One of the villains I wanted to kill first in DA:O was Loghain and in DA:I Solas after I learn the orb Cory carried was given to him.
Some are more of a problem than others
Solas and Corypheus can't be compared to the the Mad hermit who just stole a pinecone from a tree.....
A WTF actual proto-darkspawn Second Sin magister that the Grey Spawn had been secretly hiding was walking around trying to destroy the world and that fact doesn't feel important in DAI.
The nobody Inqusitor is seen near a glowing woman and people elevate them to the herald of Andraste even if they are an elf. A proto-darkspawn from myth/dogma kills the sounthern Divine and the leaders in Thedas all seem absent/useless in light of the current situation. If the world I'm in lacks reasonable concern about the narrative's problem source it makes that premise seem meh. Orlais will wait forever to throw a stupid party to find their gameless ruler while the world is failing. Ferelden will at best only show up too late for one of their most important castles which was invaded by Tevinter. You have to go to full-scale war with the derpy Orlais Grey Spawn to even talk to them and the rest are simply MIA even though demons are pouring into Thedas. They have a hude Thedas conference to decide the fate of the Inquistion yet no meetings/concerns about the Grey Wardens killing a divine, raising demon armies, and hiding proto-darkspawn magisters.
IMO part of the problem with Cory as the premise and source of problems in DAI is the huge fail in the narrative creating an interesting world that reacted/noticed that something as significant as Corybits was the threat. The game said he was and wasn't significant. If the game doesn't care why should I.
The main antagonist as the premise and source of problems in game can work I think if done well. I liked the Baldur's Gate games and they seemed to be main antagonist focused if i remember correctly. The problem with this focus is that the interest in the game depends on a well developed antagonist and Cory had some good lines but the game narrative oddly doesn't seem to care.
OP I agree that DAO and DA2 were somewhat different from the feel of DAI more focused on one source of all problems antagonist with a twist additional secret protagonist Solas to set the next game. I liked DA games because they were also about more than just one villain. I really liked the lore and complexity that DAO and DA2 created. I think DAI wanted to continue the rich world of Thedas with a great villain(s) but they had too much great stuff to try and develop. Still some of it is pretty good.
Although Corybits failed to carry DAI at least he left useless shards and bottles for us to collect instead. Maybe Solas will be able to carry DA4 or it will have a different supporting rich narrative like DAO or DA2. Bioware created an interesting world with DA so there is always potential for future games. I think DAI made an ambitious attempt at being a good game but they couldn't adequately cover all the great stuff they created well enough.
No, I mean everyone. Mages. Templars. Jim-Bob the farmer. Zealots and anarchists and revolutionaries and the apathetic masses and abominations and paranoid idjits and traditionalists and every poor sod trying to survive them.
^ Clear source of every problem in Thedas.
They all got the Kirkwall stupid especially in DAI. I blame it on the Veil. That is why The Hero of Thedas Solas is trying to fix the world for the win!
They all got the Kirkwall stupid especially in DAI. I blame it on the Veil. That is why The Hero of Thedas Solas is trying to fix the world for the win!
No, I mean everyone. Mages. Templars. Jim-Bob the farmer. Zealots and anarchists and revolutionaries and the apathetic masses and abominations and paranoid idjits and traditionalists and every poor sod trying to survive them.
^ Clear source of every problem in Thedas.
Well but then you are saying that everyone is a villain for someone....
Well but then you are saying that everyone is a villain for someone....
Yes.
This world will never find peace then my quixotic world is broken
I need to retire in meditation on the top of some mountain to reach the enlightenment right now, a very tall mountain.
I am only remarking on structure, not on which is better written parts since Loghain is clearly a better villain than Samson/Calpernia.
Samson? Maybe
Calpernia? no, she was a way better antagonist than Loghain
Samson? Maybe
Calpernia? no, she was a way better antagonist than Loghain
My viewpoints on Loghain are affected by having read The Stolen Throne. So I guess I feel I "know" Loghain a little more than Calpernia, and I knew Samson from DA:2, but he was only a drug addict.
Some of the best video game stories of the past few years have had no villains (of the big bad variety) at all, like the Last of Us, Nier, Telltale's Walking Dead, and Dragon Age 2.
Having an overreaching villain is not a necessity, and can be a hindrance. Cory became a dime-store Jon Irenicus that did nothing but lose after the first act
Some are more of a problem than othersSolas and Corypheus can't be compared to the the Mad hermit who just stole a pinecone from a tree.....
Dorian and Alexius were somehow involved with Corypheus with their whole new spell of time travel.
Solas not involved with Corypheus? Where he found the Orb then upon a tree?
Vivienne quest does not pertain the main plot it isn't vital.
Romances are not part of the main plot.
I said Solas's personal quest had nothing to do with Corypheus. Also in your OP you state that : In Inquisition the villain was the premise and the source of all the problems which i find ridiculous since that is not how reality should work,it was basically the whole world against Corypheus while in DAO and DA2 the villains were not the sources of all the issues they were just problems to solve along the road.
