597 réponses à ce sujet

[TJPags]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Such as, Loghain never intended Eamon to die - that comes from something Gaider said

It's there very subtly, IIRC. IIRC, the Demon says that it's the only thing keeping Eamon alive and if she dies, he dies as well. But if you kill it, Eamon doesn't die.

Such as, Maric told him never to save one man at the cost of the nation. Comes from The Stolen Throne.

So? Why wouldn't that be known to say... a Human Noble whose father fought with Maric and has interacted with Loghain many times -- as they're both Teyrns and go to the Landsmeet.

It's a historical part of the world and is applicable.

Such as, the reason behind Loghains hatred of Wardens - comes from The Calling.

Wrong. His hatred of the Wardens can be traced back to a larger part of the world. Orlais and the Chantry using the Wardens and Blights as a pretense to "aid" other nations and then never leave. They only signed a promise of neutrality during the Third Blight.

Then, there's Sophia Dryden -- a Warden that fought against the king. Justified as her rebellion was, all anyone knew was that the Wardens rebelled against the king.

1.  Granted he doesn't die if you kill the demon, but then, we've never known a demon to lie, have we?  And even given that, it's equally likely Loghain's poison simply didn't kill him yet, or at all, as it is that his death was never intended.  After all, we are told that no cure has worked, and that he's near death.  The logical conclusion to draw from that quest is - he's gonna die without the ashes. 

2.  Except it's NOT known.  Noplace in the game is that information provided.  I agree that it's something that perhaps SHOULD be known, and as such SHOULD be told to us.  But it's not.  And that's not my fault - not yours, either, btw - but it is a failing in the game and its writing.

3.  Again, no.  As example, Bryce Cousland is a tyrnan, would know as much as Loghain does about how Orlais and the Wardens worled - yet has no hatred for Orlais or the Wardens.  The info about Sophia Dryden isn't even available without the DLC, so I consider that questionable info, at best.  Crediting it as available, yes, Wardens rebelled against the King of Ferelden so long ago it's practically a legend.  And yet, again, Bryce Cousland (who's been a noble a LOT longer than Loghain) holds nothing against the Wardens.

Without the outside knowledge, the way the game is written points to a very different Loghain than the one you see.

One more example - we learn in The Stolen Throne what a military genius Loghain is.  I believe it's noted in one of his codex entries, as well.  And yet, this military genius does nothing when his patrols start disappearing.  Does not investigate the very fortress he is occupying and planning to defend.  Does not alter his plan based on any of this information.  These are things you have pointed out in the past, I believe.

My point remains that Loghain, as presented in the game, is poorly written, more so when one considers the additional - and often contradictory - information provided in TST and TC.  As such, unless or until BW can crank up the level of their writing, I'd prefer no part of a character like him again.

[TEWR]

1. Granted he doesn't die if you kill the demon, but then, we've never known a demon to lie, have we?

Fair point.

And even given that, it's equally likely Loghain's poison simply didn't kill him yet, or at all, as it is that his death was never intended. After all, we are told that no cure has worked, and that he's near death. The logical conclusion to draw from that quest is - he's gonna die without the ashes.

But remember how Berwick was instructed to keep tabs on the events of the castle and was instructed to send a report to someone under Howe's employ?

That could go one of two ways: Loghain wants to be sure Eamon won't die, or he wants to know if Eamon will recover. Both, really, if you think about it.

Now granted, Howe would never have told Loghain of Eamon's near-death state if that was reported to him. Howe's the type of person who will try and figure out new ways to take more land from people, so he might've let Eamon languish in his poisoned state until he died and then gone to Loghain saying "Oops."

And supposedly, Jowan says something about the poison not being meant to kill. I've never heard that myself, so I can't verify its veracity, but I recall some other poster saying something like that.

2. Except it's NOT known. Noplace in the game is that information provided. I agree that it's something that perhaps SHOULD be known, and as such SHOULD be told to us. But it's not. And that's not my fault - not yours, either, btw - but it is a failing in the game and its writing.

Perhaps you're right. Should it be known? I certainly would've liked it to be brought up or at least hinted at.

I think in the scrapped Loghain-in-the-Fade sequence, he actually did say it to a Demon pretending to be Maric though.

EDIT: Yup, here's a fan's restoration of the sequence. Shame it was scrapped. It shows a lot about his character. How he remarks on what Maric once told him, how he feels some guilt over Cailan's death -- which you can still see during the Landsmeet, if you pick the right options -- and everything.

And yet, again, Bryce Cousland (who's been a noble a LOT longer than Loghain) holds nothing against the Wardens.

But the thing we were discussing was Loghain's hatred of the Wardens and whether or not it was an understandable thing to think from a Warden's PoV.

