I hope they don't get rid of antagonists like Loghain and the Arishok. And I'm sure they won't, the developers know that the Arishok and Loghain have gotten really good reception on the forums and even in reviews (or at least from what I've seen.)
Antagonists/villains like the Archdemon also have their place in Dragon Age, I just hope they aren't used too frequently...
Also Meredith and Orsino were sort of in between, I think if they fleshed them out more they would have been a lot better. For example Orsino becomes an a-hole out of no where which just didn't make sense to me and a lot of other people.
In Response to the 'Fan's Want Clearly Evil Bad Guys in Dragon Age 3' Quote
Débuté par
Shaun2406
, mars 27 2012 10:58
Retour en haut
#27
Posté 01 avril 2012 - 05:09
Nathan Redgrave
-
- Members
- 2 062 messages
I don't remember anything about wanting a clearly evil bad guy in DA3. I just remember that Meredith and Orsino never got the screentime to properly develop before you wound up having to kill them. I do also remember quite a few people wanting a return to the more familiar territory of darkspawn and Grey Wardens, but that was more about wanting something "epic" than "clearly defined evil."
#28
Posté 01 avril 2012 - 09:17
Ziggeh
-
- Members
- 4 360 messages
Call me a bluff old traditionalist, but I want a villain who wears a cape and top hat. Who ties women to railway lines and twirls his moustache. I want a villain who cackles.
#29
Posté 01 avril 2012 - 09:18
esper
-
- Members
- 4 193 messages
Ziggeh wrote...
Call me a bluff old traditionalist, but I want a villain who wears a cape and top hat. Who ties women to railway lines and twirls his moustache. I want a villain who cackles.
And that is the one thing I don't want.
#30
Posté 01 avril 2012 - 09:41
Apollo Starflare
-
- Members
- 3 096 messages
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.
This.
I mean, we already have an utterly evil villain in the DarkSpawn, who even when presented in a slightly sympathetic light (Awakening) are still quite clearly bad news. As far as other antagonists go I definitely want to see the above.
#31
Posté 01 avril 2012 - 09:57
Lord Gremlin
-
- Members
- 2 927 messages
Well, honestly I prefer being the villain myself. But this also involves an original one that you get to overthrow.
With mages and templars the evil part are rabid fanatics from both sides who want to impose dictatorship of their design. The satisfying part would be to take over one of factions and eventually became the ruthless dictator yourself.
Or resolve the conflict and restore peace, but who needs that? Peace means no blood for the rituals and no corpses for necromancy...
The satisfying part about an ending is more often then not being the leader of faction that comes to power. In DA2 Hawke was no leader, held no power, made no difference and generally sucked.
With mages and templars the evil part are rabid fanatics from both sides who want to impose dictatorship of their design. The satisfying part would be to take over one of factions and eventually became the ruthless dictator yourself.
Or resolve the conflict and restore peace, but who needs that? Peace means no blood for the rituals and no corpses for necromancy...
The satisfying part about an ending is more often then not being the leader of faction that comes to power. In DA2 Hawke was no leader, held no power, made no difference and generally sucked.
#32
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 04:17
Davillo
-
- Members
- 301 messages
They should keep making games for a mature audience who can understand a deep story and the various characters.
#33
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 09:14
keesio74
-
- Members
- 931 messages
In some ways I like all the grey in the game instead of a clear breakdown of good and evil. It is more realistic. This game was very political.
As for not knowing more about the motives of M&O, maybe we weren't meant to. Lots of times people make choices without all the facts. You have to go with your gut. Could be that bioware is making us do that there.
However, I play games as an escape. I see enough moral ambiguity in the real world. Sometimes it is cool just to escape and play a game where you have a clear goal and try to vanquish a great evil
As for not knowing more about the motives of M&O, maybe we weren't meant to. Lots of times people make choices without all the facts. You have to go with your gut. Could be that bioware is making us do that there.
However, I play games as an escape. I see enough moral ambiguity in the real world. Sometimes it is cool just to escape and play a game where you have a clear goal and try to vanquish a great evil
#34
Posté 02 avril 2012 - 09:24
EmperorSahlertz
-
- Members
- 8 809 messages
They could always go the way of Skyrim. Skyrim had both the overarching storyline which revolved around Alduin and the End Times, and the more personal and involving storyline regarding the Stormcloak Rebellion. Alduin was regarded as the "main storyline" probably because of the simple fact that if ignored (storywise) the world would've ended...
Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 02 avril 2012 - 09:25 .
#35
Posté 03 avril 2012 - 02:46
wsowen02
-
- Members
- 68 messages
My problem with the antagonists in DA2 was not that they were ambiguously evil but that it was ultimately caused by the idol. Why could it not just be that Meredith's paranoia on its own drove her to insanity? I liked the idea that Meredith was at first a little extreme, perhaps understandably so but it was her self righteousness and paranoia that turned her against Hawke and her templars.
In some ways, the idol absolves Meredith of guilt for her wrongful actions.
In some ways, the idol absolves Meredith of guilt for her wrongful actions.
#36
Posté 03 avril 2012 - 03:19
DragonKingReborn
-
- Members
- 887 messages
The idol was the very definition of 'god in a box', wasn't it?
I liked the idea of mage/templar conflict and there would have been plenty of agression on both sides for things to escalate; Merediths paranoia, Orsinos frustration and - to be fair - arrogance, a populace terrified by what both sides were saying and doing. It was all good, just, as people have said, not enough screen time for the big two to give the player a true sense that either or both needed to go.
The Archdemon had next to no screen time prior to the final battle, of course, but if you're a Grey Warden and you don't have a sense that it needs to go, you should probably consider a new line of work.
Meredith & Orsino needed additional exposition on their character and actions in both Acts 1 & 2, because otherwise everything that happens at the Gallows is just a bit random.
I liked the idea of mage/templar conflict and there would have been plenty of agression on both sides for things to escalate; Merediths paranoia, Orsinos frustration and - to be fair - arrogance, a populace terrified by what both sides were saying and doing. It was all good, just, as people have said, not enough screen time for the big two to give the player a true sense that either or both needed to go.
The Archdemon had next to no screen time prior to the final battle, of course, but if you're a Grey Warden and you don't have a sense that it needs to go, you should probably consider a new line of work.
Meredith & Orsino needed additional exposition on their character and actions in both Acts 1 & 2, because otherwise everything that happens at the Gallows is just a bit random.
#37
Posté 03 avril 2012 - 03:41
LobselVith8
-
- Members
- 16 993 messages
DragonKingReborn wrote...
The idol was the very definition of 'god in a box', wasn't it?
You mean a deus ex machina? Yeah, I suppose it can be viewed that way. I saw it as a macguffin... an unnecessary one, in my opinion.
DragonKingReborn wrote...
I liked the idea of mage/templar conflict and there would have been plenty of agression on both sides for things to escalate; Merediths paranoia, Orsinos frustration and - to be fair - arrogance, a populace terrified by what both sides were saying and doing. It was all good, just, as people have said, not enough screen time for the big two to give the player a true sense that either or both needed to go.
I don't think Meredith or Orsino were fleshed out, and making both characters into insane antagonists simply trivialized the entire debate over the schism between templars and mages. There was no need to have Orsino in a contrived alliance with Quentin, which seemed implausible and ridiculous, and the entire Harvester ritual was pointless and unnecessary. Who would honestly care about becoming a Harvester? It's almost as bad as Meredith going out of her way to purchase the Idol, for reasons that are never explained, and then going insane so that Hawke can have a boss battle right out of Devil May Cry. Also, why did all the mage antagonists need to be insane and stupid? Why did almost all the templars need to be one-dimensional sadists?
Skyrim did a much better job in conveying two flawed, but well-meaning, leaders of two opposing factions, who were trying to do what they thought was best for Skyrim. Neither Ulfric nor Tullius were saints, but neither one became a villain, even when they became an antagonist to the protagonist. I can only imagine how much better Dragon Age II would have been had the leaders of the templars and the mages been handled in a similar manner - as flawed, but well-meaning, leaders, rather than caricatures who become insane monster bosses because the Plot Demanded It.
DragonKingReborn wrote...
The Archdemon had next to no screen time prior to the final battle, of course, but if you're a Grey Warden and you don't have a sense that it needs to go, you should probably consider a new line of work.
Meredith & Orsino needed additional exposition on their character and actions in both Acts 1 & 2, because otherwise everything that happens at the Gallows is just a bit random.
If it became a rebellion - with mages fighting for their freedom, and templars fighting to restore the status quo, then I think Act III could have worked better. Orsino and Meredith could have been the respective leaders, who were flawed, but trying their best to fulfill what they thought was right, and neither one needed to be villified or turned into a monster if they became an antagonist to Hawke. Fleshing out both characters should have happened much sooner, as well. No need for the insane Quentin alliance, no need for the Lyrium Idol - neither leader needed to be a black hat villain.
