12857 réponses à ce sujet

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

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

I wouldn't care if they found it laughable, if they would only release a toolset so all the whiz kids and artistic wonders in the modding community could create fixes and models I didn't find laughable....

Hell, I'm willing to bet alot of complaints might have been resolved to many PC gamers satisfaction if they had released a toolset. Me included. One thing Origins taught me was, alot of things can be forgiven and forgotten with the right mods...

[phaonica]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

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?

Exactly, if they are promoting a theme of moral ambiguity, and they accidently made a character more morally ambiguous than they intended, is that not a perception that you would want to cultivate, rather than break down?

[Xilizhra]

To be honest, Origins needed more interesting staves because the ones we got were dull as hell both looks- and lorewise. 2 already has plenty of good ones, which admittedly includes Malcolm's Honor. Not, however, this.

[KnightofPhoenix]

For me, mods are there to improve an experience. Not fix it.

I wouldn't be able to enjoy DA2 unless the mod was a complete overhaul.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 24 août 2011 - 01:32 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Awakening introduced two very beautiful staves, and those two staff models were the only ones I really liked in DA2. There was the double headed spiral dragon staff in vanilla Origins that I liked and thought was the best model.

But DA2 was primarily mage robe improvements as I saw, the staves didn't do much for me. Some of the newer models looked a bit over the top. And nothing compared to alot of moddded armors and weapons for Origins. Like I said, this game could have really done with a toolset.

[Xilizhra]

Out of curiosity, what did you think of the Staff of Violation?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
But DA2 was primarily mage robe improvements as I saw, the staves didn't do much for me.

There was a Mage staff (chantry something) that looks exactly like a Qunari spear = lazy.

[Zjarcal]

Having read every post here on the thread, on SUs, over at cme's group and having actually gone over that codex entry several times, as well as entertaining the idea that BW does indeed intend to portray that entry as a fact, I will say this.

First, and just to get it out of the way, I do not think the codex entry is meant to be taken as a fact. Yes, it's author less, which doesn't help matters, but it has been stated before how even the epilogue slides aren't fact. Whatever you may think of that (judging by TJPags sig I assume he hates that), to me it shows that BW doesn't intend for anything to be treated as fact, but for it to be open for interpretation, especially something like the codex entry for a piece of armor. If you think that's lame, then that's another issue, but that's how I think they meant for that to be handled.

Second, assuming for a moment that the entry is meant to be taken as fact, that BW is telling us that Loghain did betray Cailan, does that really kill his character or the debates we've had about him? My impression of the Loghain debates has been that it's not so much about whether it was a betrayal or not, but about whether Loghain was justified in abandoning Cailan or not.

Assuming that they are telling us "yes, Loghain betrayed Cailan", my reaction would be "So?". I don't see how that would negate anything I've debated about him on the forums over the past year and a half, especially seeing how most of what I've ever debated has been about his actions being justified, however questionable they might have been. I still approve of what he did even if he meant it as a betrayal. Hell, even if he intended to get rid of Cailan since before Ostagar I would approve.

Take Bhelen, another character who is very popular amongst regulars on this thread (not me though, but that's irrelevant). Did Bhelen betray his sibling in the DN origin? Sure he did, that's not even debatable. Yet that has never stopped you guys from admiring him or defending him in countless debates.

I guess my point here is, even if I can sort of understand why the codex entry annoys you, as in you guys feel that BW is painting Loghain as the villain (which I don't even think is the case here), I fail to see why this taints his character in any way, or why everything his fans have debated on the forums is now negated.

I don't intend to argue too much over this, I just wanted to share my thoughts on the issue and why I really am not even remotely bothered by that entry.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Xilizhra wrote...

Out of curiosity, what did you think of the Staff of Violation?

It was a nice, unique looking staff, but it seemed  like it was trying too much to look "sinister". i actually prefered the more subtle, spiral twisting imagery of the origins staves, because it was subtle, but graceful.

[Xilizhra]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Out of curiosity, what did you think of the Staff of Violation?

