145 réponses à ce sujet

[MisterJB]

Taleroth wrote...
There certainly was. Loghain never makes the argument that the strategy won't work, simply that it is reckless and might get the King killed.

And that's ignoring the three-to-four armies he prevented from joining the battle. That would have ensured the battle ended even more quickly.

Ostagar was a certain victory. Duncan said the strategy would work, despite it being a blight. Loghain said it would work, and he underestimated the threat so had less reason to doubt it than Duncan. Nobody disagrees with this assesment at any point, except maybe one half-dead soldier in a DLC introduced later.

Loghain presented the best strategy he could while making concessions for Cailan's vanity; a plan cailan threw in the wind as soon as the Spawn appeared but more on that later; and not only has Duncan shown an unwillingness to tell Cailan the truth; such as, for instance, when he suggested they make plans for dealing with the Archdemon and Cailan's like "No need, we got Grey Wardens"; he also bloody couldn't tell the king who is supposed to inspire his men "WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE! PANIC! PANIC!".

Loghain's plan was similar to Leonida's plan in "300". Ostagar prevented flanking so, all they'd have to deal with was darkspawn from the front. They attracted them into the valley, Loghain came from behind and thus, the darkspawn would be caught between the two armies and thoroughly crushed.
Except there were some problems.

1- Cailan ordered a charge thus, giving up the protection offered by Ostagar's walls. Suddenly, there's darkspawn on the front, right, left and probrably some stragllers in the back.

2-There were simply too many Darkspawn. This is something we're told by many people in the camp, their numbers just keep getting bigger and that was never truer than on the night Cailan died:



See that? All of that is darkspawn. So, what exactly was Loghain supposed to do? Climb the mountain so he could catch the darkspawn from the rear and trap them between the two human armies?
Obviously, that's just not feasible. Loghain could have charged but that would have meant fighting enemies on the front and back.

So, even if Loghain and Duncan were certain of victory on the eve of battle, it's pretty obvious circunstances altered that.

And what armies did Loghain refuse beyond Orlesian ones?

[In Exile]

Loghain was an idiot. His "plan" was to get his entire army flanked by the darkspawn. After that, he went from suicidal political blunder to suicidal political blunder. 

Modifié par In Exile, 15 août 2013 - 11:04 .

[AlanC9]

MisterJB wrote...

Loghain's plan was similar to Leonida's plan in "300". Ostagar prevented flanking so, all they'd have to deal with was darkspawn from the front. They attracted them into the valley, Loghain came from behind and thus, the darkspawn would be caught between the two armies and thoroughly crushed.
Except there were some problems.

The main problem being that Loghain always intended to let Cailan get killed there. You really couldn't figure that  out from the War Council scene?

[MisterJB]

AlanC9 wrote...
The main problem being that Loghain always intended to let Cailan get killed there. You really couldn't figure that  out from the War Council scene?

Except David Gaider himself already confirmed that while he considered the possibility, he only decided to do it right at the very moment he did it which doesn't support the idea that he deliberately sabotaged Ferelden's forces until the moment he sounded the retreat.

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...

The main problem being that Loghain always intended to let Cailan get killed there. You really couldn't figure that  out from the War Council scene?

The game is actually inconsistent here. For example, it's apparently the case that Loghain didn't poison Eamon until after Ostagar and that he didn't team up with Howe when Howe killed the Couslands. That doesn't really make much sense. 

MisterJB wrote...
Except David Gaider himself already confirmed that while he considered the possibility, he only decided to do it right at the very moment he did it which doesn't support the idea that he deliberately sabotaged Ferelden's forces until the moment he sounded the retreat.

That just has him hold the idiot ball even more with his alliance with Howe, and especially his move to declare himself regent (or King, apparently, according to that one dude outside of Orzammar). 

Modifié par In Exile, 15 août 2013 - 11:21 .

[TyroneTasty]

It works well with the hero's journey concept. It's a basic structure that can be retold in an endless number of ways.

