Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 79

Thread: [SPOILER] Q&A With Jen Fernández, Richard Lemarchand, and Kyle Mannerberg

  1. #26
    Seriously, it looks the same. Besides this the scene of the Ancient fighting against the Hylden, looks strangely similar to the duel between Kain and Raziel at Avernus Cathedral.
    That's because they are. The two of The two heros are the same ones pretty much all through the game.

    in that movie time couldn't be changed everything happened as it was supposed to
    If I remember correctly, it was because most of the events were partly caused by the fact that Bruce's character went back. Not to mention he was cloudy from the drugs and constant shifting. He had no idea what was real anymore.

    And of course, there was the insurance at the end.

    They didn't really explain how Kain knew about Raziel being the prohesied messiah and why it was necessary to cast Raziel into the Abyss.
    They shouldn't have to. Kain made a choice. He saw Raziel's wings as a sign, when in fact, Raziel may have gotten the wings by chance and had nothign to do with the blade. It was just a choice of Kain, he saw something in some murals, then saw Raziel, so he thought he was doing the right thing. There shouldn't need to be a dissertation of every event.

    They should know that the forums are a "direct line" to us, and we consider everyone's questions, concerns, frustrations, etc. as we develop the SR games.
    That's more than I have seen from a few other companies Let alone the actual writer

    So many things were left vague and open to interpretation in BO:LoK, that generally these "inconsistencies" are simply a matter of my interpretation of the material not matching a fan's interpretation.
    The whole concept of making a sequel is an example of this. Kain had two choices. Amy chose to take the refusal one to continue the story.

    It's also why I let the game shape my ideas, as oppsed to my ideas influencing my views of the games. Every game to me has been a great story, and the deeper it gets, the more entertained and intrigued I get. I think Amy has done a fantastic job writing these games. SO there are inconsistencies, so what. She has done a great job explainging them, even if just a little bit.

    In the LOK series time is pretty much up for grabs, as long as two Soul Reavers meet and create a paradox, certain events in history can be changed.
    But with Raziel gone, and the WB gone as well, there ARE no oither Reavers to meet. Cause as long as Kain keeps the blade and doesn't let WTJ get it, there will be no way to change time, because I doubt Kain would let it happen. Not to mention the story is now unknown, the false destiny has been erased, so Kain is writing his own past now.

    The one exception I might see to this is the Nemesis/William the Just thing in Blood Omen, but I'm sure we'll see an explanation of it eventually.
    I just saw Kain becoming "The Nemesis" in WTJ's place.

    but the picture the staff paints is pretty grim.
    LoK hasn't even hinted at being a "Happily ever after" kind of game. So grim may be how they intend to go anyways.


    Double Jeopardy?

    Just because they haven't told us everything they know, doesn't mean they don't know.
    Rule number 1 in poker, never show your hand.

    Why would Amy give us EVERY answer, when she has another game in the works. She's dropping bits and crumbs, to lead us to the bigger part of the story. She'sa not going to tell us EVERYTHING. That's what the games are for.

    Who are you to call the team at CD wrong? Out and out saying they are wrong is completely disrespectful to both blinc and the team. There's a reason that these are official answers, even if that means that all your theories aren't right. Fess up that you're wrong, instead of being disrespectful. There's a reason that Amy is writing the story and that her theories and facts are correct above all others. This is most plausible statement of all, sadly some will not believe it until it is official confirmed (which was about 8 years ago)
    Not to mention, it's HER story, not the fans. Yes she may steal our ideas sometimes and tweak them, but when it's all said and done, these games are done FOR the fans, not by them.

    I have had a lot of ideas that were blown out of the water. But instead of holding to them hoping someone will flip a bigger coin, I prefer to come up with newer and better ideas. It's the whole point of her making a game that makes us think

    only that the game isn't entirely clear and supportive of their statements.
    1. The murals were created races, bent on manipulating events to better suit the future for them.
    2. The murals were critiqued by an egotistical Squid bent oin dellusions of grandeur.
    3. The murals were read by people who never saw the context in which they were written.
    4. The murals were painted by people who had their own views in their heads. They may not have seen things the way the other race, or members of their own race, saw things.
    5. All 4 of these groups have different experiences in their lives, leading to a different view of the murals themselves.

    So to say the murals paint a different picture is kind of redundant, since murals ALWAYS paint a specific story that may not be 100 rooted in reality.

    And Dogfight, weren't you the one who was preaching "That goes against the official FAQ" a few weeks ago? How are they the gospel truth then, and now heresy all the sudden?

    what I see here, is that you want the story to be like YOU want it to be.
    I wouldn't mind having the story how I want it to be either. But unfortunately then I would know how this game unfolds, and that's broing. Amy is surprising me at every turn, which entertains me MUCH more than having the game I already know played out in front of me.


    It makes the story much easier to understand, since I've always said that History in Nosgoth can't be changed, that guys travelling in time, and makining "changes", are actually settings things in motion, exactly like in "12 monkeys". EXCELLENT EXAMPLE!
    Unfortunately, that negates the idea of free will, because then that means their choices are still dictated by fate Although it makes a great story element

    Also, that would change my view about how Defiance sets time on a "tabula rasa". After Defiance, I thought Kain would be in a free will smorgasbord, now it seems like his free will may be at fate's discretion once again

    WB enters the Blood Reaver again here:
    When did the WB enter the Reaver though? It embraced it, but never entered it. Because the fact is, if the WB is in the BR, then Raziel never gets put into it, and then the WB is never made.

