434 réponses à ce sujet

[Sidney]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Take a game like KotOR - kotOR looks like it has a very uncomplicated antagonist. Darth Malak is a flat character.

But I think it takes an uncharitable view of KotOR's plot to identify Malak as the antagonist.

No, the antagonist of KotOR is the Jedi Order. It's a very personal struggle for the protagonist, as the Jedi try to force their view of the world on him, at the cost of even his own identity. And, to KotOR's credit, the game allows a possible outcome wherein the Jedi win, based on the player's choices.

KotOR does this very well. The Jedi are doing what they're doing for actual reasons that make sense to them, and might even make sense to the player. They're excellent villains.

There is no struggle for your identity because they are not, during the timeframe of KoTOR, trying to stop you. It is an inevitable process of discovery.  In other words, there can be no conflict in a setting where there is no possiblity of failure. The Jedi are also not trying to stop you from rejecting their world view in any meaningful sense during the time frame of the game. In fact, the training that they give you actually advances your cause of discovery along with their decision to send you on the mission with Bastillia.  The only opposition to any of your goals in KoTOR is Malek and his minions. Claiming the Jedi are an antagonist would be like claiming in a movie about Vietnam vet trying to stop gangsters from taking over his neighborhood while dealing with PTSD that the Vietcong are actually the villans of that (admittedly cheesey) sounding movie.

Frankly even if your overbloated theory is correct there can be more than one antagonist/villan in a story so saying wrongly the jedi are a villan doesn't make Malek any less of a villan.

[grumpymooselion]

[quote]Sidney wrote...

Well you admitted that BGII was good despite a flat antagonist[/quote]

BGII was good despite a flat antagonist. That does nothing to address the fact that the Antagonist was flat, not good. The things good about the game had nothing to do with the character. This is not a positive. If the best thing you can say about your flat antagonist is, "Well, he didn't ruin the game" then your antagonist needed rethought.

[quote]although you bend over backwards to defend the very flat "I'm crazy and mind controlled" Saren or pointlessly stupid Loghain as a good antagonist so I'm not even sure your argument is coherent.[/quote]

Saren was neither crazy, not flat. You get great detail on why he did what he did, and none of it had to do with being crazy.

[quote]We can keep dropping antagonists that lack complexity that are still good - the Wicked Witch[/quote]

Is just the wicked witch, and the Wizard of Oz was never good, regardless of the antagonist being a throw away.

[quote]Grendel is just a killing machine[/quote]

Technically it was poetry. The stories and movies made from the movies had nothing to work with in the first place, and apparently had no interest in making things more complex to any significant extent. Honestly, the poem wasn't that good in the first place.

[quote] Dracula is just evil baby,[/quote]

That's actually just wrong, Dracula actually had a great deal of personal details backing the things he did, he just happened to also be a monster. The Human parts of Dracula that make him more than just a monster are what made him a lasting, complex and interesting antagonist.

[quote]Moriatrty has no motivation other than to be bad apparently,[/quote]

That's . . . incredibly wrong.

[quote]Cthulu is evil incarnate,[/quote]

Your lack of understanding of Lovecraftian lore is astounding.

[quote]the White Witch,[/quote]

The weakest antagonist from the weakest of the Narnia books.

[quote]Darth Vader[/quote]

Proved to be more than just a villain, both prior to becoming Vader and afterward.

[quote]the Alien,[/quote]

Is an alien being motivated by reproduction, hunger and defense of its nest. It's not evil. It has motivations that drive any given creature, it's not, "Just bad" it's a matter of nature. That said, it wasn't the Alien that made the movie good in the first place. This is another case of, "Your movie being good despite your antagonist is not something to brag about." The performances of the actors, their writing, the visual style and the rest saved the film from what would otherwise been a very by the numbers slasher flick, but set in space. It still comes down to, "Was the antagonist good?" The answer is no. It was not. No well regard of the movie will change that.

At the end of the day the Alien is not an antagonist in any true sense, it is not even a villain. It's just an animal driven by basic instinct, however intelligent it seems.

[quote]Zatche wrote...

So,
pretty much you agree that the villain doesn't have to be morally
ambiguous. In this case, the narrative is, but the Joker, himself, is
not.[/quote]

The Joker is the force that creates the question. Well written, the Joker brings to mind these questions. This is a matter of complexity through the question you ask yourself, rather than one directly asked by the villain - but one that doesn't get asked without the villain as he is.

