254 réponses à ce sujet

[nfi42]

got called that a lot as a kid, yes what is it?

[Laughing_Man]

WHAT is WOG

 

Word of god. Example, a writer stating outside of his creation that "actually, I meant to say that...".

 

Sometimes, WOG directly contradicts what seems like the reasonable conclusion when reading or otherwise experiencing the story.

 

WOG

 

Retcon

[AlanC9]

WHAT is WOG

WOG = Word Of God. It's the author, lead designer, showrunner, etc. telling you exactly what happened and why it happened, when the media itself is ambiguous.

Yet another term popularized by Tvtropes.

[Pasquale1234]

The in-game material is gibberish.

Yet you managed to create a headcanon that makes sense to you.
 

It includes Loghain having actual psychic powers at Ostagar.

Or experience planning and executing major battles. Or a shred of doubt about how the battle is going to go.
 

That he thought Cailan would destroy the country he sacrificed everything for by selling it our to Orlais is a motivation we can all accept.

You seem to be attempting to speak for everyone who consumed this story here.
 

The fact that he males this decision before Ostager doesn't really change the calculus.

Assumption / interpretation, not fact in evidence. If Loghain had decided that Cailan must die at Ostagar, it renders his pleas that Cailan not ride with the Wardens as well as some of his later behaviors should he become a Grey Warden nonsensical.
 

Anyway, you're using fact not in evidence incorrectly. All of the facts we need actually are in evidence - we're not adding anything to the story.

I don't think so, no. There are some assumptions (additions to the story) implicit in the version Undead Han laid out.

But here's another version that also relies on some headcanon.

Bryce Cousland is a highly respected and admired man whom many thought should be king instead of Cailan. (That's actually stated in the wiki). Always the diplomat, Bryce invariably supported Cailan publicly while frequently questioning him and his leadership in private.

Cailan was keenly aware of the Couslands' popularity, a fact that drove him toward bold, brash, decisive maneuvers in order to stay one step ahead of the Couslands and prove himself worthy of the throne.

Rendon Howe had spent much of his life waiting for the right opportunity to take back what the Couslands had stolen from his family - and that opportunity finally came. With Highever's forces reduced to a skeleton crew, the arrival of his own armies created a scenario that gave him the best chance he would ever have of righting those wrongs. All he needed to do was take out everyone else at Cousland Castle and then spin some yarn about uncovering a Cousland plot to usurp the throne, and taking immediate action to protect the king. A few forged documents, some minor nobles who owed him some favors, a few reminders about the Cousland family history, a play on Cailan's own insecurities about his relationship with the Couslands, and the Teyrnship of Highever was a slam-dunk. His plan failed because Duncan and the younger Cousland escaped and lived to tell the tale.

(Note that Duncan mentioned to the king that their survival thwarted Howe's plans; otherwise Howe could have told Cailan whatever he wanted. Also note that if Howe convinces Cailan that the Couslands were plotting to usurp him, Fergus's survival would not have mattered.)
 

I'm of two minds on this. I agree with your views on authorial intent and WOG being practically canon in providing information not included in the medium. BUT I also believe that any creative work becomes open to public analysis as soon as it's released. The author owns the rights to the work but doesn't own the ideas held within it. They relinquish that power when they make it public.

So I think the audience is within its right to question authorial intent if the intent presents logical fallacies. It is what made the argument that ME3 is art and therefor shouldn't be criticized dumb. Gaider and the writers are human. They may have wanted to present Loghain one way but by the time the game was finished, had written him in such a way that conflicts with their intent. And at that point, they couldn't go back and make changes.

I don't disagree with you, though I would say they had some power to make some minor corrections wrt Loghain's presentation in DLCs (particularly Return to Ostagar).

In any case, my entire point here is to demonstrate that filling in the blanks, making assumptions about what might have been going on behind the scenes, etc., is headcanon - not necessarily fact.

[Gwydden]

Yet you managed to create a headcanon that makes sense to you.
 
In any case, my entire point here is to demonstrate that filling in the blanks, making assumptions about what might have been going on behind the scenes, etc., is headcanon - not necessarily fact.

Analysis of a story is not the same as headcanon. It's certainly not the same as objective truth, but it's also far from "stuff I made up just because I like the sound of it." After all, every story ever has this thing called "subtext."

 

As for WoG, the importance you give it it's entirely dependent upon which school of literary criticism you prefer. Personally, I find it to be of very little value, seeing as 1. authors are by definition professional liars and 2. authors tend to be terrible judges of their own work. Literary criticism and analysis involves a different albeit related skillset than storytelling.

[Pasquale1234]

Analysis of a story is not the same as headcanon.

That's true.

But inventing behind-the-scenes conspiracies (and other material) not explicitly presented is headcanon.

[AlanC9]

If Loghain had decided that Cailan must die at Ostagar, it renders his pleas that Cailan not ride with the Wardens as well as some of his later behaviors should he become a Grey Warden nonsensical.

It works fine if Loghain is certain that Cailan won't do as he's asking. He did know the man.

