12857 réponses à ce sujet

[Morwen Eledhwen]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Morwen Eledhwen wrote...

It's difficult to draw Loghain without that brow knit at least a little. But yes, I imagine he would frown when sleeping anyway.

No but it's good, well done!

Hey, the rest of his face is relaxed. Maybe he's dreaming...

Thanks.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

No I've been told I am very quiet when sleeping. And since I am a light sleeper, even the faintest of snores wake me up (and irritate me tremendously).

I've slept through a 7.0 earthquake, 9/11, and a jackhammer being used in the neighboring room. So I think I can sleep through about anything. In fact, I'm supremely evil and violent when woken before I wish to be woken.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I don't know...

[Costin_Razvan]

I was considering something about Mass Effect.

The first game has around 20.000 lines of dialogue. The second has roughly 25.000.

Well the third has 40.000 Bioware developers state. Well with those numbers in mind and the length of the first and second game: Roughly thirty and forty hours respectively, I think I can safely state that Mass Effect 3 will be an epic adventure probably longer then Origins was: Sixty Hours.

This made me even more happy at the prospect of playing the third game. It's going to be epic.

For a brief consideration: SWTOR has around 200.000 lines of dialogue recorded in it and that game is HUGE.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 22 janvier 2012 - 11:30 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Quality is more important to me. Never found dialogue in ME to be of high quality (Mordin is an exception).

My level of enthusiasm for ME3 is almost nill. I do not doubt it's going to be epic and better than ME2 (that however is not saying much). But in terms of emotional and intellectual impact, I am not expecting much if anything that will last. Just a few goosebumps in the very first playthrough and that's it (what happened with ME2 for me).

That being said, there is one feature I really like about ME3 and that's the companion dynamic.

EDIT: I've been thinking for some time about what kind of impact game stories can leave me with and I narrowed them down to 3. "Intellectual" (a mental stimulus); "Emotional"; and "Epic factor" (goosebumps essentially).  
I personally value all 3, but place more value on the first two. Hence why Origins scores higher for me than the ME games, because its emotional imapct on me was much higher and its intellectual value while not that high was still higher than ME to me.

TW2 is one of the very few games that scores very high on all 3. Alpha Protocol has the highest rating for the epic factor for me. Origins has the highest score for emotional impact...etc 

Needless to say, it's subjective. Somethings can be emotionally engaging to some and not others.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 23 janvier 2012 - 12:09 .

[Costin_Razvan]

I think the retardation of DA2 is kinda clouding your judgement on that one Knight, if you will excuse me for saying that. I think it would be a great disservice to the Bioware team that worked on the Mass Effect games to be put in the same pot as the Dragon Age team.

Whatever can be said about Mass Effect, it's developer team has delivered in two games and all the DLC something quite great that has been getting better. while the Dragon Age team has failed in almost every single respect with Dragon Age 2.

It's to be remember that the exact same people who made Dragon Age: Origins and Awakening made Dragon Age 2. The same writers, same level designers, same combat designers.

As for intellectual impact. I'd argue no game achieves that, not AP, not the Witcher ones. Political, historical, story etc. Certainly, but not intellectual. I admit I am looking forward to the Witcher 2 3.0 just as much if not more then Mass Effect 3 though.

As for emotional impact, to me the emotions the Mass Effect games, especially 2, drew from me still remain strong after two years. That's something. Of course the same applies to the Witcher games and Alpha Protocol. Dragon Age besides MY personal image of the Wardens and Loghain? No, not at all. If someone butchered every single one of my Dragon Age 2 companions besides Loghain in a vid or a game, I wouldn't give a ****. If someone did that to Garrus, Tali, Wrex, Zaeed, Legion etc. I'd be pissed.

Edit: In regards to mental stimulation. All games do that, provide they make you think be it in their story, their combat, their choices etc.

