660 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sloppy? No, it's utterly irrelevant.

It is logicly such a tiny, unimportant issue that there was no real reson for Bio to even notice it or patch it. Or does each flashy animation have to be removed then?

[TheRealJayDee]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Sloppy? No, it's utterly irrelevant.

It is logicly such a tiny, unimportant issue that there was no real reson for Bio to even notice it or patch it. Or does each flashy animation have to be removed then?

I've never quite understood the appeal of being willfully obtuse...

If the last question was serious I apologize and answer it with "no".

[Boycott Bioware]

KiwiQuiche wrote...
I spat tea all over the floor after reading that, Qistina XD

lol, sorry about that

well, Leliana survive decapitation, because of whatever reason, so it is possible the Warden survive too doing Ultimate Sacrifice.

The warden survive the Joining, survive being dead on the Tower of Ishal, survive the Deep Road, survive undead attacks, survive the Fade, survive werewolves not infected at all even got overwhelmed many times, survive in Fort Drakon after fighting overpowered Ser Cuthrien.......but dead killing Archdemon?

Naaaah...she survive!

[ArenCordial]

Qistina wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...
I spat tea all over the floor after reading that, Qistina XD

lol, sorry about that

well, Leliana survive decapitation, because of whatever reason, so it is possible the Warden survive too doing Ultimate Sacrifice.

The warden survive the Joining, survive being dead on the Tower of Ishal, survive the Deep Road, survive undead attacks, survive the Fade, survive werewolves not infected at all even got overwhelmed many times, survive in Fort Drakon after fighting overpowered Ser Cuthrien.......but dead killing Archdemon?

Naaaah...she survive!

Since Retcons are ok why stop there.   Well how about the Warden survives because the Archdemon was really an overgrown Wyvren or normal dragon and not an old god?   Or better yet DA:O was all just a dream like that Dallas season!  The (not) warden wakes up after a fitful night of sleep.     Absurd yes.  Course I'd lump in your average joe/jane coming back from the dead as in the absurd.

JWvonGoethe wrote...

ArenCordial wrote...

Your Warden married Alistair?  Well guess what his advisors convinced him two Warden's can't make an heir so he dumps you like a hot rock after a few years to try and get Ferelden a Therin heir.

Except that a female human noble Warden can say to Alistair regarding an heir: "You don't think the baby has to be yours do you? (or words to that effect) and he seems fine with it.

My point was the advisor convince him he needs a blood heir.  Besides retcons are ok so it really doesn't matter what he said since people can change their minds.   The point being here this decision sets a bad precedent.

[CronoDragoon]

xnode wrote...

It may or may not been brought up, but for me (after reading your blog) my gripe on this is your company promotes these "Chained event's" from other previous versions of their games. In your example you are basically saying "yes I am god this is my world and this is my choice", but the point most are trying to make is , "if that's the case, your stories don't fully carry over as you have boasted for years they do" Because in the end, some of our choices might make a difference some now won't, so why does it matter in that aspect anymore? 

Personally if that is truly your stance and the stance of the company you should take out chained event's all together and stop promoting your titles and carry overs and chained events stories. For choices are a whim and are as meaningful as you see fit, not the player. This is not an insult but an observation, when you do this sort of writing you might not be the writer you think you are in my eyes at least. To me , it sounds like the fans know the world better then the creators and writers whom designed the world to begin with, that's pretty sad.

Does his blog post say that every event fully carries over? Have they marketed that every detail continues into the next game?

[Travie]

xnode wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Since this is another topic that has come up yet again, I shall point to my blog post which addresses it.

Not that it will make much difference to those who just don't like it no matter the reasoning or explanation (or lack thereof), I'm sure-- but there you go.

It may or may not been brought up, but for me (after reading your blog) my gripe on this is your company promotes these "Chained event's" from other previous versions of their games. In your example you are basically saying "yes I am god this is my world and this is my choice", but the point most are trying to make is , "if that's the case, your stories don't fully carry over as you have boasted for years they do" Because in the end, some of our choices might make a difference some now won't, so why does it matter in that aspect anymore? 

Personally if that is truly your stance and the stance of the company you should take out chained event's all together and stop promoting your titles and carry overs and chained events stories. For choices are a whim and are as meaningful as you see fit, not the player. This is not an insult but an observation, when you do this sort of writing you might not be the writer you think you are in my eyes at least. To me , it sounds like the fans know the world better then the creators and writers whom designed the world to begin with, that's pretty sad.

This is actually the best point I've seen in this thread. 

