75 réponses à ce sujet

[Steelcan]

neither, chessmasters

[Wulfram]

The relationship between protagonist and villain should change as the game goes on.

[Gtdef]

This is actually a good question. I'm not sure yet so I'll list some I liked and some I disliked and see what they have in common restricting myself to those that first pop into my head.

 

Liked:

NWN2: King of Shadows. He is invincible but we learn how to kill him in the course of the game. He is alien but we can learn about his past and his motives.

MOTB: Akachi and the Wall. Every 20 of my posts have at least one of Motb worship. This game features an injustice as the main antagonist. Whatever, can't think rationally about this game.

ME1: Saren. Yes, this guy is awesome. A certified bad guy that wants to do the right thing. His transformation into a robot is a nice touch, he can be a good end game boss without sacrificing personality and immersion.

ME1: Sovereign. We can't understand his nature but we can understand his goal. I like this because it gives us something to focus. Also the dialogue in Virmire is a high point of the trilogy.

DA2: The Arishok. You know what's going to happen with this guy the moment you see him. Also I like that you interact a lot with him and it becomes a contest of who has the more charming personality.

 

Dislike

ME3: The Catalyst.

DAO: Loghain. He fails at politics so bad it's not even funny, and at the landsmeet he talks about things that only he cares. Something about Orlais I think... Whatever. Kill him or make him a Warden to ****** Alistair. At least if you recruit him and become best friends he is kinda cool. Doesn't get him the award of best antagonist though. It's funny because the Warden is kinda slow, but he still outwits him. Personally I'd just kill myself.

ME2: Harbinger. Assuming direct control. Mastercontroller96 joined the room. Mastercontroller96 gives Shepard a nudge. (damn I'm getting old)

DA2: Meredith. The idol's influence cheapens her. If she was sane, we could consider actually have a discussion about her views. But since she was possessed what's the point? Also the superwoman thing was ****. Sorry, but it is what it is. She tries so hard to be Saren but she fails at every possible level.

DAO: Archdemon. Also known as important big dragon you have to kill to beat the game.

 

I'm not sure what they have in common yet ^^. It seems like it's a matter of how the antagonist is handled. Who would have thought!

[Aimi]

in principle, I agree, but I think Loghain was poorly handled.
 
At first blush, I didn't think there was any mystery behind his actions, just a naked power grab.  Even later, when it became apparent that there were more nationalistic sentiments behind his motivations, he mostly just came across as irrational.
 
I mostly prefer the rival type villain myself, they tend to be more level headed and their motivations are more level headed.

I don't necessarily think that rationality needs to play that big of a role. A rival might be somebody you hate - and somebody who hates you - on chiefly emotional grounds. You screwed me; I screw you back. Your rival is standing in the way of you achieving your goal, sure - but your rival is also an enemy because you just don't like him. The understanding that I have of rivalry is that it's a hatred that transcends rationality.

That was easy to roleplay with Loghain. A lot of my Wardens weren't so much interested in what Loghain was doing to Ferelden (causing a Time of Troubles, crippling the war effort against the Blight, usurping power, etc.) as in what Loghain had done to them personally: betrayal, murder, being declared an outlaw. It wasn't ideal, because Loghain and the Warden rarely interacted personally and the hatred didn't seem to be reciprocated on his part. That makes the hatred a lot less visceral. But the bones of it were there, and that's something.

[Gtdef]

Best rival gotta be Blue (aka Gary).

[BloodyTalon]

Silver Age batman style bad guys.

[Heimdall]

I don't necessarily think that rationality needs to play that big of a role. A rival might be somebody you hate - and somebody who hates you - on chiefly emotional grounds. You screwed me; I screw you back. Your rival is standing in the way of you achieving your goal, sure - but your rival is also an enemy because you just don't like him. The understanding that I have of rivalry is that it's a hatred that transcends rationality.

That was easy to roleplay with Loghain. A lot of my Wardens weren't so much interested in what Loghain was doing to Ferelden (causing a Time of Troubles, crippling the war effort against the Blight, usurping power, etc.) as in what Loghain had done to them personally: betrayal, murder, being declared an outlaw. It wasn't ideal, because Loghain and the Warden rarely interacted personally and the hatred didn't seem to be reciprocated on his part. That makes the hatred a lot less visceral. But the bones of it were there, and that's something.

