50 réponses à ce sujet

[Shaun2406]

Okay, I'm paraphrasing, but I think Mark Darrah listed something to this effect under his short list of things that fans wanted in DA3.

I know I'm just one person, but I felt the issue was not so much that there was no clearly evil villian in the game, but more that both of the lead factions (mages and templars) were... rather difficult to like. Don't get me wrong, both the Templars and the Mages have a lot going for them in principle, but rather than spending the game trying to make both sides sympathetic so that the player chose a side based on who they liked more, they seemed (to me) to spend the whole game trying to make us HATE them (various mages going nuts, and various templars committing atrocities), so that we sided with the group we hated less...

I feel that this kind of negates the positive feelings you're meant to get from picking a side and aiding them in the end. There is no real reward in 'well I helped a bunch of sadists exterminate the mages' or 'well I released a bunch of bloodthirsty madmen on the world'.

Obviously I'm not suggesting that Bioware go too far the other way, both sides have flaws, and any victory for either side should definitely be tempered with lingering doubts about whether or not one has done the right thing. The atrocities that both sides commit SHOULD be shown, but I think that these should be balanced by showing some positives to each side as well (I know, there was Thrask, but that was rather brief, and didn't turn out that well...).

Personally I didn't mind the way Dragon Age 2 played out, I liked the idea of choosing the lesser of two evils, but I did feel they went a bit far to ram the 'EVIL' thing down our throats, to the point where it became not so much 'wow, that changes how I'll look at that faction from now on' to 'really? again? cause I didn't see that coming at all', which meant these scenes really lost impact. However, I definitely understand why choosing the lesser of two evils at the end of a game like that wouldn't appeal to a lot of people, and the above would, hopefully, go a ways to making resolution to such a conflict, more satisfying without sacrificing moral ambiguity.

I'm writing this cause I'm really not a fan of clearly evil bad guys... The darkspawn in Dragon Age Origins (less so in Awakening when the Architect showed up) bored me terribly, and never really became characters in any way shape or form (the archdemon was really just 'the end boss' nothing more). They were sort of in the background as the catalyst that drew out the far more interesting conflicts invovling the mages & templars, dwarves, etc. Teryn Loghain in particular, I thought, was an absolutely fantastic 'villian', seeming mad and 'evil' until towards the end of the game, where one is given a whole new perspective on him. However, once the Landsmeet was over, I found the game rather dull and formulaic (I still finished it, cause I cared about what happened to the characters). There was nothing WRONG with it, and the epilogues were cool, but from the moment the Landsmeet ended, I knew exactly where the story was going.

I understand theres people who like that sort of thing, and theres absolutely nothing wrong with that. I'm not suggesting clearly evil bad guys all be removed from Dragon Age at all. However, I do hope that Bioware continues to include major hostile or potential hostile factions and characters that are as nuanced and morally grey as those they've included in their past games, as its something I really enjoy.

(Sorry, I know its long and kind of unstructured)

[Urzon]

I agree fully. I didn't mind the "bad" guys in DA2, the Arishok was a favorite of mine. We were given this leader from a totally different/alien culture trying to deal with having to well... deal with another different culture, and failing. He tried to not step on people toes by not messing in their affair, but they kept messing around in his. Until finally, he snapped and decided to deal with all the problems of this hostile and flawed (by him anyway) culture by imposing his own.

Meredith and Orsino on the other hand were.... bad... really bad. They had alot of potential, but it was never acted on. They were just never given the screen time or backstory to explain why they were doing, just what they were doing.

We have Meredith. Who was a broken and distrustful women with a tortured past, and she was thrust into a position of power because she was the hero who took down a tyrant. She was never made for the leadership role, but she tried to do the best she could. She tried to deal with the increasing blood mage problems in Kirkwall, and she was failing. She tried to root out the blood mages by putting pressure on the mages to talk, but that only made the problem worse. Then the downward spiral started... She wanting more control of the mages, and the mages in the city fighting for my independence to get away from her control. Yet sadly, none of this is really said ingame. All we hear from Meredith is, "Bad Mages! Evil Mages! Don't trust Mages!"

