Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply Source |
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| == Latest edits ==
| |
|
| |
|
| What was the need to pool all the descriptions into one heap back as it was before?? The article was meant to be structured. There's no need to write how many bites A. does to turn Tav into a spawn, but it's much more important to show how he really treats them. If wanted to make it 'more neutral', please just delete only **adjectives** one doesn't like [[User:Arikel|Arikel]] ([[User talk:Arikel|talk]])
| |
|
| |
| If anyone wants to make a mess of another's work, use <!- --> comments tags on what they do not like and discuss it here. '''Prove your point''' instead of one-click spoiling other's long hours of painstaking work 17:46, 17 July 2024 (CEST)
| |
|
| |
| == The wiki isn't intended to be your personal diary. ==
| |
|
| |
| You are editing this to have a TON of information with language that is personal to you. A wiki is intended to be neutral. Player dialogue options are a choice. Your personal feelings are not relevant to the information that goes onto a wiki page.
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| How you feel as though your character is treated by the companion is PERSONAL to YOU. That is not what a wiki is for. That is what your therapist is for. [[User:LoreBard|LoreBard]] ([[User talk:LoreBard|talk]]) 22:11, 17 July 2024 (CEST)
| |
|
| |
| :That's all not about how I (or anyone else) feel(s) about what's happening within the game.
| |
| :The point is that in-game decisions are made by the player. Saying that some of them are good or bad IS personal, indeed. BUT the ways one in-game character treat another in-game character AFTER the player's done their choice are defined by the gamecode and are the same no matter who is tapping the buttons, therefore, they are NOT personal and definitely worth describing.
| |
| :As it goes, providing the player with maximum info about all possible outcomes, which in the same circumstances would be the same regardless of who is playing (and writing about) is the very point of creating an encyclopaedia. Small details of characters' behaviour are crucial to mention, too, because they help to describe thoroughly the image of a certain companion. Making it all structured and providing proofs like quotes, screenshots, etc. is a demand of wiki style editing.
| |
| :On the contrary, clogging the text with unnecessary details that impact nothing in the gameplay and cannot change further player's decisions (like telling the precise amount of bites or inserting links to FRwiki article stub which was derived from this very wiki) makes the article messy, same as deleting the article structure only to make it "compact". Shakespeare's 'brevity is the soul of wit' cannot be applied to the detriment of readers.
| |
| :A responsible author should refer to other long-read articles (not only those they contribute to) as an example if they doubt the necessity of extra detailing, especially if certain part of an article seems to be their one and only contribution to a giant and complex wiki, or create a personal Sandbox page.
| |
| :Summarising, trying to evade any evaluative and conjecture statements is not the reason to delete 'TONS' of useful (fact-checked and verified by different sources) info and ruin the consistent article, returning it to the state of a stub it once had been
| |
| :If you do not agree with any statement within the article, please do honours to correct the language and typos, pick better words to tell it down, but do not delete on a whim a whole passages of verified facts that persist in the game plot regardless of anyone's opinion on them. [[User:Arikel|Arikel]] ([[User talk:Arikel|talk]]) 06:15, 18 July 2024 (CEST)
| |
| ::Just came across this page.
| |
| ::You say in your comment that it is "verified facts that persist in the game plot regardless of opinion"
| |
| ::Can you show me the verified facts to match this
| |
| ::''"Successful check will reveal that as Ascendant, he considers even his beloved one belonging to the lower order of creatures and shall ever treat them accordingly"''
| |
| ::Are there any other dialogue options than this?
| |
| ::''"He will also express his newfound feeling of all-permissiveness, especially if the player rejected his offer to become a spawn"'' I am also not clear on what "all-permissiveness" means in this context. Permissiveness meaning freedom of behaviour.
| |
| ::It is also clear from the language choices you make when describing the options what your preferred route is in the game. In your description of the epilogue you state "If the player sucks up to him". Do you not consider the player to be sucking up to Unascended Astarion too? Would more neutral language for the players choices not be more suitable here? Or are you saying any player who is on board with Ascended Astarion is "sucking up to him"
| |
| ::With regard to the epilogue text, you may want to clarify that the player has also been assiduously spinning the web of political power if that is what they choose in the pre-party bedroom scene.
| |
| ::And that Ascended Astarion expresses to the player that "We do turn every head in the room when we enter, and rightly so" and that "Together we are unstoppable, so heavens help the fool that comes against us"
| |
| ::You state that Ascended Astarion "''will express ultimate arrogance and sense of superiority over all former companions, player character included''."
