12857 réponses à ce sujet

[Addai]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Finally caved and purchased the DLC item pack for Dragon Age 2 that contained Loghain's armor, though upon reading the codex entries related to him they certainly do rub in the negative aspects of the character far too hard.

Is it wrong of me to think they'll bring back Loghain later and make us regret sparing him, twisting a moustache and telling us that he wanted Cailan dead all along? The cynic in me is worried.

I would not be surprised they use whatever gimmick they think will sell.  The real problem for me is... I don't care.  I like the writers, I am going to read David Gaider's book, but the creative direction of the franchise is taking it away from anything that interests me.

[actionhero112]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

To put this topic back on track.

Loghain is a fool who cant let go of the past. Just like Zathrian.

A bastard of an Orlesian commander raped and killed his mother and he had to become an outlaw because his father hunted the man down and killed him. And he uses that grudge for decades as an excuse to let himself hold a prejudice against any and everything Orlesian(Plenty of Fereldans have committed crimes just as, if not more heinous. Look at Rendon Howe, Vaughn Kendalls, and even Loghain himself).

To put it simply, you cant blame all for the actions of the few. It's true that the Orlesian court is dangerous and the Chevaliers are awarded with rights that aren't just. But that's no excuse to cast them all as monsters, especially when Ferelden can use their aid to battle real monsters.

Loghain should have thought about it that way. Four Legions of Chevaliers are better to die at the hands of Darkspawn than Fereldan troops.

I would say that a healthy suspicion is warranted when a country has occupied yours for the past several decades while abusing your people. 

Also while I do agree that Loghain was originally motivated by a first hand expierence of the cruelty of the orlesian occupiers. I doubt the entire country rebelled because of a couple transgressions. 

I mean, I doubt American's would have accepted aid from the British soon after the American revolution, and this is much the same situation. The country needs to prove it can stand on its own, than rely on its would-be conquerers. 

I'm not defending Lohgain's actions against the GW, but I don't think his thoughts are entirely selfish either. While Lohgain condemned Cailan for being weak leader, so was  he in a sense. But they both had the interests of Ferelden at heart and tried to do what each thought was best. 

[Costin_Razvan]

tklivory wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Personally I would like a story about Scipio Afrikanus. The guy who saved Rome and got screwed over by it.

Now there's a list of people with no end...

Don't get me started on that.

 Addai67 

Pardon me. He get's too much MILITARY credit for that victory, the German troops too little and Varus is considered too good a commander.

The reality was that Varus was a complete and utter idiot.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 04 décembre 2011 - 01:44 .

[Gibb_Shepard]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Finally caved and purchased the DLC item pack for Dragon Age 2 that contained Loghain's armor, though upon reading the codex entries related to him they certainly do rub in the negative aspects of the character far too hard.

Is it wrong of me to think they'll bring back Loghain later and make us regret sparing him, twisting a moustache and telling us that he wanted Cailan dead all along? The cynic in me is worried.

I just realized now that this item pack has actual descriptions. I obviously wrote it off far too early.

I read some on the wiki, and seeing Kell's bow has just gotten me excited. I don't even play DA2 anymore yet i want to purchase the DLC purely for the "Calling" reference.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

 I'd rather not be on the side of relative primitives for once. I want to be on the side of the ever so demonized empires.

Personally I would like a story about Scipio Afrikanus. The guy who saved Rome and got screwed over by it.

I'd prefer Flavius Aetius

But the story that I really want to see in a game is that of Abd al-Rahman I al-Dakhil, Saqr Quraish (the Falcon of Quraish), the founder of the Umayyad emirate in al-Andalus. His story is incredible and of legendary proportions. 
What he does at the battle of Carmona would make for an epic scene.

[Costin_Razvan]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

 I'd rather not be on the side of relative primitives for once. I want to be on the side of the ever so demonized empires.

Personally I would like a story about Scipio Afrikanus. The guy who saved Rome and got screwed over by it.

I'd prefer Flavius Aetius

But the story that I really want to see in a game is that of Abd al-Rahman I al-Dakhil, Saqr Quraish (the Falcon of Quraish), the founder of the Umayyad emirate in al-Andalus. His story is incredible and of legendary proportions. 
What he does at the battle of Carmona would make for an epic scene.

Attila: I have no proof.
Aetius: It doesn't matter.

Powers Boothe is just legendary in that series.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 04 décembre 2011 - 03:53 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

"It doesn't matter. It's good politics".

That's what makes the quote epic.

[tklivory]

Ooo, ooo, if we're talking about historical figures we'd love to see in video games...

I second KoP's for Saqr Quraish.  Absolutely bloody *fascinating* historical figure, and so pivotal for the region.

