But "take with a grain of salt" and "completely ignore" are two different things. You seem to take his statement as the latter even though he didn't say that.
It is not something that can be trusted since it must be taken with a grain of salt, so best to ignore it.
We know parts are wrong, but not which parts, so why trust any of it?
With as little disrespect towards the devs that semi-discredited the survey as possible, I think they could have maaaybe stretched the changes that had been made to it a little. We weren't supposed to know this stuff for ages. It was a huge leak and a pretty big blow to their marketing campaign, if it's true. Consider that this survey was NOT to decide what content would be put in the game. It was a marketing survey designed to help the marketing department frame information that, at the time, had already been decided as in-game content. At the time they put out the survey, they weren't trying to decide whether Cole and Dorian would go in the game. They WERE planned for the game and the marketing department was just trying to decide how/when to introduce them to the audience. So, it's not evidence that nothing has changed, but I would also not be entirely surprised at all if those characters stayed characters in the final product.
It is not something that can be trusted since it must be taken with a grain of salt, so best to ignore it.
Ah, I see. Let me ask, is English your first language? (I'm legitimately asking, not being snarky) Because that's not how "take with a grain salt" is typically used. Normally, it's used to say that a particular fact isn't completely reliable, but it might be. If a fact is completely wrong, it would be deceiving to use "take it with a grain of salt", because the phrase is usually used to indicate that it might actually be correct.
In my opinion, when speculating on the board, when people use that statement, particularly devs, their intention is often to say, "just don't get upset with us later if your assumptions turn out to not be true". It doesn't mean, "don't use this evidence at all".
Ah, I see. Let me ask, is English your first language? (I'm legitimately asking, not being snarky) Because that's not how "take with a grain salt" is typically used. Normally, it's used to say that a particular fact isn't completely reliable, but it might be. If a fact is completely wrong, it would be deceiving to use "take it with a grain of salt", because the phrase is usually used to indicate that it might actually be correct.
In my opinion, when speculating on the board, when people use that statement, particularly devs, their intention is often to say, "just don't get upset with us later if your assumptions turn out to not be true". It doesn't mean, "don't use this evidence at all".
My first language is English, yes. I know what most people use it for, but I tend to use it differently.
My first language is English, yes. I know what most people use it for, but I tend to use it differently.
Okay then...... So I hope you can see how you are using the phrase in a way that it might not have been intended. So the assumptions that you are making should, well, be taking with a grain of salt......? 
Okay then...... So I hope you can see how you are using the phrase in a way that it might not have been intended, so the assumptions that are making should, well, be taking with a grain of salt......?
No, I just interpret something differently than you. You see take with a grain of salt as in "This information may be true but could be later proven false" while I take it as "This information may be false but could be later proven true".
Grizzly Bush Warden will be triumphant!
No, I just interpret something differently than you. You see take with a grain of salt as in "This information may be true but could be later proven false" while I take it as "This information may be false but could be later proven true".
Right, so if it "maybe false but could later be proven true", why dismiss the entire thing altogether and tell people that it's not evidence at all? Using your own words, it might "be later proven true", so it's fair game to use it for speculation. Especially when people are saying in their speculation that it is, in fact, just speculation and not fact.
Right, so if it "maybe false but could later be proven true", why dismiss the entire thing altogether and tell people that it's not evidence at all? Using your own words, it might "be later proven true", so it's fair game to use it for speculation. Especially when people are saying in their speculation that it is, in fact, just speculation and not fact.
Because just like you take it as truth, I'm allowed to take it as false.
Because just like you take it as truth, I'm allowed to take it as false.
Okay, I'm starting to get a bit frustrated because I can't tell if I'm just not being clear (even though I'm trying to be explicitly clear and careful in my language) or if you are being intentionally obtuse. I'm going to make one final clarifying remark and then I'm done.
I have been very very clear in saying that it is speculation and not truth. Saying that there is evidence that Cole might be a companion because of the survey isn't the same as saying that Cole is a companion because of the survey. I said it is evidence for him, not that he definitely is a companion. I have never stated that the survey is "truth". I have said that it might be true so we can't dismiss Cole completely.
It is inaccurate to say that there is no evidence for Cole, the fact is that there is evidence that Cole was at one point considered as a companion. Whether he is still in or not is up for debate. because I hope that this is clearer.
Okay, I'm starting to get a bit frustrated because I can't tell if I'm just not being clear (even though I'm trying to be explicitly clear and careful in my language) or if you are being intentionally obtuse. I'm going to make one final clarifying remark and then I'm done.
I have been very very clear in saying that it is speculation and not truth. Saying that there is evidence that Cole might be a companion because of the survey isn't the same as saying that Cole is a companion because of the survey. I said it is evidence for him, not that he definitely is a companion. I have never stated that the survey is "truth". I have said that it might be true so we can't dismiss Cole completely.