| |
| ::Can you provide the dialogue option for this, specifically the last part of the sentence. [[User:Telchin|Telchin]] ([[User talk:Telchin|talk]]) 22:05, 18 July 2024 (CEST)
| |
| :::I see the support squad comes on the stage. Don't you tell me you stumbled on a '''hidden''' comment page to an inner subdivision of a major article, picking it out of a sudden; especially that being your only contribute to more-than-thousand-page wiki. Okay, let's go through your questions one by one
| |
| :::''"Successful check <...>''
| |
| :::''Are there any other dialogue options than this?''
| |
| :::-- This one comes clear from the formulation of a successful Wisdom check
| |
| :::'''He will always see you as degrading yourself if you continue to be with him. But perhaps you wish to degrade yourself, and he knows it.'''
| |
| :::As all I meant here is the formulation of the '''check''' itself, why do you ask about other dialogue lines, but okay.
| |
| :::If Tav initially says they want to be a vampire 'like him', Astarion answers 'there are no vampires like me and never will be again'. Later within cutscene, if Tav refuses him, he says they will never find anyone other like him, while he surely will succeed with the same task. Assuming all this, he's aware and sure of his exclusiveness, therefore, all others are at least one step lower by default.
| |
| :::''"He will also express his newfound<...>''
| |
| :::-- The proof-example line for this is provided in the according note 8 below. He actually says that he could have forced Tav into becoming a spawn, just on a whim. Meaning, he feels that nothing is able to restrain him anymore, ever.
| |
| :::''It is also clear from the language choices<...>
| |
| :::-- I have several fully-finished walkthroughs with all possible outcomes of relations with most companions, Astarion included, but that's not the case here. Some romantic lines in the game are much more easier to fulfil than others, that's all. However, this is the only point I could somewhat agree, because for instance the correct phrase here should be not 'the player', but 'the player character'. Spawn-Tav's lines in the epilogue show that they literally hang on his words (if this formula suits you better) - for all his obvious arrogance and probable cruelty, ''this'' Tav almost loses an ability to think over their relations critically. As for non-Ascended and partnered Astarion, he tells the character (the next morning after rite) that he now sees them 'as a partner, an equal', so there's no need in sucking up.
| |
| :::''With regard to the epilogue text<...>''
| |
| :::-- If the player broke up with Ascendant, there won't be any pre-party bedroom scene. If they didn't, Astarion does ask what they would like to do first, but makes it clear that it will be him who pulls the strings, while the player character is the one he willingly shares his conquests with, still the second number, always. They will never be an independent power player while remaining aside him.
| |
| :::The answers he awaits are 'True, we are spectacular'/'None will dare, my love' (as all other lines are not actually answers to his words, they push the dialogue further). If the player asks back about them 'flourishing', it opens dialogue options to express further doubt and get an angry reproach from him in response.
| |
| :::''You state that Ascended <...>''
| |
| :::-- At the Epilogue party, after spawn-partner speaks with at least one former companion and return to Astarion, he will ask ''"So, how have our dear friends been without us to guide and protect them?"''. Next he will say that he expected them all to be "half-dead in the muck" (with some variations depending on previous line choice). Is that not enough arrogant for you? As for last statement, in the epilogue he says that they 'complete him', but 'he's always watching' - he does not see them as an independent person, too, but instead one that needs to be totally controlled.
| |
| :::I hope you're contented. Hate to waste words on obvious things, really, especially to those who 'just came across', but now have at once a billion of precise questions that give away their pretendedness. [[User:Arikel|Arikel]] ([[User talk:Arikel|talk]]) 23:50, 18 July 2024 (CEST)
| |
| ::::Yet, I still don't see you pulling out any *actual, in-game* sources for any of what you're claiming. You're still phrasing everything through the lens of how it makes YOU *feel* rather than actually quoting or citing *actual information*.
| |
| ::::"There's no need to suck-up."
| |
| ::::"Is that not arrogant for you?"
