2014 réponses à ce sujet

[Hellion Rex]

The prospect of a lovecraftian horror in a separate dimension contained only by the eluvians sounds both plausible and creepy.

You know, I certainly wouldn't mind something like that.

[Hellion Rex]

That's certainly an idea.  I really wonder why the elves of Arlathan didn't put one of their own armies in there, draw in a human army, and crush it.  It would take a heroic effort on the part of any human to stand up to an elf in the eluvian construct.  The elves appear to be constantly refreshed by being there, while the humans suffer what I can only think of as exhaustion and sensory overload.  Heck, even just using it as a staging area to rest and recuperate in.  I really wonder what Tevinter must have had to do to negate the overwhelming advantage the eluvians gave the elves.  It was bad enough when I thought they were just teleporters.  Knowing what they actually are makes the conflict seem ever more one sided.

Maybe blood magic has the capacity to mess with eluvians, hence their lack of use against Tevinter. Or maybe there is another drawback to the mirrors that we have yet to see.

[The Baconer]

That's certainly an idea.  I really wonder why the elves of Arlathan didn't put one of their own armies in there, draw in a human army, and crush it.  It would take a heroic effort on the part of any human to stand up to an elf in the eluvian construct.  The elves appear to be constantly refreshed by being there, while the humans suffer what I can only think of as exhaustion and sensory overload.  Heck, even just using it as a staging area to rest and recuperate in.  I really wonder what Tevinter must have had to do to negate the overwhelming advantage the eluvians gave the elves.  It was bad enough when I thought they were just teleporters.  Knowing what they actually are makes the conflict seem ever more one sided.

 

Perhaps the Forgotten Ones taking on the guise of the Old Gods (or maybe the Old Gods themselves in whatever form) gave them some kind of leg-up as part of a bargain?

[LobselVith8]

Fine, Xil. You got a Mana Clash coming your way then.

 

You'll have to send one my way, then, because I agree with Xil about this. I'm all for supporting the elves in my first run, even if it means taking down Orlesian antagonists who would prefer to maintain the status quo that has been imposed on the elves for centuries. I suppose that means forsaking Vir Atish'an, but that's a sacrifice I would be willing to make.

[TK514]

I don't even see the point of providing an elven Inquisitor if the player is going to be restricted to opposing the elves and siding with either Celene or Gaspard. It would be no different than providing the option to play as a mage, and then limiting the player into helping restore the status quo of the Chantry controlled Circles. That route holds no interest for me. It would also be another example of marginalizing the elven perspective to focus exclusively on the human point of view, which I could care less for at this point.

 

Honestly, I wouldn't even bother with Inquisition if it ended up being how you described.

 

I didn't say you would have to oppose her goal, only her methods.  One option for uniting Orlais could very well be convincing Briala to abandon her interference in exchange for forcing Celene and/or Gaspard to come to the table and agree to concessions for her elves.  It would likely be a compromise, which seems fitting for the save-state sensitive nature of the franchise.

[Mistic]

You know, I certainly wouldn't mind something like that.

 

RPGs, both Western and Japanese, have taught us that if there's a lovecraftian horror trapped somewhere, there will be someone trying to free it.

 

I don't even see the point of providing an elven Inquisitor if the player is going to be restricted to opposing the elves and siding with either Celene or Gaspard. It would be no different than providing the option to play as a mage, and then limiting the player into helping restore the status quo of the Chantry controlled Circles. That route holds no interest for me. It would also be another example of marginalizing the elven perspective to focus exclusively on the human point of view, which I could care less for at this point.

 

Honestly, I wouldn't even bother with Inquisition if it ended up being how you described.

 

Aren't you a bit too hard on the elven stance? I mean, you realize that there were elven quests and plotlines in the two past games, but they weren't crucial for the main plot, don't you? I'm sure you will have your share of elven missions, characters and decisions, but they will still be superseded by the main objective: to close the Veil Tears.

 

I want to play a Dalish Inquisitor, but I'm not going to cry if there's no Elf Free State at the end of Inquisition. So far, I'd be content if I can stop another Dalish Clan from being slaughtered (it seems to be a trend: DA:O, DA2, The Masked Empire...).

