reaper off-switch!" It was lazy writing, topped off by one of the worst endings to any series I've ever played.

It wasn't any different than the magic off switch Shepard found in ME1.

What "magic off switch" in ME1?

[ScotGaymer]

BasilKarlo wrote...

In Exile wrote...

BasilKarlo wrote...

"Hey Shepard, we found a Reaper off-switch!" It was lazy writing, topped off by one of the worst endings to any series I've ever played.

It wasn't any different than the magic off switch Shepard found in ME1.

What "magic off switch" in ME1?

That's my question.

I have no idea what hes on about.

Unless he means when Sovereign goes inactive when you kill saren? Or when you send the interrupt signal directly into the Citadel Computer Core in order to prevent Sovereign from opening the relay and bringing in his Reaper buddies?
Neither really qualifies as a magic off button the way the lame ass ABC choices in ME3 do...

If it is the former then Sovereign goes inactive because his mind was at least partially inside the Saren-Husk fighting against Shepard in a desperate last bid to begin the Reaping; and when Shepard destroys the body it either kills (not what I think) or knocks Sovereign "unconcious" for long enough thta the Citadel Fleets can finish him off.
If it is sending the prothean code into the computer core... well it isn't a magic off button either. It's an interrupt code.

If not either of those well... I have no idea. I can't think of any instance in ME1 where the term "magic off button" applies.

[In Exile]

FitScotGaymer wrote...
Unless he means when Sovereign goes inactive when you kill saren? Or when you send the interrupt signal directly into the Citadel Computer Core in order to prevent Sovereign from opening the relay and bringing in his Reaper buddies?
Neither really qualifies as a magic off button the way the lame ass ABC choices in ME3 do...

Killing Saren. Don't think I'm defending the terrible endings we got, because I'm not.

I do, however, find that the existence of the Crucible as a magic off button at the start of the game isn't very different than Sovereign being completely invincible until you kill Saren at the end of ME1.

If it is the former then Sovereign goes inactive because his mind was at least partially inside the Saren-Husk fighting against Shepard in a desperate last bid to begin the Reaping; and when Shepard destroys the body it either kills (not what I think) or knocks Sovereign "unconcious" for long enough thta the Citadel Fleets can finish him off.

But it's all magic. Up to that point, there was no indication Sovereign could do that. Or that killing it would shut it down. 

[ScotGaymer]

No indication?

Lol. Bull.

What do you think indoctrination is if not that?

What he did was merely the ultimate expression of domination and control that he exerts over his organic drones.
It was something that was pretty clearly telegraphed, albeit very subtly. And if you missed it?

Well that sucks I guess.

It seemed pretty obvious and clear cut to me.

Granted I will give you that killing Saren-Husk paralysing Sovereign was unforseen and surprising in a fortuitous way. But sometimes unexpected stuff happens.
And it is something that makes sense when you think about it.

He was pouring everything he had into beating Shepard. He was quite literally desperate to complete his mission because his buddies were stuck out in dark space very very far away, and unable to return with any speed.

I mean we know that the Rachni war was Sovereigns first major attempt at getting at The Citadel after he transmitted the activation signal on the 50k mark and the Keepers/Citadel ignored him. That was 1000 years before the game. The Reapers in dark space probably left the darkspace relay around a century or so later (given how different their perception of time is) after it failed to activate.
So they have likely been travelling in since then, and would be out of communication range.

Sovereign would assume that Harby and his boys would be sitting pretty at the darkspace relay, out of contact, and would be desperate to get them into the galaxy. If only to spend time with his fellows.
Perhaps when Shepard interrupted him, and destroyed the Saren Husk, he was in shock?

I mean the reapers pretty much consider themselves Gods. The pinnacle of life, period. So being stymied so successfully and completely by this insignificant bug called Shepard? It would have been deeply shocking to old Sovvy.
Perhaps. Dunno on that front tho.

The paralysis, or "death", of Sovereign by Shepards actions was surprising yes, but not unbelievable. And certainly not a magic off button lol.

Also he wasnt invincible. He was exceptionally powerful, far beyond anything the Citadel races had at their disposal at that time by several hundred if not thousand years. He was taking damage from the Citadel fleets - why do you think the Geth Heretic fleet was with him as a screen for him to reach the citadel?
Because on his own he would have sufferred Death by a Thousand Cuts at the hands of the Citadel Fleets.