When you review the history of Orlais and the Wardens -- which you can read about in-game -- you can understand his reasons, more so when you factor in how the Wardens didn't exactly give him much to go off of during Ostagar.

These are things you have pointed out in the past, I believe.

Correct. Well, on Ostagar anyway. For the scouting patrols, they weren't so much going missing as being killed. Survivors would creep back and give more information at times, but there wasn't much Loghain could do to locate them.

He told them to scout the Wilds. But in the Wilds, the Darkspawn are essentially everywhere, so you can't particularly avoid them. 

Though I do have to wonder why the fortress wasn't better fortified with all the lumber lying around after some scouting patrols were reported to have died and they learn about Darkspawn 10 feet tall (Ogres). Ultimately, it just boils down to "Bioware doesn't know **** about warfare, strategy, or politics".

My point remains that Loghain, as presented in the game, is poorly written

Well, I don't think he was poorly written, but I do think he wasn't written as well as he should've been. The Ostagar thing is just... one of the biggest facepalm moments Bioware could've done.

I mean, in-game we know he's a military genius, but it's because we hear he's crushing the Bannorn -- as a result, it falls into being an Informed Ability. He's still a military genius, but some things that happen in-game contradict it, while others support it -- his retreat from Ostagar being something that supports it.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 06 janvier 2013 - 04:09 .

[TJPags]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

1. Granted he doesn't die if you kill the demon, but then, we've never known a demon to lie, have we?

Fair point.

And even given that, it's equally likely Loghain's poison simply didn't kill him yet, or at all, as it is that his death was never intended. After all, we are told that no cure has worked, and that he's near death. The logical conclusion to draw from that quest is - he's gonna die without the ashes.

But remember how Berwick was instructed to keep tabs on the events of the castle and was instructed to send a report to someone under Howe's employ?

That could go one of two ways: Loghain wants to be sure Eamon won't die, or he wants to know if Eamon will recover. Both, really, if you think about it.

Now granted, Howe would never have told Loghain of Eamon's near-death state if that was reported to him. Howe's the type of person who will try and figure out new ways to take more land from people, so he might've let Eamon languish in his poisoned state until he died and then gone to Loghain saying "Oops."

2. Except it's NOT known. Noplace in the game is that information provided. I agree that it's something that perhaps SHOULD be known, and as such SHOULD be told to us. But it's not. And that's not my fault - not yours, either, btw - but it is a failing in the game and its writing.

Perhaps, but if we the player no this element of the Maric-Loghain paradigm, we could apply it to our characters on our own, no? A Cousland Warden was taught history. One could then apply that relationship between the two characters as a part of the history they learned.

Should it be known? I certainly would've liked it to be brought up or at least hinted at.

I think in the scrapped Loghain-in-the-Fade sequence, he actually did say it to a Demon pretending to be Maric though.

And yet, again, Bryce Cousland (who's been a noble a LOT longer than Loghain) holds nothing against the Wardens.

But the thing we were discussing was Loghain's hatred of the Wardens and whether or not it was an understandable thing to think from a Warden's PoV.

When you review the history of Orlais and the Wardens -- which you can read about in-game -- you can understand his reasons, more so when you factor in how the Wardens didn't exactly give him much to go off of during Ostagar.

These are things you have pointed out in the past, I believe.

Correct. Well, on Ostagar anyway. For the scouting patrols, they weren't so much going missing as being killed. Survivors would creep back and give more information at times, but there wasn't much Loghain could do to locate them.


He told them to scout the Wilds. But in the Wilds, the Darkspawn are essentially everywhere, so you can't particularly avoid them. 


Though I do have to wonder why the fortress wasn't better fortified with all the lumber lying around after some scouting patrols were reported to have died and they learn about Darkspawn 10 feet tall (Ogres). Ultimately, it just boils down to "Bioware doesn't know **** about warfare, strategy, or politics".

My point remains that Loghain, as presented in the game, is poorly written

Well, I don't think he was poorly written, but I do think he wasn't written as well as he should've been. The Ostagar thing is just... one of the biggest facepalm moments Bioware could've done.

I mean, in-game we know he's a military genius, but it's because we hear he's crushing the Bannorn -- as a result, it falls into being an Informed Ability. He's still a military genius, but some things that happen in-game contradict it, while others support it -- his retreat from Ostagar being something that supports it.

Addrssing only the bolded parts (I'm too lazy right now to split quotes):

1.  You don't mention other just as likely scenarios - Loghain wants to know immediately when Eamon dies, or Berwick was reporting to Howe under Howe's orders, not Loghains.  After all, there's quite a bit Howe does that Loghain seems - or claims to be, or claims are made that he is - unaware of.  See, Howe holding Anora captive as an example.

