[quote]Sidney wrote...
[quote]No, not really. Were you persuaded or thinkiing, hmmm he has a point about Irencius?[/quote][/quote]
I never considered him a particularly good antagonist. The meat of BGII was the journey. It was good for all the things besides the antagonist. The antagonist's payout was very low. The payoff of the journey was extremely high.
[quote][quote]Malek?[/quote][/quote]
There are countless reasons Kreia was a better villain than Malek. One of the key being that Malek was a terrible one note villain of absolutely no consequence. Revan was a better villain in Kreia's description and interpretations of his decisions, because there was underlying complexity to what seemed at surfacr value as pure evil prior to the Jedi reprograming him/her. Regardless Malek was never an antagonist, he was a pure no possibility of being a normal Human being villain, and, worse, he was boring and predictable.
[quote][quote]Think that the slave driving violent jerk Caesar had a point in FNV?[/quote][/quote]
No. And I didn't consider him a good antagonist either.
[quote]Maybe Sauron had an agenda you could get behind?[/quote]
No. He didn't. He was a boring no personality antagonist too. He wasn't even an antagonist. He's a pure unfiltered entity of pure evil in the Lord of the Rings. There's nothing interesting or engaging here. It's a very typical, "Heroes versus the dark army and their dark overlord" brand of nonsense that made portions of DA:O far less interesting than DA2 which had more interesting antagonists in form of the Qunari, Meredith and their ilk. The only real issue with Meredith is they went the, "She's crazy, thus tearing down everything good about the character because we had to work that artifact back in, again (yeah, we already did it earlier with the Brother).
That said, we never really got his side of it. It wasn't really well handled. I'll never understand why people put so much stock in those books.
[quote][quote]Heck, even the Reapers for 95% of the ME series didn't have any agenda other than killing everything for no good reason - actually scratch that the last 5% didn't give a good reason either. All those things motives were basics "I'm evil BABY, YEAH!!!!"[/quote][/quote]
I didn't consider the Reapers good antagonists either. Saren, on the other hand, once you get in his head, at least you understand why he went along with it, and, as a result, became very indoctrinated. The Reapers themselves were never that interesting. Saren was a good portion of the reason that I still consider ME1 the superior entry.
Nevermind the it's not really a question of evil. Above it's mentioned the initial concept was not unlike that of a Lovecraftian eldritch horror, and this worked well in ME1. This . . . did not work in ME2 and ME3, mostly because the same themes weren't present at all . . . I'm stopping here. The rant would be near endless.
[quote][quote]The story can be compelling without a ambiguous antagonist.[/quote][/quote]
You've yet to show me an example of that. In fact the only example I can think of is the Joker, but, there's still more than the surface, "I'm insane" going on there, which makes the character work. The obsession with Batman, the continued quest to get the character to break his moral values. Even with a character that is unfogivable, you're given a reason to keep watching him - not because you can see his side of it, but because he 'does' still force in question. His purpose is the test of Batman's morals. The, "Are you really right?" question personified, not by offering another perspective for you to choose, besides your own, but by presenting the question, "Is your way really going to work? Won't I just get out again? Won't I potentially harm more people if you don't break your moral code and put an end to me?"
So there's a reason the Joker works where Sauron doesn't work at all. Because he's not the dark overlord, instead he's that nagging thing in the back of your mind, questioning your motives, given form. All the fears. All the questions. Batman's best villains do this. They test his morals in different ways. This, sadly, only really works in the hands of the best writers.
[quote]I'm frankly shokced ANYONE let Loghain live. He's a traitorous, power grabbing, paranoid nutter. There is NOTHING reasonable about his position - or sympathetic about his character. He is paranoid about an imaginary threat from Orlais that leads him to commit treason, he ignores a real mortal threat to the kingdom and tears Ferelden apart into a civil war in the face of that threat along with the usual gross abuses of power. What is redeeming about this guy? He loves his country? THAT is all it takes to be sympathetic?
[/quote]
It's really only paranoia in retrospect. We didn't know anymore than he did, really, at the time. We just have the benefit of seeing history in that world beyond what he was able to see. He was one of the few good things, and only made lesser by decisions by the writers, in later stories, to make it so all his fears were imaginary. In the end, they could have gone another way, and had those fears be realized. They didn't though, true, but we only know that now. Not in the midst of it.
[quote]Zatche wrote...
[quote]Janan Pacha wrote...
A
complex and understandable antagonist who is a pain to deal with, not
simply because their views differ from yours, or because "they're evil"
but because they 'might just be right' is an important key to a villain
in my mind.
"What if they're not wrong?"
"What am I really fighting for?"
"Are my means any better?"
"Are my ends really any different?"
"Maybe I should be on their side."
Are all things, in my mind, that a good villain should bring to my mind.[/quote]
Moral
ambiguity for a villain is an interesting concept, and many stories
have set the precedent that it can be done well. That doesn't mean it's
the
only way. There have been plenty of villains who are entertaining or interesting in other ways.
The
Joker in the Dark Knight doesn't make me asky myself any of those
questions. He's a good villain, because he challenges Batman to uphold
his values in the face of adversity, fear, chaos, and heartbreak.
[/quote]
I've already addressed why the Joker words. He works for the same reason that a morally ambiguous antagonist works. It's simply in reverse. Instead of presenting those possibilities by heading them, he presents them in the subtext. The road not taken. What Batman could be instead. How he should handle criminals like the joker, really. Will this path actually work.
If you consider Batman the Animated series that ran into Batman Beyond . . . we have one writer's opinion on that challenge. We see another take with The Dark Knight Returns, and its graphic novel basis. The reflections and interpretations of Batman, his moral code and whether it can stand the test of time or the challenges will require it to be bent, or even broken. Not just that they are bent, or broken, but in what ways, and what finally pushes the character to that point.
You already noted this though, you just didn't realize it was another facet of the antagonist making you question whether you were really right or wrong. Not through presenting you with his alternative, but by forcing you to reassess your values and path within. You're still being presented with an alternative mindset that may just be right, one possibly counter to your own, but its the character forcing you to come up with one on your own, potentially, rather than presenting it to you themselves. It's internal versus external, but it's still the same concept as the antagonist that might just right, simply turned in on itself. This one forces you to look in the mirror. The other side of the coin, surely, but it's still the same coin. If I have to say it outright, you are the coin. This is why many of Batman's villains work, even when they don't present you with their own alternative.
In essence it's still a challenge. Not, "blllaah I'm evil dark grim dark evil blah blah blah I'm bad because bad because also I have an army and they're dark and evil and baaaaaad grrrr hisss" . . .
Modifié par Janan Pacha, 14 décembre 2013 - 01:27 .
Retour en haut