#38
Posté 03 avril 2012 - 04:27
mopotter
-
- Members
- 3 743 messages
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.
---
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?
Me too. I was actually ok until it turned out the leaders of both groups were nuts no matter which side you worked with. It would have pleased me greatly if the person I was fighting for did not turn into some kind of maniac killer.
I don't know how they would have worked that out, but having both Meredith and Orsino go off the deep end just made me want to throw my hands of and say - you people don't deserve help, you are both bonkers. It would have been so much better, for me, if the side I leader I was helping deserved it. I can role play helping the templars and mages, but it' really makes it hard when they end it like this.
#39
Posté 03 avril 2012 - 11:32
Uriko128
-
- Members
- 149 messages
Meredith was evil and badass. Loved her 
#40
Posté 03 avril 2012 - 11:39
slashthedragon
-
- Members
- 348 messages
mopotter wrote...
I don't know how they would have worked that out, but having both Meredith and Orsino go off the deep end just made me want to throw my hands of and say - you people don't deserve help, you are both bonkers. It would have been so much better, for me, if the side I leader I was helping deserved it. I can role play helping the templars and mages, but it' really makes it hard when they end it like this.
I think I have one way it could have been written to at least make a little more sense. They should have had Meredith not only order the deaths of all mages in the circle, but Orosino as well. (Even if that wasn't something she could do, she was insane at this point, and I'm sure at least some of the Templars would have backed her up). Cue Orosino flipping out because he is about to be killed and he can't see any way to prevent it.
#41
Posté 04 avril 2012 - 12:04
EmperorSahlertz
-
- Members
- 8 809 messages
If it weren't for the Idol, Meredith wouldn't have been insane at that point to begin with.
#42
Posté 04 avril 2012 - 03:21
dragonflight288
-
- Members
- 8 852 messages
If it weren't for the Idol, Meredith wouldn't have been insane at that point to begin with.
Which is why the story would've been a lot better if the characters had been fleshed out more, Meredith still did what she did without it due to paranoia, and Orsino is discovered as either a blood mage or blood mage supporter before the last five minutes out of the blue.
#43
Posté 04 avril 2012 - 09:07
Chibi Elemental
-
- Members
- 775 messages
I really hope there is no HAR HAR BAD GUY THAT GUY IS HAHA. Though I did like the archdemon probably because it wasn't sitting there stroking his beard going yes I AM EVIL! he also seems like something that just sort of happened probably from man thinking they were doing the right thing and failing horribly. We shall see.
#44
Posté 06 avril 2012 - 06:41
Shared
-
- Members
- 281 messages
actually I think the da franchise could use a more defined and involved antagonist this time around. Remember DA:O. The only thing I missed in that (except less of the color brown in the color pallette) was more involvment and interactions with the main bad guy the archdemon.
#45
Posté 07 avril 2012 - 02:16
prizm123
-
- Members
- 427 messages
the archdemon was more a force of nature than a "villain" though, and that is fine by me
i hope the next game has paths for bad guy redemption for the greater good etc
i hope the next game has paths for bad guy redemption for the greater good etc
#46
Posté 07 avril 2012 - 05:31
CELL55
-
- Members
- 915 messages
It seemed to me that DA2 wasn't choosing between the lesser of two evils, because they were bothe pretty even in evilness, as far as I saw it. There just wasn't enough difference between the two for it to be a meaningful choice. It felt like it was asking me if I would rather shoot myself in my right foot or my left foot; not a whole lot of difference, and either way I'm screwed.
I thought Bhelen and Harrowmont was a much better choice in DAO because they both had their ups and downs. Bhelen ruthlessly hunted down his family and political enemies, but he also made things better for the casteless and helped to change a lot of the things that had kept the dwarves stagnant and decaying for so long. Harrowmont was much more merciful to his enemies, but he was a staunch traditionalist who kept the casteless in poverty and the society stagnant and dying.
There was much more difference between the two, while still not having either be a clear 'good' choice. Everyone has their own opinions on which would make a better ruler, but mages versus templars is little more than a coin flip; everyone gets screwed, and there are really no benefits to one or the other.
I thought Bhelen and Harrowmont was a much better choice in DAO because they both had their ups and downs. Bhelen ruthlessly hunted down his family and political enemies, but he also made things better for the casteless and helped to change a lot of the things that had kept the dwarves stagnant and decaying for so long. Harrowmont was much more merciful to his enemies, but he was a staunch traditionalist who kept the casteless in poverty and the society stagnant and dying.
There was much more difference between the two, while still not having either be a clear 'good' choice. Everyone has their own opinions on which would make a better ruler, but mages versus templars is little more than a coin flip; everyone gets screwed, and there are really no benefits to one or the other.
#47
Posté 08 avril 2012 - 01:59
Jackel159357
-
- Members
- 57 messages
I think that there needs to be a person/group/faction in DA3 who acts in direct opposition to the Protagonist. Somebody to give an overall goal to the main character in order to defeat, I felt that Hawke in DA2 lacked proper motivation.
An example is that in DA3 we will probably be trying to stop the Mage-Templar war, a primary antagonist would be someone who acts in direct opposition to you, trying to prevent you from ending the war for whatever reason.
An example is that in DA3 we will probably be trying to stop the Mage-Templar war, a primary antagonist would be someone who acts in direct opposition to you, trying to prevent you from ending the war for whatever reason.
#48
Posté 10 avril 2012 - 03:42
Capeo
-
- Members
- 1 712 messages
The problem with DA2 wasn't a lack of an objectively EVIL badguy. In fact we have enough of that in games as is. The problem was the motivations of the main antagonists weren't explored with enough depth to make them actually nuanced. Thus picking a side seemed arbitrary and some of their actions were just WTF? Having multiple antagonists in play is a great way to go but you have to take the time have more meaningful interactions with them if we're expected to choose a side or, in least, at least understand where they are coming from.
#49
Posté 10 avril 2012 - 04:22
Foolsfolly
-
- Members
- 4 770 messages
Urzon wrote...
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.
QFT.
#50
Posté 11 avril 2012 - 06:19
Huntress
-
- Members
- 2 464 messages
Uriko128 wrote...
Meredith was evil and badass. Loved her
Meredith was insane:
1. a. mentally deranged; crazy; of unsound mind
b. ( as collective noun; preceded by the ): the insane
2. characteristic of a person of unsound mind: an insane stare
3. irresponsible; very foolish; stupid
Insanity, craziness or madness is a spectrum of behaviors characterized by certain abnormal mental or behavioral patterns. Insanity may manifest as violations of societal norms, including a person becoming a danger to themselves or others, though not all such acts are considered insanity.
In modern usage insanity is most commonly encountered as an informal unscientific term denoting mental instability, or in the narrow legal context of the insanity defense. In the medical profession the term is now avoided in favor of diagnoses of specific mental disorders; the presence of delusions or hallucinations is broadly referred to as psychosis.
Evil:
Evil (adj.) [OE. evel, evil, ifel, uvel, AS. yfel; akin to OFries, evel, D. euvel, OS. & OHG. ubil, G. \\'81bel, Goth. ubils, and perh. to E. over.] (Page: 517)
1. Having qualities tending to injury and mischief; having a nature or properties which tend to badness; mischievous; not good; worthless or deleterious; poor; as, an evil beast; an evil plant; an evil crop.
2. Having or exhibiting bad moral qualities; morally corrupt; wicked; wrong; vicious; as, evil conduct, thoughts, heart, words, and the like.
3. Producing or threatening sorrow, distress, injury, or calamity; unpropitious; calamitous; as, evil tidings; evil arrows; evil days. -- Evil speaking, speaking ill of others; calumny; censoriousness. -- The evil one, the Devil; Satan; Syn. -- Mischieveous; pernicious; injurious; hurtful; destructive; wicked ; sinful; bad; corrupt; perverse; wrong; vicious; calamitious.
4. Anything which impairs the happiness of a being or deprives a being of any good; anything which causes suffering of any kind to sentient beings (It's a hobby...); injury; mischief; harm; -- opposed to good.
5. Moral badness, or the deviation of a moral being from the principles of virtue imposed by conscience, or by the will of the Supreme Being, or by the principles of a lawful human authority; disposition to do wrong; moral offence; wickedness; depravity.
But evil is actually so much more than all that. It is wickedness, malevolence, the desire to do people wrong. To take power for yourself at the expense of others, and then using it in the most ruthless and vile of ways. It is hurting people for no good reason at all, horrifically destroying their lives and then jumping up on down on their corpses. It is tying damsels in distress to railroad tracks and then twirling about in a moustache and black cape. It is hate and wrath and rage. Sound good?
