168 réponses à ce sujet

[Ashagar]

I honestly half expected it to turn out that Howe was having a blood mage control Loghain myself. It would have made more sense.

[Hiemoth]

I agree that his implementation in the game is poor, but that tends to be the case with most Bioware villains; we see them once at the start to establish who they are, then they disappear for 90% of the game before reappearing for a boss fight at the end with almost nothing in between. Bioware really need to find a way to better weave the activities of the villain into the plot so that the player gets a sense that the villain is actively working against them throughout the story. They kind of started to do that with Corypheus with his assault on Haven, but his threat pretty much peters out after that until the very end.

Putting all that aside, the only way to really discover what Loghain is about and why he's such an interesting character is to recruit him into your party and talk to him, and to read The Stolen Throne, otherwise you miss out on his backstory, which explains his reasons for what he does. Without that, he just comes across as a fairly generic power hungry traitor villain, rather than the tragic fallen hero he is meant to be, which is ultimately a failure of writing.

 

I don't know if it is actually the case with most Bioware villains, but I agree with your central point and that it did harm the implementation of Loghain to a large degree. Especially if they originally did intend to go with the AD control.

 

On a larger point, and to return to the actual subject, I do think that the presence of the antagonist in the story is something that Bioware sometimes with a lot and also that the villains I consider most memorable were constantly present in the story, even if not necessary in flesh. Sun Li, and to a degree the Emperor, are constantly present and most actions are somehow due to them, or completely due to them in a certain. Irenicus is constantly referred to and there are multiple encounters with him, with him providing a constant sense of driving force for the story. TIM has multiple interactions in ME2, which lead to ME3, and the weight of the Reapers is constantly there in ME3. In DA2, the Arishok and Meredith are included in the story from the get-go, their presence in Kirkwall constant and with multiple really strongly encounters, even if Meredith could have done with a few more.

 

Cory just isn't there. It's a natural consequence from the focal point of the story, by pushing exploration to the forefront, but his just somewhere there doing something while you run around every nook in Emerald Graves.

[DuskWanderer]

I would like more than one "main villain" because honestly, if it's focused around one person, they're really only going to have one avenue of attack. 

 

I'd like the qunari to invade, and we have to deal with various parts of them. I've got the Arishok, the Ariqun, and the Arigena, each one requires a different sort of strategy: The Arishok must be bested in battle, we have to defeat the machinations of the Arigena, conquering through commerce (that would be more guerilla warfare) and the Ariqun can be the alternative "sneaking" mission

[Red Panda]

I'd like a Petrovsky sort of villain actually.

[In Exile]

I agree to a large extent. I like I said, his implementation was poor. It's been claimed (although I've never seen confirmation from anyone from Bioware) that at some point in development they had a plot in mind where he was supposed to have been "indoctrinated" by the Archdaemon, which would be the cause of his betrayal of Cailan and subsequent crazy villain heel turn, and that they had made a lot of content based on that premise and by the time they dropped that plot line it was too late to redo the content they had already made. That would make his Jekyll/Hyde transition actually make some sort of sense. If it's true, his poor implementation is the result of a change of plans midstream and the devs having to make do with what they had.

 

My only point is that when people defend idea of a villain like Loghain, they're ignoring the impact of his poor choices on his being a villain. Let's say Bioware does a very different plot, one where Loghain isn't an incompetent lunatic. How would that look?

 

Maybe he still poisons Eamon - there may be some legitimate political reason behind that which we'd accept beyond naked power grab. Once that happens, however, it's no longer so morally clear that we did the right thing by saving Eamon. This would be similar to, say, always having to have Harrowmont on the throne with the Anvil, i.e., where he eventually ends up massacring the casteless. 

 

Does he sell the elves into slavery? Nope. That's far too comically evil. Plant his behind on the throne, declare himself regent and supplant his daughter, who was the rightful ruler? Nope. So then what's the civil war? Cailan's loyalist raise hell because they don't like Loghain? Again, we're suddenly not on the side of good so cleanly anymore. 