If they are deciding to completely ignore player choice whenever they want it is no longer a selling point of the game. 

Modifié par Travie, 12 juillet 2013 - 04:02 .

[Ziggeh]

ArenCordial wrote...

Since Retcons are ok why stop there.   Well how about the Warden survives because the Archdemon was really an overgrown Wyvren or normal dragon and not an old god?   Or better yet DA:O was all just a dream like that Dallas season!  The (not) warden wakes up after a fitful night of sleep.     Absurd yes.  Course I'd lump in your average joe/jane coming back from the dead as in the absurd.

Ooh, a slippery slope argument. 

There is something of a difference between "altering" data from fallible sources, such as combat abstractions and codex entries and contradicting definite elements of the story, such as cut scenes.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 12 juillet 2013 - 03:38 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ziggeh wrote...

There is something of a difference between "altering" data from fallible sources, such as combat abstractions and codex entries and contradicting definite elements of the story, such as cut scenes.

Given the cinematic presentation overall, and the fact that the so-called abstraction in question was in fact on-screen animation, just like cutscenes, how are combat and cutscenes meaningfully different in this respect?

I don't see how ignoring on-screen animations in this case doesn't invalidate the entire cinematic approach.  If how the content is presented to us is important, then those combat animations are important.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

D) Not bother with idiots who can't differentiate between gamepaly and story and obsess over a random animation.

What's the difference?  Explain it to me.

Keep in mind that I currently see no reason at all to distinguish between the two.  I know some people do, but I think you're all crazy.

As it happens, if the game weren't cinematic overall, the Leliana thing wouldn't bother me.  I'm happy to see combat as an abstraction.  I often view conversation as an abstraction.  My primary objection to cinematic presentation is that it undermines this abstraction.  It makes content explicit when it should not be.

But given that they have decided to make explicit on-screen content literally true, they need to abide by that throughout the game.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 12 juillet 2013 - 04:18 .

[Ziggeh]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But given that they have decided to make explicit on-screen content literally true, they need to abide by that throughout the game.

Whether they should or not is another conversation, but it's evidentally clear that the game itself draws the distinction between "gamplay" and "cinematics". There are endless examples of the inconsistent relationship between the two. From the selective blindness to magic to the hit chance of the murder knife.

I can get behind the argument that this is an example of a larger problem, but to declare that her death is literal because of the beheading whilst being willing to accept other instances is a flawed argument.

[Nynaeve1981]

Travie wrote...

xnode wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Since this is another topic that has come up yet again, I shall point to my blog post which addresses it.

Not that it will make much difference to those who just don't like it no matter the reasoning or explanation (or lack thereof), I'm sure-- but there you go.

It may or may not been brought up, but for me (after reading your blog) my gripe on this is your company promotes these "Chained event's" from other previous versions of their games. In your example you are basically saying "yes I am god this is my world and this is my choice", but the point most are trying to make is , "if that's the case, your stories don't fully carry over as you have boasted for years they do" Because in the end, some of our choices might make a difference some now won't, so why does it matter in that aspect anymore? 

Personally if that is truly your stance and the stance of the company you should take out chained event's all together and stop promoting your titles and carry overs and chained events stories. For choices are a whim and are as meaningful as you see fit, not the player. This is not an insult but an observation, when you do this sort of writing you might not be the writer you think you are in my eyes at least. To me , it sounds like the fans know the world better then the creators and writers whom designed the world to begin with, that's pretty sad.

This is actually the best point I've seen in this thread. 

If they are deciding to completely ignore player choice whenever they want it is no longer a selling point of the game. 

Don't you all enjoy the in game choices while you are playing? That's the selling point. So what if you let Alistair die and he popped back up in Da 2. Not everyone wants him to be dead. If all player choices that could possibly be made were allowed to stand the story would just keep getting more limited. Think of all the players that could be dead or that left you and what do you have after that. Not a lot. You have two options : You have choices to make the game more enjoyable for you (you being the key word since we all chose differently for our own enjoyment) or you don't get options and just play the story line the way it was written just so you can have everything line up in a neat little row. Which way do you want it? There would be complaints no matter what they did. Think of it differently. When do you ever get to play in the universe of a cool book you've read and make it end the way you want.  

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ziggeh wrote...

I can get behind the argument that this is an example of a larger problem, but to declare that her death is literal because of the beheading whilst being willing to accept other instances is a flawed argument.

I'm not willing to accept other instances.  They're all terrible.

