405 réponses à ce sujet

[Haley Starshine]

I just wished there could be some more game content AFTER you save the world.. That way you can relish all the glory, rightfully humilliate NPCs, be a tyrannical opressor, be worshipped, etc...



Its a minor detail tho.. Saving the world is not bad I think

[PsychoBlonde]

Kevin Lynch wrote...

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."

You can try this--but the "ends justify the means" stuff is a way to make the villain sympathetic for a reason--most people retain a glimmer of the knowledge that if you are doing evil, no matter what "good" you hope or intend to accomplish, you will not get there.  Either your actions will not lead to the goal you desire, or the goal you desire is tainted in some way.

Personally, I don't mind the "save the world" stuff.  Good stories are about conflict, the bigger the better.  Due to the limitations of the RPG style of game, it doesn't really work for the big conflict to be solely internal.  You'd just have people griping that you "forced" them to play this or that type of person who believes in these or those ideals.  So a big external conflict of some kind is pretty much pre-selected for you.

[Ziggeh]

AlexXIV wrote...

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

True, true, but they'd have to set the protagonist to evil, otherwise you could play a good protagonist beating a good antagonist, which is a bit of a moral quandary.

[Jonp382]

bobobo878 wrote...

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.

I never cared about the companion cube or understood the obsession with that. Buy I did enjoy Portal a great deal.

Modifié par Jonp382, 02 janvier 2011 - 04:48 .

[AlexXIV]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

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

You can see in the Warden Keep DLC why it is a bad idea. You can't control abominations, abominations control you. Also, why should they have interest to stop a Blight? At least before the Blight at least caused chaos in all of Thedas and not only in some small country at the lower edge of the map. Also what do you do witht he abominations after the fight? Ask them to go away? Not going to argue because it is off-topic, but an abomination is probably the last thing you want to ally with.

[AlexXIV]

Ziggeh wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

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

True, true, but they'd have to set the protagonist to evil, otherwise you could play a good protagonist beating a good antagonist, which is a bit of a moral quandary.

Or you could be an evil protagonist (Darth Revan) beating the evil antagonist (Darth Malak). I know canon is a light side Revan, but in the game it is still possible to become Dark Lord of the Sith again, kill most of your friends, etc.. And it is a Bioware game.

[soteria]

Ziggeh wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

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

True, true, but they'd have to set the protagonist to evil, otherwise you could play a good protagonist beating a good antagonist, which is a bit of a moral quandary.

Good protagonist vs good antagonist could be very interesting.  Some books have done this, though they usually end up compromising and having them join forces against teh evilness.

[PsychoBlonde]

Ziggeh wrote...

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

True, true, but they'd have to set the protagonist to evil, otherwise you could play a good protagonist beating a good antagonist, which is a bit of a moral quandary.

Not really.  How many movies are made about some pathetic underdog loser beating some jerkass rich overachiever at sports or some such?  Do you really think that being a smug jerk makes you "evil"?  Or you might have an uncompromising protagonist go up against an "ends justify the means" type in trying to accomplish the same goal--where "beating" your opponent consists of eventually converting them to your point of view.

It can be done, you just don't have the visceral satisfaction of chopping your opponent into little tiny chunks at the end.  Well, unless you're playing the bad guy.

[soteria]

@PsychoBlonde: I think we're talking about RPGs and the fantasy/sci fi genre, though. Sports movies, comedy, and drama have different conventions.

[Ziggeh]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Not really.  How many movies are made about some pathetic underdog loser beating some jerkass rich overachiever at sports or some such?  Do you really think that being a smug jerk makes you "evil"?  Or you might have an uncompromising protagonist go up against an "ends justify the means" type in trying to accomplish the same goal--where "beating" your opponent consists of eventually converting them to your point of view.

It can be done, you just don't have the visceral satisfaction of chopping your opponent into little tiny chunks at the end.  Well, unless you're playing the bad guy.

Absolutely, not saying it can't be, just that I think that was Woo's point.

Despite Loghain doing all but twirl his moustache we still debate whether he should be considered evil, but he is definitely one of the "bad guys" in the story, an antagonist.

