79 réponses à ce sujet

[chuckwells62]

What was done with Meredith and Orsino in the finale was fairly game breaking.

I liked DA2, but agree that the conclusion of the Arishok storyline in chapter 2 was where the game truly peaked, and that should have been the real finale.

Forcing us to choose between mages and templars, and then painting both sect leaders as bat-****-crazy villains, was ridiculously wrong. It should have been that whichever side you aligned with would have resulted in a "reveal" about the other side. For instance, had you sided with the Templars, then Orsino's culpability in Quintins blood magic research would have resonated more. Same with aligning with the mages, and then finding out that Meredith had purchased the lyrium idol from Bartrand would have had more punch.

As it stands, the whole thing amounted to a huge cluster-flux of less than epic proportions.

[Rpgfantasyplayer]

Here is the problem that I had with DA2. I could not get behind either group. The mage's went crazy and always became abominations and the templars were just as crazy. I played both a non-mage and a mage and just had a hard time supporting either side. If I could have told both sides to shove it I would have and tried but the game wouldn't let me. I want a protagonist that I can really understand why they are doing it but also know that if they do what they set out to do that it will be really bad for everyone.

[The Elder King]

Plaintiff wrote...


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

I'm fine with not having a main antagonist, though I'd have like if the final choice of aiding mages or templars would've lead to two different paths with Orsino and Meredith as the final boss/antagonist of the game for the two different paths. Possibly without the Quentin-Orsion relationship and the lyrium sword.

[The Elder King]

chuckwells62 wrote...



Forcing us to choose between mages and templars, and then painting both sect leaders as bat-****-crazy villains, was ridiculously wrong. It should have been that whichever side you aligned with would have resulted in a "reveal" about the other side. For instance, had you sided with the Templars, then Orsino's culpability in Quintins blood magic research would have resonated more. Same with aligning with the mages, and then finding out that Meredith had purchased the lyrium idol from Bartrand would have had more punch.

.

I agree with your post, though I don't think the Quentin-Orsino relationship and the lyrium sword were needed.

[Savber100]

I would love a villain that at the end of defeating (or at least understanding), I could go "well-played, my friend. Well-played."

[Plaintiff]

hhh89 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...


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

I'm fine with not having a main antagonist, though I'd have like if the final choice of aiding mages or templars would've lead to two different paths with Orsino and Meredith as the final boss/antagonist of the game for the two different paths. Possibly without the Quentin-Orsion relationship and the lyrium sword.

I think that would be a mistake. I like the fact that the game simultaneously presents both sides of the debate as being heavily flawed, because it forces the player to confront and re-examine their own opinions, regardless of what side they're on.

If the game worked the way you suggest, then it would be telling two completely different stories, and while that sometimes works, I think that, in DA2, it would result in two weaker, less interesting narratives. It would be impossible for the player to ever have their views challenged because whichever side they picked would automatically become the "right" one, simply by virtue of them having picked it. Instead of having shades of grey, the two sides would just take turns at playing black and white.

What I think is that Orsino and Meredith should have a) been introduced much earlier and received more development and foreshadowing of the eventual outcome.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 23 octobre 2012 - 01:42 .

[The Elder King]

Plaintiff wrote...



I think that would be a mistake. I like the fact that the game simultaneously presents both sides of the debate as being heavily flawed, because it forces the player to confront and re-examine their own opinions, regardless of what side they're on.

If the game worked the way you suggest, then it would be telling two completely different stories, and while that sometimes works, I think that, in DA2, it would result in two weaker, less interesting narratives. It would be impossible for the player to ever have their views challenged because whichever side they picked would automatically become the "right" one, simply by virtue of them having picked it. Instead of having shades of grey, the two sides would just take turns at playing black and white.

What I think is that Orsino and Meredith should have a) been introduced much earlier and received more development and foreshadowing of the eventual outcome.

