449 réponses à ce sujet

[Grieving Natashina]

Xanatos was a terrible villain, as was Loghain.

You know I love ya, but you're just begging to get trolled.  I hope you know that, though I respect your views.

 

I thought Loghain was a fine villain, until I found out that he had all these stupid complicated reasons for getting hundreds of people killed at Ostagar.    He's got "issues" and has "deep and meaningful" past history.  Most of which were not shown in the game, and I liked him before I learned the events of the Calling.  I sometimes feel that the whole "but s/he's got reasons to be this way" excuse has just been overdone to hell and back in the last 20 years or so, except for characters like the Joker.

 

Why can't it just be because feeling bad feels oh so good?

 

 

She got it.

 

 

 

As far as Xanatos, I personally thought he was an excellent villain, and it didn't hurt that Johnathon Frakes was the voice.  I vote for Frakes for future DA games!  

 

At this point, I'd like one "complex" antagonist, and one that's just it for the evilulz.

[karushna5]

He worked as sympathetic, because he was intelligent and when he did ask for help it was usually for someone else as well. He often avoided killing the heroes when he could, but OH, he would ruin their lives just to test things out, but he isnt testing it just to experiment, but to further his plans and schemes which can be elaborate and whose purpose can be as simple as getting his girlfriend out of jail with a clean slate.

he was the most multi dimensional villains ever, also Macbeth who practically skirted being a villain the entire time. Oppose heroes? Yes, Sense of honor and duty you expect out of heroes? Yes. Very good series, and great villains.

Even demona with her absolute hatred had layers to her in a way never given to mwahaha characters like her.

[Battlebloodmage]

Someone who can brings the hero to their level because we all know in the end, the hero always wins, but at what cost? If the villain can make the hero goes against their principle then even if they lost, they would still win.

[JoltDealer]

Empathy and sympathy.  A good villain is someone you can see as the protagonist of his or her own story.  Having a villain whose actions blur the lines between "evil" and "something you might do if pushed that far" is intense.  A good villain exposes the potential evil in our own hearts by showing us someone whose actions you can understand.  Because if you are good person, surely you would never do something like that...right?

[dsl08002]

I Think what makes a great villain is:

 

Cleverness

Evilness

and how Mighty that person is. Which means that the villain can defeat the protaganist

[Bond]

Villain that has enormous screen time. When you see him do terrible things for long time and he is not caught, you got yourself terrific villain. After that comes the ideology, menthality, behaviour, appearence, reasons.....etc. But if you get him enough screen time and make him powerfull enough to escape judgement till the end, you are most definetely getting a very good villain. Now look at Archdemon....we saw him twice before final fight....terrible villain. Loghain was slightly better. Meredith........lame....Barely knew who she is before i killed her. These are not good villains.

God Child is not a good villain, Illusive Man is. Even if it isnt smooth transition between best buddies and enemies (2 to 3).

[fjun]

A great villian isn't a villian. Actually I do not like the term villian. S/he is just another human/elven/dwarven/qunari being with motivations, emotions, ambitions and what else. They have to be believable, and we - as gamers, readers, viewers - should ideally feel a connection to his/her cause, even though s/he is the 'villian'. 

[Grieving Natashina]

As a few pointed out, the term "antagonist" probably applies better than villain.

[TheLittleBird]

A great villian isn't a villian. Actually I do not like the term villian. S/he is just another human/elven/dwarven/qunari being with motivations, emotions, ambitions and what else. They have to be believable, and we - as gamers, readers, viewers - should ideally feel a connection to his/her cause, even though s/he is the 'villian'. 

 

This. That is what made Loghain so great for a couple of people - though I felt the game didn't exactly try to communicate with me why he did what he did. In my first playthrough, he just seemed like your average all-evil villain. The only reason for me to let him live would be for his daughter.

[fjun]

This. That is what made Loghain so great for a couple of people - though I felt the game didn't exactly try to communicate with me why he did what he did. In my first playthrough, he just seemed like your average all-evil villain. The only reason for me to let him live would be for his daughter.

 

Quite. I felt the same on my first playthrough. Without all the lore surrounding the events of Origins, the occupation of Ferelden and the ensuing rebellion, I felt a bit lost, as to why Loghain harboured such intense feelings against Orlais. And I guess, that was one of the reasons I, too, conceived him as an average antagonist. That his daughter begged and pressed for him to be left alive and be consripted into the Grey Wardens didn't sway me either, at that point. 

 

For me a great villian isn't even an antagonist, in the actual sense. If told right, then s/he's, for me, just another protagonist.

 

And this, I believe, at least lays the foundation for a great villian, whatever medium (books, movies, games, etc.) s/he appears on.

[TheLittleBird]

Quite. I felt the same on my first playthrough. Without all the lore surrounding the events of Origins, the occupation of Ferelden and the ensuing rebellion, I felt a bit lost, as to why Loghain harboured such intense feelings against Orlais. And I guess, that was one of the reasons I, too, conceived him as an average antagonist. That his daughter begged and pressed for him to be left alive and be consripted into the Grey Wardens didn't sway me either, at that point. 

 

For me a great villian isn't even an antagonist, in the actual sense. If told right, then he's, for me, just another protagonist.

 

And this, I believe, at least lays the foundation for a great villian, whatever medium (books, movies, games, etc.) he appears on.

 

Well, if you'd look at definitions of protagonist and antagonist then no, but I won't be all picky about it   
Great villains do what they think is right, but what the main character thinks is wrong. If a villain invokes dicussion between fans of whatever he/she appears in, with people either picking his/her side or being against him/her, that can be the formula of success for said villain.

[Savber100]

As a few pointed out, the term "antagonist" probably applies better than villain.

This pretty much. 