Then we have Orsino. Well... what can really be said about Orsino really? We know that he is a caring First Enchanter that wants to help and protect all the mages under his charge, and we know that he has a darker side since he was supporting research on the darker(est) types magics. But other than him being able to turn into a Harvester at will, we don't know much of anything about him.

In DAO, we were given ample backstory and conversation with both sides of the coin. We get to hear from the Keeper about the werewolves and why they were dangerous, and why he cursed them because of what they did to his famiy. Just as we got to hear from the Lady of the Forest that the werewolves can only do so much because of their very nature, and how they were fighting it thanks to her help.

Same goes for Jowan and Isolde...

Bhelen and Harrowmont..

Branka and Carradin..

Cullen and the mages...

The Guardian and the cultists to a degree...

Arl Eamon and Anora for who should be King/Queen...

We never really got any of this in DA2. Sure, we got tiny choices that didn't even really matter, but for the big "bad" guys we usually got a choice between bad or worse. DAO did it right because the only true bad guy was the Archdemon (and maybe Howe). The others were just morally grey and it was up to the player to choose if that person was good, bad, or just wrong in the situation.

The downfall of DA2 was that were weren't given the information to really make the choice in the matter, and even that is streching it. Because in the end, no matter what choice; both sides were just equally bad. Orsino goes Harvester and attacks the party, and Meredith goes insane and attacks the party and well. And we were only left will a bad taste in own mouth.

Modifié par Urzon, 27 mars 2012 - 12:13 .

[dragonflight288]

Orsino was also one of the youngest first enchanters named, but he took the job mainly because no one else wanted it. He's also cunning and very intelligent, as given his plan for distracting the Qunari so the Champion could get in. Powerful enough to survive all those Qunari charging him as well.

And until the end, he doesn't seem unreasonable. When he's protesting at the beginning of Act 3, it's not for more mage rights, but for Meredith to step down from political power and let the city run the city.

We could easily have gotten more out of him and Meredith. Meredith's past and prejudices and Orsino's knowledge and power would each have their own storylines if you're promage or protemplar if it was developed correctly.

[Plaintiff]

I don't know Mark's exact wording, and I think his exact wording is important to this debate.  Did he actually use the word 'evil'? Because if he did not, then what he actually meant could be any number of things.

[Lynata]

To be honest, I'm not that surprised. From what I see on the internets, this would be representative of contemporary gaming habits/expectations. It feels as if many people prefer to play big heroes who smite evil rather than the more nuanced or "realistic" approach of a skilled commoner forced to pick lesser evils in a world of grey. A number of posts we've seen about people comparing the Warden to Hawke coupled with their hopes for DA3 are testament to this.

I suppose that for many it feels more rewarding if the game doesn't make you doubt your choices, as if the players do not like to assume responsibility for the consequences of their actions in the form of their chosen faction's downsides and flaws.

[wsandista]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I want a more believable villain, the motivations for Meredith just didn't seem as realistic as Loghain's. Maybe if we have some background on the villain, we can understand their views better.

[Lynata]

Well, Meredith's prejudice makes sense once you get to know her entire family was wiped out because of magic. And that she goes insane in the end is the corrupting influence of the lyrium idol. As such, she was an atypical villain not too dissimilar from Loghain - both are fallen heroes, only the circumstances of their fall are different.

I noticed a number of people on the forums like to dismiss the idol as a major influence on Meredith's character and the deteriorating situation in Kirkwall, though. In this case, her actions would indeed appear nonsensical and out of place.

Maybe it could have been made more obvious in the game, but I think the biggest problem people have with the ending of DA2 is that there was no way to prevent the disaster - the players were only able to fight to get out of the ruins alive, so to say. Realistic, yet contrary to many players' desire to influence and shape the events rather than be swept away by them.

[Dave of Canada]

I don't want a villain.

I want people with differing point of views, you can support or oppose them depending on your own views and you need to deal with people from both sides. Let the Knight-Vigilant and Grand Enchanter represent their factions and you either agree with them completely, disagree with them completely or fall somewhere in-between and try to deal with that.

---

The Grand Enchanter allows blood mages to go out and capture an entire trading outpost, they wish to use them for their rituals in order to defeat the larger Templar army coming in. You confront the Grand Enchanter, you're an idealist and you're saying there's always another way and that she should pull back the order: She says no.