First, I probably used the wrong words With different "paths" I meant that the final hours of the game would've shown Hawke beating Meredith and lead the mages outside Kirkwall and Hawke beating Orsino and concluding the Annulment (or whatever he was doing in the templar path). I wasn't asking for tho different paths like in TW2's Act 2.
About Meredith and Orsino, while I agree that they should've been introduced earlier and received more development, and that both sides should have flaws and don't be a black and white choice (though I think both groups in DA2 were more oriented in showing their worst side, and if it wasn't for the Circle being innocent for what happened to the Chantry, I don't know if I could've chosen one side) , I don't agree that Meredith and Orsino should've mantained the lyrium sword and the relationship with Quentin. That's not because I think those characters shouldn't have flaws, but because those type of flaws make them (in my opinion) negative characters. I couldn't trust Orsino if he had aided Quentin in his research, and not because of what happened to Leandra, but because I think that experimenting on humans to bring back a dead person is wrong. I can't trust Meredith if she has the lyrium sword because it makes her insane and paranoid.

[Vandicus]

Templar path Hawke becomes Viscount after the templars bow before him. Mage path Hawke pretty much just fails.

[agrael92]

chuckwells62 wrote...

What was done with Meredith and Orsino in the finale was fairly game breaking.

I liked DA2, but agree that the conclusion of the Arishok storyline in chapter 2 was where the game truly peaked, and that should have been the real finale.

Forcing us to choose between mages and templars, and then painting both sect leaders as bat-****-crazy villains, was ridiculously wrong. It should have been that whichever side you aligned with would have resulted in a "reveal" about the other side. For instance, had you sided with the Templars, then Orsino's culpability in Quintins blood magic research would have resonated more. Same with aligning with the mages, and then finding out that Meredith had purchased the lyrium idol from Bartrand would have had more punch.

As it stands, the whole thing amounted to a huge cluster-flux of less than epic proportions.

I've only playied the game once (liked it) and sided with the mages, but based on my experience I think I disagree with you on this point. I liked the fact that they both ended up crazy, because i thought it was more appropriate in the context and a bit more "original" than an ending like the one you're talking about.

[Maverick827]

I want a James Moriarty to my character's Sherlock Holmes; an enemy that I might not be able to outright attack for whatever reason, even though I know he's scheming against me (and he knows that I know), who I must defeat by out scheming him throughout the course of the game. Obviously this would include many "casual" meetings in public where veiled threats are exchanged.

[Kail Ashton]

Sooooooooo basicly every bioware main antagonist....ever....? what was the point of this thread again?

[Knight of Dane]

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

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.

You don't seem to know what an antagonist is, so I'll share the wikipedia definition:
An antagonist[/b] (from Greek ἀνταγωνιστής - antagonistēs[/i] , "opponent, competitor, enemy, rival")[1] is a character, group of characters, or institution, that represents the opposition against which the protagonist must contend. In other words, 'A person, or a group of people who oppose the main character, or the main characters.'[2] In the classic style of stories wherein the action consists of a hero fighting a villain/enemy, the two can be regarded as protagonist and antagonist, respectively.[3]

If you side with Bhelen that means that you and Harrowmont are rivals. An antagonist doesn't have to be a bad guy. In a story about to bros wanting the same ho they are antagonist/protagonist to one another depending on the point of view even if they are bff.

[Knight of Dane]

Kail Ashton wrote...

Sooooooooo basicly every bioware main antagonist....ever....? what was the point of this thread again?

The point was to ask if people felt like me and wanted an antagonist that they despite opposing could respect and/or like, didn't you read my op?

[NRieh]

It would be cool to have a "grey" antagonist.

Show me any that is NOT grey. Even Reapers and darspawn turned out to be fluffy and misunderstood at the end.

Meridith? Wanted to protect her city, but lyrium addiction does no good. Howe? Loghain? Architect? Udina? Saren? Benezia?

Only Archdemon fits "Big Bad Evul" (more or less). And, probably, Corypheus.

ps:Oh, how could I forget about Kai Leng?! Shame on me. This one has no defined color in any spoken language (unless we consider "incredibly stupid" a new name for color).

