1536 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

At the beginning would have the problem that you don't really know the characters you choosing between. And there's resource considerations - you're including a full squadmate that half the people won't see.

Of course, they sort of did this with Bethany/Carver, though it wasn't a direct choice. And they're not there for the whole game. And there's Kaidan/Ashley in Mass Effect 3, though again they're missing for a fairly large chunk.

[AkiKishi]

John Epler wrote...

The best Judas characters, of course, are the ones where their betrayal actually makes a sort of sense. If you can see their point and even sympathize - well, it makes it rather more difficult to accept that betrayal because part of you knows that, just maybe, they may be right. A little harder to do in interactive media, of course, but if a character honestly and truly feels you've gone too far and betrays you for that reason... well, that always hits close to home, at least if they have a point.

There is a character in Fire Emblem (GC) called Jill. You recruit her from the enemy side quite early in the game. Much later you encounter her fathers army. Either you keep her a very long way from him, or you have a support rank A with her (it's like the highest possible relationship level) otherwise she rejoins her father against you.

There is a similar situation with Shion where you need a specific character and a high relationship to get them back on your side.

This works really well, but only if getting the equivelent to support rank A takes some real effort. In Fire Emblem it does, you need to have her in your active party and within 3 squares of people she can support for the majority of the game.

Much of the core of Fire Emblem is people being convinced to switch sides.

The key difference is that Fire Emblem has a large cast of characters where as Dragon Age does not.

[nightscrawl]

John Epler wrote...

The best Judas characters, of course, are the ones where their betrayal actually makes a sort of sense.

Bishop! I loved that character. >

Modifié par nightscrawl, 26 avril 2012 - 10:40 .

[Darth Krytie]

Wulfram wrote...

At the beginning would have the problem that you don't really know the characters you choosing between. And there's resource considerations - you're including a full squadmate that half the people won't see.

Of course, they sort of did this with Bethany/Carver, though it wasn't a direct choice. And they're not there for the whole game. And there's Kaidan/Ashley in Mass Effect 3, though again they're missing for a fairly large chunk.

Exactly, they've done it before...sort of. But not as noticeably as say...Mira/evil Wookiee, Handmaiden/Disciple from KotOR II did.

I think there could be a quest, maybe, and you have to decide who to side with...and one person is your companion, the other...dead/prison/etc. I think it'd be fun to know you're making a choice, but not know the impact til later. Makes it fun for replays.

[smallwhippet]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

berelinde wrote...
It might be more accurate to say that people dislike characters who consider their personal values to be superior to those others possess, particularly if they seek to impose those values on the PC. The difference is subtle, but very, very important.

Actually, I don't think that's accurate. The only character so far who's felt this way was Sten. Characters like Leliana and Sebastian expressed their thoughts on religion/spirituality but rarely proselytized. In fact, Sebastian was written to go out of his way to be accommodating... and yet it seems that some people have an allergic reaction to even the mention of religious views, and will interpret them as proselytization even when they're not intended as such. Which is good to recognize, I think, and it means that characters that we intend to be broadly sympathetic shouldn't be religious.

Mind you, we don't need all characters to be sympathetic. Some players are just gonna get upset, yo. Let 'em.

Sebastian's only real character flaw is his temper. Anders kills Elthina and if Hawke doesn't do as he commands, he threatens to raze Kirkwall to the ground in response. Other than that, he's surprisingly tolerant and agreeable despite his near devout beliefs. Even to Merrill, a blood mage.

Leliana has no real character flaws. Other than her checkered past she's a really good character.

I'll probably get a bit of flaming for this, but the only real difference between a religious person and an athiest is that one believes in a higher power and the other doesn't. Both live by standards and ethics that they believe to be correct.

I would say: 'aspire to live by standards and ethics that they believe to be correct'
The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.:innocent:

[the_one_54321]

John Epler wrote...
The best Judas characters, of course, are the ones where their betrayal actually makes a sort of sense. If you can see their point and even sympathize - well, it makes it rather more difficult to accept that betrayal because part of you knows that, just maybe, they may be right. A little harder to do in interactive media, of course, but if a character honestly and truly feels you've gone too far and betrays you for that reason... well, that always hits close to home, at least if they have a point.

If I'm allowed to control the character decisions (some other styles of games don't allow this and I'm fine with that) I would really hate being forced into a situation where I could be wrong and my betrayer be right. To have him/her really believe in what they're doing is fine. It just makes him/her that much more wrong. But if I've evaluated all the options and made a choice, it's the right choice. Or else I wasn't actually allowed to make a choice even though I thought I was. Alternatively, the situation could come up where I wasn't given all the information relevant to a choice.