Also high, high, high on my list:

Tamerlane (Timur)
Ashok Maurya (Ashoka of India)
Empress Wu Zetian of China (only sole ruling Empress of China, always been fascinated by her)

All of these (including the Falcon of Quraish) are pivotal figures in their respective regions and are sadly neglected just because they happen to be non-Western.

Stupid self-absorption of Westerners...  It's like we think that all history began and ended with Greece, Rome, etc...

Modifié par tklivory, 04 décembre 2011 - 04:28 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

You know about him? Awesome, very few people know about him, Arabs included.

[Merilsell]

Addai67 wrote...
I would not be surprised they use whatever gimmick they think will sell.  The real problem for me is... I don't care.  I like the writers, I am going to read David Gaider's book, but the creative direction of the franchise is taking it away from anything that interests me.

Yeah, it is the same for me. I see new DA-stuff and all I can think is 'meh' Basically it is my FF what keeps me interested in DA, nothing more. Without enjoying it to write on it for so long, I'd have moved on after the debacle DA2 was for me. Yet I'm looking forward to Gaider's new book...and partly even to the comic with Alistair. (Yeah, I know wrong thread, lol) but I have zero interest in DA3 whatsoever. *shrug*

So yay for fanfiction which let my love for DA live on and let me enjoy it more than the original writer ever managed. Post DA:O, of course.

[tklivory]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

You know about him? Awesome, very few people know about him, Arabs included.

The period of the Umayyad dynasty is endlessly fascinating to me.  Abd al-Rahman is one of the most interesting of that dynasty, of course, because of all he had to overcome: the assassination attempts by the Abbasids, his dramatic escape with Bedr, and the establishment of the Andalusian Umayyads.  Astonishing what he overcame to get to where he ended up.

Amazing individual.

Modifié par tklivory, 04 décembre 2011 - 05:10 .

[tklivory]

Merilsell wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
I would not be surprised they use whatever gimmick they think will sell.  The real problem for me is... I don't care.  I like the writers, I am going to read David Gaider's book, but the creative direction of the franchise is taking it away from anything that interests me.

Yeah, it is the same for me. I see new DA-stuff and all I can think is 'meh' Basically it is my FF what keeps me interested in DA, nothing more. Without enjoying it to write on it for so long, I'd have moved on after the debacle DA2 was for me. Yet I'm looking forward to Gaider's new book...and partly even to the comic with Alistair. (Yeah, I know wrong thread, lol) but I have zero interest in DA3 whatsoever. *shrug*

So yay for fanfiction which let my love for DA live on and let me enjoy it more than the original writer ever managed. Post DA:O, of course.

I still haven't played DA2, though I do still intend to in some nebulous *someday* (if nothing else, at least so I can parody it in my Once Upon a Time series of short stories )


Other than DA:O, my infusion into the DA universe has been limited: haven't read the books, haven't played all the DLC (outside of Witch Hunt *hugs Morrigan close*), &c, &c.  Not sure how I feel about the comic, though I'm certainly not as... hostile as I was towards it initially .  But, based on what I've read, I'm also a little feared of what they're doing to the franchise... They took what I loved the most about the first game (the dialogue) and cut it literally in half for the second game...  And EA isn't known for trying to craft experiences, and they're in control of the purse right now...

Modifié par tklivory, 04 décembre 2011 - 05:18 .

[Addai]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Pardon me. He get's too much MILITARY credit for that victory, the German troops too little and Varus is considered too good a commander.

The reality was that Varus was a complete and utter idiot.

It's true Varus wasn't the sharpest tack and his brutality aided the rallying of the tribes, but you can't discount what Arminius did.  The Germans would not even have gotten that chance without him.  And despite setbacks (mostly dealt to him by other Germans including the Roman lapdog Germanicus) he held on to his victory.

[Costin_Razvan]

It's true Varus wasn't the sharpest tack and his brutality aided the rallying of the tribes, but you can't discount what Arminius did. The Germans would not even have gotten that chance without him. And despite setbacks (mostly dealt to him by other Germans including the Roman lapdog Germanicus) he held on to his victory.

The only reason Germany didn't fall was that Tiberius decided he didn't really care to conquer it. It most certainly wasn't due to what Arminius did. When the Germans met the Romans in open battle the Romans smashed them to pieces.

Hannibal Barca on the other hand...now that's a legendary general.

Germanicus was a genius that was betrayed ( supposedly ) by Tiberius.

[Addai]

Oh, right. The Romans can do no wrong. You guys are priceless.

[Costin_Razvan]

Addai67 wrote...

Oh, right. The Romans can do no wrong. You guys are priceless.

Oh yeah because the Barbarians achieved SOO much. Bull****, at ;east until you consider the Goths.

But hey nevermind I just commented on how much a fool a roman general was before, but whatever.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 04 décembre 2011 - 11:48 .