The Civil war and mage/templar war were going on before Corypheus. Coirypheus simply took advantage of the chaos. In fact the Conclave was all about stopping the mage/templar conflict. The explosion because of the opening of the orb initially had the templars and the mages blaming each other for the Divine's death.
Corypheus also took advantage of the civil war by having his agents raise the dead. Corypheus did not start these problems. He took advantage of them.
I agree that Cory didn't really work, at least for me, but I think it was a sum of many things. As a concept, I do like Cory being this seemingly inhumane god who was ultimately revealed to be this fearful, fallible man, but the story really didn't support it. Additionally by forcefully tying him as the central figure in all the other conflicts, it did cheapen those conflicts, especially since Cori's representatives in those conflicts were so shallow and mustache-twirling.
However, I think for me the largest problem was that there is really wasn't that connecting theme with the missions and side quests that supported the main villain. While in DA2 there are multiple antagonists, they all touch on the same things as do the companions, speaking on how thin the lines are between devotion, principle and fanaticism.
I agree that Cory didn't really work, at least for me, but I think it was a sum of many things. As a concept, I do like Cory being this seemingly inhumane god who was ultimately revealed to be this fearful, fallible man, but the story really didn't support it. Additionally by forcefully tying him as the central figure in all the other conflicts, it did cheapen those conflicts, especially since Cori's representatives in those conflicts were so shallow and mustache-twirling.
However, I think for me the largest problem was that there is really wasn't that connecting theme with the missions and side quests that supported the main villain. While in DA2 there are multiple antagonists, they all touch on the same things as do the companions, speaking on how thin the lines are between devotion, principle and fanaticism.
Actually, majority of major zone quests tie to Corypheus - for example, Freemen of the Dales collaborating with Red Templars to get peasants to Emprise du Lion and distributing Red Lyrium, which eventually enables us to go after Samson (if we choose mages) and so on.
As for Corypheus... I really adore the fact that the near cartoonish, Blight-twisted villain actually managed to save the world (or give it another chance) from a much more sympathetic and possibly yet redeemable antagonist (if Corypheus wasn't so prideful as to try and sacrifice Divine on the conclave and then survived the explosion Solas, by his own admission, would have already destroyed the world).
It's such a delicious twist I can't be angry at Bioware for any deficiencies in portraying Corypheus.
I agree however with some that point out that it wasn't so much Corypheus that was a problem - it's the weakness of world at large, focused on its petty conflicts and inability to work together that made it possible for terrors like Cory rise and almost swoop on the world with an army of corrupted templars, mages, Wardens and demons...
And aside from what I said above it's also a big stretch to say that the story is all about Corypheus - no, the story is mainly abut the rise of Inquisition and its leader. Corypheus (and, indirectly, Solas) is the one who enables them to organize people for one last push before things effectively fall apart.
At least you could ASK Celene, Briala and Gaspard why they deserve support. With the election in Orzammar, I had no real idea what Bhelen or Harrowmont's policies were. It wan't until later that I learned Bhelen was the reformer and Harrowmont the traditionalist.
Actually, I thought Orzammar was particularly good--the entire point with Harrowmont was that he didn't have any concrete "policies", his whole point was that he was "not Bhelen". Bhelen was fundamentally dishonest and his methods were brutal. So you had this very complex choice between a brutal, dictatorial, power-lusting "reformer" and . . . an honest, upright, "not that". That's an interesting choice with no real "right answer". "Progressive" vs. "reformer" is a boring choice.
I went with Harrowmont--he's at least honest, and he was OLD, so he'd be handing the throne on to someone else soon regardless. Bhelen was YOUNG and extremely crafty, so they'd be stuck with him for a LONG time.
Whereas the choice between Celene/Gaspard/Briala was fundamentally boring and meaningless. It was a purely immediate practical question (do you want a politician or a military guy) instead of being a long-range moral question. The bit about the elves was really a sideline that you could manage regardless of who you chose for the main job.
They could have made it a lot more interesting with very little effort by making it a question of the succession--Celene has no heir and doesn't seem inclined to marry and produce one. Gaspard, IIRC, was married at one point and I think may already have at least one child. If they'd brought in a few suitors for both (particularly if they'd made one of the options the king/queen of Fereldan if Anora or Alistair rules alone), that would have been SO MUCH more interesting and also Celene's problematic relationship with Briala would have been a much bigger deal, particularly if Celene then refused to marry if you reconciled her with Briala. Replace the scenes with Celene's pointless handmaidens with a couple of scenes laying out the suitor situation and you have a complex decision with a ton of ramifications that also ties back to the existing world state. How cool would that have been?!
Actually, I thought Orzammar was particularly good--the entire point with Harrowmont was that he didn't have any concrete "policies", his whole point was that he was "not Bhelen". Bhelen was fundamentally dishonest and his methods were brutal. So you had this very complex choice between a brutal, dictatorial, power-lusting "reformer" and . . . an honest, upright, "not that". That's an interesting choice with no real "right answer". "Progressive" vs. "reformer" is a boring choice.
