37 réponses à ce sujet

[Sifr]

Alexius was mentally unstable look what he did in "Dark Future" and even he was betrayed in the end by Corypheus for failing. So,he loses his head. I can't forgive his part in helping Corypheus destroy the world in the dark future and the fact he wanted me dead just to please Corypheus..

 

Nope..No bleeding heart here.

 

Alexius wasn't unstable in the Dark Future, he only really lost his mind when Leliana slit Felix's throat, rendering everything he'd done for nought.

 

I saw Alexius as rationalising away his actions and justifying it to himself as being all necessary to save his son. If he could figure out how to undo the Inquisitor's interference at the Temple, then he could ensure that everything was fixed and the nightmare he'd been living through would be over.

 

He says that Corypheus promised him that Felix would be cured as reward for undoing the Inquisitor's meddling, but this would also mean that the Breach would not be destroying the world, as Corypheus would be able to seal it with the Anchor after ascending to godhood.

 

Alexius' notes in the Dark Future suggest that he's tried multiple times to go back to undo what happened at the Temple of Sacred Ashes, but has never managed to go back before the Breach occurred. We don't know if he returned to his own time afterwards, so it could be that he's relived the same year (and apocalypse) countless times, which would definitely account for his level of despondency when we find him.

 

Alexius being stuck in a nightmarish Groundhog Day (or Year) could also be the reason why everyone was convinced that we'd been reduced to ashes. Perhaps in the timeline that they'd lived through, because Alexius had a years worth of foreknowledge, he'd known about the trap and killed us in the throne room. But because our version of the timeline had the trap throw him off-balance and Dorian manage to send us to the future before he attacked, we are still alive in the Dark future we arrived in?

 

This would likewise explain the weird paradox with Fiona and Redcliffe, as a result of Alexius going back to meddle in events. Fiona in Val Royeaux suggests the mages are unaligned with anyone at that time, whereas when we arrive in Redcliffe we discover that now, Alexius showed up two days after the Conclave to usurp control of the rebellion at their most desperate moment. It might be that the Fiona we remember meeting was an echo or remnant of the previous timeline, or that reality changed when Alexius went into the past, but somehow we still remember the original events?

 

All of that digression aside... being stuck in a (constantly looping) year of hell, would probably explain why Alexius had gone rather doolally by the time we finally show up to confront him.

[vbibbi]

Again though, to portray a "sympathetic" villain one most portray the character through movements and through voice acting. It's like everyone keeps forgetting this aspect. Dragon Age, for what its worth, is still a video game, and a visual medium. And I like the Architect the most of the two choices. But that's because the Architect had emotions. You could see it on his face. You could hear the sympathy and the fact that he's trying to explain his circumstance:
 
https://www.youtube....h?v=T_4CiR7JtKI
 
Versus Corypheus. Who only displays rage and anger, for the whole game. Which sounds like a child's argument
 
-You stole Corypheus' Anchor, tantrum, attacks Haven
-You defeat him in the Arbor Wilds, tantrum, tries to attack you while at the Well
 
Never once did Corypheus:
 
-Go to Haven
-Say, what happened to the Conclave was a mistake
-Say, the anchor was a spell wrong, and even if the choice is arbituary ask the Inquisitor for the anchor himself
 
Imagine, if we had an exchange with Corypheus the way Solas had an exchange with us in the Trespasser DLC. Where Solas explains he was too weak, you can see in his facial expressions the pain. And you can empathize with him, even if Solas is completely bonkers. We never got that chance with Corypheus.
 
He sounds angry when he talks about the seat of the Gods. Instead of a dialogue that is similar in an essence
 
"I opened my eyes, to a world, and visited a throne of Gods and it was empty. I try to understand this world, and all I see are people running around confused. And I decided that this world needs a God, needs someone to allow them to have meaning to their life" 
 
We never have this grounded. Human moments with Corypheus. Its just blind, childish rage.

The Architect's VA was spot on. It really helped me empathize. If someone had done a poorer job I think it would have been a lot easier to just label him a delusional at best, deranged at worst, figure.

[Qis]

Comparing Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and Star Wars...all direct sequel series...to Dragon Age...which is an anthology is a bit silly.  There is no continuation in main characters so necessarily having the same villain carry on from installment to installment would not make a lot of sense.  They are already risking a lot by probably having Fen'harel as the big bad of the next game.  

