143 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Suicidal villains, who want it all to end, are much more interesting to me that those who wish tor rule or obtain wealth.

How?  They can't possibly benefit from that.  What's the motive?

[wolfhowwl]

They want to destroy the world to end human suffering.

 

lol.

[Killroy]

They want to destroy the world to end human suffering.

lol.

Aside from being entirely stupid, that motivation would make the villain compassionate(in an insane way).

[Panda]

What is likeable and interesting about villain like that though?

[Mdizzletr0n]

The Joker is kind of a bad example for ME. He exists because Batman exists and gets off on messing with Batman in whatever way he can. I wouldn't call him a simple villain per se. It all depends on who's writing him. Nolan's Joker was more of it's own thing that fit the world that he created for that trilogy.

[Kmaru]

The reapers to me were well written. The fact that the Illusive man + The reapers into the good side, contribute to make the ending "special".

 

I'm not sure pure evil does exist, cause behind there is always an explanation, a story.

 

We can consider ourselves to be evil to all the living creature we are eating

Or living creatures we are using as guinea pigs

Serial killers, mass murderes to pick from as exemple, do exist also.

 

A pure evil to me would be something that does not have regrets, and don't need opinions but its own.

 

The hardest part will be to create something unsean. And i think Bioware tend to always go that direction.

[Helios969]

For the most part, real world good and evil is a matter of perspective.  A person or group who stands in opposition to another person's/group's values is labeled evil and usually dehumanized as much as possible to get the "good guys" to fight them.  MEA has the setup to be both since we'll be the invaders and I hope Bioware takes full advantage of that fact by occasionally rubbing our noses in that.  Since the objective will be to establish and eventually thrive in this new galaxy a full on "for the lutz evil" has no place.  I do hope that we can be "good" or "evil" in the sense of whether we try to win hearts and minds along the way or just stomp the aliens into goo if they get in our way of our goal(s).  But I also hope it doesn't penalize neutral playthroughs since there are times to offer your hand and others when you pull a trigger.

[KaiserShep]

The Joker is kind of a bad example for ME. He exists because Batman exists and gets off on messing with Batman in whatever way he can. I wouldn't call him a simple villain per se. It all depends on who's writing him. Nolan's Joker was more of it's own thing that fit the world that he created for that trilogy.

 

Ledger's Joker isn't that far off from The Killing Joke, at least in terms of his motivation: "All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy. That's how far the world is from where I am. Just one bad day."

[Synthetic Turian]

How?  They can't possibly benefit from that.  What's the motive?

That's just it, there isn't any benefit or motive. Only sheer madness, but with an underlying purpose: To end everything and everyone.

 

Far more dangerous that your: I'm evil, here look at me, my goals and ambitions (villain).

 

The type of villain I have in mind? Would kill another villain just because they can, and why not? Just because they are both evil doesn't mean they should share in anything.
 

Love it.

[Chealec]

From the perspective of the creatures whose worlds we're invading - we could well be the villains.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if BioWare took a leaf from Civilisation: Beyond Earth and had a few factions with the Ark Fleet that loosely mirror the Affinities in that game:

 

1: Purity => Humanity First Cerberus-a-like faction.

2: Supremacy => Technocracy - improve fleshy organics with cybernetics, potentially Khet sympathisers assuming the Khet will be Geth v2.

3: Harmony => want to adapt to their new worlds and circumstances and live alongside extant races as much as possible.

 

Any or all of these factions could have characters that slot into a villainous role depending on the circumstances; e.g. a Purity advocate could sort of mirror Udina to some extent. I suspect BioWare will stick with morally ambiguous characters across the Ark races whilst throwing in space Cthulhu again for the Remnants and frenemies in the form of the Khet.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

 

Suicidal villains, who want it all to end, are much more interesting to me that those who wish tor rule or obtain wealth.

 

 

I love them giant brains.

[Vortex13]

I don't know how I feel about the Khet or Remnant yet. The first one just sounds like Andromeda's "Not-Baterians" and I really hope that BioWare will avoid such shallow, one dimensional villain races. The Remnant could be interesting, or they could turn out to be a complete rehash of the Reapers, so I'll have to wait for more information on them.

 

 

In terms of a good villain I would like to see something like the Scramblers from the novel Blindsight by Peter Watts. Not only because they are 'alien' aliens with a totally different perspective on the universe, but also because their motivations for their actions are understandable, almost sympathetic to a certain extent:

 

Spoiler

Imagine you're a scrambler.

 

Imagine you have intellect but no insight, agendas but no awareness. Your circuitry hums with strategies for survival and persistence, flexible, intelligent, even technological - but no other circuitry monitors it. You can think of anything, yet are conscious of nothing.

 

You can't imagine such a being can you? The term being doesn't even seem to apply, in some fundamental way you can't quite put your finger on.

 

Try.

 

Imagine that you encounter a signal. It is structured, and dense with information. It meets all the criteria of an intelligent transmission. Evolution and experience offer a variety of paths to follow, branch-points in the flowcharts that handle such input. Sometimes these signals come from conspecifics who have useful information to share, whose lives you'll defend according to the rules of kin selection. Sometimes they come from competitors or predators or other inimical entities that must be avoided or destroyed; in those cases, the information may prove of significant tactical value. Some signals may even arise from entities which, while not kin, can still serve as allies or symbionts in mutually beneficial pursuits. You can derive appropriate responses for any of these eventualities, and many others.

