100552 réponses à ce sujet

[Lady Luminous]

Costa is like Starbucks, I think. It's a big corporate coffee shop. I have a Costa at my Uni so I can see about buying one there.

 

Okay, I checked out their menu. Next time you're near a Costa, get a caffe caramella.

[LightningPoodle]

Okay, I checked out their menu. Next time you're near a Costa, get a caffe caramella.

 

Caffe Caramella. Thanks, Dazzle. 

[Lady Luminous]

Caffe Caramella. Thanks, Dazzle. 

 

Sure. Hope you enjoy it.

 

Dazzle, converting one heathen to coffee-lover at a time.

[WildOrchid]

Sure. Hope you enjoy it.

Dazzle, converting one heathen to coffee-lover at a time.

You go, girl.



And wifey, thanks for the wishes.

[YourFunnyUncle]

Okay those are nice. Reminds me of something I can't remember...

A shadow ship from B5?

[Rel Fexive]

Relax, everyone.  I'm back.

 

[Rel Fexive]

This is just wrong.

 

http://www.theguardi...abies-three-dna

 

Making babies with 3 peoples DNA. Science nowadays is just pushing into shouldn't be done.

It's breaking every law nature has put on us. A child is supposed to be made with one sperm, one egg. That's how it has been since the dawn of time and it's how it will likely be when time ceases. Messing with that is like splicing us with lizards or something. It's just wrong.

 

Don't get me wrong. The goal is admirable, but there are other ways of doing that without potentially messing up a child.

You know what I mean. To produce a baby, you have one sperm and one egg. Adding another sperm intentionally into the mix is just wrong. I will never understand what scientists are thinking when they come up with this stuff. Do they not see a line that should never be crossed?

 

You need to read the first three paragraphs again, rather than just the title.  This is about replacing the defective mitochondria in a fertilised egg with those from a donor.  Mitochondria are cell organelles that generate the energy to power cells; they have their own DNA but it is entirely their own - it has nothing to do with the nucleus DNA which is used to "build" the organism.  You also can't get mitochondrial DNA from sperm, as they have no mitochondria - that's why they are so short-lived.

 

In short: person still made from sperm DNA + egg DNA; mitochondria donated from a woman with healthy eggs; healthy cells; healthy child; no freakish end result.

 

This has been your science update for today.

[Rel Fexive]

Oh, it's janky.

Problem One is the alternate Fiona, the one that shows up in Val Royeaux.

 

I just thought that either Fiona was lying about making that visit so her new boss, Alexius, wouldn't find out... or that he had made her forget using the blood magic that someone in the Inn suggested could be the cause of her sudden choice to sign up with the Vens.

 

Why overcomplicate things by bringing an unnecessary time travel explanation into it?

[Rel Fexive]

I'll try to let old discussions fade away now

[wintery]

A shadow ship from B5?

 

Also kind of horrifying when you find out what they are, and why they're screaming.

 

 

Aren't french presses fantastic little things?

 

I've got mine for work, and I love it.

 

 

I use one of those. They're easier to clean than, you know, coffee makers and stuff, and the coffee seems less bitter.

[Aimi]

I'll try to let old discussions fade away now

Yeah, there are problems with your explanation too...but like you, I'll drop it.

[wintery]

I just thought that either Fiona was lying about making that visit so her new boss, Alexius, wouldn't find out..

 

That's what I thought was happening there my first playthrough. I thought it was Fiona, and there were just lots of ears in the room so she couldn't speak freely. Then Alexius walked in.

[YourFunnyUncle]

I just thought that either Fiona was lying about making that visit so her new boss, Alexius, wouldn't find out... or that he had made her forget using the blood magic that someone in the Inn suggested could be the cause of her sudden choice to sign up with the Vens.

Why overcomplicate things by bringing an unnecessary time travel explanation into it?

Exactly. I don't see why any "alternative timeline" Fiona is necessary. That idea never even occurred to me, actually. I'm not sure how easy it is for the envy demon to switch forms, but it could even be that it briefly pretended to be her in order to lure you to Redcliffe. We know that it was in the area...

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

I'm far too common.

 

Pfft, I say... Pfft! And I will even add a P'shaw!

 

Lolz, mind you horror is my favourite movie genre and I detest romcoms with every fibre of my being.

 

You so twisted.

 

[raging_monkey]

Excuse you, that's Lexi's show. I would never suggest Hotel Transylvania. I don't go for those Burton cartoons, blech.

im jist teasin haha was cute though lol

[SardaukarElite]

I just thought that either Fiona was lying about making that visit so her new boss, Alexius, wouldn't find out... or that he had made her forget using the blood magic that someone in the Inn suggested could be the cause of her sudden choice to sign up with the Vens.

 

Why overcomplicate things by bringing an unnecessary time travel explanation into it?

 

The problem with that is that the scene itself is unnecessarily complex. Functionally the scene tells protagonist and friends to go and checkout Redcliffe, and introduce Fiona, but rather than do just that there's a whole heap of implied weirdness and characters commenting on how weird it is.

 

A simple explanation should be obvious, and it isn't.

 

 

A shadow ship from B5?

