132 réponses à ce sujet

[AresKeith]

KainD wrote...

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. 

>implying antagonists has to be completely evil 

[MrMrPendragon]

An antagonist with a really good motivation for the actions that he/she did. I also want the antagonist to have SOME good quality.

It's really easy to not be concerned of the bad guy/girl if s/he's completely bad. At least when he/she has something other than "ruling the world" kind of thing - you're more inclined to get to know him/her better instead of cutting her/him down on sight.

I just want 2 protagonist - one for the Veil Tear, and one for everything concerning Darkspawn and the Old Gods. Unless both are orchestrated by an individual or a group of individuals - that's good too.

It should be a Triple Threat between antagonist A, antagonist B, and everyone else.  BOTH protagonist should be equal - in power, in status, and in role (lore-wise). I don't want one of them to be lower than the other.


Lastly, I don't want the antagonist(s) to be character(s) I have never seen or heard of before - as in their presence in Thedas was nearing non-existent right up to the point you meet him/her.

It would be really great if we had those "Jinkies! it was ______ all along"- They should've had at least one role in either the books, the comics, and/or the games.

I know that's one of those cliche plot twists - but that's where the motivation comes in. A very well-written and detailed explanation on to why events/actions transpired in the way they did would be the key to a solid antagonist. And a few good secrets explained will be a big plus.

[Mike_Neel]

For me the best antagonist is the one who thinks what they're doing is for the greater good. Of course it's more complicated than that. You have to properly convey why they think that and how they internalize the belief that what they're doing they're not doing for entirely selfless reasons. At least in their own deluded way.

Take DAII for example. Orsino and Meredith both fill that regard but we needed more time with them or at least some sort of communication to better understand where they come from. The Arishok however is a great example of it in DAII. He's not acting out of self interest. He's not sacking the city for plunder. He's doing it because he thinks that the Qun is in the city's best interests and it's properly conveyed even if you as a player didn't exactly sympathize with him, you understood why he felt the way he did.

[Sylvius the Mad]

BlueMagitek wrote...

If I remember correctly, it was V.

Ultima IV, V, and VII were so impossibly good that it's not really fair to compare modern games to them.  We are now so far removed from that level of quality that we can't get that far in one step.

I would love games to head back in that direction, but I think something less ambitious might be a better place to start.

[Sidney]

ArcherTactlenecks wrote...

An antagonist with a really good motivation for the actions that he/she did. I also want the antagonist to have SOME good quality.

Why? Irenicus...no good. Sovereign...no good. Malak...no good. Arch-Demon....No good. Irenicus and Malak are just your run of the mill BSC world/universe domination types. The AD has zero motivation other than, well, he just is. Sovereign has no known motivation during ME other than "because he wants to" - and frankly knowing what his motives are don't help. 

Sometimes the bad guys are just bad. Sometimes crazy people do crazy things for crazy reasons.

[TeamLexana]

I think the most interesting villians are the ones that think they are the hero of their own story. Loghain is a prime example.

[MrMrPendragon]

Sidney wrote...

ArcherTactlenecks wrote...

An antagonist with a really good motivation for the actions that he/she did. I also want the antagonist to have SOME good quality.

Why? Irenicus...no good. Sovereign...no good. Malak...no good. Arch-Demon....No good. Irenicus and Malak are just your run of the mill BSC world/universe domination types. The AD has zero motivation other than, well, he just is. Sovereign has no known motivation during ME other than "because he wants to" - and frankly knowing what his motives are don't help. 

Sometimes the bad guys are just bad. Sometimes crazy people do crazy things for crazy reasons.

That's exactly what they shouldn't do. They can't just write off a character as "bad guy" without explaining why they're being bad in the first place. That's lazy writing.

I'm not saying the revelation of the antagonist's motives should be done early on. Actually, I'd rather have the motivation be revealed at the end, with some little hints here and there as the story progressess - you know like a suspense/thriller.

Also, we are not entirely certain the Archdemon doesn't have any motivation. There's probably some underlying reason or plan. The AD are intelligent, they can command hordes of darkspawn. Not to mention these guys are god-level beings compared to the people of Thedas.  It almost goes against that nature of being intelligent to have them rampage "just for the lulz".

Sovereign is different. The nature of his character prevents him from having any sort of motivation other than the one programmed into him by the catalyst.

The antagonist(s) in DA are supposed to be beings who can make decisions - what I'm asking for are the answers to why they did what they did.

[Killdren88]

Does the Antagonist need to be sympathetic? Do they need to be complex like a extremists with good intentions? Honestly I'm all for someone we would love to hate. The kind of villain no matter their back story we can just enjoy hating and watch die.

[TeamLexana]

Killdren88 wrote...

Does the Antagonist need to be sympathetic? Do they need to be complex like a extremists with good intentions? Honestly I'm all for someone we would love to hate. The kind of villain no matter their back story we can just enjoy hating and watch die.

Yeah, that could be cool too. Handsome Jack from B2 was exactly like that. Whole game is like "omg! that guy is such an ass!" But.... I loved him for it and he could make me laugh even though if I thought too hard about it, I'd feel bad about it, lololol. Not saying DA villian should hold be comic relief though but I enjoyed hating him.

[KainD]

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.

So basically, a character is well written as long as you can personally relate to that character, great. 

[Killdren88]

TeamLexana wrote...

Killdren88 wrote...

Does the Antagonist need to be sympathetic? Do they need to be complex like a extremists with good intentions? Honestly I'm all for someone we would love to hate. The kind of villain no matter their back story we can just enjoy hating and watch die.