You run out to try and save the outpost, you find it in the middle of being pillaged by the blood mages who've rounded up all the civilians. You try and stop them and they don't take too kindly to some mage interfering with their orders, so they attack and you're forced to defend yourself. They all die and you release the civilians, they run away just in time for you to see the Templar army coming.

You run back to the Grand Enchanter and warn her, she scolds you for your idealism and she rushes outside to prepare her mages to fight without the ritual empowering them. The fight between Templar and Mage is bloody, a lot of good mages die and the Grand Enchanter scolds you for intervening.

---

No "evil" involved, the atrocities and sacrifices of war are thrown in and there's no "right" decision. Do you let the outpost get sacrificed to protect your fellow mages from the templar or do you release them because it's the "right thing to do", damn the consequences?

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 27 mars 2012 - 07:20 .

[Lynata]

Dave of Canada wrote...
I don't want a villain.
I want people with differing point of views, you can support or oppose them depending on your own views and you need to deal with people from both sides.

+1 on this. To me, this is what has always set the Dragon Age franchise apart - its potential for grey areas of morality, for disagreements where good and evil depend on the point of view.

Nothing against the Blight and the darkspawn, but I like being forced into difficult options that make you think and consider your priorities as set forth by your character's personality and his/her past decisions. Not every situation needs to be resolved with a hard fight - sometimes it can also be a hard choice. Consequences and realism, this is what makes the setting so interesting.

[wsandista]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I don't want a villain.

I want people with differing point of views, you can support or oppose them depending on your own views and you need to deal with people from both sides. Let the Knight-Vigilant and Grand Enchanter represent their factions and you either agree with them completely, disagree with them completely or fall somewhere in-between and try to deal with that.

Seems reasonable, I don't think many do want an insane antagonist hellbent on destroying or dominating Thedas. What I want is a sympathetic antagonist(s), like Loghain, where you understand their motives, and might agree with them. However in DA2, there is no way to leran of Meredith's motives or justifications unless you side with her at the end. I think when the Protagonist is confronted with a huge choice, they should have plenty of knowledge to make an informed decision.

[Dave of Canada]

I loved Meredith / Orsino, I just didn't care much for how they handled them because they introduced the characters far too late and barely did anything with them before flipping the table and saying they're possessed or insane.

Had Meredith and Orsino been introduced earlier and the ending didn't require killing both, I think I would've adored DA2's third act where you're working with who you support and get unique quests for it (which, imo, is act 3's only saving grace). As of now, it almost seems like supporting Meredith or Orsino means nothing because every Templar decision in the game still has Meredith questioning your loyalty or Orsino going herpossesed.

[Macrake]

A primary, personal villain, like Jon Irenicus, would be pretty epic and we haven't really had that since sortof malak in kotor.

DA2s story is good in concept, but failed to make me care. My hawke would've been fine with just leaving kirkwall.

Da:o had a poor main story too, but the characters somewhat made up for it. "You're our only hope, do 4 quests for allies, slay big dragon".

I had a hard time finishing both games. The story just didn't interest me. Kotor, bg, jade empire, mass effect 1. Those had exciting stories that made want to see what happened next. I'd like that feeling again from DA3.

If bioware is doing the standard 4 main quests for allies, then defeat evil guy/thing - I wont be buying. Perhaps bioware needs some writers with fresh ideas. We'll see with da3 I guess. Theres a ton of other good games being made though, so no big deal.

[Urzon]

Macrake wrote...

If bioware is doing the standard 4 main quests for allies, then defeat evil guy/thing - I wont be buying. Perhaps bioware needs some writers with fresh ideas. We'll see with da3 I guess. Theres a ton of other good games being made though, so no big deal.

I doubt it's the writers fault, since we know they can put out good material. If anything, it's most likely them writing a good story, and then they are to condense it down (read: hacking off the less important parts) to try and make a game out of it. When you add time constraints, a budget, and deadlines they have to condense the story down even more.  After all that, we end up with a story that is only a fraction of what it was. Sure, the bare bone are still there, but all the meat is missing.