2.  But if we the player does not know that - as I did not when playing the game the first two times - then my PC can't know it, can he?  This is clearly, and only, metagame knowledge -  not even sure it qualifies as meta-game, perhaps extra-game? - and as such, IMO, should not be applied to the PC.

3.  Yes that is what we were discussing.  My point being, the Couslands have been nobles a lot longer than Loghain.  It would seem to me that they would be more historically upset about a failed rebellion by Wardens then someone whose family were commoners back then.   After all, the noble has a much more significant interest in the stability of the throne - or its instability, perhaps - then the commoner.  In fact, given Loghain's commoner roots, it's possible he may not even know anything about this event, while Bryce Cousland would.  And yet, again, Cousland holds no grudge.  Eamon seems not to, either, as I recall, and his family was also nobility then, if I'm not mistaken.  So, as a Warden, is it understandable that Loghain would harbor this animosity over this ages old event when the Couslands and Eamon don't?  I'm not so sure it is.

4.  Dealing with the last two together, I agree it appears BW doesn't know jack-all about medeival warfare or tactics.  However, I also question whether they do as good a job as you believe showing - in game - his genius.  After all, Loghain has the larger, more organized force - his own troops, plus remnants of the royal army, no?  Big help, there.  Likely, the onlt 3 forces that can match his for training, numbers, etc. would be the Couslands (decimated by Howe, with the rest missing in the Wilds), Eamon's (waiting in Redcliffe to see if their poisoned ruler will live or die) and Howe's (in Loghains back pocket).  Also, the Bannorn seem highly fractured - is there a single leader, or is Loghain picking them off one by one in small groups?  Granted, that's sound strategy on his part, but one hardly needs to be a military genius to do that.

In fact, I'd argue that the in-game things that actually show Loghain's military genius would be using Howe to wipe out the Cousland's, poisoning Eamon to keep him out of the equation, arranging Caillan's death by Darkspawn, and then staging a coup to take over Ferelden himself.  Now THAT would be a good plan, worthy of a military genius. 

[Dabrikishaw]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...


EDIT: Yup, here's a fan's restoration of the sequence. Shame it was scrapped. It shows a lot about his character. How he remarks on what Maric once told him, how he feels some guilt over Cailan's death -- which you can still see during the Landsmeet, if you pick the right options -- and everything.

Huh, so that's what Maric looks like.

[Monica21]

TJPags wrote...
1.  Granted he doesn't die if you kill the demon, but then, we've never known a demon to lie, have we?  And even given that, it's equally likely Loghain's poison simply didn't kill him yet, or at all, as it is that his death was never intended.  After all, we are told that no cure has worked, and that he's near death.  The logical conclusion to draw from that quest is - he's gonna die without the ashes. 

2.  Except it's NOT known.  Noplace in the game is that information provided.  I agree that it's something that perhaps SHOULD be known, and as such SHOULD be told to us.  But it's not.  And that's not my fault - not yours, either, btw - but it is a failing in the game and its writing.

3.  Again, no.  As example, Bryce Cousland is a tyrnan, would know as much as Loghain does about how Orlais and the Wardens worled - yet has no hatred for Orlais or the Wardens.  The info about Sophia Dryden isn't even available without the DLC, so I consider that questionable info, at best.  Crediting it as available, yes, Wardens rebelled against the King of Ferelden so long ago it's practically a legend.  And yet, again, Bryce Cousland (who's been a noble a LOT longer than Loghain) holds nothing against the Wardens.

Without the outside knowledge, the way the game is written points to a very different Loghain than the one you see.

One more example - we learn in The Stolen Throne what a military genius Loghain is.  I believe it's noted in one of his codex entries, as well.  And yet, this military genius does nothing when his patrols start disappearing.  Does not investigate the very fortress he is occupying and planning to defend.  Does not alter his plan based on any of this information.  These are things you have pointed out in the past, I believe.

My point remains that Loghain, as presented in the game, is poorly written, more so when one considers the additional - and often contradictory - information provided in TST and TC.  As such, unless or until BW can crank up the level of their writing, I'd prefer no part of a character like him again.

I actually agree with most of what you've said. There is way too much out-game information about Loghain that people like Ethereal and I use to weigh our opinions. No, it's not perfect, but it's still valid and more to the point, it's still canon. It certainly should be in-game knowledge though.

You know really should know that Loghain's mother was raped and killed by a Chevalier to understand why he doesn't have the same opinion Bryce Cousland does about the Orlesians. Bryce was still a noble during the occupation and Loghain lived entirely differently. He lived in a camp with his father and some other "outlaws" who were really only outlaws because they couldn't pay the taxes on their land because the Orlesians wanted to raise the taxes so high that the farmers couldn't pay their taxes so they could grant the land to Orlesian nobles. Not only that, but once he escaped with Maric his father's camp was overrun by Orlesians and everyone killed. (Except for the Chantry sister I think, not sure.)

