134 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...
I agree with this largely because I want it to be possible to side with the bad guys motives.  You just end up looking like a moron if you side with Cerberus or the Templars because Meredith and TIM were nuts the whole time.  It smacks too much of "right" choice and "wrong" choice which I don't think have much of a place in an RPG.

Indeed. It's exactly because the DA team has said that we'll be able to make up our own minds about things that I feel I'm raising a valid issue here.

You'd think that since we had insane mages in DA2, so it's only fitting we'll have some insane templars in DAI, and in fact I don't mind that the Red Templars exist, but they should be a minority faction of the templars and not used as enemies so much that they drag the complete templar rationale into "irredeemable evil" territory.

This coming from a pro-mage player may seem odd, but any side's ideology is cheapened if it's left as the only reasonable one, and any choice is meaningless if one side is made "insane-evil".

As I said, I don't think the DA team aims to set things up that way, but it's all too easy to end up with the same picture accidentally. All it takes is a few map designers saying "Hmm....we need some action at this point. Nobody has a reason to be here (or the team's lore master is on vacation/in a meeting), and we need some variety after all the monsters, so let's just use Red Templars. They're insane, they can do anything."

And don't tell me map designers don't think that way. DA2 should be evidence enough that they do.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 04 septembre 2013 - 07:39 .

[DKJaigen]

You people fixate on the templars to much. The mage - templar conflict is no longer relevant. The one
who corrupted the termplar order is the one that needs the attention. And if he is properly written he will make for an interesting antagonist. The fact he uses the templars strength against them mkaes him or her already a compelling villain .

[The Elder King]

We'll see DKJaigen. During the demo the devs mentioned keeping a balance between the mages and the templars, and in the concdp art of the guy with the rings, that is stated to mean something, both the templars and the RT are rapresented. Plus, the war between mages and templars is continuosly mentioned in the DAI GI coverage.
A possible interpretation is that the RT separated themselves from the templars, becoming the Inquisition enemy, and the rest of the templars are at war with the mages.

[Star fury]

Last leak about ME3 was absolutely correct.

[The Elder King]

Star fury wrote...

Last leak about ME3 was absolutely correct.

The leak of ME3 wasn't posted in on February and known in September, right after a demo, with all the supposed info in the leak being things that were present in some way in the demo, but heavily changed.
And the first wasn't completely correct. For example, Miranda were supposed to be captured and tortured by Cerberus. Javik was meant to have an important role in the plot. There were many things that changed.
The last leak was Indeed correct, but it was posted very near the game release, if I recall. This 'leak' was posted 4 months short of two year before release.

Modifié par hhh89, 04 septembre 2013 - 10:16 .

[DKJaigen]

hhh89 wrote...

We'll see DKJaigen. During the demo the devs mentioned keeping a balance between the mages and the templars, and in the concdp art of the guy with the rings, that is stated to mean something, both the templars and the RT are rapresented. Plus, the war between mages and templars is continuosly mentioned in the DAI GI coverage.
A possible interpretation is that the RT separated themselves from the templars, becoming the Inquisition enemy, and the rest of the templars are at war with the mages.

Because it was mentioned often doesnt mean it has much impact. of course the mage-templar war is the exit point of DA2 and likely its still going on on in DAI. But i wouldnt be suprised that only templars loyal to the chantry are uncorrupted. Of course to the templar supporters horror they have to abide by the rules of the current chantries pro mage divine if they choose to support the templars. 

[Ieldra]

Morocco Mole wrote...
The unfortunate truth is that Bioware just doesn't seem to have it in them to write a compelling villain without derailing them into insanity. Loghain is an exception and even he can be made a case for it.

Bioware is, and apparently forever will be, stuck in that Star Wars morality trap where every single thing can be amounted to in black and white

You're wrong about the latter. There are quite a few genuinely grey decisions in the DA games. Bhelen vs. Harrowmont, how do deal with Loghain, most decisions in DA2 are of that kind. The pattern is rather like this: everything we're forced to fight as part of the main plot isn't allowed to be anything but "for the evulz", and if previously grey factions and individuals turn into main plot enemies they always transform into "for the evulz" types as well.

The likely reason is that if the main plot antagonists are allowed to have a point from a "human evil" viewpoint, then there will inevitably be players who want to side with them, and resent it if they can't. That's why we have things like the darkspawn and the Reapers, that's why Cerberus turned "for the evulz" and indoctrinated and that's why games often go out of their way to present the antagonist factions in the most monstrous light possible (see my frequent complaints about the overuse of "abomination aesthetics").

