132 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

wolfhowwl wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
Meredith was decent but needed more fleshing out.

Maybe axe the red lyrium as well?

It didn't do much other than provide a rather ridiculous boss fight and an excuse to have a battle even if you sided with her.

You mentioned the Catalyst but the Illusive Moron was pretty dumb as well.

I think you could keep the red lyrium as long as you made it clear she was in control when she called for the right of annulment. That she didn't 'go crazy' until she began pulling power from the lyrium during the battle.

[Reznore57]

Meredith just didn't work for me , it's too bad because I can respect and understand some templars.
And sometimes I would think "Woaw , the woman is making sense!" but she always ended up saying something annoying.
I just couldn't take her seriously , she had a really bad case of tunnel vision.

Same as Loghain , really.
The villain who's too paranoid to see the big picture.They both ruined what they were trying to save.
I think the lyrium idol was just too much for Meredith , she was already a flawed character...so it wasn't as tragic seeing her fall from grace.

For DAI , I'm not sure what I'd like .I guess a villain who's hurting my pc on some very personal level could be nice , even better if in the end the villain main plan is actualy making sense.
Also like a villain with a sense of humor ,and wits.I want to be trolled!
Guess to work the antagonist should know some things , your pc doesn't ...

It sounds a bit like the catalyst (and I hate the freaking catalyst ) but if the entity is logical and have an actual point ...it could work imho.

[ShallowlLife9871]

I want a antagonist i can't predict.  Like Master Li.

one look at loghain and i knew he was going to be a bad egg. same deal with Merideth.... and the illisive man....and Arl Howe.

anyways. 

 I like the idea of a personal touch too. so long as it doens't fall into the "former bbf/lover/ mentor or Sibbling truned evil then redemid by killing him/herself" plot.  
but I have hopes that BioWare will deliver.

[nightscrawl]

A fun evil one! What I would like to see is an actual antagonist that we fight against who is using the veil tear to their advantage, but not necessarily having caused it, and then after we defeat them we do whatever it is to close the tear. This might involve some sort of "race against the clock" scenario where we have to get to a certain place before something happens and then do something to either prevent the veil tear from opening completely/permanently, or being in the right place at the right time to close/repair it.

So, in short a two part strategy involving both a literal and figurative antagonist.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 25 novembre 2013 - 01:13 .

[Nefla]

Someone relatable and sane, no matter their views. I don't want another Meredith/Orsino.

[byarru]

Not crazy one but motivated one and clever one
One, one, one

[Sylvius the Mad]

A sympathetic one. One with whom I can identify.

[nos_astra]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

A sympathetic one. One with whom I can identify.

What's the point of being the antagonist then?

[The_Huntress]

Driven.  Powerful.  Dominating. Confident.  Sexy.  He should be everything their male LIs are not.

[Squall2.0]

Perhaps somebody like The Master or President Eden. I liked how they were wrong but believed they were right, and that their minions misunderstood them. Or a second-in-command that does WAY worse stuff than what the boss wants in the name of their boss to make the protagonist kill the leader. Either way, I still want a reason to hate someone. I hated Col. Autumn, Saren, Loghain, even Lavos. I enjoyed hating them. Though, I wouldn't want a Lavos type character for the main antagonist. I only hated that one for *SPOILER* killing Chrono.

[Linkenski]

I prefer the antagonist to be physically as strong as the hero and about as smart but he has the more power.

[KainD]

klarabella wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

A sympathetic one. One with whom I can identify.

What's the point of being the antagonist then?

Exactly my point. These people want to beat up their inner self, lol. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

klarabella wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

A sympathetic one. One with whom I can identify.

What's the point of being the antagonist then?

A villain who's simply evil with no redeeming qualities isn't that interesting.

But one who acts for reasons you can understand - that's a quality character.

[Beerfish]

Someone that is smart and logical.  Not some RAWR! type of enemy.  A guy like Irenicus, some mystery to him but as the story goes along you see why he is doing what he is doing even if you are against it.  Someone that the writers can make you loathe but still be interesting.

[nightscrawl]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

A villain who's simply evil with no redeeming qualities isn't that interesting.

But one who acts for reasons you can understand - that's a quality character.

I disagree. There can be villains that you love to watch/read even if they have no redeeming qualities. Villains that exude intelligence, craftiness, and pursue their goals with laser focus can be quite interesting and entertaining, but don't need to be sympathetic. I want to understand what a villain's motivations are, but I don't need to identify with them.

For examples that everyone should be familiar with: my favorite Disney villains are Scar, Ursula, and Hades. None of those I named are insane, but neither are they sympathetic. To contrast, Cruella de Vil is insane and extreme, and hinders her own goals with her behavior. Even though she is also entertaining to watch, she doesn't make a good villain because of it.

I'm not a huge comic fan, and first saw this character in the Batman & Robin movie. For a sympathetic villain, I will point to Mr. Freeze. The current origin story revolves around his terminally ill wife being cryogenically frozen, explaining his obsession with ice, and building a criminal empire to raise research funds. It is sad, pathetic, and I don't find it entertaining to have such a villain. I don't want a villain that I feel sorry for. I want a villain where I will simultaneously rejoice their downfall, and bemoan it for the loss of the entertaining character.