Mass Effect 2 achieves all these 3 things for me. Combat is very challenging and exciting. I was replaying it today for three hours straight and having a blast while I fought Vorcha, Blue Suns and Eclipse on Omega due to the level of challenge. There is no story challenge for at this stage, having seen it all and done it all, but the combat? still there.

It's something that makes me appreciate Mass Effect 2 or the Mass Effect series just as much or close to the Witcher series, now that I've gotten past the Witcher 2 Honeymoon period and take an objective view on it. 

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 23 janvier 2012 - 12:24 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
Whatever can be said about Mass Effect, it's developer team has delivered in two games and all the DLC something quite great that has been getting better. while the Dragon Age team has failed in almost every single respect with Dragon Age 2.

Oh I absolutely agree that the ME team is putting a lot more effort and that the ME series on a whole is better crafted. ME2 is a masterpiece compared to DA2 in my eyes.
I am talking about Origins on its own however (plus Awakening). The DA series is virtually dead to me now.

As for intellectual impact. I'd argue no game achieves that, not AP, not the Witcher ones. Political, historical, story etc. Certainly, but not intellectual. I admit I am looking forward to the Witcher 2 3.0 just as much if not more then Mass Effect 3 though.

Well obviously by intellectual, I do not mean an intellectual masterpiece that is going to redefine the way we think. Rather, a game that makes you think, that stimulates your mind, about the issues it presents. In that sense, the Witchers games did well, as did Deus Ex. In some areas for me, Origins also did.

If you want another word, "complex" might be what I mean.

As for emotional impact, to me the emotions the Mass Effect games, especially 2, drew from me still remain strong after two years. That's something. Of course the same applies to the Witcher games and Alpha Protocol. Dragon Age besides MY personal image of the Wardens and Loghain? No, not at all.

For me, it's the opposite. ME has very little emotional impact one me, while Origins still does on a lot of things. Alpha Proptocol had a very small emotional impact on me. TW games did well however.


EDIT: I made it clear I am only talking about story.

And putting ME as equal to the Witcher series, or even close, surprises me to be honest.
I love Origins, but even I do not put it on the same level at all. Not even close.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 23 janvier 2012 - 12:27 .

[Costin_Razvan]

And putting ME as equal to the Witcher series, or even close, surprises me to be honest.
I love Origins, but even I do not put it on the same level at all. Not even close.

To me Mass Effect as a series is about Commander Shepard and his personal tale and the Witcher games are about the story of Geralt. While I would agree the events surrounding Shepard are perhaps not as well thought out as the events surrounding Geralt they are more definitely vastly better presented in cinematics.

At their core both games are about a "hero's journey" or a hero stuck in the thick of some very bad situations, trying to find a way out. While Geralt is better written as a character, he will never change as a person, nor will the player ever be allowed to. Yes you can take choices, with big consequences as Geralt but he is still the same white wolf.

Shepard on the other is yours entirely to craft. Yes unlike the Warden, and very much like Geralt, his role will ALWAYS be the one of an N7 Commando. He will never "Rise to Power" or try to, just like Geralt. He will never be a main actor of politics, just like Geralt, and while Geralt takes political choices his role is that of a secondary act. Shepard and Geralt will basicaly never be "Gods" who saved the entire universe just on their own, they both play a role, a major one, but they have others with them to guide, teach and help them.

That is a big issue with me and the Warden, DA:O offers you a bull**** and shallow illusion of a rise to power, of your protagonist actually becoming a main actor in politics, but it is never properly achieved inside the game.

The Warden doesn't really compare to Shepard or Geralt, but he does compare to Thorton, but Thorton spends almost the entire ****ing game achieving a rise to power.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 23 janvier 2012 - 01:00 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Shepard is not a set character as Geralt or Jensen and he is not as customizable as the Warden. He occupies this weird middle ground. That's my main (but not sole) problem with him (and Hawke). Thorton I can enjoy a lot because of a lot factors that offset the fact that he is in an awkward middle ground; factors that ME lacks entirely. The Warden and Thorton are very different and not comparable.