    I'm not arguing with the official ruling, I am merely stating what the series says is true
    The series is written by the people who gave us the the FAQ. So either they are wrong, or right. But it sounds more like you're saying they're insane, and choosing story aspects by the highly logical and scientific method of throwing darts at ideas on a wall.

    And, I have to agree with everyone. The FAQ is right, but the series is COMPLETELY open to interpretation. I mean just about EVERY character in these games has misread something, so how can they be right, if in fact, they were wrong to begin with?

    Blood Omen 1, and Soul Reaver 2 involved changing time, to say time is immutable even if it is the staff that says it, is going too far, especially when Kain and Raziel have changed time on more than one occassion
    Time IS immutable. Kain became a nemesis, when WTJ died. Raziel was put in the blade still. SR1 occurs, etc, etc.

    A mirror is a mirror. It always reflects what's in front of it. Break the mirror, it still reflects an image, just in smaller parts. Put water on it, it shows it distorted by the water, but it still shows the picture.

    Light is light. Take a picture of something partly underwater, and the light is still bent, but the image is still shown.

    Things can be immutable, while still being modified. Take a ball of silly putty roll it into one long string, or a ball, and it's STILL the same chunk you started with. Tear a piece of paper into fourths, and it's still the same piece of paper, just in smaller pieces.

    Or I can go with the river analogy. I could place a small rock in the stream, and it doesn't really do anything. Or, I could place a REALLY BFB (Big freakin Boulder) in the middle, and the stream stops, but eventually the water builds up, and just goes around it and on like it was doing to begin with. I altered it's flow, but it still is flowing how it was, unless of course, I take a bull dozer and change it's path completely. Although after time, the flow could be reestablished, but now it's larger due to the extra path I added. Many rivers do this with their meanders that they create, and then merge with yet again.

    No, I only want the story to be what it is.
    That's a flawed desire then. Because what the story is, is what Amy writes. Saying Amy is wrong is like saying the sun is wrong because it follows the moon. You have no control over it. It does what it does, whether you think it's wrong or not.

    And if you TRULY wanted to the story to be "what it is" then there would be no wrong or right, there would just be "what it is".

    It's like someone telling me I'm wrong for being so arrogant. Unfortunately, that's what I am.

    Math equations can be wrong, ideas and creations can't.

    Yeah, except the guys that created the murals made them totally misleading and didn't offer anything in the games to validate what the staff would later say is fact
    Like I said, the murals are/were biased to begin with. You can't paint an objective picture with only one perspective. Art, and pictures may be worth a 100 words, but that doesn't mean they are the same words you see.

    If I show you a picture of a beach at sunset, you may see a relaxing vacation, I just see a postcard. But if I show you a picture of a mountain, you may see cold snow, where as I see untracked powder, killer jumps, wicked runs and a GREAT idea for a vacation on skis or snowboards. Pictures are open to interpretation. The creators of the graphical murals had a specific idea they were going for, a hybrid destiny. But the creators of the literal murals (Ancients, Hylden) saw potential signs, that were misinterpreted from the beginning. So in essence, some of the murals were in fact wrong. Or the resulting decisions based on what they portend were wrong.

    The murals and prophecies were based on what COULD have been, not what actually was. AND in the end, it was the murals that made "what could have been" into what actually was.

    The problem arises because both Raziel and Kain admit that they are one of the figures in the murals, they never mention what the staff says or even hints at it.
    Yes. And in the end, they were both wrong. Kain and Raziel don't have to have a side monologue mentioning how they were wrong. It is something that is left to the reader/player to discover themselves. Every answer doesn't have to be outright given to us.

    Kain also thought he could prevent Raziel from being put into the blade, but we saw how well THAT plan worked out. That eventuallity didn't even need fate's help.

    Just because the characters say something, doesn't mean THEY are right. Amy had a reason Kain and Raziel made the wrong interpretations, it was a dramtic choice, that added suspicion and curiosity. What would be the point of saying from the first mural, that Raziel was both? Nothing. It gives away the HIDDEN meaning she is trying to portray. It also contradicts the realization Raziel finally had at the end, that led to his sacrifice. If Raziel knew he was both, then it wouldn't have been a sacrifice at the end, it would have been weird.

    Also, the murals are ironic. The figurative meaning of Kain and Raziel being one of them, is different than the literal one, where Raziel is both (or which ever one it is, it's hard to decide which is literal and which is figurative in this case, it's like saying peanut butter is the opposite of jelly).

    and some new things have been added
    And corrected.


    events have been deleted from history
    And reintroduced.

    or Kain is going to put history back to how it was before Moebius started meddling in it
    And as you can see, despite his meddling, time moves on. It can't be changed. Unless of course, only someone with true free will can do it.

    And you're changing the context. Time hasn't been changing, it has been altered. tweaked. Modified. It's the same time, but with slight changes.

    it has been changed again and again. I'm only being reasonable here.
    And yet, the events of BO1 as seen in Defiance, aoccured as they did in BO1. So just HOW much has it been changed? It hasn't really. The pillars fall, Moebius dies, Kain refuses the sacrifice, Vorador dies (strange one that one is), Raziel goes into the blade. Time hasn't really changed as much as you say.