It is inaccurate to say that there is no evidence for Cole, the fact is that there is evidence that Cole was at one point considered as a companion. Whether he is still in or not is up for debate. because I hope that this is clearer.
I had a typo. I meant true, not truth. Sorry. 
How do people know the survey said anything about companions? I don't see "companion" anywhere on the screenshots of the survey.
How do people know the survey said anything about companions? I don't see "companion" anywhere on the screenshots of the survey.
There was a description for some of the characters.
The leaked survey isn't evidence since Gaider said to not use it as evidence since not everyone on it will be companions. You yourself admit you have no clue if Cole is the odd man out in it. So with the disregarded survey since it can mean anything, there is no evidence for Cole putting him in the same boat as everyone else.
In fact, of the survey characters Cole is the only one to not have concept art of him.
First off, Gaider's comments about the survey can't be relied upon. When the survey first leaked he said it was fake, then later he said the plot information was outdated. Both of statements were untrue.
Second, you're taking the "throw the baby out with the bathwater" approach, not the "take it with a grain of salt" approach. Cole being in the survey is undeniably more evidence than literally no evidence. Your approach is entirely illogical.
There was a description for some of the characters.
yes, above the descriptions it says "below is a description of a potential character in the next Dragon Age." Why does that mean they are companions? Is there something more?
yes, above the descriptions it says "below is a description of a potential character in the next Dragon Age." Why does that mean they are companions? Is there something more?
I suppose that's something you'd expect from a Dragon Age survey.
It's possible that they wont balance the genders. It's just one theory.
I haven't seen the comment about Asunder. Do you have a link to it?
Edit-- n/m I read the tweets. I'm still not sure that means only one. It means they confirmed one so far, only. They probably means at least one will be a major character, which is definitely true if Cole is a companion. I don't think it totally rules out faction NPCs. Especially someone like Fiona that isn't "from" Asunder any more than Leliana is.
Seeing a character from Asunder is different than saying a character from Asunder will be a companion.
I, personally, don't think we are going to get Cole as a companion if only because we haven't seen any concept art for him. Granted, there hasn't been ANY other art for any other rogue at this point... So, they might end up surprising us... but... I dunno. Cole would be a difficult character to implement considering
Seeing a character from Asunder is different than saying a character from Asunder will be a companion.
I, personally, don't think we are going to get Cole as a companion if only because we haven't seen any concept art for him. Granted, there hasn't been ANY other art for any other rogue at this point... So, they might end up surprising us... but... I dunno. Cole would be a difficult character to implement considering
Spoiler
Not true. We've had a couple concept arts of Varric and one of Sera.
Seeing a character from Asunder is different than saying a character from Asunder will be a companion.
I, personally, don't think we are going to get Cole as a companion if only because we haven't seen any concept art for him. Granted, there hasn't been ANY other art for any other rogue at this point... So, they might end up surprising us... but... I dunno. Cole would be a difficult character to implement considering
Spoiler
No, the announcement doesn't mean it will definitely be a companion. It could be, or it could be an NPC of some sort.
I don't think Cole was ever clearly defined as being bad or having wholly bad intentions. He seemed to mostly not understand what he was doing, himself, and didn't get much clarity until the end of the book. That he murdered Lambert could be good, bad, or neutral, depending on how you feel about Lambert and the Templar/Mage War. We've had companions that have done a lot worse. Zevran, Isabela, Sten, Anders? But that's if he even DID murder Lambert. Even that is unclear, if probable.
Not true. We've had a couple concept arts of Varric and one of Sera.
I meant a rogue other than Cole. Those two are given, I meant the mysterious third rogue we are supposedly getting.
No, the announcement doesn't mean it will definitely be a companion. It could be, or it could be an NPC of some sort.
I don't think Cole was ever clearly defined as being bad or having wholly bad intentions. He seemed to mostly not understand what he was doing, himself, and didn't get much clarity until the end of the book. That he murdered Lambert could be good, bad, or neutral, depending on how you feel about Lambert and the Templar/Mage War. We've had companions that have done a lot worse. Zevran, Isabela, Sten, Anders? But that's if he even DID murder Lambert. Even that is unclear, if probable.
I read everything after the Litany revealed his true identity differently than you did, I guess. =\
I meant a rogue other than Cole. Those two are given, I meant the mysterious third rogue we are supposedly getting.
Oh, okay. Oops.
Oh, okay. Oops.
No worries. =)
The missing 3rd rogue is why I was hanging on to the idea of the 4 warriors with Cullen, Iron Bull, and Feathers. Cole is the only rumor we have and... well... I'd rather have another lady. Since chances are the 3rd mage is gonna be Jazz Hands Mustachio (since he exists in art outside of the War Room).
I wonder if they're not going to do a Follower Friday for Varric and Cassandra, which would mean everyone would get one by September, before the game will likely release. They said Varric and Cassandra wouldn't be next time, but maybe they think we know enough about them not to give them an official introduction, generally.
Retour en haut