Guest_TheDarkKnightReturns_*
You know where DA:I failed with Corypheus... he didn't have screen time.
After every major treaty in DA:O the game would cut to Loghain's perspective. This would have done leaps and bounds for Cory's rep as a villain. Especially if you've done the Templar path and heard his memories during 'Under Her Skin'.
Eh, I really liked Florianne's portrayal. She's one of my favourite characters in the game and she has a very 'Cersei Lannister' vibe about her. She's very sly, devious and intelligent but her biggest weakness is her overconfidence and arrogance - which is very fitting of someone in her position.
I think the whole point of that particular quest was to show the extent of the rot within Orlais - neither Celene, Gaspard, Florianne or Briala are without dark secrets. Florianne just happened to be the one who went further than all the rest.
You know where DA:I failed with Corypheus... he didn't have screen time.
After every major treaty in DA:O the game would cut to Loghain's perspective. This would have done leaps and bounds for Cory's rep as a villain. Especially if you've done the Templar path and heard his memories during 'Under Her Skin'.
I think it's due to the fact people complained why the hell should they see Loghain and what he's doing, when you are not involved in any way with him.
I disagree with this when looking at DA: I, or maybe the issue is that Corypheus isn't allowed to have extensive dialogue as the game progresses.
In Your Heart Shall Burn is a fantastic display of crackling dialogue.
Cory: I have gathered the will to return under no name but my own. To champion withered Tevinter and correct this blighted world. Beg that I succeed, for I have seen the throne of the Gods. And it was empty.
That line gave me chills with the delivery of it.
If she had stayed to "make sure" the Inquisitor died, she would have just died there too, given that you defeat her in open combat shortly thereafter anyway.
Not necessarily. You play things a certain way and there's no fight.
Not necessarily. You play things a certain way and there's no fight.
Florianne is an example of everything that is wrong with recent BioWare games and especially Inquisition. Wicked Eyes was a great quest, full of intrigue and mystery. This is one of the ONLY times in this game that I actually felt like a ****** inquisitor; attempting to puzzle out the assassin's identity.
All until the point of Florianne's idiotic reveal.
Seriously, what kind of a moron reveals her plans to the only entity at the ball who can stop her, and then simply LEAVES the hero behind without seeing him captured/dead? You just gave away your plans and now you're going to take a chance by leaving the only loose end (who shouldn't ****** be there in the first place) behind? Why would ANYONE, let alone an expert at the "game" do something this stupid? Is this a Mortal Kombat story or a deep RPG with complex characters?
This makes me think that BioWare assumes that the player is stupid and is unable to piece out the evidence and find the assassin himself. The quest would've been so much better if you actually had to deduce the assassin from the evidence you gathered and were able to make a mistake (but oh no, god forbid we let the player lose from time to time. Let's just take him by the hand and guide him through the entire game).
Like any typical nowday holywood movie.. 
After this, sure, but how are you going to play that there, w/out guards and others to witness what's going on? Fighting there is going one of two ways, she wins, and it's game over, or you win.
I was just responding to the "given that you just fight her later" line. You don't necessarily "just fight her later". That's it. That's ALL I was saying. LOL
When they do reasonably subtle, bulk of the people just miss it. See: Oghren.Its a bioware game, always go expecting that their characters work with an IQ of 50, slightly intelligent will have of 80. So stop expecting amazing story, decent villains all i want is a serviceable game that works alright. Expecting subtlety from them is a pointless waste of time.
You liked "Wicked Eyes" quest? Damn I hate that quest simply because of "timer" and I hate any quest that has a little timer on it and too many orlesians and their stinky cheese not to mention that one of these $luts touched my Cullen.Ugh,hate that quest even my formal attire is one more reason to hate it!
I'm at the point on my second play-through that I've ran out of other stuff to do to putt off doing this quest.
Guest_simfamUP_*
I have yet to see a truly excellent video game villain.
