125 réponses à ce sujet

[Bryy_Miller]

Moogliepie wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Maviarab wrote...

Hmmm, so if I gave you something with the words (whatever written on it) you would take it as said that it was whatever I wrote on it?
Interesting...

We know its an expansion (srsy, you think were that stupid?) but considering there is virtually no ref to what happened in origins, to use the term 'expansion' is a little hard to accept. also on that point, you ever seen a game labelled as a 'spin-off/extra, add on?
No, didnt think so, thus why they called it an expansion. To some of us, while there is no other word to describe it, its hardly an expansion, its more like a very long and deep DLC, not an expansion.

But.... it is an expansion.... you just don't get to make up the definition of things. You're the fanbase. Not the creators.

So labelling butter "fat-free" automatically makes it so?

Do you know what a strawman is?

[Trefalen]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe that at the end of Origins in the epilogue it states that the companions went their separate ways. For example , Shale went either to Tevinter or back to the Deep Roads. Sten went home. Zev and Wynne went traveling. Morrigan is off somewhere in Frostback mountains etc. So why would they be with your warden in Awakenings?
As far as items transferring, I had no problem with either Stone Prisioner or RTO items. The only item I care even remotely about from WK was Starfang.
As far as continuity, do not really care. I play for entertainment value and it makes for a fun diversion.
But, YMMV

Come on.. You know you were dumped by Lelianna for that fling with Zevran.. It still hurts huh..



Kidding aside, the end game scenario depends on how you played it. In one of mine Zevran and Lelianna came with me. The cut out returns from our original team, to save money.

Modifié par Trefalen, 19 mars 2010 - 10:12 .

[kerham]

So.. Shale crystals are dlc content or not?.. And do I get to make earrings out of them or why the flop my ava CAN have those but CAN'T have Final Reason staff or whatnot from dlc?

Modifié par kerham, 19 mars 2010 - 10:37 .

[Tribalinius]

I'm just going to wait and watch BioWare say something about that effing mess. I know there is some 3rd party patches for that but honestly it's BioWare's job to make it work not modders. And, by the way, what's the point in buying more dlc if they won't be transferred on the next rushed-up expansion? And why WK and not RtO? As far as I can tell, they're potentially doable at the same time and could be pictured in the same timeframe to begin with. I want an answer from BioWare not a stupid 2 liners on a FAQ page, that's just bs lol...

[Nolenthar]

Maviarab wrote...

Could just use this....
http://www.dragonage...ile.php?id= 874

This one is full of bug, try this one http://www.dragonage...file.php?id=883

[jennamarae]

JaegerBane wrote...

So by taking your post at face value means I'm arrogant.

Nope.
Had you taken it at face value you would have correctly read the word
'we' to mean people from a different thread instead of assuming that
you were included in it. Had I meant you or the other poster I would
have said 'you and I' or spoken of you by name, not 'we' and then referenced a different thread.

Bascule42 wrote...

Say this aloud. "We are mad" or "We are excellent". See.... Reading "we" will always feel inclusive. Unless you place yourself in a position of opposition, or in a state of hostitlity towards the poster - and who on the internet ever does that?

So if I said 'we like dogs better than cats', and you didn't, would you assume that you were included in the word 'we'? Or would you correctly interpret that as a reference to people who do indeed like dogs better than cats?

Perhaps my mind works differently, but when I see the word 'we' I don't automatically assume that I am being included in whatever it is that 'we' are doing or thinking. I automatically look at the context and based on what follows can determine who 'we' includes based on what it is that they are doing/thinking and if it is not the same as what I am doing/thinking, I know that 'we' means everyone who is doing/thinking whatever it is.

I suspect I'm one of the few who do so, since this board is notorious for people jumping to conclusions and preferring to attack rather than discuss anything in a reasonable manner. And before anyone responds to this, no I'm not referring to Bascule (your post is actually one of the most reasonable and least argumentative that I've seen today  ) or anyone else specifically with the previous statement.

[Realmzmaster]

Some of the gamers on the forum seem to be hung up on the use of the word expansion. Awakenings is an expansion. Many seem to be complaining because Bioware did not allow the changes of their dead warden to have any affect on the game whole calling it a spin-off or whatever. But it is not the first time that Bioware has done it. If you look at Neverwinter Nights and it's expansions. Shadows of Undrentide had very little to do with Neverwinter Nights OC. Hordes of the Underdark was only loosely related to Neverwinter Nights except you are called the hero of Neverwinter. You get to import your character from Neverwinter OC. All your stuff is stolen and the whole expansion takes place in Waterdeep. In fact Hordes of the Underdark was more of a continuance of Shadows of Undrentide.

Kingmaker had three separate modules made into an expansion.

