12857 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

No, accusations like this are thrown when people don't want to admit that their first impressions were wrong (albeit understandable). I never got the impression that Loghain was planing everything from the start and frankly nothing was needed to soften my view of him other than what was in the game.

[Zjarcal]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
...and frankly nothing was needed to soften my view of him other than what was in the game.

Yep, same here. I haven't even read the books, so in-game Loghain is the only Loghain I know. Admittedly it did took two playthroughs for me to like him, but what was in the game was enough to make me like him.

As for the ret-con accusation, I can't give an honest opinion there since I haven't read the books. Some people (including Loghain fans) have mentioned that there are small clashes between book Loghain and in-game Loghain, but on the whole I don't believe that the character was drastically changed.

[testing123]

Zjarcal wrote...
As for the ret-con accusation, I can't give an honest opinion there since I haven't read the books. Some people (including Loghain fans) have mentioned that there are small clashes between book Loghain and in-game Loghain, but on the whole I don't believe that the character was drastically changed.

I've read the books and I don't really recall any clashes of personality.  He's as much a grizzled **** in the books as he is in the game.  (And as much a hero for that matter.)  For me, the books only served to expand on a character that was barely visible through the majority of the game.  The decisions he makes in the books are very much like the decisions he makes in the game.  The difference is you have a far clearer picture of his intentions in the book whereas it is far easier to cast doubt on his intentions in the game.

[alschemid]

Persephone wrote...
Now, do you agree that he has been ret-conned? Have established facts by the game truly been falsified to soften people's outlook? Personally, I resent that accusation. But what are your views on the matter?

I don't think he has been ret-conned, perhaps all the talking about the information that was cut from the game which would give more background on his actions and the books made some people realize they should not judge/execute the character based only on what the load screens say or Alistair wants.

[Addai]

Persephone wrote...

So, to bring this thread back on topic:

Someone told me that she really did not like how Loghain was ret-conned once the game was out. By David Gaider in particular.  That we clearly see him plotting something sinister and that you just don't do the things he did as compared to the movement of the past few months where people, many even who executed him on principle, came around to sparing him and realizing....HEY, there's MUCH more to this story/this character.

Now, do you agree that he has been ret-conned? Have established facts by the game truly been falsified to soften people's outlook? Personally, I resent that accusation. But what are your views on the matter?

No, in fact in delving into his character in detail I am more satisfied with the game portrayal than I was before.  The threads are all there, it's just hard to weave them together if you don't have his background info, which you can't get if you don't spare him or read the novels.

[testing123]

Addai67 wrote...
No, in fact in delving into his character in detail I am more satisfied with the game portrayal than I was before.  The threads are all there, it's just hard to weave them together if you don't have his background info, which you can't get if you don't spare him or read the novels.

Thanks, that's a better way of putting what I was trying to say.

[Addai]

The Arrangement chapter 18 just posted.  Better late than never, I hope.

[Costin_Razvan]

Essentially doing this in the Assembly?

Speaking of Napoleon by the way.



"I took the Crown because it was there."



Been playing Napoleon Total War ( which is miles ahead of Empire ) He is voiced by the same actor who voiced Riordan in Dragon Age.



So you can imagine how great it is to play Napoleon Total War where most of the game is narrated by him playing Napoleon.

[CalJones]

Just got back from two days of cooking and washing up for my elderly, disabled and incontinent parents (joy) and am relishing being back in civilisation (ie, computer, internet, satellite telly).



So first up...regarding 300. I thoroughly enjoyed it as a movie and came out of it wanting to kick someone's arse. If you went into it thinking it was going to be a portrayal of a historical event, you'd be disapponted, but if you went expecting a bloody good adaptation of a graphic novel, you'd be chuffed, as I was. I have the novel in question and it is very close (the film is actually fleshed out in a few places), especially in terms of visuals. The point is, though, that what you see in the movie is not a portrayal of events, per se - it is the tale as told by Dilios (the chap who lost his eye and was sent back to tell of what happened) and thus very much exagerrated and embellished in the telling. Hence the strange monsters, the Immortals and so forth.

Since Varric fills Dilios' role in DA2, I can only assume that 300 provided a inspiration for more aspects than the combat. How that translates into gameplay, however, remains to be seen. Anyway...



On to Persephone's point. I don't think Loghain was retconned - just fleshed out. He's rather more emo in the book, but then he's young and unhappy in love so it's understandable. The book didn't change my opinion of him one iota - I had already decided that Loghain was my favourite character in the game long before I read it.



