215 réponses à ce sujet

[Sejborg]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Sejborg wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Technically, it's "on Sylvius and I's side."

If I want to be a grammar member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

Just because you throw another person's namy in there, I don't think you are supposed to change "my" to "I". At least not in my language - but it might be different for english, but I find that unlikely. But who knows? Let's ask Gibeau, he uses language in interesting ways. 

In English, if you are listing off a list of things or names, you go with proper nouns, named nouns and then pronouns, with the last pronoun to be used always being yourself (if applicable). In such a case, it would always be "I" instead of "me."

For instance, if you, your dog, Bono, the Ambassador of Chile all walked down to a lake, you'd say "Bono, the ambassador of Chile, my dog and I all walked down to the lake."

It's silly, I know. But English is a silly language.

That would be the same in my language, because without the other people you were still supposed to use "I". But for sentences were you are using "me" and then adding another person to the list, "me" would still remain the right word.

For instance: "Luke, join me and together we can..."

Throw the emporer in there and it would be

"Luke, join the emperor and me and together we can..."

But you are telling me that it should be: 

"Luke, join the emperor and I and together we can..." ?

[cindercatz]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I mean... I don't even know what treating an existing game franchise like a new IP even means. Does it mean they are going to market it heavily, since there would be no pre-existing brand recognition to increase its awareness? Does it mean they are going for an entirely different demographic? I didn't realize there would be a different corporate function for EA with a new IP versus an existing one.

That's exactly what it would mean, in part. It also means they're devoting a level of resources to its developement that might not be directly governed by what a sequel to DA2 might warrant if you were to base its quality and earning expectations on the previous game, even taking DA:O into account. If you did that, you'd probably expect a smaller budget (perhaps across the board) on expectation of diminishing returns. So they're taking another approach, as a business, to DA:I.

He's not calling DA a new IP, or trying to give that impression. He's saying, internally, and in terms of support, they're treating it as if it were. They're putting on their best face and putting their best foot forward and expect positive results, in other words. He's speaking a lot more to investors about what they should expect and why, than he is to gamers. It's not so much a marketing statement as it's in part a description of how they are going to market it (and support it in general). He's laying out EA's level of investment. It's all good.

I think the quality and general bredth of what we're seeing so far, along with the time devoted to its development, make a pretty convincing arguement that he's not blowing smoke.


Unrelated Edit, as I don't believe it deserves its own post: On the little grammar discussion.. I'm not much for correcting internet grammar, as I'm not particularly concerned with my own on a message board, but Filament's correct. Now this is getting off topic.

Modifié par cindercatz, 24 août 2013 - 07:23 .

[In Exile]

EntropicAngel wrote...

In Exile wrote...

They're not. One is saying that you should start with the third game. 

That's a fair point. But neither say "you should play the first games," which is the problem.

It really isn't. You can't have your product suceed if I have to buy the last 50 to understand it. It's the main reason I've never read US comics. 

[Sejborg]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sejborg wrote...

That would be the same in my language, because without the other people you were still supposed to use "I". But for sentences were you are using "me" and then adding another person to the list, "me" would still remain the right word.

For instance: "Luke, join me and together we can..."

Throw the emporer in there and it would be

"Luke, join the emperor and me and together we can..."

But you are telling me that it should be: 

"Luke, join the emperor and I and together we can..." ?

Jimmy is correct. That WOULD be "The emporer and I."


For my sentence, I believe the correct grammar would by "my and Sylvius' side"

Interesting. Because according to this Jimmy is not correct:

oxforddictionaries.com/words/i-or-me

It should be "join the emporer and me"

Just like "The dog followed John and me to the door" and not "The dog followed John and I to the door". 

[MerinTB]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Well, unlike other sequels BioWare has made, this one IS being made on an entirely new engine which certainly necessitates "a whole new approach."

Come to think of it, none of BioWare's sequels have done something like this before.

That's true.  And interesting.

But a new game engine doesn't at all mean it's a new Intellectual Property.

It really isn't what the defintion of "IP" is, though.  What should be mocked is how the word "new" is being used.

THAT's the eyebrow raising part of the statement.

[MerinTB]

In Exile wrote...
It really isn't. You can't have your product suceed if I have to buy the last 50 to understand it. It's the main reason I've never read US comics. 

Bah, this is such a nonsense concern.  Jump in during the middle, realize there's a whole history behind all of what happening in the story (kind of like real-life) and then, if you are interested enough, go back and read the older stories at your leisure.

[In Exile]

MerinTB wrote...
Bah, this is such a nonsense concern.  Jump in during the middle, realize there's a whole history behind all of what happening in the story (kind of like real-life) and then, if you are interested enough, go back and read the older stories at your leisure.

