405 réponses à ce sujet

[Kevin Lynch]

Seb Hanlon wrote...
Moustache-twirling, Snidely Whiplash evil-for-evil's-sake characters are fun for a while, but they don't really make sense -- it's rare, bordering on nonexistent, for someone to see themselves as the villain in their own story.

I know you were talking about being evil for evil's sake (which I agree lacks sense for all but psychopaths), but the bolded piece above made me think of The Operative from Serenity. Great quote from the character: "I'm a monster. What I do is evil. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done."

The idea that a protagonist can do evil (or allow evil to be done) to accomplish a final good, with the ends justifying the means, can be a compelling one. I think, too, that Bio's games already allow much of that in the smaller choices throughout the story. The end result may be the same in DA:O for instance, but the "evil" is in how the protagonist got there, not necessarily the outcome itself. Duty can compel individuals to do bad things; exploring that side of a story is much more satisfying, ultimately, than doing "evil-for-evil's-sake."

[blothulfur]

I've got to say it would be nice to travel a little bit of a darker path in saving the world, I made an entirely imaginary personality for my first human noble warden who had taken one too many blows to his psyche what with his family being slaughtered, the massacre and his failure at ostagar and the various horrors of the recruiting quests (especially the deep roads).
I saw him as a wounded, bitter and broken man lashing out at the world which had destroyed everything he loved and only his dog daring to go near him while he sharpened his family sword and waited for the end. And when the ultimate sacrifice came he welcomed it.
But there was not much in game to allow me to play such a character despite him being a fairly logically made construct, howes end was extremely unsatisfying in this respect.
Also couldn't we have chosen to join with loghain, the recruitment quests would still be there and we could have had howe going renegade as the bad guy and leading the bannorn.
Still loved the game but I think there is room for a more ruthless and selfish character arc.

Modifié par blothulfur, 02 janvier 2011 - 01:39 .

[LadyJaneGrey]

iEthanol wrote...

I would absolutely love it if DAII was a little more open with the choices. For example I would have really liked to join the Dark Wizard in the chantry, but there was no such choice to be found.

Considering the dialogue allows you to come of as a complete douche, I don't see why it  can't also lead to a darker path. Kind of like Fable, except for not sucking.

In short--- forget saving, Iets conquer!

Echoing another's  post:

You should probably try Fallout: New Vegas.

[drahelvete]

I just hope there'll be some kind of story-based justification for turning evil in this game. Every time I try to find a reason for my character to jump off the slippery slope in a Bioware game, one of my good-aligned companions will talk some sense into my character and make him/her feel like a petulant child.

BG and KotOR had some good freudian excuses, but that still seems a bit cheap. Give me a good utilitarian reason to become the iron fisted tyrant of Kirkwall, please!

[KennethAFTopp]

Seb Hanlon wrote...

Now, I'm not a writer, and I can't speak for our writing team -- but one of my favourite writer-types, John Rogers (the guy behind Leverage and the abortive Global Frequency pilot), points out that

"You don't really understand an antagonist until you understand why he's a protagonist in his own version of the world." (source)

Moustache-twirling, Snidely Whiplash evil-for-evil's-sake characters are fun for a while, but they don't really make sense -- it's rare, bordering on nonexistent, for someone to see themselves as the villain in their own story. Personally, for the PC to go about acting like a cartoon villain being eeeee-vuhl doesn't really make sense to me.

Now I am not saying you're wrong in this, but I do think there are some snidely whiplash examples of evil in Dragon Age: Origins and they do have their place, not as PCs but as NPCs I am thinking that someone like Vaughan the Arl of Denerim's son as well as Arl Howe could be used as examples of such evil. Granted one could counter argue that how much do we actually see of these characters and that's not really alot.

[nightcobra]

KennethAFTopp wrote...

Seb Hanlon wrote...