[AlexXIV]

I think Loghain is a man who is trying to do the right thing without having the favor of some god to help him out if he is wrong or to return to an earlier save game. People are just used to have the option to make a 'perfect' playthrough. If you don't like the outcome of your choices you can have another try. Loghain is a real world dude. He must live with his choices, for the better or worse. The protagonist could go to war and save everyone, never kill any innocents or ... god ... forbid ... sacrifice anyone or anything. Loghain didn't have the option. For me he seems to be much closer to real life politicians. They can only do what they think is best, without knowing if it will work out the way they want it. And they have no guarantee that 'doing good things' alone will guarantee the good ending.

[Ziggeh]

AlexXIV wrote...

Loghain didn't have the option. For me he seems to be much closer to real life politicians. They can only do what they think is best, without knowing if it will work out the way they want it. And they have no guarantee that 'doing good things' alone will guarantee the good ending.

Indeed, and personally I would have prefered it if he hadn't been doing a decent "Richard III", but I think there are problems in being quite that ambigious. You need to feed the player motivations as generating your own isn't something many genres give you practice in.

[Ymladdych]

AlexXIV wrote...

I think Loghain is a man who is trying to do the right thing without having the favor of some god to help him out if he is wrong or to return to an earlier save game. People are just used to have the option to make a 'perfect' playthrough. If you don't like the outcome of your choices you can have another try. Loghain is a real world dude. He must live with his choices, for the better or worse. The protagonist could go to war and save everyone, never kill any innocents or ... god ... forbid ... sacrifice anyone or anything. Loghain didn't have the option. For me he seems to be much closer to real life politicians. They can only do what they think is best, without knowing if it will work out the way they want it. And they have no guarantee that 'doing good things' alone will guarantee the good ending.

Excellent post, AlexXIV.

[Amfortas]

AlexXIV wrote...

Or you could be an evil protagonist (Darth Revan) beating the evil antagonist (Darth Malak). I know canon is a light side Revan, but in the game it is still possible to become Dark Lord of the Sith again, kill most of your friends, etc.. And it is a Bioware game.

this.
I don't mind defeating the evil guy, but I'd like to be able to be as evil as him. Kotor did it, Jade Empire did it, you can keep the power for yourself and not save the world from anything.

In ME 1/2 and Dragon Age every ending felt the same, no matter who you were and what you had done. In this way I think that stand alone games are better than triologies, sagas or whatever, they allow you to mess with the game's ending without having to worry about future consequences.

In dragon age, while it's true that you have to save the world from the blight, you could have used it to gain power for yourself, no Landsmeet, no Anora, no Alistair. Wait until Ferelden's army has been by destroyed by the blight, then kill the Archdemon in Denerim as you did in the game, but do not retreat after that, and take the power with the help of the armies that you've gathered (lots of promises will help them support you). Now you have two alternative endings.

[PsychoBlonde]

AlexXIV wrote...
And they have no guarantee that 'doing good things' alone will guarantee the good ending.

In real life, nobody has this guarantee (and it makes sense that nobody would have this guarantee in a story that is supposed to have some relevance to real life).  However, what we do have is the guarantee that if we do good things, we improve our chances  of getting the good ending, sometimes drastically.  This is why in stories if you do the good stuff, you generally eventually get the good ending.  Granted it's a lot more complicated than that, both in real life and in fiction (a LOT more), but in general outlines that's how it works.

Art portrays metaphysical abstractions in concrete form (and is pretty much the only way to concretize such abstractions), and one of the most important metaphysical abstractions is "what kind of world is this?"  Is it a world where righteousness achieves success, or one where any sort of benevolence is doomed to failure by its very nature--or one where random chance (or some other force) dictates events and no action of any kind has any meaning?

Prior to the industrial revolution, most art fell into categories two and three.  (Dig out some of Shakespeare's plays--tragedies and comedies--if you want to see this in action.  Or look at how strong a resemblance there is between, say, Hamlet and the Kabuki plays of Eastern tradition.)  Even the most benevolent life-affirming art prior to the industrial revolution (Robinson Cruesoe, for instance) attributed success to Providence, NOT man's actions.  Reading Cruesoe in particular from a modern reference point seems especially bizarre because he seems to see his labors as a sort of penance he does to earn the benevolence of God rather than efforts directed toward the goal of making his life better/more secure.