 

I would argue that the best antagonist isn't someone that is evil but someone that is simply human.

 

No one in their own story is ever truly a villain. 

 

[fjun]

Well, if you'd look at definitions of protagonist and antagonist then no, but I won't be all picky about it   
Great villains do what they think is right, but what the main character thinks is wrong. If a villain invokes dicussion between fans of whatever he/she appears in, with people either picking his/her side or being against him/her, that can be the formula of success for said villain.

 

I don't think that the protagonist - the main character - has to think that what the antagonist is doing is wrong, from his personal moral standpoint. Of course, if s/he does then it's all the clearer. Yet, I think it might suffice for the protagonist to think of the methods or consequences, the antagonist uses, as bad. 

 

But that's just arguing over semantics, essentially. Which I like to do. 

[TheLittleBird]

I don't think that the protagonist - the main character - has to think that what the antagonist is doing is wrong, from his personal moral standpoint. Of course, if s/he does then it's all the clearer. Yet, I think it might suffice for the protagonist to think of the methods or consequences, the antagonist uses, as bad. 

 

But that's just arguing over semantics, essentially. Which I like to do. 

 

Yes ofcourse, as long as the antagonist is the main opposition for the protagonist. And yeah, something I like to do as well 

[Mihura]

Strong personal motivation and humanity or the lack of it.

I still think it is a big mistake to make a big bady a person or monster and not a system. The big evil dragon is great for high fantasy but not in anyway memorial. Bioware did some things right with the Arishok but in the end you should have competent opposition and incompetent opposition. And for the love of the maker not all competent opposition need to have grey moral, some have moral and rarely comprise them and still can be smart about it.

 

Basically have a three dimensional character as any other but it just happen to be your opposition. I find that are the best villain.

[mopotter]

Master Li from Jade Empire is my favorite villain,  TIM was pretty good in ME2.   Someone who has a reason for doing what they are doing, interesting and dialogue is always important. 

[Killdren88]

My Ideal villian:

 

Cold

 

Calculating

 

A Tad sociopathic

 

Expert Manipulator.

 

Strong physically, and mentally.

 

Always has a backup plan

 

They can have a sad backstory, and you can feel sorry for them, but still all the while they are soneone you love to hate and feel a great satisfaction when you beat them. And as well they still cross the moral event horizon.

 

They giving a fight that leaves and wonderdul feeling

 

They have a Villianous breakdown when everything starts to unravel

 

You give mme that kind of Villian I shall be glad.

[Dean_the_Young]

If I had to boil it down to the big three I care about most? Credibility, Intelligence, and Poise. Things that, when put together, make me respect/admire the villain and wish they were on my side instead.

 

Credibility is basically the idea of 'would this person succede is exceptional measures aren't taken. Why bother with heroes if the antagonist never has a chance in the first place? This is where the Collectors and Cerberus (ME3) of the ME trilogy fail, while Saren and the Reapers succede: without the protagonists intervention they would by all means win.

 

Intelligence doesn't have to be intellectual, but it helps. It could be the plan, or an understanding of the social context, or just plain rationality. Passionate characters are best left for the flunkies or for the protagonists, but rarely make for good villains. Villainous passion (loves to kick puppies) is generally over the top and/or unredeemable.

 

Poise is really just composure, how they will handle stress, setbacks, and successes. There are a lot of ways to do it, but 'shoot the messanger' or 'villainous breakdown' are generally bad. Being inspiring, charismatic, and self-controlled, however, will help.

[mopotter]

Loki.  Loki is a great villain.  I know he's a villain but I like him.  I know he lies but I want to believe him.  I know he's a bad guy but I want to believe there is some good in him.  That's a good villain, imo.  

[Jedi Master of Orion]

David Xanatos was one of the best antagonists ever created, where even when he loses... he wins. Or if things went wrong, he adjusted his plans so that they benefited him.

 

He was sympathetic, pragmatic, intelligent, suave, sophisticated, and just plain badass.

 

Sometimes, not always.

[Master Warder Z_]

Let's see...

 

Five things.

 

1. God Complex: This is just fundamentally needed.

 

2. Ridiculously over the top OP AOE powers

 

3. has the ability to cut a long ranting speech short to kill some one the main pc is close to and then resume talking like it never occurred.

 

4. has to be able to adjust and commit to plans and devise ridiculously ingenious stratagems that can easily be broken down into three or more blanket objectives.

 

5. Hair: Bald antagonists aren't taken seriously.

[Xilizhra]

Armor with a specific insignia on it, and a taste for lyrium. Seriously, templars are like Pringles; once you pop, you can't stop.

 

If we run out of those, I'm definitely fond of intelligent people with strong convictions, but I do quite enjoy breaking said convictions if possible as well. I have no objection to villainous breakdowns, as they frequently lead to cool moments.

[Malanek]

It's difficult to pin down. The single most important aspect is what motivates them but other than that it mainly comes down to how well the story that they are part of is written and how well suited it is to the antagonist. All sorts of different personalities can be effective villains, however I think being possessed by a demon makes for a weak villain rather than a strong villain because of the motivations involved.

[Demx]

Nothing really jumps out as a great villian to me. I thought Shou Tucker was a good villian. Achiving and maintaining his status quo by sacrficing important people in his life. Johan Liebert was a good villian. Able to find people's weakness and slowly manipulate them into doing his work by making them think it was their idea.

[legbamel]

I'm in the "must be sympathetic" camp, too.  I want an antagonist that, even when I find his actions utterly deplorable and his decisions misguided in the extreme, I can learn about and think, "You're an idiot but I can see where you went wrong."  You didn't get enough of that for Loghain in the actual DA:O game but it turns out he had all that great, meaty stuff in his backstory after all.  I just hope that, in DA:I, you don't have to search out EU stuff to know it.