I meant that Loghain's actions and motivations were confusing and difficult to reconcile.  He seemed less like a villainous character than a character shoehorned into a role designed to make you dislike him and make him seem dastardly, while trying to make him intriguing by emphasizing his desire to save Ferelden (From a threat the player never receives any indication is actually realistic)

 

Its easy to create a character for the player to dislike because he makes their life more difficult (Like trying to end it), but a well done villain needs to be more than that.

[Estelindis]

I like to play as the underdog, but making the opponent totally dwarf the protagonist in terms of power and cunning makes it difficult to write a victory that doesn't feel like an asspull.  Without wanting to revisit the ME3 ending controversy, it was always going to be difficult to write a satisfying conclusion when the foe was built up as incomprehensibly powerful, intelligent, and ancient.  Something in-between David and Goliath is optimal.  I'd want enough power difference to create genuine obstacles and a realistic sense of danger for the protagonist, yet not so much that the opponent can only be defeated with a McGuffin (which, inconsistently, the ultra-powerful opponent doesn't realise is its weakness).

 

Don't get me wrong: I don't see a problem with a smart and powerful foe not understanding some uniquely human or heroic quality that it thus overlooks (e.g. Sauron assuming that his enemies would want to use the ring and not considering that they might wish to destroy it).  To me, that sort of thing actually strikes the right balance.

[Killdren88]

Best rival gotta be Blue (aka Gary).

 

So if we have a Rival in this game we must address them as <First name> Mother******* <Last name> ?

[Chrom72]

My personal favorite is a strong rival, but as long as the villain is handled well I can roll with it. Sauron was used as an example a couple posts above and he's a good one, but the only reason he worked is because destroying the Ring isn't considered a McGuffin by most, or at least not in the same way they view the Catalyst in ME3. I guess the difference is that it's very well established from fairly early on in Fellowship that the only way to destroy Sauron completely is destroying the Ring and the books revolve around that, whereas in Mass Effect the games revolve around destroying the Reapers and the Catalyst is pulled out of nowhere in the last game.  

[JEMEDAOME2]

Definitely rivals nothing better than a Enemy whose hatred and respect for you only grows every time you encounter them, Shadow Of Mordor seems to have picked on that, unlikey we'll getting somthing like that since Bioware will probably have good story tied into the narrative that exlpains bad guys powers and motivations.

I do hope any recurring bad guys throught the game will grow to hate us tho Rather than turn up and go "Ha Ha I will kill you this Inquisitor!"  Cos we would be like "Nuh uh I'm the Player Character i'm gonna win no matter how many times it takes, so suck it!

[Cyberstrike nTo]

I like them both, but it suddenly got me thinking.  Have we had a modern example of the 'Hero' as Goliath?  Superman vs Lex Luthor kind of thing - where the villain has no chance save for the hero's code of honour?  Could such a thing work in a game where morality can often be dismissed quite easily if the player chooses?

 

I like them both, but it suddenly got me thinking.  Have we had a modern example of the 'Hero' as Goliath?  Superman vs Lex Luthor kind of thing - where the villain has no chance save for the hero's code of honour?  Could such a thing work in a game where morality can often be dismissed quite easily if the player chooses?

 

In the comics after their first battle Doomsday was the villain that actually scared Superman and when Doomsday was brought back for their first rematch, it took considerable courage for Superman to face the villain that killed him and could kill him again and was told by a time traveling superhero if he died fighting Doomsday a second time he would stay dead.

[polemists02]

Eh since most I new school ones are out I will go to Black Isle days.

Baldurs gate 1: date Sarevok. Personally I liked him. I know many people don't. He doesn't have a lot of personality. He is the stereotype of I slew your mentor. He has moving parts tho, underlings, a evil organization (I like rival organizations). His iron shortage idea is simple if effective and he is brutal. When you finally fight him there is no magical item or spell that does anything unique. It is just swords, bows and spells. Best of all. He has his own party. I wish more villians would. A full party not just sir Catherine and Howe. A actual your party against mine.

