109 réponses à ce sujet

[Killroy]

Hardly... On the Citadel, most of the conversation itself gives no hint of either angst or regret at being implanted until the last P/R choice is used and he suddenly falters with "Maybe you're right..."  The scene, of course, is written this way to enable the player a viable option to fight him if the want or a way to end it without the hassle of a fight... but it's waaaay to fast a slide.  Since the game's implication was that Saren was being indoctrinated by Sovereign over the entire game... the premise that Shepard even could have had an effect on Saren based on the one short conversation on Virmire is also laughable... unless Saren is particularly vulnerable to suggestion... and then Sovereign's indoctrination can't be very goodif it can't absolutely control an individual so vulnerable as Saren is to Shepard's mere suggestions on Virmire.

 

The whole situation not only disempowers Saren... it also disempowers Sovereign since Shepard can thwart them both with merely a couple of convincing "lines."

 

You're objectively wrong. On Virmire you can make him question himself and his role. Then in the final confrontation there is a fairly long conversation about it, requiring 3 or 4 high-level persuasions. Look it up for yourself on YouTube. The groundwork was laid and you can make it pay off. 

[Heimdall]

That's a tricky proposition. If you fight the antagonist numerous times before the climax and best him you run the risk of the antagonist coming off as weak and bumbling, like Corypheus in Inquisition. If you lose to the antagonist then you run the risk of making the protagonist seem weak and the antagonist seem silly for letting the hero escape.

That's why the antagonist needs to win (Which doesn't have to mean beating them in a fight exactly) some of these encounters, to emphasize their sense of threat. Otherwise we end up with Corypheus, who was completely non-threatening by the end.

[Prince Enigmatic]

I'm of the opinion, that some of the best antagonists, are the ones who are rarely seen during the main story. 

 

But when they do make an appearance, that respective scene, fight, confrontation, what have you, is truly memorable, since we've had a lot of time to build up different emotions or feelings about that antagonist. We get to use our own imaginations, rather than get everything about that antagonist explained in early expository scenes. It could be argued that could also intensify the threat level. 

[X Equestris]

That's why the antagonist needs to win (Which doesn't have to mean beating them in a fight exactly) some of these encounters, to emphasize their sense of threat. Otherwise we end up with Corypheus, who was completely non-threatening by the end.

Yeah, part of Cory's problem (besides his limited screen time) was that he didn't pose a huge threat after Haven. And even his one victory there was rather pyrrhic. A real waste of potential, since he was actually pretty imposing when he first dropped in.

[Andrew Lucas]

Ryder is the PC's bro. I'm telling ya. 

 

*crosses fingers*

[Draining Dragon]

Sorry, I'm lazy and haven't been keeping up.

Where did the name Ryder appear?

[Heimdall]

I'm of the opinion, that some of the best antagonists, are the ones who are rarely seen during the main story.

But when they do make an appearance, that respective scene, fight, confrontation, what have you, is truly memorable, since we've had a lot of time to build up different emotions or feelings about that antagonist. We get to use our own imaginations, rather than get everything about that antagonist explained in early expository scenes. It could be argued that could also intensify the threat level.

To a point, but sometimes that absence just makes the antagonist feel ineffective. Take Loghain for example, as much as I think he had the character of a good villain, I honestly barely cared throughout the plot because virtually everything I was doing was completely tangential to anything related to him. It makes them feel impersonal, especially since you only get one easily missed conversation with him at the beginning before you see him in Denerim. I maintain that the best antagonists are the ones that the protagonist develops a personal relationship with through the plot. It's why Sun Li is such an effective villain.

[Heimdall]

Sorry, I'm lazy and haven't been keeping up.

Where did the name Ryder appear?

I believe it was on a dog tag or something in the MEA trailer? Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[Killroy]

Sorry, I'm lazy and haven't been keeping up.

Where did the name Ryder appear?

 

The N7 Day teaser. The name is on a single dog tag.

[Killroy]

Ryder is the PC's bro. I'm telling ya. 

 

*crosses fingers*

 

Everyone just immediately jumped right to the conclusions that Ryder is either the PC or the villain, like those are the only roles a character could possibly fill. And almost no one has given any thought to the fact that there was just one dog tag. 

[Draining Dragon]

A single dog tag?

That doesn't seem like much to go on. I wouldn't be surprised if it was neither the PC nor the antagonist.

[Killroy]

A single dog tag?

That doesn't seem like much to go on. I wouldn't be surprised if it was neither the PC nor the antagonist.