 

Loghain doesn't team up with Howe but instead someone reasonable, an equivalent to Teagan? Again, we're looking less like the heroes, and it becomes harder and harder to justify the very things that would make Loghain an antagonist.

 

The plot either turns into a situation of what amounts to a hilarious misunderstand (Oh, I thought you were Orlesian spies sent to usurp our country and massacre our people; silly me, let's stop the blight together!) or there's some contrived reason that the antagonist has to try and kill you and can't possibly work with you. 

 

It's easy to talk about relatable villains in theory, but in a video-game it's hard to really set something up that works well because you just run into the "Why can't I joint he villain?" issue.

 

Take something like Legend of the Galactic Heroes. The two protagonists are an antagonist for each other, but only because of their political views. If it weren't for that, they'd easily be on the same side - one way or another. The kinds of plots that make rich villains in fiction are anathema to an RPG unless you can join the villain. 

[Seraphim24]

My only point is that when people defend idea of a villain like Loghain, they're ignoring the impact of his poor choices on his being a villain. Let's say Bioware does a very different plot, one where Loghain isn't an incompetent lunatic. How would that look?

 

Maybe he still poisons Eamon - there may be some legitimate political reason behind that which we'd accept beyond naked power grab. Once that happens, however, it's no longer so morally clear that we did the right thing by saving Eamon. This would be similar to, say, always having to have Harrowmont on the throne with the Anvil, i.e., where he eventually ends up massacring the casteless. 

 

Does he sell the elves into slavery? Nope. That's far too comically evil. Plant his behind on the throne, declare himself regent and supplant his daughter, who was the rightful ruler? Nope. So then what's the civil war? Cailan's loyalist raise hell because they don't like Loghain? Again, we're suddenly not on the side of good so cleanly anymore. 

 

Loghain doesn't team up with Howe but instead someone reasonable, an equivalent to Teagan? Again, we're looking less like the heroes, and it becomes harder and harder to justify the very things that would make Loghain an antagonist.

 

The plot either turns into a situation of what amounts to a hilarious misunderstand (Oh, I thought you were Orlesian spies sent to usurp our country and massacre our people; silly me, let's stop the blight together!) or there's some contrived reason that the antagonist has to try and kill you and can't possibly work with you. 

 

It's easy to talk about relatable villains in theory, but in a video-game it's hard to really set something up that works well because you just run into the "Why can't I joint he villain?" issue.

 

Take something like Legend of the Galactic Heroes. The two protagonists are an antagonist for each other, but only because of their political views. If it weren't for that, they'd easily be on the same side - one way or another. The kinds of plots that make rich villains in fiction are anathema to an RPG unless you can join the villain. 

 

I don't understand this, you say there all these complications preventing something and then say, well heres an example of it actually happening..

 

It sounds like you were implying that RPGs are a problem in the form, but I don't see any reason LOGH could not have just been a video game instead.

[LordSeeker]

I want Villain to be like Saren (ME1) or Illusive man from ME 3

[Il Divo]

I don't understand this, you say there all these complications preventing something and then say, well heres an example of it actually happening..

 

It sounds like you were implying that RPGs are a problem in the form, but I don't see any reason LOGH could not have just been a video game instead.

 

Well, in LOGH it helps that you have two opposing sides, so you could choose one of them. His point is in regard to stories placing the Protagonist in one of those two roles, which makes the sudden shift to joining the villain difficult at times. 

[Positronics]

This isn't actually the one I was referring to but heres some of his posts in regards to it:
http://forum.bioware...mac-tir/page-17

http://forum.bioware...mac-tir/page-18

Keep your bullshit fanfiction to yourself

All of that is complete speculation. Who's peddling fanfiction? 