[Master Warder Z_]

I'm not certain why you think that, since it wouldn't be the first time that an Antivan said something in Spanish. Zevran had a Spanish accent, and Antivans have used Spanish words in the past, from Zevran saying "Si amor?" in dialogue with the romanced Warden to Vincento saying "maldición".

 

They have also used Portuguese words, Latin Words and Tevinter i am half convinced has German Accents.

 

My point is this, A Handful of words and your take on an accent doesn't make Antiva Spain.

[LobselVith8]

I didn't say you would have to oppose her goal, only her methods.  One option for uniting Orlais could very well be convincing Briala to abandon her interference in exchange for forcing Celene and/or Gaspard to come to the table and agree to concessions for her elves.  It would likely be a compromise, which seems fitting for the save-state sensitive nature of the franchise.

 

I'm not sure why the story needs to be curtailed because of the save state. The player can explore different regions in future Dragon Age games and allow change to take place in the regions we currently explore in Inquisition. Otherwise, I get the feeling that it would be the same kind of choice given in Legacy or Mark of the Assassin, where the decision basically leads to an outcome that's only marginally different.

[Dean_the_Young]

RPGs, both Western and Japanese, have taught us that if there's a lovecraftian horror trapped somewhere, there will be someone trying to free it.

 

 

Aren't you a bit too hard on the elven stance? I mean, you realize that there were elven quests and plotlines in the two past games, but they weren't crucial for the main plot, don't you? I'm sure you will have your share of elven missions, characters and decisions, but they will still be superseded by the main objective: to close the Veil Tears.

 

I want to play a Dalish Inquisitor, but I'm not going to cry if there's no Elf Free State at the end of Inquisition. So far, I'd be content if I can stop another Dalish Clan from being slaughtered (it seems to be a trend: DA:O, DA2, The Masked Empire...).

 

Plus there's the false common identity presumption. You aren't 'an elf', nor would having to work against Briala be 'against the elves': the player can be a Dalish elf, and Briala identifies with the city elves. If the Masked Empire did anything else in regards to elven politics, it was distinguish the groups against pan-elven identity politics.

[Mistic]

I'm not sure why the story needs to be curtailed because of the save state. The player can explore different regions in future Dragon Age games and allow change to take place in the regions we currently explore in Inquisition. Otherwise, I get the feeling that it would be the same kind of choice given in Legacy or Mark of the Assassin, where the decision basically leads to an outcome that's only marginally different.

 

You could mention DA2 as a whole. Or ME2. Didn't really matter if you sided with Mages or Templars, or if you saved the Collector base or not. The end result was almost the same.

[wcholcombe]

Xil may be addressing the bad blood between Celene and Briala specifically, given the murder of her parents and her own feelings on the massacre of her people in Halamshiral, which may make things problematic between them (to say the least), as well as Briala bringing up that Celene wouldn't risk her throne to aid the elves, which is why she sided with the elves instead of with either Gaspard or Celene.

 

Or she may simply feel that the long game isn't worth the wait if there's a chance to improve things for the elves now. After TME, I'm certainly more interested in a New Vegas style option to aid Briala, rather than the retread of choosing between Celene or Gaspard, neither of whom I'm too crazy about.

Briala is as orlesian as celene and said she understood it. Also, she also admits that if she would have been with Celene she would have advised her to do the same thing in Halamshiral.  Just point out.

[Mistic]

Plus there's the false common identity presumption. You aren't 'an elf', nor would having to work against Briala be 'against the elves': the player can be a Dalish elf, and Briala identifies with the city elves. If the Masked Empire did anything else in regards to elven politics, it was distinguish the groups against pan-elven identity politics.

 

Oh, yes, that too. Dalish doesn't mean pan-elven, after all. Not to talk about the 'madness' card: character X finds a magical MacGuffin and starts losing his or her mind and becoming a mad villain who needs to be put down. How many times have we seen it now?

[LobselVith8]

Aren't you a bit too hard on the elven stance? I mean, you realize that there were elven quests and plotlines in the two past games, but they weren't crucial for the main plot, don't you? I'm sure you will have your share of elven missions, characters and decisions, but they will still be superseded by the main objective: to close the Veil Tears.

 

I'm hoping for an elven perspective in Inquisition, as well as an elven storyline. I don't see anything wrong with that. I'm also interested in the possibility of visiting Kal-Sharok as well, but I don't really care for the Orlesian conflict. If the bulk of Inquisition is basically helping either Celene or Gaspard without something to balance things out (like helping the elves), then that's not something that appeals to me. I'm sure your mileage will vary as to what appeals to you.