 

Exactly. And we know that the N7 guy from the reveal trailer wasn't the PC, so it could easily be him and he could very well die shortly into the game.

[Andrew Lucas]

Everyone just immediately jumped right to the conclusions that Ryder is either the PC or the villain, like those are the only roles a character could possibly fill. And almost no one has given any thought to the fact that there was just one dog tag. 

 

Well, we're supposed to especulate after all, but I see your point.

[Heimdall]

A single dog tag?

That doesn't seem like much to go on. I wouldn't be surprised if it was neither the PC nor the antagonist.

Possibly, though considering they used "Ghost RIDERs in the sky" in their first trailer, I would be shocked if it wasn't significant. Not to mention, I believe there was also a photo with what looked like two children and an adult (Possibly in the same shot? Or was that the other video?), hence the family theory.

[We'll bang okay]

I kind of hope not it just feels a bit... I hate to use this word but cliche too me. 

[Revan Reborn]

I kind of hope not it just feels a bit... I hate to use this word but cliche too me. 

It would only be cliche if the execution was poor. Having some sort of tangible connection to the antagonist would do a lot from a storytelling perspective. It's something I'd be in full support of just because most antagonists in BioWare games are actually rather forgettable. The difference in level of quality between KotOR 1 (BioWare) and KotOR 2 (Obsidian) for the antagonist is a perfect example. Malak is a generic and forgettable villain. Kreia, on the other hand, was amazing and really made me question seriously whether the Sith were wrong, the Jedi, or both.

[Prince Enigmatic]

To a point, but sometimes that absence just makes the antagonist feel ineffective. Take Loghain for example, as much as I think he had the character of a good villain, I honestly barely cared throughout the plot because virtually everything I was doing was completely tangential to anything related to him. It makes them feel impersonal, especially since you only get one easily missed conversation with him at the beginning before you see him in Denerim. I maintain that the best antagonists are the ones that the protagonist develops a personal relationship with through the plot. It's why Sun Li is such an effective villain.

 

It definitely can work both ways. Sometimes a villain can be over exposed, and the feeling of threat starts to diminish. There are also those whose absence ultimately makes them ineffective. It will be interesting to see where ME:A's antagonist(s) fall into in terms of these two villain tropes.

 

Also, I just recognized your profile pic is Illyria and it has made be start re watching Angel again 

[Satirist]

Everyone just immediately jumped right to the conclusions that Ryder is either the PC or the villain, like those are the only roles a character could possibly fill. And almost no one has given any thought to the fact that there was just one dog tag. 

 

well, and then there is the song that's playing in the anouncement trailer, "riders in the sky", which, as bioware has confirmed, has a deeper meaning. Also, both shepard and ryder are derived from real astronaut's names.

 

all in all it's still just speculation of course, but the idea that the next protagonist will be named ryder is the most plausible and well grounded claim so far.

 

 

 

And i think people interpret way too much into bioware's statement regarding the person in the launch trailer not being the protagonist.

[Revan Reborn]

well, and then there is the song that's playing in the anouncement trailer, "riders in the sky", which, as bioware has confirmed, has a deeper meaning. Also, both shepard and ryder are derived from real astronaut's names.

 

all in all it's still just speculation of course, but the idea that the next protagonist will be named ryder is the most plausible and well grounded claim so far.

 

 

 

And i think people interpret way too much into bioware's statement regarding the person in the launch trailer not being the protagonist.

Interpret? BioWare stated that the person in the E3 2015 is NOT the protagonist. What is there to interpret? That's a rather definitive statement.

[lucky5hot]

One idea I like about the protagonist / antagonist, is that its a 'greater good' moral scenario. I'm really not a fan of bond type supervillians who want to see the world burn, I like the grey moral issues - and being that the operative is N7 or ex-N7, this seems likely.

 

I'll paint my picture of Ryder being the antagonist - starting with backstory.

• Ark is even bigger than it seems, the screenshot you see of it looking like the Citadel is because it houses like 100,000 people, say 20,000 humans and a mix of other races.
• They left during the reaper war, and although we dont KNOW the canon ending, we assume the worst, this might be whats left of the humans and other races. [Alternatively, it might just be unfeasible to return, so you need to find a home to simply survive].
• Therefore, its as much about exploration as it is about survival and protection of your people. As an N7 operative you are finding a new home for your people.
• You go on missions with a smaller vessel like you had in ME, this is your operating base/ship as per normal, but you can travel back to your people on the Ark, similar to the Citadel. 