 

Loghain began the poisoning + the working the Uldred before the battle. There's no way around it -- he was being disloyal to the throne, for his own political reasons. As In Exile has pointed out brilliantly.

 

I guess all the Mac Tir fanboys can go stroke off to your posters of Loghain or whatever, but my point is he was a douche from day 1.

[Biotic Flash Kick]

I want the villain to be the protagonist 

[ThelLastTruePatriot]

All of that is complete speculation. Who's peddling fanfiction? 

 

Loghain began the poisoning + the working the Uldred before the battle. There's no way around it -- he was being disloyal to the throne, for his own political reasons. As In Exile has pointed out brilliantly.

 

I guess all the Mac Tir fanboys can go stroke off to your posters of Loghain or whatever, but my point is he was a douche from day 1.

 Taking a look at our own world and history, many if not all of history's greatest leaders have been guilty of making self serving decisions, or ones that are morally reprehensible. Loghaine works because he is human, at least thats's why I like him.

[LonewandererD]

I want a villain you could actually see yourself rooting for, who unfortunately finds themselves on the other side of the board, someone who in any other circumstances would have been the hero. Or at the very least something who can actually live up to their own hype and doesn't go into bulls*** god mode during combat when you know you could very easily mop the floor with them; i'm looking at you Kai Leng

 

-D-

[l7986]

I want a Darth Malgus type villain in that they are still pretty evil, but one I could see myself siding with if the game allowed for it. Failing that I'd kill for DA4 to be a mind **** that ends with us finding out the PC was the villain all along.

[Fetunche]

[quote name="Wrath_Of_Deadguy" post="18526348" timestamp="1422944682"]I want a villain who plays me like a fiddle. Three spring to mind:
 
SHODAN, specifically her System Shock 2 incarnation.
 
Master Li from Jade Empire.
 
Kreia from KotOR2.
 
Let's throw in a fourth for sheer sneaky-bastardry:
 
Kefka from Final Fantasy 6.
 
 
I want this series to have a villain on that level. Loghain was a misguided zealot, the Archdemon was a faceless, motiveless non-character, Meredith was bats*** crazy (and not even a threat to Hawke until the final quest), the Arishok was just the immovable object to your irresistable force, and Corypheus (while entertainingly hammy and adequately deep-voiced) was something of a non-threat as soon as I had a frigging castle to keep me safe. Give me somebody with pathos and guile who is capable of eliciting both of the following reactions simultaneously:
 
1: "Oh s***."
2: "...well played, sir."
 
...and make them fully capable of kicking my behind up between my eardrums any time they think I'm getting uppity. In fact, let them do so. Repeatedly. So that when I finally defeat them, it feels like I really overcame something. Make them able to turn my allies against me. Make them smart enough not to tell me their whole plan before they've allowed me to help them accomplish it. Better yet, make me think they're helping me and then have them turn my allies against me and kick my behind up between my eardrums. Make the secondary villain such a major threat that I ignore the real danger until they have me right where they want me.
 
Chessmasters make the best villains. Full stop.[/quote

No I hate forced failure and my PC acting dumb, and not knowing what's going on.

[l7986]

No I hate forced failure and my PC acting dumb, and not knowing what's going on.

But how else would we be able to have characters like Talis in game?

[FuriousJam]

I do love the idea of the pc unknowingly being the bad guy and the bad guy you thought was bad turned out to be right. 

[Linkenski]

Someone who is properly fleshed out like Saren in Mass Effect 1. I don't want his actions to sum him up as "that evil jerk"

[Ashagar]

To be far, Cory is a evil jerk who thinks the world needs old school Tevinter order that doesn't ignore the potential of its subjects and slaves as well as a god that will respond to the people's prayers instead of giving them silence.

[BananaDePijama]

There's nothing more dangerous than this guy:

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

Someone who is properly fleshed out like Saren in Mass Effect 1. I don't want his actions to sum him up as "that evil jerk"

 

I totally agree.