Now, I'm not a writer, and I can't speak for our writing team -- but one of my favourite writer-types, John Rogers (the guy behind Leverage and the abortive Global Frequency pilot), points out that

"You don't really understand an antagonist until you understand why he's a protagonist in his own version of the world." (source)

Moustache-twirling, Snidely Whiplash evil-for-evil's-sake characters are fun for a while, but they don't really make sense -- it's rare, bordering on nonexistent, for someone to see themselves as the villain in their own story. Personally, for the PC to go about acting like a cartoon villain being eeeee-vuhl doesn't really make sense to me.

Now I am not saying you're wrong in this, but I do think there are some snidely whiplash examples of evil in Dragon Age: Origins and they do have their place, not as PCs but as NPCs I am thinking that someone like Vaughan the Arl of Denerim's son as well as Arl Howe could be used as examples of such evil. Granted one could counter argue that how much do we actually see of these characters and that's not really alot.

though even those "evil" people had a reason to be evil like jealousy of the couslands in howe's case and racial prejudice in vaughn's case.

[Wynne]

iEthanol wrote...

Mass Effect 2 did a pretty good job of making the evil character appear more brutal with quick time events. Which is why I was actually excited to hear that DA2 is going to be more like ME. :happy:

I agree with this, except that there was no evil character. And I liked that. I don't want to go out there and be cartoonishly nasty, doing it all for the evulz. I liked that the Renegade in Mass Effect was still a hero, if a reckless out-of-line hero, and could be played as having truly unselfish motives and/or being good to kind people and really nasty to evil people. Mass Effect was Good Cop/Bad Cop, but in the end, both were still cops, out there on the streets trying to make a difference, so to speak. However jaded or cynical, you were either hero or anti-hero but never actually evil.

I liked that you could be so unrestrained, but you were getting mad for a good reason. I actually feel like Paragon and Renegade Shepard were right at different times, not that Paragon was always right. I think there is such a thing as being too nice.

Dave of Canada wrote...

Dragon Age did it... kind of well,
though less so than I would've liked. You could be the most
manipulative bastard and eventually use the Blight to your own advantage
and become King (if Cousland). My problem with the other "evil" choices
is that some don't make too much sense when presented to you.

I
could never reason the "I HAVE ANOTHER IDEA, KILL THE ELVES :D" (for
example) line my Warden blurts out. I'm having trouble finding any type
of character who'd do that.

Me too! I couldn't quite fathom that. What's even the point? The wolves don't have a treaty with you. They could just say, "Kthnxbye!"

And ironically, the Dalish elves are way more useful, because they are the only ranged combatants besides the mages who can bomb you with their spells by accident and sometimes run out and bomb themselves and die. The Dalish elves just shot things and caused those to die. It was nice. I used them pretty much exclusively through the endgame.

[Thiefy]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I'd love for a game to be written around the idea of the hero overthrowing and replacing the status quo. VIVA LA REVOLUCION!

Fable 3 wasn't that exciting.

huh well i thought it was good up until you meet the crawler and then it was a huge....er wtf?

an odd occurance was i kept calling logan loghain in my head except i dont think he was fleshed out nearly as well as loghain.

[Brockololly]

Eh, I was thinking DA2 wouldn't be about "Saving the world!" but then you watch the Rise to Power trailer and "OH NO! Hawke is the Chosen One who can save the world from war! What ever will we do without Hawke!?"

Maybe it doesn't play out that way, but it gives the impression you'll be saving the world or at least are needed to do so.

Modifié par Brockololly, 02 janvier 2011 - 03:02 .

[AlexXIV]

What would be the point of causing chaos? I can understand if you just want to help people, or if you want to get rich or powerful, or if you are out for revenge or such. All good reasons to fight for. But just causing chaos for the sake of it? Like, for fun? Wrong genre, I fear. If you just want to blow up things you need to play an ego shooter, not an RPG.

[In Exile]

I'd actually like to save the world at some point. Restoring the status quo, despite being such a prominent trope in western fantasy, does not feel particularly heroic at all. Still, at least DA2, unlike Mask of the Betrayer, does not lie to you about being able to change the status quo.

