434 réponses à ce sujet

[Augustei]

One thing that really concerns me about Dragon Age Inquisition is the writing team dehumanizing the antagonist again like they did with Meredith.
When you give the villain motivations and reasons for their actions like with Loghain doing what he did for the sake of Ferelden's security it makes for a good antagonist who to some can even be sympathetic and agreeable and if not this they at least make for a good well written antagonist.
Meredith was like this at well up until a certain point where we had the whole "Red Lyrium just made her crazy" when this happens everything just sort of falls apart and you dont really care anymore, your just there to kill the crazy lady and w/e. Same with the Saren and the Reapers its not good, ME would have been so much better if Saren was simply a rogue spectre making a power play or something.
So please stop making your antagonists crazy, possessed and brainwashed. Because someone like Loghain is so so much better =D

[ghostzodd]

I concur I like when my antagonists in any media whether it be books, games, manga have clear reasons why their are doing what they do not just I AM INSANE IN THE MEMBRANE.

Modifié par ghostzodd, 12 décembre 2013 - 07:22 .

[TEWR]

From my perspective, the red lyrium was vital to the conceptual story of DAII but it was not handled well. It has many things going for it, such as a literal depiction of power corrupting. Meredith taking the Viscount's seat is the idea of political power corrupting her, the idol being pure power.

What's problematic about it (many things are, in truth) in part is how we see her with the thing for the entire Act, rendering her state of mind moot.

Doesn't help that Bioware went out of their way to make her act like a tyrant.

So the idea was not the problem, but rather the implementation. From a writing perspective for DAII, I think it was necessary.

For DAI, I'll wait and see.

[Ophir147]

Let's be real, the Archdemon was the antagonist of DA:O. Loghain was more like a miniboss.

I didn't find the Archdemon to be very relatable, personally. shrug. I mean, I get that you're some sort of zombie dragon that breathes ghost fire, but who are you.. really?

Modifié par Ophir147, 12 décembre 2013 - 07:18 .

[ghostzodd]

Ophir147 wrote...

Let's be real, the Archdemon was the antagonist of DA:O. Loghain was more like a miniboss.

I didn't find the Archdemon to be very relatable, personally. shrug. I mean, I get that you're some sort of zombie dragon that breathes ghost fire, but who are you.. really?

He was secretly a fat guy in a little coat:o

[Hellion Rex]

MasterScribe wrote...

I disagree. I think it's unrealistic to humanize every antagonist. It should depend on the narrative.

Sometimes a traditional antagonist works really well, and is more appropriate.

Sometimes I don't care why he or she is antagonizing me.

[Fredward]

Dehumanizing the antagonist is a theme with Bioware. One I'd really to see stop too.

[Augustei]

MasterScribe wrote...

I disagree. I think it's unrealistic to humanize every antagonist. It should depend on the narrative.

Sometimes a traditional antagonist works really well, and is more appropriate.

Sometimes I don't care why he or she is antagonizing me.

Then you like inferior quality writing.
And how is it unrealistic? It makes it more realistic if anything

[Anomander Rake]

The problem with humanization is that it is hard to make an antagonist seem human without taking away from thewrong things which they have done or without seeming to justify them.

Sometimes humans do things which are evil in a way  which it is impossible as a rational observer to see their internal logic behind why they did what they did.

I think Loghain was characterized well but that does not mean that same path should be followed with the antagonist of DA:I

Modifié par Anomander Rake, 12 décembre 2013 - 08:03 .

[Ozzy]

How do you dehumanise a demon?

[Ieldra]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...
Dehumanizing the antagonist is a theme with Bioware. One I'd really to see stop too.

Same here. I think it cheapens our protagonists if the antagonist is of a kind where killing them is a foregone conclucion from any reasonable point of view. It makes me feel like an exterminator, and the implied decision to kill them meaningless. DAO's Loghain was a very appreciated break in the pattern. Perhaps he wasn't exactly sane, but his mental state was one we could relate to, he wasn't barking mad like Meredith, and most of all it wasn't caused by some ancient evil (BTW, why can't it be ancient good for a change?).

Relevant thread: Can we have fewer insane enemies please?.

Note:
This does not necessarily apply to non-human enemies. They can have priorities that make them act like what would be insane in a human and still be consistent and reasonably goal-oriented from their own point of view. They don't need "humanizing", just as human antagonists don't need dehumanizing. Example: I don't know what an archdemon wants, but maybe it wants to populate Thedas with darkspawn. Indiscrimately killing all humans, elves, dwarves etc.. makes sense where it wouldn't make sense for a human who's just power-hungry.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 12 décembre 2013 - 08:29 .

[Hellion Rex]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...
Dehumanizing the antagonist is a theme with Bioware. One I'd really to see stop too.

Same here. I think it cheapens our protagonists if the antagonist is of a kind where killing them is a foregone conclucion from any reasonable point of view. It makes me feel like an exterminator, and the implied decision to kill them meaningless. DAO's Loghain was a very appreciated break in the pattern. Perhaps he wasn't exactly sane, but his mental state was one we could relate to, he wasn't barking mad like Meredith, and most of all it wasn't caused by some ancient evil (BTW, why can't it be ancient good for a change?).