 

It's a no problem because the main focus of DA:O is The Grey Warden in which the main character is, so even if there are different main character for each game, the main villain and the hero are the same, Grey Warden vs The Archdemon. It is much like The Jedi vs The Sith...you see Star Wars episode 1 to 6 cast different heroes but the villain still the same, The Sith.

 

In LotR, the villain is Sauron and his army, forever be to the end, while the heroes are many. In Harry Potter the villain is Voldermort to the end, but each series are about many things, Voldermort will always be there trolling the main character no matter what each books/episode is about

 

It is the recipe of successful story because readers/viewers recognize what/who is the threat in the whole thing, and the threat is always there. No matter if the story divert into many things but the reader/viewers keep reminded about the threat that/who become the main issue. In Star Wars it is The Sith, in LotR it is Sauron and in Harry Potter it is Voldermort.

[TheAtomicSurvivor]

The Architect's VA was spot on. It really helped me empathize. If someone had done a poorer job I think it would have been a lot easier to just label him a delusional at best, deranged at worst, figure.

 

I absolutely agree. You can hear Architect willingness to speak. If perhaps he can reason with you, that perhaps you can be allies. I think it's the reason why I didn't attack the Architect, because I could understand his POV

[Al Foley]

Again though, to portray a "sympathetic" villain one most portray the character through movements and through voice acting. It's like everyone keeps forgetting this aspect. Dragon Age, for what its worth, is still a video game, and a visual medium. And I like the Architect the most of the two choices. But that's because the Architect had emotions. You could see it on his face. You could hear the sympathy and the fact that he's trying to explain his circumstance:

 

 

Versus Corypheus. Who only displays rage and anger, for the whole game. Which sounds like a child's argument

 

-You stole Corypheus' Anchor, tantrum, attacks Haven

-You defeat him in the Arbor Wilds, tantrum, tries to attack you while at the Well

 

Never once did Corypheus:

 

-Go to Haven

-Say, what happened to the Conclave was a mistake

-Say, the anchor was a spell wrong, and even if the choice is arbituary ask the Inquisitor for the anchor himself

 

Imagine, if we had an exchange with Corypheus the way Solas had an exchange with us in the Trespasser DLC. Where Solas explains he was too weak, you can see in his facial expressions the pain. And you can empathize with him, even if Solas is completely bonkers. We never got that chance with Corypheus.

 

He sounds angry when he talks about the seat of the Gods. Instead of a dialogue that is similar in an essence

 

"I opened my eyes, to a world, and visited a throne of Gods and it was empty. I try to understand this world, and all I see are people running around confused. And I decided that this world needs a God, needs someone to allow them to have meaning to their life" 

 

We never have this grounded. Human moments with Corypheus. Its just blind, childish rage.

"Dumat Ancient Ones I beseech you, if you exist, if you ever truly existed, aid me now!"  Incredibly human moment.  And of course the man is angry.  I think most of us would be in his circumstance.  Of course he was also reflective in a lot of the dialog you hear when you travel to Dumat's shrine.  Like I said they could have done a muuuuuccchhh better job with Cory and they could have done a much better job with the secondary villains but Cory was certainly a lot better then most video game antagonists. 

[Asha'bellanar]

Corypheus actually DOESN'T want to destroy the world. He thinks that Thedas needs a god, and that becoming one will be to everyone's benefit.

To quote Dr Horrible, "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it." Classic megalomaniac trope.

[JadeDragon]

It's a no problem because the main focus of DA:O is The Grey Warden in which the main character is, so even if there are different main character for each game, the main villain and the hero are the same, Grey Warden vs The Archdemon. It is much like The Jedi vs The Sith...you see Star Wars episode 1 to 6 cast different heroes but the villain still the same, The Sith.

 

In LotR, the villain is Sauron and his army, forever be to the end, while the heroes are many. In Harry Potter the villain is Voldermort to the end, but each series are about many things, Voldermort will always be there trolling the main character no matter what each books/episode is about

 

It is the recipe of successful story because readers/viewers recognize what/who is the threat in the whole thing, and the threat is always there. No matter if the story divert into many things but the reader/viewers keep reminded about the threat that/who become the main issue. In Star Wars it is The Sith, in LotR it is Sauron and in Harry Potter it is Voldermort.

Pretty sure the Blight is the main villain of the series and whoever is its creator. 

