166 réponses à ce sujet

[KainD]

wolfhowwl wrote...

KainD wrote...
3) Lame, because antagonist views can be related to, thus making the antagonist NOT an antagonist.

He or she is still the antagonist by virtue of being in opposition to the player character.

And that is exactly what is lame in that situation. 

[HiroVoid]

Letho in Witcher 2 was a good antagonist who also had perfectly fine reasons for his motivations.

Modifié par HiroVoid, 25 novembre 2013 - 07:47 .

[KainD]

HiroVoid wrote...

Letho in Witcher 2 was a good antagonist who also had perfectly fine reasons for his motivations.

Reasons by definition are always fine. Nobody does anything without reasons. 

[HiroVoid]

KainD wrote...

HiroVoid wrote...

Letho in Witcher 2 was a good antagonist who also had perfectly fine reasons for his motivations.

Reasons by definition are always fine. Nobody does anything without reasons. 

You can put emphasis on 'perfectly fine', which in most cases discounts mind control, craziness, doing antagonizing acts for dumb reasons or at times, completely contrary to the character's motives.

He's also a believable equal to the protagonist skill-wise, intelligent, and manipulative all without it coming off as the writers bending the world to make things go his way.

[KainD]

HiroVoid wrote...

...craziness ...dumb reasons

Look. Crazy people are people who do not fit in with the standart society views, same goes for ''dumb'' reasons. 
That's exactly why they are portrayed as antagonists - you are supposed to disagree with them, and that's the reason you fight them. 
How and why you want to fight a person that you agree with and who's reasons are fine in your book is beyond me. 

[KainD]

Morocco Mole wrote...

You do not have to disagree with an antagonist for them to be an antagonist.

What is the driving force behind your fight with them then? 

[ImperatorMortis]

This. Were the writers high when they decided that this was a good idea?

[Sidney]

Morocco Mole wrote...

Cassandra Saturn wrote...

smh.. look, in those games, HERE are always characters that will be evil and bad. even those who are pleading on you to make a decision. DEAL WITH IT.

Of course. But copping out with a lame possession or corruption angle to make them evil (often for vague reasons like Orsino) is what I call bad writing.

What was vague about any of it and in a world of possessions how is that a "lame" angle?

Meredith is a Templar. From the first time we meet her she is part of the that mentality in Thedas that views magic and mages as a threat - as one would suspect. She clearly views the Kirkwall Circle as a particularly unstable force. Something that we know is true and something that she also contributes to by her suspicions The idol doesn't make her go coo-coo for Coco Puffs, it merely takes her existing prediliction and "enhances" it. Frankly, they didn't really need the idol other than to make her robo-boss because Anders blowing up the Chantry was enough to allow her in a "normal" state of mind to annull the circle.

Orsino was lviing on the flip side of this so his personality makes sense. He put on a public face that was ingratiating because he had to. What seeems to throw people is that that public face isn't true (wow, apparently people haven't watched a lot of BBC or CNN or their local news channel to see that public figures often present inaccurate pictures of themselves).  Clearly behind the scenes he was willing to dabble in things beyond those allowed. Why? Well knowing the day might come when the circle would be assaulted he sought a defense maybe?

I think, and here is a shocker, people are so eager to hate DA2 that they are purposefully obtuse whereas they overlook the mind-dumbing stupidity and igrnoance of Loghain in the first game without so much as a thought.

[TreeHuggerHannah]

Sidney wrote...

Orsino was lviing on the flip side of this so his personality makes sense. He put on a public face that was ingratiating because he had to. What seeems to throw people is that that public face isn't true (wow, apparently people haven't watched a lot of BBC or CNN or their local news channel to see that public figures often present inaccurate pictures of themselves).  Clearly behind the scenes he was willing to dabble in things beyond those allowed. Why? Well knowing the day might come when the circle would be assaulted he sought a defense maybe?

I think, and here is a shocker, people are so eager to hate DA2 that they are purposefully obtuse whereas they overlook the mind-dumbing stupidity and igrnoance of Loghain in the first game without so much as a thought.

A story isn't the same as real life, because real life can't be expected to have a coherent plot. Obviously you can't know everything about every random celebrity and politician in the world, but in a fictional narrative you should be able to get a basic sense of who the major characters are. If it's done well, your reaction will be, "That was a surprise, but it fits the established character." (I think that was done well with Anders, by the way.) If on the other hand the player is left asking "Where did that come from?", then it's an issue of awkward plotting and character inconsistency.


For the record, I really like DA2. I just don't think it's perfect, and I don't think its flaws should be off limits to talk about.