[quote]Here's another. Gustavo Fring from Breaking Bad is not a
morally ambigous villain either. His whole operation is motivated by
greed and vengeance. Instead, Walter White, the protagonist, is the
morally ambiguous one.[/quote]

Gustavo is extremely morally ambigous, and Walter is as well. The reality is the Gustavo is just a misdirection, though, because our real antagonist has always been Walt. In a very real way, Jesse is our protagonist. The questions Walt and even Gustavo present Jesse with are multiple, varied and force the character to make choices, both that they present and as a result of questions he asks himself. There are many layers of complexity here.

Anyone that considers either to be straightforward are missing layers of subtext.

[Zatche]

Janan Pacha wrote...

The Joker is the force that creates the question. Well written, the Joker brings to mind these questions. This is a matter of complexity through the question you ask yourself, rather than one directly asked by the villain - but one that doesn't get asked without the villain as he is.

Gustavo is extremely morally ambigous, and Walter is as well. The reality is the Gustavo is just a misdirection, though, because our real antagonist has always been Walt. In a very real way, Jesse is our protagonist. The questions Walt and even Gustavo present Jesse with are multiple, varied and force the character to make choices, both that they present and as a result of questions he asks himself. There are many layers of complexity here.

Anyone that considers either to be straightforward are missing layers of subtext.

It seems I'm debating a more specific point than you.

One of the questions you brought up before was "maybe he's right?" This question is not debated in my mind for either the Joker or Gus. Their operations are completely reprehensible. Causing chaos for the lulz is wrong. Running a drug operation with no regard for other people's lives is wrong. But you're right. The choices they present their respective protagonists are morally ambiguous. I'm not debating that.

Protagonists should be forced to make choices. That's what makes them interesting. But, narratives can be pretty flexible as to how these choices are presented. A morally ambiguous villain is just one way.

[TheChris92]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Shark17676 wrote...

MasterScribe wrote...

Sometimes a traditional antagonist works really well, and is more appropriate.

I completely agree.  The reboot of FMA, for example...taking the shades of gray away from the Homunculi and turning them pure evil worked out much better for the story.

Not every villain needs to have anti-hero, relatable qualities.  Sometimes it's better if bad is just that -- bad.

Ah yes, FMA: Brotherhood, remaining faithful to the original manga. Indeed, one could say they were traditional bad guys (I wouldn't) But they were still relatable and sympathetic in their own way. Envy in particular, whom I couldn't help but feel bad for. Wrath was also very relateable.

Traditional villains are indeed nice to see. But the homonculi were also supernatural in origin., which is different then a human antagonist.

Love that show - It's got some of the best female characters I've seen in an anime, and even a very disturbing scene in Episode 4 - Quite surprised and intrigued by its overall premise.

[Il Divo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

David7204 wrote...

My experience has been that people seriously tend to exaggerate the ambiguity of villains supposedly like this.

Gus Fring is not 'ambiguous.' Caesar's Legion is not 'ambiguous.'

That you don't see the ambiguity doesn't mean it isn't there.

I once argued (in an academic paper) that the protagonist of Star Wars was actually Darth Vader, and the antagonist was ignorance of the Force.  All Vader wanted to do was reunite him family and bring order to the galaxy.  That's laudable.

All but the flattest characters are ambiguous.

Would that be truly an antagonist? Or merely Vadar's foil? 

HIs own ignorance of the Force and its abilities (and limitations) would ultimately lead him down the paths that caused him (and others) suffering. 

I don't see how you could slice it any other way that the Emperor is the antagonist of the Star Wars universe. I do agree that Vadar could very easily be the protagonist - he is the focus of the series throughout. Moreso than Yoda, the only other character to actually appear in every movie besdies Darth Vadar.

Don't forget C3-PO and R2-D2. Also Obi-Wan, if we're counting Force Ghosts. Also, Yoda was MIA for Episode IV. Sorry, couldn't help nerding out.

[Il Divo]

TheChris92 wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Shark17676 wrote...

MasterScribe wrote...

Sometimes a traditional antagonist works really well, and is more appropriate.

I completely agree.  The reboot of FMA, for example...taking the shades of gray away from the Homunculi and turning them pure evil worked out much better for the story.

Not every villain needs to have anti-hero, relatable qualities.  Sometimes it's better if bad is just that -- bad.

Ah yes, FMA: Brotherhood, remaining faithful to the original manga. Indeed, one could say they were traditional bad guys (I wouldn't) But they were still relatable and sympathetic in their own way. Envy in particular, whom I couldn't help but feel bad for. Wrath was also very relateable.

Traditional villains are indeed nice to see. But the homonculi were also supernatural in origin., which is different then a human antagonist.