And Addai - thanks for the new chapter. A pleasure to read, as always.

[TJPags]

Persephone wrote...

So, to bring this thread back on topic:

Someone told me that she really did not like how Loghain was ret-conned once the game was out. By David Gaider in particular.  That we clearly see him plotting something sinister and that you just don't do the things he did as compared to the movement of the past few months where people, many even who executed him on principle, came around to sparing him and realizing....HEY, there's MUCH more to this story/this character.

Now, do you agree that he has been ret-conned? Have established facts by the game truly been falsified to soften people's outlook? Personally, I resent that accusation. But what are your views on the matter?

Interesting question.  I assume you're referencing the books and DG's comments about Loghain and his motivations?

I don't know if I would call it a ret-con.  I simply don't think DG got to put everything he wanted into the game, or that he has a different view of the character than he showed.

I played DA:O before I even knew there were books.  My first playthrough was as a HNM warrior.  I saw Howe slaughter my family.  I got to Ostagar and saw a rather distant Loghain, who seemed unhappy with his King.  I saw Loghain leave a battle that he planned.  I found a blood-mage in Redcliffe who had poisoned Eamon on Loghain's orders.  I saw Loghain working closely with Howe, who had killed my family.  I saw Loghain frame GW's for what happened at Ostagar.  I saw him grab power with both hands.  I watched him refuse to explain his actions to the nobles when asked.  I later learned Howe had imprisoned another noble, and taken his title as well as that of my family.  I saw Howe kidnap and hold captive Loghain's daughter, with Loghain's right-hand woman showing up to arrest me, not to free the daughter - the one who, according to Loghain, was "queen".  I saw Loghain sell people into slavery.  I saw him fight a Civil War with people who refused to accept his dubious control of the country.  I saw him refuse to accept the ruling of the Landsmeet.  I saw him babbling about Orlesians who played no role in the game.  In short, I saw a power mad lunatic, clearly intended to be the villain of the game.

I have since read Tst.  I saw why Loghain is as paranoid about Orlais as he was in-game.  However, I also still saw a ruthless, pragmatic man who will do evil things to accomplish what he thinks is right.  As example, without Maric's knowledge, he and Rowan arrange the murder of several nobles who meet with Maric in Gwaryn (maybe not Gwaryn . . I think it was?).  I also saw Loghain and Maric murder nobles who came to meet Maric in a Chantry.  Not arrest them - murder them, in a church.  I saw Loghain leave out a vital bit of information when telling Maric about Katriel, just to get the result he wanted.

I have also read DG's comments.  How Loghain didn't intend for Eamon to die.  How Loghain had a contingency plan to leave the battle if he thought it couldn't be won.  How Loghain thought Caillan was squandering resources by fighting where he did.  How there were more Darkspawn then anticipated.  How there was a cut-plot where Caillan was going to marry Celene of Orlais.

IMO, it's unfortunate that DG didn't put some of this information in the game, or even in the books.  I think he has a much more noble view of Loghain than what was actually portrayed.  I think he wanted to have the Loghain decision be a difficult one.  That's what I read into his comments, and it's what I see (partially) in TsT.  But what we got in game very much seemed on first playthrough - and still seems - to be a paranoid, power hungry man, almost your prototypical villain.

Was it a ret-conn?  I don't think so.  I think it was just poor portrayal of what he intended.

[DragonRacer13]

I don't really have anything to add to this discussion, but I'm not sure why someone might think the books would be a ret-con of the game? I'm pretty sure the books came out prior to the game release, so technically, the game would be a ret-con of the books, in their opinion.

Now, I know a lot of folks didn't read the books until AFTER they'd played DA:O (I'm one of those). But that shouldn't be an excuse for them to point a finger and say the books ret-conned the game.

A quick Google search turned up this:

The Stolen Throne -- released March 9, 2009

The Calling -- released October 13, 2009

Dragon Age: Origins game: -- released November 6, 2009

If they want to argue David's comments made on the forums AFTER the books and game released are a ret-con, that's up to them. But the books actually pre-date everything else.

[testing123]

CalJones wrote...
On to Persephone's point. I don't think Loghain was retconned - just fleshed out. He's rather more emo in the book, but then he's young and unhappy in love so it's understandable. The book didn't change my opinion of him one iota - I had already decided that Loghain was my favourite character in the game long before I read it.