[Iosev]

I would personally like to see an antagonist that isn't necessarily a villain, but a person that comes into conflict with your actions throughout the majority of the story (for his or her own reasons), and towards the end, you could potentially befriend him or her, depending on your actions throughout the course of the story.

At the same time, I'm not opposed to the idea of a villain that you cannot draw any sympathy from, such as a villain who commits horrible acts, sees absolutely nothing wrong with his or her own actions, and enjoys the tragedy that he or she creates.  I would love to see a villain that isn't acting on behalf of the greater good (e.g., Saren, Loghain, Meredith, etc.), but instead acting in service of his or her own, unrelatable self-sastisfaction.  A villain that you know is vile and disgusting, yet you still enjoy seeing the character.

Modifié par arcelonious, 23 octobre 2012 - 04:16 .

[Ecto-Plasmic Effect]

Knight of Dane wrote...

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.

Sounds a lot like Letho of Gulet from TW2.

[DMan7733]

There are two ways to make a really good antagonist IMO:
A character that you can have the moments where you can say "You utter, and total *******" is nice, because you have a founded reason to go after him, not just because the beggar down the road said he would end the world. (We all know to listen to the beggars though). Depending on your frame of mind, he can either be a rival, whose methods you don't like, and you somewhat enjoy the challenge he presents. Or he can be "that guy" who you hate and just want dead because he is doing something you just want to end.

If I love-to-hate my antagonist it is nice, if I love him in the beginning then progress, it get's really hard to hate him and I want to keep thinking he is good, and at the end of the game, he could go two ways... nail it in that he is bat**** insane* or he is on the brink of redemption before dieing, ala Saren ME style... if you save him, it is really heartbreaking when he dies, because he is clearly not all gone.

*Meaning you realise he won't listen to reason.


A respectable antagonist depends on your state of mind and the allowance the game world has, if you pride yourself on being able to set up brilliant plans, then the antagonist comes along and takes advantage of the fact you weren't expecting something, as long as you know he is boasting his intelligence (only a little) and not trying to make you feel bad about doing things smart, you can try to outsmart him. This should be used sparingly, and as long as there are points where you can outsmart him... but never actually cripple him or hurt him, putting him on the run is good though.

[L. Han]

I hope so too, Kai Leng in Mass Effect 3 was slightly crap.

[rolson00]

they should do a jack from borderlands 2 chappy :-D

Modifié par rolson00, 25 octobre 2012 - 09:58 .

[Knight of Dane]

The good part about that character was that he didn't care about justice, he was just selfishness personified.

[sylvanaerie]

I considered the Arishok someone I could respect. I didn't like him per se but he was (for the most part) understandable and I could relate to him. Meredith/Orsino were fine till the last 10 minutes of their appearance in the game, then it all went a little whacko...

For me most of Act 3 is 'anti-climax' though, after the Arishok is gone.

Killing Loghain at the Landsmeet is my favorite part of the game. After the betrayal at Ostagar, being hunted and harrassed the entire game by his men, looking at his mule kicked zombie face, killing him is, for me, the climax of the story. The archdemon doesn't evoke any feelings for me it all. Loghain was relatable and understandable, marvelously flawed and human. The Old God is 'a force of nature'. Hating it would be like hating an earthquake or a hurricane for smashing your house.

So, yea, an Antagonist I can respect, if not like is something Bioware has delivered for me in both games. I have confidence they make it 3 for 3 in DA3.

[BouncyFrag]

I really liked the Arishok especially how you can negotiate with him. Handing Isabella over to him was sooooo satisfying. If you are going to be giving DA2 another playthrough before DA3, be sure to take Fenris with you when you go speak to him the first time since he opens up some really great discussion.

Loghain is also one of my favorite gaming antagonists. I liked him even more after reading "The Stolen Throne" by D. Gaider. Saren from Mass Effect is also a terrific antagonist.