69 réponses à ce sujet

[Aurok]

There are a lot of villains in the real world and it hasn't ended yet. Most 'bad' people don't want to destroy the world, they just put themselves and their own goals above any moral concerns (to a greater or lesser extent).

Letting the player become a panto villain destroying everything for the sake of it isn't very interesting (and doesn't make for an interesting actual villain either) but allowing them to act for their own gain would be welcome. I would much rather play as the Tevinter who wants to become Archon at any cost, or will do anything to bring glory to the Tevinter Empire, rather than play as the one Tevinter who is hellbent on turning Tevinter into 21st century San Francisco.

If nothing else then the option of a convincing 'selfish / ruthless' path gives more weight to choosing the 'selfless' path. I know Inquisition offers this to some extent but I think it needs to be more fully realised if they go to Tevinter.

[MadDemiurg]

I dunno, I genuinely enjoyed evil campaigns in Blizz RTS games, like Kerrigan in SC1 (they've messed it up in SC2 though) or Arthas in WC3. Now, these are not RPGs but they do tell a story and make you follow a character.

 

What I would like even more is actual grey morality and no really bad or good characters. DA claimed to be like this in certain instances but it ended up not being true. DAI is another high fantasy good vs bad story in its core. It managed to get some of the ambiguous side stories and characters right, I liked Blackwall in particular, but that was way too short.

 

If imagining what Tervinter DA could've been I could see it about fighting for political power inside the imperium while also dealing with external threats.

 

Some very rough ideas:

• The current Archon dies, upsetting the balance of power in the empire. This could happen at the beginning or at the middle of the game. In the first case first half of the game would have you dealing with less global problems. The death could be a generic one or mysterious/planned and play a major part in the story (apart from leaving the place vacant). The 2nd option is probably preferred.
• Empire could also face some imminent threat like massive qunari invasion at the same time.
• You can be playing as one of the magisters, your objective being to gain influence over various political powers to be ultimately elected a new Archon, while also dealing with external threats.
• Obviously, political games would include a lot of backstabbing, as doing a quest for everyone to gain their favor should not be an option. Depending on the course taken you gain friends (or at least friends"") as well as enemies. Also, some of the friends can change their mind in critical moments. Same goes for companions for such game, they should pursue their own goals and you will end up fighting some of them in the end in any case.
• This story can end positively for you, with you ending up an Archon, but that would require being a total ass and backstabbing everyone before they do that to you. Conclusion could be quite similar to the first Godfather movie where you get a coronation while all your remaining enemies and former friends are getting crushed. I think it can be quite good this way.
• Otherwise you can get an ending where your plans fall apart and, betrayed by everyone, you get some last epic battle in a last effort to turn things around. You obviously fail but go out in a really flashy way.
• Then the next Archon that unites the empire and deals with external threats can easily become one of the villains of the next games, invading Orlais, Ferelden or smth like this.

This also leaves the world in a quite normal state at the end, as the story doesn't involve you building a Super Mega Death Ray to kill all humans. Surprisingly. this is a quite stupid objective.

[Geth Supremacy]

In the words of a great and wise "Vint"

 

Tevinters are NOT Villians, but "perspective based heros" 

 

true words.

[Sunlight Heart]

So how exactly would you "win" this particular game, by taking over/destroying Thedas? What would be your antagonist, the forces of good arrayed against you? Does that mean they win in the end and your character is killed? Is the final boss battle a shoe-in for the "good" guys?

It would basically require two games to fix the world: the first in which you are the villain and do your thing, and the second in which you play a new hero that fixes your previous character's mess.

This just seems like "let's be different for the sake of being different."

You're over thinking this by a lot.

[Pewps]

While I don't know if the next protagonist should be a full on villain, I think if the next DA4 takes place in Tevinter, then the protagonist should have the option to be much more Machiavellian/scheming. In fact I think that BioWare should reward the player for being merciless, and that people who play with morals in mind should be rewarded with a weaker power base than someone who doesn't. 

[Vulkan Lives]

In short , it wouldn't make any sense if you were to play the " bad guy " . I mean ,that would be like asking to play as the Reapers in Mass Effect game. I get where you're coming from, but Bioware is all about being the good guy and saving the world. Sure, you can be an ass to those around you, but the end goal is the same.

I think it would make perfect sense. You wouldn't have to start as the villain, you would be able to see that it isn't a case of Black/White. You wouldn't necessarily have to survive the game's conclusion either, just leave some sort of lasting impact on the world. The problem I see with Bioware games is that you always know the outcome, the hero rides in with all their followers and defeats the big baddie and it's all sunshine and rainbows. Why not try to restore your dying nation to its former strength and lead it to an ill fated war resulting in your death and subsequent martyrdom? We never get a good look at the origins of the villain, imagine the curveballs that could be thrown.

[Celtic Latino]

I think the whole villain option was dropped after the Legacy games (BG, KOTOR, NWN, Jade Empire) in favor of a hero/antihero (first two Mass Effect games, Origins) and now hero with multiple personalities (Mass Effect 3, DA2/Inquisition). (SWTOR a notable exception but I don't really count MMOs).

I wouldn't mind the option if they allowed you to be an antivillain just as much as a backbiting/manipulative or puppy kicking, scheming one. Might actually make for an interesting spinoff even. But I don't think it would be well received since most like to be a hero and 'save the world'.

