164 réponses à ce sujet

[Wittand25]

Naltair wrote...

Not every villain has to be understandable, there are things that are beyond comprehension. It may not be to your liking but it is a compelling position for a villain to take especially one as alien as the Reapers.

Not in a computer game. Since as players we know that we can definitely beat them, game villains cannot cause fear and terror like those in films or books. So the only reason why villainsin games, and especially those created by Bioware, can stick to the mind is that on some level you can understand and connect to them, maybe even sympathise with them. 
An alien robot race beyond understanding would simply not work in a game, since they would just be too generic, extremely disappointing and so far below the usual Bioware standard that both critics and players alike would notice and complain.

Modifié par Wittand25, 07 avril 2011 - 05:59 .

[Relix28]

Ah yes, "dull villians"...

See what I did there?

[Almostfaceman]

Bamboozalist wrote...

95% of people would not care at all. 2.5% would complain they werent spoonfed information that they didn't need to know and 2.5% would be happy.

Methinks the gamespot author of this opinion is of the "spoonfed" variety.

[Bamboozalist]

aimlessgun wrote...

Er, people actually do complain about Sauron. But if you get into the rest of the backstory he is more interesting than he appears in the LoTR trilogy.

An amazingly small majority. Just like an amazingly small majority of people complain about Emperor Palpatine in Star Wars not having any clear motivations beyond being evil. Trying to explain everly little detail is bad, it ruined the Star Wars universe. Part of the original trilogy's charm and why it feels like an expansive alien universe is precisely how much outside of the main plot isn't explained.

Today's generation and their desire to be spoon fed is really detrimental to fiction as a whole. Instead of explaining things that don't need to be explained they should focus on stuff that actually maters, like LoTR chose to focus (rightfully so) on Frodo's plight as the ring bearer instead of Sauron's backstory as the lieutenant of another Evil for no reason other than being Evil overlord.

ME's biggest problem is they killed off their "Vader" in act 1 so we don't have him to be the human side of the unknown evil in act 3 so they want the Reapers to be someone we can understand and partially sympathize with, which is dumb, they're "beyond our comprehesion" explaining them would make them less threatening as a whole. One of the biggest threats in fiction is the unknown, the uncanny makes us feel uneasy but the unknown truly scares us.

Modifié par Bamboozalist, 07 avril 2011 - 05:59 .

[Almostfaceman]

Wittand25 wrote...

Naltair wrote...

Not every villain has to be understandable, there are things that are beyond comprehension. It may not be to your liking but it is a compelling position for a villain to take especially one as alien as the Reapers.

Not in a computer game. Since as players we know that we can definitely beat them, game villains cannot cause fear and terror like those in films or books. So the only reason why villains, and especially those created by Bioware, can stick to the mind is that on some level you can understand and connect to them, maybe even sympathise with them. 
An alien robot race beyond understanding would simply not work in a game, since they would just be too generic, extremely disappointing and so far below the usual Bioware standard that both critics and players alike would notice and complain.

Um, yeah in a computer game it's possible.  I can put myself "in the moment" and let a video game villian be scary because it is vast and unknowable.

[TheConfidenceMan]

They are incredibly dull. Nameless, faceless, we still don't know where they come from, why they do what they do. Saren was a villain. Reapers are more like a force of nature.

[Naltair]

Wittand25 wrote...

Naltair wrote...

Not every villain has to be understandable, there are things that are beyond comprehension. It may not be to your liking but it is a compelling position for a villain to take especially one as alien as the Reapers.

Not in a computer game. Since as players we know that we can definitely beat them, game villains cannot cause fear and terror like those in films or books. So the only reason why villains, and especially those created by Bioware, can stick to the mind is that on some level you can understand and connect to them, maybe even sympathise with them. 
An alien robot race beyond understanding would simply not work in a game, since they would just be too generic, extremely disappointing and so far below the usual Bioware standard that both critics and players alike would notice and complain.

And yet the Reapers have inspired much fear with what little information we know.  I think it can certainly work in a video game it has worked in most video games.  Most villains go for "cool factor" in gaming and movies anyway. 

Or riddle me this, what exactly is understandable about Sephiroth?  

I think that understanding is only good when there is a personal connection between the hero and the villain, otherwise what is the point.  Personally I think we will get both in ME3 hopefully, the faceless horrors and some kind of avatar/proxy that will be the nemesis to Shepard.

I could be very wrong though.