Modifié par Urzon, 28 mars 2012 - 05:51 .

[Iron_JG]

I agree that Meredith and Orsino were underdeveloped, and I think that's part of what's driving people, including myself, to recommend a single, major antagonist for the next game. I'm not advocating a simple, cartoony 'evil,' nor do I think are most other people. I think we just want one antagonist to which we can really connect. Good villains are never simple villains. Having a primary antagonist that makes it personal with the DA3 protagonist also makes for a more, well, personal story, and gives Bioware a chance to step back from a "gigantic evil army demands countering with gigantic good army" storyline. Not every cRPG has to have that premise, even though, admittedly, basically all of them do. DA2 was an exception, but it muddled that by having different antagonists in each act.

Modifié par Iron_JG, 28 mars 2012 - 06:33 .

[LobselVith8]

Shaun2406 wrote...

I know I'm just one person, but I felt the issue was not so much that there was no clearly evil villian in the game, but more that both of the lead factions (mages and templars) were... rather difficult to like. Don't get me wrong, both the Templars and the Mages have a lot going for them in principle, but rather than spending the game trying to make both sides sympathetic so that the player chose a side based on who they liked more, they seemed (to me) to spend the whole game trying to make us HATE them (various mages going nuts, and various templars committing atrocities), so that we sided with the group we hated less...

I agree. Mages and templars became little more than caricatures in Dragon Age II. There was no compelling narrative that treated either side maturely. Fans wrote more compelling reasons to side with the templars and the mages than the writers provided in the actual story. As leaders of their respective factions, we hardly knew who Orsino and Meredith were, but we dealt with both of them when they became evil antagonists because the Plot Demanded It.

Turning the leaders of the templars and the mages into one-note caricatures who become insane and evil for no logical reason turned some people off, and it didn't have to be that way. Look at New Vegas: Mr. House, the NCR, and even some smaller factions like the Great Khans are all groups who aren't simply black and white good guys or bad guys. Look at Skyrim: the Stormcloaks and the Legions are both imperfect groups lead by flawed leaders, but neither Tullius nor Ulfric are evil - even when one of them becomes an antagonist. Both groups - and both leaders - are doing what they believe to be what's best for Skyrim, and that's precisely how the templars and the mages should have been written.

Orsino and Meredith could have become compelling characters who simply had opposing ideological views, and neither one had to become a one-note, black hat villain.

[Nerdage]

I'm pretty sure what Mark said was a response to one post, it wasn't a "the fans want" statement.

I'd like it though. Whenever I'm dropped between two groups and expected to pick a side I feel like I'm playing arbiter to someone else's problems, I have no personal stake in it myself and, as often as not, I couldn't care less which side wins, they're ultimately as good as each other (i.e. grey). If I do have a personal stake in the conflict (like Bethany in the mages/templars conflict) that's generally the deciding factor for me, not the politics of the conflict.

If a story with a clear antagonist feels hackneyed then that's a problem with the writing in that specific case, there's nothing inherently wrong with the concept, just like squeezing as much moral ambiguity into a story as possible doesn't automatically make it better.

[dragonflight288]

Maybe it can be handled similar to the game Risen and how it handled its factions.

In Risen, there are three factions. One of the downsides of the game is that the story itself take so dang long to get moving (you get shipwrecked on an island, have nothing but the clothes on your back. Literally, and the story progresses as you get to know the inhabitants of the island and eventually join the factions.)

In the end, you can't fully join a faction and continue the storyline until you've seen all the good and bad (unless you get conscripted by the White Robed Inquisition...but we get forewarning on that) of each faction. You know what they represent, what they want, and how far they'll go to get it.

Don Esteban and his bandits: Outlaws living in the swamp, Robin Hood style. However, they don't just steal from the rich, they steal from everyone. Even each other and their own people. They fight to restore power to Don Esteban and his men, who kept the island clean, prices fair, and everyone who wanted something had to work and earn it. When they lost power, people within Esteban's bandits start looking out for number 1, no care whatsoever about how others are affected by their actions. But they do want to restore the old way of doing things.

