Editorial Examining Choice in Dragon Age: Origins

[Sergiu64]

Um that's not how that badly written, plot hole ridden piece of shit went at all. The King was doing ok, up to the point where Loghain decided to withdraw his troops, for no reason other than having them as defence against an Orlesian offense (that was never coming except in his head), so the remaining darkspawn could outflank the King and his troops and fuck him over. Had Loghain guarded the flank, it's not very likely the King or Duncan would have died.

Where did you get all this information on how the battle went?

If the King didn't decide to play the hero and give the darkspawn a battle in the field instead of defending the castle until reinforcements from Arl Eamon arrived there would not have been a way for them to outflank him in the first place.

 

[circ]

The same cutscene you watched?

 

[Sergiu64]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVrXW0WVXYw

0:10 shows the Kings forces defending a thin passageway that does not seem flankable to me.

3:36 shows the same passageway from above. Again it seems like no significant force can "flank" an army in that passageway.

Tyr Loghain's segement starting around 3:01 does not show his location clearly but 'http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Battle_of_Ostagar' states that the plan was for him to engage the darkspawn forces from behind them.

So I don't know where you got all that flanking stuff from.

 

[Volourn]

It's very clear if Loghain had sent his troops in the battle would not have been a massacre. He betrayed his king, and nation out of his childish luantic bizarre all encompassing hatred. So, no, it wasn't logical. Itw as pure hatred. Not to mention that his act nearly destroyed Feralden because he basically split the country in two ata time when the country should have been focused on the common enemy.

 

[Drakron]

No. no, it was not logical.

Ummm, ok:

1. We didn't see the battle from Loghain's view point. Its quite possible that from that vantage point it was all too clear that battle was going to end in defeat whether Loghain threw in his reserves or not.

He withdraws, a action that surprises Ser Cauthrien that was "just" his right hand and commander of his troops.

2. King Cailin (sp?) was deliberately ignoring Loghain's strategic advice and refusing to wait for additional men due to overconfidence and some kind of childish glory/thrill seeking. Its not surprising that Loghain thought that the kingdom might be better off without him.

And comes the problem.

Loghain have no problem in saying its not a true blight and so the battle should have been easy yet he withdraws for ... no reason besides getting Cailin killed.

NOTHING you say changed the fact he had NO REASON to pull back, it was a Hammer and Anvil tactic.

Also comes the issue of loyalty, Loghain just betrays Maric Theirin's SON, you know ... his BEST FRIEND SON, someone who he HELPED IN RAISING and also his SON-IN-LAW.

That by itself is not a issue, except Loghain just happens to be a hero, representing the Fereldan ideals of hard work and independence.

That is the problem, it could work if he planned to take control and that just the opportunity he was waiting for but that not what the game tells us now is it?

Consider it this way: you're a general of a country that has only recently thrown off chains of occupation. Your new country is surrounded on all sides by enemy kingdoms. Your man-child of a "king" is ineptly playing war with an enemy army, wasting men and resources in inefficient manner, and risking disaster by not taking the enemy seriously and exposing himself to general melee. Do you go along with his plan and possibly waste more men or withdraw and let the young king reap the fruits of his battle plan while giving your country a stronger ruler: you.

Oh?

And does Loghain take the Blight serious?

No, he keeps the whole "false Blight" and is too busy taking down Teyrn and Arls, something that just shows he is attempting to consolidate his rule ... in fact at one point in the game I think Anora points out as things are going there will be no way to stop the darkspawn due to losses from infighting.

Cailan was a idiot but at least did not put his country on the brink of destruction.

Of course its just convenient as BioWare just wanted to put POLITICAL INTRIGUE but fucked it up by Loghain out-of-character actions, now the reason I say its out of character is because the game cannot make up its mind over who he is and the fact they made a novel with him as a character that is more in line with "Loghain, the hero".

Oh and there is the whole Arl of Redcliffe affair, you know ... the man he had POISONED so were exactly would those reinforcements from Redcliffe would come from? Mind you I am not talking about the Desire Demon that was off but from what happened before as he had the Arl poisoned and so the household was in disarray with his knights scattered looking for a cure.