Modifié par FitScotGaymer, 23 avril 2013 - 09:36 .

[Heimdall]

The Saren thing just felt contrived. They explained what happened via a codex entry in later games, but until then there wasn't any explanation as to why Sovreign would suddenly become disrupted by Saren's death. The contrived feeling was compounded the statement in the same codex entry that Harbinger and the others had since eliminated the vulnerability. It makes the whole thing a post hoc explanation and a bit of an accidental victory on Shepard's part, who could have no knowledge of the weakness. It was definitely bad, but not magic.

[UltraManLeo]

Making the game better than DA:O would be hard, i played the game 10 to 20 times or so, and i still don't find it dull to play through i hope it'll be better than DA2 though!

[Sanunes]

LeoAdrian wrote...

Making the game better than DA:O would be hard, i played the game 10 to 20 times or so, and i still don't find it dull to play through i hope it'll be better than DA2 though!

I think your post is a good example for me to make my point, for I feel completely the opposite. 

I don't think BioWare will be able to live up to the hype because there are so many people looking for different things in their games so someone is going to get upset that what they were looking for wasn't there.  Its why I am looking forward to their new IP so I can really see with fresh eyes what BioWare's direction really is. 

[Scarlet Rabbi]

LeoAdrian wrote...

i hope it'll be better than DA2 though!

Of course it will be, but that's not the question many of us are asking nor a primary concern.

Will it be a great game? And by that I mean of true Bioware caliber and of the highest possible quality. Then again, those conditions open up another can of worms because they are very vague and subjective.

I think DA2, while being a decent game and loads better than most RPGs out there, met neither of those qualifications. Even to the die-hard DA2 defenders, (who border on white knights if I'm completely honest) can you honestly call Dragon Age 2 a "great game" that is of expected Bioware caliber and quality?

Again, many will probably say "yes" because those terms are so damn subjective (or just to defend DA2 from it's more extreme and melodramatic haters), so it is what it is. But, deep down, I think we all know when someone (or in this case something, -Bioware-) isn't or isn't capable of giving their best. And even though what they are giving still flattens their competition, that doesn't make it their best effort, which is, frankly, what we as fans and supporters of their livelihood deserve.


Edited for spelling.

Modifié par Scarlet Rabbi, 23 avril 2013 - 10:12 .

[Lobos1988]

well... there's still the outside chance of us all being blown away...

[Maverick827]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

But sometimes unexpected stuff happens.

Only when it supports your argument, of course.

[jillabender]

In Exile wrote...

jillabender wrote...

If felt to me as though Hawke's personality was meant to be, to a large extent, up to the player to define, and while I love that approach to a silent protagonist, I don't think it works as well with a voiced protagonist. With a voiced protagonist, I feel that the character really needs a strongly pre-established personality, and that the player's role should be to determine how the character grows or changes as a person because of the choices he or she makes. I think that Mass Effect 1 does this well, but I find that DA2 tries to give Hawke more variability at the expense of character-building details and nuance, and it doesn't quite work.

I actually don't think a silent protagonist allows the player to define the character at all, because the player is effectively a cut-off brick from the rest of the game-world. You have a very narrow set of options which you get to actually express in-game in terms of reactivity, and otherwise there isn't a difference between pretending your character is a wrecked by PTSD from their first battle to being a shapeshifting alien whose looking to lay a clutch of eggs inside human skulls.

Well, I'm not talking, in general, about imagining anything quite that extreme when it comes to a silent protagonist. I'm talking about nuances - for example, if my character expresses resentment to Alistair about being a Grey Warden, I can imagine my character's delivery of the line, and I can decide for myself exactly where that bitterness is coming from. Similarly, if my character says to Wynne "sometimes I wish I could go back to my old life" or, alternatively, "I'm glad to be rid of my old life," I can decide for myself exactly why my character feels that way.

To use another example, my male Dalish elf dumped Morrigan for Zevran, and although they broke up on friendly terms, it made things awkward and complicated when she convinced him to do the Dark Ritual. That's a situation where what I imagined about a character made the situation more interesting to me, even though there was no piece of dialogue where my character explicitly said "I feel awkward about sleeping with my ex."