 

I want to play a Dalish Inquisitor, but I'm not going to cry if there's no Elf Free State at the end of Inquisition. So far, I'd be content if I can stop another Dalish Clan from being slaughtered (it seems to be a trend: DA:O, DA2, The Masked Empire...).

 

I doubt anyone here will cry if the storyline isn't to their liking, but that doesn't change that we all have our own preferences.

 

You could mention DA2 as a whole. Or ME2. Didn't really matter if you sided with Mages or Templars, or if you saved the Collector base or not. The end result was almost the same.

 

If choices are going to be insignificant, then I would know that Inquisition wasn't for me.

[Mistic]

I'm hoping for an elven perspective in Inquisition, as well as an elven storyline. I don't see anything wrong with that. I'm also interested in the possibility of visiting Kal-Sharok as well, but I don't really care for the Orlesian conflict. If the bulk of Inquisition is basically helping either Celene or Gaspard without something to balance things out (like helping the elves), then that's not something that appeals to me. I'm sure your mileage will vary as to what appeals to you.

 

I suppose each of us have our own tastes, that's for sure. Still, I don't understand why you are expecting the worst from Inquisition. So far, there's no clue about it being very different from the previous two games regarding portrayal of the elves. Did you like the protrayal in them? If not, I'll shut up immediately, but if you liked the portrayal of elves in DA:O and DA2 it should be fine, as long as you don't expect Inquisition to do things the other games didn't.

[TK514]

I'm not sure why the story needs to be curtailed because of the save state. The player can explore different regions in future Dragon Age games and allow change to take place in the regions we currently explore in Inquisition. Otherwise, I get the feeling that it would be the same kind of choice given in Legacy or Mark of the Assassin, where the decision basically leads to an outcome that's only marginally different.

 

We went to an entirely different region in DA2.  Speak to King Alistair about almost any choice, and his reply boils down to "Yeah, that didn't work out like we hoped but I'm totally going to make that up to them".  Heck, we'd barely finished DA:O before the ending slides were killing our choices left and right.  "Yeah, the elves got a Bann, then things went to hell".  "Yeah, the Dalish got some land, and tensions were back to an all time high before you could say 'Howdy neighbor".  "Yeah, the werewolves were recognized for their aid, then they started eating people".  And so on and so forth.

 

Gaider has come out and said explicitly that choices are meant to matter in the game they're made, not held as gospel or to handcuff the writers for installments down the line.

 

You're getting elves, you're more than likely getting elven plots and elven made up words and new lore about magic mirrors with elf-augmenting music and light and air inside them and who knows what else.  And in spite of all that, you'll probably end up having to compromise and recognize that things aren't going to work out perfectly or how you expected.  Just like fans of every other faction in the game.

[Master Warder Z_]

Ares...right now. Now we have to worry about a creature entirely immune to magic...except lightning magic. Lord knows why, but lightning magic will still hurt them.

 

Do we have Chiss in Dragon Age?!

 

o_o we need the Ascendency!

[LobselVith8]

I suppose each of us have our own tastes, that's for sure. Still, I don't understand why you are expecting the worst from Inquisition. So far, there's no clue about it being very different from the previous two games regarding portrayal of the elves. Did you like the protrayal in them? If not, I'll shut up immediately, but if you liked the portrayal of elves in DA:O and DA2 it should be fine, as long as you don't expect Inquisition to do things the other games didn't.

 

I'm not expecting the worst; I wouldn't be here if I was. As I said, I'm hoping for an elven perspective and an elven storyline. There were a myriad of elven cultures, of course, but I'd like to see some insight into their perspectives, which I felt was mostly absent in Dragon Age II. There are also the Dalish, with the worst portrayals always being in the forefront (as with the Sabrae Clan) in terms of who we usually meet among the clan, and a lack of variety with the characters like we get with the human and the dwarven characters we meet; Clan Virnehn in TME were pretty much borderline caricatures. Given how the developers have said we would get some insight into the factions, instead of seeing them at their worst, I hope the same applies for the Dalish.

[Xilizhra]

Fine, Xil. You got a Mana Clash coming your way then.

Why?

