54 réponses à ce sujet

[Sappy69]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

A lot of BioWare games follow this pattern, though--main villain and proxy villain.  Loghain was the proxy villain, and the Archdemon the main villain.  Saren and the Collectors were proxy villains for the Reapers.  The Valsharess was proxy for Mephistopheles.  Generally speaking, the proxy villains are more relatable, and the real Big Bads are complete monsters.

I'd argue that Loghain is really the main villain of the game, and the archdemon confrontation more or less an extended epilogue.  The way the campaign is set up, all the tension, all the big moments build up to the Landsmeet.  Loghain is the one who the PC has a personal connection to...the archdemon is more a nameless, faceless force of nature than it is a villain.  Loghain is the one who sets up the Wardens to die, not the archdemon.  And, in true action movie fashion, you get to have an in-your-face, one-on-one duel with Loghain at the Landsmeet.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Nothing new. We're keeping it like DA:O, and also trying to market. 

But given that they're changing some basic mechanics, that they're actively trying to keep some of those aspects like DAO is news (and good news, I'd say).

[Who is that Masked Man]

Wait, wait a minute. People are admiring the secret main villain from Jade Empire? Really?



Not that he didn't have his moments (hidden flaw in the fighting style), but for me he loses cool points because it was too obvious that he was evil. When he finally revealed his true nature, I remember wishing there was a conversation option to say, "Well DUH. I figured out this plot twist while I was still in the first village."

[StreetlightEagle]

Saibh wrote...

StreetlightEagle wrote...

Wishpig wrote...

I loved the line about the villains. My #1 prob with DA:O's story was the darkspawn. Brainless/monstrous enemies just can't hold a torch to more tragic and even relatable villains. Loghain (especially if you read the novel) is a great villain. Archdemons... not so much.

I totally agree here. At least DA did have Loghain... That was ME2's most fatal flaw, Saren was a brilliant villain but the collectors? Not so much. To be honest, after reading The Stolen Throne I'm not even gonna call Loghain a villain. Plus, Cailan was a fool.

As much as I hate Loghain, I loved how morally ambiguous he was--generally when you have characters like him, they tend to be evil just because they attack the player, and the evil things they do aren't really all that evil. He does some pretty damn evil things, so I would call him a villain, most certainly. Just a really, really good villain.

And Cailan was no more at fault than Loghain.

That is a very fair point. The stuff you find out during the landsmeet quest pretty much solidify his status as a villain. He does horrible things but not for any sort of personal gain which is still fairly admirable. He's an 'ends justify the means' kinda guy and even though those sort of characters commit 'evil' crimes, they're not usually innately evil themselves. A lot of people just judge Loghain for what happens at Ostagar though and. all things considered, what he did was callous but also probably the best thing he could have done in that situation. 

[Legion 2.5]

I made a topic about this but I didn't see this one. Sorry. Also I like the idea of morality in it. That was the few things I wished Dragon Age had.

[Deviija]

A hype piece. But I suppose it is good to hear that it will remain as DAO was.

[Sable Rhapsody]

Who is that Masked Man wrote...

Wait, wait a minute. People are admiring the secret main villain from Jade Empire? Really?

Not that he didn't have his moments (hidden flaw in the fighting style), but for me he loses cool points because it was too obvious that he was evil. When he finally revealed his true nature, I remember wishing there was a conversation option to say, "Well DUH. I figured out this plot twist while I was still in the first village."

I thought the fact that he, ya know, would have won if not for a literal Deus Ex Machina was pretty damn cool.  Though it may have also been colored by the fact that I hadn't played many video games before JE, so the plot twist completely blindsided me.  I also just like how they implemented the plot twist, calling back to an earlier cutscene but from a new perspective.  Nowadays, nothing's really surprised me since the plot twist on the last page of Atonement.

[Who is that Masked Man]

Yes, seeing what really happened back then was certainly a nice touch. And in all fairness, even though I wasn't at all surprised by the main villain was who he was, I hadn't been expecting the Death's Hand connection... at least not in the way that it happened.

[Sable Rhapsody]

Sappy69 wrote...

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

A lot of BioWare games follow this pattern, though--main villain and proxy villain.  Loghain was the proxy villain, and the Archdemon the main villain.  Saren and the Collectors were proxy villains for the Reapers.  The Valsharess was proxy for Mephistopheles.  Generally speaking, the proxy villains are more relatable, and the real Big Bads are complete monsters.

