12857 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

There are no Witcher codes, only personal codes each Witcher creates for himself.

Yea. Maybe they can say he deviated from Witcher apolitical traditions (which would be bs, they helped the king of Redania a long time ago IIRC from the wikia).

In any case, I do not see CDPR saying Letho was a traitor to Witchers. They might have characters who say that sure, but that's different. Heck, all codices in the game were written by Dandelion anyhow.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

I can certainly understand. I also prefer to nurture optimism until there is no reason to do so anymore.

it is not even DA2 that upsets me, I've accepted it for what it is, even though I still feel it is well below Origins on many fronts. However, it wasn't a complete fail, but lukewarm/mediocre over all.

It's developer comments and interviews that worry me. It's not the ones where they defend DA2, either, because I do not expect them to trash their work publically, that wouldn't really be logical. Nor am i expecting them to publically admit that DA2 really was divisive and alienated a number of fans for various reasons.

It's the interviews about their plans and directions for future releases that I am bothered by. especially when they talk about "liking the Direction DA2 was going in, and plan to continue" or something similar. What direction? Because I couldn't figure out what direction DA2 was going in. There were things that were improvements that I hope they will hold onto and further develop in the future. Yet there were alot of things that disliked immensely, or made the game of less interest to me as well. So my question would be what direction they thought they were going in with DA2, and how and why do they want to continue this in the future.

it's that lack of clarity that is keeping me on a neutral, wait and see mode.

[KnightofPhoenix]

The thin veil, idol, Legacy codex and now this, seem to be an indication to me that they are no longer interested in making interesting characters that can spark debates.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The thin veil, idol, Legacy codex and now this, seem to be an indication to me that they are no longer interested in making interesting characters that can spark debates.

I'd agree, but given the amount of vitrol and criticism over the macguffining of Meredith, Harvstino, the lack of relevancy over the Enigma of Kirkwall, and other assorted events and parts of the game, even from the most vocal supporters of the game who otherwise really liked it and thought it better than Origins, it's possible they will reconsider their direction there, and avoid it in the future.

Or maybe not. Maybe they are 100% convinced of the power of awesome being able to make up for everything else that lacks. Time will tell. I'm not even really going to get discouraged over future DLCs or expansions tied to the game, since they were likely developed alongside DA2, and would reflect the initial character and direction of that game.

It's really the future beyond DA2 that I am looking at to see if I can get an idea of what direction and mode they are in.

[CalJones]

I liked the mechanics of DA2, perhaps more than Origins, so I hope that is what they mean. What I didn't like so much was the shallowness of the story, or rather, the lack of impact your decisions made. They've had a lot of criticism for this and I hope that they address it.
I'm on a DA2 run currently and about to hit Legacy. I will let you know my thoughts on that once I've finished it.

[Costin_Razvan]

Version 2.0 of my Witcher 2 tribute: Witcher 2: Lands of the North.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 23 août 2011 - 09:36 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
I'd agree, but given the amount of vitrol and criticism over the macguffining of Meredith, Harvstino, the lack of relevancy over the Enigma of Kirkwall, and other assorted events and parts of the game, even from the most vocal supporters of the game who otherwise really liked it and thought it better than Origins, it's possible they will reconsider their direction there, and avoid it in the future.

Legacy and now this does not seem to me that they know what's wrong in the game. If they fail to see the worth of a character like Loghain.

I just wish I can stop caring, I really do. And it's probably going to happen soon.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 23 août 2011 - 11:04 .

[Xilizhra]

I don't think that the person who wrote that codex entry was really thinking about making some kind of major statement regarding Loghain...

[KnightofPhoenix]

It's not so much Loghain that pisses me off. It's Bioware not giving a damn about all the debates that happened, not caring about his fans, deciding to spit on all the ambiguity surrounding the character, who happens to be one of their best characters, if not the best. Couple that with everything they've been doing, and what they did here gives me no reason to be optimistic vis-a-vis the future of the franchise, which I was trying to do.

