76 réponses à ce sujet

[Dutch's Ghost]

Sauron isn't much of a challenge either. He was vulnerable to destroying the Ring because he was arrogant beyond measure. He could not conceive of failure. But he never physically confronts any of the characters. He's a shadow, a menace that is a single eye.

Corypheus is in a similar vein, until the end he's not supposed to be confronted directly. And by the end, his arrogance is to the point where he is willing to destroy the world if he cannot save it.

 

Stop brown nosing. Corypheus is a terrible villain, and Sauron easily rekts him. Easily.

[Saphiron123]

Stop brown nosing. Corypheus is a terrible villain, and Sauron easily rekts him. Easily.

Sauron sucks. He as beaten by a hobbit.

10 guards. That's all he needed at mount doom to kill them both without an issue.

[Ariella]

Sauron sucks. He as beaten by a hobbit.

10 guards. That's all he needed at mount doom to kill them both without an issue.

Which means you miss the entire point. Destroying Saruon was never about brute strength. It was about using his major weakness against him, his arrogance. He never expected anyone would be able to enter Mordor, especially the way the hobbits came.

Add to that the assault on the Black Gate, and that he was more worried about Aragorn and his forces. Which was the whole point of the assault in the first place, to fix the Eye on something else.

[Saphiron123]

Which means you miss the entire point. Destroying Saruon was never about brute strength. It was about using his major weakness against him, his arrogance. He never expected anyone would be able to enter Mordor, especially the way the hobbits came.

Add to that the assault on the Black Gate, and that he was more worried about Aragorn and his forces. Which was the whole point of the assault in the first place, to fix the Eye on something else.

That doesn't make him any less of a terrible planner. He still sucks. And if he hadn't lost the last war he wouldn't be a big floating eye.

Frankly, Sauron doesn't win much.

[Ariella]

That doesn't make him any less of a terrible planner. He still sucks. And if he hadn't lost the last war he wouldn't be a big floating eye.

Frankly, Sauron doesn't win much.

You have the advantage of hindsight. Sauron did not. And look at the geography of Mordor, and the fact that the entire nation was crawling with orcs. By any reasonable measure, Sauron should have beaten them back.

A lot of the "wins" in Lord of the Rings were luck, or Fate, whichever you wish to believe.

But as I said, Corypheus is in the same mold, towering arrogance that led to his downfall. It was his ability to manipulate that made him a threat. Consider he nearly suborned one of the two major factions in the templar mage war, and did suborn the other. He manipulated the Grey Wardens, was able to extend his reach into the War of the Lions, and even infiltrate the Conclave itself.

That takes planning and chutzpah. Even his attack on Haven was mostly successful, except for Solas. The leadership was fracturing, there was no base of operations, limited supplies. Only Solas, and the survival of the Herald which rallied the Inquisition made a rebirth possible.

[midnight tea]

Sauron isn't much of a challenge either. He was vulnerable to destroying the Ring because he was arrogant beyond measure. He could not conceive of failure. But he never physically confronts any of the characters. He's a shadow, a menace that is a single eye.

Corypheus is in a similar vein, until the end he's not supposed to be confronted directly. And by the end, his arrogance is to the point where he is willing to destroy the world if he cannot save it.

 

Speaking of people eaten and beaten by their own arrogance... what about Hitler? It's hard to mention him without the discussion being taken where it was not meant to be taken, but Hitler IS one of those real-life dictators that can be described as destroyed by his own hubris.

[Ariella]

Speaking of people eaten and beaten by their own arrogance... what about Hitler? It's hard to mention him without the discussion being taken where it was not meant to be taken, but Hitler IS one of those real-life dictators that can be described as destroyed by his own hubris.

I was avoiding using Hitler for a lot of reason, including Godwin and the fact the subjects got a few jagged edges for me, But yes, there's a reason why a number of scholars likened Sauron and Hitler, which drove Tolkien mad.

It's the same story going back to Greeks and further. How many villains and heroes in legend were undone by their own pride. More that I think any of us can count, and that's probably only in European legends. Add in other cultures we're probably looking at an exponential increase.

The problem with these kind of villains is that they make lousy bad guys for boss fights. Lord of the Rings: Third Age bore this out. It was a wonderful concept and well executed but they made the Eye of Sauron the final boss...

I'm not sure what they could have done to make the fight work better, except maybe make the dragon the entirety of the fight and then have the IQ open a rift in a cut scene with some more graphic indication he'd been weakened.

[midnight tea]

I was avoiding using Hitler for a lot of reason, including Godwin and the fact the subjects got a few jagged edges for me, But yes, there's a reason why a number of scholars likened Sauron and Hitler, which drove Tolkien mad.