    Yes the events behind BO2, and BO2 were added, but they were corrected as well. You're taking the phrase "time flows on, and corrects any change" WAY too literally. Kain may have been the instrument of time, when he ended BO2. Time doesn't put on a trenchcoat and fedora and double six shooters and fix what went wrong. It sways characters already invoilved to right what has been set wrong on their own.

    Atleast that's how I see it.

    No, I am not misunderstanding the 12 Monkeys comparison, it is simply not valid.
    According to B's explanation, it is 100% valid. WHat the characters do, leads to the events that lead them to what they do in the first place.

    Totally different from 12 Monkeys where the future stayed the same.
    You forgot about the insurance part of the end of 12 Monkeys.

    Also, in 12 Monkeys, they had "murals" in the phone calls and tapes they had recorded, that were confusing. Cole finally remembers them and makes ANOTHER call, which is what lead to the "insurance" being sent back. Cole went back, set the future in motion, and then later went back again, with his original past (the phone call and tapes he remembered) as hints to what he needed to do. Quite apropo to LoK.

    As for BO1, time is immutable for sure. Kain HAS to see the Nemesis in order to persuade him to go back and kill WTJ. If the Nemesis never existed, WTJ would never be a target. And then the NEmesis would always live. But if Kains life is that he ALWAYS sees the NEmesis, and then goes back, then time allows it. Think of that event as augmenting the current time line. Although, we do know Kain remembers the altered past, as well as the new one. So it's possible that the first part of BO1 before WTJ was just a memory, and not actually part of the time line. It's was an interactive flashback.

    because even though he's making changes, they are the changes that allow the events of Blood Omen to proceed the way they're supposed to - this includes things like putting the Reaver where either Moebius can find it for William, or his younger self can find it for use in Blood Omen which hasn't been covered in any game yet.
    Not to mention making the SR to begin with And killing Janos, and creating the massacre of the circle.

    But, not to argue with you B, cause I know you could probably kill me in an LoK debate But you're talking about Moebius' cycle. How would this concept change with the fact that SR2 has been, stretched out a bit? We know that SR2 originally was supposed to end with Kain dying, and Raziel being absorbed. But would SR2 still lead to BO1, now that the blade has been removed from time and Kain being alive?

    It's because the murals are ironic. The figurative meaning of Kain and Raziel being one of them, is different than the literal one, where Raziel is both (or which ever one it is, it's hard to decide which is literal and which is figurative in this case, it's like saying peanut butter is the opposite of jelly).

    Hypothetically, if Kain had gone back in time killed William the Just, and thereby this caused someone else to become the Nemesis causing the very future he sought to avoid in the first place, then you could make the argument that the LOK series is like 12 Monkeys, but this didn't happen.
    You must have missed SR1 then.

    This then caused the introduction of two new fated events that didn't happen in the previous timeline, Kain getting killed off at William's Chapel 30 years before Blood Omen 1 by Raziel (Before Blood Omen 1 there was no William's Chapel, thus everything associated with this is new.)
    Here's a riddle for you. If WTJ was never fated to die, and The chapel and the timeline were new events, then why did Raziel, go back and heal the blade that was broken, and eventually would fall into Kains hands in BO1? If this was a new event, then how could Raziel heal the blade that broke from the fight, and would be found by Kain BEFORE he killed WTJ?

    Because SR2 leads to BO1, like B said. Raziel heals the blade, that Kain finds and uses to kill WTJ, which allows the broken blade to be found by Raziel and healed.

    Also, if SR2 is a result of the new BO1 timeline, then how did Raziel go back to get Janos killed, and cauyse the massacre that allowed Ariel to be born, and killed, and then bear Kain into the world? These are events that happen BEFORE WTJ is killed, yet the Raziel that caused them is a RESULT of the death of WTJ.

    Because, all these events are inextricably bound. They all lead to the next, which in turn leads to the one before it. A perpetual loop. Or a Moebius strip, if you pardon the pun.

    then it would be another piece of evidence to support the deduction that Kain and Raziel in the games have only been fixing the changes to the timeline Moebius introduced back in Blood Omen 1, and returning history to how it was before the original alteration to the original timeline.
    That kind of makes the whole story aspect of the Ancients and Hylden trivial and useless, and negates Amy's comment about explaining the Hylden motives in a later game. If it was WTJ's death that caused everything, then why worry so much about murals drawn by the Hylden and Ancients? Also, Moebius isn't the true villian, he is a pawn, so correcting his alteration is pointless, since what he did is NOTHING compared to the ideas of the one leading him.

    Yes, except the surprise never really came and was never really validated in the game.
    Actually it was. Through the whole game, Raziel feared the Reaver and what it symbolized to him. Eternal prison. In the end when he saw the FINAL piece of the mural, the Scion, he realized what his destiny was. Once again, just because it wasn't explicitly stated, doesn't mean it wasn't mentioned through hidden meanings and thought. Sometimes deeds speak louder than words. And Raziel finally realized it, and decided to go against BOTH the destinies of the murals, and make a new one, hence, his sacrifice.

    PS. In closing, I apologize about the length of this post. I haven't been able to access the forum for about 5 days, and was having debate withdrawls. I just hope I was able to keep the melodrama out of it.