Loghain was the main reason (Bhelen next) as to why I thought Bioware was taking the low fantasy route. Him being spat on in that way, leaves me with little room to be optimistic about that, and about them making interesting characters. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 24 août 2011 - 12:13 .

[Xilizhra]

I'd be more quick to agree with you if Loghain had any presence whatsoever in DA2 aside from a few offhand remarks and these codex entries. I think it was thoughtless, but I doubt it means anything.

The thing I hate most in this item pack, if you're interested, is Freedom's Promise. Not only did I expect a blood magic staff and fail to get it, but this thing is loaded with the laziest, most predigested symbolism imaginable. If you saw the conversation I had with Skadi a few pages back, you'll know I find this staff-related symbolism stuff fascinating, but here it's just "freedom! With dogs! Meaning Ferelden and thus more freedom!" There's no damned thought behind it, and the symbolism doesn't even have anything to do with magic. If it was Loghain's sword or something, that's fine, but I don't want dogs crapping on my staves.

[phaonica]

Xilizhra wrote...

I don't think that the person who wrote that codex entry was really thinking about making some kind of major statement regarding Loghain...

Then why use Loghain at all? Why not make up some other heroic figure? Probably because they wanted to use the associations that players already have established with a preexisting character. However, instead of taking the opportunity to continue a trend of shades of gray, to acknowledge that there were competing points of view, and to challenge people to look beyond the surface, we're given what amounts to a caricature (which imo is what most of the DA2 cameos of Origins characters did).

[TJPags]

KoP, why does this come as so much as a shock to you?

The cutscene from Origins was labelled "Betrayal", remember.

[phaonica]

Xilizhra wrote...

I'd be more quick to agree with you if Loghain had any presence whatsoever in DA2 aside from a few offhand remarks and these codex entries. I think it was thoughtless, but I doubt it means anything.

I think that being thoughtless and meaningless is exactly the general trend that I saw in DA2 that I didn't like.

Now, I'm not going to say that there was no thought at all put into DA2, because I think that's unfair. For me, a major part of why I didn't like DA2 as much was because I felt a distinct lack of gravity, for lack of a better word.

[KnightofPhoenix]

TJPags wrote...

KoP, why does this come as so much as a shock to you?

The cutscene from Origins was labelled "Betrayal", remember.

Because then you had David Gaider come in and defend him. Yes, the name of the cutscene is idiotic, but I felt they succeeded in making him an ambiguous character in the game (without the books) that can spark that much debate that it became meaningless.

Perhaps the writers didn't think he would be that ambiguous, but he ended up being that deep and they knew it. So instead of trying to build up on that, they decide not to care.

[TJPags]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

TJPags wrote...

KoP, why does this come as so much as a shock to you?

The cutscene from Origins was labelled "Betrayal", remember.

Because then you had David Gaider come in and defend him. Yes, the name of the cutscene is idiotic, but I felt they succeeded in making him an ambiguous character in the game (without the books) that can spark that much debate that it became meaningless.

Perhaps the writers didn't think he would be that ambiguous, but he ended up being that deep and they knew it. So instead of trying to build up on that, they decide not to care.

Personally, I always thought the problem was that when DG came out and defended him, he did it by using information that was cut from the game.  What they left in the game - and yes, I know you disagree here - very much points to Loghain abandoning Caillan and pulling a power play.  And frankly, IMO, The Stolen Throne portrays Loghain as nothing but manipulative, reinforcing my personal belief that he was pulling a power play.

They labelled the scene "Betrayal".  They either thought that, or wanted us to think that (at least for that moment).  Or they really were high when they labelled it.   And it sure played out as a betrayal, if you simply watch Loghain and Cauthrien.  The next time we see Loghain, he's berating the Bann's, and stalking out when questioned.

On the surface, almost everything we see points to Loghain betraying Caillan.  Is it really a shock to have a codex which states this?  You consider it a slap in the face to you and others who view him as a patriot, but it really does nothing more than echo what they showed in game, and the label for the scene when he leaves Ostagar.