It's the same story going back to Greeks and further. How many villains and heroes in legend were undone by their own pride. More that I think any of us can count, and that's probably only in European legends. Add in other cultures we're probably looking at an exponential increase.

The problem with these kind of villains is that they make lousy bad guys for boss fights. Lord of the Rings: Third Age bore this out. It was a wonderful concept and well executed but they made the Eye of Sauron the final boss...

I'm not sure what they could have done to make the fight work better, except maybe make the dragon the entirety of the fight and then have the IQ open a rift in a cut scene with some more graphic indication he'd been weakened.

 

I had my doubts using Hitler due to Godwin's Law, but it's one of those almost "iconic badguys that everyone knows about" that is such a stark example of someone being undone by his own pride...

 

As for final fight - well, they had to somehow make it a point that Morrigan/Mythal's dragon was actually useful on a field, so they chopped half of the RL dragon's life... Though they might have done it the other way around as well, or perhaps even have Morrigan/Mythal steal the kill from Inquisitor, once the RL dragon does something that leaves the party at least temporarily vulnerable. Blar... at this point I'm too sleepy to think of something else, but yeah, in terms of just fight itself, there were quite a few options they could explore to make it more impactful.

 

But story-wise? Cory meets the end he deserves, while not being as ineffective (or even unrealistic) villain as some make it to be.

[Aren]

I liked the Architech and the Mother. They were good villains, Corypheus was good too until you come to the conclusion that he's your garden-variety scooby-doo villain, foiling his plots left and right. 

http://forum.bioware...orse-than-me-3/

 

enjoy

[TheOgre]

That thread was glorious.

[Darkly Tranquil]

Cory could have been good, but he never an opportunity to actually be fleshed out as anything more than a Saturday morning cartoon villain. Even a couple of cutscenes (do Bioware remember those?) featuring Cory discussing his plans and motivations with Samson and Calpurnia (ala Loghain with Howe and Cauthrien) would have gone a long way to making him more than an ugly dude with a scary voice. While we get the jist of what Cory is about from Codex entries and hearing it from other people, it would have been much more impactful to hear it from the man himself. Basically, Bioware failed on the "show, not tell" rule of storytelling when it comes to Cory.

[midnight tea]

Cory could have been good, but he never an opportunity to actually be fleshed out as anything more than a Saturday morning cartoon villain. Even a couple of cutscenes (do Bioware remember those?) featuring Cory discussing his plans and motivations with Samson and Calpurnia (ala Loghain with Howe and Cauthrien) would have gone a long way to making him more than an ugly dude with a scary voice. While we get the jist of what Cory is about from Codex entries and hearing it from other people, it would have been much more impactful to hear it from the man himself. Basically, Bioware failed on the "show, not tell" rule of storytelling when it comes to Cory.

 

More true if going Samson route, but not Calpernia, when it comes to just direct showing of the villain. We even get access to his memoirs, written in red lyrium found in Dumat temple.

[AppalachianApex]

Corypheus was a terrible villain.

 

-He's a DLC character from a previous game... that we've already defeated.

-He's as stereotypical as you can get with his "Kneel before me, I wanna be a God, Mu-ha-ha" getup.

 

-He never once poses a threat. If you can (somehow) ignore that he's ALREADY been defeated by a Kirkwall refugee and three buddies, he fails:

-At the Temple (which is a terrible plan on it's own).

-Gets defeated by some snow at Haven.

-Hangs out somewhere while his subordinates let his plans fall to pieces.

-His top generals are either a drug addict (Samson) or a powerful mage (Calpernia) that *clearly* disagrees with almost everything he stands for.

-He gets trounced at the Temple of Mythal and (as many have said) fails to drink from a fricking pond.

-And his final master plan is to.... go right back to the Temple and get his arse handily whooped once more.

 

Easily the worst-written Bioware villain I've seen in a loooong time. 

[correctamundo]

Cory could have been good, but he never an opportunity to actually be fleshed out as anything more than a Saturday morning cartoon villain. Even a couple of cutscenes (do Bioware remember those?) featuring Cory discussing his plans and motivations with Samson and Calpurnia (ala Loghain with Howe and Cauthrien) would have gone a long way to making him more than an ugly dude with a scary voice. While we get the jist of what Cory is about from Codex entries and hearing it from other people, it would have been much more impactful to hear it from the man himself. Basically, Bioware failed on the "show, not tell" rule of storytelling when it comes to Cory.

 

How do we get the spycamera in to his meeting room? War table mission?

[Dai Grepher]

i mean it's nothing short of a miracle that Corypheus doesn't get himself killed in one of his idiotic plans,

Actually, he did get himself killed between the two elvhen statues that guarded the Temple of Mythal.

 

In all honesty, a lot of things in Inquisition were sloppily done.

 

For example, if Samson or Calpernia had simply closed the doors to the Temple of Mythal, then the Inquisitor and company would have been red lyrium roasted by the dragon.

