Divinity 2 - Ego Draconis Unveiled?

Originally Posted by Ragon der Magier
BAH!
Donīt come p***ng on my gate here.

Are you sure you got the number of ***s right?

Whatīs been there?
Just a few barren lines in a bigger press release on golem.de that dtp had signed some Belgian studio for developing an RPG.
Do you know the whole Belgian market and its players?
Could have been anyone.

Everybody had this. But there was another source linking dtp and Larian.

Bragger!

You should have believed it!

P.S.: Another question:
Why didnīt you make it an official news bit here back then!?

Because the combination of sources was only 99.99% certain. We knew dtp and Larian were negotiating, and had signed a LOI, if I remember correctly. Then came that Belgian studio announcement. It was clear it was Divinity 2. But there was no actual proof to show. We would have pissed off Larian and dtp with such a newsbit, which isnīt our style. Maybe we would have made it official and asked them for their official "no comment" if we have had something quotable.
Thatīs why we didnīt post it as news and only let you guys know whatīs going on.
If you need more than that you should really wait for magazine coverage. Which can take some time, as you have seen.

Originally Posted by Ragon der Magier
I only saw a big bad black whole of information for several years.

Hole, not whole, Ragon.

@Gorath: In the stock business, that is called "insider knowledge".

To defend Ragon, I think he's still right insofar that there was no real source one could nail down - and as long as there isn't I at least consider everything a "rumor", no matter how hard you try to fight this word.

You just can't say "I know it's true and I'm right", because every liar would be able to tell the same.
Not to mention those who just place a "rumor" into the public to gain attention (in the sense of an "attention whore") - a "rumor" which is fake and just made up in order to gain attention to the one who posted it in the first place.

WE ar the original readers, we simply aren't able to distinguish between rumor and truth - what is false and what is right.

The way you put it, Gorath, makes it sound rather self-righteous, because you do as if we were only blind worms who do not know the Divine Truth.

Simply because we know fewer things than you do - which puts you into a position of "information power" or "information might".

Well, regardless of who knew or didn't know what from which source and when, I'm glad that info is starting to leak out. Hopefully we'll see even more soon!

And - to answer some of the early posts, despite my gushing praise of Divine Divinity, I really didn't like Beyond Divinity very much, for many of the reasons mentioned.

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer
Hole, not whole, Ragon. ; )

@Gorath: In the stock business, that is called "insider knowledge".

Not really, because the source was publically available at that time. Maybe it still is, I donīt know.

To defend Ragon, I think he's still right insofar that there was no real source one could nail down - and as long as there isn't I at least consider everything a "rumor", no matter how hard you try to fight this word.

Sure. Itīs a matter of standards. You can either say 99.99% are enough or you say I demand 100%. In that case you need a lot of patience.
I personally donīt consider computer games important enough to wait years for verified infos.
Iīm not attacking Ragon. Just harmless fun.

You just can't say "I know it's true and I'm right", because every liar would be able to tell the same.
Not to mention those who just place a "rumor" into the public to gain attention (in the sense of an "attention whore") - a "rumor" which is fake and just made up in order to gain attention to the one who posted it in the first place.

I never lie!

WE ar the original readers, we simply aren't able to distinguish between rumor and truth - what is false and what is right.

Correct. And we as editors arenīt always able (or willing) to tell you everything. Then you have to decide if you want to believe it or not. The easy way would have been right in this case.

The way you put it, Gorath, makes it sound rather self-righteous, because you do as if we were only blind worms who do not know the Divine Truth.

Simply because we know fewer things than you do - which puts you into a position of "information power" or "information might".

No, itīs just harmless but quite enjoyable Schadenfreude. Some of you did look the gift horse in the mouth. And now you have to suffer a little teasing.

So what's the words "Ego Draconis" means? The Larian dragon will eat Bioware's dragon?

Originally Posted by Remus
So what's the words "Ego Draconis" means? The Larian dragon will eat Bioware's dragon?

Ego is "I" or "self" and Draconis is a constellation as well as having Dragon implications. My brain keeps going to 'I of the Dragon' … but that isn't a good place to go

Originally Posted by txa1265
Ego is "I" or "self" and Draconis is a constellation as well as having Dragon implications. My brain keeps going to 'I of the Dragon' … but that isn't a good place to go

Draconis is the genitive form of "draco" (in Latin -IIRC- it should be: draco (nominative form), draconis (genitive form), draconi (dative form), draconem (accusative form), draconi (ablative form)).
So since draconis is genitive, possible translations could include "The self of the dragon", "The ego of the dragon", "The dragon's self" etc.

So since draconis is genitive, possible translations could include "The self of the dragon", "The ego of the dragon", "The dragon's self" etc.

I don't think 'ego' is ever used as a noun in Latin; this is modern usage (presumably due to Freud). "The dragon's self", back-translated into Latin, would rather come out as something like "anima draconis". Therefore, I would indeed favor "I of the Dragon" as a translation.

Then again, whoever came up with the title might not have been a Cicero either.

There had been once a title named "The I of the Dragon".

I believe this is just another way of saying "Ego Drakonis".

And I now believe that it has to do with this shapeshifting into a Dragon I read once mentioned …

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer
There had been once a title named "The I of the Dragon".

I know - that was my allusion … and not a positive one.

Aww.. there we go again, another debate on title due weird naming by Larian.

I actually enjoyed it a lot - there's something about eating critters as a very large dragon..

Originally Posted by Atrachasis
…
Then again, whoever came up with the title might not have been a Cicero either.

That was a great one!
You nailed it - i think thatīs the bottom line of the hole discussion!
(@Al: )


Ragon

Anyone else here played the game?

I bet it has come a long way since that time though.

More slant's on Draconis.

When "I" is used as a precurser to a person of distinction say as in "I Claudius" (the TV series) it kind of suggests "from or of myself" similar to a self or secret biography.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Claudius

The name Draconis suggests a leader of the Draconians…from Draconia of course - supposedly a race of winged humans from Atlantis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draconia

Draconis is also a gaming Canadian gaming convention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draconis

I doubt Larian are taking this actual route to the title theme but there does seem a remote implication…who knows?

"Draconis" is - in my eyes - just referring to the species or race of Dragons.

If I said "Ego Humanis", would this be clearer ?

It's just (pseudo-)Latin-based.

I would rather say "The dragon-like self" then the other way round.
Or is "dragonish" a word?
A free but less cheesy translation might be "Dragon Soul" - goes well with the dragon shapeshifting idea, I guess.

The entrance of the web site has been updated !

I really like the "Ego Draconis" name why do people dislike it so much? At the very least, it's somewhat unconventional.

I notice that in the German-language part of the Larian forum everyone seews that it sounds somewhat (pseudo-)Latin-like.
There is no such discussion because everyone seems to understand what is meant.

Of course, the title isn't perfect, but I've seen far worse.