So, for me, it's not so much a matter of coming up with a story around a character out of whole cloth - it's more about using my imagination to expand on what's provided in the game. Of course, I can appreciate that some people don't get much out of imagining things that are never unambiguously acknowledged in the game.

Modifié par jillabender, 24 avril 2013 - 06:49 .

[In Exile]

jillabender wrote...
Well, I'm not talking, in general, about imagining anything quite that extreme when it comes to a silent protagonist. I'm talking about nuances - for example, if my character expresses resentment to Alistair about being a Grey Warden, I can imagine my character's delivery of the line, and I can decide for myself exactly where that bitterness is coming from. Similarly, if my character says to Wynne "sometimes I wish I could go back to my old life" or, alternatively, "I'm glad to be rid of my old life," I can decide for myself exactly why my character feels that way.

But I don't think that's in any way different from the absurd examples I provided, insofar as the game doesn't actually react to the mood or intent that you present. 

To me, when Hawke says that he wants to be a merchant, there's nothing in the VO that limits my reason for that - it could be that Hawke wants to be rich or wants to be like Varric. 

But if the Warden says something - and there is absolutely no react to that statement - then I might as well imagine that he bleeted it like a donkey or said it sadly for all that it matters. 

To use another example, my male Dalish elf dumped Morrigan for Zevran, and although they broke up on friendly terms, it made things awkward and complicated when she convinced him to do the Dark Ritual. That's a situation where what I imagined about a character made the situation more interesting to me, even though there was no piece of dialogue where my character explicitly said "I feel awkward about sleeping with my ex."

But there's nothing to stop you from feeling that way in DA2, because there's absolutely no content that you're relying on. Unless you're saying that the complete absence of any kind of PC reaction w/o VO means that you can be sure that no future tone will contract your line - in which case I can provide examples where DA:O still does that to you, depending on what character motivations you might start with.

So, for me, it's not so much a matter of coming up with a story around a character out of whole cloth - it's more about using my imagination to expand on what's provided in the game. Of course, I can appreciate that some people don't get much out of imagining things that are never unambiguously acknowledged in the game.

I don't want to come across as attacking your preference, because I do respect it. Rather, I just want to explain where I'm coming from. There's a rather clear concensus on this forum about what it means to RP, especially on the VO/non-VO side, and my view is very unconventional. 

[LPPrince]

Lobos1988 wrote...

well... there's still the outside chance of us all being blown away...

I think whats most sad is that its an outside chance and not a foregone conclusion

[jillabender]

In Exile wrote...

[...]

I don't want to come across as attacking your preference, because I do respect it. Rather, I just want to explain where I'm coming from. There's a rather clear concensus on this forum about what it means to RP, especially on the VO/non-VO side, and my view is very unconventional.

Bah, I was almost finished typing a long response, and accidentally lost it!

Don't worry, you didn't come across as attacking me - you brought up some great points! I need to do some studying, but I'll respond later.

Modifié par jillabender, 24 avril 2013 - 08:15 .

[LPPrince]

jillabender wrote...

Bah, I was almost finished typing a long response, and accidentally lost it!

I HATE WHEN THAT HAPPENS

My condolences.

[jillabender]

LPPrince wrote...

jillabender wrote...

Bah, I was almost finished typing a long response, and accidentally lost it!

I HATE WHEN THAT HAPPENS

My condolences.

Hehe, thanks!

[ScotGaymer]

Maverick827 wrote...

FitScotGaymer wrote...

But sometimes unexpected stuff happens.

Only when it supports your argument, of course.

And this kind of hyperbolic antagonistic statement is why the devs don't want to come onto the BSN anymore. Jeez.

Don't be daft. It's a simple statement of fact. Stuff happens, sometimes without any foreshadowing.

As I said it was only my opinion, but for myself I didn't feel like it wasn egregious immersion breaking error or mistake and that it for the most part made sense. I agree that it wasn't telegraphed at all, except if you look at it sideways from a long way off lol, and that it was a thing that probably should have had some sort of foreshadowing to it.
But it wasn't this great awful thing that ruined the whole ending or game, was it?

At worse it was mildly annoying in a fridge logic sort of way.

[Maverick827]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

And this kind of hyperbolic antagonistic statement is why the devs don't want to come onto the BSN anymore. Jeez.