Anyway, it's not like he doesn't have good reason for hating and mistrusting the Orlesians. His experience with them was vastly different than Bryce's so I don't think it's fair to compare the two. Loghain was directly affected in a way most of the commoners were and he fought on the front lines to push the Orlesians out while the Couslands played a supporting role and were really just barely mentioned in Stolen Throne.

As for Loghain's writing in-game, he's not all that well-written until after the Landsmeet. His camp dialogue with you is impressive and revealing. If you don't have the out-game knowledge then he can easily come across as resentful and bitter for no reason. As it is, I think he has good reason to be resentful and bitter.

So, yeah. I agree that there's too much out-game knowledge being used to defend Loghain, but when you think a character is worth saving you use what you have.

Modifié par Monica21, 06 janvier 2013 - 04:43 .

[TEWR]

Well, I wouldn't say that's what he looks like for how Bioware's going to make him look now. But that was probably what they wanted him to look like when they were tossing that idea around. Personally, I prefer Maric with his Beard of Awesome from the comics.

TJPags wrote...

or Berwick was reporting to Howe under Howe's orders, not Loghains. After all, there's quite a bit Howe does that Loghain seems - or claims to be, or claims are made that he is - unaware of. See, Howe holding Anora captive as an example.

True.

But if we the player does not know that - as I did not when playing the game the first two times - then my PC can't know it, can he? This is clearly, and only, metagame knowledge - not even sure it qualifies as meta-game, perhaps extra-game? - and as such, IMO, should not be applied to the PC.

I wouldn't call it metagame knowledge either, but also fair point. Like I said, it's a shame that bit of Loghain in the Fade was scrapped.

I'm not so sure it is.

People are not simple. No one person feels the same things as another. And Loghain's suffered a lot under Orlesian rule. His mother was raped (and killed, IIRC), his dog tortured, his father killed, and other things. That's not taking into account how the Orlesians treated other people like Elves, just for the Evulz.

I think when you look at history and then look at Loghain on his own, his hatred of Orlais isn't so unreasonable. How far he takes it, well... that goes into some murky territory on whether or not Orlais was planning to take over Ferelden again.

Considering Riordan says two dozen divisions of cavalry were en route, but Loghain says they were told four legions of Chevaliers were coming, I'd say there's cause to worry. Why would Orlais lie about how many soldiers they're bringing in if they didn't have something to hide?

But if you try to compare him to other people, then that does him a disservice. It does all people a disservice. Even Eamon isn't a fan of the Orlesians -- save for his wife, Isolde -- because he admires Loghain for his work in freeing them against their tyrannical oppressors.

Now THAT would be a good plan, worthy of a military genius.

Not to me. He could've just as easily removed Cailan without destroying Cailan's forces in the process (the lethality of that "removal" varying depending on who you ask), the Cousland's would be more of an asset I feel then a liability if they were at Ostagar and saw the battle, and so on.

I think if he had done all of what you think would've made him a military genius, he would've appeared to be more of a military idiot and being an obviously evil character.

[TJPags]

Monica21 wrote...

I actually agree with most of what you've said. There is way too much out-game information about Loghain that people like Ethereal and I use to weigh our opinions. No, it's not perfect, but it's still valid and more to the point, it's still canon. It certainly should be in-game knowledge though.

You know really should know that Loghain's mother was raped and killed by a Chevalier to understand why he doesn't have the same opinion Bryce Cousland does about the Orlesians. Bryce was still a noble during the occupation and Loghain lived entirely differently. He lived in a camp with his father and some other "outlaws" who were really only outlaws because they couldn't pay the taxes on their land because the Orlesians wanted to raise the taxes so high that the farmers couldn't pay their taxes so they could grant the land to Orlesian nobles. Not only that, but once he escaped with Maric his father's camp was overrun by Orlesians and everyone killed. (Except for the Chantry sister I think, not sure.)

Anyway, it's not like he doesn't have good reason for hating and mistrusting the Orlesians. His experience with them was vastly different than Bryce's so I don't think it's fair to compare the two. Loghain was directly affected in a way most of the commoners were and he fought on the front lines to push the Orlesians out while the Couslands played a supporting role and were really just barely mentioned in Stolen Throne.

As for Loghain's writing in-game, he's not all that well-written until after the Landsmeet. His camp dialogue with you is impressive and revealing. If you don't have the out-game knowledge then he can easily come across as resentful and bitter for no reason. As it is, I think he has good reason to be resentful and bitter.

So, yeah. I agree that there's too much out-game knowledge being used to defend Loghain, but when you think a character is worth saving you use what you have.