For me, Shepard is not a character, nor is he that customizable. He is a very basic dry protagonist that I can't craft as the Warden or enjoy as much as Geralt.

[Costin_Razvan]

I'd argue the point seeing as Shepard has different origin stories and war stories. Hawke falls into the middle ground very very well. Since Hawke a very set family, origin, tale etc.

Anyway, on another matter I'm quite excited when I heard Mac Walters talking about the numbers of writters in ME3. The issue I think though is the way they approach writing such a game. He said each writer has segments her or she creates and writes on their own, and I think that's a very big issue.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 23 janvier 2012 - 01:49 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Even those do not make him as customizable as the Warden. Hawke may fall into the middle ground more, but Shepard still falls into the same category imo. As does Thorton, but he had so much going for him that he turned out to be awesome (potentially).

That's been Bioware's writing strategy in the DA series as well. I thought ME also had it.
The number of writers does not mean much if they all subscribe to Bioware's annoying writing mentality.

[Persephone]

Costin_Razvan wrote...


Rape is a not crime that warrants the death sentence, and I don't give a **** what anyone argues on that.

How about murdering a woman whose only "crime" was to resist rape then? All she did was say "Stay away from us!" in a panic.......

Maybe it IS emotional....(I fail to see how that is a flaw) but if someone were to rape a family member of mine and kill another right in front of me, I wouldn't care about anything but making sure that that man will never get a chance to do that again. I admit it, my capacity to be calculating and practical would not win out over seeing such horrific events unfolding right before my eyes.

[Costin_Razvan]

I admit it, my capacity to be calculating and practical would not win out over seeing such horrific events unfolding right before my eyes.

If you haven't seen such events yourself first hand I would suggest you shut the **** up about what you would do. Revenge is idiotic and that's the end of the story, and I speak as someone who has had very strong reasons for revenge for what happened to those very close to me, yet pursuing it wouldn't have changed anything, nor would it have fixed anything.

I am very pissed off at all the people saying how crime should be punished, seeing as the vast majority have never had a horryfing situation unfold before their eyes. I have.

I think of a recent court case in America, that of Casey Anthony and how she would have lynched to death ( and still would be ) for suppodely killing her daughter despite the fact she was found not guilty. Doesn't matter to some people, they still would rip her head off.

On a game level I opose murdering Vaughn for the same reasons I opose ( or the main reasons ) kiling Loghain. Justice, as one might call it, should be decided by one single person as judge, jury and exectuoner. I can accept pragmatism, as in killing Loghain to a remove a potential threat to your power, but the Justice argument is pathetic, as in killing Loghain because he deserves it.

It's not a matter of what Loghain, Vaughn or Howe did though. The kind of popular thinking on how to deal with Vaughn is the exact same kind of thinking that ultimately led to the opening of Guatanamo Bay prison. No matter what anyone has done the law shouldn't be thrown out the windows and spat on, when the argument is that justice needs to be administered.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 23 janvier 2012 - 12:28 .

[Persephone]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

I admit it, my capacity to be calculating and practical would not win out over seeing such horrific events unfolding right before my eyes.

If you haven't seen such events yourself first hand I would suggest you shut the **** up about what you would do. Revenge is idiotic and that's the end of the story, and I speak as someone who has had very strong reasons for revenge for what happened to those very close to me, yet pursuing it wouldn't have changed anything, nor would it have fixed anything.

I think of a recent court case in America, that of Casey Anthony and how she would have lynched to death ( and still would be ) for suppodely killing her daughter despite the fact she was found not guilty. Doesn't matter to some people, they still would rip her head off.

I am with you re: the Anthony case. And I wasn't talking about justice. (Except that comparing him to Anthony doesn't really fly because Vaughn is guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt). As for not considering what I would do...well, it's an RPG. It's not about revenge in my CE's case. She is defending herself against rape and death. Would it have been smarter to just shut up and take it? In the long run, yes. (Though as a woman....the idea of that happening makes me shudder)

As for what I experienced or not, I'll not elaborate. Too personal. But I too think that revenge is nothing but hollow and leads nowhere.