  2. #27
    After seeing the Butterfly Effect, I started wondering about the Legacy of Kain timeline. I always assumed that there were two different ways that time was altered in LOK, but I'm not sure if I've thought it through complete to post on it. I'll throw out my thoughts to see if someone else can get what I'm thinking.


    Spoilers for Butterfly Effect (awesome movie by the way)


  3. #28
    Here's a riddle for you. If WTJ was never fated to die, and The chapel and the timeline were new events, then why did Raziel, go back and heal the blade that was broken, and eventually would fall into Kains hands in BO1? If this was a new event, then how could Raziel heal the blade that broke from the fight, and would be found by Kain BEFORE he killed WTJ?
    In the original timeline William's Soul Reaver was not shattered in two because Kain didn't go back in time and shatter it with his Soul Reaver.

    The two events I have already mentioned were newly introduced fates of Kain and Raziel. William's Chapel wasn't around in the original timeline, it is something that was newly introduced as was Kain's fate there, which was predestined all the way back when the young Kain altered history by killing William in Blood Omen 1 and thereby created this new timeline, at that moment Kain and Raziel's final fates were rewritten as presented in Soul Reaver 2.

    I never said that Raziel didn't go back in time and travel through history in the original timeline only that in the original timeline he wasn't supposed to become the Soul Reaver 500 years before Blood Omen 1, there is a difference.

    At the end of Soul Reaver 2 a new timeline is created, Kain and Raziel still go back in time, they have to for the timeline to stay consistent, but the events of Kain's supposed death and Raziel's supposed imprisonment have been thrown out. This doesn't mean that Kain won't die and Raziel won't become the Soul Reaver, only that when it was supposed to happen was altered.

    The deduction I said of older Kain stopping his younger self from killing William the Just in the past, was an example of how time may be immutable and could also end on a positive note. In simpler terms the older Kain brings back the original timeline, making a sort of loop. By changing time in the first place, this eventually leads to Kain correcting the time alterations bringing back the original timeline, thereby making time in a way immutable. It is but one possibility to support what the staff said about time being immutable, don't quote me on this.

    I just saw Kain becoming "The Nemesis" in WTJ's place.
    This is debatable and purely interpretative.

    There shouldn't need to be a dissertation of every event.
    Yes, but a slight comment here and there wouldn't hurt.

    So it's possible that the first part of BO1 before WTJ was just a memory, and not actually part of the time line. It's was an interactive flashback.
    Some rewrites have happened time and again, even if all of history cannot be changed, some events can be.
    "We have not met. I know of you, of course. That you can return from the dead gives hope to us all." - Janos Audron - (Blood Omen 2)

  4. #29
    Well, this debate seems to have gotten out of hand, especially the 12 Monkeys analogy. So to avoid creating another string of references to the movie, I think the point the CD team was trying to make with the movie as an example is the concept of INEVITABILITY. No matter what you do to prevent fate (good or bad) is futile because no matter what measures you take to avoid Fate, those actions only bring about that Fate. If i were making an analogy for this though, I wouldve made a reference to Greek Mythology which is MUCH better suited than that crummy movie. Maybe everything that happens between Raz Kain and Moebius and re-writing history are the ACTUAL events that take place in each of their destinies. It only seems that they are fighting the power of Fate. But only the next game will tell. To heck with assumptions.

    As for the murals, I can understand how they would be misleading. We all know the official answer is that Raziel is both figures depicted with the Reaver which keeps in tune with Redeemer and Destroyer. But the murals do look like they depict a sequence of events (Raziel defeating Kain, then Raziels absorption into the Reaver which was my idea of Redeemer and Destroyer at the time). Now Im not arguing the official answers. Whatever the CD team says is true, they wrote the story, and now that I've read both characters in the murals are Raziel I can understand why that is. But still Dogfight does have a point as to why they are misleading. However, to the point he brings that the CD team could be making a mistake, I would have to say thats improbable, mostly because they probably already have the story for the next game pretty much written. If they didnt, I dont think they wouldve answered those questions at this point.

    By the way, MAD PROPS to blinc cause i saw like 3 questions in that Q&A which i asked him in an email a while back

  5. #30
    The Ancients, the Hylden or someone else? Both sides don't seem to have the full picture, as if neither was clued in on it
    Or it COULD just be that they were drawn one sided for a reason. To show the bias of each group, and what they thought truly happened back then.

  6. #31
    I'm more of a researcher, gathering up the clues the staff has left for us in the games to solve the many questions of the series. Many times I get the right deductions, sometimes I get a wrong deduction, but more often than not I arrive at the true conclusions.
    But these are games to be enjoyed, not cases to be solved. You can't tell Amy she's wrong, when she is creating this from scratch. This is something made from scratch, not something already was to begin with. If Amy hadn't created the story herself, and was making her interpretation of someone else's work, then you could say she's wrong or right. But saying the creator is wrong is like saying the cook is wrong because he cooked the food.

    Peter Jackson can be accused of being right or wrong because he remade someone else's wrok. Tolkien can't be wrong, because it was HIS work.

