54 réponses à ce sujet

[AClockworkMelon]

SirShreK wrote...

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

I absolutely disagree. 

[Anarya]

Dave of Canada wrote...

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.

Yeah really. I was so sure I would come back to a ruined village if I left that I chose to let Isolde sacrifice herself my first time through. It seemed like clearly the most pragmatic and merciful thing to do. But then I lost like 23 approval points from Alistair and later found out there's NO downside to traipsing off to the mage tower. Don't even get me started on trying to save Loghain. Gawd Alistair why can't you think tactically sometimes? I swear. Anyway i wish there'd been a consequence to that option instead of the "get out of jail free" card it was.

[Anarya]

SirShreK wrote...

monkeycamoran wrote...

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.

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

No, I think the best and most compelling villains are the ones whose motives you can understand and/or empathize with. Especially the decent-but-tragically-misguided ones. One-dimensional bad guys are so boring. I was way less interested in Howe and the AD than Loghain, for example, for just this reason.

[Riona45]

I'm not sure what is meant by "villain out of circumstance," here, but I will say that I thought Loghain was a more interesting foe than the Archdemon. The Archdemon has a great history, but I like villains you can really interact with.

[angj57]

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 agree. In my opinion Jade Empire was a good game by regular standards, but a sub-par game by Bioware standards.

Anyway, every choice in the original game seemed pretty obvious to me. I'm not saying EVERY choice needs to be hard and complicated, but those are generally the more memorable ones-- Virmire from Mass Effect is a good example.