Then along comes the industrial revolution (and the American revolution, and the French revolution, and an all-too-brief end to the Almighty State) and the birth of art that sees a man's actions as the driving force in his life, along with the flowering of the plot story and some truly marvellous ingenuity along those lines.

Now, this worldview is very nearly dead (and is certainly derided by those who consider themselves educated or worldly), and almost all the plot ingenuity went with it.

[Malsumis]

Stanley Woo wrote...

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.

So who made Kotor and JE?

Kotor - Dark side ending
JE - Closed fist ending

Don't know about anyone else, but I would consider them both pretty villainous.

[Mecha Tengu]

I want to repel the qunari invasions. Then establish evil dictatorship and enslave all the elves. Chantry would be destroyed and execute all priests. Then Invade Orlais.



MUHAHAHHAHAHA



I would give the dwarves a chance of business partnership because they are cool

[PsychoBlonde]

Amfortas wrote...

I don't mind defeating the evil guy, but I'd like to be able to be as evil as him. Kotor did it, Jade Empire did it, you can keep the power for yourself and not save the world from anything.

Yeah, and Bioware didn't make sequels to either of those games.  (And in the Obsidian sequel to KotOR, Revan has vanished from the scene.)  I wonder if these facts are somehow connected.

Mass Effect and Dragon Age were always intended to lead into sequels.  And if they don't want to wind up having to make (basically) two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SEQUELS for the options they let you have in the first game, they can't give you options like save the world/join the bad guys and rule with an iron fist.  Well--not unless they want to cheese out and make it so that neither of those things really quite happened and First Game Protagonist disappeared mysteriously.  *cough*

Personally I think that what they wound up doing in ME2 was still pretty lame, but oh well, I was never that attached to the ME franchise anyway.

[In Exile]

PsychoBlonde wrote...
Then along comes the industrial revolution (and the American revolution, and the French revolution, and an all-too-brief end to the Almighty State) and the birth of art that sees a man's actions as the driving force in his life, along with the flowering of the plot story and some truly marvellous ingenuity along those lines.

Now, this worldview is very nearly dead (and is certainly derided by those who consider themselves educated or worldly), and almost all the plot ingenuity went with it.

I'm confused re: what you are talking about in the last paragraph. Do you mean the worldview that actions are the driving force in life is dead? If yes, what is it being replaced with in literary circles?

I can't speak for most humanist disciplines, but at least in neuroscience and psychology this view is undergoing a renaissance. Lots of empirical evidence points to the fact that views of a lack of control in life are overstated; but how we control our life is not in the direct sort of way people imagine. Best short form for it is that we are shepards of our own development, which is how we control our direction in life.

[PsychoBlonde]

In Exile wrote...

I'm confused re: what you are talking about in the last paragraph. Do you mean the worldview that actions are the driving force in life is dead? If yes, what is it being replaced with in literary circles?

In the humanities, anyway, it has largely been replaced by a return to the idea that your circumstances or random chance dictate your life, and it's pretty pervasive from what I've seen.  It has not yet taken full hold in popular media (yay!) and there is actually a counter-movement.  If you want to see examples, though, go see No Country for Old Men, read Soon I Shall Be Invincible, or look at any Jackson ****** painting.

Painting and sculpture (and theater too, sigh) are the worst-affected areas thus far--which is not surprising because these are the areas of heaviest government involvement in the arts.  (In terms of patronage, which results in a kind of censorship-in-reverse.)  There's always a certain amount of lag between general philosophical changes in the culture and changes in the arts, since the one informs the other, so we may actually see a sea change in this area in a few years.  It's hard to describe trends nowadays because the culture has splintered and one part may be trending one way while another is trending a different way.

If you REALLY want to get into a discussion on this I'd suggest we take it to PM though.

Modifié par PsychoBlonde, 02 janvier 2011 - 06:24 .

[AlanC9]

PsychoBlonde wrote...
 Even the most benevolent life-affirming art prior to the industrial revolution (Robinson Cruesoe, for instance) attributed success to Providence, NOT man's actions.  Reading Cruesoe in particular from a modern reference point seems especially bizarre because he seems to see his labors as a sort of penance he does to earn the benevolence of God rather than efforts directed toward the goal of making his life better/more secure.

