The only reason I knew who the ascendant lord was, was because this game constantly has these twists. I don't think they actually planted the seeds in the story itself that well.

Betrayal has been central to the Elder Scrolls ever since Emperor Uriel Septim VII was betrayed by Jagar Tharn and had to be rescued by the Eternal Champion. It may be a trope in RPGs, but betrayal also happens an awful lot in the real world.

Betrayal is used so much because it's the easiest and quickest way to tell your audience "this is the bad guy, come and get him/her". It is also a way to sort of give a bad guy a sort of win. We know they are going to always lose in the end, they can't win. So give them a small victory to show that they really are some sort of a threat.

The same happens in movies too. Then there is another thing they do a lot in movies but not so much in games yet, but it will probably come to that soon enough. That being bad guys always killing their own people, usually in violent ways. Why would they do this? All it does is make them weaker by having less people on their side to help them, right? But again, it's to say: "this guy is bad, REALLY bad" and again to give him some sort of a win, because again we know they can never win in the end.

I suppose the better question to ask is what's a good example of a non-betrayal BBEG scenario you liked and thought was good? That way it can be used as a source of inspiration.

It was the same with some guild quest lines in the single-player games. Someone betrays the guild and, well, I won't spoil it for anyone. Hopefully the same won't happen in TES6.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

RebornV3x wrote: »

they don't plant the seeds at all until you beat both High Island and Galen but the next quest after that is the reveal. but its just so predictable

I think there is a little bit of seed planting in Galen.

His claims about what happened in the cathedral are pretty flimsy

But in High Isle there's really no reason to suspect him unless you're just automatically assuming from past experience with the game. The only reason anyone does is because they have this type of thing as a plot point of pretty much every chapter. It is to the point that it would have actually subverted our expectations if he was who he said he was.

I'll admit, I loathed the High Isle storyline and I still can't bring myself to do the epilogue. Firesong was fantastic though.

But yes, the villain was as paper-thin and obvious as possible. I don't even need to play the epilogue or even have knowledge of the history of various storylines here to guess that the character who is so obviously over-the-top "I love everybody and everything and I'd never hurt a fly! How could all of this stuff keep happening!?" is totally the one behind it all. Honestly, I'd have been much more surprised if it turned out that he really was that incompetently useless all along and that someone else truly was behind it all. Like honestly, we've got Tamriel's most renowned detective who more than once finds out something bad happens right after some characters go off together alone with our 'nice guy,' and then surprisingly he's the only one unharmed? And she doesn't even take the time to think twice about how suspicious that looks? Definitely makes me think that she can't be Investigator Vale because Investigator Vale is perceptive and smart, which Lady Arabelle has proven time and time again that she is not.
...maybe she needs Eveli with her to be able to point out the obvious.

I don't think knowing the twist or the formula are necessarily bad though. There are times that you can know where the story's going and still enjoy it getting there.

Contrast this to something like Orsinium. I know how Orc stories go so I was able to call out the true villain about a third of the way through the storyline. And I called it pretty well exactly as to who was manipulating whom to get their way. And it was still amazing. I'd actually have been royally pissed if it hadn't gone exactly according to the formula.

I think my problem was that High Isle just felt like a complete mess. The Alliance Leaders usurped what should have been a strong 'landed nobles vs. underclass vs. druids' Bretonic story, and instead it felt like the Bretons got usurped in their own chapter by having Queen Mary Sue come in and fix all of the problems by being just better than everyone at everything. Instead of getting a look into Breton chivalric structure, we got to hear that King Jorunn was too useless of a leader to stop sleeping with some rando to come to a peace conference. And then who cares about character relationships and histories when we can get Za'ji and Jakarn to interject so much comic relief into everything that modern Marvel movies would cringe.
...Yes, I am furious about how bad that storyline was.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

The only reason I knew who the ascendant lord was, was because this game constantly has these twists. I don't think they actually planted the seeds in the story itself that well.

I actually really liked the character without the betrayal.

I did see very early in High Isle they dropped a hint about possible motivation, but the character was more compelling before doing a 180 into a schlocky villain IMO.

Using betrayal provides an easy way for the player to get to know the antagonist more, positions the players so that they are more likely to dislike the antagonist without making the antagonist need to be super evil, and opens up the potential to give the antagonist wins that don't make players feel diminished in their combat prowess which is especially an issue for less magical antagonists.

With that said, some of the betrayal is also realistic because you have absolutely massive amounts of power centralized in leaders that frankly aren't very good at leading and are frequently ignoring their populace or having lapses in self control.

Anyone else feel like the real punch line is that we are the Villan all along?

The only Elder Srolls game I played before ESO was Morrowind -- and it's hard to recall an organization-leading quest-giver you DIDN'T have to fight by the end.

Good point to complete quests without reading them (reading is totally unrequired for their completion).

Just because betrayal happens in real life doesn't mean they need to be so boilerplate about it. I knew was the bad guy by his voice alone. too.That's pretty sad.

jle30303 wrote: »

FrancisCrawford wrote: »

The only Elder Srolls game I played before ESO was Morrowind -- and it's hard to recall an organization-leading quest-giver you DIDN'T have to fight by the end.

Gentleman Jim Stacey - if you did the Thieves Guild quest line to its end and took *that* ending to the Fighters Guild quest line.

Also, Caius Cosades and, one might guess, technically, Vivec...

RebornV3x wrote: »

wolfie1.0. wrote: »

Anyone else feel like the real punch line is that we are the Villan all along?

one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist

the problem I have is the last couple of big bads just wanna destroy the world having a grey or even anti hero betrayal might be a good change. like someone whose at odds with your way of doing things or even someone that got to you first and you happen to be on the "wrong side" I liked what they started with the Ascendant Lord and Druid King thing but by the end of the Galen/Firesong quests he goes full destroy the world act.

it would be to me a character's played choice - whether they believe what they are told in the quest - and if they choose to eliminate the villian or whatever the quest givers want done, like leaving that one in a cave instead of having to make his choice. I would love as well to see an option if you choose these different ways with an rapport bar like the companions have.

It's up there with 'lost princess' thar we had for a couple of expansions .