I went with Harrowmont--he's at least honest, and he was OLD, so he'd be handing the throne on to someone else soon regardless. Bhelen was YOUNG and extremely crafty, so they'd be stuck with him for a LONG time.
Whereas the choice between Celene/Gaspard/Briala was fundamentally boring and meaningless. It was a purely immediate practical question (do you want a politician or a military guy) instead of being a long-range moral question. The bit about the elves was really a sideline that you could manage regardless of who you chose for the main job.
They could have made it a lot more interesting with very little effort by making it a question of the succession--Celene has no heir and doesn't seem inclined to marry and produce one. Gaspard, IIRC, was married at one point and I think may already have at least one child. If they'd brought in a few suitors for both (particularly if they'd made one of the options the king/queen of Fereldan if Anora or Alistair rules alone), that would have been SO MUCH more interesting and also Celene's problematic relationship with Briala would have been a much bigger deal, particularly if Celene then refused to marry if you reconciled her with Briala. Replace the scenes with Celene's pointless handmaidens with a couple of scenes laying out the suitor situation and you have a complex decision with a ton of ramifications that also ties back to the existing world state. How cool would that have been?!
That doesn't really work. The Bhelen/Harrowmont question is interesting because, ultimately, the dwarven society is an oppressive nightmare. It's a society that, while pretty functional, is in a lot of ways repugnant to what we believe in a western liberal democracy. Picking between the two is a clash of values.
The structure here doesn't work, because it ultimately asks me to care about the future of Orlais, and I might not. I think what they needed to do was really sharpen the contrast between Celene and Gaspard (and, frankly, just cut Briala). A reformer who wants to, in a lot of ways, undercut the current nobility and push toward enlightenment with, essentially, a warmonger. Flip it so that Celene, who is already a vissionary reformer, is unwilling to improve the plight of the elves because it's just too much to take on for her reformist agenda and have the warmonger Gaspard see that as an insult because he sees "class" and not "race" as the natural division - elves and human serfs are on a level and should be treated the same, elves and human burgeoise are on a level and should be treated the same, etc, but also believes in a fundamental class distinction.
It was a purely immediate practical question (do you want a politician or a military guy) instead of being a long-range moral question.
That's equally true of Orzammar, though. In both cases the objective is to stabilise the faction so it can function properly; that is achieved no matter the outcome, so the "long range moral question" is just an irrelevance, really. You find one choice more compelling than another, which is fine, but that's not to say it's any more meaningful.
Me, I pick Bhelen because Harrowmont's eyes are far too small for his face. Likewise I make peace with Gaspard and reconcile Briala and Celene because doing so makes me feel warm and fuzzy. There is no real sacrifice or reward in either of the choices.
Compelling and meaningful are ultimately the same thing in this context.
There is--and people need to get used to this idea--NEVER going to be a choice in a video game that fundamentally affects everything that happens downstream of it. (Or even a large number of things.) No game ever has or ever will provide this kind of scenario. So EVERYTHING is going to boil down to "you have to give a **** about SOMETHING for this to be compelling or meaningful."
Moral choices are THE fundamental choices in human existence. Hence any choice with a significant moral/consequential component is going to be more meaningful than something with merely cosmetic or immediate practical "impact". Saying "well, I can just strenuously refuse to give a **** about anything so nothing is meaningful nyah nyah" is completely beside the point. You might as well be a small child saying "well I don't CARE if you send me to my room because I wanted to go to my room ANYWAY SO THERE." Yes. Brilliant. You "won". And you're no closer to understanding what makes a game good than you were before--in fact, you're further away.
Compelling and meaningful are ultimately the same thing in this context.
I disagree. "Compelling" is entirely subjective, and nobody but you gets to decide how compelling or engaging you find any particular aspect of a game. I don't find the choice in Orzammar any more compelling than the choice in Halamshirral. That's fine. You do. Also fine.
The extent to which a decision is meaningful, however, can be argued objectively by reference to its mechanical and/or narrative repercussions. Bhelen vs Harrowmont, for example, was not a meaningful choice, either in the context of the game or the series as a whole. Pick a beard colour, you get your faction. Orzammar vanishes into the background either way as soon as you're done. Contrast Branka vs Caridin. The overall effect is similar, in that the faction vanishes into the background at the end of the quest, but by the time that happens you've potentially lost a party member (one you've paid real money for, no less) in exchange for a boon in the final battle (golems make Denerim much, much easier) or you've opened up a whole load of Shale-based side content and dialogues in exchange for a slog through the Ogres in the marketplace. Those are tangible changes to the structure and content that come about because of a decision you've made. Not every decision can have such repercussions of course, because that takes time and time is money, but my argument was never that every decision should shake the foundations of Thedas. It was that no resolution to either succession crisis is meaningful.
You can impart "meaning" to the Bhelen vs Harrowmont decision by engaging more deeply with the conundrum than the game or story does - and the scope provided for such headcanon is one of the reasons narrative-led IP like Dragon Age remains popular - but that doesn't mean the decision is meaningful in and of itself. The same is true of Halamshirral.
Retour en haut