[Gwydden]

It works fine if Loghain is certain that Cailan won't do as he's asking. He did know the man.

And remember, Loghain's not a complete monster. If he was planning to betray him just then, it's possible he was looking for an excuse to backtrack.

[Shadow Recon117]

Yea Loghains not a monster. Bioware just gave him the Saturday morning villain smirk at the war table for kicks

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Who's dissing my boy, Loghain?

 

Cailan was an idealistic glory-hound fool who was talking to Celene behind his wife's back and Eamon is a power hungry politician who made Alistair sleep with dogs and threw him to the Templars the moment Isolde got paranoid.

 

I'll take Loghain over them any day.

[AlanC9]

Loghain's every bit as good a ruler as Cersei Lannister, yep.

[Jaron Oberyn]

I doubt they will take anything from the DA franchise. They never had in the past, it was one of the most puzzling examples of the right hand not talking to the left. The DA franchise had plenty of strong points that ME3 could have learned from.

[Paul E Dangerously]

I doubt they will take anything from the DA franchise. They never had in the past, it was one of the most puzzling examples of the right hand not talking to the left. The DA franchise had plenty of strong points that ME3 could have learned from.

 

And vice versa. Though DA2 tried to flat out copy ME2, DAI ignored what ME3 did well - particularly in light of ME3 adding back some of the RPG elements that were lost from ME1. Having some of the complexity from Origins back in DAI would have been nice, but they made it even more simplistic than DA2, which I wasn't convinced was possible.

[In Exile]

And vice versa. Though DA2 tried to flat out copy ME2, DAI ignored what ME3 did well - particularly in light of ME3 adding back some of the RPG elements that were lost from ME1. Having some of the complexity from Origins back in DAI would have been nice, but they made it even more simplistic than DA2, which I wasn't convinced was possible.

Simpler in what sense? I found DA2 had superior mechanics to DAO, although greatly unpolished. It's a shame that DAI didn't follow up on DA2 mechanically.

[The Elder King]

Who's dissing my boy, Loghain?

 

Cailan was an idealistic glory-hound fool who was talking to Celene behind his wife's back and Eamon is a power hungry politician who made Alistair sleep with dogs and threw him to the Templars the moment Isolde got paranoid.

 

I'll take Loghain over them any day.

It was more about his possible involvement in the Cousland affair.

In my case it's not about hating Loghain. My canon Cousland did thing he was involved, but he recruited him in the end.

 

Simpler in what sense? I found DA2 had superior mechanics to DAO, although greatly unpolished. It's a shame that DAI didn't follow up on DA2 mechanically.

Regardless of the opinion on DA2's mechanics compared to DAO (I prefer to not start a debate on that), the fact that they had only one year it's my major grief with the game. With a proper development time the game would've been much better.

Though maybe we'd have gotten Inquisition's story already in the second if they got a proper development time, since they were planned that story before.

[fizzypop]

No.

It's all about desired end state. And deciding on a strategy to achieve it. And deciding which missions to assign to who.

Deciding on an overall goal for how you want your efforts to turn out, examples; if you want a "softened" Leliana as Divine, or not losing all the surviving wardens, then the war table missions, and the reading and selecting or different courses of action, not to mention who they are assigned to, are very important and interesting.

And if impatience is a problem with their progression, then advancing the time is not difficult (PC), or barring that, shards to hunt or fade-touched mats to farm...

Dude no one, but die hards do this. Most people just get a guide for the best results and /slash ignore the rest. **** I have done some playthroughs where I just completely ignored all of them and it had no barring on anything. Yes, I shouldn't have to cheat game mechanics because they are so incredibly boring instead they could just make the **** ****** interesting. No one should be farming **** in a single player game. I swear people fall all over themselves trying to defend bad game mechanics.

[Addictress]

Simpler in what sense? I found DA2 had superior mechanics to DAO, although greatly unpolished. It's a shame that DAI didn't follow up on DA2 mechanically.

The combat mechanics in DA2 were the best, but DA:I completely deleted tactics. Both DA:O and DA2 let you customize party preferences for at least a dozen slots for everyone. The powers and spells seem more simplified in DA:I as well. Also, it's not quite as 'turn-based' as DA2 and DA:O. I'm surprised people didn't scream bloody murder at just how dramatically they killed the tactics system.

[Paul E Dangerously]

The combat mechanics in DA2 were the best, but DA:I completely deleted tactics. Both DA:O and DA2 let you customize party preferences for at least a dozen slots for everyone. The powers and spells seem more simplified in DA:I as well. Also, it's not quite as 'turn-based' as DA2 and DA:O. I'm surprised people didn't scream bloody murder at just how dramatically they killed the tactics system.

 

This, in addition to nuking character options across the board. Choose your own stats? Gone. Use whatever weapons or armor you like no matter the class? Gone. Change weapons during battle / equipping multiple weapon sets? Gone.

[Jaron Oberyn]

And vice versa. Though DA2 tried to flat out copy ME2, DAI ignored what ME3 did well - particularly in light of ME3 adding back some of the RPG elements that were lost from ME1. Having some of the complexity from Origins back in DAI would have been nice, but they made it even more simplistic than DA2, which I wasn't convinced was possible.