[AlexXIV]

In Exile wrote...

I'd actually like to save the world at some point. Restoring the status quo, despite being such a prominent trope in western fantasy, does not feel particularly heroic at all. Still, at least DA2, unlike Mask of the Betrayer, does not lie to you about being able to change the status quo.

Oh we don't know that yet. They may still lie to us

[In Exile]

I think of a comparison to most JRPGs. In a lot of ways, the plot is something one would come up with when high. The plot usually gives up coherence 2/3rds through if not earlier. But still, the plot always involves bringing a dramatic change to the world, where nothing is ever the same again. That kind of plot I like much more as a heroic plot than the super-glue type hero we usually have.

[JamieCOTC]

Stanley Woo wrote...

A lot of people just want more and more freedom to play characters that we haven't written, because, as you certainly must know, every decision, every character trait, needs to be written into the game in order for it to be possible for you, the player, to find it.

BioWare games are, above all, heroic tales of triumph over some great force or obstacle or issue. Yes, some of our characters walk the fine line between righteous and self-serving, but they all still have to want to overcome that force/issue/obstacle. Giving an "evil" character the ability to do some very bad things along the way kind of mucks up our story just a bit. There's a huge difference between a jerky hero having different motivations or attitudes about getting tot he end of the game, but it's another thing entirely for an evil character to start laying waste about him with sword and spell, then toddling off to run a used camel dealership in South Jersey.

You can't be "the bad guy." "The bad guy" is the guy you're usually trying to beat at the end of the game. At worst, you can be a really disagreeable hero or a good guy with questionable tastes or that jerk who saved the world. But playing "the bad guy" is not what you're going to find in a BioWare game. Sorry.

Also, in Dragon Age II, you don't save the world.

Good.  Armageddon outta here now. 

[AlexXIV]

I think problem is giving people the option to change the world radically and at the same time giving them choices how they want to change it. Not to mention they need to make a sequel adressing the changes you made. If that was possible I guess Bioware would do it. But even the fact that for the sequel they kidnap us to a different part of the world with mostly different characters shows how hard it must be.

[Lord Gremlin]

Stanley Woo wrote...

You can't be "the bad guy." "The bad guy" is the guy you're usually trying to beat at the end of the game. At worst, you can be a really disagreeable hero or a good guy with questionable tastes or that jerk who saved the world. But playing "the bad guy" is not what you're going to find in a BioWare game. Sorry.

You break my heart, comrade.
And you're not quite honest here. In Jade Empire you can be the bad guy, that's for sure. Enslaving, murderous, vicious friend of demons and cannibals and a merciless tyrant. Well, you do kill your teacher, another tyrant, but it's never clear who's been more evil. Both murdered a lot of people and torture a God to control it's power, both enslaved people's souls... But your here also squashed puppies. Seems pretty evil to me, with no redeeming qualities. Other than the fact that the Glorious Strategist killed your hero and certain actions are justified by revenge.
I'm pretty sure Jade Empire is a Bioware game.

What most people want does not disagree with your statement about overcoming some evil force or obstacle. For example, Hawke wants to be a tyrant blood mage, using newborn children blood to extend his/her lifetime and mercilessly executing everyone in Kirkwall who questions his/her authority. But there are Qunari, who also want to enslave Kirkwall, but instead of using slaves as a source of blood they are going to to use them as workers in the mines. So, say, Hawke wins. Not the best case for people of Kirkwall?
People want scenario like Chaos vs Necrons in Warhammer 40000. In terms of evilness that is.

[AlexXIV]

Lord Gremlin wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

You can't be "the bad guy." "The bad guy" is the guy you're usually trying to beat at the end of the game. At worst, you can be a really disagreeable hero or a good guy with questionable tastes or that jerk who saved the world. But playing "the bad guy" is not what you're going to find in a BioWare game. Sorry.