As i far as I know Bioware calls it an expansion pack. Which brings one to the point who defines what is an expansion? Where is the definitive definition?

[LoneFullmetal]

jennamarae wrote...

Trefalen wrote...

For those trying to import deceased characters from DA:O to DA:A EA.com says this:

That's not the issue. The issue is that people want the decisions from their dead warden to color the world in Awakening but stay dead. So that import would start an Orlesian warden game, but with the choices of the dead warden deciding who's on the throne and all that good stuff. Importing your dead warden now brings them back to life. That's not what people want.

EXACTLY!

I don't understand Bioware, why don't they do it that way? It's not an impossible task, and everyone like you or me has already come up with the idea, so it's not so hard to grasp.

It doesn't seem they have an excuse, other then laziness. <_<

The best thing they could do is keep all their current options, even the "fu-ck logic" option, and add the option others want as well.

[JaegerBane]

jennamarae wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

So by taking your post at face value means I'm arrogant.

Nope.
Had you taken it at face value you would have correctly read the word
'we' to mean people from a different thread instead of assuming that
you were included in it. Had I meant you or the other poster I would
have said 'you and I' or spoken of you by name, not 'we' and then referenced a different thread.

You *did* mean the other poster. That's the entire point of your argument, no?

If you didn't mean 'just him and you' then again, you weren't making yourself clear as to who you're addressing.

And if we're bringing in context into the equation, remember this is the forum stacked full of people who take it upon themselves to lecture others about what constitutes an RPG. Someone saying 'we decided this in an another thread' can easily come across as one of those loonies who feel that their decisions are canon.

Modifié par JaegerBane, 20 mars 2010 - 09:42 .

[mousestalker]

mrfoo1 wrote...

LoneFullmetal wrote...

jennamarae wrote...

Trefalen wrote...

For those trying to import deceased characters from DA:O to DA:A EA.com says this:

That's not the issue. The issue is that people want the decisions from their dead warden to color the world in Awakening but stay dead. So that import would start an Orlesian warden game, but with the choices of the dead warden deciding who's on the throne and all that good stuff. Importing your dead warden now brings them back to life. That's not what people want.

EXACTLY!

I don't understand Bioware, why don't they do it that way? It's not an impossible task, and everyone like you or me has already come up with the idea, so it's not so hard to grasp.

It doesn't seem they have an excuse, other then laziness. <_<

The best thing they could do is keep all their current options, even the "fu-ck logic" option, and add the option others want as well.

So you want the option for a dead cahracter from DA:O's stpryline to impact a storyline they have zero involvement in?

You want some famed Hero that is dead to impact the decisions of the NEW Warden Commander?

Yes. As has been said before, it shouldn't be too terribly hard. The only real decision that would be effected would be who is the ruler and if the ruler is married. Given that all the possible scenarios are played out for living wardens, why can't the correct one be imported for the dead warden?

I think they ran out of time and money and decided to cut the thing short.

[jennamarae]

JaegerBane wrote...

You *did* mean the other poster. That's the entire point of your argument, no?

Depends on who you're talking about. In my last post I was talking about the other poster in this thread who took it upon themselves to assume I was including them in the word 'we' when I wasn't. When I said 'we' originally I was talking about a few people from a different thread, not people who go on the defensive as soon as they see the word 'we'. That is my argument.

If you didn't mean 'just him and you' then again, you weren't making yourself clear as to who you're addressing.

Ah, so I should keep a running list of people I discuss things with so that if I make an offhand comment about something that was discussed I can name them all off?

And if we're bringing in context into the equation, remember this is the forum stacked full of people who take it upon themselves to lecture others about what constitutes an RPG. Someone saying 'we decided this in an another thread' can easily come across as one of those loonies who feel that their decisions are canon.

So... It's somehow my fault that people here jump to conclusions and get defensive over nothing?

[Jagrevi]

Maviarab wrote...

Could just use this....
http://www.dragonage...ile.php?id= 874

Mods only work for people who play the thing on their computers, which many don't.

Modifié par Jagrevi, 20 mars 2010 - 03:01 .

[jennamarae]

mrfoo1 wrote...

So you want the option for a dead cahracter from DA:O's stpryline to impact a storyline they have zero involvement in?

You want some famed Hero that is dead to impact the decisions of the NEW Warden Commander?

Cailan's death didn't reset the DA world to act as though he didn't decide to send wardens to the tower, to be on the front lines, or to not wait till reinforcements arrived. The world was still changed by his actions and decisions. It doesn't force our characters to do anything, well other than pick a new king/queen, but it still affected the DA world even though he has zero involvement in the story line after his death.

Importing the decisions of the dead warden wouldn't affect the decisions of the Orlesian warden, it would just impact the world.