I'd argue that Loghain is really the main villain of the game, and the archdemon confrontation more or less an extended epilogue.  The way the campaign is set up, all the tension, all the big moments build up to the Landsmeet.  Loghain is the one who the PC has a personal connection to...the archdemon is more a nameless, faceless force of nature than it is a villain.  Loghain is the one who sets up the Wardens to die, not the archdemon.  And, in true action movie fashion, you get to have an in-your-face, one-on-one duel with Loghain at the Landsmeet.

Yeah, but same is true for Saren in ME and arguably even the Illusive Man in ME2.  They're the ones that forge the emotional connection with Shepard.  Generally speaking, you have one villain who's an emotional point of contact, who gives you reason beyond the WE'RE ALL GONNA DIIIIIEEE thing to continue with the plot.  That's your proxy villain.  Your main villain is the one with the "But Thou Must" trope glued to his face.  He (and it's usually a he except in the final chapter of Throne of Bhaal) is the one enabling the proxy villain to be a villain in the first place.  Saren wouldn't have been (as much) of a turd without Sovereign.  Loghain wouldn't have been a bad guy if not for the Blight.

I agree that the Archdemon is more like a force of nature than a personal villain, but I actually felt kinda bad for him.  Urthemiel used to be the Old God of beauty, of life and love and festivals.  It felt kinda like putting down a rabid animal--my Warden had no choice whatsoever, and it had to be done, but I still felt bad for what the Archdemon used to be.

Modifié par Sable Rhapsody, 22 juillet 2010 - 01:19 .

[soteria]

The only problem with the Bhelen / Harrowmont choice is that the game didn't provide you with much context. I would have liked to be able to talk to Bhelen or Harrowmont about what he plans to do once he obtains power before I start doing errands for him. Likewise, I wish that you could talk to some people in Dust Town praising Bhelen as some kind of savior and visionary to offset some of the bad stuff you hear about him. All you really get is one merchant who likes Bhelen because of his economic policies and a Dwarven Noble who sees Bhelen as devious.

I agree. My first playthrough, I ran around Orzammar for a good little while trying to talk to everyone and get some background. I mean, they're asking you to pick someone, but you really can't know enough about either to make an informed choice, unless you're playing a dwarf already. I think I ended up choosing Harrowmont for no better reason than that Bhelen's lackey tried to bully me into helping him.

Dwarf noble had its own large share of disappointments when returning to Orzammar.

[StreetlightEagle]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Sappy69 wrote...

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

A lot of BioWare games follow this pattern, though--main villain and proxy villain.  Loghain was the proxy villain, and the Archdemon the main villain.  Saren and the Collectors were proxy villains for the Reapers.  The Valsharess was proxy for Mephistopheles.  Generally speaking, the proxy villains are more relatable, and the real Big Bads are complete monsters.

I'd argue that Loghain is really the main villain of the game, and the archdemon confrontation more or less an extended epilogue.  The way the campaign is set up, all the tension, all the big moments build up to the Landsmeet.  Loghain is the one who the PC has a personal connection to...the archdemon is more a nameless, faceless force of nature than it is a villain.  Loghain is the one who sets up the Wardens to die, not the archdemon.  And, in true action movie fashion, you get to have an in-your-face, one-on-one duel with Loghain at the Landsmeet.

Yeah, but same is true for Saren in ME and arguably even the Illusive Man in ME2.  They're the ones that forge the emotional connection with Shepard.  Generally speaking, you have one villain who's an emotional point of contact, who gives you reason beyond the WE'RE ALL GONNA DIIIIIEEE thing to continue with the plot.  That's your proxy villain.  Your main villain is the one with the "But Thou Must" trope glued to his face.  He (and it's usually a he except in the final chapter of Throne of Bhaal) is the one enabling the proxy villain to be a villain in the first place.  Saren wouldn't have been (as much) of a turd without Sovereign.  Loghain wouldn't have been a bad guy if not for the Blight.

I agree that the Archdemon is more like a force of nature than a personal villain, but I actually felt kinda bad for him.  Urthemiel used to be the Old God of beauty, of life and love and festivals.  It felt kinda like putting down a rabid animal--my Warden had no choice whatsoever, and it had to be done, but I still felt bad for what the Archdemon used to be.