 

Same with Haven. If the Herald just buried your army with a trebuchet, don't you think you should... I don't know... have your dragon take out all the trebuchets? Or have your remaining forces do it? And if your dragon just got killed, thus leaving you vulnerable (in the final battle), then wouldn't it be a good idea to run away and hide until the dragon respawns?

 

As for what they could have done with Corypheus, yes they could have done so much more. Until the last part of the game, it was suspected that he was immortal, and indeed unless you knew how to kill him, he was immortal. This was the perfect setting in which to have him as a reoccurring enemy that you kill over and over just to see him resurrect soon after within a nearby Warden, or red templar, or darkspawn, or even a tainted wolf. This would add to suspense as well as provide numerous scenes in which you can show Corypheus being killed in a variety of ways. Then each time you face him he could be stronger, or take on different forms.

 

For example, we learn from Bianca that Cory was in the form of Larius or Jenaka when he met with her about the red lyrium. So why couldn't we face Corypheus in the form of a Grey Warden warrior, mage, rogue? Adamant was a perfect opportunity for this since Hawke was there too. We could have had a midway point where Corypheus shows up in a Warden host and then attacks with a room full of Wardens, some of which he controls, others he just influences to where they won't strike at him. Each time you kill Corypheus he resurrects in another Grey Warden that is cowering off to the side. You then have the choice to run around to each vulnerable Warden and kill them yourself to cut down on how many times Corypheus respawns, OR you can let him respawn in each one, OR you can try to focus your energy on destroying a part of the room that will allow those Wardens to escape. The moral choice being the most difficult, of course. The downside would be that this could conflict with Blackwall's personal story, but he could either be blocked from that mission or he could just "explain it all later at Skyhold".

 

Having Corypheus suddenly resurrect in one of Skyhold's Wardens would also give opportunity for a fierce battle that would involve numerous familiar NPCs. Of course, this battle would start once a Grey Warden makes an attempt on your life in the main hall. Pandemonium would then ensue. This is only if you made the Wardens your allies and allowed some of them to visit Skyhold. I would have also liked to have seen the red lyrium dragon attack Skyhold at least once. It could have flown to the undercroft and the prison cells as part of the battle, where you and the others would have to force it out of there. Dagna would have found such an event most entertaining I'm sure.

 

The darkspawn should have been utilized by Corypheus, I think. And there should have been a mission to stop Cory from possibly uncovering and corrupting one of the two remaining old gods.

 

I think BioWare got hung up on trying to present the Corypheus story and the Mythal story as epic as they could, and ended up doing neither one particularly well.

[Rawgrim]

It is not that Cory is a poor character or anything. It s just that he is rather passive after Haven. He does nothing at all that sets the Inquisition back in any way. Once you gain something for the Inquisition, you keep it forever. You have no real negative outcomes based on choices either. All this makes Cory feel a lot dumber than he is. I think if they had added some mischief into the game, it would have done wonders. Have Cory trash one of your keeps. Have him blackmail a companion and make a quest out of that. Assassination attempts.

[KilrB]

Corypheus was a terrible villain.

 

-He's a DLC character from a previous game... that we've already defeated.

-He's as stereotypical as you can get with his "Kneel before me, I wanna be a God, Mu-ha-ha" getup.

 

-He never once poses a threat. If you can (somehow) ignore that he's ALREADY been defeated by a Kirkwall refugee and three buddies, he fails:

-At the Temple (which is a terrible plan on it's own).

-Gets defeated by some snow at Haven.

-Hangs out somewhere while his subordinates let his plans fall to pieces.

-His top generals are either a drug addict (Samson) or a powerful mage (Calpernia) that *clearly* disagrees with almost everything he stands for.

-He gets trounced at the Temple of Mythal and (as many have said) fails to drink from a fricking pond.

-And his final master plan is to.... go right back to the Temple and get his arse handily whooped once more.

 

Easily the worst-written Bioware villain I've seen in a loooong time. 

 

Sounds like he had a "war table" too ...

[Deadmac]

I think BioWare got hung up on trying to present the Corypheus story and the Mythal story as epic as they could, and ended up doing neither one particularly well.

As a result of putting too much emphasis on romances, due to their liberal slant, I think BioWare forgot that Dragon Age started off as a Dark Fantasy RPG. I think BioWare used Dragon Age: Inquisition as a political relations tool, so they can win points with liberal leaning media outlets. I think Dragon Age won game of the year because of its liberalism. I don't think BioWare was really interested in making a Dark Fantasy rpg.

Most players could careless about the liberalism. As long as the game stayed true to Origins, I don't think people would have cared.

However, the primary logic behind the franchise was changed: thus, the dark, successful, nature behind Origin's storytelling style was abandoned.