It's not a concern. There can be a history, but a conflict can be nonsensical and difficult to perceive when leaping into the middle, and when there's a continuity ****** on an absurd scale, I frankly don't want to deal with it. I want to enjoy my media, not obtain a treatise in its history. 

It's one thing to have a rich world with a rich history - that's worldbuilding, and a detailed continuity is no different than the make believe history you get in the first game ever in a series. But it's one thing for all of that to be background, and another very different thing to literally pick up a book and start reading at Chapter 50. 

[cindercatz]

Well, it's always best to choose a "Part 1" or "Chapter 1", yeah. Then you've got a full narrative arc to get into.

MerinTB wrote...

In Exile wrote...
It really isn't. You can't have your product suceed if I have to buy the last 50 to understand it. It's the main reason I've never read US comics. 

Bah, this is such a nonsense concern.  Jump in during the middle, realize there's a whole history behind all of what happening in the story (kind of like real-life) and then, if you are interested enough, go back and read the older stories at your leisure.

I think it's really more of an issue if you have become invested in a series, then miss time for a while, and come back to an entirely different status quo. I think it's a great thing that so much changes in a long comic series, but if I miss a bit, that's when I typically feel the need to go fill in the gaps first, not if I'm reading something for the first time.

My attitude toward new readers, or as a new reader, is typically "Jump on in! The water's warm."  Where they run into trouble is when they start trying to reboot or reset the status quo to an arbitrary point, and you end up with a convoluted mess that's neither original nor consistent. That, and dang, comics are overpriced now.

Modifié par cindercatz, 24 août 2013 - 07:38 .

[David7204]

Nobody is going to say "Haven't played Dragon Age 1 and 2? F**king screw, your money isn't welcome here!"

Modifié par David7204, 24 août 2013 - 07:35 .

[Allan Schumacher]

So, I guess... EA doesn't want to sound like they are just pushing out sequels (a critique they have heard often), so they are going to start calling their sequels new IPs...?

I mean... I don't even know what treating an existing game franchise like a new IP even means. Does it mean they are going to market it heavily, since there would be no pre-existing brand recognition to increase its awareness? Does it mean they are going for an entirely different demographic? I didn't realize there would be a different corporate function for EA with a new IP versus an existing one.

(Emphasis mine)

Unfortunately, it's probably just an off the cuff statement with a guy who's talking on the spot on the show floor of Gamescom. It's not a dedicated PR statement. Note that stuff like this happens all the time (someone posted a PAX "interview" with Patrick Weekes that he thought was just a conversation with a fan).

Although at least you can acknowledge that you might not actually know what that means.

Though I think this is classic over analysis which fandom tends to do. No, it's not a fresh new IP (Frank straight up states that it is a sequel). Although for Frank, for whatever reason, is equated the delivery of DAI as part of the "one to new IPs per year." He actually disassociated it from the sports games and stuff like Need for Speed.

Technically, it's "on Sylvius and I's side."

Technically it's "on Sylvius' and my side."

If that is the case, then only half a dozen games sounds like very few games to have in development for a corporation the size of EA. Bioware alone is bringing 3 of those games. Just admit it makes no sense.

Half a dozen original IPs is the word used. Just admit you are being pedantic to EA because it's EA (rhetorical: I did this to point out it's pretty damned annoying when someone concludes their post with something like this).

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 24 août 2013 - 07:55 .

[MaraGriffyn]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Though I think this is classic over analysis which fandom tends to do.

Bingo. Desperate for information and willing to pick apart/speculate about anything....

[Allan Schumacher]

But a new game engine doesn't at all mean it's a new Intellectual Property.

It really isn't what the defintion of "IP" is, though. What should be mocked is how the word "new" is being used.

THAT's the eyebrow raising part of the statement.

I think it's over analysis of an ad hoc interview at GamesCom about how EA internally is categorizing the game as a part of its long term plan going forward.

At best, EA feels it's important to focus on new IP, and is considering DAI to be of equivalent importance.
At worst, EA wants to have one to two new IP per year, and is saying that it considers DAI to be equivalent because it saves face in the event of not having one to two actually new IP.


For me it's so "nothing to see here" once I read the full article.

Now, you can decide that Frank should always be excruciatingly careful about how he says things (I've learned that on this forum myself), but at the same time, Aaryn Flynn was called out on his twitter for the choice of "Do I save the village or let it burn" and responded with something akin to "It didn't come out the way I had meant. I was more meaning do you choose something else at the expense of the village?"