    Doesn't it make you question what really happened back before the war between the two races, so far we've only heard from word of mouth, you could make the analogy that it is like a rumor, the reality is likely different and not as cut as dry as we have been led to believe.
    Duh. That's what I said. Each side is painting the picture as THEY saw it. The Ancients feel like they were right and just in their decision, while the Hylden feel victimized by the zealous Ancients. That's exactly what the murals portrayed, the view from the painters perspective. Of course they don't paint the true picture, because they aren't painte2d by an outside viewer who is uninvolved and/or unbiased. The murals show two different stories because they ARE two different stories. Two sides to the same coin. I'm sure if you asked a Nazi about the WWII massacres he would have a different view than a survivor of the camps (this comment is not meant to spark any political, religious, or otherwise type of debates, it was used to make a specific point, how views are different from person to person, depending on the perspective they are seeing it from).

    It's the "He said she said" dichotomy.

  7. #32
    But these are games to be enjoyed, not cases to be solved. You can't tell Amy she's wrong, when she is creating this from scratch. This is something made from scratch, not something already was to begin with. If Amy hadn't created the story herself, and was making her interpretation of someone else's work, then you could say she's wrong or right. But saying the creator is wrong is like saying the cook is wrong because he cooked the food.
    I never said the games were cases. Sure the games are made to be enjoyed, but they are also made to stir the curiosity.

    Well, the current games aren't really something made from scratch, the original one Blood Omen 1 was. The games following this built on the foundation of the first game, using it as an outline. Soul Reaver 2 borrowed heavily from the background of the original game, Blood Omen 2 took many concepts from the cancelled game Chakan, and Defiance is in many ways a culmination of all the other games. The most original of all the games, next to the original I'd say would be Soul Reaver 1.

    I never said that Amy was wrong, only that what the staff said about time being immutable and unchangable was wrong up to Defiance. In the next game they could validate what they said, but up to now it hasn't been proven entirely right. Yes, some things in time do stay the same, but time is still altered.
    "We have not met. I know of you, of course. That you can return from the dead gives hope to us all." - Janos Audron - (Blood Omen 2)

  8. #33
    I never said the games were cases. Sure the games are made to be enjoyed, but they are also made to stir the curiosity.
    So how can they be wrong? You never answered my question. If they aren't cases, how are they wrong?

    Well, the current games aren't really something made from scratch, the original one Blood Omen 1 was. The games following this built on the foundation of the first game, using it as an outline. Soul Reaver 2 borrowed heavily from the background of the original game, Blood Omen 2 took many concepts from the cancelled game Chakan, and Defiance is in many ways a culmination of all the other games. The most original of all the games, next to the original I'd say would be Soul Reaver 1.
    Well, SR2, SR1 borrowed from BO1 because, well, they were sequels. That's like saying Return of the King borrowed from Two Towers, which borrowed from Fellowship to begin with. OF COURSE they borrowed from the prequels.

    Blood Omen 2 took many concepts from the cancelled game Chakan
    That's because the guy who drew/created Chakkan, also drew the concept art for BO2. So it's not surprising there were similarities. But BO2 drew visual inspiration, not story inspiration.

    Are you saying BO2 is wrong because the visuals are from a different game?

    I never said that Amy was wrong, only that what the staff said about time being immutable and unchangable was wrong up to Defiance. In the next game they could validate what they said, but up to know it hasn't been proven entirely right. Yes, some things in time do stay the same, but time is still altered.
    You just aren't even reading what we say are you. Time IS immutable, but you can still have changes. A truck barreling down the road hits a bird. The truck keeps moving, with an all too noticable dent in the bumper now.

    The moon comes closer to Earth, and tidal forces are changed, but the tides still wash and break on the sand.

    Gravity is lesser on smaller planetary objects (the moon) yet there is still a pull. And even though you float in space, there is still an astronomical gravitational pull being exerted on you, you just have no landmark to referrence it with, ergo you feel like you are floating and not moving.

    The sun will always rise. Put on sunglasses, the light is "altered" but the sun still rised/rose or whatever the word is.

    There are some inevitabilities in life. And despite what anyone says, the official answer is time is immutable. Now this may not jive with the games, but that may be because the writer is trying to show that Kain and Raziel who think they have free will, in fact, truly are bound by fate. You can't compare the perspective of Kain and Raziel, to what the writer is actually trying to say.

    Yes, it may be validated in the next game, but their answer of "time is immutable" has already given that away. They are practically telling us that even though the theme of these stories is "fate vs free will" that in the end, fate always wins. No matter how much free will you have, you are still obligated to the rules of time. So even though there are changes, time forces them to be corrected. Time forced the events, that led to the changes.

    Time forced Raziel to be put into the blade, which led to the alteration of time. As Kain said, History abhors a paradox, and just because one was introduced, doesn't mean things have TRULY changed. Moebius is still Moebius, Kain is still Kain, and Raziel still has no pants, no matter what "changes" appear to be made.

    If time was TRULY changed, then certain events would never occur. As we saw in Defiance, despite the paradox in SR2...



    What you fail to realize is that Kain and Raziel are outside of time the minute they entered the Cplast chamber in SR1. Kain and Raziel's futures were to go back, but according to their history 3500 years ago, they had already gone back.

    You can look at it from their perspective, and see that they think they have free will because they are making changes. But at the same time, their choices are no longer important, because 3500 years before, they had already made these decisions. See, time IS immutable, because it doesn' tmatter what they think they are doing, because they already did it 3500 years ago (from SR1 referrence). Raziel was able to get the WB in SR1, because 3500 years ago, he was put into the blade.



    No matter what Kain has done, time has forced him to do what he had always done.