So with this in mind, imagine now that there might be different moral compasses from the N7 team about how to approach finding a new home for humans in Andromeda. Some would want to play nice, and keep our morals at any cost, others might vote to sacrifice these values for the survival of our species.

 

So, my view of Ryder being the antagonist might be something like:

• The values/directives of the council are hyper diplomatic, despite overwhelming hostility from the Helios Cluster in Andromeda, the rules are to play nice at all costs to fit in.
• We discover the Remnant precursor race somehow and discover mastering their technology could give us power over andromeda
• There is a rift in the humans and N7 specifically, and Ryder breaks off with a bunch of them in order to try and find this technology so they can claim the technology and therefore cement the home for the 100,000 refugees by technological prowess.
• The protagonist forms a party to stop Ryder and the rogue N7 cell from destroying their chances of assimilation into Andromeda through their reckless pursuit of this Remnant tech.
• Perhaps as the protagonist, after seeing the logic of the antagonist, you could choose to side with the rogue N7 agent and go renegade, or go paragon and stop them in the end for the greater good.
• As we know, side stories in the game are about ultimately deciding the fate of the warring factions in Andromeda using the Remnant tech.... so why not our own fate?

I would play the **** out of this game if thats how it went

[Khrystyn]

I can envision Ryder the Antagonist has taken control at the end of ME:A 1, the protagonist has been defeated (to some degree, but is not out of resources yet), and the saga war between them isn't over. Find out in ME:A -2 what you can do about that. Further journeys into Andromeda will help you take back what was taken from you and the folks you are protecting. Something like that.

 

Edit: I'm not fully aware of all known information that some of you mentioning.

 

Lots of great ideas being suggested here. Excellent food for thought.

[lucky5hot]

I can envision Ryder the Antagonist has taken control at the end of ME:A 1, the protagonist has been defeated (to some degree, but is not out of resources yet), and the saga war between them isn't over. Find out in ME:A -2 what you can do about that. 

 

[EDIT: here is the leaked survey from April 2015, IMHO its likely on the money as a similar survey was leaked about DA:I and it turned out to be largely correct - some minor overarching spoilers I guess - http://www.eurogamer...-effect-4-leak]

 

Its possible that the leaked surveys from nearly a year ago have changed in terms of story Ark, but the leaked story outline involved the protagonist getting control of the pre-cursor race technology and deciding the outcome of the Helios cluster war as some sort of moral choice.

 

Notably missing from that script leak is any mention of parallel storyline involving an ex-N7 antagonist so perhaps the story has largely changed around.

 

Personally, I think the N7 conflict will be resolved and the [assumed] trilogy storyline will involve some graver threat. For instance, in the E3 trailer we see what might be an alien unknown alien race also vying for the pre-cursor technology [that bit where the techno city rises from the ground and Ryder does a leaping omniblade stab]. I think perhaps once your own story is resolved involving the differences of opinion and warring inside N7, you realize that the tech you acquired is the tip of the iceberg and there is a much larger threat from a new alien force who found the tech at the same time you did.

 

Perhaps after defeating Ryder the damage is already done, and now you have an enemy set on the destruction of the Ark and any human settlements, who now also potentially has the power to do it with the fact they also got a hold of tech.

 

This way the story is flowing from "known enemy" [your own people] -> "unknown enemy" [local alien race who now hates you with unknown tech], which will dramatically increase tension.

[Satirist]

Interpret? BioWare stated that the person in the E3 2015 is NOT the protagonist. What is there to interpret? That's a rather definitive statement.

 

yes, bioware stated the protagonist is not the one seen in this trailer. that's it. that's already a rather strange statement, given that we don't even see the person's face or any feature at all, that could be used to tell him apart from a random other person. we only get a look on a nondescript armor, which happens to be the same armor as the protagonists armor.

 

and yet, people speculate this might be ryder, and he might be the antagonist, or a family member of the protagonist or mentor or some other crucial character from the game.

 

but maybe this is just the regular "pathfinder"-armor and that person shown in the trailer could simply represent any generic, nameless pathfinder. or maybe it's just a first design mock-up without any relation to the final game? maybe it's just a generic dummy person with the sole purpose of showing off the capabilities of the game engine, not intended to represent any character in particular.

or maybe it actually is the protagonist, and bioware simply made that statement to account for potential future changes and simply wanted to avoid backlash from the ungrateful hords of fans that can be expected in response to any changes to the protagonist.

 

how much informative value do you expect find in a teaser trailer that got released 1.5 - 2 years prior to the game?