[JaegerBane]

jennamarae wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

You *did* mean the other poster. That's the entire point of your argument, no?

Depends on who you're talking about. In my last post I was talking about the other poster in this thread who took it upon themselves to assume I was including them in the word 'we' when I wasn't. When I said 'we' originally I was talking about a few people from a different thread, not people who go on the defensive as soon as they see the word 'we'. That is my argument.

The point is that you appear to be claiming that it had been decided. I misunderstood what you were saying because of the vague reference you made. Saying 'we' is vague. You made no mention of who agreed it in the other thread. You made no mention of whether it was just you and him, a larger crowd, or everyone. You could have made yourself far clearer. You're talking on a public forum rather than PM. Ultimately, there was no real indication that you were purely referring to you and the other guy and not anything else, and I wasn't the only one on here who misunderstood you.

I didn't take exception to the misunderstanding. I took exception to the fact that you got antsy about people not understanding what you'd written thanks to your own vague post, which you yourself admitted relies on being interpreted in context. You could have simply explained what you actually meant in a civil fashion.

If you didn't mean 'just him and you' then again, you weren't making yourself clear as to who you're addressing.

Ah, so I should keep a running list of people I discuss things with so that if I make an offhand comment about something that was discussed I can name them all off?

If you're going to jump on people for not understanding your offhand comment, it might be an idea.

And if we're bringing in context into the equation, remember this is the forum stacked full of people who take it upon themselves to lecture others about what constitutes an RPG. Someone saying 'we decided this in an another thread' can easily come across as one of those loonies who feel that their decisions are canon.

So... It's somehow my fault that people here jump to conclusions and get defensive over nothing?

Not at all. But you can't simultaneously claim people should have understood the context *and* claim that context doesn't matter.

This is getting rather off-topic. Perhaps we should agree to disagree. By 'we' I mean you and I

[somnolentsurfer]

mousestalker wrote...
The only real decision that would be effected would be who is the ruler and if the ruler is married. Given that all the possible scenarios are played out for living wardens, why can't the correct one be imported for the dead warden?

It'd be nice if Ogren also returned with the same spec you left him with, but of course that's not true for living wardens either.

[jennamarae]

JaegerBane wrote...

The point is that you appear to be claiming that it had been decided.

Nope. Made an offhand comment about something discussed in another thread that I ended up getting jumped on for because people here automatically go on the defensive and assume they are included in the word 'we' when they obviously aren't.

I misunderstood what you were saying because of the vague reference you made. Saying 'we' is vague.

'In another thread' was the qualifier for the word 'we'. It doesn't take much to understand that I was referencing another thread, or that the 'we' in question was specific to the people in that thread who had agreed spin-off is a better term than expansion.

I didn't take exception to the misunderstanding. I took exception to the fact that you got antsy about people not understanding what you'd written thanks to your own vague post, which you yourself admitted relies on being interpreted in context. You could have simply explained what you actually meant in a civil fashion.

I've been remarkably civil while explaining the obvious. Had I just said 'we' and not added 'in another thread', then you would have a point about my being vague. I was as specific as I could be without hunting down the thread and naming off names. Something that honestly wasn't worth the time it would have taken to find it seeing as how it was an offhand comment not even directed at you or the other poster here who decided to take offense at the word 'we'.

If you're going to jump on people for not understanding your offhand comment, it might be an idea.

I see. I'll be sure to not respond when jumped on in the future over offhand comments and I'll be sure to keep a running list of everything I talk about and everyone I talk to on here so that I can create wall-of-text posts naming off all of them next time I post. Do you even see the ridiculousness of expecting me to be responsible for someone else not using the tiniest bit of critical thinking skills required to realize that if the content of a sentence does not apply to them, then neither does the word 'we' in it?

As I asked someone else in this thread, if I said "we like dogs better than cats" would you automatically go on the defensive if you liked cats better? Or would you recognize the word 'we' to be referencing people who do indeed like dogs better than cats?

Not at all. But you can't simultaneously claim people should have understood the context *and* claim that context doesn't matter.

When, pray tell, did I do that? I've been arguing since the beginning that had the sentence been read as written it is blatantly obvious that I was referencing a conversation in another thread with people who had discussed and agreed on something that you and the other poster in this thread do not.

This is getting rather off-topic. Perhaps we should agree to disagree. By 'we' I mean you and I

Perhaps we should since this is getting rather ridiculous.

[LoneFullmetal]

Ninegauger wrote...

Here's a question. Why even have the Orlesian Warden if not to offer continuity with a dead Warden? I mean if they're just going to assume the story decisions if you start straight into Awakening why not just have you pick your race and class and start you off with their assumed story?