[AkiKishi]

the_one_54321 wrote...

John Epler wrote...
The best Judas characters, of course, are the ones where their betrayal actually makes a sort of sense. If you can see their point and even sympathize - well, it makes it rather more difficult to accept that betrayal because part of you knows that, just maybe, they may be right. A little harder to do in interactive media, of course, but if a character honestly and truly feels you've gone too far and betrays you for that reason... well, that always hits close to home, at least if they have a point.

If I'm allowed to control the character decisions (some other styles of games don't allow this and I'm fine with that) I would really hate being forced into a situation where I could be wrong and my betrayer be right. To have him/her really believe in what they're doing is fine. It just makes him/her that much more wrong. But if I've evaluated all the options and made a choice, it's the right choice. Or else I wasn't actually allowed to make a choice even though I thought I was. Alternatively, the situation could come up where I wasn't given all the information relevant to a choice.

In DA2 I don't think there is a right answer or a right side. It's much clearer in DA, obviously anyone selling you out to the Darkspawn is not a good person.

I sided with the Mages but only because of Bethany and Merril not for any great moral reason.

[Sylvanpyxie]

Alister is the closest thing to a Judas I've experienced a BioWare game.

Personally, i think the only "good" betrayals that Bioware have done are in Hordes of the Underdark with the Henchmen.

The Final Boss tempts them all with something they direly want or need and if you haven't treated them right, or learned their true names, then they betray you. It makes sense, regardless of the characters you have with you. Even if you treat them well, they'll stop to consider stabbing you in the back.

If you can see their point and even sympathize - well, it makes it rather more difficult to accept that betrayal because part of you knows that, just maybe, they may be right

It's really personal preference.

If there's a character that's going to betray me, then i straight up love the ones that do it for selfish reasons. For their own personal gain. Bishop in NwN2 abandoned you because he was more concerned with his own survival than anything else, and for a character that i spent the entire game understanding and sympathizing with, it just made it that much more hurtful.

The Hordes of the Underdark Henchmen could have the same impact. I remember how well i treated Deekin all the way through the game, and the previous expansion SotU, and when he stopped to even *consider* betraying me i was like "Deekin... Buddy... Don't do this". For that split second when he was considering turning on me for his own personal gain... I mean, i loved that bloody Kobold and that moment when i thought he could betray me, that really hurt.

I like it when i sympathize with characters, try my damnedest to understand them and accept their beliefs and opinions, and they stab me in the back for their own personal gain. They don't even actually have to do it, but to stop and consider betraying you after everything you've done for them. It really does hurt, and i personally think that's what betrayal should feel like.

So it comes straight down to the player, and what emotional response they expect from betrayal. Some people like to feel conflicted and question their own beliefs. Others like to feel that raw hurt and the pain of losing a close friend.

Modifié par Sylvanpyxie, 26 avril 2012 - 03:56 .

[ladyshamen]

^This^ Agree 100%

[the_one_54321]

BobSmith101 wrote...
In DA2 I don't think there is a right answer or a right side.

Well sure, but that's easy to explain. It's because every last person in DAII is wrong and/or bats*** f****** insane.

Nuke the whole site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

[Dakota Strider]

the_one_54321 wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
In DA2 I don't think there is a right answer or a right side.

Well sure, but that's easy to explain. It's because every last person in DAII is wrong and/or bats*** f****** insane.

Nuke the whole site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Not necessary to nuke DA2 from orbit, they built the fix into DA2 itself.  Its the "Varric Conspiracey"©.

Since we are seeing everything through the perspective of a story teller, everything wrong with DA2 can be blamed on Varric lying to the Seeker.   Problem solved.

[the_one_54321]

I meant nuke Kirkwall. That city needs to be wiped off the map. Once you've gathered all the crazy in the same building, the only reasoanble course of action is to burn it to the ground.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 26 avril 2012 - 04:16 .

[LobselVith8]

the_one_54321 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The Warden can keep Connor free of the demon and learn specialized blood magic. If it helps in the effort to defeat the Fifth Blight, I don't see it as "corrupt."

This is misleading. The Warden is well aware that the demon will come retake Connor at a later time.

The Warden can coerce the Desire Demon to abandon the bargain with Connor and learn specialized blood magic in exchange for not destroying her. The Epilogue reads that Connor goes to Tevinter as a Circle mage as a result; he never succumbs to the Desire Demon because The Warden can successfully bargain for Connor's soul and knowledge in exchange for not destroying the Desire Demon. As The Warden's actions demonstrate, you can get the best of both worlds. Merrill's warning to Hawke to be wary of "spirits" is an example that Merrill understands that all spirits are dangerous - as she explains to Anders that there's "no such thing as a good spirit."

[the_one_54321]

LobselVith8 wrote...
The Warden can coerce the Desire Demon to abandon the bargain with Connor and learn specialized blood magic in exchange for not destroying her.

Some of the Wardens can do that. But that's not a bargain. That's "do what I say or I kill you."

[TEWR]

the_one_54321 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
The Warden can coerce the Desire Demon to abandon the bargain with Connor and learn specialized blood magic in exchange for not destroying her.

Some of the Wardens can do that. But that's not a bargain. That's "do what I say or I kill you."

Which is what Lob said. He said the Warden can coerce the demon, not bargain with it.

[the_one_54321]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
The Warden can coerce the Desire Demon to abandon the bargain with Connor and learn specialized blood magic in exchange for not destroying her.

Some of the Wardens can do that. But that's not a bargain. That's "do what I say or I kill you."

Which is what Lob said. He said the Warden can coerce the demon, not bargain with it.

The original context is Merril working with a demon. You can't change the context and then act like it validates your point.

[TEWR]

John Epler wrote...

The best Judas characters, of course, are the ones where their betrayal actually makes a sort of sense. If you can see their point and even sympathize - well, it makes it rather more difficult to accept that betrayal because part of you knows that, just maybe, they may be right. A little harder to do in interactive media, of course, but if a character honestly and truly feels you've gone too far and betrays you for that reason... well, that always hits close to home, at least if they have a point.

Alistair was a good Judas example for me. Then there's also the Fire Emblem games, with their large cast of characters and the opportunity to be betrayed.

BobSmith101 wrote...
There is a character in Fire Emblem (GC) called Jill. You recruit her from the enemy side quite early in the game. Much later you encounter her fathers army. Either you keep her a very long way from him, or you have a support rank A with her (it's like the highest possible relationship level) otherwise she rejoins her father against you.

YES!

[LobselVith8]

nightscrawl wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Anders criticizes Merrill for her Dalish views, and tries to impose his Andrastian views on her. He expects her to see spirits and demons as two seperate classes of denizens of the Fade, as "Children of the Maker," while she doesn't share that view because she's Dalish.

I've never seen Anders as Andrastian, more like agnostic, even reluctantly so because he has to believe some of it due to his own experiences as a mage.

It doesn't help that the actual game world enforces all of these views, rather than making them only about faith. The demons ARE shown as "breaking down into different sins" as Anders mentions to Merrill, in the mortal world as well as the fade; we as players have seen it on multiple occasions. Andraste's ashes DO have mystical healing powers. And what are we supposed to take away from Corypheus's dialogue in Legacy (unless you just dismiss him as crazy) other than to think that the Black City really did/does exist?

As Oghren explains, there is a thick wall of lyrium effecting the entire temple, as well as the ashes.

As Corpheus explains, the Golden City was already black when the Magisters got there, which puts into doubt the entire fable put forth by the Chantry of Andraste. In fact, Anders' Act II gift quest "Tevinter Amulet" makes it clear that he fully believes in the fable about the Golden City and the Magisters prior to the events in Legacy. He doesn't seem to come across as an agnostic to me; he believes in the Maker, he believes in the stories about the Maker, he believes that Magisters were responsible for corrupting the Golden City, he believes that Spirits and Demons are seperate because they are the "Children of the Maker," and he views Andraste as a Prophet. He only disagrees with the Chantry controlled Circles.

Furthermore, spirits and demons take different attributes from the mortal world; as Justice explains in Amaranthine, they see into the dreams of mortals, and it shapes them. It's not really the best argument that the Andrastian version is the correct version when the denizens of the Fade emulate what they "see" from mortals, which would include the dreams and ideas of the Andrastians who believe in the lore of the Chantry of Andraste.

[Dunquixote]

PurebredCorn wrote...

Dunquixote wrote...

I guess Bhelen, himself and not just his cronies would, for me be the best "Judas." I do wish he could've done it through more legit and moral ways, but hey, it makes it more realistic to how things were in the medieval ages and in later periods too, I think [I may be a history major, but I'm not knowledgeable on the medieval times]. I did agree with the political ideology, but not his methods. I can't bring myself to put him on the throne though anymore.

I never really felt my character ever got the chance to really know Bhelen, so when the betrayal came it wasn't that shocking/hurtful for me. Leske (Dwarf Commoner) on the other hand was my bud. When he sided with Jarvia... I was so bummed! I mean I could understand why and I certainly couldn't hold it against him, but damn I hated having to fight him because he was just trying to survive in a crap situation. This is also one of the reasons the Dwarf Commoner origin was my favorite.

Does anyone know if the Couslands were planning to betray the Howes (or was it Ferelden -- I forgot what Nathaniel said in Awakening) to the Orlesians?  I think last noight I was trying to think if Howe had a "good" motive to betraying the Couslands.

Dang!  I was hoping when and if I finished a dwarf commoner that Leske would be there.  I thought Leske seemed pretty decent in the  beginning.  I can understand why you'd like the dwarf commoner origin though.  I was surprised myself that I liked the dwarf noble origin.  That's one of the last origins I played.  I personally, didn't care too much about the Human noble (and I would've liked it if Howe offered to bring Nathaniel next time and not Thomas).  I liked the City Elf story over that.

[TEWR]

the_one_54321 wrote...

The original context is Merril working with a demon. You can't change the context and then act like it validates your point.

Ah, another discussion on Merrill.

Carry on, as I no longer see fit to partake in such discussions any more. They never change, so it was basically me and others arguing against a brick wall. There's an abundance of evidence in both games to point to Merrill being in the right and Marethari being in the wrong.

Ah screw it...

Fact of the matter is this: Merrill was taught blood magic not by any old demon, but by a demon that was trapped in a statue for centuries, would continue to be trapped in said statue for centuries to come, and could only be freed by a powerful spell.

And that last bit blood magic had nothing to do with -- and Merrill makes clear that it's something she'll never do to an Aggressive Hawke -- considering Marethari freed the demon and she didn't want anything to do with blood magic -- and for that matter, she wanted nothing to do with the Eluvians as she'll state in both games.

Fact: Merrill was taught healing magic by Marethari, as we're told in DAO.

Fact: Said healing magic is able to combat the taint in its unamplified form.

Fact: Merrill learned blood magic in order to amplify her healing magic to such a level that it could not only fight the taint in the one shard she took, but defeat it and fully cleanse the shard.

Fact: The distance between Merrill and the demon affects how much they can hear the creature. Even on Sundermount, all they heard were whispers.

[LobselVith8]

the_one_54321 wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Which is what Lob said. He said the Warden can coerce the demon, not bargain with it.

The original context is Merril working with a demon. You can't change the context and then act like it validates your point.

Merrill didn't make a bargain with Audacity; she conversed with the entrapped demon to learn blood magic because she lacked the sufficient amount of lyrium to cleanse the shard otherwise, but she didn't make a bargain for her soul with it. Like she cautions Hawke, you can be smart and learn from a demon if you are careful (as the story shows - on two occassions, Hawke can learn things from a demon without making a bargain with it). Merrill learned about blood magic from Audacity, but it remained trapped in the totem because she refused to let it loose.

[the_one_54321]

In the same game she also repents her stupid behavior and also begs Hawke for forgiveness after giving in to a demon's temptations in the fade.

[LobselVith8]

Dunquixote wrote...

Does anyone know if the Couslands were planning to betray the Howes (or was it Ferelden -- I forgot what Nathaniel said in Awakening) to the Orlesians?  I think last noight I was trying to think if Howe had a "good" motive to betraying the Couslands.

Dang!  I was hoping when and if I finished a dwarf commoner that Leske would be there.  I thought Leske seemed pretty decent in the  beginning.  I can understand why you'd like the dwarf commoner origin though.  I was surprised myself that I liked the dwarf noble origin.  That's one of the last origins I played.  I personally, didn't care too much about the Human noble (and I would've liked it if Howe offered to bring Nathaniel next time and not Thomas).  I liked the City Elf story over that.

Arl Howe took out the Couslands because he wanted control of Highever. He wasn't a good guy at all. The events in Amaranthine (specifically, the conversations between Oghren and Nathaniel) make it seem that Arl Howe was a sadist, as well as the conversation between Nathaniel and his sister. Nathaniel was in the Free Marches at the time, spending time all over - including Kirkwall.

The Dwarven Origins were a lot of fun - both of them gave you a lot of perspective into Orzammar, and Dwarven culture from both spectrums. I liked the Dwarven Noble, talking to his Second; I was surprised the Noble could just tell him to kill someone who disrespected him like it was no big deal.