It was a nice, unique looking staff, but it seemed  like it was trying too much to look "sinister". i actually prefered the more subtle, spiral twisting imagery of the origins staves, because it was subtle, but graceful.

I personally thought the design made a nice contrast with Orsino, and was a great help in getting him to stand out.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
But DA2 was primarily mage robe improvements as I saw, the staves didn't do much for me.

There was a Mage staff (chantry something) that looks exactly like a Qunari spear = lazy.

Chanter's staff. Yeah, I know the one you mean, because I had trouble trying to figure out what sort of image it had on the end, only to zoom in and realize it was a giant spearhead. Which kinda annoyed me, as I figured something called a Chanter's staff would have had some symbol or form associated with the Chantry or what not. Or, even just look like any other normal circle staff. But not a spear. But I noticed a few staves looked more like martial arts weapons than proper mage staffs.

[Xilizhra]

Well, they wanted to make staves be useful in melee combat, so I'm not surprised there was a movement to add spiky things to them.

[TJPags]

Zjarcal wrote...

Having read every post here on the thread, on SUs, over at cme's group and having actually gone over that codex entry several times, as well as entertaining the idea that BW does indeed intend to portray that entry as a fact, I will say this.

First, and just to get it out of the way, I do not think the codex entry is meant to be taken as a fact. Yes, it's author less, which doesn't help matters, but it has been stated before how even the epilogue slides aren't fact. Whatever you may think of that (judging by TJPags sig I assume he hates that), to me it shows that BW doesn't intend for anything to be treated as fact, but for it to be open for interpretation, especially something like the codex entry for a piece of armor. If you think that's lame, then that's another issue, but that's how I think they meant for that to be handled.

Second, assuming for a moment that the entry is meant to be taken as fact, that BW is telling us that Loghain did betray Cailan, does that really kill his character or the debates we've had about him? My impression of the Loghain debates has been that it's not so much about whether it was a betrayal or not, but about whether Loghain was justified in abandoning Cailan or not.

Assuming that they are telling us "yes, Loghain betrayed Cailan", my reaction would be "So?". I don't see how that would negate anything I've debated about him on the forums over the past year and a half, especially seeing how most of what I've ever debated has been about his actions being justified, however questionable they might have been. I still approve of what he did even if he meant it as a betrayal. Hell, even if he intended to get rid of Cailan since before Ostagar I would approve.

Take Bhelen, another character who is very popular amongst regulars on this thread (not me though, but that's irrelevant). Did Bhelen betray his sibling in the DN origin? Sure he did, that's not even debatable. Yet that has never stopped you guys from admiring him or defending him in countless debates.

I guess my point here is, even if I can sort of understand why the codex entry annoys you, as in you guys feel that BW is painting Loghain as the villain (which I don't even think is the case here), I fail to see why this taints his character in any way, or why everything his fans have debated on the forums is now negated.

I don't intend to argue too much over this, I just wanted to share my thoughts on the issue and why I really am not even remotely bothered by that entry.

Well said.  I think this kind of sums up my feelings as well.

Yes, I think Loghain is scum.  But does it matter?  Even for me, he added something to the story.  It became not just about killing the AD, but dealing with Loghain - and we had options to do that.

As you say, it's pretty clear, Loghain betrayed Cailan.  Did he betray Ferelden?  Did he betray Maric, by abandoning his son?  Or did he uphold Maric's ideals, by doing his damndest to do what he thought was best for Ferelden?  Did he have valid reasons for what he did, or was he just on a power trip?

No matter what BW thought, we all have our opinions.  Maybe BW did just want a one dimensional character, and accidentally got more.  Maybe they wanted the depth so many people see in Loghain.  Either way, it's there.

At worst, the codex tells us what they intended.  As I mentioned above, Hermann Melville may have intended a dramatic story about a guy chasing a fish.  What you intend isn't always what people see.

And when it comes down to enjoying something, what's more important - what the creator intended, or what you see?

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Xilizhra wrote...

I personally thought the design made a nice contrast with Orsino, and was a great help in getting him to stand out.