When I heard about this Orlesian Warden "Origin" I assumed that the whole purpose was to allow continuity with a dead Warden... I mean, why else would you have that?

To mess with people or mess up the story and watch everyone squirm?

[13Dannyboy13]

Maviarab wrote...

Jagrevi wrote...

Maviarab wrote...

Could just use this....
http://www.dragonage...ile.php?id= 874

Mods only work for people who play the thing on their computers, which many don't.

True, but if people choose to buy and then buy games for inferior platform then thats not really my problem is it? I was stating that it is possible to still use all your dlc items.

It's not always a matter of choice, some people don't have a gaming pc or the money to spend on it. Myself I would love to have one but don't have the money for it, like many other people who bought this for the console. The whole inferior platform crack was unnecessary though, it just starts pointless arguements. Either system pc or console has it's pros and cons there's no need to start that fanboy bs.

[LoneFullmetal]

mrfoo1 wrote...

LoneFullmetal wrote...

jennamarae wrote...

Trefalen wrote...

For those trying to import deceased characters from DA:O to DA:A EA.com says this:

That's not the issue. The issue is that people want the decisions from their dead warden to color the world in Awakening but stay dead. So that import would start an Orlesian warden game, but with the choices of the dead warden deciding who's on the throne and all that good stuff. Importing your dead warden now brings them back to life. That's not what people want.

EXACTLY!

I don't understand Bioware, why don't they do it that way? It's not an impossible task, and everyone like you or me has already come up with the idea, so it's not so hard to grasp.

It doesn't seem they have an excuse, other then laziness. <_<

The best thing they could do is keep all their current options, even the "fu-ck logic" option, and add the option others want as well.

So you want the option for a dead cahracter from DA:O's stpryline to impact a storyline they have zero involvement in?

You want some famed Hero that is dead to impact the decisions of the NEW Warden Commander?

Uhhhhh, yeah. He/she is a "famed hero" as you just said, his/her actions affected not just Fereldon but the whole world of Thedas. To just throw everything he/she did away seems utterly pointless, no one here can explain why throwing away all the effects of your actions in favor of a new grey warden is a good thing, and you know why?

Because it isn't a good thing, it's a stupid thing at best.

"Hey guys, lets magically make the warden from the last game reappear, and lets take away any option of having the most influential being in Dragon Age Origins influencing anything for new Wardens!"

Maviarab wrote...

True, but if people choose to buy and then buy
games for inferior platform then thats not really my problem is it? I
was stating that it is possible to still use all your dlc items.

Modifié par LoneFullmetal, 20 mars 2010 - 06:22 .

[Jagrevi]

mrfoo1 wrote...

So you want the option for a dead cahracter from DA:O's stpryline to impact a storyline they have zero involvement in?

You want some famed Hero that is dead to impact the decisions of the NEW Warden Commander?

If they ever made a Star Wars movie that takes place hundreds of years after the original trilogy, I sure as hell would complain if it was inexplicably set on Alderaan. "But we have a different protagonist this time" isn't an excuse.

[Jagrevi]

Maviarab wrote...
True, but if people choose to buy and then buy games for inferior platform then thats not really my problem is it? I was stating that it is possible to still use all your dlc items.

None of this is your problem. If Bioware sent out ninjas to assassinate all of us who had Anora be Queen, it [b]STILL wouldn't be "your problem".

It has absolutely nothing to do with you -- so it's quite telling that you would even phrase things this way.

Modifié par Jagrevi, 20 mars 2010 - 06:48 .

[nukeboy1970]

Could some one please explain to me why people are complaining about being to import your dead character? 

The main character sacrificing themselves is still canon.  That never changed.  That is why an Orlesian Warden was sent in. 

Bioware setup the option to use the original character because people would whine about it if they didn't.  You (the player) are given the option to ignore continuity.  That doesn't mean that Bioware thinks you should ignore continuity.  The developers pretty much said as much.  You are given an OPTION.

If your character died, just don't do an import.  Simple as that.  Why complain about it?

[jennamarae]

nukeboy1970 wrote...

Could some one please explain to me
why people are complaining about being to import your dead character? 

[...]

If
your character died, just don't do an import.  Simple as that.  Why
complain about it?

You know all those decisions that your
dead warden made? Decisions like who's on the throne, who got wiped
out, and who's still alive and kicking? People want those decisions
carried forward while their dead warden stays dead. No one's asking to
have the option to resurrect your dead warden taken away, only that they
be able to leave him dead while still importing the decisions he made
so that the world is still affected by his choices.

Maviarab wrote...

True, but if people choose to buy and then buy games for inferior platform then thats not really my problem is it? I was stating that it is possible to still use all your dlc items.

*shakes her head*

Are you really trying to start a console vs. pc war? No more cake pants for you..