DA:O - Archdemon corrupted by the blight

DA2 - Red Lyruim Idol corrupted by the the blight

DAI - Cory corrupted by the the blight

 

Also Loghain was very much the antagonist of DA:O regardless if you see him as hero or villain your character doesnt have the option to see him as anything but a antagonist until the landsmeet at which you find out you can give him redeeming moment.

 

But overall yea i felt as a whole the presentation of the villains in DAI was weak to much codex and not enough actual game story. extra lore is fine but codex should not have the meat of character progression in a game just a side dish. DAI had some hidden gems in there but i felt they just didnt take the time to expand on each villain and there respective faction. The Freeman of the Dales have a very interesting story as it relates to the Civil War but that was rushed out the door. The Promisers could have also been interesting kind of like a dark version of the Seekers and there arc could have been cool to explore if they decided to give Cass more then a wartable chain companion mission. I would have rathered actually had to find clues in game of were the seekers were and maybe expand on them a little more. Red templars could have had some horrifying moments I wanted to actually see the grueling process of Red Templar to Behemoth. The Broodmother boss fight lead up actually made it seem like something horrific in DAO, Red Templars just needed one moment to echo that. The demons in DAI was somewhat a let down besides nightmare and envy for a game in were demons were the main villain DAO and DA2 has had better demons and moments with them as enemies in the series. Lack of varity with no hunger sloth or desire and lack of introduction like despair demons are some ugly looking things instead of random rift fight what is that why cant we get a cutscene somewhere and we think a old woman needs help turns around and bam ugly despair demon throwing ice chunks, that little bit makes a difference for a enemy. Nothing was possessed and no abominations despite a Mage-Templar War were mages emotions were at a all time high, I know the whole Breach excuse but the Breach got closed in the beginning and rifts were in contained areas for the most part. But what happened to the demons who wanted the human experience or just love tormenting humans im sure not all the demons were just sprinting in the fade for the nearest rift, some like nightmare were to large and powerful to fit thru a normal sized rift. Speaking of nightmare I would have rathered He been the villain the whole time and actually been playing Cory. We go back in the fade to face Nightmare because now we have some plot device to weaken him and we not only have to fight him but a possessed who ever was left in the fade, imagine varric having to fight a possessed hawke! O and Nightmare has been feeding on fear of the blight since the blight so he fits the theme also.

 

Hopefully DA4 does better with Solas and maybe Sten to if he and the Qun are villains, would actually make it interesting to have two former companions villains in the same game.

[vbibbi]

"Dumat Ancient Ones I beseech you, if you exist, if you ever truly existed, aid me now!"  Incredibly human moment.  And of course the man is angry.  I think most of us would be in his circumstance.  Of course he was also reflective in a lot of the dialog you hear when you travel to Dumat's shrine.  Like I said they could have done a muuuuuccchhh better job with Cory and they could have done a much better job with the secondary villains but Cory was certainly a lot better then most video game antagonists.

Yes, that was a great line and was able to convey so much more about him in that one sentence than the rest of the game combined. THAT is the level of characterization I wanted throughout the rest of the game.

[Al Foley]

Yes, that was a great line and was able to convey so much more about him in that one sentence than the rest of the game combined. THAT is the level of characterization I wanted throughout the rest of the game.

But that is also why writing video game antagonists generally tends to be much more difficult then in other writing mediums.  Granted there are better antagonists in Dragon Age then Cory, at least IMO, but not that many...two in fact. Though on the flip side of the equation I still really would have loved a tea time with Corypheus style situation.  Heck him capturing the Inquisitor and trying to convince her that he was in the right to rule the world would have been interesting as heck.  

 

Heck though when you get down to it I can only think of three antagonists off the top of my head that I think were better in gaming then Cory...wait no four.  

 

Edit 2: Though when you get down to it too that line is pretty much all the characterization I really needed.  Its what I like to call for a character or work of fiction its 'thesis statement'.  One single statement that makes the entire character or work of fiction make sense from a logical or philosophical point of view.  THat one sentence is all you need to know about Corypheus and his character arc.  That one sentence explains why he is such a rage monster.  That one sentence ties in so beatufully with the themes of the work and how Corypheus fit into it.  Again they didn't do the best job with Cory.  Not even close.  Again I would have loved a quiet scene with just the monster and the main character talking, quietly, without trying to kill eah other.  But that is not what we got.  And what we got was...adequate. 