[snackrat]

TheRedVipress wrote...

Karsciyin wrote...

*SNIP*

A few things:

A. Regarding connor: he never used blood-magic.
The Connor situation came about because he was not educated about the temptations of demons and about how to resist them. Jowan, despite the fact that I have some sympathy for him, was probably not qualified to teach anyone. Essentialy, what the Chantry is saying is "you are going to do it our way, or not at all, and Damn the consequences ". And so a misguided mother was left with Jowan as the only option for a teacher for her son.

B. Regarding blood-magic in general.
Blood-Magic users are easy to villify, because since age zero we are taught that "heroes" or "super-heroes" look in a certain way, and have certain powers, while "villains" or "super-villains" have their own seperate look and arsenal of powers. Naturally, blood-magic, is a villain's weapon because it's rather disgusting and disturbing for most people, and because of the lack of white lights and heavenly choirs...
In some ways it is similar to the "good-knight-versus-evil-witch" trope which was invented probably in order to make early religious atrocities easier to swallow.

C. "Blood-Magic" Vs. "Death-magic", and mind-control.
Canon DA makes no real distinction between the use of the caster's own blood for magic, to the slaughter of countless of innocents to fuel magic, or the domination of minds for nefarious purposes.
It simply hand-waves it all into a neat pile called "blood-magic", with the use of scary words like "evil", "demons", "corruption", etc.

Some people are going to use blood-magic in those ways - I agree. But pretending that most sane people will inevitably fall from using their own blood to slaughtering slaves, is as one-dimensional as it is outrageous.

D. I got the feeling, that Orsino's crimes and his rather surprising... transformation at the end *no matter what you chose*, were ham-fistedly inserted into the plot, because otherwise people would have had an harder time justifying and identifying with the templars, what's with their atitude of "kill them all and let the maker sort them out".

This is in contrast to Meredith's insanity, which was simply a complication and not the the only or worse case of Templar abuse and cruelty in DA2.

Sorry I didn't respond to this earlier, I thought this thread had died and it was pushed off my posting history.

A: I was using Conor as an example of why people fear demons, but you are certainly right that Jowan was in no condition to teach him temptation, he had already proven himself willing to listen to the call of blood magic. (Really what was Isolde thinking? Few mages outside the Chantry would have the will to teach her son, and those that do wouldn't be careless enough to be caught in the first place.)
If only the Circle was more like a boarding school with visitation and eventual graduation, she wouldn't have had to worry. *sigh* Stupid Chanty and its rules. As for the problem with no mages in a position of leadersip, well I can understand that. Tevinter started that way, but his competitors used blood to usurp him so he used blood to keep it. Just as today's politicians use lies and political promises to acheive the same effect.

B: Another good point. The connotations of something tend to be more powerful than their logic. (Pigs are proven many times smarter than dogs, but people still eat bacon and not dog in the Western world - not just because dogs are 'too useful' as most are domestic, but because the social connotation is that it is 'wrong, it's just... just wrong'.)
Certainly the Grey Wardens' fairly common use of Blood Magic shows that it can be wielded by heroes, and Anders blowing up the Chantry (filled with widows and orphans and all) shows not all who detest blood magic are heroes, either.
The problem I think is here isn't soley that they are doing blood magic (though due to other reasons that has problems also) but that to do so they have indicated they have to respect for the laws of the society they are (theoretically) following, be it Dalish or the Chantry circle. In societies that do that have these laws (I assume the Chasind do not mind it), blood magic is not so much of a problem - not because its potential is different, but as you mentioned - the social stigma is not present, at least not to the same degree. Just as owning weapons in my country is great cause for concern, but owning weapons in the States is a citizen's right.

C: This is true. But what concerns those in Chantry power isn't its actual use, it is the potential use. Even if your weapons are licenced and you have no criminal history or violent personality, you will still not be allowed to bring a shotgun in your carry-on luggage onto a plane. An example in DA's own books - most bees in a hive will not sting the keeper. Only few, and due to the sacrificed entailed, only those who deem it necessary. Yet professional beekeepers still wear protective gear for the sake of that small number under duress.
Could a target of mind control know they were being controlled, it would it seem like their idea? Blood magic isn't just powerful - it's insidious, and therefore the only way to be sure is to make sure it doesn't exist at all. Like preventing shootings/hijacks on a airplane by disallowing shotguns.