| |
| ::::These are your opinions. This is how you, as an individual, feel about these topics. You can't possibly think it's acceptable to write essay after essay based exclusively on the negative dialogue options (ignoring the positive and neutral options) and feel as though that's not biased? If you think only one set of dialogue options exist as "the one truth" then you shouldn't be updating the wiki for a story with a multi-branching narrative. This suggests that you lack the ability to understand how that story telling works whilst also lacking the self-awareness to acknowledge your own biases. Some of what you've written, well, you're just lying. I know this for a fact because I have extracted the dialogue files from the modding tools, I didn't just randomly watch YouTube videos. Some other things you've written aren't relevant to the romance at all and instead are related to the companion quest.
| |
| ::::If you want to ramble about your personal feelings and headcanons, there's tumblr for that. [[User:LoreBard|LoreBard]] ([[User talk:LoreBard|talk]]) 06:26, 19 July 2024 (CEST)
| |
| ::::Thank you for taking the time to reply. I am not taking the bait from your first line, and will instead assume you are replying in good faith to me. I presume you will extend the same courtesy.
| |
| ::::I must have mis-typed because the "Are there any other dialogue options than this" does not apply to the wisdom check, but to the line below
| |
| ::::The wisdom check question was ''"Can you show me the verified facts to match this"''
| |
| ::::The "This" in that sentence was the line below.
| |
| ::::: ''"Successful check will reveal that as Ascendant, he considers even his beloved one belonging to the lower order of creatures and shall ever treat them accordingly"''The "Are there any other dialogue options" relate to the line where you state that he expresses his new found permissiveness (Permissiveness is not used to describe oneself. If he is expressing permissiveness then he is telling Tav "Go ahead, do what you want, its all cool" (I actually agree with the usage in this case but I suspect it is not how you intend the sentence to read). ''" Astarion answers 'there are no vampires like me and never will be again'." -'' He is the vampire ascendant. There are no others like him. He is not expecting the ritual to ever be completed again. ''"he says they will never find anyone other like him"'' This is during a breakup line. If the listener interprets it to mean Astarion views everyone as lower than him then that is the subjective interpretation of the listener. It is basically "Go ahead, leave me, you will never have anyone as good as me" and this is rarely taken to mean that the person thinks everyone else is beneath them. "''Spawn-Tav's lines in the epilogue show that they ...''" No, it does not suit me better. If you are to use this here, then it applies to every time in the game where the dialogue option to express a fully supportive view applies. Tav has the option in every dialogue choice to be fully on board with any companion. This is not acquienscence or sycophancy. It is an RP option. Whether Tav is unable to think for themselves is entirely on the Player and how they wish to RP the scenario. Much as the dialogue in the epilogue RomanceFates scene - or in any dialogue. Tav can choose the options that suit the players RP. Be that supportive, gaslighting, aggressive, sad, rude and so on. ''"He actually says that he could have forced Tav into becoming a spawn"'' This is factually true. He is a vampire. He could have turned Tav forcefully if he wished. The PC could have woken up as a surprise vampire if they refused him on Ascension camp night. ''"for all his obvious arrogance and probable cruelty"'' He is arrogant, he was always arrogant. Probable cruelty is entirely a subjective opinion which can be inferred at a stretch by selecting specific dialogue options within the game. It can equally be argued that it is Tav who does cruelty to any companion. The inference that a Tav who is supportive and on-board with Ascended version must have lost their ability to critically think about their relations is just not an objective view. There are those who could more reasonably argue that letting a vampire drink from you when you just met them displays an inability to critically think. " ''have several fully-finished walkthroughs with all possible outcomes of relations with most companions''" That is good. I have over 10 fully finished walkthroughs with all possible outcomes of the relationship with Astarion. I have several others with different companions. I have the debug book mod for running through every possible romance flag in the game and every possible dialogue, I have the dialogue files and scene direction lsf files. This is not a "I have run this game more than you have" competition.
| |
| ::::"''I hope you're contented. Hate to waste words on obvious things, really, especially to those who 'just came across', but now have at once a billion of precise questions that give away their pretendedness''" I have billions of precise questions because I have the ability to read text and relate it to lines I have seen in game. Perhaps you would prefer if I go through the entire article line by line for you, starting with your assertion that Astarion is the only character who actively seeks to start romantic relations? I can do that. It might require a lot more space than these replies allow [[User:Telchin|Telchin]] ([[User talk:Telchin|talk]]) 10:16, 19 July 2024 (CEST)
| |
| :::::We're talking here about not even an article, but about certain part of article. So, instead of mutual accusations and, excuse me for rudeness, bouts of d**k-measuring, why don't we just rethink it over to be consistent, structured, detailed, and neutral as much as possible (because as we all are living people, we just aren't able not to process this through ourselves).