Welcome to people talking. If some of you have never said something and had it make perfect sense in your own head, but had an observer wonder what it meant, this seems like one of those moments.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 24 août 2013 - 07:55 .

[MerinTB]

cindercatz wrote...
I think it's really more of an issue if you have become invested in a series, then miss time for a while, and come back to an entirely different status quo. I think it's a great thing that so much changes in a long comic series, but if I miss a bit, that's when I typically feel the need to go fill in the gaps first, not if I'm reading something for the first time.

My attitude toward new readers, or as a new reader, is typically "Jump on in! The water's warm."  Where they run into trouble is when they start trying to reboot or reset the status quo to an arbitrary point, and you end up with a convoluted mess that's neither original nor consistent. That, and dang, comics are overpriced now.

Personally, I would prefer to start at the start, but that's not always feasible.  Back in the day, when I started watching Bablyon 5, I could accept that  I was watching Season 3 forward or just not watch it - there were no rentals of TV series, no boxed sets.  Same when I got into Buffy in season 5.  Now pretty much everything has box sets or are on Netflix or Hulu, so it isn't much of an issue. 

Same with comics - more and more back issues are being digitized and they are cheap to get digitally.   But when I started reading there was decades of history before I started.  Essentials and Showcase didn't exist yet, and I was getting comics at the grocery store with no comic store in town.  You can absolutely enjoy a comic for what is in the issue and next issue, and if you are curious about what came before go back and get the older stuff (then you had to buy back issues, not you can get cheap compilations or buy them digitially.)

The last several years have seen two things that are not welcoming to new readers - the explosion of mega crossover events, and the decompressed storytelling that has taken over most comics.  When next to nothing happens in a given issue, because the comic writer really wants to be a screen writer, you kind of need to collect the trades to get any real enjoyment.  But that's not all comics....
... and comic companies have, for quite some time, been bending over backwards to create great "jumping on" points - a good tip is a change in creative team on a title.  That usually means things are getting shaken up and a new status quo is about to be set.  Or DC's pseudo-reboot.  Or the fact that Quesada and Bendis, like the kings of Marvel comics, both believe "continuity" is a four-letter word.

...

Sorry, not only do I write comics I am a comic book retailer.  Kind of a passion of mine.

[In Exile]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Now, you can decide that Frank should always be excruciatingly careful about how he says things (I've learned that on this forum myself), but at the same time, Aaryn Flynn was called out on his twitter for the choice of "Do I save the village or let it burn" and responded with something akin to "It didn't come out the way I had meant. I was more meaning do you choose something else at the expense of the village?"

So like in DA:A? 

[AtreiyaN7]

The kerfuffle over this seems a bit silly to me. As a whole, the article basically seems to be about business and marketing, specifically with regards to how EA plans on moving existing franchises to next-gen consoles and their plans are in releasing new IPs, etc.

So what if Gibeau said they're treating DA:I like a new IP? I'm assuming that he means that in terms of marketing on the next-gen consoles, it'll be kind of like a relaunch - especially since BioWare is using a new engine and is taking a new approach to the gameworld (making it more open). And on a graphical level, it will certainly be a lot different from DA:O and DA2. I don't think Gibeau's statement means much with respect to DA:I's gameplay mechanics, etc.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 24 août 2013 - 08:00 .

[Daerog]

BSN runs out of things to talk about sometimes. Once character bios get released for DA:I, probably see fewer topics like this that try to find the smallest thing to discuss.

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sejborg wrote...

That would be the same in my language, because without the other people you were still supposed to use "I". But for sentences were you are using "me" and then adding another person to the list, "me" would still remain the right word.

For instance: "Luke, join me and together we can..."

Throw the emporer in there and it would be

"Luke, join the emperor and me and together we can..."

But you are telling me that it should be: 

"Luke, join the emperor and I and together we can..." ?

Jimmy is correct. That WOULD be "The emporer and I."


For my sentence, I believe the correct grammar would by "my and Sylvius' side"

It might even actually be "mine and Sylvius' idea." 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 24 août 2013 - 08:07 .

[In Exile]

MerinTB wrote...
... and comic companies have, for quite some time, been bending over backwards to create great "jumping on" points - a good tip is a change in creative team on a title.  That usually means things are getting shaken up and a new status quo is about to be set.  Or DC's pseudo-reboot.  Or the fact that Quesada and Bendis, like the kings of Marvel comics, both believe "continuity" is a four-letter word.

And speaking as the potential new audience, that makes it worse, not better. If they wanted new readers, then they can have a proper full reboot with origin story, like the various comic movies do. Otherwise, anything short of that, it won't work.