Your last sentence, Monica, is exactly my point.

I did read TST, so I know all of what you point out.  And based on that, yes, the way he is in game makes a LOT more sense.  Makes me understand him a lot more, gives me sympathy for him, etc.  (That said, TST was an AWFUL book.  So awful I cannot stomach the thought of reading The Calling.  It's a good story, just written terribly).

The problem is that its not in the game.  When I first played DA:O, as a human noble, I knew none of that.  I saw a power hungry schemer, who (as I pointed out in my last post) appeared to have arranged the death of his King, a fellow noble, was poisoning another in an attempt to kill him, and staging a militaty coup - or trying to, anyway.  My second game, as a Dalish Elf, still knowing nothing of the events of TST, I saw some of the above, plus the sale of elves into slavery hit home a lot harder for that character.

It's why I say he was written poorly - there's SO much more to the character, I admit that, then what we're shown.  But the fact that people who like him, sympathize with him, and defend him have to go to such lengths to do so, as in using book knowledge or seemingly contradictory info from DG, torturing in-game events to find favorable explanations, is just a failure of the writers, IMO.

[TJPags]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Well, I wouldn't say that's what he looks like for how Bioware's going to make him look now. But that was probably what they wanted him to look like when they were tossing that idea around. Personally, I prefer Maric with his Beard of Awesome from the comics.

TJPags wrote...

or Berwick was reporting to Howe under Howe's orders, not Loghains. After all, there's quite a bit Howe does that Loghain seems - or claims to be, or claims are made that he is - unaware of. See, Howe holding Anora captive as an example.

True.

But if we the player does not know that - as I did not when playing the game the first two times - then my PC can't know it, can he? This is clearly, and only, metagame knowledge - not even sure it qualifies as meta-game, perhaps extra-game? - and as such, IMO, should not be applied to the PC.

I wouldn't call it metagame knowledge either, but also fair point. Like I said, it's a shame that bit of Loghain in the Fade was scrapped.

I'm not so sure it is.

People are not simple. No one person feels the same things as another. And Loghain's suffered a lot under Orlesian rule. His mother was raped (and killed, IIRC), his dog tortured, his father killed, and other things. That's not taking into account how the Orlesians treated other people like Elves, just for the Evulz.

I think when you look at history and then look at Loghain on his own, his hatred of Orlais isn't so unreasonable. How far he takes it, well... that goes into some murky territory on whether or not Orlais was planning to take over Ferelden again.

Considering Riordan says two dozen divisions of cavalry were en route, but Loghain says they were told four legions of Chevaliers were coming, I'd say there's cause to worry. Why would Orlais lie about how many soldiers they're bringing in if they didn't have something to hide?

But if you try to compare him to other people, then that does him a disservice. It does all people a disservice. Even Eamon isn't a fan of the Orlesians -- save for his wife, Isolde -- because he admires Loghain for his work in freeing them against their tyrannical oppressors.

Now THAT would be a good plan, worthy of a military genius.

Not to me. He could've just as easily removed Cailan without destroying Cailan's forces in the process (the lethality of that "removal" varying depending on who you ask), the Cousland's would be more of an asset I feel then a liability if they were at Ostagar and saw the battle, and so on.

I think if he had done all of what you think would've made him a military genius, he would've appeared to be more of a military idiot and being an obviously evil character.

Bold 1 - as I pointed out to Monica above, usinf info from TST or TC makes Loghain MUCH more understandable.  But, I stand by my assertion that this info should have somehow made it into the game - simply put, not everyone is going to read those books.

Bold 2 - I'm sure you could have done it better.  I could, too.  However, that plan makes Loghain look a lot smarter than what he seems based ONLY on in game info.  That's the problem - looking at the in-game info, without benefit of things from TST, TC, or DG's comments - that sure seems like what he's doing.  The actual reason behind it - which is what you and others argue - only makes sense with that extra-game knowledge.

[Monica21]

TJPags wrote...
It's why I say he was written poorly - there's SO much more to the character, I admit that, then what we're shown.  But the fact that people who like him, sympathize with him, and defend him have to go to such lengths to do so, as in using book knowledge or seemingly contradictory info from DG, torturing in-game events to find favorable explanations, is just a failure of the writers, IMO.

Well, to interpret (yes, yet another) statement by DG, this was all totally accidental. Loghain was supposed to know about Cailan's marriage to Celene and would have led to "Muahahahaha!!!" Chaotic Evil at Ostagar instead of just a retreat. The original intent was for Loghain to be a pretty black and white bad guy, but then Celene being in Denerim got cut and a bunch of other stuff did too, so it's all a bit of a mess. It's a failure of such epic proportions that they ended up making him far more interesting than he was ever intended to be. I mean, the "I want a line clearly drawn" speech he gives you is some of the best writing in the game, but I have no idea how many people ever actually hear it.

Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll make yet another such mistake in DA3.

[TEWR]

TJPags wrote...

It's a good story, just written terribly

How so? I haven't read it myself -- don't have it -- but I am currently writing something that one might see some similarities in the general plot synopsis between the two books.

The problem is that its not in the game. When I first played DA:O, as a human noble, I knew none of that. I saw a power hungry schemer, who (as I pointed out in my last post) appeared to have arranged the death of his King, a fellow noble, was poisoning another in an attempt to kill him, and staging a militaty coup - or trying to, anyway. My second game, as a Dalish Elf, still knowing nothing of the events of TST, I saw some of the above, plus the sale of elves into slavery hit home a lot harder for that character.

Well, I'd say a lot of it's there, but it can be missed because it's not really blatant. It's mostly in the form of codexes, or offhand dialogue remarks, or whatnot.

But, I stand by my assertion that this info should have somehow made it into the game - simply put, not everyone is going to read those books.

I agree, sort of. Most of what I formed in my defense of Loghain was taken from things that aren't critical to the game experience -- codexes, offhand banters, things you can see but aren't forced to, etc. -- and can be easily missed, but some of the more important things to his character should've been in the game. 

His promise to Maric, what the Orlesians did to his family, etc.

You can find out what the Orlesians did to people of Ferelden on a national scale, but Loghain's personal experiences are never explored in any form other then what happened to his Mabari -- which is terrible and certainly shows how the Orlesians treated people, but some people won't think that's enough to convey why Loghain feels the way he does. 

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 06 janvier 2013 - 05:13 .

[Addai]

TJPags wrote...

It's why I say he was written poorly - there's SO much more to the character, I admit that, then what we're shown.  But the fact that people who like him, sympathize with him, and defend him have to go to such lengths to do so, as in using book knowledge or seemingly contradictory info from DG, torturing in-game events to find favorable explanations, is just a failure of the writers, IMO.

It's not a failure because that's what they set out to do, as they've admitted- they wanted Loghain to be a villain that you could easily kill.  And in anything where he's mentioned after Origins, he's called a villain and traitor full stop.  That's where he's been pegged for the benefit of the drooling masses.  It's frustrating for Loghain fans and convenient for his detractors, but I don't see why that should bother those of us on the forum with access to and interest in the deeper story.  You're asking the rest of us to abide by your definition of canon lore and that is not a fixed concept.

Modifié par Addai67, 06 janvier 2013 - 05:14 .

[TEWR]

Monica21 wrote...

Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll make yet another such mistake in DA3.

I doubt it. I doubt they'll be able to write any antagonist like Loghain, let alone ones like Ashnard, Vayne Solidor, Master Xehanort/"Ansem", Seeker of Darkness/Xemnas, characters from ASoIaF, and so on.

I have little faith in Bioware's writing ability for their antagonists.

[Addai]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

How so? I haven't read it myself -- don't have it -- but I am currently writing something that one might see some similarities in the general plot synopsis between the two books.

What?    You need to read it!  It's rough and should be much longer, but it's still my favorite of Gaider's books and that now includes Asunder since I finished that recently.

Modifié par Addai67, 06 janvier 2013 - 05:18 .

[Monica21]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

TJPags wrote...

It's a good story, just written terribly

How so? I haven't read it myself -- don't have it -- but I am currently writing something that one might see some similarities in the general plot synopsis between the two books.

Well, I'll say this. Gaider is an excellent video game writer, and he should probably stick to that. There's nothing wrong with the story, but the books should have been ghostwritten. If I had to read one more time about the stump of someone's neck "fountaining" blood (and then hearing Shale say it in-game) I was going to throw them in a fire.

[TJPags]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

TJPags wrote...

It's a good story, just written terribly

How so? I haven't read it myself -- don't have it -- but I am currently writing something that one might see some similarities in the general plot synopsis between the two books.

 

Not to make this about writing, but I found the dialogue, the internal thought, and much of the description juvenile (in fairness, it was likely written to a Young Adult audience, but I'm not in that audience, so that's how I felt).  I found the pacing to be poor and sporadic, several of the time jumps were inexplicable and odd to me, and the ending was anti-climactic.  All my opinion, of course.

On our topic - and addressing this to you and Monica - I think we agree Loghain could have been a lot "more".  I think we also agree a lot more could have - and should have - been put in the game.  I prefer a deeper antagonist myself, someone with more shades of grey than black and white.  But a good cartoon villain, moustache-twirling and Muhahahha and all that, is fine also, if that's what you want to write.  But do one or the other.