[Nightdragon8]

byarru wrote...

Not crazy one but motivated one and clever one
One, one, one

you mean more like General Oleg Petrosky from Mass Effect 3 Omega DLC

[Volus Warlord]

1.) "Decidedly" Evil

Not indoctrinated or crazy or something like that. Tired of the "manipulated" villain.

2.) Competent

Tired of "my enemies are weak and cannot stand up to my awesomeness" juvenile power trip creator. Give me an enemy that is smart, strong, and unyielding.

3.) Instills fear and hate

Kai Leng, for instance, came across as annoying (if not cheesy) rather than terrifying. How about an enemy that you or your companions legitimately hate and fear? Maybe one that kills your companions or something?


Lawful or Chaotic doesn't matter too much to me. Both can work beautifully.

[Sylvius the Mad]

nightscrawl wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

A villain who's simply evil with no redeeming qualities isn't that interesting.

But one who acts for reasons you can understand - that's a quality character.

I disagree. There can be villains that you love to watch/read even if they have no redeeming qualities. Villains that exude intelligence, craftiness, and pursue their goals with laser focus can be quite interesting and entertaining, but don't need to be sympathetic. I want to understand what a villain's motivations are, but I don't need to identify with them.

I don't see how I could do one without the other.

I don't want a villain that I feel sorry for. I want a villain where I will simultaneously rejoice their downfall, and bemoan it for the loss of the entertaining character.

Whereas, I think a good villain is one where I might regret having to defeat him.  Or one I might wish to emulate.

[Lebanese Dude]

Volus Warlord wrote...

1.) "Decidedly" Evil

Not indoctrinated or crazy or something like that. Tired of the "manipulated" villain.

2.) Competent

Tired of "my enemies are weak and cannot stand up to my awesomeness" juvenile power trip creator. Give me an enemy that is smart, strong, and unyielding.

3.) Instills fear and hate

Kai Leng, for instance, came across as annoying (if not cheesy) rather than terrifying. How about an enemy that you or your companions legitimately hate and fear? Maybe one that kills your companions or something?


Lawful or Chaotic doesn't matter too much to me. Both can work beautifully.

This is a good summary of what I'd like to see in future antagonists.

However, I have no real qualm with having multiple antagonists with a possible manipulation/redemption scenario.

[In Exile]

nightscrawl wrote...
I disagree. There can be villains that you love to watch/read even if they have no redeeming qualities. Villains that exude intelligence, craftiness, and pursue their goals with laser focus can be quite interesting and entertaining, but don't need to be sympathetic. I want to understand what a villain's motivations are, but I don't need to identify with them.

Those are fun villains - like the Master as postrayed by John Simm - but they not compelling antagonist which is what I think Sylvius is talking about. I can understand a motivation like "cannibalism gives me sexual satisfication" but that doesn't mean a villain with that motivation is compelling. And that's pretty much what any chaotic evil motivation amounts to.

I'm not a huge comic fan, and first saw this character in the Batman & Robin movie. For a sympathetic villain, I will point to Mr. Freeze. The current origin story revolves around his terminally ill wife being cryogenically frozen, explaining his obsession with ice, and building a criminal empire to raise research funds. It is sad, pathetic, and I don't find it entertaining to have such a villain. I don't want a villain that I feel sorry for. I want a villain where I will simultaneously rejoice their downfall, and bemoan it for the loss of the entertaining character.

Like I said: that's the difference between a compelling antagonist and a fun villain. I prefer compelling ones. When it comes down to a battle of beliefs, and the antagonist doesn't have to be a villain. 

[In Exile]

Volus Warlord wrote...

Kai Leng, for instance, came across as annoying (if not cheesy) rather than terrifying. How about an enemy that you or your companions legitimately hate and fear? Maybe one that kills your companions or something?


Lawful or Chaotic doesn't matter too much to me. Both can work beautifully.

There's no way for the bolded to happen without turning the antagonist into Kai Leng. 

[BlueMagitek]

In Exile wrote...

There's no way for the bolded to happen without turning the antagonist into Kai Leng.

I see you haven't played the Ultima Series.

[In Exile]

BlueMagitek wrote...
I see you haven't played the Ultima Series.

No. But I'm happy to google search for the right game if you tell me which in the series it was...?

My point is just that companions are basically unkillable machines while in your party... unless plot magic because antagonist can kill them for drama reasons? That's lame. Same as the helicopter evac. 

Modifié par In Exile, 26 novembre 2013 - 08:26 .

[BlueMagitek]

If I remember correctly, it was V.

It only happened under certain conditions. It's been a while. Look up Blackthorne.

Edit:

I assume people generally understand cutscene death is more serious.

Modifié par BlueMagitek, 26 novembre 2013 - 08:32 .

[TK514]

Competence is key.

As for motivation, depends on the story. I prefer a main villain to at least be relatable. I know that the Archdemon is the final boss of DA:O, but I never really considered it a villain. It was more of a natural disaster that acted as the backdrop, against which the real events of the story played out. If it had been the only attempt at a villain in DA:O, I likely would have enjoyed the game a lot less.