134 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

I've been watching the new reveals, and most of it is great. Tactical combat, qunari as a playable race, big areas with great vistas and countless other little things. I'm really impressed.

But then.....Red Templars? Using red lyrium which drives them insane?

*GROAN*

Indoctrinated Cerberus raises its ugly head. Can't enemies be valid opponents any more without being driven crazy by something magical? Do enemies need to be "insane-evil" instead of just normal enemies with their own goals which are in opposition to ours?

I implore you, DA team, don't overuse the "driven insane by magic (or destructive mind control)" EXCUSE - and yes, it is an excuse for making people behave erratically and attacking you just because, making it necessary to put them down without mercy, and removing the necessity of thinking about realistic motivations.

I've never liked this type of enemy, and I'm dead set against them after DA2 (which ruined a great character) and ME3 (which ruined a whole faction). Yes, I admit it *is* rather likely that we see some craziness in the scenario DAI is based on, but we have the undead and the demons for that. I'd rather have less insanity and more convincing human evil, and most of all I don't want to feel that insane enemies are put into some scenario because it's the easiest to do, because you don't need to think about why they're opposing you.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 septembre 2013 - 08:02 .

[David7204]

Perhaps you should say 'antagonists' instead of enemies. Because when I hear the word 'enemies' I just think of mooks.

[Maria Caliban]

Why would a sane group oppose the people trying to save the world?

[Jorji Costava]

Generally, I'm in agreement with the OP. I found indoctrination to be one of the more poorly implemented plot devices of ME, and I don't want to see a retread in DA. And I do prefer antagonists to have understandably human motivations; that doesn't mean they have to be well-intentioned extremists, or even somewhat sympathetic, but their motivation should be recognizably human, the kind of thing that motivates people to extreme action in real life. Generally, people aren't moved to do bad things by "being possessed by magic which makes you go totally insane." But that's just me.

If red lyrium is largely an excuse to make the red templars a group you have to fight no matter what, then yes, I don't want to see that, but I still think there are a few ways they could turn out to be interesting. Suppose red templars are made to take red lyrium by non-insane members of templar leadership; that might have some resonance with the kind of extreme measures governments do sometimes take to put down insurrections. Or suppose that siding with the templars against the mages meant that occasionally, you had to solicit the help of red templars, and/or turn a blind eye to their atrocities. That could make for some interesting and morally complex scenarios.

[Ieldra]

Foshizzlin wrote...
Having some crazy or violent antagonists is fine, but it'd be very interesting to meet a 'villain' for once that makes you think "Hmm... this person has a good point."

Indeed that. It's as if Bioware is afraid of any scenario where an antagonist's points deserve some thinking about, as if the need to fight and destroy the enemies must always be obvious and immediate. Or perhaps they don't give themselves the time to think about realistic motivations. 

As for DAO, I actually liked Loghain. With the revelation that Cailan planned to marry Celene he was much easier to understand and empathize with, and he appeared sane enough with the exception of his obsession with Orlais. Also, it was a convincing obsession which also didn't prevent him from acting coherently, and if you made him a Grey Warden he accepted his new role easily enough.

[Tinu]

I thought the Venatori are the real enemy... Fighting for the 'He will rise again'-figure.The Red Templars are using the state of Thedas to their advantage and try to restore their order in a brutal way by mass murdering apostates and civilians.

[Avaflame]

I'd just like to know how they got their hands on red lyrium.

[David7204]

I'm reminded of the constant demands that continue to this day that the Reapers should have remained unexplained.

The constant demands that a motive was unneeded and that players only wanted to kill the Reapers, not think about them.

What do you think of such demands, OP?

Modifié par David7204, 01 septembre 2013 - 08:19 .

[MisterJB]

Bioware, when a Pro-Mage and a Pro-Templar agree on something regarding this conflict, perhaps it's time to take a step back and rethink what you are doing.

[Ieldra]

Maria Caliban wrote...
Why would a sane group oppose the people trying to save the world?

Because they think they would lose something significant if your faction succeeds in the way they think you would? Because they want to do things their way? Because they don't accept that the threat is that big? False beliefs and reasoning which is later proven wrong abound in humans. That doesn't make them insane. Most of the time, anyway.

[David7204]

MisterJB wrote...

Bioware, when a Pro-Mage and a Pro-Templar agree on something regarding this conflict, perhaps it's time to take a step back and rethink what you are doing.

Uh, no, that's completely ridiculous. Disagreeing with enemy simply because he's your enemy makes you a complete fool. Hitler ate sugar, so sugar must be bad?

Modifié par David7204, 01 septembre 2013 - 08:21 .

[The Elder King]

MisterJB wrote...

Bioware, when a Pro-Mage and a Pro-Templar agree on something regarding this conflict, perhaps it's time to take a step back and rethink what you are doing.

If, of course, the red templar faction is meant to rapresent all the templars that left the Chantry. Which is speculation at this point.