[vbibbi]

But that is also why writing video game antagonists generally tends to be much more difficult then in other writing mediums.  Granted there are better antagonists in Dragon Age then Cory, at least IMO, but not that many...two in fact. Though on the flip side of the equation I still really would have loved a tea time with Corypheus style situation.  Heck him capturing the Inquisitor and trying to convince her that he was in the right to rule the world would have been interesting as heck. 

 

I give Bio credit in that their writing is miles above most other video game companies, which is why I hold them to a higher standard than most games. They have proven that they can write compelling villains. They even acknowledged that Corypheus didn't have enough screen time in the game to make him as effective as possible.

 

I agree that having some form of actual conversation with him would have helped immensely. By the time we finally get the big reveal at Haven, we no longer need to keep him distant and mysterious. After that, he should have had more direct involvement. Or if they wanted to use him sparingly, at least have Samson and Calpernia have more of a presence. They were also woefully underused and could have acted as Cory's surrogate. But when Samson is finally captured and brought to Skyhold for judgment, his scene is disappointingly generic and brings nothing new.

 

As I've mentioned in this thread, seeing the Dark Future as further reflection of Cory's goals could have been helpful. Having it be a generic demon infested wasteland tells us nothing about his plans: at best he has failed and couldn't control the Breach or reach the Black City. At worst, he did reach the BC and his dreams of godhood were useless. His threat becomes one of generic armageddon rather than of a benevolent dictator who rules his dystopia with an iron fist.

 

 

Edit 2: Though when you get down to it too that line is pretty much all the characterization I really needed.  Its what I like to call for a character or work of fiction its 'thesis statement'.  One single statement that makes the entire character or work of fiction make sense from a logical or philosophical point of view.  THat one sentence is all you need to know about Corypheus and his character arc.  That one sentence explains why he is such a rage monster.  That one sentence ties in so beatufully with the themes of the work and how Corypheus fit into it.  Again they didn't do the best job with Cory.  Not even close.  Again I would have loved a quiet scene with just the monster and the main character talking, quietly, without trying to kill eah other.  But that is not what we got.  And what we got was...adequate. 

 

The line was too little too late for me. It was impactful, but it came at the very end of the game and was lost amidst the ending sequence. And it wasn't enough in hindsight to flesh out his few appearances before. It was a band aid on a gushing wound. A sweet My Little Pony band aid, but still not enough.

 

For a thesis statement to work, it has to have supporting material. It can't stand as the entire argument all by itself; it is the summary of the argument in distilled form.

 

I think what could have been an easy fix would be to have Cory and the Inquisitor both get sucked into the Fade physically at the end. Have an ending sequence without combat, maybe going through Cory's memories of entering the Golden City centuries ago. It would be less lackluster than what we got as an ending, plus we would learn more about that historic event.

[Squinterific]

Loghain is not a villain in DA:O, The Archdemon is. Loghain is a character that depends on your view about him, he could be a hero, he could kill The Archdemon and die a hero.

 

The true villain in DA:O is The Archdemon, a mysterious, mystical, intelligent, fearsome immortal being. The world will be in ruin should he's not defeated and killed.

 

Bioware should just expand about The Archdemon in DA2 and DA:I, but they don't, and that's their greatest mistake.

 

DA:O should be the intro to the main villain of the whole series, we should learn more about "The Archdemons", there are few more isn't it? That's the recipe of a succesful story...look at Harry Potter, Lord of the Ring, Star Wars and many more...

 

Any well written character "depends on your view of him" and Loghain is very much a villain in DA:O, he is quite literally the main antagonist for about 3 quarters of the game. It's part of the whole "grey morality" thing that Bioware sometimes likes to include in their games, where a villain can be sympathetic or driven by some ultimately noble goal. That he can sacrifice himself at the end and die a hero is an act of redemption, which villains can do. The redemption of a villain is a common motif in fiction.

 

The Archdemon however doesn't come across as mysterious or intelligent to me, just as a Big Bad. He's a big dragon that is only evil because of the Taint. All archdemons are doomed to do exactly the same things, they follow the same patterns and they don't exhibit any free will or intelligence outside of an urge to drive the darkspawn and destroy everything; they can't be talked to, reasoned with or gauged for motives, so in this regard they are more like a force of nature than someone intelligent.

I'm not a fan of the Big Bad trope, I much prefer a villain with a complex motivation and redeemable qualities like Loghain, but that's just me.