And it's fun. And considering how few of these type of adventure games there are, (especially these days) I'd hardly say it's overdone.

Modifié par TyroneTasty, 15 août 2013 - 11:34 .

[brushyourteeth]

Filament wrote...

No. This thread isn't about Loghain. Stahp it.

[Plaintiff]

I see a lot of people saying the complaints about DA2 were regarding execution rather than the formula itself.

But actually, a lot of them WERE totally about the formula and plot specifics. "Why aren't I a big damn hero? Why aren't I travelling across the country putting a stop to wars? Where are the darkspawn? Why aren't I a warden? Where's Morrigan and her old god baby? Why isn't everything I do a world-changing event?"

When a writer makes a move to a new kind of formula that they've never really tried before, missteps are to be expected. The only way to improve is to keep trying. I thought DA2 was just fine, and I hope the negative feedback didn't dissuade Bioware from continuing to make even more games that divert from their typical formula.

I was quite disheartened when I saw that the synopsis for Inquisition seemed very similar to what had gone before, but the devs have said on more than one occasion that they had a plan for the franchise from the beginning, and that they were always heading roughly in this direction. I trust them to do a good job of it.

[Mike3207]

Wulfram wrote...


Though I do find the initial impression is very "we're doing DA:O again", that might just be a marketing posture caused by the feeling that they need to win their core audience back onside.

If Marketing really believes including a formula is enough for the core fans to return-well all I'll say is they shouldn't make long-term plans for the DA series.

[In Exile]

Mike Smith wrote...
If Marketing really believes including a formula is enough for the core fans to return-well all I'll say is they shouldn't make long-term plans for the DA series.

The forum exploded when Bioware announced your sprite would have pointy ears, so I imagine they're not wrong. 

[AlanC9]

MisterJB wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
The main problem being that Loghain always intended to let Cailan get killed there. You really couldn't figure that  out from the War Council scene?

Except David Gaider himself already confirmed that while he considered the possibility, he only decided to do it right at the very moment he did it which doesn't support the idea that he deliberately sabotaged Ferelden's forces until the moment he sounded the retreat.

So the council scene's deliberately misleading? I mean, Loghain would have been twirling his mustache if he had one.

I guess I've got to take DG's word for that, though. You got a source?

Modifié par AlanC9, 16 août 2013 - 01:16 .

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...

The game is actually inconsistent here. For example, it's apparently the case that Loghain didn't poison Eamon until after Ostagar and that he didn't team up with Howe when Howe killed the Couslands. That doesn't really make much sense. 

Neither for motivation nor for timing.

Good thing I've always been in the "Bio plots never made sense" camp, or I'd have to go eat some crow over on the ME boards.

[Deadmac]

Plaintiff wrote...
But actually, a lot of them WERE totally about the formula and plot specifics. "Why aren't I a big damn hero? Why aren't I travelling across the country putting a stop to wars? Where are the darkspawn? Why aren't I a warden? Where's Morrigan and her old god baby? Why isn't everything I do a world-changing event?".

While BioWare tried to do something deep and meaningful, "Dragon Age II" failed because players do not want to play a nobody. When the game came to an end, players were given an anti-climatic and schizophrenic set of solutions.

Act III of "Dragon Age II" went off as: (1) your choices didn't matter, (2) NPCs didn't care if you were a hero, (3) you were not allowed to prevent anything from happening, and (4) you were not allowed to become King (or Ruler) of Kirkwall.

People play modern games to become the hero or villain.

"Dragon Age II" had many other elements to enjoy; however, the inability to influence outcomes, lack of customization, and anti-climatic ending killed the game.

'Act I' focused on building up resources and a reputation.
'Act II' focused on becoming a hero and influencing societal changes.
'Act III' focused on telling players that your actions as a hero did not matter.

Kirkwall's fate was predetermined.

You spent thirty to forty hours on doing tasks, so you can learn that you wasted your time. Hawke could have just satback and watched the world burn, and not a single thing could have changed the city's fate.