Letho
Nameless One (unconventional but still is)
TIM ME2
Loghain
LaCroix
Kreia
Sun Li
Architect (unconventional again, but that's what makes him good.)
SOCIETY! (Fallout: New Vegas.)
Bam wam thank you ma'am.
You gotta play better games, yo.
I'd agree on Kreia, one of the star war's unverses greatest villains and Sun Li who's along with Jon Irencius is one of gaming's best villains but the Illusive man?
Guest_simfamUP_*
I'd agree on Kreia, one of the star war's unverses greatest villains and Sun Li who's along with Jon Irencius is one of gaming's best villains but the Illusive man?
ME2, specifically.
When I say TIM in ME2 I mean this...
I feel it's a stroke of genius that a character can play both as the antagonist and the protagonist's only source of aid at the same time. You depend on TIM for everything. Funds, information, crew members etc... yet he's also a one of the game's main antagonist. Hell, the game wouldn't HAPPEN if he hadn't ressed you himself.
I love that.
It reminds me of Kreia on a lesser level.
Because Kreia is just above everything xD
ME3 TIM though?
He'd dead to me. I don't even want to think about him.
Wardens being open to it is not the same as jumping at it the first chance they get. It's not that they turned to blood magic that's alarming; it's that it's the very first thing they turned to.
They felt desperate. Like Sophia Dryden. The GWs are big fans of stupid decisions. It kind of defines the order.
BioWare has written good bad guy monologues. Look at Sovereign in Mass Effect 1. His monologue on Virmire was awesome. Unfortunately Sovereigns mouth wrote a check that BioWare's talent couldn't cash, but that's beside the point.
Too many of the secondary villains in Inquisition are Bond villains. But like, Roger Moore Bond villains. And Corypheus is a consummate f***up so the game feels unsatisfying. Florienne being a failure and a joke is just in keeping with the game's apparent goal of making the Inquisition come across like a high school bully pushing kindergartners into the mud.
BioWare has written good bad guy monologues. Look at Sovereign in Mass Effect 1. His monologue on Virmire was awesome. Unfortunately Sovereigns mouth wrote a check that BioWare's talent couldn't cash, but that's beside the point.
Too many of the secondary villains in Inquisition are Bond villains. But like, Roger Moore Bond villains. And Corypheus is a consummate f***up so the game feels unsatisfying. Florienne being a failure and a joke is just in keeping with the game's apparent goal of making the Inquisition come across like a high school bully pushing kindergartners into the mud.
Sovereign had one of the worst villain monologues of all time. It was all empty bluster. It then proceeds to do absolutely nothing threatening beside letting you get away.
Sovereign had one of the worst villain monologues of all time. It was all empty bluster. It then proceeds to do absolutely nothing threatening beside letting you get away.
You don't know it was empty bluster until the subsequent games. Before the sequels the reapers were basically Eldritch Horrors and Sovereign was their vanguard. Everything that made them so disappointing in the sequels came from that monologue, and it was a damn scary monologue. Had BioWare actually had the games planned out from the beginning like they said they did the Reapers wouldn't have been braggarts and nonsensical paradoxes.
You don't know it was empty bluster until the subsequent games. Before the sequels the reapers were basically Eldritch Horrors and Sovereign was their vanguard. Everything that made them so disappointing in the sequels came from that monologue, and it was a damn scary monologue. Had BioWare actually had the games planned out from the beginning like they said they did the Reapers wouldn't have been braggarts and nonsensical paradoxes.
No, it was empty bluster at the time. Sovereign was going to lose. We all knew it the second he gave that speech. The quality of a villain's speech isn't based on the idea the villain can win because we all know it's hopeless - it's the quality and character of the speech itself. And the speech such as a speech. "We're beyond your comprehension?" No, you're not. You're very clearly artificial intelligence. Maybe really advanced, but a very simple thing to understand. Just because you won't tell me your reason doesn't mean I don't understand it.
There was absolutely no way that speech wouldn't end in disappointment.