[termokanden]

Best video game villain ever: The doctor in Law of the West. Every time you get hurt, the bastard is always out of town.

That should have been on gamespot's list. Could have taken Sephiroth's place.

It's hard to say if the Reapers will be interesting villains for ME3. They weren't really the villains in the first 2 (not directly anyway).

Modifié par termokanden, 07 avril 2011 - 06:04 .

[Almostfaceman]

TheConfidenceMan wrote...

They are incredibly dull. Nameless, faceless, we still don't know where they come from, why they do what they do. Saren was a villain. Reapers are more like a force of nature.

They are incredibly exciting.  Nameless, faceless, they're like facing the vast void of the universe itself.  The explorer, the rebel in us takes in the fear and uses it to conquer the unknowable.

[95Headhunter]

Gamespot's been full of bollocks for years. How is this news?

[AngryFrozenWater]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Dull? While I love Jon Irenicus, the Reapers want to destroy the planet and wipe entire civilizations from exixtance. Perhaps Gamespot needs a little more perspective?

Yeah... They have no clue how big this threat is. If we wipe out all reapers in our galaxy, they'll visit us again in ME4 from a neighbouring galaxy. When the universe is cleansed from the reapers then they'll try again from another parallel universe in ME5. And that's only the beginning. Watch ME6 when the reapers invent time travel. Shepard is going to be busy for a while.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 07 avril 2011 - 06:07 .

[Bamboozalist]

Wittand25 wrote...

Not in a computer game. Since as players we know that we can definitely beat them, game villains cannot cause fear and terror like those in films or books. So the only reason why villainsin games, and especially those created by Bioware, can stick to the mind is that on some level you can understand and connect to them, maybe even sympathise with them. 
An alien robot race beyond understanding would simply not work in a game, since they would just be too generic, extremely disappointing and so far below the usual Bioware standard that both critics and players alike would notice and complain.

PROTIP: 90% of every movie ends with the heroes winning and everyone knows it from the beginning, the drama comes from who will and will not make it through to the end of the movie and us liking the characters. So I guess they don't work in films and books either.

If ME3 has a squad that we care about that could die at any moment the villains could be giant spagetti monsters (hyperbole don't look too much into that) for all we care. Drama comes from having a villain that is truly threatening. Having a villain with sympathy is good too but only IF IT MAKES SENSE. Saren was Bioware's good sympathetic villain, and instead of having him accross the entire trilogy where we'd so from resenting to actually empathizing with him and his plight as he's turned into a mindless husk by the time of ME3, they condensed it all into ME1 and killed him off. So now the options are

A) Make us empathize with giant unknowable machines - HORRIBLE IDEA
 Make a Saren Clone - HORRIBLE IDEA
C) Enslaved a Former Friend - Not horrible but still cheesy and cheap.

[Synobal]

I'll admit they are dull but mostly because they don't seem to have any motives. They are a very flat one dimensional enemy.

[Apollo Starflare]

Eh, I have long since stopped reading Gamespot or caring what they think about pretty much anything. People think IGN are bad, Gamespot are in a league of their own, at least IGN has some article writers worthy of note.

Naturally I don't agree with Van Ord here either. The Reapers are a completely different kind of antagonist to Irenicus. For starters they are a race and not one person, if anything they should be comparing an individual Reaper (Harbinger or another bigger bad) with him. I wouldn't class the Reapers as classic, unforgettable sci fi villains just yet - but that is partly because they have barely set foot on the stage yet. This year it's their turn and I'm sure the ME team have something suitable special (and evil of course) in store with the Reapers.

Plus the way they have been kept to the side over the course of two games, seeded throughout in a sinister fashion often being portrayed as a puppet master style of villain is great plot device when used well. And I have found it used well in the ME series.

I am very curious to see how they expand upon the Reapers in ME3 though, I get the feeling it'll either cement them as one of the all time great computer game sci fi villains or run the risk of making them a typically rediculous OTT video game monster.

[Tazzmission]

gamespot should just stick with final fantasy seeing as it could be alot simpler for them..........

[Wittand25]

Naltair wrote...
And yet the Reapers have inspired much fear with what little information we know.  I think it can certainly work in a video game it has worked in most video games.  Most villains go for "cool factor" in gaming and movies anyway. 