    The ONLY real difference is that Kain is no longer dead.



    You actually did say they were wrong based on what the games showed us. And they weren't wrong, Amy, like I said, is a supperb writer who knows what she's doing, she's trying to make us think time isn't immutable and there is some free will in our protagonists. But I have a feeling the rug will be pulled from underneath us and eventually the "time immutable" chapter of the story will come into play. And then it will be a new story completely.

  9. #34
    Your take is not exactly the same as mine, I'm putting forth the possibility that the prophecy was brought about by someone other than the Ancients and the Hylden, this including the murals of the prophecy at the Vampire Citadel, then each side just came up with what they thought was the truth of the prophecy

  10. #35
    I think that may be the message that Amy is portraying, so far. The despite all his decisions, and all he knows, Kain is creating the future that is trying to avoid, by trying to prevent it. In the end, it may have been his death taht would truly end everything.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    10,661

    Exclamation

    Should this thread continue to degenerate into a spamfest regarding inappropriate pet-related discussion AND/OR continue to degenerate into melodrama involving attacks and retaliation (or the encouragement of such behavior by unmentioned third-parties), then this thread will be closed and those participating in that nonsense will subject themselves to the enforcement of the Terms of Use of Our Community.

    Blincoln has provided some great information here and he deserves his thread's integrity. My suggestion to you is that if you wish to go off topic, then utilize Private Channels (PM's and/or Email) or create an appropriate off-topic thread in the LOK CC.

    Thanks.

  12. #37

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    10,661

    Exclamation

    SpliffTastic ~ Please do not further antagonize the situation. It has been and will continue to be dealt with accordingly.

    Thanks.

  14. #39

  15. #40
    Currently they are wrong, mistakes are made from time to time. Having old story elements be dropped and new ones introduced you can’t always be certain even if it is the official word
    I can, because the writer/creators gave us the official word. Just because it hasn't been explained now, doesn't mean it's wrong. Basically what you're saying is she's wrong, until she makes it right? Which implies that she is going to change her ideas. When everyone else says it just hasn't been explained yet.

    It would be the same as me saying you're wrong, because none of your ideas have been validated. And until they are, they're not right. You're using the ambivalent approach, where it's just wrong, until it's right. Where just because it hasn't been said yet, it's not a fact. And once it's stated, THEN you'll say it's right, instead of just taking Amy at her word. You have to be willing to take that leap of faith and just trust Amy in that she knows what she's doing. You shouldn't doubt her, she has done an amazing job.

    And to FINALLY get to use my favorite quote...

    Absence of proof, is not proof of absence

    It isn’t quite the same in the sequels of LOTR they don’t go back in time to the first movie.
    It doesn't matter. Time travel is just the story element Amy chose. Just like Tolkien made a ring that ruled all others.

    Soul Reaver 2 borrowed heavily from the background of the original game
    Of course it did. If they made a sequel that had NOTHING to do with the prequel, then Amy would have just written the vampiric Final Fantasy (pre FFX2 of course).

    Blood Omen 2 took many concepts from the cancelled game Chakan including some story elements
    I know. You already said that before.

    But it took many of them, because the creator of Chakkan was heavily involved in BO2. This is common knowledge. Not because it just looked cool, and they wanted to be unoriginal and cheat.

    What is more Amy is not the only writer of the series, there are others and there is also much background sources used from all the games including from Blood Omen 1 in the newest games.
    That's called inspiration. She didn't copy the story and change the names to protect the innocent. She used other ideas, to come up with something of her own. It's like adding sugar and water to make koolaid. Seperately they were water and sugar, but together they made something COMPLETELY different.

    but then again afterwards they could make a new game going back to there being free will
    I doubt Amy will do that. Because then it just gets annoying when the reader thinks to himself "wait a minute, that's not what was going on last time!!!" Amy won't keep turning 180's because she will make us dizzy, as well as herself. Amy has had a direction, and from 1 to 5, she has stuck with it. But what her idea or underlying theme is, may not be the same as the thoughts Kain and Raziel has. Like I said, it's a dramatic choice. It's a contrasting view, make the characters see one thing that may be the opposite of what you're trying to say, to emphasize what it is you finally end up saying.

    Just because Kain and Raziel say one thing that doesn't match what Amy says, doesn't make what she says wrong. Kain and Raziel aren't writing these games. They are representations of it. Kain and Raziel are working under the pretense that they have free will. If Amy wanted us to know from the beginning that they were bound by fate, she would have done it.

    But then that would be boring, and here's why...

    "Excerpt from LoK: There is no free will"

    Kain: "Raziel, you must change fate and reclaim your destiny"
    Raziel: "What's the point? Time won't allow it because there is no free will. I'll just be put in the blade again, it 'll never end. It's pointless because our choices will be erased."
    Kain: "I guess you have a point. Where are my pants?"

    See, when you have a two sided aspect you're trying to portray, you have to actually have two sides. Free will is nothing without the idea of fate to contradict it. Light wouldn't be light without dark. Peanut butter would be boring without jelly. "Tastes great "would be kind of like a "so what" without "less filling". There would be no good, without evil to contrast it. Up wouldn't be up without a down. left would be just one big circle without a right to counteract it.