Love that show - It's got some of the best female characters I've seen in an anime, and even a very disturbing scene in Episode 4 - Quite surprised and intrigued by its overall premise.

Mustang murdering Lust was absolutely awesome.

[TEWR]

Il Divo wrote...

TheChris92 wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Shark17676 wrote...

MasterScribe wrote...

Sometimes a traditional antagonist works really well, and is more appropriate.

I completely agree.  The reboot of FMA, for example...taking the shades of gray away from the Homunculi and turning them pure evil worked out much better for the story.

Not every villain needs to have anti-hero, relatable qualities.  Sometimes it's better if bad is just that -- bad.

Ah yes, FMA: Brotherhood, remaining faithful to the original manga. Indeed, one could say they were traditional bad guys (I wouldn't) But they were still relatable and sympathetic in their own way. Envy in particular, whom I couldn't help but feel bad for. Wrath was also very relateable.

Traditional villains are indeed nice to see. But the homonculi were also supernatural in origin., which is different then a human antagonist.

Love that show - It's got some of the best female characters I've seen in an anime, and even a very disturbing scene in Episode 4 - Quite surprised and intrigued by its overall premise.

Mustang murdering Lust was absolutely awesome.

It was indeed. But any scene with Olivier Mira Armstrong tops Mustang's scenes.

[Trolldrool]

Loghain wasn't really a great villain in my honest opinion. For one he was too obvious. The moment he appears on the screen the first time, everything about his face, his behaviour and the tone in his voice screams ominous and foreboding. Another was that he just kept commiting one reprehensible act after the other. In every scene including him prior to the Landsmeet, there was never anything twodimensional about him. Too easy to hate and too cliché to care.

He was much more satisfying as a companion. Alistair, Wynne, the entire Cousland family, just about every human I ever came across in the game had this obscene notion that there was something noble and admirable about war and tried to forcefeed this ideal down my throat. Until Loghain who simply tells me that there's no such thing as morals in battle. It's ugly and nasty and it's our miserable job to see it through. So if anything, Loghain was dehumanized from the start and only got his humanity late in the game if you decided to not kill him.

Meredith and the red lyrium is problematic because it throws aside everything that made her a villain prior to that. Oppressing mages, covering up for nobles, usurping the power vacuum left by the viscount death to replace it with a tyrannical regime. Nothing of that matters when you bring the red lyrium into the picture. Meredith doesn't even need her own templars anymore, which makes a point to show that the power and influence of her status is invalid. She doesn't have to be Knight Commander to be a danger to the world. She has the red lyrium idol.

Personally, I don't mind having a one-dimensional villain as long as the game doesn't try to portray them as anything else.

Modifié par Trolldrool, 14 décembre 2013 - 07:47 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Kaiser Arian wrote...

@Sylvius the Mad, since when trying to save someone from going to a destructive path makes you evil?

I didn't say they were evil.  I said they were the antagonist.

It's a strength of KotOR's narrative that it can be viewed a great many ways.  This is something for which all roleplaying games should strive.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Kaiser Arian wrote...

@Sylvius the Mad, since when trying to save someone from going to a destructive path makes you evil?

I didn't say they were evil.  I said they were the antagonist.

It's a strength of KotOR's narrative that it can be viewed a great many ways.  This is something for which all roleplaying games should strive.

I'm not entirely sure Sylvius believes in the concept of others being evil. 

Heck, I'm not entirely sure Sylvius believes in the concept of others.

[Mr.House]

Sidney wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I don't see how lulzracist is any less simplistic or shallow. At least with someone under mind-control, there is the moral question of whether or not they personally should be held accountable.

An innocent person who legitimately cannot control themselves is miles more sympathetic than someone who is just a violent bigot out of hand.

At least that lulzracist guy has motivations. Mind controlling is a lazy way to do something UNLESS the person doing the mind controlling is very well written and/or properly forshadowed. That is very rare, you cleary just want a lulzevil villian instead of a villian who has depth.

Mind control could be lazy if they just zapped some random person and made the muwahahha evil... but for TIM, Meredtih and Saren the mind control isn't lazy. All the mind control does is amplifies and perverts their existing beliefs. TIM wanted to control the reapers, would use anything to get an edge and disliked working with aliens. Indoctrination changed none of that. Meredith distrusted the mages and was ready to nullify them with provokation. The idol changed none of that. Saren resented humanity and was a do anything to get the job done sort of guy. Indoctrination changed none of that.

It isn't like these people had no depth and were nothing but mind controlled drooling morons. They were acting consistently with their beliefs just amped up a bit too much.

TIM, Saren and Meredith had depth?