Edit: I'm also with you re: taking "justice" into your own hands. Utterly wrong. Except WHAT justice or authority could the CE turn to? Urien sure didn't reign his son in before, nor has Vaughn faced the authorities before. He got away with it. Unless I missed something....

Modifié par Persephone, 23 janvier 2012 - 01:45 .

[Costin_Razvan]

A CE's goal should be ultimately to change the law and order, killing Vaughn doesn't help that and would actually work against him/her.

But if the CE was to kill Vaughn in order to change the law, as in killing Vaughn to leave open a spot for a CE to become Bann, then that's a different take. Like say when the CE meets him in Howe's prison. However in the Origin the CE doesn't have any political pull whatsoever.

Though as a woman....the idea of that happening makes me shudder

I won't get into details, but sometimes it's better to just allow yourself to be beaten then to hit back, because hiting back can have very bad effects. I despise vengeance no matter the cost and without thought put into someones actions.

As for Casey Anthnoy vs Vaughn perhaps not a valid analogy, but for many she is guilty and would be lynched.

However if there is an analogy I would compare the terrorists in Guatanamo Bay to Vaughn, just because someone commits a heinous act means we should throw the law out the windows. The fact is the law is on Vaughn's side, and murdering him like that in the Origin will not solve anything. Taking the law into your own hands is NOT a good idea.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 23 janvier 2012 - 02:01 .

[pplr]

I am very pissed off at all the people saying how crime should be punished, seeing as the vast majority have never had a horryfing situation unfold before their eyes. I have.

My sympathies.  That can bring this to a discussion beyond the game.

And I'll admit there are times when not punishing for a crime committed can actually work towards the greater good.

But do you think crime should be prevented?

On a game level I opose murdering Vaughn for the same reasons I opose ( or the main reasons ) kiling Loghain. Justice, as one might call it, should be decided by one single person as judge, jury and exectuoner. I can accept pragmatism, as in killing Loghain to a remove a potential threat to your power, but the Justice argument is pathetic, as in killing Loghain because he deserves it.

It's not a matter of what Loghain, Vaughn or Howe did though. The kind of popular thinking on how to deal with Vaughn is the exact same kind of thinking that ultimately led to the opening of Guatanamo Bay prison. No matter what anyone has done the law shouldn't be thrown out the windows and spat on, when the argument is that justice needs to be administered.

You said you support law and order and thus feel there should be some sort of code.

Vaughan was committing crime and showed no intention of stopping.  Those crimes include, most importantly, murder.

Killing him has the benefit of preventing future crimes (including murders).
Note he has shown no intention to reform himself at any point in the game.

Numberswise you are likely saving lives even if you kill him in Hower's dungeon.


Now I said I could support removing Vaughan from power via another means-such as a trial.  But it seems that law enforcement-especially against the nobility-is rather weak in Ferelden.  So at the moment there really seems to be no relaible method to bring that about.

Also let me ask if you release Vaughan so that he can support the warden at the Landsmeet?  By doing that you are actively return Vaughan to a position of power so he can commit further crimes-including future murders.

Modifié par pplr, 23 janvier 2012 - 03:31 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Murdering Vaughn is against the law, that the law is wrong and won't punish him is a different issue. One cannot justify Vaughn's murder at the hands of the CE or any warden on the basis that because the law doesn't exist to punish or because the law won't punish him, that's not how it goes.

I know of cases where murderers and rapists walked free because of poor laws, yet the solution to such cases is to attempt to change the laws NOT take a shotgun and murder them yourself because they won't be brought to justice, and yes I mean this even if murderers and rapists walk free. The City Elf sets a very bad example if he/she murders Vaughn.