Funny, I thought the reasons why the devs don't want to come here anymore is because of hyperbolic, antagonistic statements like this:

While I agree that ME3 was a thoroughly mediocre game with a terrible ending (and a horrible intro)

Don't be daft. It's a simple statement of fact. Stuff happens, sometimes without any foreshadowing.

I'm not sure you understand.  I wasn't disagreeing, I was saying that "stuff happens" is just as applicable if not more so for the ending of ME3 as it is for the ending of ME1.  

Edit: Are we allowed to post ME3 spoilers here?

As I said it was only my opinion, but for myself I didn't feel like it wasn egregious immersion breaking error or mistake and that it for the most part made sense. I agree that it wasn't telegraphed at all, except if you look at it sideways from a long way off lol, and that it was a thing that probably should have had some sort of foreshadowing to it.
But it wasn't this great awful thing that ruined the whole ending or game, was it?

At worse it was mildly annoying in a fridge logic sort of way.

Are these words aimed at the ending of ME1 or ME3?

Modifié par Maverick827, 24 avril 2013 - 01:15 .

[ScotGaymer]

My statement wasn't hyperbolic or antagonistic.

It was a statement of opinion. Yeah one of those things I am allowed to have dude. If you aren't at least going to attempt to contribute to the dicussion in a constructive and polite way, then I am going to call you out on that man.
Cos ya know, not cool.

My opinion about is about the ending of ME1.

ME3s ending was outright terrible from the moment I played it, and the more I thought about it the more annoyed I got. When I started to catalogue in my head the why of why I didn't like it; the errors it had made (and the game had made in general) that resulted in my immersion being ruined and thus my enjoyment of the game being destroyed by that ending; I got increasingly irritated that this drech even made it to the "gold" version of the game.

I ended ME3 feeling like Bioware had spat in my face (now THIS Is a hyperbolic statement, see the difference?) especially with that insulting "Yay! You finished! Congrats! Buy More DLC!" message post ending; and by contrast I ended ME1 feeling awesome. When I finally killed Saren Husk and Sov got blowed up, I sat starting at my screen for a while after thoroughly satisfied.
It wasn't until MUCH MUCH later "problems" made themselves known to me on subsequent play thrus; things I totally missed first go through the game and as I said those things are most definately examples of Fridge Logic.

And as an offense, triggering a couple of fridge logic moments after the fact is fairly small problem especially when compared to the issues that ME3 had, and the issues that Dragon Age 2 had.

Modifié par FitScotGaymer, 24 avril 2013 - 10:54 .

[Ziegrif]

I'm waiting for the game.
But I'm more interested in what sorta type the combats gona be.
As for the hype?
Yeah Imma take everything with a grain of salt.

[jillabender]

I'm back! ^__^

In Exile wrote...

jillabender wrote...

To use another example, my male Dalish elf dumped Morrigan for Zevran, and although they broke up on friendly terms, it made things awkward and complicated when she convinced him to do the Dark Ritual. That's a situation where what I imagined about a character made the situation more interesting to me, even though there was no piece of dialogue where my character explicitly said "I feel awkward about sleeping with my ex."

But there's nothing to stop you from feeling that way in DA2, because there's absolutely no content that you're relying on. Unless you're saying that the complete absence of any kind of PC reaction w/o VO means that you can be sure that no future tone will contract your line - in which case I can provide examples where DA:O still does that to you, depending on what character motivations you might start with.

You're right that the mechanics of the VO in DA2 don't necessarily, in themselves, prevent me from imagining things about my character the way I described.

But it's not entirely accurate to say that I'm not relying on any content in the game in my example. When my imagination adds nuances to the Dark Ritual scene, I'm building on details that are explicitly provided in the game - my PC leaving Morrigan for Zevran, her later touching affirmation of friendship with that same PC, and the dialogue choices where my character can express reluctance when Morrigan proposes the Dark Ritual.

In fact, when my character expressed reluctance, Morrigan responded "Why? Because of Zevran?", so it wasn't too much of a stretch for me to imagine that having broken up with her for Zevran would add to my character's complicated feelings about agreeing to the ritual. It's the fact that what I imagined grew out of details in the authored narrative that made it feel organic to me, instead of, as you put it, bricked off from the rest of the narrative.