He already stood out to me as being a seeming voice of reason and peaceful resolution. Don't get to even see him or get an idea of who he is until the very end of act 2. Act 3 he seems so perfectly nice and reasonable, I can't help but want to side with him....and the comes Harvestino.

The codex is more interesting to me than the staff itself, in describing the very first First Enchanter of Kirkwall.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Zjarcal wrote...
First, and just to get it out of the way, I do not think the codex entry is meant to be taken as a fact. Yes, it's author less, which doesn't help matters, but it has been stated before how even the epilogue slides aren't fact. Whatever you may think of that (judging by TJPags sig I assume he hates that), to me it shows that BW doesn't intend for anything to be treated as fact, but for it to be open for interpretation, especially something like the codex entry for a piece of armor. If you think that's lame, then that's another issue, but that's how I think they meant for that to be handled.

If that's their intention, then showing the differences of opinions is what they should do. Not do the exact opposite, where they not only force one view, but they don't bother to give it an author so we can say it's subjective.

Assuming that they are telling us "yes, Loghain betrayed Cailan", my reaction would be "So?". I don't see how that would negate anything I've debated about him on the forums over the past year and a half, especially seeing how most of what I've ever debated has been about his actions being justified, however questionable they might have been. I still approve of what he did even if he meant it as a betrayal. Hell, even if he intended to get rid of Cailan since before Ostagar I would approve.

Because saying it as broadly and thoughtlessly as that, makes it look like Loghain betrayed Ferelden and not Cailan. That is a big negation to everything that was debated. And saying it's a betrayal and not a retreat skews his motivations. It's like he planned to betray him, which he did not.

My problem with it goes beyond that. They ended up saying that everyone hates him, which is bs, and takes no account at all of his fate. Why would Loghain who sacrificed his life for his country, be as reviled as he was loved? Are they expecting me to believe that? Why would Loghain, who fights alongside the Warden to defeat the blight and survives be hated that much? sure, if he was executed at the Landsmeet, I can see that happening. But now they are just negating everything that they said before. With the poor excuse of "well it's all hearsay and rumors, we could have the complete opposiute if we want."   Next thing they will do is make Bhelen an anti-casteless traditionialist, because the epilogues are all rumors.

It's his estate being looted (I won't even go into what Arcturus, who became the Teyrn of Gwaren, would think about that). You can't express hatred more than that. And why was this all done? To justify the presence of an armor for a mindless DLC? Really? Why was this necessary? So what they are telling us, is that Loghain is hated by everyone and everyone thinks he is a traitor.

Take Bhelen, another character who is very popular amongst regulars on this thread (not me though, but that's irrelevant). Did Bhelen betray his sibling in the DN origin? Sure he did, that's not even debatable. Yet that has never stopped you guys from admiring him or defending him in countless debates

Yes, because of what he does for Orzammar, but that was never ambiguous. Loghain's supposed betrayal was or ended up to be ambiguous (and yes, I would have supported Loghain killing Cailan way before, but that's not the point).

Furthermore, Bhelen's epilogue slide said that some saw him as a tyrant, others saw him as a visionary. Thats good. Why couldn't they have written something like that for Loghain? Do they really have to cater for people who can't look beyond the surface?

My problem with this is that after the debacle of Orsino and Meredith, Bioware sould be *really* humble right now and not dismiss characters like Loghain when they can't even come cose to duplicating half of him. It's an item DLC for God's sake, why mention him at all if you are going to do a half-assed thoughtless job? It's just completely lacking of any kind of respect, for the character and for players (of the same variety as Harvestino being a boss for its own sake, it's an insult to our intelligence).  And with everything else I am seeing, not a good sign at all.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 24 août 2011 - 02:01 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Xilizhra wrote...

Well, they wanted to make staves be useful in melee combat, so I'm not surprised there was a movement to add spiky things to them.

Looks tacky though, and for anyone other than hawke or another apostate, would not make much sense. especially Circle mages, who even in Ferelden were forbidden from taking up arms and learning self defense (a codex you find in the broken Circle quest even goes into this better). So blades on staves, unless there's been a rise in the number of arcane warriors, would seem odd.