AGAIN, it looks like he planed to have Cailan killed.

It becomes an argument of being loyal to one man, or being loyal to the best interests of your nation.

Wrong.

The question is characterization as the whole "plot to overthrown the King so I can be King" is a old one that never does gets old, the problem is that Loghain is NOT supposed to be the "Evil Chancellor" that plans to overthrown the King.

Also the whole logic about Cailan being a bad king is poor, Anora (HIS DAUGHTER) was pretty much the one running the place as even Cailan knew he was not suitable for that.

The whole matter lies on Orlais, Cailan did wrote asking for military assistance but nothing indicates Orlais had any plans to use that as a excuse to take over again, even if Loghain had a serious issue with that (with good reason) there is nothing to say the military assistance was granted besides the Wardens that are based in Orlais.

That is the other issue, Loghain had no reason to mistrust the Wardens and even less of accusing then from killing Cailan besides PLOT CONVENIENCE as even the whole affair with Solider's Peak was too old and with a King that was so loved and held in high regard a CIVIL WAR broken out after his death and most records about his rule vanished.

Again, its being a consistent character and if Loghain was someone that wanted to be King and plan it for years it would be one thing BUT the game cannot decided about who he is and what his motivations are.

THAT is why he so poorly done.

 

[Azarkon]

Drakron

I should point out, though, that the official reason for Loghain's betrayal is Cailin's decision to ally with the French ... err the Orlesians. Such a treaty would boil the blood of any self-respecting Englishman ... err Ferelden. So Loghain, who hates the Orlesians for various background read-the-novel reasons, decides that Cailin was a fool and needed to be put down.

In short, given the context of the game and the history period that it was trying to emulate, he is what you might call an English nationalist, who let his hatred of the French blind him to the greater threat of the Asiatic hordes. I've now tied Dragon Age to the cause of white nationalism and pan-European unity. Humanophage would be proud.

 

[Gragt]

Gragt, you will soon hear from cyberpolice. You dun goofed.

Shit, you backtraced me.

 

[Volourn]

"Again, its being a consistent character"

Except, it was consistent. He just changed. It's called downfall of a hero.

Step 1: Rise to prominence, hereo of Ferladen

Step 2: Evil Betrayer Betrays King Ouf of Malice and Hatred

Step 3 a: Gets Communpance and is executed

Step 3b: Gets redemption as he realizes the folly of his ways and sacrifices his life for his country

Step 3c: Gets redemption as he realizes the error the folly of his way and lives the rest of his life finding ways to redeem himself


Loghain is defintiely not the 'best villain ever'; but he's far from the 'worst villain ever' as well.

FFS FUCK EXTREMISTS FUCK THEM TO DEATH FFS

 

[Jaesun]

"Loghain is defintiely not the 'best villain ever'; but he's far from the 'worst villain ever' as well.

I agree. And it fit the setting very well.

 

[Xor]

I still don't get why they couldn't have put that exposition about Loghain's motive for betraying Cailin in the actual game and not some shitty DLC I can't even be bothered to pirate. Normally DLCs are just extra shit no one cares about like a random dungeon or something, but having something central to understanding one of the major villains is kind of asinine and it makes me worried they'll do the same thing again. What's next, a literal "pay $10 to finish the game" DLC?

 

[Drakron]

"Again, its being a consistent character"

Except, it was consistent. He just changed. It's called downfall of a hero.

There is no "downfall" as even Aribeth was given a turning point and Bastila was turned by Malak.

Even Reven had its reasons, in this case its just the hate of Orlais from Loghain part that even if is "in character" is simply illogical to justify the steps he had taken well before the game started.

Azarkon had pin it down, the bad is the game never bothers to give a proper explanation or reasoning as if we all expected to buy and read a novel and DLC to connect the dots.

A game cannot carry itself off supporting materials, this is like having the Covenant actions in Halo being explained by the Halo novels, sure they go over about it in more detail but its not as I did not grasp the High Prophets motivations and plans when I was playing Halo 2 or Ar Tonelico that throws shitload of terms bothers to explain the plot and motivations of the characters.