In Exile wrote...

jillabender wrote...

I'm talking about nuances - for example, if my character expresses resentment to Alistair about being a Grey Warden, I can imagine my character's delivery of the line, and I can decide for myself exactly where that bitterness is coming from. Similarly, if my character says to Wynne "sometimes I wish I could go back to my old life" or, alternatively, "I'm glad to be rid of my old life," I can decide for myself exactly why my character feels that way.

But I don't think that's in any way different from the absurd examples I provided, insofar as the game doesn't actually react to the mood or intent that you present.

To me, when Hawke says that he wants to be a merchant, there's nothing in the VO that limits my reason for that - it could be that Hawke wants to be rich or wants to be like Varric.

But if the Warden says something - and there is absolutely no react to that statement - then I might as well imagine that he bleeted it like a donkey or said it sadly for all that it matters.

Again, you're right that the mechanics of the VO don't necessarily, in themselves, prevent my being able to use my imagination to elaborate on a character's motivations. But when I don't feel a strong connection to the character, I can't really get inside the character's head well enough to imagine his or her motivations in a satisfying way.

In the case of Tirion, my Dalish rogue, I could get inside his head because the backstory and authored narrative that the game provided gave me lots of interesting details to build on, and because I had the freedom to imagine his warm, open and mischievous demeanour in vivid detail.

In the case of Shepard in ME1, I can get inside her head because she's a quite specific character with hard-coded personality traits that I can build on in determining how she responds to events in the story and how those events affect her. (I say "her" simply because I haven't yet played a male Shepard.) There's a narrower range of ways I can imagine Shepard then there is with the Warden, but the game still provides scope for my imagination, by giving me a strong character with firmly established traits that I can work with in developing her as a character.

With Hawke, I just don't feel the same kind of connection. As I said earlier, there were many points where I had the feeling that I was meant to see Hawke as feeling sadness, concern, or powerlessness, but it didn't quite come through in the writing or the performance. That's not to say I didn't have fun playing Hawke, but I felt that the presentation of Hawke was missing the subtle details and nuances that would have allowed me to know Hawke well enough to imagine why he or she might be motivated to do or say certain things.

In short, I couldn't quite use my imagination to build on Hawke's motivations the way I would have liked, because I found that the presentation of Hawke didn't quite give me enough to work with. I recognize that's very subjective on my part, and I admit that part of it comes down to the fact that I often found Hawke's demeanour affected, smug, smarmy or detached in ways that I found off-putting.

In general, Hawke felt more vaguely defined to me than Shepard, and I found myself wishing that the writers had given themselves more freedom to make Hawke a more specific character, with a more firmly established personality. Of course, it's possible that it wasn't a conscious decision to leave Hawke's personality more up to the player to define, but simply that the writers didn't have the time or resources to develop Hawke the way they would have liked. Or maybe it was a bit of both.

In short, I find role-playing the most satisfying when I can really step into the role of a character, imagining how my character experiences the events of the story and making choices from the character's point of view. With a character like the Warden, I'm stepping into the role of a character I created. With a voiced character like Shepard, I'm stepping into the role of a specific and compelling character provided for me, and I can shape how she develops as a character. But I can't quite get into the role of Hawke, because he or she feels lacking in the kinds of details and nuances that would really inspire me to use my imagination to build on what's already there.

In short, I enjoy both voiced and silent protagonists, for different reasons, but I don't find that DA2 offers quite what I look for from either. It's not necessarily the mechanics of the VO as such that get in the way of my preferred approach to role-playing - the mechanics on their own probably wouldn't be a problem if not for my difficulties with the way Hawke was presented in terms of the writing and performance.

Modifié par jillabender, 24 avril 2013 - 12:48 .

[Allan Schumacher]

There are two things that make me want to take a break from the BSN.

The first is the biggest: when people use my words (or the words of any other BioWare poster) out of context and as ammunition for spreading around even more hatred and vitriol.

The second is the constant hyperbolic outrage people have because other people like different things.

Note that someone saying that they found ME3 thoroughly mediocre is not on this list.  It depends on where they go after that as to whether or not I get frustrated.


Plaintiff had an interesting comment in this thread:

I'm overstating my case because on Bioware forums the most hyperbolic argument wins.