One of the things that  made me raise my brow was some of the moves mage hawke was busting with her staff. It's like Malcom Hawke also trained her in Kung Fu.

[Xilizhra]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Well, they wanted to make staves be useful in melee combat, so I'm not surprised there was a movement to add spiky things to them.

Looks tacky though, and for anyone other than hawke or another apostate, would not make much sense. especially Circle mages, who even in Ferelden were forbidden from taking up arms and learning self defense (a codex you find in the broken Circle quest even goes into this better). So blades on staves, unless there's been a rise in the number of arcane warriors, would seem odd.

One of the things that  made me raise my brow was some of the moves mage hawke was busting with her staff. It's like Malcom Hawke also trained her in Kung Fu.

Well, that's why the Circle mages all use that Birchcore-esque design that doesn't look very useful as a weapon. I don't think trash weapons or armor have much lore basis anyway, or ever did.

Also, Malcolm was a very skilled physical fighter, so he probably did teach his children that, yes.

[phaonica]

Zjarcal wrote...

to me it shows that BW doesn't intend for anything to be treated as fact, but for it to be open for interpretation, especially something like the codex entry for a piece of armor. If you think that's lame, then that's another issue, but that's how I think they meant for that to be handled.

I just find it hard to fathom having a discussion/debate about conflicts or characters if nothing can be considered a fact.

Second, assuming for a moment that the entry is meant to be taken as fact, that BW is telling us that Loghain did betray Cailan, does that really kill his character or the debates we've had about him? ... I still approve of what he did even if he meant it as a betrayal. Hell,
even if he intended to get rid of Cailan since before Ostagar I would
approve.

It doesn't destroy the fun I continue to have with the character, no. And I still understand the betrayer pov, might even agree with it, because ultimately we don't know for sure. My complaint is that they throw the word 'betrayer' out there without any recognition of other potential points of view, without acknowledging the debate that surrounded the scope of his guilt. And again, to be fair, IMO, I thought that Alistair and Zevran got similar caricature treatments, which I was no more pleased with than this.

Take Bhelen, another character who is very popular amongst regulars on this thread (not me though, but that's irrelevant). Did Bhelen betray his sibling in the DN origin? Sure he did, that's not even debatable. Yet that has never stopped you guys from admiring him or defending him in countless debates.

That's true, and I think it's because Bhelen's betrayal, in your words is "not even debatable." If, however, a codex definitively refered to Bhelen's systematic execution of his opposition as "monstrous", I would probably have a problem with that, because that *is* debatable.

I guess my point here is, even if I can sort of understand why the codex entry annoys you, as in you guys feel that BW is painting Loghain as the villain (which I don't even think is the case here), I fail to see why this taints his character in any way, or why everything his fans have debated on the forums is now negated.

I don't think it negates the arguments or taints his character. As I said before, I think that it reinforces a surface perception, rather than reinforcing the theme of moral ambiguity.

Modifié par phaonica, 24 août 2011 - 02:03 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Xilizhra wrote...


Well, that's why the Circle mages all use that Birchcore-esque design that doesn't look very useful as a weapon. I don't think trash weapons or armor have much lore basis anyway, or ever did.

Also, Malcolm was a very skilled physical fighter, so he probably did teach his children that, yes.

The staff of Violation's Lore is definitely of interest, as it creates a very interesting picture and scenario of the early days of the Circle system.

The other staves, especially the ones that look like pretified random sticks and branches, do not even seem to fit the Circle of Magi image, yet you get one as your "Circle Staff" from irving.

[Xilizhra]

The staff of Violation's Lore is definitely of interest, as it creates a very interesting picture and scenario of the early days of the Circle system.

Indeed... do you think Orsino's angry letter is accurate, or is he mistaken/lying?

The other staves, especially the ones that look like pretified random sticks and branches, do not even seem to fit the Circle of Magi image, yet you get one as your "Circle Staff" from irving.

Agreed, and that annoyed the hell out of me. Though I always used the Acolyte's Staff I could find in a closet somewhere... it's a shame I couldn't keep Valor's.