    Time is immutable would be a pathetic story, without the concept of free will to give it some intrigue. No one wants to believe that they have no impact on the choices they make. WHich is why "time is immutable" even if Kain and Raziel seem to be Defying it (hence the title, Defiance). If people didn't think they had free will, there would be no Defiance. If there was no such thing as fate, then there would be nothing to defy.

    There is a reason that they say time is immutable, and then don't actually show it in the games. They want you to think Kain and Raziel have a chance at defying the stars. They want you to believe they have hope, when in the end, fate may prevent that hope from ever truly being fulfilled.

    but then again afterwards they could make a new game going back to there being free will. You never know, it could even go in a totally different direction
    There is only one way to go after free will, and it's not south west. It's no free will. Fate. Destiny.

    There is of course one main story, but many ways to tell it and many ways to keep us all guessing, which is what give the LOK series an edge over others.
    If there are many ways to tell it, then how is Amy's way wrong? This is just one of many ways she could have chosen. How can CD be wrong, if they could have chosen any number of possibilies? If only one choice was right, then it could be wrong. But if there are many, then this one isn't wrong.

    “time is basically immutable,” still leaving room enough for free will and some big alterations.
    No. "Basically" means that "basically" what they do may seem to have an effect, but doesn't mean diddly in the scheme of things. Just like sports. The losing team may have put up a valiant fight, but the victor is still the only one remembered, no matter how great the losers played. Unless of course the two teams played SO spectacularly that the game goes down as one of those games where both teams are immortalized because of the phrase "Where XXX FINALLY beat YYY" (Like Hogan vs Andre).

    "Basically" doesn't allow for big changes. It allows for the characters to think they have changed something, only to see it negated in the long run. Just like BO2 was. First they're free, then they're defeated.

    Saying that those who travel through time can’t change history, because they didn’t is up to this point a contradiction of the series, of course some added future material could as you say paint a different picture but for now it is still wrong
    But that's not what they said. What they're saying is that they didn't change time, because they ALWAYS went back to change time. Like Kain said "We are destined to meet here because we have always met here."

    Kain's "edge of the coin" idea may have merit, but even if the coin lands on its edge, it can EASILY be knocked back onto it's other edges.

    but there have been and are other writers
    But they didn't come up with the ideas we see now. BO1 didn't deal with free will vs fate like the other games have. When Amy wrote SR1, she created a standard the rest of the games have to follow. No matter who writes them.

    You are giving Amy too much credit
    I'm giving credit where credit is due.

    Besides this many story elements change from game to game, some are dropped, some are added, even with what the staff said, I am doubtful
    Fair enough. But don't sit here and say the writers are wrong because of how YOU see things happening. And don't tell us we're wrong, just because we don't agree with. Tell us we're wrong because we're wrong, not because we disagree.

    some are dropped
    What elements were dropped?

  16. #41
    It doesn't matter. Time travel is just the story element Amy chose. Just like Tolkien made a ring that ruled all others. Of course it did. If they made a sequel that had NOTHING to do with the prequel, then Amy would have just written the vampiric Final Fantasy (pre FFX2 of course).
    The difference is that by time traveling in the LOK series you end up repeating a lot of the same material from the other games, not that there is anything wrong with this, but it doesn't make Soul Reaver 2 and Defiance made from scratch.

    I know. You already said that before. But it took many of them, because the creator of Chakkan was heavily involved in BO2. This is common knowledge. Not because it just looked cool, and they wanted to be unoriginal and cheat.
    When did I say they took the concept designs of Chakan because it looked cool, was unoriginal and the staff of LOK wanted to cheat.

    Chakan's story and the concept designs by Steve Ross of the game were transplanted when the game was cancelled into Blood Omen 2. The game designs of Sirens and its story was also transplanted into Blood Omen 2. Saying that this was merely an inspiration is being too kind, it was transplantion of material from two games into one and then others customizing it.

    I'm giving credit where credit is due.
    Well then why not also mention the other writers of the series Denis Dyack, Ken McCullock, Richard Lemarchand, Jim Curry, Bret Robbins, Steve Ross, and Carol Wolf.

    Great thanks to all these people and to all the others of the team for bringing us this wonderful series.

    What elements were dropped?
    Check out blincoln's website.
    "We have not met. I know of you, of course. That you can return from the dead gives hope to us all." - Janos Audron - (Blood Omen 2)

  17. #42
    The difference is that by time traveling in the LOK series you end up repeating a lot of the same material from the other games, not that there is anything wrong with this, but it doesn't make Soul Reaver 2 and Defiance made from scratch.
    It does if the latter games don't exactly go to the same periods we saw before. SR2 was 20 years after WTJ died, and 500 before BO1. So although they are built on an old story, it's not the SAME story told again. It's the same story, but from a new angle. We see the world 20 years after WTJ dies. We see it when Janos was alive and the old Guardians were alive.

    Besides, LotR did a lot of flashbacks to the prequels. Or made a lot of mention of them. SO how is that any different than what Amy did. TT and RotK still had to do with a ring and the fellowship and Sauron, so are they any more original than FotR? No, they just build of a story.

    When did I say they took the concept designs of Chakan because it looked cool, was unoriginal and the staff of LOK wanted to cheat
    When you said it was a Chakkan: Reddeux.

    Saying that this was merely an inspiration is being too kind, it was transplantion of material from two games into one and then others customizing it.
    Well, Chakkan 2 (which is what it resembled actually if I remember correctly) is what it was based off of. And Chakkan 2 was never made.