[Milan92]

I hope Bioware will take some notice from Atlus's antagonists. Catherine has one of the best written villains ever imo.

Modifié par Milan92, 14 décembre 2013 - 11:57 .

[leaguer of one]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Take a game like KotOR - kotOR looks like it has a very uncomplicated antagonist. Darth Malak is a flat character.

But I think it takes an uncharitable view of KotOR's plot to identify Malak as the antagonist.

No, the antagonist of KotOR is the Jedi Order. It's a very personal struggle for the protagonist, as the Jedi try to force their view of the world on him, at the cost of even his own identity. And, to KotOR's credit, the game allows a possible outcome wherein the Jedi win, based on the player's choices.

KotOR does this very well. The Jedi are doing what they're doing for actual reasons that make sense to them, and might even make sense to the player. They're excellent villains.

Wrong anylist. In Kotor and even Swtor(And the Clone wars show, watch from season 3, it's very good.) it shows the flaws of the Jedi but they are never the villian. Malak clearly is that but their is one more villian in the story, who the player use to be.."Revan".
Every issue in the story was caused by what the player use to be in another life time and now is cleaning it up as a new ego be does not know it in the end.
The twist is you are the bad guy.

[leaguer of one]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Kaiser Arian wrote...

@Sylvius the Mad, since when trying to save someone from going to a destructive path makes you evil?

I didn't say they were evil.  I said they were the antagonist.

It's a strength of KotOR's narrative that it can be viewed a great many ways.  This is something for which all roleplaying games should strive.

No they are not. To be one there has to be some form of conflict.

[leaguer of one]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'm not entirely sure Sylvius believes in the concept of others being evil. 

Heck, I'm not entirely sure Sylvius believes in the concept of others.

I'm going to encapsulate his thought process and concur with:

"I'm not sure Sylvius disbelieves in the concept of others."


(unless that's one place where he chooses a side rather than the middle)

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I kinda like both kinds AS LONG AS TEHY ARE DONE WELL.

Both have their place. But FFS don't flip-flop.

TIM really got the shaft - with each new DLC and mission more the DERPERUS faliures were shown, compeltley undermining the very thing that's supposed to define him - pragmatism and efficiency. Then all of his bad traits were ramped up to 11 and he was given the brainwashing treatment. Horrible.

While I agree about TIM himself, "DERPERUS" was DERPERUS long before TIM existed in the ME-verse (that is, ME1). They've always been portrayed as doing utterly retarded things. ME2 just put that on hold for the main plot.

Put it on hold? The first mission had their entire staff killed off outside of 3 people. Then their next team studing a dead reaper were turned into husk. It did not stop, Shepard just uped his teams quality.

[leaguer of one]

Mr.House wrote...

Sidney wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I don't see how lulzracist is any less simplistic or shallow. At least with someone under mind-control, there is the moral question of whether or not they personally should be held accountable.

An innocent person who legitimately cannot control themselves is miles more sympathetic than someone who is just a violent bigot out of hand.

At least that lulzracist guy has motivations. Mind controlling is a lazy way to do something UNLESS the person doing the mind controlling is very well written and/or properly forshadowed. That is very rare, you cleary just want a lulzevil villian instead of a villian who has depth.

Mind control could be lazy if they just zapped some random person and made the muwahahha evil... but for TIM, Meredtih and Saren the mind control isn't lazy. All the mind control does is amplifies and perverts their existing beliefs. TIM wanted to control the reapers, would use anything to get an edge and disliked working with aliens. Indoctrination changed none of that. Meredith distrusted the mages and was ready to nullify them with provokation. The idol changed none of that. Saren resented humanity and was a do anything to get the job done sort of guy. Indoctrination changed none of that.

It isn't like these people had no depth and were nothing but mind controlled drooling morons. They were acting consistently with their beliefs just amped up a bit too much.

TIM, Saren and Meredith had depth?

Seran very much did and so did TIM. Meredith's depth is that she did have a point she was just too extrem appling that point.

[leaguer of one]

EntropicAngel wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Put it on hold? The first mission had their entire staff killed off outside of 3 people. Then their next team studing a dead reaper were turned into husk. It did not stop, Shepard just uped his teams quality.

The first was because of a traitor, it wasn't a simple backfire. The only instance of that is the dead Reaper, and even that isn't so crazy when you consider how old it is.

TIM, who is a control freak, and Miranda, who had trust issues, some how missed this one spy?

[leaguer of one]

EntropicAngel wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

 TIM, who is a control freak, and Miranda, who had trust issues, some how missed this one spy?

It's obvious that they did.

