79 réponses à ce sujet

[Knight of Dane]

 What'chu guys think?

The type like perhaps Harrowmont if you side with Behlen... Well, he doesn't seem to respect you when you resturn from the Deep Roads, but he's a nice huy.

What about the Arishok in DA2, he respected Hawke, at least to some degree depending on the Hawke and recognized you as Basalit-an.

Maybe Loghain too if you knew his background, I don't think i particuearly respected him before I read the Stolen Throne.

It would be cool to have a "grey" antagonist. A respectful rival, perhaps even a old friend from the past who just happens to disagree with you.

[Darth Krytie]

That's not a bad idea at all. I'd rather eschew the bat**** insane antagonists. I'd like someone like The Illusive Man...someone whose motives you can understand, even if you don't agree with the methods. (Or maybe you do). I think it makes a better impact than just having someone who is "evil" and frothing at the mouth.

[Knight of Dane]

Exactly, the ending of DA2 was so insignificant because Orsino went out in a fountain of blood while Meredith started worshipping a sword.

That and the game had already peaked in act 2.

[Darth Krytie]

Knight of Dane wrote...

Exactly, the ending of DA2 was so insignificant because Orsino went out in a fountain of blood while Meredith started worshipping a sword.

That and the game had already peaked in act 2.

I liked DA2, and even I agree the ending wasn't too great. I was disappointed that we faced both Orsino and Meredith, regardless of which side we picked. I actually thought Meredith was interesting right up until her Lyrium induced insanity kicked in. She could have been a zealot without it.

[whykikyouwhy]

What about a sympathetic antagonist, like Dr. Horrible? He comes complete with a sinister laugh.

[Knight of Dane]

Don't know this character, care to explain?
If a antagonist is directly sympathetic, doesn't that mean that you essentially agree with his struggles?

[The Elder King]

I don't know about having a respectable antagonist, but I want a well-characterized antagonist. Loghain and Howe were better antagonists than Orsino/Meredith. The Arishok in DA2 was good enough, and this made the comparison with the Horrible Duo in Act 3 even more worse.
I still don't understand why Meredith has to be the final antagonist in both path, and why they made Orsino a boss fight in the mage's path. I remember reading that they wanted to have an additional boss in the mage's path, but why? Is there another big boss fight in the templar's path (completed the game once, since it was too buggy back then).
I would've eliminate the Quentin-Orsino relationship and the lyrium sword, and made Meredith and Orsino reasonable enemies for the opposite paths. And I don't think they made Meredith as the final boss because of the short development cycle.

[whykikyouwhy]

Knight of Dane wrote...

Don't know this character, care to explain?
If a antagonist is directly sympathetic, doesn't that mean that you essentially agree with his struggles?

Dr. Horrible is from Whedon's Dr. Horrible's Sing-A-Long Blog. You could probably find it on Hulu - it's all of 45 min, divided into 3 parts. It's told from the villain's POV.

By sympathetic, I don't mean you necessarily agree with the antagonist, but you are given background into why he/she is on his/her particular path, what event(s) led to the actions being commmitted. And as such, you might be able to appreciate the motive, were you in that situation. The actions of the antagonist may still be pointing to "wrong" on your personal or PC moral compass, however, but you have a broader understanding of who and the why behind the individual.

[InfinitePaths]

Loghain was a great charather,I took him in my party every time!

[The Elder King]

HeriocGreyWarden wrote...

Loghain was a great charather,I took him in my party every time!

It was one of the best characters in Origins, and a great antagonist. It didn't prevent me to behead him most of the time.

Modifié par hhh89, 23 octobre 2012 - 10:02 .

[Knight of Dane]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

Knight of Dane wrote...

Don't know this character, care to explain?
If a antagonist is directly sympathetic, doesn't that mean that you essentially agree with his struggles?

Dr. Horrible is from Whedon's Dr. Horrible's Sing-A-Long Blog. You could probably find it on Hulu - it's all of 45 min, divided into 3 parts. It's told from the villain's POV.

By sympathetic, I don't mean you necessarily agree with the antagonist, but you are given background into why he/she is on his/her particular path, what event(s) led to the actions being commmitted. And as such, you might be able to appreciate the motive, were you in that situation. The actions of the antagonist may still be pointing to "wrong" on your personal or PC moral compass, however, but you have a broader understanding of who and the why behind the individual.

Ah so at least understanding the character, I get ya.

Kinda like the chats with Loghain if you choose to have him join you but just before the confrontation.

[whykikyouwhy]

Knight of Dane wrote...

Ah so at least understanding the character, I get ya.

Kinda like the chats with Loghain if you choose to have him join you but just before the confrontation.

Right, though perhaps with a little more of the poignant and bittersweet added to those conversations.

[AsheraII]

I'm hoping for a respectable Protagonist as well. A change from the standard fighter/warrior/fireballer approach. Maybe have the players be part of the Inquisition, and start out as Reverend John or Sister Marie!