The best that could probably be achieved is to have the PC work for a villainous organization and be able to characterize how and why he/she does. Though some may write it off as another Cerberus, it could be worked to feel compelling at first but then define your PCs dealings and possible changes with the faction over time. This would allow for heroes, heel turn face, antihero, antivillain and true villains. Its a step at least though I doubt it would be done considering the stories BW leans towards lately.

[keepthebeat929]

Tevinter's not a bad idea.  Before Inquisition came out, I was hoping we would at some point find our way into Antiva.  So what about an Antivan main character?  Perhaps as a Crow?

[Wodan Yrmir]

we should be able to create our own DARKSPAWN who can think for them self  time like in awakening

[Taura-Tierno]

I certainly like the idea of playing the villain, but I doubt they'd make a game exclusively for that. Too many people that want to be a hero. 

I'd rather they made another game where you can *choose* to be evil/selfish. We haven't really had that since Knights of the Old Republic. 

[SpiritMuse]

I think it'd be interesting to be the "hero with bad publicity" where everyone thinks you're the villain but you're really not - or at least you don't think so. But then of course no one really thinks of themselves as the villain, even Cory thinks he doing the world a favor by becoming the god it needs and restoring it to its former glory, whatever that may mean.

It would be interesting to have a "wait, when did I become the villain?" moment if your character has felt themselves righteous until that point and then realized they've gone too far. Or there could be others who don't care and just do what needs to be done even if it means they'll go down in history as a villain. Or yet others who have no issue with this at all and like being thought of as evil and dangerous. And yet others who go "well if the world thinks I'm a villain then I might as well play the part!"

Either way I think Tevinter would be an interesting setting to explore, villain or not.

[Vanth]

It would be really nice to have a morally ambiguous campaign where you play alternate chapters on the two opposing camps. So you start with a 'hero' in a traditional sense and set out to save the world from a great evil. Then in chapter 2 you switch to play your enemy and discover that he really isn't so evil after all an has good reasons for doing what he is doing. You could then play the two sides in the continuing struggle. 

 

That could even allow for an alternate ending where you all realise that you would be better off being friends and have a group hug. this could even be a hard ending to achieve, demonstrating that conflict is endemic in human interaction. 

 

The Witcher 2 sort of did this a bit. You didn't change characters, but within one game you made a choice of what side of the war you wanted to be on, and from that point onwards the other side were portrayed as the 'bad' ones. 

[Lulupab]

Playing a rags to riches hero who ends up changing Tevinter and making reforms would make a much better story than playing a "villain". 

[Meredydd]

I suppose I wouldn't mind playing as a tragic hero. Doing bad things for the greater good of everyone. People see you as the villain but you're actually a savior. And the actual "hero" of the game is secretly evil and/or manipulating everyone from behind the scenes. Sorta like the Emperor in Jade Empire. He ended the Long Drought to save the Empire but committed a lot of crimes in order to do so. He then covered it all up so his people didn't know about the atrocities he committed and is hailed as a hero. The player character could then challenge this supposed "hero" but is seen as the villain by the common folk for doing so.

[Amigo]

Having a choice to play as either a good or a evil person is obviously an RPG feature. There are a number of points to discuss here.

 

 

- Role playing suggests you have a choice about how and who you play. Your character's alignment is part of that choice.

 

- It is really hard to play as a evil character in a DnD universe. You have to attack frequently and you have a greater chance to be killed.

 

- Bioware is focused on mass production now and most people want to play as a good guy saving the world rather than a bad guy who is killing good guys.

 

- Incorporating the idea of evil character will require additional effort for making a game. It could possibly be seen as a second part in a story line with all the consequences.

 

- On the other hand take a look at Star Wars games. I don't have the numbers but I'm sure there is quite a lot of Empire characters in SWTOR MMO. It is really cool to play for Empire in that particular MMO. 

 

 

Kicking ass in video games is always cool. Why don't kick asses of good guys anyway?

[flabbadence]

I would love to play as an elf in Tevinter who gets a chance at power, and can either use it to make things better, or for revenge or simply personal gain.

[PorkyLabrador]

I feel like you should be able to sculpt your Inquisition's 'theme' if you like a lot more too. I am often a bit of a boyscout in these games but I feel like no matter what choices you make in DA:I you are basically a charity organization, with a few soldiers for flavor. We need more Skyhold customization and more choices how we effect the rest of the world. I want to build Allies amongst the Magisters, Dwarves, Antivan Crows.

[Eggplant Hell Princess]

I love the idea of playing a Siddhartha type character. Child of a prominent magister, life of decadence and luxury etc. who then goes out into the real world and can either choose to rebel against the "evils" of Tevinter society or continue them.

[sunnydxmen]

i love to be evil i have parents watch  as i burn there children alive in feed it to them lol.

[Dherelv]

a dlc/prequel like that would be nice

 

I agree, and i think it would be a brilliant move from Bioware to do pave the road for a sequel.

A DLC/expansion for DAI would be better.

 

After all, i got myself thinking the other day, after a Blight, and a hole in the sky, what's next to be dealt with in Ferelden/Orlais or even Thedas for that matter.

It's gonna became a little ridiculous that so much ***t would happen to the same place so often... i mean what's next, 6th blight? Again?

An idea like this could change the feeling around that.

 

But it's obviously too soon for that now..