    Well then why not also mention Denis Dyack, Ken McCullock, Richard Lemarchand, Jim Curry, Bret Robbins, Steve Ross, and Carol Wolf.
    Because Amy has taken the BO1 story, and drawn it to a beautiful Epic. Dennis, although a great writer as well, didn't write BO1 to be drawn out.

    Amy is the writer, and director of the majority of these games. CD/Eidos went to her 5 years after BO1 and said we want a sequel. SR1 was made. SR1 wasn't exactly original either, since it's story elements had been established in BO1 as well.

    When I look up the credits for most of these games, I see Amy listed as Writer AND director.

    As for the BO2, well, it was an interesting game, but poorly written in my view. If this is what you meant by strory elements added and dropped, well that's what happens when Amy doesn't write it.

    As for the other people, I'm sure they did an amazing job as well. But the fact is in either her or the other interviews, it's always mentioned that "AMY has done tons of research into this or this or this". SO even the other people mention her. But I'm not talking about CD and a video game. I'm talking about the story. Amy is the one behind the majority of the story. If we were just talking about a video game I would have said CD.

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    1,590

    Thumbs Down lol

    Amy? Amy who? WTF does 12 monkeys have to do with LOK? Must have something to do with the Hydlen. hehe

    This answer is unacceptable!

    Q: Why was the Circle defenseless back in Blood Omen 1?
    A: The Circle was taken by surprise, and could not face Vorador without Malek to protect them.

    WHATEVER!!!!!!!!!!

    Did they watch the BO intro? Because that old dood only looked surprised when his powers failed him.

  19. #44
    Did they watch the BO intro? Because that old dood only looked surprised when his powers failed him.
    Vorador's raid surprised them, and once they realized they were being attacked, they cleared their heads and focused on fighting back. Next thing you know their powers failed. WHich would be an even bigger unsettling surprise.

    Amy? Amy who? WTF does 12 monkeys have to do with LOK? Must have something to do with the Hydlen. hehe
    In regards to the timeline they meant

    What's a Hydlen?

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    271
    This has been discussed before. Most probably, the guardians were not that powerfull, NOT AT ALL. They never said they were. And vorador was powerfull indeed.
    PS: My cat's alright. I took him to the vet!

  21. #46
    Even Vorador was surprised at himself losing his own magical abilities, just as he was going to take down Malek, it wasn't just the Guardians.
    "We have not met. I know of you, of course. That you can return from the dead gives hope to us all." - Janos Audron - (Blood Omen 2)

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    271
    mmm I don't remember that part.... I'm going to install BO1 again... and play it again

  23. #48
    It happens after Vorador takes out the Circle. Malek shows up and they duel, Malek loses the fight, and then just as Vorador is about to kill Malek his powers begin to fail him too. Vorador then teleports away leaving the the disgraced Malek behind.

    I know some have said that the Circle wasn't that powerful but this is giving Vorador a bit too much credit. Now Vorador is a powerful being I'm not disputing this, but him taking out six of the Circle would not be a small feat, even for him.

    The illusion given was how easy it was for Vorador to take out the six, counted we never saw how he took out the other two of the six, Blood Omen 1 only shows Vorador taking out four of them, but even so it should have been more difficult for Vorador, the four didn't even put up any resistance.

    What is more, this old F.A.Q. gives some clues that there was much more to this affair than we know.

    http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthr...p?threadid=169

    Thanks to Warpsavant and Amy Hennig. Here are some excerpts.

    Q: Why was the Circle defenseless? Their magic fails in the cut scene; Moebius even says they are defenseless in Sr2. Is it because Malek was not their, or their magic failed? What were they doing in there? And where was Mortanius all this time? Off getting possessed??
    A: This has not yet been revealed. At the time (as represented in BO:LoK's FMA), certain members of the Circle were watching and guiding the movements of the Sarafan via the "viewing basin" in the chamber. Mortanius' whereabouts have not been revealed.

    Q: Did Vorador follow raziel to the Stronghold, or the Sarafan, or is just a giant coincidence that V shows up, when the Circles magic fails, and Moebius and Raziel are distracting Malek?
    A: This is intentionally unexplained. It's not exactly a giant coincidence, when you consider the event, which precipitated both Raziel's and Vorador's infiltration of the Stronghold...
    "We have not met. I know of you, of course. That you can return from the dead gives hope to us all." - Janos Audron - (Blood Omen 2)

  24. #49
    Also remember that Moby was in the area. He could have easily followed Malek to the area where his battle with Vorador was going on. You see Malek running to the scene, where Moby isn't the running type. Onces Mobius got with in a certain area, Vorador's powers could have started to fade due to the staff.

    Mortanus might have also had a part to play with it, possibly killing members of the circle for their aid in the vampire purge. This is doubtful, but not impossible.

  25. #50
    I don't think Mortanius killed them though, since didn't Amy say Vorador killed the 6?

    Also, there is no proof the Staff affects Vorador.



    And the limits of magic was established in BO1. Kain had a limited amount of Mana, so it's safe to assume the Guardians spent a LOT just trying to defend themselves. And Vorador, in his berserker fury, would use either his weaker spells at the most emotionally charged full force (kind of like an overdrive) or he would use his most visciously powerful spells, without any regards to the limits of them.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •