449 réponses à ce sujet

[Maiden Crowe]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@OP:
I prefer the name "antagonist". If a "villain" deserves the term "villain", they already aren't what I like in antagonists.

Ok if you want to argue semantics then you can change the question to "what makes a great antagonist" but I Loghain still falls firmly under the villain catagory whether you like the term or not. Now you can argue that Loghain isnt an evil person at heart and had "good intentions" however his actions dont reflect this, in fact there seems to be no logical reason why Loghain would have done most of the stuff he did other than the fact that the plot demanded a more human villain (because the Archdemon wasnt interesting enough) and Loghain was crowbared in to fill that role.

I believe I read somewhere that the original plan was to have Loghain corrupted under the influence of the Archdemon and as cliche as it is I would have much rathered they stuck with this plan instead as at least it is somewhat more believable than the crap they ended up going with.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Forced morals that people adhere to without really understanding why they believe in such everywhere!

[The Spirit of Dance]

HiroVoid wrote...

A villian who actually succeeds to a pretty good degree or forces the hero to make large sacrifices.

... hmm that is one of the biggest deciding factors. Another would be (for me atleast) is a villain that has a deep and interesting connection with the main protagonist, an example of this would be a master/student relationship such as The Boss and Snake in Metal Gear Solid 3.

[Br3admax]

Vayne was a good antagonist, but then he went all, "This is a Final Fantasy game," on us.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Truly great villains should NTR the protagonist's Love Interest.

It's why KotOR is so damn good.



I hope they do the same in Inquisition.

[rasloveszev]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

rasloveszev wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

rasloveszev wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

rasloveszev wrote...

 Belief that they are the good guys. 

That's why I loved to hate Meridith and Lohgain. They did such awful evil things in the name of  'good' and there was no talking them out of it. 

Awful and evil is subjective. As is good.

So you're okay with slavery and murdering innocent people out of paranoria? 
No, good and bad is not that black and white, but it's not that gray either. 
There are lines most do not cross.

There are no lines that cannot be crossed. 

Can you make an argument that is based on science, research, and measurable data and evidence rather than a moralistic is-ought emotional appeal fallacy?

Good and Evil and standards are based on morals of the majority, not science and logic.

I think Lohgain's were logical, but his butt got killed because they were immoral. 

You haven't actually made an argument. Why are they like that? How are you measuring how good or bad something is? You're skirting around the question.

I've already answered the questions. It's about emotional reaction and majority rule. 

[The Hierophant]

Br3ad wrote...

Vayne was a good antagonist, but then he went all, "This is a Final Fantasy game," on us.

I can't blame him for power tripping' after his fusion with Venat, but it's still funny though.

[The Flying Grey Warden]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

rasloveszev wrote...

KainD wrote...

Villain is an oxymoron, they don't exist. There are only the antagonists.

Someone didn't watch a Disney movie.

What makes Disney's very shallow and one-dimensional, black and white portrayal correct?

Sounds like someones pushing the no fun zone hard.

Modifié par The Flying Grey Warden, 04 février 2014 - 01:44 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

rasloveszev wrote...

I've already answered the questions. It's about emotional reaction and majority rule. 

I kind of figured that.

Seems like a ****ty and ****ed up way of deciding what's right and wrong don't you think? Instead of, you know, thinking about it and coming to an objective conclusion based on quantifiable benefits and objective gains rather than limited and uninformed subjective perspective.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 04 février 2014 - 01:44 .

[The Flying Grey Warden]

So what if you think about it and decide that there are limits and lines not meant to be crossed? Does the whole system collapse into pandemonium because suddenly there are things you can't or shouldn't do?

Relativism is all well and good but at the end of the day it offers about as much backing as the hardline natural law perspective. It just says that there are no lines to be crossed where the natural law guys says there are, and sticks to that concept as fiercely and irritatingly as natural law guys.

[UC SIM]

Always thought that antagonists who can argue their perceptive in a coherent and convincing way make for the most interesting. I want to feel sympathy for there cause when they speak about it, I may not agree with it but should still understand why and what drives the antagonists actions.

I really do not like when the antagonist in a story cannot do this or just done it because they can.

Honestly love when antagonists are the most interesting and compelling characters in a story.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

The Flying Grey Warden wrote...

So what if you think about it and decide that there are limits and lines not meant to be crossed? Does the whole system collapse into pandemonium because suddenly there are things you can't or shouldn't do?

Relativism is all well and good but at the end of the day it offers about as much backing as the hardline natural law perspective. It just says that there are no lines to be crossed where the natural law guys says there are, and sticks to that concept as fiercely and irritatingly as natural law guys.

I'd say relativism is based more on practical matters, such as a need or call for some kind of change in any scenario. What is making you come to a conclusion that there are lines not meant to be crossed? And what makes that position the 'correct' conclusion supported by nature?

[Maiden Crowe]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

rasloveszev wrote...

I've already answered the questions. It's about emotional reaction and majority rule. 

I kind of figured that.

Seems like a ****ty and ****ed up way of deciding what's right and wrong don't you think? Instead of, you know, thinking about it and coming to an objective conclusion based on quantifiable benefits and objective gains rather than limited and uninformed subjective perspective.

And what would you consider to be a quantifiable benefit or objective gain in comparison to the action needed to achieve it?

[Martyr1777]

If you could see yourself in their shoes, thats a pretty good 'villan'.

Just like many have said... even though I think Loghain in the game vs Loghain in the book are massively broken, I think of ME and DA Loghain is by FAR the most interesting antagonist.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Maiden Crowe wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

rasloveszev wrote...

I've already answered the questions. It's about emotional reaction and majority rule. 

I kind of figured that.

Seems like a ****ty and ****ed up way of deciding what's right and wrong don't you think? Instead of, you know, thinking about it and coming to an objective conclusion based on quantifiable benefits and objective gains rather than limited and uninformed subjective perspective.

And what would you consider to be a quantifiable benefit or objective gain in comparison to the action needed to achieve it?

... Said quantifiable benefit or objective gain. You didn't stipulate any situation or conundrum or thought experiment for me to really work with. So there's my response.

Does the benefit or gain get me closer to my goal? Is it economically feasible? Is it practical? How does help me reach my conclusion? What is the most efficient way of achieving said goal? Do I have any alternatives to the method presented to me? Is my end significant to warrant possible costs that might be heavy (and damaging to the accomplishment of my goal in the long-run)?

[Sifr]

The best villains are those who don't consider themselves to be the villain and in their minds, think that they're actually the hero of the story. Great villains should have some awareness of their own fallibility and recognise when they've made mistakes, not simply shift the blame on those around them.

All of these were reasons why Loghain was an amazing antagonist.

Unlike Alistair, I never felt my Warden hated Loghain, only what he had let himself become and in an ideal world, would have rather fighted at his side as a friend than against him as his enemy. I don't spare Loghain because his crimes were simply too unforgiveable, not because my Warden desired revenge.

Similarly, Bhelen is a great antagonist as despite my Dwarf Noble wanting revenge, they could see that what he did was the best for Orzammar and why he mades the better King, even if he was something of a tyrant towards his enemies. Like Paragon Aeducan, Bhelen would ignore the Assembly, cut through the middle man and do what was best for Orzammar.

My Dwarf Noble hates Bhelen and hates that they find myself agreeing with him even more.

Compare this to Rendon Howe, who's rather shallow and evil for no discernible reason. He makes stupid mistakes, comes across as too arrogant and doesn't seem to have a plan aside "Step three, profit!" Arl Howe is a good obstacle and antagonist for the Human Noble to overcome, but he never made a great villain.

The best thing you can say about Howe is that he was good for plotlines, with his screwups driving half the problems in Origins. He's even causing problems for his family, his arling and for the Warden in Awakening, long after he's dead.

In short, the best Bioware villains are more like Loghain and less like Kai Leng.

[Hellion Rex]

Kreia. That is all.

[Maiden Crowe]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Maiden Crowe wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

rasloveszev wrote...

I've already answered the questions. It's about emotional reaction and majority rule. 

I kind of figured that.

Seems like a ****ty and ****ed up way of deciding what's right and wrong don't you think? Instead of, you know, thinking about it and coming to an objective conclusion based on quantifiable benefits and objective gains rather than limited and uninformed subjective perspective.

And what would you consider to be a quantifiable benefit or objective gain in comparison to the action needed to achieve it?

... Said quantifiable benefit or objective gain. You didn't stipulate any situation or conundrum or thought experiment for me to really work with. So there's my response.

Does the benefit or gain get me closer to my goal? Is it economically feasible? Is it practical? How does help me reach my conclusion? What is the most efficient way of achieving said goal? Do I have any alternatives to the method presented to me? Is my end significant to warrant possible costs that might be heavy (and damaging to the accomplishment of my goal in the long-run)?

Ok lets say you were offered a large sum of money by a prominent Orlesian noble family to rescue their daughter from a Red Templar prison camp, the fate of any other hostages is to be left to your discretion. You sneak in under the cover of darkness and once you find the girl you see that her friend has been wounded is unable to move and she refuses to leave his side while he still draws breath and she believes that he can still be saved, you being the practical person that you are realise that sneaking out of the prison camp with the wounded man and the girl will not be easy and could very well cost you the mission, but then you also remember that the reward is for the girl alone and all other hostages are expendable, what do you do?

[Martyr1777]

@Crowe

Lol, what does that even do with being a villan?

Regardless thats not even a hard choice. You release other prisoners, let then cause a riot and get out with both parties during the confusion.

Failing that, knock her out and leave. Trying to make money not friends.

[Maiden Crowe]

Martyr1777 wrote...

Regardless thats not even a hard choice. You release other prisoners, let then cause a riot and get out with both parties during the confusion.

Damn was really hoping nobody would say that.

[CybAnt1]

Another would be (for me atleast) is a villain that has a deep and interesting connection with the main protagonist, an example of this would be a master/student relationship such as The Boss and Snake in Metal Gear Solid 3.

Or ... like the Magneto/Xavier relationship in X-Men. 

Yep, this is a riff Unbreakable hits at the end of the movie, and it is a constant trope - in a lot of kinds of stories, not just superhero comic book ones. 

The irony is the "villain" is who gets the hero to realize who he is. But you can see it elsewhere. Conan acknowledges in the 1st Schwartz. movie that Thulsa Doom made him who he is. Thulsa is the wellspring from which he flows. Smallville slightly rewrites the Superman origin story to make Lex Luthor and Clark Kent friends, which makes Kent/Superman causing the accident that makes Lex's hair fall out all the more determinative in his hatred later on for him. 

It is always a better story (IMHO) when the antagonist and protagonist do not first meet as strangers, unbeknownst to each other, at some point in the story, when their anti-relationship is already in place. 

Elijah Price/Mr. Glass shakes David Dunn's hand at the end of the movie, knowing this will enable David/Security Man to see in his mind everything he had done to set everything in motion. (Because of David's 2nd power.) 

Elijah Price[: Now that we know who you are, I know who I am. I'm not a mistake! It all makes sense! In a comic, you know how you can tell who the arch-villain's going to be? He's the exact opposite of the hero. And most times they're friends, like you and me! I should've known way back when... You know why, David? Because of the kids. They called me Mr Glass. 

[end]

Love, love that film. The two characters are opposite ends of a continuum, with one being ridiculously indestructible, and the other ridiculously fragile. But both with the same vulnerability to water. 

Modifié par CybAnt1, 04 février 2014 - 02:41 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Maiden Crowe wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Maiden Crowe wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

rasloveszev wrote...

I've already answered the questions. It's about emotional reaction and majority rule. 

I kind of figured that.

Seems like a ****ty and ****ed up way of deciding what's right and wrong don't you think? Instead of, you know, thinking about it and coming to an objective conclusion based on quantifiable benefits and objective gains rather than limited and uninformed subjective perspective.

And what would you consider to be a quantifiable benefit or objective gain in comparison to the action needed to achieve it?

... Said quantifiable benefit or objective gain. You didn't stipulate any situation or conundrum or thought experiment for me to really work with. So there's my response.

Does the benefit or gain get me closer to my goal? Is it economically feasible? Is it practical? How does help me reach my conclusion? What is the most efficient way of achieving said goal? Do I have any alternatives to the method presented to me? Is my end significant to warrant possible costs that might be heavy (and damaging to the accomplishment of my goal in the long-run)?

Ok lets say you were offered a large sum of money by a prominent Orlesian noble family to rescue their daughter from a Red Templar prison camp, the fate of any other hostages is to be left to your discretion. You sneak in under the cover of darkness and once you find the girl you see that her friend has been wounded is unable to move and she refuses to leave his side while he still draws breath and she believes that he can still be saved, you being the practical person that you are realise that sneaking out of the prison camp with the wounded man and the girl will not be easy and could very well cost you the mission, but then you also remember that the reward is for the girl alone and all other hostages are expendable, what do you do?

Well, he's not ambulatory, and if I'm on my own, we're not going to have the manpower or strength to move him rapidly without detection. Honestly, I'd say that I'm being very impractical for having such a crappy egression plan. Practically, I'd have a team and intel of where I'm targeting and how I'm going for an escape route.

But... following your parameters, I'd be best served to alert the Templars via a red herring manuever, render the girl unconscious, euthanize the friend, and get her out, lying to her about her friends fate later. I'd be an ineffectual agent to not have some kind of LoW route that would utilize some kind of clearance of Templar patrols.

If my resources are as limited as I believe you're intending to make them;

Practically. I wouldn't accept the mission. Too many zero variables, with no intelligence, and no special equipment.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 04 février 2014 - 02:41 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Maiden Crowe wrote...

Martyr1777 wrote...

Regardless thats not even a hard choice. You release other prisoners, let then cause a riot and get out with both parties during the confusion.

Damn was really hoping nobody would say that.

That is an effective plan, though it can be a detriment to egression if the facility is locked down and responded to with force. 

[HiroVoid]

supremebloodwolf wrote...

HiroVoid wrote...

A villian who actually succeeds to a pretty good degree or forces the hero to make large sacrifices.

... hmm that is one of the biggest deciding factors. Another would be (for me atleast) is a villain that has a deep and interesting connection with the main protagonist, an example of this would be a master/student relationship such as The Boss and Snake in Metal Gear Solid 3.

To make it even simpler, I'd probably say more than anything, it's simply that a villian has to be intimidating....unless, they're a comic relief villian, then they just have to be hilarious......actually, it's impossible to categorize what a great villian should be depending on the genre, but I'd say at least for serious works, intimidating is a pretty good generalization of what villians should be.

And yes.  Metal Gear Solid 3 still remains one of the best games I've played, and I've played a very wide assortment of games from old PC games to NES games and recent.  As for personal examples, you can also find good friends who've been forced to fight each other due to conflicting beliefs they're willing to die for.  Sometimes, there are lovers or past lovers.  Parent/child's probably the most common due to the 'new generation' theme with conflicting beliefs of the older generation.