After reading Moll Flanders, I'm not at all certain that Defoe wasn't satirizing this belief system. Though that may be because I'm reading it with my 21st-century mindset. From Crusoe to Candide is only 40 years.

As for the general point, you're saying that modern art is basically all falling into your category 3, but a lot of non-art (or non-high-art) is still in category 1? Maybe that's why I prefer television to most of the serious films and literature today.

Modifié par AlanC9, 02 janvier 2011 - 06:35 .

[AlexXIV]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
And they have no guarantee that 'doing good things' alone will guarantee the good ending.

In real life, nobody has this guarantee (and it makes sense that nobody would have this guarantee in a story that is supposed to have some relevance to real life).  However, what we do have is the guarantee that if we do good things, we improve our chances  of getting the good ending, sometimes drastically.  This is why in stories if you do the good stuff, you generally eventually get the good ending.  Granted it's a lot more complicated than that, both in real life and in fiction (a LOT more), but in general outlines that's how it works.

I will have to agree a bit. In general, yes, if you are nice to people it raises the chances that people are nice to you. But there is also a chance that they are not and that they take advantage of you. People are ultimately selfish, even though to different degrees. Kind of a basic instinct, survival. You just have to raise the stakes to a point where even your closest friends will betray you. Luckily that doesn't happen alot, only in most extreme cases.

Loghain had no reason to trust into the Orlesians, neither in the Wardens who were even expelled from Ferelden for their meddling in politics. And he cerainly had no reason to trust into Cailan, since he was clearly a 'child playing at war' as Loghain would have put it. So in effect the destiny of Ferelden rested on his shoulders alone. There was no way for him to know that the newest Warden recruit could solve all of Ferelden's problems singlehandedly.

[drahelvete]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Amfortas wrote...

I don't mind defeating the evil guy, but I'd like to be able to be as evil as him. Kotor did it, Jade Empire did it, you can keep the power for yourself and not save the world from anything.

Yeah, and Bioware didn't make sequels to either of those games.  (And in the Obsidian sequel to KotOR, Revan has vanished from the scene.)  I wonder if these facts are somehow connected.

Mass Effect and Dragon Age were always intended to lead into sequels.  And if they don't want to wind up having to make (basically) two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SEQUELS for the options they let you have in the first game, they can't give you options like save the world/join the bad guys and rule with an iron fist.  Well--not unless they want to cheese out and make it so that neither of those things really quite happened and First Game Protagonist disappeared mysteriously.  *cough*

Personally I think that what they wound up doing in ME2 was still pretty lame, but oh well, I was never that attached to the ME franchise anyway.

What about  Baldur's Gate? That was a trilogy (of sorts). Sure, you couldn't become the new "big bad" until the very end of the third installment, but I personally think that was a good thing.
The first game established your background, the second game had you realize your true potential, and the third game allowed you to either embrace your heritage or fight against your "true nature".
That made for a truly epic story, one that couldn't have been told in a single game. They seem to be trying to do the same thing with ME.

[PsychoBlonde]

AlanC9 wrote...

After reading Moll Flanders, I'm not at all certain that Defoe wasn't satirizing this belief system. Though that may be because I'm reading it with my 21st-century mindset. From Crusoe to Candide is only 40 years.

Ayup--and what a 40 years those were.  I may have my dates mixed up, but IIRC that time period pretty much coincided with the really massive cultural and political changes that preceded and paved the way for the Enlightenment.  I don't read Cruesoe as satirical, personally, but then I didn't read Candide as entirely satirical the first time I read it, either. (Grant you, that was more than 15 years ago.)

If you want another example of this sort of effect, I'd suggest you study the history of the abolition movement (as in, abolition of slavery) in the U.S.  It took almost exactly 20 years to go from 90% of the population being more or less in favor of the continuation of slavery to having more than 80% of the population vehemently *opposed* to the continuation of slavery.

[soteria]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Now, this worldview is very nearly dead (and is certainly derided by those who consider themselves educated or worldly), and almost all the plot ingenuity went with it.

lawl. I've always thought blaming circumstances or chance for a life's course seemed like making excuses. I didn't think the effect on literature was that bad though.