Relevant thread: Can we have fewer insane enemies please?.

Because ancient good doesn't have quite the same ring to it as an "ancient evil".

[Hellion Rex]

I am actually quite fine with the antagonists that we have had so far.

[Ieldra]

eluvianix wrote...
I am actually quite fine with the antagonists that we have had so far.

I'm fine with DAO's mix. Meredith and Orsino, not so much. And don't get me started on the presentation of the Reapers.

[Hellion Rex]

MasterScribe wrote...

XxDeonxX wrote...

MasterScribe wrote...

I disagree. I think it's unrealistic to humanize every antagonist. It should depend on the narrative.

Sometimes a traditional antagonist works really well, and is more appropriate.

Sometimes I don't care why he or she is antagonizing me.

Then you like inferior quality writing.
And how is it unrealistic? It makes it more realistic if anything

It's unrealistic because not every antagonist can be reduced to human terms. The Archdemon is a monster whose goal is to destroy as much as possible.

Meredith was corrupted by a magical rock. At some point, she was no longer Meredith. There was just a Meredith-shaped shell driven by chaotic magical forces. Meredith the person "died" before Meredith's body.

Although she was declining, she didn't actually full on snap until the very end, when she began to see her fellow templars as enemies.

[Hellion Rex]

Ieldra2 wrote...

eluvianix wrote...
I am actually quite fine with the antagonists that we have had so far.

I'm fine with DAO's mix. Meredith and Orsino, not so much. And don't get me started on the presentation of the Reapers.

Yes, let's not start on the Reapers, lest we summon David from the depths of the ME3 forums.
I understand how Orsino and Meredith were meant to represent the two extremes, although I don't think they were bad. Although they could have been written better, perhaps.

[Ieldra]

eluvianix wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...
Dehumanizing the antagonist is a theme with Bioware. One I'd really to see stop too.

Same here. I think it cheapens our protagonists if the antagonist is of a kind where killing them is a foregone conclucion from any reasonable point of view. It makes me feel like an exterminator, and the implied decision to kill them meaningless. DAO's Loghain was a very appreciated break in the pattern. Perhaps he wasn't exactly sane, but his mental state was one we could relate to, he wasn't barking mad like Meredith, and most of all it wasn't caused by some ancient evil (BTW, why can't it be ancient good for a change?).

Relevant thread: Can we have fewer insane enemies please?.

Because ancient good doesn't have quite the same ring to it as an "ancient evil".

The problem I have with this is that a pattern of ancient evil without a balance on the good side establishes a thematic message promoting a hidebound mentality: don't go exploring that old stuff, it will only backfire and awaken some evil.

[wolfhowwl]

It's going to be another indoctrinated ****** like Meredith or the Illusive Man.

Search your feelings; you know it to be true.

[Fredward]

To me the problem is overuse. There's nothing wrong with a Maniacal Cackling villian (even though I prefer the nuanced ones) it's just that it gets used way, way, WAY too often. It gets dull. And sometimes it seems like a copout, yah know if the badguy is unambiguously bad (or insane) you don't have to feel bad about killing them. Or think about why you're doing it. The Illusive Man might have gone into the grey-area of the villain spectrum but he was always a racist **** and then he even got indoctrinated which, again, robs the villain of any kind of ambiguity. Loghain was good though. I hope DAI goes that direction again.

[Ieldra]

MasterScribe wrote...

XxDeonxX wrote...

MasterScribe wrote...

I disagree. I think it's unrealistic to humanize every antagonist. It should depend on the narrative.

Sometimes a traditional antagonist works really well, and is more appropriate.

Sometimes I don't care why he or she is antagonizing me.

Then you like inferior quality writing.
And how is it unrealistic? It makes it more realistic if anything

It's unrealistic because not every antagonist can be reduced to human terms. The Archdemon is a monster whose goal is to destroy as much as possible.

Actually, you don't know what the archdemon's goal is. Maybe he wants to populate Thedas with darkspawn? But yes, you are correct. The difference is that it wouldn't make sense for any coherent human to "destroy everything" and to kill indiscriminately, so if we have a human antagonist they shouldn't do that. Making them insane just to make it 100% clear they must be killed cheapens our protagonists from heroes to exterminators.

[Hellion Rex]

Ieldra2 wrote...
The problem I have with this is that a pattern of ancient evil without a balance on the good side establishes a thematic message promoting a hidebound mentality: don't go exploring that old stuff, it will only backfire and awaken some evil.

I am not sure why, but I do believe there are some forces of ancient good in the DA Universe. Whether it be from Arlathan (I'm looking at you, Merrill) or the Maker, I do believe it exists. Are you familiar with the story of Pandora's box? She unleashed all the evils upon the world, but still left within the box was hope. I am totally just theorizing and headcanoning my butt off, but I was just wondering if there is something similar left in the Black City. When the magisters entered, they unleashed the Taint upon the world. But what if something pure was still left in the CIty, some force of good? Don't mind my ramblings. I'm just theorizing.