No, it was empty bluster at the time. Sovereign was going to lose. We all knew it the second he gave that speech. The quality of a villain's speech isn't based on the idea the villain can win because we all know it's hopeless - it's the quality and character of the speech itself. And the speech such as a speech. "We're beyond your comprehension?" No, you're not. You're very clearly artificial intelligence. Maybe really advanced, but a very simple thing to understand. Just because you won't tell me your reason doesn't mean I don't understand it.
There was absolutely no way that speech wouldn't end in disappointment.
Again, you're not taking the monologue at face value. You're using outside knowledge to change what it was. Using your logic no villains's monologue could ever be good unless the villain later won. That's a really dumb way to think about it.
When Sovereign gives that monologue the Reapers really were unknowable and entirely undefined. How did you know it was just an artificial intelligence? That was just a conclusion you jumped to. At the time you had no reason to think that was all they were.
Again, you're not taking the monologue at face value. You're using outside knowledge to change what it was. Using your logic no villains's monologue could ever be good unless the villain later won. That's a really dumb way to think about it.
When Sovereign gives that monologue the Reapers really were unknowable and entirely undefined. How did you know it was just an artificial intelligence? That was just a conclusion you jumped to. At the time you had no reason to think that was all they were.
The artificial intelligence is just pure logic. It's either a living thing, evolved naturally, in which case it is a natural intelligence, or it was designed, in which case it's an artificial intelligence. This is a pretty simple binary situation.
Villain speeches can only be evaluated by OOC stuff. In-setting they're completely idiotic, without exception. They're a show for the audience, meant to make it all the more satisfying when you eventually crush the villain.
Sovereign had one of the worst villain monologues of all time. It was all empty bluster. It then proceeds to do absolutely nothing threatening beside letting you get away.
The artificial intelligence is just pure logic. It's either a living thing, evolved naturally, in which case it is a natural intelligence, or it was designed, in which case it's an artificial intelligence. This is a pretty simple binary situation.
Villain speeches can only be evaluated by OOC stuff. In-setting they're completely idiotic, without exception. They're a show for the audience, meant to make it all the more satisfying when you eventually crush the villain.
We're talking about fiction. The Reapers could have been anything. They could have been Eldritch Horrors. They could have actually existed before the universe. Looking at fiction the way you do makes me sad.
First of all, that's stupid. Do you think people like Hitler and Stalin never blustered, threatened or talked about things they would do to the rest of the world? Of course they did. It's an effective tactic, instilling fear and breaking the will of your opponent.
Second, why would you use OOC logic in an RPG? That completely negates the point of playing the RPG. You're probably the guy playing D&D and complaining about how your character would have killed the dragon with a rocket.
The reapers would still be a natural intelligence. Chuthulu obviously isn't beyond the realm of human comprehension since we invented the concept of it. There's wonderful speculative science fiction out there that does potray life so alien it's hard for us to wrap our heads around it. But the Reapers aren't that sort of thing. They're perfectly understandable creatures.
The IRL examples are what's stupid. No dictator stands up and says "My regime is beyond your comprehension." Political speeches are used as propaganda tools, sure, and they're filled with jingoism, but they're all about thinly veiled threats. Even ignoring the fact that the major difference between them is that they're actually a risk to occur. Hitler isn't the Red Skull, giving some weird speech to a fire-team he's got tied up in his basement.
In character, Shepard isn't intimidated. Hell, you're locked into saying the Reapers are just machines, and machines can be broken. l'm as unimpressed behind the screen as Shepard was in person.
The point about the OOC line is this: in-setting, the idea of giving a speech like this is moronic. They make fun of it in just about every parody ever - look at Austin Powers, for example. It's not something to be taken seriously.
The reapers would still be a natural intelligence. Chuthulu obviously isn't beyond the realm of human comprehension since we invented the concept of it. There's wonderful speculative science fiction out there that does potray life so alien it's hard for us to wrap our heads around it. But the Reapers aren't that sort of thing. They're perfectly understandable creatures.
Retour en haut