The Justice system is more important in society then vengeance/revenge. The law is that Vaughn has the right to do whatever the hell he pleases, the City Elf doesn't have it. Just because one views a law as bad does not mean one should take justice in their own hands. It doesn't serve the City Elves to have a vigilante among them.

[Wulfram]

CE is stopping an ongoing rape. That's got nothing to do with vengeance or revenge.

I don't think there are many legal systems which don't recognise the right to self defence or defence of others.

[Costin_Razvan]

Wulfram wrote...

CE is stopping an ongoing rape. That's got nothing to do with vengeance or revenge.

I don't think there are many legal systems which don't recognise the right to self defence or defence of others.

The Fereldan system would find Vaughn's death as murder and sentence the CE to death. I am not arguing Vaughn is innocent, I am arguing the rule of law is not something someone should spit on even if the law is wrong. The CE should work to change the system and not murder Vaughn.

And I call it bull**** that it has nothing to do with vengeance and revenge. It's like those Libyans who murdered Gaddafi. Did he deserve punishment by law for the suffering he caused? Yes, but his murder by an angry mob was not the way to do it.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 23 janvier 2012 - 04:27 .

[Wulfram]

I rather doubt that the law of Fereldan doesn't recognise the right to use lethal force to stop a rape. It's unlikely the CE would get anything resembling a fair trial, but that doesn't mean their actions were illegal.

Nor would their actions stop being justified even if they were illegal. The law should ideally reflect morality, but it does not necessarily dictate it.

The situation presented in the game is that the only way to stop the ongoing rape of Shianni and the others is to kill Vaughan. No doubt quite a few people would wish to kill him anyway out of vengeance, but that's not the situation in the game

Modifié par Wulfram, 23 janvier 2012 - 05:15 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

On the whole I agree with Costin's argument. Though I am not sure what a CE can possibly do to change the law (unlike mages, I believe they are in a better position). Even as a collective, they do not seem to be able to do much without someone helping them at the top. Rights are seldom given without pressure to do so, whether external (Orzammar's case) or internal.

Which in a lot of ways is similar to the nonhuman dilemma in The Witcher. Which is why I sympathize with Yaevin while disagreeing with him, while I believe Costin does not sympathize with his cause. Yaevinn is all about internal pressure and revolt to force change. I can sympathize with that to an extent, but do not find it that wise.

My personal belief might be pessimistic to some, but I believe the wise thing the CE can do is for the most part wait until the overall context is in their favor, and help certain trends grow if they do exist. More or less Iorveth's strategy, as he joined a movement (that he helped create) much bigger than himself and the nonhuman question and is more likely to succeed. The nonhuman question in the Witcher needs a Saskia figure for it to start being resolved (as well as a political mind either in that figure or someone behind him / her).

I find the situation similar in DA. The elves need someone from the outside to initiate a trend, a movement, a reform policy that is much larger than them but still benefits them, that they can join.

In essence, they need a Bhelen. Or an Arcturus

[pplr]

Wulfram wrote...

CE is stopping an ongoing rape. That's got nothing to do with vengeance or revenge.

I don't think there are many legal systems which don't recognise the right to self defence or defence of others.

That is actually a good point.  I do think there may be some vengeance in there but the truth of it is that the CE is preventing what many in real life today (and perhaps in Ferelden as well) would view as a crime.

It isn't as if Vaughan opted to let the CE return with the other elves.  Vaughan said I'll either pay you to let me have my way with this upstart elf lady or I'll kill you.

Vaughan tries to talk-but not to back off what he is doing.

Costin_Razvan wrote...

The Fereldan system would find Vaughn's death as murder and sentence the CE to death.

Maybe and maybe not-we don't know much of the details of the Ferelden legal system except that it sometimes has difficulty enforcing itself.

It could be that the Ferelden legal system would rule the CE's actions legal.

Costin_Razvan wrote...

 I am not arguing Vaughn is innocent, I am arguing the rule of law is not something someone should spit on even if the law is wrong. The CE should work to change the system and not murder Vaughn.