If you must, view it as "history written by the victors", as someone else said.  I wouldn't take this and write off the franchise.  (DA2 does that well enough without needing this   )

[phaonica]

TJPags wrote...

On the surface, almost everything we see points to Loghain betraying Caillan.  Is it really a shock to have a codex which states this?  You consider it a slap in the face to you and others who view him as a patriot, but it really does nothing more than echo what they showed in game, and the label for the scene when he leaves Ostagar.

But, to me, the whole point of having "shades of gray" is to challenge one to look at something beyond the surface, whereas this codex reinforces exactly what's on the surface.

[KnightofPhoenix]

TJPags wrote...
Personally, I always thought the problem was that when DG came out and defended him, he did it by using information that was cut from the game.  What they left in the game - and yes, I know you disagree here - very much points to Loghain abandoning Caillan and pulling a power play.  And frankly, IMO, The Stolen Throne portrays Loghain as nothing but manipulative, reinforcing my personal belief that he was pulling a power play.

I and others have always used the same argument before he said anything. It's only much later he joined the debates. Point is, it's clearly ambiguous if there were that many debates about him.

On the surface, almost everything we see points to Loghain betraying Caillan.  Is it really a shock to have a codex which states this?  You consider it a slap in the face to you and others who view him as a patriot, but it really does nothing more than echo what they showed in game, and the label for the scene when he leaves Ostagar.

If you must, view it as "history written by the victors", as someone else said.  I wouldn't take this and write off the franchise.  (DA2 does that well enough without needing this   )

Everything in the surface points to them wanting us to think that way, but many never looked at things on the surface, hence the debates. I never saw him as a traitor, long before Gaider showed up.

It's a slap in the face because they take absolutely no consideration of Loghains' fate. I would dismiss it as "history written by the victors" if Loghain was executed. But if he is not, there is no reason to make such silly assertions. Add to that they didn't bother to give the codex an author, aka meaning it's Bioware saying that.

I am not saying they should have said that Loghain's an amazing hero. What they should have done if they had an ounce of respect for the character and the players, is either keep it ambiguous, or say that some think he is a traitor while others don't. But they clearly have not put any thought into this, which I find is insulting my intelligence, if they are going to use the name of a character like Loghain for a mindless DLC like that.

I am not taking this alone and dismissing the franchise. Several things have been adding up, increasing the possibility of complete indifference.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 24 août 2011 - 01:03 .

[TJPags]

phaonica wrote...

TJPags wrote...

On the surface, almost everything we see points to Loghain betraying Caillan.  Is it really a shock to have a codex which states this?  You consider it a slap in the face to you and others who view him as a patriot, but it really does nothing more than echo what they showed in game, and the label for the scene when he leaves Ostagar.

But, to me, the whole point of having "shades of gray" is to challenge one to look at something beyond the surface, whereas this codex reinforces exactly what's on the surface.

No argument there at all, phaonica. 

Many people, though, are not going to look past the surface.  Of those that do, some are still going to see the same thing they saw on the surface.

Sometimes, what you see on the surface is exactly what you were meant to see, after all.  Sometimes not.  But sometimes, if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is in fact a duck.
 
BW may never have intended to make Loghain as deep or as grey as many people think him to be.  Maybe they did.  But just maybe - they didn't.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

I just looked at screenshots of the new staves:

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/308/index/8180262/1#8182502

.....................

Seriously, forget about symbolism, those have to be the dumbest, ugliest, most tacky looking and gawdy staves I've ever seen in either game. I mean, dog statues tied up to a generic stick-staff? And this is DLC I am expected to want to buy? I think they'd have least put some effort into actually making it aesthetically unique. And since they wish to continue this focus with dogs and marbari hounds, I'd think they'd have at least make the dogs more stylized and all. Or at least make the staff look less primitive.