 

 

whatever it is, any speculation based on the appearance of this featureless person is rather far fetched, because there are still a billion and one possible options as to who that is or whom he might represent.

 

 

same goes for N7 btw. judging by developer comments, bioware aims to establish N7 as a general bioware related brand, which may or may not have the same meaning in andromeda as it had in ME1-3.

[Revan Reborn]

yes, bioware stated the protagonist is not the one seen in this trailer. that's it. that's already a rather strange statement, given that we don't even see the person's face or any feature at all, that could be used to tell him apart from a random other person. we only get a look on a nondescript armor, which happens to be the same armor as the protagonists armor.

 

and yet, people speculate this might be ryder, and he might be the antagonist, or a family member of the protagonist or mentor or some other crucial character from the game.

 

but maybe this is just the regular "pathfinder"-armor and that person shown in the trailer could simply represent any generic, nameless pathfinder. or maybe it's just a first design mock-up without any relation to the final game? maybe it's just a generic dummy person with the sole purpose of showing off the capabilities of the game engine, not intended to represent any character in particular.

or maybe it actually is the protagonist, and bioware simply made that statement to account for potential future changes and simply wanted to avoid backlash from the ungrateful hords of fans that can be expected in response to any changes to the protagonist.

 

how much informative value do you expect find in a teaser trailer that got released 1.5 - 2 years prior to the game?

 

 

whatever it is, any speculation based on the appearance of this featureless person is rather far fetched, because there are still a billion and one possible options as to who that is or whom he might represent.

 

 

same goes for N7 btw. judging by developer comments, bioware aims to establish N7 as a general bioware related brand, which may or may not have the same meaning in andromeda as it had in ME1-3.

Exactly. All we can deduce is that the person in the trailer and that the protagonist are both connected to the N7 program, likely both being N7 operatives. Whether the person in the E3 trailer is Ryder is purely speculation, but the use of the Johnny Cash song is incredibly indicative of that possibility. It's not mere coincidence.

 

No. That's definitely wrong. Just look at BioWare's history of releasing trailers. We can look at all the Mass Effect trailers and Dragon Age trailers. Unless BioWare specifies otherwise, the trailer is meant to show what BioWare aspires the game to be as well as showing the protagonist in action. We saw the Hero of Ferelden in action in the DAO trailer. We saw Hawke in action in the DAII trailers. We saw the Inquisitor in action in all of the DAI trailers. Shepard, obviously, was in action in all of the ME1-3 trailers. This is the first time BioWare has ever stated a trailer for one of their games is not the protagonist. I guarantee you that has major significance for the story. No, the likelihood of it being a placeholder or a "generic" N7 operative is incredibly low. There is a method to BioWare's madness.

 

That statement doesn't make any sense. We've already seen the N7 armor change from 2014 to 2015.

 

Comic Con 2014 (N7 armor):

 

E3 2015 (N7 armor):

 

E3 2015 (N7 armor):

 

Look closely. Within the E3 2015 trailer, BioWare actually showed us two slightly different variations of the N7 armor. The last image I showed is of the person who is not the protagonist. BioWare never stated, however, that the final image from the picture above this one isn't the protagonist. Note that the N7 insignia is on his right arm instead of on his chest. This either means N7 armor will be highly customizable (accounting for the change from the 2014 version), or BioWare is intentionally trying to distinguish between the protagonist and this other character.

 

While I'm sure the N7 program as we "know it" will be vastly different in MEA, it's likely still going to be a human special forces branch of the Alliance. The difference between N7 now and how it was portrayed in ME1-3 is that it will have a much larger role. I don't expect for BioWare to fundamentally change the organization as it was never that well-developed to start. MEA is an opportunity to flesh out one of the most recognizable emblems of Mass Effect.

[In Exile]

That's why the antagonist needs to win (Which doesn't have to mean beating them in a fight exactly) some of these encounters, to emphasize their sense of threat. Otherwise we end up with Corypheus, who was completely non-threatening by the end.

 

The antagonist can't win. Inquisition's problem is not that Corypheus loses at Haven (if anything, it's more of a draw), it's that the Inquisition and Corypheus don't match up again. 

 

In an RPG, there's no way to have the antagonist win a fight without it being forced and cheesy. So the way to do it is to have the Antagonist succeed while the player kicks ass - whether by having multiple goals that the player can't stop at the same time, or having a clever enough red herring plan that the player loses by winning. The best example of the latter being Sun Li in JE - he won by tricking you into winning for him.