[Knight of Dane]

Personally I would love an approach that started out with you having two companions. A early choise leads to one to die and the other to side with those you opposed. I don't know if that would be difficult to do from a development perspective, but it would be cool.

[Darkstorne]

Darth Krytie wrote...
someone whose motives you can understand, even if you don't agree with the methods. (Or maybe you do)

That's the danger with making them too respectable. If I agree with the antagonist, I'll want to work with him. And unless Bioware are making a game with decisions that can completely alter the direction the story takes and the locations you travel to (smart money is on them not doing that - it would be an insane amount of work), you won't be allowed that option.

So they'll continue to make antagonists like TIM and the Arishok - with motives you can understand, but never quite want to side with.

[Darth Krytie]

Darkstorne wrote...

Darth Krytie wrote...
someone whose motives you can understand, even if you don't agree with the methods. (Or maybe you do)

That's the danger with making them too respectable. If I agree with the antagonist, I'll want to work with him. And unless Bioware are making a game with decisions that can completely alter the direction the story takes and the locations you travel to (smart money is on them not doing that - it would be an insane amount of work), you won't be allowed that option.

So they'll continue to make antagonists like TIM and the Arishok - with motives you can understand, but never quite want to side with.

I was more referring to the fact that no matter who the antagonist is...someone will always agree with them. Just to be contrary.

[Terrorize69]

Mother Petrice needs to return lol

[GloriousDame]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

What about a sympathetic antagonist, like Dr. Horrible? He comes complete with a sinister laugh.

YES! This would be awesome.

----
I do agree with you, someone we can respect, whether because of strategy, intelligence, cause, etc. and isn't the "bad guy" just because they're crazy or deluded. It would definitely feel like a bigger accomplishment to oppose a worthy foe than a crazy one.

[Doctoglethorpe]

Respectable or not, the game needs a clear main antagonist from begenning to end.

DAO had it in both Loghain and the Archdemon.

DA2 had nothing for the first 2/3rds of the game then introduced one an hour beofre you killed him.  Then it didn't put forth another main antagonist until a few hours before you killed her. 

DA2 felt more like just a series of losely chained events rather then a real journey with a goal in victory over an antagonist.  DA3 needs that back. 

[Plaintiff]

I think we must have different ideas of "respectable", because I don't think any of your examples qualify.

I think it would be very hard to make an antagonist that I could respect. In real life, I don't consider the people I respect to be antagonists.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Why would Harrowment be an antagonist? The guy is never a jerk to you and, despite being the worst leader EVER, seems to have a good heart.

[Terrorize69]

Doctor Moustache wrote...

Respectable or not, the game needs a clear main antagonist from begenning to end.

DAO had it in both Loghain and the Archdemon.

DA2 had nothing for the first 2/3rds of the game then introduced one an hour beofre you killed him.  Then it didn't put forth another main antagonist until a few hours before you killed her. 

DA2 felt more like just a series of losely chained events rather then a real journey with a goal in victory over an antagonist.  DA3 needs that back. 

DA2 depended on your feelings and views although, if you was anti mage, you wouldn't view the same people as antagonists as people who were pro-mage.

[Plaintiff]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

What about a sympathetic antagonist, like Dr. Horrible? He comes complete with a sinister laugh.

Dr. Horrible is the protagonist, though, not the antagonist.

People tend to conflate "protagonist" with "hero" and "antagonist" with "villain", but a protagonist is just the central character of a given work, while the antagonist is simply a character whose goals run contrary to those of the protagonist. There are plenty of fictions where the protagonist is actually the "villain" of the piece.

[Plaintiff]

Doctor Moustache wrote...
Respectable or not, the game needs a clear main antagonist from begenning to end.

Why?

DAO had it in both Loghain and the Archdemon.

DA2 had nothing for the first 2/3rds of the game then introduced one an hour beofre you killed him.  Then it didn't put forth another main antagonist until a few hours before you killed her.

I don't think DA2 had a "main antagonist" at all. I also don't think that was a bad thing.

DA2 felt more like just a series of losely chained events rather then a real journey with a goal in victory over an antagonist.

So? There's no "right way" to tell a story and the way DA2's plot unfolds isn't necessarily bad.

DA3 needs that back.

Why?

[The Elder King]

Terrorize69 wrote...


DA2 depended on your feelings and views although, if you was anti mage, you wouldn't view the same people as antagonists as people who were pro-mage.

This is true, but the game has no clear main antagonist regardless the path you choose at the end (which is what they probably wanted to do). The Arishok could be somehow considered a clear antagonist, but it's not the main one. In Act 3, your choices of mages or templars didn't define the antagonists, since you face both Orsino and Meredith (which is a stupid decision, in my opinion). Meredith is the final boss, but it's not a clear antagonist. It's not like Loghain and the Archdemon, which after Ostagar are clearly the antagonists of the Warden. Meredith and/or Orsino became the antagonists later in the game. Some people want to have a clear antagonists from the start of the game (or after the first few hours).