The Inquistion: Not similar at all to the historical inquistion or even Dragon Ages templars. They are a order of warriors and warrior/mages like people who are loyal to the mainland and some government far from the island, and serve Inquisitor Mendoza. Their goal is to protect and safeguard the civilians of the island who lack the skill or capacity to defend themselves from the monsters on the island. However, their method of doing this can be just as dangerous as the monsters themselves. They took the entire island's inhabitants and locked them up in a single town on the island. The farmers can't farm, so no food is growing, and the town is quickly running out of food and is starving.

They also take anyone, no matter who it is, and no matter how small the crime may be, who breaks even the slightest laws, and conscript them to fight for them. These recruits are sent to the individual temples where the monsters are coming out of, right on the front line of battle. Many don't survive.

Mages: Neutral in the fight between the Inquisition and the Don, the mages officially work for whoever happens to be in power at the time (in this case, the Inquisition.) Initially, there doesn't seem to be any negatives to joining them, although it is considerably harder to join them than the other two. But as the story progresses, it is actually slowly revealed that they are very isolated and would rather let the world burn so long as they aren't bothered. Most would let the Inquisition and the Don's bandits all die gruesome deaths rather than lift a finger and help anyone. It isn't until they are also attacked that they do anything.

In DA3, I would like to see something similar. We see good and bad people on all sides, even within the individual factions and not rogue apostates vs nice templars. I don't want to see "Everyone is a bloodmage! Kill them all because I haven't seen any other evidence to the contrary" or "Every templar is a zealot and the ones who aren't get killed by plot stupidity!"

[reqent]

A clear antagonist doesn't have to be the main villain but they can be a good rival instead. For instance the leader of the winters who "saved" the viscount's son could have developed into a character that was rising at the same time as Hawke and they would have continued to compete over the story line in different ways.

In other words if your Hawke is prone to violent responses the "rival" character may try a more diplomatic approach.

[Faust1979]

I hope Bioware doesn't give in to many video game players just want to keep playing the same story over and over again. I like the fact that DA2 has no clear good guys and villains it made the game's story more unique and more interesting to play through. I hope DA3 doesn't go back to being a routine RPG, I liked the first Dragon Age but it's story was so routine and going through the paces.

[DeadPoolX]

Faust1979 wrote...

I hope Bioware doesn't give in to many video game players just want to keep playing the same story over and over again. I like the fact that DA2 has no clear good guys and villains it made the game's story more unique and more interesting to play through. I hope DA3 doesn't go back to being a routine RPG, I liked the first Dragon Age but it's story was so routine and going through the paces.

Thank you!  This is exactly how I feel!

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Morally grey choices start to get old when finishing a game is like coming out of an election booth and you know you didn't go for the party you liked, just the side you thought would do the least damage. It's not a satisfying feeling, and you don't feel like you've won even if your party gets voted in.

Villains have their place in fantasy. Making them more than mere foozles is where the genre tends to fail.

[Dave of Canada]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Morally grey choices start to get old when finishing a game is like coming out of an election booth and you know you didn't go for the party you liked, just the side you thought would do the least damage. It's not a satisfying feeling, and you don't feel like you've won even if your party gets voted in.

And that's what I'd like, I don't play the game to celebrate and go "yay, we won!". I'm playing the game so I'm conflicted, a satisfying story which is bittersweet and tough on me as a player. 

[RogueWriter3201]

While I don't own the game (not by choice) I did play through it and while I do agree that the antagonists in the story on both sides left a bit to be desired in regards to feeling not as fleshed out as they could have been, I actually thought how they approached this was enjoyable and I even found myself at odds from a RP perspective.

My Hawke was a solider who had served Fereldan loyally and even studied somewhat in Lothering to be a Templar; however, his motivations were two fold. While he believed in the Chantry and the Importance of safeguarding Thedas from ill-used Magic he also loved his sister and wanted to protect her from being "locked in a gilded cage." He also saw first hand that some Mages, pure of heart, like Bethany didn't need to be watched closely every second of their lives. Essentially he did what he saw as his duty but wanted to keep Bethany safe. When it came time to choose a side, though conflicted, Hawke chose to fight for the side which would benefit his Sister most and with her dreams for a life, i.e. The Mages.

