Difference between revisions of "Talk:Hexen"

Revision as of 10:19, 27 July 2016

From what I've been able to gather, the console editions of Hexen (PSX and N64) have some extras that weren't in the PC version. Since I don't have either of those systems, I'd be interested if someone can fill in what the differences are. Ettingrinder 08:01, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

Adding intro quotes.

I'm going through the level pages and adding the storyline text blurbs that you see at the beginning of each level. If there's any issues with that, let me know. Xcalibur201 06:05, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Obviously there are potential copyright issues whenever someone copies in chunks of text like that.  At the bare minimum, a source should be given.    Ryan W 15:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I have similar concerns. It's an old game, but original content should always be sourced. It's just that I haven't found the author yet. I do want to include that stuff, because it makes a nice addition to the articles, and it provides an easy reference. Xcalibur 12:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to find out which Raven employee wrote it.  Just put something like "From the in-game intro screen: " above each excerpt (example).    Ryan W 18:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Which enemies, weapons and items only appear in full version?

Perhaps it could be nice to add notes about which enemies, weapons and items only appears in the full version, like the Heretic page does?

Swamp Demo and other beta oddities

The "Swamp Demo" map was not likely to be an early version of Darkmere, but instead the mysterious unaccounted-for swamp level pictured in Raven's original beta press release screenshots of the game, which can be seen here. The swamp map pictured there is significantly different from Darkmere. It MAY have been the "Black Crypt Swamp" level which Kevin Schilder mentioned in his email to me as being the map the "cryptr" music track was originally written for, though I have no direct evidence for that.

Other notable differences/oddities in this set of screenshots:

• Dark Bishops in Winnowing Hall?!
• Display of players' fourth weapons on the status bar hasn't been completed yet (shots show players using them, but status bar doesn't show them).
• Wrong sky on the Forsaken Outpost (red angry clouds; commercial release has dark blue w/thunder and lightning).

--Quasar 19:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Speculation

While I respect your contributions so far User:Xcalibur, you will need to defend addition of speculative details to this article. We treat the game manuals as secondary canon (with the games themselves being primary), so I need you to explain why you have the opinions you have on the transformation of individuals in the various parts of the Cronos Triumvirate. Otherwise I cannot approve the current revision as is. --Quasar (talk) 10:23, 25 July 2016 (CDT)

That's perfectly understandable. I realize this is going out on a limb compared to my usual contributions, and that I must defend my ideas with argument. I generally agree with interpreting canon and its authority that way. However, Hexen is a unique case. It's my opinion that this game was rushed in development, leading to ambiguities and last minute changes. For example, the world is called Cronos, but the flavor texts refer to it as Hexen. And the Wastelands (which I'm currently writing) has very few pitfalls, when every indication is that it was originally intended to have many more (possibly through a scripted quake which wasn't put in). Brown chaos serpents were intended to be poisonous, according to the manual, and they have green shots, and more of them appear for the Cleric (who does poison damage with serpent staff and flechettes).

But I digress. The point is that due to this game's development, there is more room for interpretation of canon than there otherwise would be. Getting back to the subject, the manual states that clerics became dark bishops. So if transformations happened, and clerics became dark bishops, what happened to the legionnaires and mages that went over to Korax?

The manual states that legionnaires became ettins, but they are weak, common grunts, so this doesn't fit. All in-game evidence supports my hypothesis. There are more centaurs/slaughters in a fighter playthrough, and they occupy Zedek's Tomb. Traductus' Tomb is full of dark bishops, and there are wall panels depicting a robed figure that looks similar. This leaves reivers, which are strangely absent from Menelkir's Tomb, but there are more examples. In hub 5: vivarium, monsters vary greatly depending on your class. For the fighter: slaughtaurs, centaurs and green chaos serpents. cleric: dark bishops, brown chaos serpents, more ettins. mage: reivers, afrit, wendigo. These distributions match the various weapons/abilities of the classes, and is completely consistent with my hypothesis. There is an even better example in Deathkings of the Dark Citadel. at the end of Deathkings, you fight Zedek/Traductus/Menelkir again, and each are accompanied by a wave of monsters. Zedek: slaughtaurs, Traductus: dark bishops, Menelkir: reivers. This, combined with the other consistent points, confirms in my mind that my theory is the intention of the developers, and that ettins=legionnaires was justifiably retconned. After all, it makes sense for them to be somewhat evenly matched in power, as slaughtaurs/dark bishops/reivers are (and ettins aren't). As an aside, that's one reason why I think legionnaires are slaughtaurs and not centaurs, the other being the Zedek battle in Deathkings.

To summarize: in-game content of both Hexen and Deathkings is consistent with my hypothesis, the only contradiction is one of the manual descriptions (the other is consistent), and there is proven ambiguity in canon elsewhere. if there were ANY in-game contradictions to this, I wouldn't post it, but there are none.

So, that is my line of argument. As you see, I didn't add that speculation lightly - I thought about it rigorously before I added it to the wiki. Even so, I made sure to state that this is theorized, rather than passing off my speculation (however rigorous) as fact. I can debate the finer points of this if you'd like. Xcalibur (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2016 (CDT)

There's also this[1]* that suggests there may be some grounds for regarding the "manual canon" as suspect. The centaur connection makes ample sense to me, though I'm not entirely convinced regarding the reivers. Your best case is the Deathkings example, but did Raven have that much input into the finer points of Deathkings (which, IIRC, was contracted out to outside mappers, like Final Doom / Master Levels were?) Likewise, how much input did Raven have in the cutscenes for the console versions (which, AFAIK, are the only ones that call the world itself "Hexen")? I'm afraid that, with the Raven folks offering us a lot less in the way of behind-the-scenes tidbits than the old id team does, we might never know for sure. At any rate, something like this, even if included, should be clearly stated as something that seems likely, rather than a known fact, unless we can get any "Word of God" on it.

* (Which, as an aside, I consider valuable and could really stand to be preserved somewhere safer if it's still true that all that's needed to block access to something on the Wayback Machine is for some domain squatter to put up a robots.txt...) -- ETTiNGRiNDER (talk) 06:59, 26 July 2016 (CDT)

I'm not sure how much input Raven had on Deathkings, or how closely it followed the original creative vision. I'll admit that reiver/mage is the most tenuous connection, especially since they seem to be undead, but the Deathkings battle convinced me of this. Of course, my theory is predicated on the idea that individuals were transformed into monsters, if this did NOT happen, then everything else is swept aside. However, it is something that makes sense to me personally and fits the overall canon. Assuming the fundamental idea is correct, the link you provided is another argument against the ettin/legionnaire connection in the manual, which is something I disagree with. Xcalibur (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2016 (CDT)

Parts of this do make sense to me, but allow me to offer some points on how contention can be raised and why it'll be necessary to tread on the subject with utmost neutrality (ie., it is fine to note these interesting points but not to state them as if they are fact, and why differences in interpretation would have to be noted with equal weight):

The element about the world being called "Hexen" in the console ports is not relevant to this discussion because those ports were done by outside developers who didn't have a good grasp on the existing canon. The PC version has no such thing to say outside of its manual, which does use the name Cronos. --Quasar (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2016 (CDT)