Baldurs Gate 2: Irenicus. A very well voiced npc. Plenty of emotion and again pretty straight forward. Less sword arm and more tricky mage. There is a gimmick to win and so I am not as big a fan.

Planescape Torment: I am sure it is not the first game, but first game I played where you had a evil that hunts you at every turn. No wait and gather your army. It is coming for you. Unlike me 3 this villian is much more personal.


So yea I still like rivals but I want them to make more active moves. Logain felt to distant. One assination and some cinematics. I miss the spies, betrayals, assassins, and sell swords of games old. Okay not baldurs gate 1 level assassins. That got crazy.

[Orctavius]

I think I have a slight preference for rivals over Goliaths, but its more important for them to be well executed then to be one or the other.  And there a lot of situation factors to take into account.  For instance, a single bad guy often needs to be as strong or stronger as the entire team of heroes  in order to fight them all simultaneously.  The final boss usually stands alone.

[Dayze]

I usually don't view the rival as being the main antagonist of the game; more of a side character that comes in occasionally and messes up your mission or quest or beats you in a match up and takes the reward you were hoping to get....that sort of thing.

 

Though I suppose if you play an evil character its certainly possible for the big bad to be a rival.

 

Which would be interesting; who conquers the world first, who gets to the item o' power while having the team of heroes being a problem to both of you.

 

As for game mechanics; the biggest problem I have with "goliath" type enemies is there is often only one way to beat them.  You either stay in that corner and shoot them or do a specific pattern to avoid damage and wear them down.  But that one way aside you can't win.......in a sense it kind of takes the skill out of it.

 

That and as pointed out; story-wise they end up coming off as dumb since they have to avoid doing the obvious and easy thing to win.  Or stereotypical and monologue so the hero has a chance etc.....

 

Though I did like fighting games where after you won you could actually play as the boss.

[n0na90]

Thinking back, I think rival stories are probably the ones I like the most. But a David vs Goliath story can be awesome, it all comes down to how it's told. 

 

I liked the Reapers of Mass Effect, just disliked how they turned out in the third game, and the "solution". 

[MrMrPendragon]

I prefer facing an enemy with overwhelming strength and power, and end up winning not because I'm the protagonist, but because the story shows that the protagonists goes through hell and does everything he/she can to achieve victory. But "power" doesn't just mean godlike superpowers. It could also mean the villain is way too smart for the protagonist, a "one step ahead" kind of villain. So you could definitely get a Goliath figure that doesn't rely on strength alone.

 

I'm going to use the Reapers as an example because everyone's already talking about it. One of the great things about the Reapers is that throughout the course of the third game, the game reminds you of how ruthless the Reapers are. The game always gives you casualty reports, families being torn apart, and even named characters dying. Add in some sad background music and it really creates that atmosphere of desperation and despair.

 

And at the end, after doing everything, Shepard ends up limping towards the finish line. He didn't just walk towards the sunset after kicking *ss. He was limping towards the finish line after fighting Marauder Shields and the three Huskateers. I really love that part because even though the Reapers lost, they still show that even the guy who has the thickest plot armor will struggle in his quest for victory.

[Pierce Miller]

I like rivals who are equal in power/skill, this is usually because they're humanoid beings and so you can actually get a glimpse of their personality, their viewpoint. With insanely powerful enemies they tend to be beings of alien morality, totally incapable of conversing with you the character and thus ultimately unrelatable.

[Ninjasplaycardgames2]

It really depends on the setting and characters. If I had to choose though, I think I'd go with David vs Goliath, but only if Goliath is a world ending threat if left unchecked. 

[Estelindis]

 

Liked:

NWN2: King of Shadows. He is invincible but we learn how to kill him in the course of the game. He is alien but we can learn about his past and his motives.

 

Totally agree: even though, like MotB (and is so often the case with Obsidian generally), the execution of the ending was botched, the King of Shadows still stands out as a tragic villain who sacrificed his humanity to protect those he loved.  Sure: he becomes a big, ominous bad, but he started as a human being.  It's especially tragic because, in my opinion, the fact that his people let him become what he did meant that they didn't really deserve the sacrifice he made on their behalf.  I think most people could relate to what he did, in some way or another.  Each of us has to come to terms with death and loss, and that is hard when they touch something or someone that we care about extremely deeply.  It is understandable that he failed to cope adequately, and thus refused to accept that empires rise and fall, that they shouldn't be preserved unnaturally.   I mean, the sacrifice he'd already made by that point was monstrous.