I think that's really what they were hoping for with Dragon Age 2, having your family play the most important role in choosing a side, which is why the "villains" where not as clear cut as say...Rendon Howe. They weren't really meant to be the deciding factor, your sibling was. The fact that classes denoted which sibling lived was proof enough of that. Mage's got Carver to butt heads with throughout the entire game and if he became a Templar as opposed to a Warden, well, there you go. Side with the brother that's always resented you or fight for your own kind.

Warrior and Rogues got Bethany, the sweet loving and loyal sister that, if she becomes a Mage, is happy with her life as a teacher but does want a future, i.e. a family of her own someday. So, do you side with the Templars or fight for her dreams?

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I don't play the game to celebrate and go "yay, we won!". I'm playing the game so I'm conflicted, a satisfying story which is bittersweet and tough on me as a player. 

We have different likes and dislikes, naturally.

Yours do not preclude an effectively-written and utilised evil character.

[nightscrawl]

Shaun2406 wrote...

I know I'm just one person, but I felt the issue was not so much that there was no clearly evil villian in the game, but more that both of the lead factions (mages and templars) were... rather difficult to like. Don't get me wrong, both the Templars and the Mages have a lot going for them in principle, but rather than spending the game trying to make both sides sympathetic so that the player chose a side based on who they liked more, they seemed (to me) to spend the whole game trying to make us HATE them (various mages going nuts, and various templars committing atrocities), so that we sided with the group we hated less...

I feel that this kind of negates the positive feelings you're meant to get from picking a side and aiding them in the end. There is no real reward in 'well I helped a bunch of sadists exterminate the mages' or 'well I released a bunch of bloodthirsty madmen on the world'.

Obviously I'm not suggesting that Bioware go too far the other way, both sides have flaws, and any victory for either side should definitely be tempered with lingering doubts about whether or not one has done the right thing. The atrocities that both sides commit SHOULD be shown, but I think that these should be balanced by showing some positives to each side as well (I know, there was Thrask, but that was rather brief, and didn't turn out that well...).

Personally I didn't mind the way Dragon Age 2 played out, I liked the idea of choosing the lesser of two evils, but I did feel they went a bit far to ram the 'EVIL' thing down our throats, to the point where it became not so much 'wow, that changes how I'll look at that faction from now on' to 'really? again? cause I didn't see that coming at all', which meant these scenes really lost impact. However, I definitely understand why choosing the lesser of two evils at the end of a game like that wouldn't appeal to a lot of people, and the above would, hopefully, go a ways to making resolution to such a conflict, more satisfying without sacrificing moral ambiguity.

I think you raised your point and answered it at the same time. I do agree with you that they (the writers) sometimes did get a bit carried away with showing mostly the negative sides, which was only compounded by the lectures of Anders and Fenris trying to sway you to one side or the other. Unless your own Hawke is a mage, there is really very little evidence of mages who, as Anders puts it, just want to be left alone to live their lives without hurting anyone.

I think the issue of having a clearly definable "evil" villain rests largely with the overall plot. It fit in DA2 where you really did have to choose the "lesser of two evils." It did not fit in DAO where the main opponent was the Blight and the Archdemon. However, I would argue that within the smaller conflicts in DAO that led up to the final conflict there were many such choices: Behlen/Harrowmont, Golems/No Golems, Elves/Werewolves, Mages/Templars, sparing Loghain. Unfortunately, most of those conflicts in DAO also had a built-in third safe choice that enabled you to pick the best resolution for all parties (saving Connor without sacrificing Isolde, curing the werewolves without killing anyone) and so didn't present a true moral struggle.

One of the examples I like to use when talking about villains in this fashion are several of the baddies from the Batman movies. Many of the primary villains are sympathetic in some way: Catwoman is murdered by her boss, Penguin was abandoned by his parents as a baby, Mr. Freeze only wanted to save his wife, Harvey Dent was driven insane. When it comes to villains like this, they just seem more pathetic than bad and I can't really enjoy the evilness that comes from their performances. I'm not that pleased and I'd rather have a purely evil one like Joker who revels in it.

That said, when it comes to two issues or causes like mage/templar I think moral ambiguity is the best path to take, especially in an RPG where you can (ideally) shape events.