I'll pass on this DLC as well, I think. Even without a toolset, I've seen some better model manipulation and change on alot of mods over on the nexus, and they are free. If Bioware wants my money, they gotta do better than this in the looks department, I think. As well as lore.

I do wonder and hope that they plan on releasing more plot focused or lore enhancing DLCs, instead of just item packs. legacy did well, they  should take it as a sign that's what people are willing to pay for: plot.

[KnightofPhoenix]

....wtf is this?

Oh God.

[KnightofPhoenix]

TJPags wrote...
BW may never have intended to make Loghain as deep or as grey as many people think him to be.  Maybe they did.  But just maybe - they didn't.

But should that matter? At the end of the day, many thought he was deep and it added something to the game that it would have otherwise lacked.

Wouldn't the smart thing to do be to pretend that you meant to do that along and just don't ****** on it?

[TJPags]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

TJPags wrote...
Personally, I always thought the problem was that when DG came out and defended him, he did it by using information that was cut from the game.  What they left in the game - and yes, I know you disagree here - very much points to Loghain abandoning Caillan and pulling a power play.  And frankly, IMO, The Stolen Throne portrays Loghain as nothing but manipulative, reinforcing my personal belief that he was pulling a power play.

I and others have always used the same argument before he said anything. It's only much later he joined the debates. Point is, it's clearly ambiguous if there were that many debates about him.

On the surface, almost everything we see points to Loghain betraying Caillan.  Is it really a shock to have a codex which states this?  You consider it a slap in the face to you and others who view him as a patriot, but it really does nothing more than echo what they showed in game, and the label for the scene when he leaves Ostagar.

If you must, view it as "history written by the victors", as someone else said.  I wouldn't take this and write off the franchise.  (DA2 does that well enough without needing this   )

Everything in the surface points to them wanting us to think that way, but many never looked at things on the surface, hence the debates. I never saw him as a traitor, long before Gaider showed up.

It's a slap in the face because they take absolutely no consideration of Loghains' fate. I would dismiss it as "history written by the victors" if Loghain was executed. But if he is not, there is no reason to make such silly assertions. Add to that they didn't bother to give the codex an author, aka meaning it's Bioware saying that.

I am not saying they should have said that Loghain's an amazing hero. What they should have done if they had an ounce of respect for the character and the players, is either keep it ambiguous, or say that some think he is a traitor while others don't. But they clearly have not put any thought into this, which I find is insulting my intelligence, if they are going to use the name of a character like Loghain for a mindless DLC like that.

I am not taking this alone and dismissing the franchise. Several things have been adding up, increasing the possibility of complete indifference.

Maybe they never wanted us to look below the surface.  Maybe they wanted him to be a villain.  I wonder if Hermann Melville ever intended for so many people to debate the meaning of Moby Dick, or if he just wanted to write a story about a man obsessed with a fish?

[KnightofPhoenix]

TJPags wrote...
Maybe they never wanted us to look below the surface.  Maybe they wanted him to be a villain.  I wonder if Hermann Melville ever intended for so many people to debate the meaning of Moby Dick, or if he just wanted to write a story about a man obsessed with a fish?

Even if they wanted him to be a villain, so they can hit every single clichee in the book. Many thought Loghain made the game. I certainly do, without him Origins would have been the same crap we heard a million times. Who was the most discussed and debated character in Origins?

So how would it make any sense if Bioware came up and said "you know all that depth and grey you saw? Well we didn't mean that, we wanted to be as cliched and shallow as we could. Sorry, all your debates were illusionary, Loghain was not meant to be discussed like that."

Why would they want to look less complex and deep?

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 24 août 2011 - 01:13 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

I'd like to share a modded staff model made by a hobbyist modder with the DAO toolset:




It came with a set of armor of its own, which I do not use, because the staff alone is worth it. This staff, which I find well made and aesthetically pleasing, was again, made with the toolset bya modder with alot of imagination and effort.

I shall say nothing more.....

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
I shall say nothing more.....

They are probably laughing at your intelligent conversation about symbolism. As they are laughing at all the Loghain debates.