Modifié par hhh89, 01 septembre 2013 - 08:23 .

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Bioware seems to love the whole mind controlling idea and a lot of their game seems to feature it. Personally,  I dislike it.

[Savber100]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Why would a sane group oppose the people trying to save the world?

Easy, they offer a different, reasonable solution to the Inquistion. Why does our enemy have to be crazy or stupid? 


That is my biggest concern with this game. With all the emphasis on the player, I hope they don't end up making villains that are retareded in order elevate my character.

Give me a worthy opponent, Bioware.

[Reznore57]

The templars who left the chantry and have no access to lyrium were going to go insane anyway.
I mean the Chantry drugged its army for almost 1000 years ,time for consequences , no?
I'm not fond of the red lyrium because in DA2 , it was just over the top .

But if it raised questions about the whole addiction thing (and it would be great) + answer the red lyrium mysteries.
Why not?
We just don't know enough right now .

[Mykel54]

The problem with removing something like red templars from the game is that then: what templars do you fight? Say that i play as a pro-templar inquisitor, so because i support them, i should not fight any templar npc at all? And if i am a bloodmage inquisitor, then i guess i should not encounter any bloodmage npcs, because we are colleagues?

The purpose of these "crazed enemies" is to give all players, no exception, the same enemies to fight. You can fight beasts, daemons, dragons etc. but the humanoid enemies are more complicated. You can´t ask an inquisitor pro-mage to just go a kill a bunch of apostates (see how well that worked in DA2). So the easiest solution is to make those enemies totally crazy or evil, so that no ones think twice while butchering them. I don´t think bioware can afford to make all the npcs you kill be different depending on your character´s outlook on the world, most of them must be the same for all players (ex. loghain´s men in DAO, who opposed the warden).

I do agree that the insane npcs is cheap writing, and that it would be better if the enemy npcs had better motivations to stop the inquisitor. Maybe they don´t trust him and he wants to take over their lands, or they are oblivious to the real threat of the veil breach and refuse to follow you. I think making them insane is a cheap plot device, but as long as most enemies do not fit that mould i don´t have a problem with some enemies being depicted as insane.

[Ieldra]

David7204 wrote...
I'm reminded of the constant demands that continue to this day that the Reapers should have remained unexplained.

The constant demands that a motive was unneeded and that players only wanted to kill the Reapers, not think about them.

What do you think of such demands, OP?

What I think of them? I despise them, and the mental stance behind them. The mysterious evil coming out of nowhere for no reason we can understand is one of the cheapest plots in existence. I would've hated it beyond measure had they not given the Reapers a motivation, and I've always maintained that what we got was was a perfectly comprehensible rationale (even if it was extremely poorly foreshadowed).

I have no sympathy at all for players who simply want to kill stuff and expect Bioware to give them such mindless fighting. That's not what a story-driven game should do. Most of all, though, I despise it if a story sends the message that you don't need to understand something, you just need to kill it.

Now, I don't think DAI will intentionally go down that road, but it's altogether too easy to go there accidentally, just by creating a faction prone to insanity and use it everywhere where you can't come up with a convincing motivation for others to fight you.  

Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 septembre 2013 - 08:35 .

[David7204]

And now we see a weakness of video games as a storytelling medium.

You need mooks. You lots of mooks. You need a constant supply of enemies to fight. That can be very challenging to provide.This isn't television, where one person or a small group of people can be an antagonist for an entire season or whatever.

Modifié par David7204, 01 septembre 2013 - 08:35 .

[DooomCookie]

Officially known as WoW syndrome.

1. All raid bosses are insane.
2. All morally grey characters will someday be raid bosses.
3. Usually by going insane.

Like it or not, a game requires gameplay just as much as story (if not more, it is a game after all).  Dragon Age is a tactical RPG or ARPG and either way, this involves combat.  To supply this need, characters go insane.

Modifié par DooomCookie, 01 septembre 2013 - 08:38 .

[The Elder King]

A thing that should be considered is that Meredith didn't became crazy right away; it took three years, becoming more paranoid during the years.
What I mean that even this faction (which i don't want to rapresent the whole templar side) could be....not completely crazy, maybe.

[In Exile]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
Why would a sane group oppose the people trying to save the world?

Because they think they would lose something significant if your faction succeeds in the way they think you would? Because they want to do things their way? Because they don't accept that the threat is that big? False beliefs and reasoning which is later proven wrong abound in humans. That doesn't make them insane. Most of the time, anyway.

That makes them stupid enemies. You'll just see threads about making enemies intelligent or not having the plot railroad you into not being able to explain yourself well. It's like the issue with the Council and Alliance in ME2.

[Reznore57]

DooomCookie wrote...

Officially known as WoW syndrome.

1. All raid bosses are insane.
2. All morally grey characters will someday be raid bosses.
3. Usually by going insane.

You forget everyone you killed , even beheaded , will one day come back from the dead .