[LobselVith8]

We went to an entirely different region in DA2.  Speak to King Alistair about almost any choice, and his reply boils down to "Yeah, that didn't work out like we hoped but I'm totally going to make that up to them".  Heck, we'd barely finished DA:O before the ending slides were killing our choices left and right.  "Yeah, the elves got a Bann, then things went to hell".  "Yeah, the Dalish got some land, and tensions were back to an all time high before you could say 'Howdy neighbor".  "Yeah, the werewolves were recognized for their aid, then they started eating people".  And so on and so forth.

 

I'm the last person in earth who would defend how Dragon Age II handled choice. I'm not saying it was handled well in that game, I'm merely stating it can be handled well by venturing to different regions and avoiding the complications of trashing previous choices by revisiting the same places, which was one of the main complaints about Dragon Age II that the developers said they heard (in regards to the lack of significant choice). I'm hoping for better, but I'm not pretending that it's necessarily going to be the case.

 

Gaider has come out and said explicitly that choices are meant to matter in the game they're made, not held as gospel or to handcuff the writers for installments down the line.

 

Doesn't that make the import system redundant?

 

You're getting elves, you're more than likely getting elven plots and elven made up words and new lore about magic mirrors with elf-augmenting music and light and air inside them and who knows what else.  And in spite of all that, you'll probably end up having to compromise and recognize that things aren't going to work out perfectly or how you expected.  Just like fans of every other faction in the game.

 

I don't see why compromise would be the only method to dealing with the factions, or why you think I would see an option where my character refused to compromise as perfect. There were choices in how to deal with Bhelen and Harrowmont, and Caridin and Branka. For all of the flaws with Dragon Age II, there were opportunities to side with the mages or the templars, instead of being limited to compromising between the two. With Briala claiming the Eluvians for the elves, I would like there to be an option to side with her, but overall I'm simply hoping that elven plots aren't marginalized or sidelined for the human stories.

[Aimi]

Do I need to go into a diatribe about why a loose confederation of frequently warring states with no central figure with any authority isn't an empire?  Or why the said nation that had a fondness with clashing with the Papacy over the Right of Investiture and subsequently made Anti-Popes isn't Holy?  How about why the German and north Italian states that make it up having no real claim to being a continuation of the Roman Empire when the Eastern Roman Empire still exists?

Well, first of all: the Holy Roman Empire was an empire because that's what it called itself, and because that's what everybody else called it, and because it was a state that was ruled by a man whose title was Emperor. That's all you need. It's like whining about the name of the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea".

There isn't really another definition of "empire" that fits everything. Plenty of empires have referred to states with metropoles that conquer discontinuous territories as some form of colony. But to restrict the definition of empire to that would leave out some countries that most people would agree were empires, like the Roman Empire and the Russian Empire and the Maurya Empire and the Ottoman Empire and so on. One could make an argument that empires are monarchical states, but that would leave out some of the colonial empires, like France under the Second, Third, and Fourth Republics, or the American empire in the western Pacific and the Gulf of Mexico during the early part of the twentieth century. Neither of those empires had a monarchical ruler. Empire is even commonly used to refer to territory over which a country does not exercise formal de iure sovereignty, the so-called "informal empires".

There simply is no prescriptive definition of empire that restricts it to monarchical autocracies with high levels of centralization. That's the definition you seem to be working from, but it's not one that most academics or teachers or people with more than a passing interest in history would agree with. If your definition does not fit the way people actually use the word, then it is not a very good definition.

You argue that the Holy Roman Empire can't be considered an empire because it had civil wars. That's kind of silly, because it disqualifies almost any state that has ever existed. According to your logic, Russia never had an empire because of the Time of Troubles, the repeated peasant/Cossack rebellions, and the Decembrist Revolution. The Qing Emperor wasn't an emperor because of the Taiping Rebellion and the Rebellion of the Three Feudatories. Britain never had an empire because of the Civil Wars, the "Fifteen" and "Forty-Five", and the Great Mutiny. And so on and so forth. It's a patently silly way to think about things. There was no law in the Empire that stated that rebellion was okay. Rebels would be placed under the Imperial Ban. You would have to go to Poland-Lithuania to find that sort of legal theory.