Who is scared by them ? And most villains are completely forgotten about ten seconds after a sequel to the game comes out. Bioware always has done better and is expected to do better than to have a generic "cool" villain. The strong point of Bioware games is always the outstanding story telling and that requires a memorable main adversary. So unless you want the reapers to be outshone by the ME3 version of Loghain, or the game to be seen as below the Bioware standard of story-telling it is needed.

Or riddle me this, what exactly is understandable about Sephiroth?  

PC gamer and Wikipedia tells me this character is from FF (unless you are talking about Jewish mysticism) so no idea.

[termokanden]

I find this quote amusing:

Who are your favorite villains, and what games failed to capitalize on the possibilities of a big, bad presence?

It pretty much assumes you must have a big bad presence. Why? Because we're used to it, because Sephiroth says so?

They also say the lack of a villain hurts DA2. I can only disagree. Some people need to have some obvious bad guy to beat to know what they're doing, but that doesn't mean all games should be designed this way.

[Naltair]

Wittand25 wrote...
PC gamer and Wikipedia tells me this character is from FF (unless you are talking about Jewish mysticism) so no idea.

He is one of the big super villains from the Final Fantasy franchise, I figured most gamers have at least heard of him but I digress anyways, I listed him because he is an example of a villain people love but really has nounderstandable motives.  He is also the product of a JRPG so soemimes the motives are just silly anyways.

[Elvis_Mazur]

Gamespot's opinion is no better any opinion posted anywhere.

I shall not care.

[Naltair]

I don't think an explanation of the Reapers is needed. I think that the story of the galaxy fighting for its survival should be the foremost idea.

[Almostfaceman]

Wittand25 wrote...

Who is scared by them ? 

You are making the grand mistake of thinking your opinion is some general consensus.

As for "who is scared of them?" I am.  My son is.  My daughter is.  We all love the game series and are scared silly of the Reapers - and we can hardly wait to kick their arse.

Modifié par Almostfaceman, 07 avril 2011 - 06:18 .

[Bamboozalist]

What it comes down to in ME3 isn't if they're explained our not, it's if they're threatening. They don't need an explanation if they're threatening, in fact it's only going to make them less threatening.

Anton Chigurh from No Country for Old Men is a perfect example, if he had clear motivations and a personality that made sense to us he wouldn't feel like an unstoppable force and he wouldn't be scary.

Before someone tries to say that doesn't work in the videogame: YES IT DOES! While I don't think Resident Evil 3 was a good game, Nemesis was a good villain. Why? Because he was an unstoppable force for 90% of the game and most of the time the only way to fight him was to run away. In fact he stopped being a good villain once we learned about him, it made him less threatening and more like this guy who is just out for revenge and if I gather X items I can beat him, instead of this massive super zombie who is just going to kick my ass every time he shows up.

[ADelusiveMan]

It's Gamespot. Who cares what they think. Their site blows. Buggiest website I have ever been too.

[Remus Artega]

In ME1...they were interesting thx to Sovereign and Saren...in ME2 they became another generic "want to destroy all your mothers appliances and that will certainly hurt you" enemy thx to Harbinger...wondering if they manage to destroy at least one cooker in ME3

Modifié par Remus Artega, 07 avril 2011 - 06:19 .

[Wittand25]

Bamboozalist wrote...
PROTIP: 90% of every movie ends with the heroes winning and everyone knows it from the beginning, the drama comes from who will and will not make it through to the end of the movie and us liking the characters. So I guess they don't work in films and books either.

In a movie the viewer is always helpless and has no control if the vilian wins, in a game in recent years it has become virtually impossible to finish the game without beating the main adversary so this is very different.

If ME3 has a squad that we care about that could die at any moment the villains could be giant spagetti monsters (hyperbole don't look too much into that) for all we care. Drama comes from having a villain that is truly threatening. Having a villain with sympathy is good too but only IF IT MAKES SENSE. Saren was Bioware's good sympathetic villain, and instead of having him accross the entire trilogy where we'd so from resenting to actually empathizing with him and his plight as he's turned into a mindless husk by the time of ME3, they condensed it all into ME1 and killed him off. So now the options are

A) Make us empathize with giant unknowable machines - HORRIBLE IDEA
 Make a Saren Clone - HORRIBLE IDEA
C) Enslaved a Former Friend - Not horrible but still cheesy and cheap.

A) Understanding their motive is enough, sympathy is a bonus. Both without at least giving the player clues or hints about their motives so that the player can try to understand them, they will be dull, not threatening and soon forgotten.
B.)C.) Agreed