[Al Foley]

I give Bio credit in that their writing is miles above most other video game companies, which is why I hold them to a higher standard than most games. They have proven that they can write compelling villains. They even acknowledged that Corypheus didn't have enough screen time in the game to make him as effective as possible.

 

I agree that having some form of actual conversation with him would have helped immensely. By the time we finally get the big reveal at Haven, we no longer need to keep him distant and mysterious. After that, he should have had more direct involvement. Or if they wanted to use him sparingly, at least have Samson and Calpernia have more of a presence. They were also woefully underused and could have acted as Cory's surrogate. But when Samson is finally captured and brought to Skyhold for judgment, his scene is disappointingly generic and brings nothing new.

 

As I've mentioned in this thread, seeing the Dark Future as further reflection of Cory's goals could have been helpful. Having it be a generic demon infested wasteland tells us nothing about his plans: at best he has failed and couldn't control the Breach or reach the Black City. At worst, he did reach the BC and his dreams of godhood were useless. His threat becomes one of generic armageddon rather than of a benevolent dictator who rules his dystopia with an iron fist.

 

 

 

The line was too little too late for me. It was impactful, but it came at the very end of the game and was lost amidst the ending sequence. And it wasn't enough in hindsight to flesh out his few appearances before. It was a band aid on a gushing wound. A sweet My Little Pony band aid, but still not enough.

 

For a thesis statement to work, it has to have supporting material. It can't stand as the entire argument all by itself; it is the summary of the argument in distilled form.

 

I think what could have been an easy fix would be to have Cory and the Inquisitor both get sucked into the Fade physically at the end. Have an ending sequence without combat, maybe going through Cory's memories of entering the Golden City centuries ago. It would be less lackluster than what we got as an ending, plus we would learn more about that historic event.

But there was supporting material.  Go all the way back to his appearance in DA 2.  Go to some of his musings in the Temple of Dumat.  And then his mere rage at everything could be supporting evidence in and of itself.  Some people like to investigate when they are confused, with others it just pisses them off.  Combine that with the idea that the Inquisitor through sheer dumb luck spoiled his plans time and time again which would be frustraing.  To all Cory wanted to do and who he was as a person, being a poweful mage in his own right who was extremly successful.  

 

I have said it before, and its still true.  Corypheus is the tale of two bad guys.  Behind the scenes he was a brilliant tactical genious who manipulated events and built quite a support group around himself, and then left them to do their own thing.  His plans were generally brilliant and well executed.  It was sheer dumb luck/ divine providence/ time travel that the Inquisitor even managed to stay afloat.  Yet on screen he was a cliche mustache twirling rage monster. 

[TheAtomicSurvivor]

But there was supporting material.  Go all the way back to his appearance in DA 2.  Go to some of his musings in the Temple of Dumat.  And then his mere rage at everything could be supporting evidence in and of itself.  Some people like to investigate when they are confused, with others it just pisses them off.  Combine that with the idea that the Inquisitor through sheer dumb luck spoiled his plans time and time again which would be frustraing.  To all Cory wanted to do and who he was as a person, being a poweful mage in his own right who was extremly successful.  

 

I have said it before, and its still true.  Corypheus is the tale of two bad guys.  Behind the scenes he was a brilliant tactical genious who manipulated events and built quite a support group around himself, and then left them to do their own thing.  His plans were generally brilliant and well executed.  It was sheer dumb luck/ divine providence/ time travel that the Inquisitor even managed to stay afloat.  Yet on screen he was a cliche mustache twirling rage monster. 

 

Yeah, but here's another argument. If you villain is forgettable in the long run, they need another way to flesh them. TBH, I didn't like The Sequel That Shall Not Be Named. I barely remember Corypheus in Dragon Age 2, I don't even remember most of the plot, that's how bad that sequel was for me. I bought the game, thought it was **** and returned it and wanted my money back. I never bought the DLC, I never rebought the game. With how poorly received Dragon Age 2 was, I'm surprised Bioware kept the villain and its blunded in Dragon Age Inquisition. I would have rathered a reboot with DAI.

 

If Dragon Age Inquisition can spend the time to evolve and flesh out Lelianna and Cassandra, two characters we already know. Then they could have spent more time fleshing out Corypheus.

 

They expected people to play the other game is an excuse, and a cop out. Because it didn't take them much time to flesh out Leliana and Cassandra.