Yeah, that could be cool too. Handsome Jack from B2 was exactly like that. Whole game is like "omg! that guy is such an ass!" But.... I loved him for it and he could make me laugh even though if I thought too hard about it, I'd feel bad about it, lololol. Not saying DA villian should hold be comic relief though but I enjoyed hating him.

Exactly. I think Bioware can take a break from the conflicted angsty villain who thinks they are working towards the greater good. Give us a bastard we will enjoy cutting down. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

KainD 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.

So basically, a character is well written as long as you can personally relate to that character, great.

If his decisions appear to make sense, from his perspective, then I can relate to him.

I identify with any character who employs half-decent reasoning.

[KainD]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If his decisions appear to make sense, from his perspective, then I can relate to him.

I identify with any character who employs half-decent reasoning.

Would you say that Morinth from ME2 is an antagonist? Do you relate to her? 

[Rusty Sandusky]

I want the antagonist to look like Al Roker from NBC Today.

[frankf43]

Humanoid, intelligent, witty, cunning and supremely charismatic.
I want to have to out think him/her as well as out power them.

[Kalas Magnus]

A strong willed female....

THAT DOESNT TURN ON ME JUST CUZ

i dont know why i never get the option to side with the "bad" guy. I want something like fallout new vegas where I can join them and we'll work together to take out anything that opposes us.

Modifié par Kalas Magnus, 27 novembre 2013 - 10:47 .

[Uccio]

Someone like Loghain. Reasonable and emotional character. No more raving lunatics like Meredith.

[Highskill64]

I'm hoping for a Antagonist thats very manipulative, I want someone that seems to be in control of everything for some reason or another.

[Rusty Sandusky]

Two words: AL. ROKER.

[Ieldra]

I want to see a worthy opponent:

(a) an intelligent antagonist, who only loses because of forgivable mistakes that don't make them appear stupid.  
( a sane antagonist with goals that appear rational from their viewpoint, not self-defeating ones.
© a sane antagonist who isn't "evil for evil's sake". One who doesn't hesitate to kill people in their way, but also doesn't delight in cruelty.

[Sidney]

Ukki wrote...

Someone like Loghain. Reasonable and emotional character. No more raving lunatics like Meredith.

...of course until she gets all idol-whacked in the last moments Meredeith is a lot more reeasonable than Loghain. I'm not sure how Loghain gets this "reasonable" or "sensible" perception from fans. Meredeith is suspicious of mages. Given what we know that isn't an unreasonable stand - plenty of mages do bad, bad things. The Circle she oversees is particularly problematic because of the history of Kirkwall. Further, she is part of the Templars who are an organization who are supposed to be suspicious of the Circle.

Loghain, OTOH, is a flat out idiot. His whole goal is to not see another Orlesian invasion which is a pipe dream unless you bought the DLC where they had to retrofit some form of Orlesian anything and even that isn't "invasion". He is at the battle of Ostgar. He seees the size of the Darkspawn force and I guess is more interested in parsing the definition of "real" blight than stopping his whole Kingdom from  going down the drain. Real or not they are overrunning the countryside, sacking villages but he is too much of a "nationalist" to worry about that? Sorry, that isn't any more credible than Meredith.

[Sidney]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I want to see a worthy opponent:

(a) an intelligent antagonist, who only loses because of forgivable mistakes that don't make them appear stupid.  
( a sane antagonist with goals that appear rational from their viewpoint, not self-defeating ones.
© a sane antagonist who isn't "evil for evil's sake". One who doesn't hesitate to kill people in their way, but also doesn't delight in cruelty.

Really most antagonists lose becuase they do stupid things because given that they have overwhelming assets at thier disposal it takes some epic level of  stupid to get defeated. Put another way, YOU in the same position as the evil overlord would not lose to the hardy band of plucky but "underpowered at the start" adventurerers.

I'm always curious what people take to be "sane". I think Loghain is, as I just posted, a flat out nutter and doesn't have non-self defeating goals. I'm not sure that guys like Malek or Irenicus have really lofty goals - I guess they make sense but they are just evil for evil's sake.  Sovereign is at least non-self defeating and has a pretty reasonable plan but is basically on the evil for evil's sake plan but tlaking with Sovereign is on eof the high points of any game. Sauron is pretty much just evil for evil's sake and doesn't appear to have much in the way of any "rational" goals. You look at a "charasismatic" villan like Hannibal Lecter. He's evil, a psychopath, who delights in cruelty but he is awfully compelling.  I'm a lot less interested in having a villan who I can care about and think I can redeem than having just a well written of any kind villan and beyond even that you can give me a total non-entity like Sauron or the very similar Arch Demon as long as the overall story is good.

[In Exile]

Sidney wrote...
Loghain, OTOH, is a flat out idiot. His whole goal is to not see another Orlesian invasion which is a pipe dream unless you bought the DLC where they had to retrofit some form of Orlesian anything and even that isn't "invasion". He is at the battle of Ostgar. He seees the size of the Darkspawn force and I guess is more interested in parsing the definition of "real" blight than stopping his whole Kingdom from  going down the drain. Real or not they are overrunning the countryside, sacking villages but he is too much of a "nationalist" to worry about that? Sorry, that isn't any more credible than Meredith.

Loghain is always a funny example, because Bioware cut the plot he was being mind-controlled by the archdemon that explained, well, all the stupid decisions. So now we're left with the stupid decisions, but without the explanation for them. So I think him offered as a contrast to Meredith is pretty interesting.