You really consider him emo in the book?  I suppose there are times where he seems to be brooding but I don't recall ever getting much access to his emotions.  It's more implied than anything.  Actually, now that I think about it there is the one scene with Rowan... maybe that's what upsets most people.  I don't know, I always assumed he had those feelings, he just never let it show.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Cool quote from Tacitus on Augustus, that can to some extent fit Loghain (though of course Loghain is not nearly as brilliant and great as Augustus):

"Filial duty and national emergency, in which there was no place for law abiding conduct, had driven him to civil war - and this can be neither initiated nor maintained by decent methods."

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 27 décembre 2010 - 07:36 .

[CalJones]

Yeah, you may be right, jvee. The main scene is where Rowan turns him down and he decides to say screw it and leave (but then doesn't).

[nos_astra]

DragonRacer13 wrote...
A quick Google search turned up this:

The Stolen Throne -- released March 9, 2009

The Calling -- released October 13, 2009

Dragon Age: Origins game: -- released November 6, 2009

If they want to argue David's comments made on the forums AFTER the books and game released are a ret-con, that's up to them. But the books actually pre-date everything else.

Origins had been in developement for 5 years and the first thing that is done is the plot and characterization. Give them the benefit of a doubt and say the plot for the game was finalized to what we know today in 2008. Before the developement was finished Loghain's motivation for the betrayal was cut and left him even more bloodless than the original version (where he would have had an actual reason for his actions, a real threat).

TST was written in 6 months, The Calling was written in 4 months, after the writing for Origins was done.

I'm not sure it's actually retconning him but it's feels damn close. The game-Loghain lacks depth and the cutting of plot elements that would have explained his actions didn't do him any favour. Without the books and Gaider adding information via the Word of God channel there is not much to him other than the fact that you beat him and can make him follow you. His willingness to be buddies with the Warden afterwards is coming out of the left field.

Either it's retcon or a very crappy portrayal of what Gaider may have intended.

Modifié par klarabella, 28 décembre 2010 - 09:53 .

[CalJones]

Yes, I have to agree that the Loghain you get in game is not as fleshed out as he ought to be. He has some great cut dialogue, even. To be honest, I think that, were it not for his awesome voice acting, he wouldn't have nearly as many fans.

[KnightofPhoenix]

If DA:O kept Loghain's original reason for everything, I would have probably killed him. He could have killed the traitorous brat Cailan without abandoning the army. It's the original version that lacks depth and ambiguity, and the game doesn't have to spoon feed me everything for me to realize that maybe the Orlesian threat is real and that "maybe" alone suffices (RtO ends up confirming it). Just like real life, we can't know everything and I prefer it as ambiguous as it is now.

The fact that some, including myself, already believed what Gaider later confirmed without any outside knowledge, shows that while his portrayal is ambiguous (which makes it even more deep in my books), it is not contradictory to what was intended. So, I think his portrayal is fine as it is, one only needs to not expect the game to spoon feed him every single info.

[nos_astra]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
The fact that some, including myself, already believed what Gaider later confirmed without any outside knowledge...

This kind of argument always reeks a bit of "only the most observant, most tolerant and most intelligent are able to grasp the subtleties and complexty of this character" for me.

Dragon Age suffers from blatantly obvious bugs and mediocre writing, messed up plot flags, logical flaws, missing dialogue, historical/political nonsense and whatnot. I think you overestimate Gaider's talent. Who says that he hasn't been following the forums and just picked up some of the theories fans were tossing around?

Modifié par klarabella, 28 décembre 2010 - 03:06 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

klarabella wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
The fact that some, including myself, already believed what Gaider later confirmed without any outside knowledge...

This kind of argument always reeks a bit of "only the most observant, most tolerant and most intelligent are able to grasp the subtleties and complexty of this character" for me.

Goes both ways.
More than once, your posts seemed to imply that "people spare Loghain just to feel cool and they have no logical reason to do so or to believe what they are thinking".

So if you want to make it look like it's a dichotomy between "intelligence and idiocy", something that I have never even implied for I have always said most interpretations are valid (even if they are objectively false), then take your pick.

klarabella wrote...
Dragon Age suffers from blatantly obvious bugs and mediocre writing, messed up plot flags, logical flaws, missing dialogue, historical/political nonsense and whatnot. I think you overestimate Gaider's talent. Who says that he hasn't been following the forums and just picked up some of the theories fans were tossing around?

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, as nothing he said contradicts what was in the game and how I percieved it.  He wrote the character and was the lead writer and I think he knew from the start what Loghain would be like and while the potrayal is not obvious (for the better), I think he pulled it off. Indeed gameinformer that placed Loghain at number 9 in its top 30 characters of the decade, I presume, would agree.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 28 décembre 2010 - 04:08 .

