143 réponses à ce sujet

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Think back: KL jumping on the roof of an air car, overly dramatic pose, lowered head, hair somewhat obscuring his face, that's not anime style?...

(not to mention that he looks suspiciously similar to Raiden from MGR:R)

 

As for villain development, I'll take your word for it. (I hope you don't mean the obligatory tragedy in their past that is supposed to give them the excuse...)

Reminds me more of old samurai/shinobi movies personally, but I digress. 

And no, I'm not. None of the characters that came to mind when I wrote that post even have that trope you mentioned.

 

Anyway, I didn't mean for that to be anymore than a single half-serious comment.

[Ahglock]

I'm a monster. What I do is evil. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done.

the Operative

That is an optimistic take on many villains. There are lots of "evil" people who do evil things, look at themselves as evil but either think the loot/power they get out of it makes it worth it or they just enjoy the acts themselves as they are an expression of power over others.

[Ahglock]

Reminds me more of old samurai/shinobi movies personally, but I digress.
And no, I'm not. None of the characters that came to mind when I wrote that post even have that trope you mentioned.

Anyway, I didn't mean for that to be anymore than a single half-serious comment.

I kind of out Kai lame in the ameri-anime style. It was more batman beyond than shonen or other anime style. I like batman beyond but it's a consistent style. Kai lame just didn't fit the setting they had created. In a different game he might of been awesome.

[Mdizzletr0n]

That is an optimistic take on many villains. There are lots of "evil" people who do evil things, look at themselves as evil but either think the loot/power they get out of it makes it worth it or they just enjoy the acts themselves as they are an expression of power over others.

The Operative didn't do what he did for money, power or because he enjoyed it. He didn't enjoy it at all. He bought into an idea that was sold to him, which led him to believe that what he was doing the right thing for the greater good. He wasn't the usual villain. If anything, the true villains were the people that sold him that belief.

[Lady Artifice]

The Operative didn't do what he did for money, power or because he enjoyed it. He didn't enjoy it at all. He bought into an idea that was sold to him, which led him to believe that what he was doing the right thing for the greater good. He wasn't the usual villain. If anything, the true villains were the people that sold him that belief.

 

I liked that about him, but on the other hand, willful ignorance is one of the qualities I'd consider most villainous and repellent. 

[Kouzai]

I liked that about him, but on the other hand, willful ignorance is one of the qualities I'd consider most villainous and repellent. 

Same here. The blatent not seeing something that is obviously there or 'covering one's and/or ass' are just awful aspects of setient life.

[AlanC9]

That is an optimistic take on many villains. There are lots of "evil" people who do evil things, look at themselves as evil but either think the loot/power they get out of it makes it worth it or they just enjoy the acts themselves as they are an expression of power over others.

Do they actually think of themselves as "evil," or do they think that "evil" is just meaningless noise?

[Laughing_Man]

Do they actually think of themselves as "evil," or do they think that "evil" is just meaningless noise?

 

Does it really matter? (I'm assuming that the people in question are not "grey".)

 

Personally, I would say that they are aware that they embody what most people call "evil", and in many cases would agree on the definition.

[AlanC9]

I just can't quite see what "evil" would mean to such a person. It only matters to the extent that we need to find the character believable.

[Master Warder Z_]

Someone like the Major from Hellsing?

Best war monger ever

[KainD]

Characters whose motives I don't understand are uninteresting characters.

 

Do you realize how incredibly close-minded that stance is? 

 

1) It is YOU who should expand your knowledge to better understand characters, not the characters that should change to fit your box. 

 

2) If we are going deeper - you will never truly understand another being, because we are all different and have only our subjective perception to judge. Encountering situations in which others perceptions don't make sense to you is completely normal. 

[Ahglock]

I just can't quite see what "evil" would mean to such a person. It only matters to the extent that we need to find the character believable.

In the cases I've seen I'd say it's not a clear answer. They would say or see themselves as evil yet on a deeper take would talk about not believing in constructs of man. Why should anyone tell them what is right or wrong, the only person who can truly tell them that is themselves as no one should hold that power over you.

I no longer have my criminology text books so that's a loose paraphrase given 20 years since my college days.

[Display Name Owner]

Eh. In the right place in the right story, evil cos I want to is good, but I reckon ME is more suited to dealing with motivations and things. The Reapers would never have been good villains if they did it for the evulz, even if their motivation had never been revealed, knowing that they had one made them relatively much more interesting than the alternative. Even with the Krogan, them being aggressive just cos it's their way was at the heart of the whole genophage arc, but making that a purely good vs. evil thing would've been crap compared to what we did get.

[Mdizzletr0n]

The Reapers weren't really that great of villains. Sovereign kind of screwed that up by flapping it's figurative mouth.

[Display Name Owner]

The Reapers weren't really that great of villains. Sovereign kind of screwed that up by flapping it's figurative mouth.

 

Well no, they weren't. But if they'd had no motivation they'd have been worse. Wondering what their reasons were at least gave them some intrigue up until it was revealed that their incomprehensible reasons were actually very very comprehensible.

[Mdizzletr0n]

Not knowing worked for the mysterious vibe of ME1. Knowing too soon really hurt them, IMO.

[Battlebloodmage]

Eh. In the right place in the right story, evil cos I want to is good, but I reckon ME is more suited to dealing with motivations and things. The Reapers would never have been good villains if they did it for the evulz, even if their motivation had never been revealed, knowing that they had one made them relatively much more interesting than the alternative. Even with the Krogan, them being aggressive just cos it's their way was at the heart of the whole genophage arc, but making that a purely good vs. evil thing would've been crap compared to what we did get.

It's just depending on the writing ability. Bioware villains seem very stereotypical and one dimensional, even when they try to give them dimensions. Pure villains don't mean that they're one dimensional. They can have a story. That story doesn't have to be sympathetic, the villain may not need a reason to be evil, but the story surrounding it or why it is what it is doesn't have to be sympathetic or even good. For example, a character may be born without being able to feel sympathy, he may try to lead a normal life but ended up not feeling fulfilled or ended up badly. Just because someone is bad doesn't mean they have no story or you can't seem to understand the reasons behind it. The reason for why they are evil just doesn't have to be good or even sympathetic. Nowadays, writers try to give villains dimensions by making them sympathetic, but it all ended up the same, all these villains start to fall into certain archetype you keep seeing over and over again in various games. Some of the best villains out there don't even have a clear reason for why they are evil. Even their intimidation factor or their unpredictability could make a villain truly great. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Do you realize how incredibly close-minded that stance is?

It's not a stance. It's an observation.

I'm a moral skeptic. I don't judge people on moral grounds. But that leaves me with no means at all to examine the villain the OP proposed, because villainy is that character's only trait. He has no motives beyond being bad, which means (from my perspective) he has no motives.

I've done my moral epistemology. My positions are strongly held because they've been thoroughly considered.

1) It is YOU who should expand your knowledge to better understand characters, not the characters that should change to fit your box.

He's a flat character by definition. There's nothing to understand.

2) If we are going deeper - you will never truly understand another being, because we are all different and have only our subjective perception to judge. Encountering situations in which others perceptions don't make sense to you is completely normal.

The problem of other minds is real. Other people's perceptions are wholly unknowable.

Which is why I wasn't talking about those. I'm talking about my perceptions. If there's nothing else to the character, then there's nothing for me to perceive.

[KainD]

@Sylvius the Mad 

 

Give me your definition of a ''flat'' character and a contrast ( ''rich''? ) character.