You break my heart, comrade.
And you're not quite honest here. In Jade Empire you can be the bad guy, that's for sure. Enslaving, murderous, vicious friend of demons and cannibals and a merciless tyrant. Well, you do kill your teacher, another tyrant, but it's never clear who's been more evil. Both murdered a lot of people and torture a God to control it's power, both enslaved people's souls... But your here also squashed puppies. Seems pretty evil to me, with no redeeming qualities. Other than the fact that the Glorious Strategist killed your hero and certain actions are justified by revenge.
I'm pretty sure Jade Empire is a Bioware game.

What most people want does not disagree with your statement about overcoming some evil force or obstacle. For example, Hawke wants to be a tyrant blood mage, using newborn children blood to extend his/her lifetime and mercilessly executing everyone in Kirkwall who questions his/her authority. But there are Qunari, who also want to enslave Kirkwall, but instead of using slaves as a source of blood they are going to to use them as workers in the mines. So, say, Hawke wins. Not the best case for people of Kirkwall?
People want scenario like Chaos vs Necrons in Warhammer 40000. In terms of evilness that is.

Also, KotOR.

[Ziggeh]

He means antagonist. You can't be the antagonist, because you're the protagonist.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 02 janvier 2011 - 04:36 .

[Aoba]

marshalleck wrote...

Fable never is, why do people keep buying those games?

Maybe because there are a lot of folks who... wait for it... enjoy the series? Whilst it's obvious there are those who do not enjoy the game, not everyone shares the same opinion. Humans are funny like that.

As for being tired of saving the world, not particularly so. Each game I've played handles the "saving" differently, so, in the end, I'm never left wondering, "WTF, I did this very same crap in all of the other games I own. ARGH! ACWOLFE SMASH!"

[AlexXIV]

Ziggeh wrote...

He means antagonist. You can't be the antagonist, because you're the protagonist. Being a really unpleasant protagonist isn't the same thing.

Antagonist only means enemy. Or in case of RPGs, the big guy you fight in the end. It doesn't say anything about good or evil.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 02 janvier 2011 - 04:38 .

[Jordania]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Dragon Age did it... kind of well, though less so than I would've liked. You could be the most manipulative bastard and eventually use the Blight to your own advantage and become King (if Cousland). My problem with the other "evil" choices is that some don't make too much sense when presented to you.

I could never reason the "I HAVE ANOTHER IDEA, KILL THE ELVES :D" (for example) line my Warden blurts out. I'm having trouble finding any type of character who'd do that.

I personally use that a lot - my reasoning behind it is more in line with the Grey Warden mainstream mentality - I play on hard difficulty so I don't care much for moral qualms as you would when presented with a relatively realistic challenge - I figured that the werewolves would prove stronger allies than the dalish - for the most part I am correct.

[Ziggeh]

AlexXIV wrote...

Antagonist only means enemy. Or in case of RPGs, the big guy you fight in the end. It doesn't say anything about good or evil.

Entirely in line with what he said.

[AlexXIV]

Ziggeh wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Antagonist only means enemy. Or in case of RPGs, the big guy you fight in the end. It doesn't say anything about good or evil.

Entirely in line with what he said.

Well you could be the evil protagonist trying to beat the good antagonist. In theory.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Arcanum and NWN2 are both examples of games where a character can fully give themselves over to the cause of villany/evil and side with the prime antogonist of the story, even becoming one themselves. So it is doable, to actually work against "the greater good", even as far as to become an agent of annihilation or complete evil. Though those games were produced by other developers, i was just giving examples.



I do like such options, as for me, it makes RPing a wider range of possibilitities. it is a bit limiting if no matter what you do, you can only end up saving the world, instead of deciding, for whatever reason, to destroy it.



I remember a debate months ago, about wanting to have the option to side with Uldred and recruit an army of abominations. At first, such a premise seemed silly, but people gave plenty of good reasons and possibilities how and why such a thing could work.ways

[ObserverStatus]

I don't remember who I'm quoting, but Portal made us care about a steel box more than we've cared about whole worlds.