Addai67 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

It's why I say he was written poorly - there's SO much more to the character, I admit that, then what we're shown. But the fact that people who like him, sympathize with him, and defend him have to go to such lengths to do so, as in using book knowledge or seemingly contradictory info from DG, torturing in-game events to find favorable explanations, is just a failure of the writers, IMO.

It's not a failure because that's what they set out to do, as they've admitted- they wanted Loghain to be a villain that you could easily kill. And in anything where he's mentioned after Origins, he's called a villain and traitor full stop. That's where he's been pegged for the benefit of the drooling masses. It's frustrating for Loghain fans and convenient for his detractors, but I don't see why that should bother those of us on the forum with access to and interest in the deeper story. You're asking the rest of us to abide by your definition of canon lore and that is not a fixed concept.

It IS a failure if they set out to do one thing, parts of that thing got cut, and they ended up with something else, without bothering to fix it.  It's lazy, it's amateurish, and it's a disservice to fans.

I'd argue that he's called a traitor and a villain in game sequences post-DA:O because, once you defeat him, that's what he is - a traitor.  That's what people who do what he did, and lose, are always called.  Those who win are called heroes.  Not my rule, just the way it works.  To use an in-game example, go ask Sophia Dryden, who had a good reason to do what she did, but lost.

But in any event, I ask nobody to abide by my definition of canon lore except me.  I ask only that the writers be consistent in the presentation of their canon lore between their game and their alternative media.

[In Exile]

Addai67 wrote...
It's not a failure because that's what they set out to do, as they've admitted- they wanted Loghain to be a villain that you could easily kill.  And in anything where he's mentioned after Origins, he's called a villain and traitor full stop.  That's where he's been pegged for the benefit of the drooling masses.  It's frustrating for Loghain fans and convenient for his detractors, but I don't see why that should bother those of us on the forum with access to and interest in the deeper story.  You're asking the rest of us to abide by your definition of canon lore and that is not a fixed concept.

So what you're asking for is an antagonist that is only described as a villain and traitor in-game, with little to no evidence of complexity, only to be fleshed out in secondary media? 

[TEWR]

TJPags wrote...

Not to make this about writing, but I found the dialogue, the internal thought, and much of the description juvenile (in fairness, it was likely written to a Young Adult audience, but I'm not in that audience, so that's how I felt). I found the pacing to be poor and sporadic, several of the time jumps were inexplicable and odd to me, and the ending was anti-climactic. All my opinion, of course.

Hmm, I suppose if I had read more then the first two chapters that Amazon let me read, I'd understand more. 

Monica21 wrote...

If I had to read one more time about the stump of someone's neck "fountaining" blood (and then hearing Shale say it in-game) I was going to throw them in a fire.

Ah, too much repetition in description that doesn't really add anything to the scene, I take it. That's always a bad thing.

Addai67wrote...

What? You need to read it! It's rough and should be much longer, but it's still my favorite of Gaider's books and that now includes Asunder since I finished that recently.

I'll probably order it from Amazon sometime in the coming week, if I'm lucky. Then I can see more of Loghain! 

TJPags wrote...

I'd argue that he's called a traitor and a villain in game sequences post-DA:O because, once you defeat him, that's what he is - a traitor

But not everyone in-game is upset that he's alive. Some people are glad he's alive still.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 06 janvier 2013 - 05:54 .

[Addai]

In Exile wrote...

So what you're asking for is an antagonist that is only described as a villain and traitor in-game, with little to no evidence of complexity, only to be fleshed out in secondary media? 

Me?  Gods no.  But there is a question of how far general audiences are willing to be taxed.  Witcher 2 gets complaints for being dense- if people have even played it, which is relatively few.

[Addai]

TJPags wrote...
Not to make this about writing, but I found the dialogue, the internal thought, and much of the description juvenile (in fairness, it was likely written to a Young Adult audience, but I'm not in that audience, so that's how I felt).  I found the pacing to be poor and sporadic, several of the time jumps were inexplicable and odd to me, and the ending was anti-climactic.  All my opinion, of course.

Gaider's style is a bit contemporary and jokey, but I still liked the characters and the Red Dawn flavor of the story.

On our topic - and addressing this to you and Monica - I think we agree Loghain could have been a lot "more".  I think we also agree a lot more could have - and should have - been put in the game.  I prefer a deeper antagonist myself, someone with more shades of grey than black and white.  But a good cartoon villain, moustache-twirling and Muhahahha and all that, is fine also, if that's what you want to write.  But do one or the other.

No no, if I have to choose, I would still want the complexity there even if it's given in exra-game or buried-deep-in-game materials.  That's practically all of Elder Scrolls lore, for instance, and to me that is where the meat of the game is.  If I like a game I'm doing to delve anyway.  Isn't it better to have something to delve into?