 

 

I haven't actually watched any B5.

[Aimi]

Exactly. I don't see why any "alternative timeline" Fiona is necessary. That idea never even occurred to me, actually. I'm not sure how easy it is for the envy demon to switch forms, but it could even be that it briefly pretended to be her in order to lure you to Redcliffe. We know that it was in the area...

All right then. I guess I will address this stuff.

If Fiona was lying about going to Val Royeaux for Alexius' benefit, she has an opportunity to clear the air at Skyhold and does not take it. She never explains that particular incident. And the the way that the Herald's dialogue options are structured - "hmm, weird, how in the world could that be possible, something strange must be going on?" - does not suggest that Fiona was intended to be read as being untruthful. Fiona's also hard to imagine keeping things close to her chest; when Alexius comes in, she suggests that the timing of arrival was too fortuitous to be a coincidence.

If Fiona was under a blood-magic compulsion, she acts in a way that does not fit either when she is under it or after she has escaped it. While serving Alexius, nearly every single one of his orders elicits a complaint, a mope, or some other indication of dissatisfaction. And after serving Alexius, Fiona never brings up blood magic as an excuse for her actions; she even largely defends them as "necessary".

The envy demon is also not a particularly strong explanation. If the player does "In Hushed Whispers", she only discovers that the envy demon was impersonating Lucius in Val Royeaux through Daniel's lips in "Promise of Destruction". Explaining a fairly crucial main-arc plot point through dialogue in an avoidable mission seems like something BioWare's writers wouldn't do; even if that is what they intended, it's fairly bad practice. I also think that the envy demon's actual ability to impersonate Fiona there is dubious. As Lucius, it would have to be leading the Templar forces to Therinfal at the moment when Fiona was confronting the Inquisitor. You'd think the Templars would notice their leader's abrupt disappearance from the line of march for an indeterminate period of time for 'reasons'.

So: it could be any one of those explanations. But those don't reduce the problems with the plotline, and in most cases, they only increase them, by adding extra layers of implausibility.

You might be perfectly fine with those layers of implausibility. I'm not, and as you might recall the conversation started with me pointing out that I thought that "In Hushed Whispers" had a janky plotline which is why I didn't like it so much. So you telling me that the plot doesn't have issues - apart from whether you're right or not - is basically an extended mansplanation, based on grounds which our conversation shows are at the very least debatable.

[YourFunnyUncle]

I'm not sure where you get "extra" layers from. Different layers, maybe. Remember that they remove the "timeline weirdness" layer from the equation. As to Lucius leaving the Templars, I can quite easily see "you continue marching, I have business to attend and will join you soon" being perfectly good enough an explanation for them when coming from their commander. What reason do they have to doubt his word/orders?

I think your main problem seems to be that there isn't really any explanation given for Fiona's seemingly being in two places at once, and we have to invent our own. That's fair enough, but it didn't stop me from enjoying the rest of the story.

"Mansplanation", though? Why are you using that word? What has this got to do with gender politics? It's certainly not my intention to talk down to you here. I've great respect for your intelligence and contributions to this thread, and that's why I asked what your problems were with the plot. I wanted to know them. I thought we were having an interesting discussion, that's all. You might be used to getting into horrible fights in other threads, but that's not what I do. I'm sorry if you took my words that way. That wasn't my intent.

[YourFunnyUncle]

As I think about it, I'm not sure why they even had to have Fiona turn up in Val Royeaux at all. We knew that we needed the mages' help. We knew that they were in Redcliffe. Why did we need a personal invitation from her in order to go there? Cut that scene and all these problems vanish.

[raging_monkey]

As I think about it, I'm not sure why they even had to have Fiona turn up in Val Royeaux at all. We knew that we needed the mages' help. We knew that they were in Redcliffe. Why did we need an invitation from her in order to go there? Cut that scene and all these problems vanish.

its a looper effect

[Serza]

Hi everybody...

 

Nice weather we have, don't you think...?

[The Loyal Nub]

As I think about it, I'm not sure why they even had to have Fiona turn up in Val Royeaux at all. We knew that we needed the mages' help. We knew that they were in Redcliffe. Why did we need a personal invitation from her in order to go there? Cut that scene and all these problems vanish.

 

I just assumed Alexius used some sort of magic to conjure a Fiona facsimile or change the features of a follower. It was an odd scene that wasn't neatly explained at all. I think you're right that they could have avoided narrative problems by simply cutting the scene as we would be presented with a choice of visiting the mages or the Templars anyway.

[raging_monkey]

Hi everybody...
 
Nice weather we have, don't you think...?

sunshine and rainbows like always

[The Loyal Nub]

I'd go to Starbucks, but I entered a geas of some sort when I bought my coffee press, so now I can't.

 

Coffee press. That's the way to go! I use k-cups when pressed for time or it's just me in the house. But when I can that press is used and it makes the best cup of coffee...*I need coffee*

[The Loyal Nub]

Hi everybody...

 

Nice weather we have, don't you think...?

 

I couldn't say as it's currently 20 degrees or -6 celsius for non-North American posters. It's going to be a layers day and run from car to shop kinda day.