[blothulfur]

The loss of those three legions so close to the homeland must have been quite a blow to roman morale in the period, that would be what fifteen thousand men from a standing roman army of perhaps ten times that. Augustus' godhood must have been quite badly tarnished as well as the myth of roman invincibility, i've no doubt that the massacre was somewhat of a lucky turn for Arminius and that upon an open field of battle (as opposed to the deep wald) roman discipline and tactics would have won out but that can't really lessen the achievement.

Pity the Germans just decided to ****** away their victory through petty infighting and feuds, but then again that's one of the downsides of tribalism.

[Addai]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Oh, right. The Romans can do no wrong. You guys are priceless.

Oh yeah because the Barbarians achieved SOO much. Bull****, at ;east until you consider the Goths.

But hey nevermind I just commented on how much a fool a roman general was before, but whatever.

The Goths who disappeared into history and left very little behind...

There's nothing special about the Romans.  Empires came and went.   I suppose in your view being "civilized" gave them the right to enslave half the Germans and try to rule the rest of them with a boot on their neck, but ****ing with the Germanic tribes was what hastened Rome's downfall in the end.

[Costin_Razvan]

Winning a battle through luck is not impressive to me. It's why I don't think much of the British Victory at Waterloo ( seriously Ney, a massed cavalry charge against an entrenched enemy on a hill?! ) and admire Kutuzov's defeat of Napoleon in Russia. Because whatever strategic mistakes Napoleon made he still showed his military brilliance plenty of time there.

 The Goths who disappeared into history and left very little behind...

There's nothing special about the Romans.  Empires came and went.   I suppose in your view being "civilized" gave them the right to enslave half the Germans and try to rule the rest of them with a boot on their neck, but ****ing with the Germanic tribes was what hastened Rome's downfall in the end.

An Empire which lasted 2000 years ( yes I consider the Byzantines as the continuation of the Empire ) is nothing special, but nevermind that the recorded history we have of ancient times is largely because of them.

But hey it's cool to demonize Empires right?

As for the Germans. "Snorts" They were nothing until Charlmagne conquered them. Which led to the creation of the Holy Roman Empire, which in turn permited the rise of the Hasburgs and Austria with Prussia appearing much later on.

As for "Right". Well here's a shocker, everyone with power does that. America does it as well nowadays and my only problem with them is they are being very very stupid about it recently.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 05 décembre 2011 - 01:15 .

[blothulfur]

Wasn't it Bonaparte himself who said don't bring me the skilled generals, bring me the lucky ones. Or something like that.

Can never understand why he left the field at waterloo, arsenic poisoning or no, one of his first rules was that a commander should not leave the field until the hurly burly was done.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

There's nothing special about the Romans.  Empires came and went. 

And in so doing, affected the course of human history forever. The world before Rome and after it are drastically different.

I don't know what's so cool about defending the primitives societies. Certainly, some of them had impressive individuals (who rose largely as a reaction against more accomplished societies), but in terms of what they achieved as collectives and their impact on human history, it's minimal to say the least.

I have no trouble at all recognizing that the Arabs before Muhammad were nothing but primitive and backwards, and had no impact at all on human history (and this position had nothing to do with my religious beliefs. It's purely on a secular / pragmatic level). And I challenge anyone who would claim the contrary.

EDIT: I think Rome committed a lot of mistakes. And in some issues (like the status of women), more primitive societies had ideas that confirm with modern ones more (has more to do with how their societies were structured than any cultural differences, I'd argue). I think Rome was too brutal at times as well. But there is no denying that Rome left a huge impact on the world at large, and Europe in particular.  There is no doubt they achieved a lot (whether they had the right to or not is a seperate question that I do not give an ounce of a damn about). 

Of course I am more partial towards the early Caliphates and I would identify with them more and I would argue that in certain fields, they contributed more and had a bigger impact. But they too are full of mistakes and flaws. But no one is going to convince me that spain was better off, or Imazighen were more accomplished (whether the Arabs had the right to conquer their lands is again another question that I find utterly meaningless in the context of an anarchic world).

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 05 décembre 2011 - 01:54 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

As for "Right". Well here's a shocker, everyone with power does that. America does it as well nowadays and my only problem with them is they are being very very stupid about it recently.

Anyone talking about "right" in the context of international relations not being governed by any set of enforceable law, is not talking about what *is* and how the world *is*.

Simply put, there is no such thing as *rights* in international relations, so long as we do not have a body that can enforce them by law and necessarily by force. 

So trying to apply something that does not even exist in our own contemporary world to events that happened thousands of years ago is quite laughable to me.

[Addai]

Oh the poor misunderstood Romans... lol

[KnightofPhoenix]

Hahaha that would be funny if that was the case.

I think what Addai meant is that there was nothing inherently superior about Rome that warranted or justified its actions, and that other empires existed. While all true, Rome was still much more influential and had a larger impact than most other empires. Amongst empires, which are numerous, Rome was special. Not the only one, I'd argue but still special.