So, this has an understandable reason, but it adversely affects storytelling. If the antagonists don't have a point from a reasonable, if evil, human viewpoint, then our struggles are meaningless, because anyone would do the same. Our protagonists don't distinguish themselves with their decisions because with regard to the main antagonist, there can be no real decision. The result are such inconsistencies like not being able to agree with the Illusive Man in ME3, but in the end being able to implement his plan yourself.

There are basically two ways this can be avoided:

(1) Make the main antagonist have a point, be honest about there not being a choice to side with them and deal with the inevitable fallout.

(2) Don't create one main antagonist but several characters/factions with different agendas who could become the main antagonist depending on your decision, let them all have a point from a reasonable human viewpoint, and let the players side with any of them or fight them all as they choose.

So the question is rather not "is the DA team capable of writing a convincing non-insane antagonist?" - I think they definitely have the ability - but are they willing to do it in DAI? I can draw no conclusion at this point because that some templars, deprived of their lyrium, turn to red lyrium makes sense in-world and presents no problem as such. The possible problem lies rather in how this faction is used by the story writers, and how much insanity there is elsewhere in the story.  

[OdanUrr]

Maria Caliban wrote...

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

Because they're trying to save the world too, their world. People can have varying interpretations of what it means to "save the world." Furthermore, those who "save the world" get to shape it in some form or another and people have differing views about the kind of world they want to live in. Just take the Jedi's and the Sith's contradicting philosophies, or the Empire versus the Republic, Cerberus versus the Alliance, all of these groups strive for some form of order in the galaxy but they are on a different page as to how to reach their goal. Heck, just take Loghain in DAO. He wanted to put an end to the darkspawn and save/protect Ferelden but he wanted to do it his way, and in order to accomplish that he left his King to die and attempted to thwart your plans at every corner.

Nobody acts the way they do because they think they're in the wrong, everyone thinks they're justified in their actions, like in the case of the Templars or even the Mages. When you play DAI you'll be required to make several decisions that will contribute to your overall goal of saving the world, decisions that some people will agree with and others will oppose. Those who oppose your choices will do so because they contradict their beliefs, their morals, or because they think they could do better, or because they don't trust you, or maybe they just don't like you. It doesn't mean they're insane, it only means they're different, that they have other values and concerns. In the PAX demo, for instance, you could have chosen to save the village but you did not. Does that mean that you're a callous bastard? Perhaps the people would prefer to follow the selfless hero who risked his troops to save the village instead?

Maria Caliban, you're not alone when you ask that question. I myself have cursed the very same question several times in many a game but the reality is that you're the only one who knows you're saving the world, your world. Everyone else might think you're out to destroy theirs.

[dragonflight288]

OdanUrr wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

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

Because they're trying to save the world too, their world. People can have varying interpretations of what it means to "save the world." Furthermore, those who "save the world" get to shape it in some form or another and people have differing views about the kind of world they want to live in. Just take the Jedi's and the Sith's contradicting philosophies, or the Empire versus the Republic, Cerberus versus the Alliance, all of these groups strive for some form of order in the galaxy but they are on a different page as to how to reach their goal. Heck, just take Loghain in DAO. He wanted to put an end to the darkspawn and save/protect Ferelden but he wanted to do it his way, and in order to accomplish that he left his King to die and attempted to thwart your plans at every corner.

Nobody acts the way they do because they think they're in the wrong, everyone thinks they're justified in their actions, like in the case of the Templars or even the Mages. When you play DAI you'll be required to make several decisions that will contribute to your overall goal of saving the world, decisions that some people will agree with and others will oppose. Those who oppose your choices will do so because they contradict their beliefs, their morals, or because they think they could do better, or because they don't trust you, or maybe they just don't like you. It doesn't mean they're insane, it only means they're different, that they have other values and concerns. In the PAX demo, for instance, you could have chosen to save the village but you did not. Does that mean that you're a callous bastard? Perhaps the people would prefer to follow the selfless hero who risked his troops to save the village instead?

Maria Caliban, you're not alone when you ask that question. I myself have cursed the very same question several times in many a game but the reality is that you're the only one who knows you're saving the world, your world. Everyone else might think you're out to destroy theirs.

I'd like to add onto this with a quote from the game Risen 2. "When you save the world, that means saving all of it and not just the parts you like."

Whether or not that'll apply in Inquisition, since we're going to be saving the world from itself, instead of an outside force like in Risen, but it's some interesting food for thought.