[KnightofPhoenix]

*takes a deep breath*

Maybe the looting of the estate happened during the civil war. Bodahn mentions a riot in Gwaren. So maybe that's when this happened. But they don't mention it. They say with so much assertion that Loghain was reviled when most were on his side by default.

Like I said, it's not so much the treatment Loghain is getting. It's the impression such a thing leaves, to me that is the problem. I honestly feel I am not only not being respected, but that I am having my intelligence insulted, and more importantly that bioware doesn't seem to realize how good Loghain was as a character and how much they should be inspired to make characters like him and better.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 24 août 2011 - 02:11 .

[Zjarcal]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

My problem with it goes beyond that. They ended up saying that everyone hates him, which is bs, and takes no account at all of his fate. Why would Loghain who sacrificed his life for his country, be as reviled as he was loved? Are they expecting me to believe that? Why would Loghain, who fights alongside the Warden to defeat the blight and survives be hated that much? sure, if he was executed at the Landsmeet, I can see that happening. But now they are just negating everything that they said before. With the poor excuse of "well it's all hearsay and rumors, we could have the complete opposiute if we want."   Next thing they will do is make Bhelen an anti-casteless traditionialist, because the epilogues are all rumors.

Ok, this is certainly a fair point. But the way I interpreted that entry (and I may have interpreted it wrongly), is that the hatred and everything stated there were things that happened before the Landsmeet and the AD's death. Of course, given how the entry doesn't clarify, I can see why one can interpret it as stuff that happens after the blight is over, in which case yes, I agree with you that not taking into account his fate is a big mistake.

Seeing it from that point of view I admit that I can now understand your annoyance, I just hadn't seen it that way.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

It's his estate being looted (I won't even go into what Arcturus, who became the Teyrn of Gwaren, would think about that). You can't express hatred more than that. And why was this all done? To justify the presence of an armor for a mindless DLC? Really? Why was this necessary? So what they are telling us, is that Loghain is hated by everyone and everyone thinks he is a traitor.

Again, since I am assuming the events happened before the blight was over, I just saw it as a bunch of Cailan loyalists rallying against him, not so much as them stating that everyone hated him.

I can see your point about a weapon DLC not really being a good place to do this kind of thing, especially if they don't explain things more clearly.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

My problem with this is that after the debacle of Orsino and Meredith, Bioware sould be *really* humble right now and not dismiss characters like Loghain when they can't even come cose to duplicating half of him. It's an item DLC for God's sake, why mention him at all if you are going to do a half-assed thoughtless job? It's just completely lacking of any kind of respect, for the character and for players (of the same variety as Harvestino being a boss for its own sake, it's an insult to our intelligence).  And with everything else I am seeing, not a good sign at all.

Ok, knowing how you've felt about Bioware lately, yes I understand your point. And don't get me started on Harvestino... that is the one thing where I do share anger with you.

Modifié par Zjarcal, 24 août 2011 - 02:11 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Yea I ninjaed you
I realized the possibility of it being during the civil war. They should have mentioned that.

But the "he is as reviled as he was revered" is just completely unnecessary and inaccurate.

[phaonica]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Yea I ninjaed you
I realized the possibility of it being during the civil war. They should have mentioned that.

Goodness, I did the same thing. I completely jumped to the conclusion that the looting occured after the Blight.

But the "he is as reviled as he was revered" is just completely unnecessary and inaccurate. 

I do still agree with this.

[KnightofPhoenix]

phaonica wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Yea I ninjaed you
I realized the possibility of it being during the civil war. They should have mentioned that.

Goodness, I did the same thing. I completely jumped to the conclusion that the looting occured after the Blight.

But the "he is as reviled as he was revered" is just completely unnecessary and inaccurate. 

I do still agree with this.

It's really that line that made me jump to that conclusion. Because he obviously was not as reviled as he was revered during the civil war, most people were with him and he was winning.

He only becomes very reviled (as much as he was revered pretty much means universally) if his "crimes" were exposed at the Landsmeet and he is executed in disgrace.