I'd argue that he's called a traitor and a villain in game sequences post-DA:O because, once you defeat him, that's what he is - a traitor.  That's what people who do what he did, and lose, are always called.  Those who win are called heroes.  Not my rule, just the way it works.  To use an in-game example, go ask Sophia Dryden, who had a good reason to do what she did, but lost.

Now you're saying you get to tell other people how to feel about a character.  That may be the reductionist TV Tropes policy, but isn't the point of the thread that we don't want that?  edit- Or do you just mean that history has a way of rendering people into certain categories?  If so, I'd argue that good history is precisely the opposite.

Modifié par Addai67, 06 janvier 2013 - 06:03 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

[quote]TJPags wrote...

It's why I say he was written poorly - there's SO much more to the character, I admit that, then what we're shown. But the fact that people who like him, sympathize with him, and defend him have to go to such lengths to do so, as in using book knowledge or seemingly contradictory info from DG, torturing in-game events to find favorable explanations, is just a failure of the writers, IMO.[/quote]

[/quote]

I won't go into the argument in detail.

But I have defended Loghain's actions long before reading the book (that I agree is poorly written, and if anything, makes me have a more negative view of the man), and before Gaider's comments that vindicated what I had interpretted. My arguments never really changed at all. 

Were Loghain's actions ambiguous? Yes, perhaps excessively so, but I argue a certain amount of ambiguity is a good thing. This ambiguity allowed for several interpretations to be made about him. And my sympathetic view of him and interpretation only needed what was in the game and nothing else. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 janvier 2013 - 06:04 .

[CandleJakk]

Lol who is Loghan? I know of a Loghain but no loghan. XD

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Loghain 2.0 ... make it ginger and curly!

[In Exile]

Addai67 wrote...
Me?  Gods no.  But there is a question of how far general audiences are willing to be taxed.  Witcher 2 gets complaints for being dense- if people have even played it, which is relatively few.

That was my bad. I didn't mean to have it addressed to you specifically.

My point was just that if the idea here is that all the complexity of a character has to be in media never in the game, then Bioware could have another Orisono and Meredith if they just release a few backstory comics.

[In Exile]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Were Loghain's actions ambiguous? Yes, perhaps excessively so, but I argue a certain amount of ambiguity is a good thing. This ambiguity allowed for several interpretations to be made about him. And my sympathetic view of him and interpretation only needed what was in the game and nothing else. 

Part of the argument is that his actions weren't ambiguous - maybe justified, but not ambiguous.

[TJPags]

Addai67 wrote...

TJPags wrote...
Not to make this about writing, but I found the dialogue, the internal thought, and much of the description juvenile (in fairness, it was likely written to a Young Adult audience, but I'm not in that audience, so that's how I felt).  I found the pacing to be poor and sporadic, several of the time jumps were inexplicable and odd to me, and the ending was anti-climactic.  All my opinion, of course.

Gaider's style is a bit contemporary and jokey, but I still liked the characters and the Red Dawn flavor of the story.

On our topic - and addressing this to you and Monica - I think we agree Loghain could have been a lot "more".  I think we also agree a lot more could have - and should have - been put in the game.  I prefer a deeper antagonist myself, someone with more shades of grey than black and white.  But a good cartoon villain, moustache-twirling and Muhahahha and all that, is fine also, if that's what you want to write.  But do one or the other.

No no, if I have to choose, I would still want the complexity there even if it's given in exra-game or buried-deep-in-game materials.  That's practically all of Elder Scrolls lore, for instance, and to me that is where the meat of the game is.  If I like a game I'm doing to delve anyway.  Isn't it better to have something to delve into?

I'd argue that he's called a traitor and a villain in game sequences post-DA:O because, once you defeat him, that's what he is - a traitor.  That's what people who do what he did, and lose, are always called.  Those who win are called heroes.  Not my rule, just the way it works.  To use an in-game example, go ask Sophia Dryden, who had a good reason to do what she did, but lost.

Now you're saying you get to tell other people how to feel about a character.  That may be the reductionist TV Tropes policy, but isn't the point of the thread that we don't want that?

1.  To each their own . . .I don't like the book at all, but I know people do.  That's happened before, and will again. 

2.  Oh, I agree I'd want the complexity.  But I've played games with cartoon villains and found them enjoyable.  Not necessarily replayable, but enjoyable.  Elder Scrolls, now THAT'S replayable.

3.  No, come on.  That's history.  That's how it works.  The American Revolution is lauded here in the States because we won.  If we lost, those who led the fight would be considered traitors - they likely still are in England.  That's all I meant there.

To be clear - yes, I WANT complexity.  I don't think I GOT it in Loghain.