 

You decode the signals, and stumble:

 

I had a great time. I really enjoyed him. Even if he cost twice as much as any other hooker in the dome-

 

To fully appreciate Kesey's Quartet-

 

They hate us for our freedom-

 

Pay attention now-

 

Understand.

 

There are no meaningful translations for these terms. They are needlessly recursive. They contain no usable intelligence, yet they are structured intelligently; there is no chance they could have arisen by chance.

 

The only explanation is that something has coded nonsense in a way that poses as a useful message; only after wasting time and effort does the deception become apparent. The signal functions to consume the resources of a recipient for zero payoff and reduced fitness. The signal is a virus.

 

Viruses do not arise from kin, symbionts, or other allies.

 

The signal is an attack.

 

And it's coming from right about there.

 

*

 

"Now you get it," Sascha said.

 

I shook my head, trying to wrap it around that insane, impossible conclusion. "They're not even hostile." Not even capable of hostility. Just so profoundly alien that they couldn't help but treat human language itself as a form of combat.

 

How do you say We come in peace when the very words are an act of war?

[Bfler]

Suicidal villains, who want it all to end, are much more interesting to me that those who wish tor rule or obtain wealth.

 

Like e.g. Dušan Gavrić in the movie Project Peacemaker? He has lost his family during the Balkan War and wants blow up New York with a nuke, because the war was carried out with weapons from western countries.

[Il Divo]

I've seen too many villains across the spectrum that I enjoy to really label one type as my favorite. The only element they all have in common for me is they tend to have strong convictions about whatever it is they do, whether it's absolute unrepentant evil, morally grey, etc, etc. 

[MelThorn]

I'd like to see another villain similar to Saren. You could call him "evil" if you want to, but I never saw him that way. Toward the end of Mass Effect 1, you realized that he was more Sovereign's victim than just some traditional bad guy. You came to see that he became desperate to stop something devastating and horrible, even if he was doing it to save himself. He knew what was coming, and he, like the Illusive Man, thought that there was only one way to prevent it: siding with the Reapers, or controlling them. In a way, Saren was not wrong about that. The Reapers truly were a destructible force that could only be stopped by Shepard at the Crucible. The only other option was submitting to them as slaves.

 

I actually felt really bad for Saren after that final Charm check that pushed him to kill himself. He realized what a horrible mistake he made and, in his words, "it's too late for me." I'd like to see another "villain" like him again. He was interesting.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That's just it, there isn't any benefit or motive. Only sheer madness, but with an underlying purpose: To end everything and everyone.

Far more dangerous that your: I'm evil, here look at me, my goals and ambitions (villain).

The type of villain I have in mind? Would kill another villain just because they can, and why not? Just because they are both evil doesn't mean they should share in anything.

Love it.

I find the villain you describe wholly uninteresting. The decision to oppose him is a no brainer. I have no reason not to use every tool available to defeat him, and unless he's a nation-state that should be sufficient.

There's no drama in that story. I have no cause for mercy or regret. It turns the hero's journey into simple accounting.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Like e.g. Dušan Gavrić in the movie Project Peacemaker? He has lost his family during the Balkan War and wants blow up New York with a nuke, because the war was carried out with weapons from western countries.

No, he's pursuing a sense of justice. I don’t agree with retributive justice, but at least I understand it.

This is not what Nihlus is describing.

[Chealec]

 

^ Ultimate villain!

[Synthetic Turian]

I find the villain you describe wholly uninteresting. The decision to oppose him is a no brainer. I have no reason not to use every tool available to defeat him, and unless he's a nation-state that should be sufficient.

There's no drama in that story. I have no cause for mercy or regret. It turns the hero's journey into simple accounting.



Ah, but you see? You've just exposed your desire to stop him, hence your invested interested.



Not every story needs to be dramatized either.


War needs no explanation.
 Kill or be killed. There, that's your drama.

[slimgrin]

We're arguing for more one dimensional villains now?

 

[KaiserShep]

Robert Picardo could voice a villain. Biower pls.

[Beerfish]

No the far better villains are the matter of fact type that have an agenda they feel is the proper one and are willing to do anything to see it succeed, the RAWR!  I am evil! villains are boring.

[The Hierophant]

We're arguing for more one dimensional villains now?

 

 

It can't be helped, people are probably bored of ME's formulaic villains.

 

Though this makes me wonder if the writers are going to stick with the mind controlled main antagonist formula in MEA.

[Ahglock]

Wusses watch the world burn. Heroes start the fire.


Now that the title is out of the way.

Villains generally need reasons or motives you can argue with or against. The one exception is the joker style who is evil for evils sake but really damn funny while doing it. Jack from borderlands 2 pulled off both sides. He had reasons, was evil for being evil and was really damn funny. Perfect villain.

[AlanC9]

That's just it, there isn't any benefit or motive. Only sheer madness, but with an underlying purpose: To end everything and everyone.
 
Far more dangerous that your: I'm evil, here look at me, my goals and ambitions (villain).
 
The type of villain I have in mind? Would kill another villain just because they can, and why not? Just because they are both evil doesn't mean they should share in anything.
 
Love it.

So it's... just something you like? OK. I guess there's not much else to say about this.