Loghain is not a antagonist, its a plot device so we can all do Bioware trademark "4 things" without any need of that, he simply makes things longer for no actual reason, as far antagonists go he is one of the worst.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Irenicus is one of the best for me. The best ever voice acting, credible motivations and interesting background coupled with that "higher than thou" personality which is justified worked pretty well.

Now that I recall there was a thread about who is the "Best Villain Ever". Search it, you can immediately spot it due to the fact it has Vault Dweller in it, so click on the 50-page discussion one. Expect his usual empty verbosity at attempting to explain why his worldview and opinions are correct.

/edit: Ah, and it was there he stated fact that he is the youngest member at the board of directors in his company in a desperate attempt at credibility.

Poor looser.

First, you misspelled "looser", loser. Second, you misunderstood my comment, which doesn't really surprise me. The focus of the "youngest at 40" wasn't on me, but on the people I work with.

I'm not 25 to be proud to be the youngest manager. I'm 40. Much younger people achieve a lot more (google 40 under 40, for example), so I don't have much to brag about. Furthermore, I work in sales. The key skill is the ability to talk, which I obviously don't lack, so people holding top sales jobs tend to be younger than, say, chief accountants or top production guys, not to mention CEOs or owners.

We were talking about men in power and someone claimed that they are very nice people often clinging to their happy childhood moments and other nonsense, I disagreed, was asked for an explanation, and cited my experience working with people who fit the bill, using my age as a reference. The second paragraph (context-defining) was:

"I have yet to see a single guy who could be described as nice (not that I would describe myself as nice, but compared to them I have the heart of gold). Most of them get off on power. Most of them have been married more than once and couldn't give a shit about past love. They fall in love, fall out of love, pay off, move on, referring to women they date as their future ex-wives. Love simply isn't anything of value to them anymore. It's something that will pass anyway so why worry about it. Their happiness comes from 2 sources: money and power. They are on a different plane than most people. "

Then you sent me a bullshit supportive "don't be frustrated, I don't see anything wrong with this, and in fact admire your courage and passion" PM, and I explained again that "It was a simple reference to the age of people I work with. You're reading way too much into it."

So, how did you go from "admiring my courage and passion and hoping that I won't get frustrated" to bitching about me in unrelated threads? Bipolar much?

 

[whitemithrandir]

"Loghain is defintiely not the 'best villain ever'; but he's far from the 'worst villain ever' as well.

Right, Volourn, but the article clearly stated that he's the "Best Villain EVAR", and let's face it, Loghain doesn't exactly have enough personality to qualify him as the worst of anything.

Sooooo

r00fles?

So, how did you go from "admiring my courage and passion and hoping that I won't get frustrated" to bitching about me in unrelated threads? Bipolar much?

You know, I heard gay marriage is legal in Argentina.

 

[Volourn]

"Right, Volourn, but the article clearly stated that he's the "Best Villain EVAR","

Right, Whitey, but who said I had any intention of agreeing with said article. Fuck nut.

 

[whitemithrandir]

"Right, Volourn, but the article clearly stated that he's the "Best Villain EVAR","

Right, Whitey, but who said I had any intention of agreeing with said
article. Fuck nut.

:D

 

[1eyedking]

First, you misspelled "looser", loser.

I am rubber, you are glue.

Second, you misunderstood my comment, which doesn't really surprise me. The focus of the "youngest at 40" wasn't on me, but on the people I work with.

I'm not 25 to be proud to be the youngest manager. I'm 40. Much younger people achieve a lot more (google 40 under 40, for example), so I don't have much to brag about. Furthermore, I work in sales. The key skill is the ability to talk, which I obviously don't lack, so people holding top sales jobs tend to be younger than, say, chief accountants or top production guys, not to mention CEOs or owners.

Whatever. It's too late to cover your ass now. Your ego got the best of you.