 

Actually, if you don't mind me rabbitting on for a bit, I wrote this some years back when I was reflecting on his tragic quality as a villain. 

 

How do we know what is evil, except by understanding what is good?  We must have something dear to us that we would not gladly lose – else, how could we know how wrong it would be to take from others what is dear to them?  How do we know that killing is wrong, except by loving life?  Not wanting to cast away our own lives, we know that the lives of others are just as dear to them.  

 

For the sake of a greater good, we may give up some part of ourselves, some thing that is dear to us.  If we sacrifice everything, however, our perspective is inexorably altered.  We no longer see what goodness really is, because we have given up all share in it.  The King of Shadows gave away everything in exchange for the ability to defend Illefarn.  And, for a long time, he fulfilled his duty.  But, when Netheril fell, and the time came to make a difficult choice, he lacked the necessary perspective to discern a lesser good from the greater one.  He had given up his love and his name, his very humanity, for the duty to protect Illefarn – thus, no matter the cost, he had to continue to protect it.  And so, in his desperation, he turned to a power that transformed the land and the people he had once loved into something beyond recognition, because only in that way could he continue to “protect” even a vestige of what it once was.  Only in that way could he carry out the duty that was his life’s sole meaning.  That was more important than the good of Illefarn itself – a good in which he no longer had anything that was simply his.

 

This is what comes of giving too much of yourself away.  It leaves you with no perspective to keep understanding what you gave yourself away for.

[freche]

Rivalry all the time. I hate the big bad evil villains that only do **** because they are supposedly evil. I just can't buy it, if there isn't a good enough reason for them to be your antagonist they just fall short.

The only good Goliath I can think of is Sovereign but then he is not your antagonist in ME1, Saren is.

 

What makes for a good antagonist is you should get to know them during your play through, their reasoning, why they do what they do, your link with them, etc.

Really shitty ones are the Big Bad Wolves that want to bring death, decay and eternal darkness to the world just because no reason (and yes I look at you Archdemon, among many others).

[Navasha]

I kind of like both.    I like the idea of an defeatable goliath rival.    Sort of a Darth Vader sort of thing.   If Luke had attempted to confront Vader at any point before he was ready... then Vader would have wiped the floor with him.      However, through diligence, training, experience, ect., you achieve a level of parity with the archnemesis.     The act of actually overcoming overwhelming odds through due diligence is very appealing.  

 

However, Goliaths like the Reapers where there is literally nothing you can do except struggle against them, only to have to rely on some "trick" or "loophole" at the end to overcome them is NOT at all satisfying.   This ultimately to me is why ME3s ending felt so hollow.   

[The_Other_M]

Both.

However, "Goliath" should NEVER be invincible.

[Il Divo]

In a game villain, I just want to see someone intelligent who possesses a complex personality and motivations - kind of like Makishima Shogo in Psycho-Pass (one of my favorite sci-fi anime series which I have just finished watching again recently). I suppose you would categorize him as a rival to one of the main protagonists.

 

Agreed. Psycho Pass was the first thing that came to mind when I was thinking of the whole rivals set up. Death Note and Fate/Zero (the latter of which I just watched for the first time) are other great examples. 

 

In fairness irrational describes a lot of villians. It is that irrational step that takes someone from, for example, a religious devotee who has faith and lives a pious life and turns them into a fanatic willing to kill those who don't share their faith.  To an extent if the villian isn't irrational and is just being reasonable why the hell are we off trying to kill him?

 

The villain can be rational, but operating with different values than the protagonist. 

 

Take Saren. Even if you remove the Indoctrination aspect, which to be honest I think weakens his character, you still have a great villain who's operating fairly logically. He's given up on the belief that the Reapers can be beaten at all, and if we consider survival as the ultimate goal, if victory isn't possible, then the best we can do is count on the chance, however slim, that the Reapers might show mercy to those willing to be subservient to their goals.