D: ANother great observation! This is pretty much the case. Meredith's aggression required her fighting regardless, Orsino was added for 'blancing' the number of boss fights. Pretty stupid, huh?
They could have, in hindsight, added all the other references to blood magic and dark ritual in the rest of the story to make it come a little less out of left field. Perhaps, if that design change wasn't made, Orsino would have been a good example of a mage - fighting back against oppression, to protect the weak from the unjust, campaign for freedom - without swapping out a mortal ruler for a demonic one with blood magic.

Unfortunately, DA2 has already gone down. The mage's coup was doomed to fail, for the sake of a sequel. So while what Orsino did was foolish and what Anders did ruined chances of peace, hiundsight is 20/20. Hopefully part of DAI will include at least a temporary resolution that isn't just "let all mages let loose their magic untrained and unchecked", or "put everything back to where the templars lock them up". Only way I can see that is to turn the Circle into a school instead of a jail. Maybe we'll even learn more about Pharamond's research, or if Sandal is right and 'all the magic will come back' people won't fear mages anymore.

Modifié par Karsciyin, 26 novembre 2013 - 02:17 .

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

Not having read any other post in this thread yet, I'll give my take on this.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the official reason given for having both boss battles in the game is the same excuse as a certain enemy in Mass Effect 3.  "We didn't want the player to miss out on this cool fight".

But there's one problem with this.  It doesn't fit with the plot!  It's illogical!  It doesn't make any sense!  Take the First Enchanter, for example.  Orsino has spent the entirety of the game being the level-headed, intelligent, kindly old elf.  Suddenly, even though Hawke and crew had the situation under control, he decides to go berserk and use blood magic!  What in the Maker's name...  THIS is why we have players who have no sympathy for the mages in Dragon Age II!  It's because every mage in Kirkwall who is given any screen time, other than sweet Bethany, is a blood mage and/or abomination!  Or a terrorist, in Anders's case.

Of course, this whole mess could have been avoided if Hawke had stepped up as viscount.  Dumar might have been afraid to oppose the knight-commander, but Viscount Hawke wouldn't stand for injustice.

Modifié par Neverwinter_Knight77, 26 novembre 2013 - 03:11 .

[Lluthren]

I dont understand that whole Orsino thing. He had freakin' Hawke & Co. by his side. What did he think would happen? Hawke suddenly falls through the ground and the templars win somehow? It came out of nowhere and it didn't feel like it served any purpose at all.

Now it just feels like siding with mages or templars doesn't really make a difference, it's not like Hawke joins the templars to purge all the mages in Thedas if he/she sided with Meredith, goes on the run with Orsino and the other mages to free all the circle mages and destroy the templar order when siding with the mages or just tries to flee Kirkwall with all the other citizens when remaining neutral. Hawke just runs from both sides, alone, because both sides went bananas and there are apparently no citizens in Kirkwall during this event.

If something like that happens in Inquisition, I think I'd be pretty sore.

It would've made more sense to me if the only boss was the leader of the side you are fighting and, if you remain neutral, the boss could have been Meredith, because she wants to kill your mage companions and you won't let her or she has an "if you're not with me, you're against me" kind of mentality, and/or Orsino because he looses it in an effort to fight the templars without you and you run into him possibly after he's killed Meredith. No odd boss fight, no betrayals.

[In Exile]

KainD wrote...

How and why you want to fight a person that you agree with and who's reasons are fine in your book is beyond me. 

How about if they want you dead? That's a pretty good reason. Bioware sort of went with that in JE, and even gave you the option of not fighting. 

[In Exile]

Morocco Mole wrote...
I am sorry. But Orsino turning on you is probably one of the dumbest things in a game full of dumb things. You can make this argument if you are siding with the templars, that's fine. But it does not make any sense at all for him to turn into a harvester in the mage ending. It is literally that way because Bioware needed another boss fight and just made him an insane blood mage like almost every other mage in the game.

But let's say Bioware doesn't have Orsino go all Harvester if you side with the mages because he doesn't have his back quite pushed to the wall. How does that not still make him a (pretty) insane blood mage? Apparently on the templar side of things Orsino is totally proud of his colaboration with Mr. Zombie Maker and dabbling in blood magic. I'm not seeing how that makes him less bonkers than, say, Grace or Decimus. Just better at not looking like a loon 

Loghain actually had motives that were explained in-story and not overriden at the final moment because the archdemon was controlling him the entire time.

Well, actually, that was a plot point Bioware had in and dropped. And it would frankly have explained the unbridled stupidity of all his moves. At this point, in cannon, Loghain had a reason for what he did, but what he did was stupid and seemed perfectly designed to fail to achieve most of his goals.