IGN: The Villains of Neverwinter

[Darque]

Actually, my favorite "villian" in TOB was Gromnir :D

[Dark_Raven]

Melissan was too obvious. I knew she was a villain when I first met her.

[Pop]

I think my biggest problem with Irenicus was the lack of feeling I was able to muster toward the character.

 

I hated Sarevok most of the game, but felt pity toward him at the end.

 

With Irenicus I was pretty pissed at what he did to my BG1 party... but when I found out why... I kinda laughed (not a humor laugh, mind you)... and then killed him anyway. Bohdi was a midboss as far as I was concerned. And I barely remember the villian in ToB.

 

 

As for the three presented today...

 

Can't say I'm looking forward to the first two, but I can't wait to come across the Gith.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Melisa (or whats her name) was a good villain in ToB, but so soon after BG2 people just 'overrun' the expansion without even noticing anything from the game. <_<

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought it would've been better had they not made it blaringly obvious from her do-goodery that she was pulling the strings all along. Other than that, yeah, I agree. I thought Balthazar had a lot of potential, but they didn't flesh him out enough.

 

*edit - Dammit people, why don't you just come right out and spoil it for the n00bs?

Edited October 6, 2006 by Pop

[Dark_Raven]

Actually, my favorite "villian" in TOB was Gromnir :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He was a munchkin that was put down easily like the rabid dog he was.

[Darque]

Melissan was too obvious. I knew she was a villain when I first met her.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Agreed. Way too obvious.

[Jorian Drake]

Melissan was too obvious. I knew she was a villain when I first met her.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Agreed. Way too obvious.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

but that was a failure of the story evolvement, not that of the Character itself

[Darque]

A good villian can carry a weak story, a weak villian can wreck a good story.

[Jorian Drake]

A good villian can carry a weak story, a weak villian can wreck a good story.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you even remember her story?

I guess not, think about it, and try to remember: Even Sarevok was a puppet of her puppet, she was the one that moved anything since BG1, and even way before the game start.

She had a very good story, but that story was just thrown at you written on a BigMac box. If the expansion would have been the 3rd part as originally wanted, I guess this would have been handled better.

[Dark_Raven]

Melissan was overly nice. Overly nice people, as in real life, have a hidden agenda. Her agenda was obvious the way she followed you around, most likely gathering information on you, to know your strengths and weaknesses.

[Azarkon]

Melissan would've been better if she had been a recurring character, maybe a NPC you've grown to trust, but the problem with the BG series was that you didn't have to get any NPC in your party, which makes it difficult to have traitors (ie the issues with Yoshimo).

 

Or if she was a Zulkir. Oh yes.

[Pop]

I'm surprised nobody's gone off and mentioned that Sephiroth guy yet, as far as "good villains" go. I've heard "best villain evar" thrown around with him quite a bit. Then again, I always found FF to be lame-o.

Edited October 6, 2006 by Pop

[Volourn]

Melissan is a horrible villain. B O R I N G

[Judge Hades]

Yes she was, but I preferred her over Morag.

[Azarkon]

But the Creator races are out to get yoooooouuuuuuuuu...

[kirottu]

Let's hope these three villains in NWN2 OC are better than what they read as... They seem adequate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don

[Darque]

I gotta agree with kirottu.

 

I mean would Darth Vader seem as cool as he is with only a paragraph to describe him?

[Pop]

Let's hope these three villains in NWN2 OC are better than what they read as... They seem adequate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don

[LadyCrimson]

Yet, supposedly he didn't feel anything.

 

So why would he care?

 

Oh, that's right, revenge... which he shouldn't even feel... cause without a soul he doesn't feel anything.

Word.

Having no soul, imo, means he should have no 'human-perception' morality stopping him from doing anything he wants to get what he wants, w/the result of making his actions evil only in the sense of cold and empty calculation. Anger/revenge/pathos/whatever as reasons for evil actions from a souless person is non-sensical to me. I react much the same way when supposedly souless demon servants start emoting in novels, for example.

 

I remember preferring the guy from BG1...it's been so long since I've played either game, however, that I couldn't give any helpful reasons as to why.

[Pop]

I don't know about all of that. You've never hated someone so much and then you forget why you hated them but you still do? It's sentiment, it's illogical, but if he lost his soul he'd still have his vitriolic sentiment (that of being betrayed and abandoned) and that would be enough.

[Gromnir]

If Bohdi was given more time she would have been a good villain. But the spot light went to Jon boy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

the goth girl likes a vampire chick... big surprise there, eh?

 

bodhi plays lady macbeth to irenicus' macbeth. neither one got the development they deserved, but bodhi were far more one-dimensional than were irenicus.

 

biowarians and obsidains both make same error over and over and over again. protagonist needs necessary be left underdeveloped so that a wide-range o' players can enjoy. is the villains who can and shoulds get the bulk of development efforts as they is static and completely w/i control o' writers... though kreia had potential even if execution were amateurish and climax wee laughable.

 

oh well.

 

oh, and Gromnir weren't a villain in tob, even if he did fill role of level-boss.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[LadyCrimson]

I don't know about all of that. You've never hated someone so much and then you forget why you hated them but you still do? It's sentiment, it's illogical, but if he lost his soul he'd still have his vitriolic sentiment (that of being betrayed and abandoned) and that would be enough.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not that you forget you once had a reason to be angry/hate. It's that you don't care anymore. I guess it depends on what you think a 'soul' does for humans in the first place...not that I actually believe in a soul...but if I did, my vision is apathy, not action.

[Darque]

oh, and Gromnir weren't a villain in tob, even if he did fill role of level-boss.

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Can I pretend he is?

 

Otherwise ToB has no redeeming value

[alanschu]

I don't know about all of that. You've never hated someone so much and then you forget why you hated them but you still do? It's sentiment, it's illogical, but if he lost his soul he'd still have his vitriolic sentiment (that of being betrayed and abandoned) and that would be enough.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not that you forget you once had a reason to be angry/hate. It's that you don't care anymore. I guess it depends on what you think a 'soul' does for humans in the first place...not that I actually believe in a soul...but if I did, my vision is apathy, not action.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I wouldn't think he'd be devoid of feeling. It just wouldn't be the same. The "feeling" he felt would pale in comparison to what once was, and as a result, he knew what he was missing.

[Darque]

Yeah, but due to the "lack" of feeling now why would he really care?

[alanschu]

I wouldn't think he'd be devoid of feeling. It just wouldn't be the same.

 

He'd certainly still have his memories, and with his memories would be the interpretation of feeling that various events had for him.

Edited October 6, 2006 by alanschu