The real sticking-point, as I see it, is that the Holy Roman Empire relied on a form of sovereignty that a lot of modern observers, brought up in the "Realist" world order, don't understand. The German word Landeshoheit was the equivalent of "sovereignty" under the HRE, but it had a different sense that's frankly difficult to describe to somebody who doesn't speak German. Rights and authorities had territorial overlap within the (con)federal system of the Empire. An analogy: the American federal government of the modern day. The federal government has a form of constitutional supremacy over state and local governments, but that supremacy is legally circumscribed in various ways, legal and otherwise. In practice, there is a give-and-take of rights between federal, local, state, and citizens' organizations.

So much for "Empire". But what about "Holy" and "Roman"?

Well, "holy" is pretty easy. Most of the Emperors derived ideological support from the notion that their actions were approved of and sanctified by the Christian God. Often, this took the form of acquiring political support from the hierarchy of the Church, and eventually from the Catholic Church in Rome. This was not a unique endeavor; other Western European monarchs attempted to claim some form of Christian ideological backing. Hence the title of Most Christian King, claimed by Frankish and French monarchs from the Merovingians onward. Or Ferran of Aragon and Isabel of Castile-Leon, who gained the titles "Christian King" and "Christian Queen" (respectively) by negotiation with the papacy in the 1490s, and who have ever since been known as the reyes Católicos, or Catholic Monarchs.

So it was an ideological claim, and a relevant one. The history of the Emperors was always tied very closely to the history of the Catholic Church. Why not refer to them as "holy"?

As for Roman, well, the Empire made that ideological claim to the legacy of Rome as well. This is hardly outrageous or unique. Plenty of other empires made the same claim. There was a Roman Empire in the East, often referred to as the "Byzantine" Empire, which had a form of political continuity with the Romans we all know and love. When the Byzantine Empire was destroyed in the fifteenth century, the Ottoman Empire that was built on its husk laid claim to a title of "Roman" as well. The Sultans made Kayser-i Rum one of their many titles. And then there was the "Third Rome", a title claimed by the princes/tsars/imperators of Moscow/Muscovy/Russia, due to religious and ideological ties to and descent from the Byzantine Empire.

All of these claims were legitimate enough in one form or another. After all, what does "Roman" even mean in the first place? The Roman Empire of 400 AD was not the same thing as the Roman Republic of 100 BC or the Kingdom of Rome of 700ish BC. It had changed politically, culturally, linguistically, and in its social structure. Yet we all generally agree that these were all "Roman" things. Why? What linked them? Well, mostly the fact that they all made an explicit claim to Romanness. Same with the Holy Roman Empire. It called itself Roman, so it was Roman. What else do you need?

An analogy: the modern Republic of Macedonia. It makes an explicit historical and ideological claim to the legacy of the Argead kingdom of Makedonia from the classical period. This is despite the fact that Argead Makedonians did not speak the same language as modern Macedonians. They did not possess a similar culture. They did not even live in the same place - the heartland and capital of ancient Macedonia is located in modern Greece. The only similarity that the modern Republic of Macedonia has with the Makedonia of Philip and Alexander is the name. And that's all it really needs. What else would we call modern Macedonia? I think it would be ridiculously presumptuous to go up to a modern Macedonian in Skopje and tell her that she's not actually a Macedonian. Says who?

Countries' names rarely mean exactly what they supposedly say. The United States of America is not territorially coterminous with the supercontinent of America. The European Union does not cover all of the geographical expression "Europe", and contains territories outside of "Europe". The Republic of Ireland does not contain the entirety of the island of Ireland. The Republic of Sudan does not cover the entirety of the region of sub-Saharan Africa referred to as "the Sudan". Papua New Guinea controls only about half of the actual island of New Guinea, and a great deal of territory that is not on New Guinea (e.g. the Solomon Islands and Bismarck Archipelago). The North Atlantic Treaty Organization includes countries that do not touch any part of the northern Atlantic Ocean.

When you try to apply specific, restrictive standards to the ways in which political entities are named, you will quickly stumble onto some pretty ridiculous things. To argue that those names are therefore illegitimate would be preposterous. They're legitimate precisely because people use them in that way. Any other definition would be silly.