This Leliana thing is absolutely a symptom of a much larger disease.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Or does each flashy animation have to be removed then?

If it contrdicts the story, yes.

The story, and the animation, and the mechanics, should work together.  The game should be internally consistent across all three.

[Ziggeh]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I'm not willing to accept other instances.  They're all terrible.

This Leliana thing is absolutely a symptom of a much larger disease.

Absolutely, but as I say, that's a different and larger conversation.

[Ziggeh]

Filament wrote...

So dramatic. What a terrible disease they've contracted to make combat animations a little flashier than what is reflected in the story...

Presenting multiple instances of contradictory information? I find it acceptable personally, but it's certainly an issue.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Filament wrote...

So dramatic. What a terrible disease they've contracted to make combat animations a little flashier than what is reflected in the story...

The disease is gameplay/story segregation.

[keightdee]

This board is so weird.

[Ryzaki]

JWvonGoethe wrote...

ArenCordial wrote...

Your Warden married Alistair?  Well guess what his advisors convinced him two Warden's can't make an heir so he dumps you like a hot rock after a few years to try and get Ferelden a Therin heir.

Except that a female human noble Warden can say to Alistair regarding an heir: "You don't think the baby has to be yours do you? (or words to that effect) and he seems fine with it.

Only in a political marraige. If the PC's in a romance with him he gets huffy.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 12 juillet 2013 - 09:18 .

[Boycott Bioware]

Since Retcons are ok why stop there. Well how about the Warden survives because the Archdemon was really an overgrown Wyvren or normal dragon and not an old god? Or better yet DA:O was all just a dream like that Dallas season! The (not) warden wakes up after a fitful night of sleep. Absurd yes. Course I'd lump in your average joe/jane coming back from the dead as in the absurd.

Yeah, there are some scenes showing the Warden wake up, it is a dream in a dream, many peoples have experience this including me. Especially the Cousland...wake up, the castle under siege, wake up after the Joining, wake up in Flemeth hut, wake up in the camp after Lothering, wake up the camp under attack, wake up becoming a Reaver...after killing the Archdemon, she wake up in castle Cousland saying good bye to her father who going to Ostagar with Howe, Duncan and Ser Gilmore.....

Edit : She want to become a Grey Warden, but her father don't allow it, making her dream becoming a Grey Warden and Hero of Ferelden

Modifié par Qistina, 12 juillet 2013 - 09:39 .

[karushna5]

I have to say the game has proved several times decapitation doesn't mean death. I decapitated Teagan when he was controlled by Connor, and up he goes talking like before. My roommate and I decapitated several people in our last play through that later said enough or quit. I think all of this is just a very good argument against Kill Animations at all. Goodness be no decapitations ever happened, all decapitated enemies even have a head when they are looted, it was an added cool thing not something that actually happened. As I said this is less to do with Leliana decapitation and death as a case against killing animations

[ArenCordial]

Ziggeh wrote...

Ooh, a slippery slope argument. 

People like to mock the slippery slope argument because of its commonality but that isn't a refutation that it doesn't bring up a good point and that's you've set up a precedent so where's the line that says 'gone too far.'  

Also where does it say cut scenes > gameplay, like Slyvius said they should work together to create a consistent image of the world not contradict one another.  Also there is no cut scene to counter the gameplay itself in Origins itself nor foreshadowing in the story, cinematics, or dialogue.  This is a we changed our mind so we can promote familiar faces -deal with it.  Granted that's there right as creators, but placing a canon that undo's the effects of a player's decisions in these games where our decisions are supposed to carry over and influence the world does not mesh with how they really advertise us making our mark on the world because it contradicts our own personal story.

Modifié par ArenCordial, 12 juillet 2013 - 10:21 .

[Ziggeh]

ArenCordial wrote...

People like to mock the slippery slope argument because of its commonality but that isn't a refutation that it doesn't bring up a good point and that's you've set up a precedent so where's the line that says 'gone too far.'  

They've gone too far when they're contradicting things that can't be justified by their own rules. This is not a precedent for that.

ArenCordial wrote...

Also where does it say cut scenes > gameplay, like Slyvius said they should work together to create a consistent image of the world not contradict one another. 

Should and does are different things. There are numerous examples of the disconnect.

ArenCordial wrote...

but placing a canon that undo's the effects of a player's decisions in these games where our decisions are supposed to carry over and influence the world does not mesh with how they really advertise us making our mark on the world because it contradicts our own personal story.

It wouldn't if they were doing it constantly, no. Once is not a trend.