ME3 stripped out many RPG elements, most importantly it's namesake: the ability to roleplay. ME3 embraced shepard as a preset character, where DAI allowed near infinite control over your player character which made future playthroughs distinctly different. Saying DAI was more simple than DA2 is a little hyperbolic, but the point is DAI did a lot of things really well and it's a shame that the ME team isn't likely to take anything away from it. Especially when it comes to how DAI handled dialogue control as opposed to ME3's automated crap.

[Krazy Krazer]

I hope MEA takes inspiration from DAI in terms of:

- Customization, in regards to armor/weapons, bases and character creator(with improved hair pls).

- The regions they created, but obviously make it more alien. I hope we don't get earth like environments all the time.

- The dialogue wheel, I liked that it showed me the attitude I can deliver with my response.

- The war table was cool but needs more work, maybe something a long the lines if we're establishing supposed colonies.

- I did like the frequent responses my character could give while adventuring when a companion has a response to a certain area/event.

 

What they shouldn't do:

 

-The secondary quests were not good, I mean, I can handle a few fetch quests but at least have more types of quest variation, not have them all fetchy.

- When it comes to one on one conversation, 3rd person conversation camera. The conversations with companions were a letdown cause it didn't feel personal enough, I like mass effect 1/2 and DAO conversations, not this. Mass effect 3 had this problem too. The Zaeed and Kasumi started this i believe, urgh.

-Hair.

 

Otherwise... yeh

[Paul E Dangerously]

ME3 stripped out many RPG elements, most importantly it's namesake: the ability to roleplay. ME3 embraced shepard as a preset character, where DAI allowed near infinite control over your player character which made future playthroughs distinctly different. Saying DAI was more simple than DA2 is a little hyperbolic, but the point is DAI did a lot of things really well and it's a shame that the ME team isn't likely to take anything away from it. Especially when it comes to how DAI handled dialogue control as opposed to ME3's automated crap.

 

I don't necessarily take dialogue into account, just mechanics. I lump the writing into a different end.

[Addictress]

This, in addition to nuking character options across the board. Choose your own stats? Gone. Use whatever weapons or armor you like no matter the class? Gone. Change weapons during battle / equipping multiple weapon sets? Gone.

Preach

[Pasquale1234]

This, in addition to nuking character options across the board. Choose your own stats? Gone. Use whatever weapons or armor you like no matter the class? Gone. Change weapons during battle / equipping multiple weapon sets? Gone.

I think part of the problem is this obsession with individualized "iconic" looks for characters - because having an armor set look the same on a human female warrior Inquisitor as it does on Cassandra is verboten. So - Cassandra can wear only heavy armors, so they don't have to model additional unique looks in all of the light and medium armors for Cassandra.

It's infuriating - as is level locking EVERYTHING. That there are levels on crafted gear is... unbelievable. One of my biggest frustrations with a lot of RPGs is that by the time you get great gear you really like, you don't get to use it very long, because the game is almost over. I was hoping that crafting might get me past that, but nope. So I hold onto my best crafting materials until later, so I'll be able to craft higher level stuff I won't get to use very long.

Sigh.

[Xilizhra]

I think part of the problem is this obsession with individualized "iconic" looks for characters - because having an armor set look the same on a human female warrior Inquisitor as it does on Cassandra is verboten. So - Cassandra can wear only heavy armors, so they don't have to model additional unique looks in all of the light and medium armors for Cassandra.

It's infuriating - as is level locking EVERYTHING. That there are levels on crafted gear is... unbelievable. One of my biggest frustrations with a lot of RPGs is that by the time you get great gear you really like, you don't get to use it very long, because the game is almost over. I was hoping that crafting might get me past that, but nope. So I hold onto my best crafting materials until later, so I'll be able to craft higher level stuff I won't get to use very long.

Sigh.

Two things to note: you can have any class wear any armor type if it's crafted from the right materials (for instance, rogues and mages can wear heavy armor made of silverite), and, well, crafted weapons and armor don't have level restrictions? I mean, with the Golden Nug, you can get, say, Staff of Corruption schematics early on and have a staff more powerful than anything else you'll get in the game until the very end, that you can use right away.

[Pasquale1234]

Two things to note: you can have any class wear any armor type if it's crafted from the right materials (for instance, rogues and mages can wear heavy armor made of silverite),

Does that apply to followers, or just the Inquisitor?
 

and, well, crafted weapons and armor don't have level restrictions?

I crafted a Shokra-taar for my Inquisitor, and the UI shows it to be several levels lower than my Inquisitor was at the time it was crafted. I note that the wiki shows this item as having an armor rating of 92-108-120-133, which I assume are different values based on level.

When I was crafting it, I did notice that it showed different armor values dependent upon the materials I used.
 

I mean, with the Golden Nug, you can get, say, Staff of Corruption schematics early on and have a staff more powerful than anything else you'll get in the game until the very end, that you can use right away.

I expect I'll use the Golden Nug if I do another playthrough.