Dragon Age is now all about winning marks with progressives.

[Angloassassin]

As a result of putting too much emphasis on romances, due to their liberal slant, I think BioWare forgot that Dragon Age started off as a Dark Fantasy RPG. I think BioWare used Dragon Age: Inquisition as a political relations tool, so they can win points with liberal leaning media outlets. I think Dragon Age won game of the year because of its liberalism. I don't think BioWare was really interested in making a Dark Fantasy rpg.

 

 

Ouch, if not being sarcastic - we're really pulling out the "Liberal" card?... Man, this is going to go more south than Trade chat and Barrens chat clashing in WoW.

[Deadmac]

Ouch, if not being sarcastic - we're really pulling out the "Liberal" card?... Man, this is going to go more south than Trade chat and Barrens chat clashing in WoW.

It's all about seeing the raw reality. Once you strip away the shiny covering, you get to see the ugly hidden beneath. I think BioWare was not fully invested and focused on the main story. Since they were too distracted, I think BioWare made some horrible mistakes. I think BioWare was too invested in the romances; thus, they decided to attach a Dragon Age II dlc to the main story. BioWare took the cheap and easy way out.

Corypheus was a great Dragon Age II villian; however, the character was not the best Dragon Age villian.

Dragon Age: Inquisition should have returned us to the 'dark' side of the franchise.

[Angloassassin]

It's all about seeing the raw reality. Once you strip away the shiny covering, you get to see the ugly hidden beneath. I think BioWare was not fully invested and focused on the main story. Since they were too distracted, I think BioWare made some horrible mistakes. I think BioWare was too invested in the romances; thus, they decided to attach a Dragon Age II dlc to the main story. BioWare took the cheap and easy way out.

I've seen you all over feedback this morning, and what I've seen tells me we're about as Fundamentally opposed as Dr. Malcom and John Hammond from Jurassic Park.  We're not going to get through to one another, and I'm not about to argue with you over the 'Raw Reality' and 'Liberalism' of the game. It's 9am, and I haven't sacrificed my bowels to the Caffine gods yet by drinking my standard gallon of tea.

 

So, I'm just going to say - good luck on finding that argument you're obviously itching for. And that I'll probably disagree with at least 60-70% of what you're going to say. Why not the full 100%? Because I have my own gripes about the game, and yet -- I play it, and enjoy it, more than any other Bioware title (Besides maybe a split between DA2 and the ME series, sometimes I get that itch, y'know?).

[TheOgre]

The amount of sjw terms being thrown around lately have been rather troubling. Now it's liberalism that inhibits dragon age?

I blame fox news for dragon age origins clothed sex. I wouldn't blame it on the conservatives.

Edit: I blame bioware for caving to the news frenzy about me1 and naked sex actually. I remember reading about the result of that news and felt inwardly disappointed at Bioware for refusing to ignore fox news.

[Dutch's Ghost]

The amount of sjw terms being thrown around lately have been rather troubling. Now it's liberalism that inhibits dragon age?

I blame fox news for dragon age origins clothed sex. I wouldn't blame it on the conservatives.

Edit: I blame bioware for caving to the news frenzy about me1 and naked sex actually. I remember reading about the result of that news and felt inwardly disappointed at Bioware for refusing to ignore fox news.

 

sjw's are cancer to gaming. Look at what they're trying to do with Deus Ex!

[Dai Grepher]

As a result of putting too much emphasis on romances, due to their liberal slant, I think BioWare forgot that Dragon Age started off as a Dark Fantasy RPG. I think BioWare used Dragon Age: Inquisition as a political relations tool, so they can win points with liberal leaning media outlets. I think Dragon Age won game of the year because of its liberalism. I don't think BioWare was really interested in making a Dark Fantasy rpg.

Most players could careless about the liberalism. As long as the game stayed true to Origins, I don't think people would have cared.

However, the primary logic behind the franchise was changed: thus, the dark, successful, nature behind Origin's storytelling style was abandoned.

Dragon Age is now all about winning marks with progressives.

 

Can't disagree with you about the liberal slant. However, I think that simply wasn't enough to explain why Corypheus was so lacking.

 

I think it had more to do with laziness in programing more encounters.

 

For example, according to the voice acting data, there was supposed to be a 1 on 1 with Corypheus at the end of the game. Multiple characters told the Inquisitor to be safe, or kick his butt, or we'll handle things on the ground, which indicates that the Inquisitor separated from the party at some point, like in Haven, and fought Cory directly.

 

Why was it cut? I don't think it had to do with writing polite responses to Krem. I think it had to do with BioWare's inability to bring such a gameplay experience to fruition. In fact, I think that's why a lot of the promises that were made in the first demos of Inquisition never panned out.

 

I think I might go back to playing Origins for a while.