We were talking about men in power and someone claimed that they are very nice people often clinging to their happy childhood moments and other nonsense, I disagreed, was asked for an explanation, and cited my experience working with people who fit the bill, using my age as a reference. The second paragraph (context-defining) was:

"I have yet to see a single guy who could be described as nice (not that I would describe myself as nice, but compared to them I have the heart of gold). Most of them get off on power. Most of them have been married more than once and couldn't give a shit about past love. They fall in love, fall out of love, pay off, move on, referring to women they date as their future ex-wives. Love simply isn't anything of value to them anymore. It's something that will pass anyway so why worry about it. Their happiness comes from 2 sources: money and power. They are on a different plane than most people."

I actually like those kinds of people as I can immediately relate to them. I don't think they're evil, in fact, I think they're the ones that get it right. 'Love' is as empty a word as they come.

And I bet they still cling to old, happy memories from their past, except they don't expose them around because that would mean acknowledging a weakness.

Then you sent me a bullshit supportive "don't be frustrated, I don't see anything wrong with this, and in fact admire your courage and passion" PM, and I explained again that "It was a simple reference to the age of people I work with. You're reading way too much into it."

So, how did you go from "admiring my courage and passion and hoping that I won't get frustrated" to bitching about me in unrelated threads? Bipolar much?

Caring is hating, man. As far as I remember I told you I admired your passion for designing games except you didn't need to be a douchebag all the time to prove it. Alzheimer kicking in as soon as top management positions, I guess.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Whatever. It's too late to cover your ass now. Your ego got the best of you.

What ego? Just because you have a hard on for management positions, doesn't mean I do. I sure as fuck wouldn't be wasting my time working on a niche indie game if I did.

Anyway, I explained the rather obvious meaning of what I said. You can choose to read the explanation or to ignore it and continue your pointless a-la Rex attacks.

Caring is hating, man. As far as I remember I told you I admired your passion for designing games except you didn't need to be a douchebag all the time to prove it. Alzheimer kicking in as soon as top management positions, I guess.

Would you mind explaining how I am being a douchebag all the time? Was it when you asked to play the AoD combat demo while we were still testing it (i.e. before we released it) and I said sure?

 

[Phelot]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVrXW0WVXYw

0:10 shows the Kings forces defending a thin passageway that does not seem flankable to me.

3:36 shows the same passageway from above. Again it seems like no significant force can "flank" an army in that passageway.

Tyr Loghain's segement starting around 3:01 does not show his location clearly but 'http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Battle_of_Ostagar' states that the plan was for him to engage the darkspawn forces from behind them.

So I don't know where you got all that flanking stuff from.

Unrelated, but isn't it amazing how the LOTR movies changed the way battle is portrayed in like every movie and game? One stupid movie and now every battle has to mimic it. What an original setting DA is.

 

[Der_Unbekannte]

Unrelated, but isn't it amazing how the LOTR movies changed the way battle is portrayed in like every movie and game? One stupid movie and now every battle has to mimic it. What an original setting DA is.

Same goes for action scenes. Watch movies before the release of Matrix and after. After Matrix everyone did SUPER DUPER HERP DERP SLO MO, forgetting that in Matrix it made sense (well a bit), whereas in every other movie it's retarded (but looks awesome).

 

[Phelot]

Unrelated, but isn't it amazing how the LOTR movies changed the way battle is portrayed in like every movie and game? One stupid movie and now every battle has to mimic it. What an original setting DA is.

Same goes for action scenes. Watch movies before the release of Matrix and after. After Matrix everyone did SUPER DUPER HERP DERP SLO MO, forgetting that in Matrix it made sense (well a bit), whereas in every other movie it's retarded (but looks awesome).

Yup and then there's Saving Private Ryan which popularized the ever retarded "shaky cam" effect during battle. That shit is used more then anything else and I fucking hate it.

At least in LOTR the battles were at least fun to watch the first time you see it, but WTF am I suppose to make of cutscenes using in game models and textures that looked terrible to begin with? It's like when you're a kid and you act out en epic battle with your Lego pieces and then grow up and make an actual movie using the same Lego pieces...