----------

*game comes to an end*

"So, did I become the savior, king, or ruler?"

"No. Everyone you saved suffered from schizophrenia, and then they turned against you."

*kicks sand*

"Well, I am off to go hang myself in the barn."

Modifié par Deadmac, 16 août 2013 - 01:45 .

[KC_Prototype]

It works. Don't change something that works.

[mannitt]

Filament wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Milan92 wrote...
Lets just wait and see how it plays out first shall we? Seems like the most reasonable thing to do.

Wise.

Of course, taking that phrase, imaging the most generic way it could play out, and assuming that's how we would write it-- and then complaining about it as if we already did so-- is also an option.

Ok, then I'd like to know why you have us traipsing across Thedas to make all the warring factions hold hands and give their energy to the Inquisitor's spirit bomb so he can kill the big bad tentacle demon slithering out of the portal like your company's name is Gearbox.

I don't really agree with you and I'm not adding much to the conversation. I just love your spirit bomb reference.

[Paul E Dangerously]

Formulaic doesn't mean "bad". I'd rather have something that plays it safe but is well done, than something that tries to go down a new path and for whatever reason doesn't succeed.

[Plaintiff]

Deadmac wrote...
People play modern games to become the hero or villain.

Maybe you do. I'm content to  be told a story. I don't need a game to jerk me off.

Kirkwall's fate was predetermined.

As is the case with most videogames. The ones that let you affect the outcome in any significant way are an exception, not the rule, and I don't consider any current Dragon Age game to be an exception.

You spent thirty to forty hours on doing tasks, so you can learn that you wasted your time. Hawke could have just satback and watched the world burn, and not a single thing could have changed the city's fate.

A lot more people would've died, but who cares about saving lives? I need personal gratification in the form of imaginary riches.

*game comes to an end*

"So, did I become the savior, king, or ruler?"

"No. Everyone you saved suffered from schizophrenia, and then they turned against you."

*kicks sand*

"Well, I am off to go hang myself in the barn."

Lol, this says it all. "If my character isn't rewarded with a crown, he should kill himself."

[MisterJB]

AlanC9 wrote...
So the council scene's deliberately misleading? I mean, Loghain would have been twirling his mustache if he had one.
I guess I've got to take DG's word for that, though. You got a source?

Certainly.

http://social.biowar...dex/583297&lf=8


"The decision, I think, was made at the moment Loghain saw the beacon
lit. He prepared for the possibility, as he prepared for everything,
but I don't think he decided to go through with it until right then."

Deadmac wrote...
*game comes to an end*

"So, did I become the savior, king, or ruler?"

"No. Everyone you saved suffered from schizophrenia, and then they turned against you."

*kicks sand*

"Well, I am off to go hang myself in the barn."

You know, that is exactly how the Game of Thrones RPG ends, true story.

[Paul E Dangerously]

Plaintiff wrote...
As is the case with most videogames. The ones that let you affect the outcome in any significant way are an exception, not the rule, and I don't consider any current Dragon Age game to be an exception.

The problem with this is that you're literally just a third wheel in the ending. Nothing you do changes anything. Unlike in DAO where you choose who lives and who dies to take down the Archdemon (if not using the Dark Ritual), Hawke just gets:

a) Choose the Mages? They're insane, and you have to fight them. So are the Templars, so get to cracking.
 Choose the Templars? The mages are insane, and you have to kill them. Guess what, Meredith is insane and you have to fight the Templars, too.

[Fredward]

^ I don't see the problem.

Taleroth wrote...
If you define "evil" as "likes the taste of raw baby meat," sure. But even Uldred had a point if you pretend only the ideal matters.

Not just the ideal no, the thought process matters too.

[Boycott Bioware]

How about make it in reverse....it is the enemy that gain strength, making alliances, become stronger and we face them alone...against all odds

It seems to me that bad guys usually not alone, especially nowadays, they are allied force, and the oppressed are alone facing the oppressors