Still, creators don't work in a vacuum. Yes, Thedas is not Europe. Thedas is a fictional medieval fantasy world created by people who know of European history, so any knowledge of history could be insightful. But I don't expect Bioware to know every situation from the past, so I think the common places are a good starting point

Sure, it could be. Maybe. It might be 'insightful'. But I personally think that comparing Earth history to Thedosian history is more of a parlor game than anything else. It's not really predictive (hell, Earth history isn't even predictive on Earth) and it doesn't account for some really important aspects of the setting.

So, take the current Orlesian Civil War. What does a knowledge of European history tell us about it that we don't already know from the setting itself?

[Steelcan]

I said I wouldn't go on a diatribe about why it isn't Holy, Roman, or an Empire and I'm sticking to that

 

We can take this to PMs but I have better ideas on how to spend my time than arguing the semantics of empire and holy

[TK514]

I'm the last person in earth who would defend how Dragon Age II handled choice. I'm not saying it was handled well in that game, I'm merely stating it can be handled well by venturing to different regions and avoiding the complications of trashing previous choices by revisiting the same places, which was one of the main complaints about Dragon Age II that the developers said they heard (in regards to the lack of significant choice). I'm hoping for better, but I'm not pretending that it's necessarily going to be the case.

 

 

Doesn't that make the import system redundant?

 

 

I don't see why compromise would be the only method to dealing with the factions, or why you think I would see an option where my character refused to compromise as perfect. There were choices in how to deal with Bhelen and Harrowmont, and Caridin and Branka. For all of the flaws with Dragon Age II, there were opportunities to side with the mages or the templars, instead of being limited to compromising between the two. With Briala claiming the Eluvians for the elves, I would like there to be an option to side with her, but overall I'm simply hoping that elven plots aren't marginalized or sidelined for the human stories.

 

And I agree, I hope the elves get as much freedom of choice and story as anyone else.  And I expect that at the end of the day, you'll have the situation of 'all roads lead to the same general world state' again.  I just think if you expect to be able to keep Orlais in a state of constant war until they agree to destroy their society and economy by legislating equal rights and/or letting a huge chunk of their servant class just flitter off to elf-land, you're going to be disappointed.  The writers are not going to let you destroy, or even significantly weaken, Orlais any more than they are going to let you destroy the Mages, the Templars, the Chantry, or any other major power of Thedas.  Because each of those is an entire game plot by themselves, and we know this one is about stopping whoever is behind the Veil Tears.

[Mistic]

Sure, it could be. Maybe. It might be 'insightful'. But I personally think that comparing Earth history to Thedosian history is more of a parlor game than anything else. It's not really predictive (hell, Earth history isn't even predictive on Earth) and it doesn't account for some really important aspects of the setting.

So, take the current Orlesian Civil War. What does a knowledge of European history tell us about it that we don't already know from the setting itself?

 

I should be the one asking the question. You're the history expert here

 

My initial point was about the HRE and its "interesting" relations to the Pope being a historical foreshadowing of the Orlesian Empire and the Chantry not being as buddies as many thought before The Masked Empire. I really don't know about a similar situation to the Orlesian Civil War. I know history of my country, but they tended to be between brothers or sisters fighting for the throne, not between a queen and a noble.

 

By the way, those civil wars normally ended with one of the candidates being assassinated or completely defeated. One of the most famous instances involved a French commander, Bertrand du Guesclin. He fought for Enrique of Trastamara (the usurper), but when Pedro the Cruel (the previous king) was defeated, du Guesclin was bribed by Pedro to allow his escape. He accepted the money, but then sold the information to Enrique. The two brothers met, threw insults at each other and started dueling. When Pedro got the upper hand, du Guesclin grabbed him and allowed Enrique to stab him. He justified getting himself involved in the duel by saying: "I neither put nor remove a king, but I help my master".

 

That could be an idea, couldn't it? Gaspard wouldn't like it. Celene, on the other hand...

[MisterJB]

"The Inquisition arrives at the Exalted Plains during a ceasefire between two armies at war. The bodies of fallen soldiers mysteriously rose from the dead and have driven the armies back to their respective castles in retreat."

 

Seriously, that's the basic plot of the Act 2 of the Witcher 2.

[Hellion Rex]

"The Inquisition arrives at the Exalted Plains during a ceasefire between two armies at war. The bodies of fallen soldiers mysteriously rose from the dead and have driven the armies back to their respective castles in retreat."

 

Seriously, that's the basic plot of the Act 2 of the Witcher 2.

And...is that a bad thing?