And I call it bull**** that it has nothing to do with vengeance and revenge. It's like those Libyans who murdered Gaddafi. Did he deserve punishment by law for the suffering he caused? Yes, but his murder by an angry mob was not the way to do it.

Technically speaking neither of us know what Ferelden law says on the matter.

Orleasian law would say Vaughan can rape whomever he feels like but that may not be Ferelden law.

And even Orleasian law may not allow Vaughan and his henchmen to kill the women they rape-or intend to rape-as has been happening.

Also there is a difference between Gaddafi-who had effectively lost power and could have been put in a jail somewhere at that point-and Vaughan who was either still in power (despite loosing some of his henchmen) or wanting to return to power (and concievably could).

Now if the law actually says Vaughan can murder whomever he feels like then that isn't just reason to reform the legal structure but potentially hold a revolution.

Now mabye reforms could and should be had so that a reasonable legal system (not one that oked Vaughan killing whomever) was both put into place and made enforced that is a good goal CEs could and should support.  But at the moment you are dealing with Vuaghan it doesn't seem to be there.

And if it is there we don't know if it (the law) would find against a CE origin or not.

Modifié par pplr, 23 janvier 2012 - 05:26 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Wulfram wrote...

I rather doubt that the law of Fereldan doesn't recognise the right to use lethal force to stop a rape. It's unlikely the CE would get anything resembling a fair trial, but that doesn't mean their actions were illegal.

I am inclined to agree with you if for the sole reason that it being otherwise would be too "Orlesian."
I think in theory, what the CE does is likely to be legal.

How it will be percieved and judged however is a different matter and imo much more important.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 23 janvier 2012 - 05:25 .

[Joy Divison]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

I am arguing the rule of law is not something someone should spit on even if the law is wrong.

And there were many in the Antebellum US South and Vichy France who agreed with your statement.

And I call it bull**** that it has nothing to do with vengeance and revenge. It's like those Libyans who murdered Gaddafi. Did he deserve punishment by law for the suffering he caused? Yes, but his murder by an angry mob was not the way to do it.

No it's not like that.  Gaddafi was not at that moment armed and refusing to allow his rape victim to go.  Nor did he any longer occupy a priviledged position in corrupt society which would allow him to continue to break the cherished laws you place a premium on without consequence.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 23 janvier 2012 - 06:52 .

[Costin_Razvan]

I rather doubt that the law of Fereldan doesn't recognise the right to use lethal force to stop a rape. It's unlikely the CE would get anything resembling a fair trial, but that doesn't mean their actions were illegal.

Based on what exactly? What in the game suggests that somehow Vaughn wouldn't have that kind of power over the lives of the City Elves. Hell we know that Alienages are purged when the population grows too high.

And there were many in the Antebellum US South and Vichy France who agreed with your statement.

Tell me exactly how revolting against the law in that case would have led to anything other then a massacre? As a Romanian I should know, our Gov followed German orders as good lap dogs in WW2 and jews died for it.

Had the Governement refused however, many many more would have died. If individual people refused the law then they would suffer greatly. Welcome to reality: There was no choice for France or Romania on what would happen.

Does that somehow excuse the actions of Petain and Antonescu? No, but context is important.

It could be that the Ferelden legal system would rule the CE's actions legal.

Based on what? I at least can go on fact that nobles in every system like Fereldan's had a lot of power over their subjects. What are you going on besides you speculation.

Knight: Become a Bann as a City Elf, and work with the Monarch/s to improve the situation. That's a start.

However the City Elves need to want to do it. It's easy for them to blame humans for all their issues, but their own personal thinking is part of the problem. That's why I don't sympathize with Yaevinn's cause: too much blind hatred from the Elves who can only think of vengeance against humans. They couldn't fath coexistence.

Iorveth however does that, which is why I respect and like him in the end.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 23 janvier 2012 - 07:50 .