It's not the same as ME1 (or ME3, or Overlord) where they were taking insane risks that they ignored. ME2 (falsly, in light of ME1 and then ME3) portrayed Cerberus as "grey."

More like Cerberus try to protray, in a proper sense hide in, the consept they were grey. You just saw what TIM wanted you to see. Just one team of the least zealious. If you read cerberus news network you'll see thay are the same derperus in ME1.

And I don't beleive for one moment that a woman that reads every personal email Shepard has and  man who has so many cameras on you're ship and is on this project like white on rice would miss a spy.

Modifié par leaguer of one, 15 décembre 2013 - 01:11 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Heck, I'm not entirely sure Sylvius believes in the concept of others.

And people wonder why I like it here so much.

EntropicAngel wrote...

"I'm not sure Sylvius disbelieves in the concept of others."

Well spotted.

leaguer of one wrote...

Wrong anylist. In Kotor and even Swtor(And the Clone wars show, watch from season 3, it's very good.) it shows the flaws of the Jedi but they are never the villian. Malak clearly is that but their is one more villian in the story, who the player use to be.."Revan".
Every issue in the story was caused by what the player use to be in another life time and now is cleaning it up as a new ego be does not know it in the end.
The twist is you are the bad guy.

Not from Revan's point of view.  It's easy to make the case that the galaxy-spanning organization that robs you of your identity in order to advance their own agenda is villainous.  Viewed from this perspective, the Jedi look a lot like Big Brother in 1984.

My point isn't that there is one clear villain, and it is the Jedi.  My point is that there are many different ways to view the story, and many of them are credible.

If the story is so narrow as to allow only a single interpretation, then that story isn't a good backdrop for a roleplaying game.

leaguer of one wrote...

No they are not. To be one there has to be some form of conflict.

There should be many possible forms of conflict.

[leaguer of one]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Heck, I'm not entirely sure Sylvius believes in the concept of others.

And people wonder why I like it here so much.

EntropicAngel wrote...

"I'm not sure Sylvius disbelieves in the concept of others."

Well spotted.

leaguer of one wrote...

Wrong anylist. In Kotor and even Swtor(And the Clone wars show, watch from season 3, it's very good.) it shows the flaws of the Jedi but they are never the villian. Malak clearly is that but their is one more villian in the story, who the player use to be.."Revan".
Every issue in the story was caused by what the player use to be in another life time and now is cleaning it up as a new ego be does not know it in the end.
The twist is you are the bad guy.

Not from Revan's point of view.  It's easy to make the case that the galaxy-spanning organization that robs you of your identity in order to advance their own agenda is villainous.  Viewed from this perspective, the Jedi look a lot like Big Brother in 1984.

My point isn't that there is one clear villain, and it is the Jedi.  My point is that there are many different ways to view the story, and many of them are credible.

If the story is so narrow as to allow only a single interpretation, then that story isn't a good backdrop for a roleplaying game.

leaguer of one wrote...

No they are not. To be one there has to be some form of conflict.

There should be many possible forms of conflict.

"There should be many possible forms of conflict."

I mean it is the terms of every form of conflict. They don't even have a form of conflict with you're morals or ideals.

"Not from Revan's point of view.  It's easy to make the case that the galaxy-spanning organization that robs you of your identity in order to advance their own agenda is villainous.  Viewed from this perspective, the Jedi look a lot like Big Brother in 1984."

1. Revan was mind controled by a near god level sith emperor so it's really not an issue of who was the villian to who in Revan's Eyes.
2. Revan got in his statebecause his apprentice backstabed him and left him in a near vegetable state. It was ether have a new ego or being a human plant.

3.Added, the Jedi were in between a rock and a hard place on that issue. It was ether doing something morally questionable or have the galexy taken over by a tyrannt. Hard to call foul on this when the intagater was never play by the rules from the start.

[Sasie]

When it comes to SWTOR arn't the Jedi suppose to be morally superior? Coming out ahead compared to the Sith doesn't exactly set the standards very high. On top of that it can be argued that Revan isn't the only one the Jedi council wronged, they also took advantage of Bastila by sending her off alone with a former Sith Lord without any guidance at all. 

Besides I'm sure the Jedi could have healed Revan without giving her new memories if they really wanted to. Plenty of people have had amnesia and there was no need to replace the damaged memories with new ones except they wanted to try to dig out information from Revan's mind.

Revan might have no right to complain considering all the bad thing she had done in her life but Bastila got screwed over by all of this as well. She was also innocent yet the council used her just the same. Desperate times calls for some extreme deeds personally I think the Jedi would have no right to complain either if it all had fallen apart and came back to haunt them in the end.