Well, that assumes that the Archdemon's are actually former old god's... Still all speculation

[joriandrake]

I want a moustache to twirl now

[Xannisel]

It looks like it's taking a leaf out of the Witcher's book where you made decisions and you felt their consequences. The tagline for the game was, "There is no good. There is no evil. There are only decisions and consequences."

[Demx]

There may not be any "moral bar" in DA, but your companions do a good job at playing the angel and demon on your shoulders. Anyways, I guess this article kinda counts as new information, if you wanted to know if DA2 would use the "moral bar."

[Saibh]

Siradix wrote...

There may not be any "moral bar" in DA, but your companions do a good job at playing the angel and demon on your shoulders. Anyways, I guess this article kinda counts as new information, if you wanted to know if DA2 would use the "moral bar."

They already told us that here, though.

I liked the approval system--what one good character may see as the correct course of action, another good character might not. I think that it was at its crawling stages in DAO. Hopefully we see it become more nuanced in DA2.

[Riona45]

*shrug* Not much new here, but the lack of a morality system in DA:O is indeed something I love about the game. It's kinda nice not to feel that the people who scripted the game are "judging" me--I know in the tabletop games I play, the DM doesn't micromanage people's alignments (though that may not be true for everyone).

[Sylvius the Mad]

soteria wrote...

I agree. My first playthrough, I ran around Orzammar for a good little while trying to talk to everyone and get some background. I mean, they're asking you to pick someone, but you really can't know enough about either to make an informed choice, unless you're playing a dwarf already.

When I did it the first time, I chose Bhelen for what my character thought was a good reason (though he didn't really care, so he'd made a fairly superficial judgment), but shortly thereafter realised I'd made a bad decision.  But since both guys said they wouldn't talk to you if you helped the other guy, I figured I was stuck.  And that meant that I went through the entire Orzammar sequence thinking I was doing something bad, but there was nothing I could do about it.

That sense of melancholy - the awareness that I'd been tricked, but there was no way back - really added to the entire plot sequence.

It was wonderful.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 22 juillet 2010 - 06:20 .

[Sigma Tauri]

SirShreK wrote...
So... you want to..err..sympethize with the villains?

Errr...Make the villains more complex in their motives.

DAO already does this, and monsters will always be monsters.

Modifié par monkeycamoran, 22 juillet 2010 - 06:58 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

SirShreK wrote...

So... you want to..err..sympethize with the villains?

Of course.  That would make defeating them more difficult from a motivation point of view.  And it would make them more credible.

A villain who's arguably doing what he's doing for a good reason, but he still has to be stopped, makes for more compelling decision-making.

[Sigma Tauri]

SirShreK wrote...

I would rather fight a pure villain than a villain out of circumstance. Don't you agree?

That depends on my fickle mood.

[Dave of Canada]

Didn't like the article, really. NONE of the 'best choice' decisions in the game were hard to achieve or had punishments, take Connor for example:

When I first did it, I was presented with three choices.

One of them is simple and that is to kill the possessed boy. It's a cruel thing to do, yet it's justified in some character minds.

The second one is to involve Blood Magic and sacrifice Isolde to try and rescue Connor, this seemed dark but I was going to do this if there was no alternative.

The third one is to go out and try to reach the Mage Tower that's possibly weeks of travel away, I was warned that Connor can't remain calm for long.



I was panicking, what choice do I make? These aren't all wrong decisions, I was leaning on the third one but I was fearful that Connor would rampage and destroy the village while I was away.



I took my chances, I decided to go to the Mage Tower to rescue Connor. "Oh no, help us!" - Great, now I'm forced in another quest chain in an effort to rescue Connor.



After I rescued the mages and templars from their little problem, I begged them to help with Connor and was fearful of the fate that the town had befallen. I appear at the front gates of Redcliffe and run up the stairs, go go go! I need to see if they are still okay!



Nothing changed.

Nope, not one thing.

Connor decided to sit down and let me seek for help, there was no third grey morality choice. I was like "This.. this is... what?" and I was even more confused after everything was a happy ending.

[Ranger115]

It's just harder decisions; a great change. Kind of reminds me of the Pitt expansion for Fallout 3.