| |
| :::::Ready? Set? Go.
| |
| :::::*First of all, are you content with the current article structure? I.e. Act # -> Episodes that have impact on relations/romantic line -> Possible choices and consequences (with subdivisions) -> describing exceptions and instances -> any proof quotes go to footnotes (as they are clogging the text). Note that we cannot totally avoid describing personality features of the NPC in question here, and their changing, too, as it is the base and crux of his in-game behaviour. My initial outburst was addressed to deleting that meticulously built article structure, not to using precise quotes and opinions, whatever. Opinions differ.
| |
| :::::*Secondly, if you really want to achieve the positive result, let us start a Sandbox (here or elsewhere) and check out point by point, starting with the structure itself and then clarifying formulations and picking the most correct words - together - to come as close to perfection as possible. Truth is born in arguments, but there's much more sense in working it out, not argue in vain, poking fingers in one another. IDK if sandboxes here allow submits from other contributors (if yes, I already have a sandbox page), but there's tons of other resources available, f.e. Google Docs.
| |
| :::::*Thirdly, please do not seek counterarguments about the certain-episode NPC interactions through the massive of all possible in-game dialogues, including those without his participation. Broad and sweeping generalizations are never good. As I can see, we are actually striving over a tiny piece of a huge cake. Whether there are any other possible player-character reactions in other episodes, acts and scenes, matters not.
| |
| :::::*Lastly, proofs must be mutually substantial. I posted quotes, while you, for some reasons, didn't 'counter-quote' while stating you have access to the dialogue files (I do, too). Let's speak of precise dialogue nodes, not act as poor dying Padme, like ''There's good in him. I know, there is still''
| |
| :::::[[User:Arikel|Arikel]] ([[User talk:Arikel|talk]]) 12:50, 19 July 2024 (CEST)
| |
| ::::::So I actually reviewed your wiki entry back in May, considered trying to report it because it was incorrect and heavily bias, asked a few people with notes/scripts/saves to verify what you've written, and now we're here. [[User:Natasy|Natasy]] ([[User talk:Natasy|talk]]) 19:30, 19 July 2024 (CEST)
| |
| ::::::There's no need for hateful comments. But I will attempt to guide you through where you're incorrect so your writing will be better in the future:
| |
| ::::::Subjective: They will never be an independent power player while remaining aside him.
| |
| ::::::Subjective: he does not see them as an independent person, too, but instead one that needs to be totally controlled.
| |
| ::::::"Assuming all this, he's aware and sure of his exclusiveness, therefore, all others are at least one step lower by default" this is the DND definition of all vampires. Selectively applying it only to one path is bias.
| |
| ::::::Subjective (+ a bonus untrue!): Spawn-Tav's lines in the epilogue show that they literally hang on his words (if this formula suits you better) - for all his obvious arrogance and probable cruelty, this Tav almost loses an ability to think over their relations critically.
| |
| ::::::Subjective (+ bonus untrue!): Astarion does ask what they would like to do first, but makes it clear that it will be him who pulls the strings, while the player character is the one he willingly shares his conquests with, still the second number, always.
| |
| ::::::Subjective and unnecessarily judgemental: "If you suck up to him..."
| |
| ::::::It is very clear from this how you personally feel about one path. That should not be evident in your writing. In the wiki itself you have chosen to include heavily and nearly *only negative* dialogue wheels and interactions, with your personal interpretation of what they mean for one path, while including *only positive* dialogue and options for the other.
| |
| ::::::You have excluded the possibility of Astarion attacking the party if the PC stops his ritual. You've excluded his reaction to breaking up if he misses the ritual. You've excluded his dialogue about not being a hero in the epilogue if he remains a spawn. There are *very many* things you excluded on both ends, and your wiki entries are very misleading. The edits made where non-opinion focused, included relevant *and accurate* details for both paths, clarified much of your muddy and emotional wording, and made the entire wiki page feel more professional and neutral. Your writing is not "fact verified", it is you posing arguments to bolster your own opinions via the guise of "analysis" and it's disingenuous at best.
| |
| ::::::Please allow others to fix your mistakes where you make them and provide more neutral wording. Your wiki entries are inaccurate. You are not the lore gatekeeper. Others are allowed to improve issues. [[User:Natasy|Natasy]] ([[User talk:Natasy|talk]]) 19:34, 19 July 2024 (CEST)
| |