[nos_astra]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Goes both ways.
More than once, your posts seemed to imply that "people spare Loghain just to feel cool and they have no logical reason to do so or to believe what they are thinking".

Not quite, it's more that some people enjoy not being part of a majority that makes them look at something from a different angle. Maybe you should go back and have a look at how your arguments gradually changed and shifted over time.

The majority dislikes Anora, hates the Chantry and hates Eamon and I enjoy supporting Anora (even if I don't think she's the revolutionary you want her to be), playing a pro-Chantry Warden and I even kind of like Eamon now.

I wouldn't be surprised if you started out at: Loghain's betrayal was justified, he planned to kill the king with good reason.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
So if you want to make it look like it's a dichotomy between "intelligence and idiocy", something that I have never even implied for I have always said most interpretations are valid, then take your pick.

Am I mistaken or have the people in this thread claimed that most people are not observant enough to grasp the awesomeness that is Loghain's character? Haven't you prided yourself with how you managed to foresee information on your first playthrough that Gaider confirmed or even revealed weeks/months later?

I'm sorry, if I'm misinterpreting this.

[KnightofPhoenix]

klarabella wrote...
Not quite, it's more that some people enjoy not being part of a majority that makes them look at something from a different angle.

Oh, so now you have determined that I enjoy being part of a minority and this is a subconscious attempt by me to seperate myself from the majority. Hmm.

Maybe you should go back and have a look at how your arguments gradually changed and shifted over time.

About Loghain? No, they haven't.
About other characters? Yes, but not too dramatically.

The tone? Yes, I was more aggressive, but the substance of the argument remains mostly unchanged,

The majority dislikes Anora, hates the Chantry and hates Eamon and I enjoy supporting Anora (even if I don't think she's the revolutionary you want her to be), playing a pro-Chantry Warden and I even kind of like Eamon now.

I never claimed she was a revolutionary, but a reformer. Maybe it's time you stop trying to assume what I am thinking, while ignoring what I am saying? I don't know.

I wouldn't be surprised if you started out at: Loghain's betrayal was justified, he planned to kill the king with good reason.

Nope. Not at all.
I said, and I still say, Loghain should have killed Cailan or at least neutralized him before Ostagar. But I never got the impression from the game that he certainly planned on betraying him. Is it a valid interpretation? Yes. Did it cross my mind? Yes. Did I believe so? No. 

Am I mistaken or have the people in this thread claimed that most people are not observant enough to grasp the awesomeness that is Loghain's character? Haven't you prided yourself with how you managed to foresee information on your first playthrough that Gaider confirmed or even revealed weeks/months later?

I'm sorry, if I'm misinterpreting this.

I have not prided myself. I am just stating facts. I understood the character. That's it. That's not something to be proud of, I have others things for that. 

Maybe people, perhaps even myself, did throw the occasional "people are not observant enough", but that's natural, in the same vein that Shakespearean fans often look down on the unsophistication of others. But it's not serious, on my part at least. 

I will say however that I do view any manichean, black-white dichotomies in general as simplistic at best, idiotic at worst.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 28 décembre 2010 - 04:50 .

[nos_astra]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Oh, so now you have determined that I enjoy being part of a minority and this is a subconscious attempt by me to seperate myself from the majority. Hmm.

No, I have determined that I do this occasionally and thought maybe others do that, too.

[KnightofPhoenix]

klarabella wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Oh, so now you have determined that I enjoy being part of a minority and this is a subconscious attempt by me to seperate myself from the majority. Hmm.

No, I have determined that I do this occasionally and thought maybe others do that, too.

I do too, but not vis a vis video game characters.

Perhaps slightly in some fashion or another vis a vis my general beliefs, which axiomatically ends up influencing how I percieve characters.

[Addai]

DragonRacer13 wrote...

If they want to argue David's comments made on the forums AFTER the books and game released are a ret-con, that's up to them. But the books actually pre-date everything else.

DG has said, however, that the game concept came first and he based the books on that.  How fleshed out that was at the time he wrote the novels, hard to say.  We know the game's main story line was changed on the fly, even after some of Loghain's VO was recorded, which is pretty late.  I would say the general characteristics of Loghain were always the same- a ruthless guy who got the job done, frequently jobs no one else wanted to do, who was stuck on Orlais.

Modifié par Addai67, 28 décembre 2010 - 11:08 .