Lets stop overstating our cases just to grant visibility and in an attempt to try to "weight" things farther along in our favour. It's akin to people bombing a meta critic score with 0s because they feel they need to counter the people giving 10s, while the people giving 10s feel the need to do the same thing to the 0s).

For all the hyperbole that gets used in discussions to try to create more persuasive arguments, it has the completely opposite effect on me, in that it typically makes my eyes glaze over for the content, and I start to end up reading the post like a moderator (making sure people don't take their hyperbole too far) rather than as a developer (seeing if there are interesting discussion points in said post).

That's not to say that people should all post in the middle ground (a fallacy). If you think DAO is great and DA2 is poor is fine. I will give you bonus points, however, if you can take yourself out of your own shoes if you can understand different perspectives and recognize that other people may like/dislike other things.

To use hyperbole and say things like how you can't understand how someone could or could not like/hate a game represents a myopic perspective and undermines discussion points you may have beyond simply attempting to tell me what you like/dislike in a game.

If you find yourself completely baffled by an opinion, take some time and give it some thought. See if you can understand where they are coming from purely with your own thoughts. If you still can't make logical sense over why someone may feel that way... ask them! (politely)

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 24 avril 2013 - 03:53 .

[Shevy]

Who set the high bar? I never heard a dev saying "we have to beat Origins and DA II and make the best game ev0r". Some "fans" on the internet? I notice it's cool nowadays to bash BioWare because their latest releases weren't received overly positive and they were developed under EA as publisher. And EA is the devil on the interwebs.

I'm confident that the guys and girls at BioWare are working hard to deliver a product of good quality. Not every decision will be for everyone, for me neither. I know they are going with a voiced protagonist and I have yet to experience one in an RPG that I like, but if the rest gives me enough reasons to want to play the game, I will do. If not, I won't, not that difficult.

DA II had some great concepts, the different story approach was the biggest and most promising. Unfortunately, the execution wasn't that good due to various reasons (time and thus the lack of polish seemed to be the most important) the story ended being inferior to Origins' more typical way.

Those reasons killed some other concepts of DA II and because I can see how they are taking their time now (at least I hope so) to ship in a polished status, I'm still around here looking for info on DA III.

Modifié par Shevy_001, 24 avril 2013 - 04:33 .

[DMWW]

Maverick827 wrote...

Considering DA2, TOR, and ME3 were all great products for varying reasons, I have no reason to doubt that DA:I won't be as well.

This.

[Apollexander]

Be optimistic please:lol: It is difficult to stay calm in an argument so we need moderators to make it on the right way. At least it is indicated that there are a great number of fans caring much about the game. 

Allan Schumacher wrote...

There are two things that make me want to take a break from the BSN.

The first is the biggest: when people use my words (or the words of any other BioWare poster) out of context and as ammunition for spreading around even more hatred and vitriol.

The second is the constant hyperbolic outrage people have because other people like different things.

Note that someone saying that they found ME3 thoroughly mediocre is not on this list.  It depends on where they go after that as to whether or not I get frustrated.


Plaintiff had an interesting comment in this thread:

I'm overstating my case because on Bioware forums the most hyperbolic argument wins.

Lets stop overstating our cases just to grant visibility and in an attempt to try to "weight" things farther along in our favour. It's akin to people bombing a meta critic score with 0s because they feel they need to counter the people giving 10s, while the people giving 10s feel the need to do the same thing to the 0s).

For all the hyperbole that gets used in discussions to try to create more persuasive arguments, it has the completely opposite effect on me, in that it typically makes my eyes glaze over for the content, and I start to end up reading the post like a moderator (making sure people don't take their hyperbole too far) rather than as a developer (seeing if there are interesting discussion points in said post).

That's not to say that people should all post in the middle ground (a fallacy). If you think DAO is great and DA2 is poor is fine. I will give you bonus points, however, if you can take yourself out of your own shoes if you can understand different perspectives and recognize that other people may like/dislike other things.

To use hyperbole and say things like how you can't understand how someone could or could not like/hate a game represents a myopic perspective and undermines discussion points you may have beyond simply attempting to tell me what you like/dislike in a game.

If you find yourself completely baffled by an opinion, take some time and give it some thought. See if you can understand where they are coming from purely with your own thoughts. If you still can't make logical sense over why someone may feel that way... ask them! (politely)