74 réponses à ce sujet

[Onewomanarmy]

Hell no, not someone like the illusive man again. For one his name sounds like something a third grader came up with for himself. And the guy was a a megalomaniac a-hole Idiot! Emphasis on the word idiot because if he was smart, the megalomania and being a douche would've added to the antagonist personality even if that's kinda mainstream. Instead he just turned out to be a tryhard idiot in a suit!  To be fair though, it's a cool suit.

And the whole logic he followed in Me3 was just sad Imho;

 

As for a suggestion, someone who's devilishly intelligent, knows what they're doing with just the right amount of crazy would be great. Psychotic and genocidal tendencies are optional as well. Fine if you really want me to name names, here;

 

I'd also add a few classics like Anton Chigurh, Hans Landa, Joh Doe and Vaas Montenegro. Also Charles dance who you might know as Tywin from GoT but here in a slightly different role;

 

I wouldn't want the antagonist to be very similar to any of these guys but these are some rather good examples IMO. I'd write more but you guys get the gist I guess, it's just that "good" villains are so hard to come by these days..

 

I disagree about the Illusive Man, except his name, it sounds silly lol but otherwise I really liked him! But I totally agree with you on those other villains there ^ awesome choices! 

[correctamundo]

Roy Baty, Feyd Rautha...

[10K]

Two things I would like in an antagonist.

1. NO PLOT ARMOR
2. Someone who is not Kai Lame

That is all.

[Inkvisiittori]

Someone intelligent, not stupid evil. Like Littlefinger. Master manipulator. You don't really know who's side he is on. I would love there to be personal connection between the hero and the 'villain.' They have their own personal goal and they would do anything it takes to succeed. If they believe in something then I want them to believe in it until the bitter end - no indoctrination, switching sides or suicides. They could try to make the protagonist see things their way... it would be nice to able to choose if you want to side with them. Or at least not kill them / let them go in the end. 

[Ahriman]

An Andromeda patriot. A guardian. A watchful protector. Someone who has to take action before Milky Wayers (I still don't know how we should call original species) steal all planets.

[KaiserShep]

An Andromeda patriot. A guardian. A watchful protector. Someone who has to take action before Milky Wayers (I still don't know how we should call original species) steal all planets.

 

 

The word Milkies was tossed about here in the past. I think that works. 

[wizardryforever]

Personally, I prefer my antagonists to be people with understandable and realistic goals. Goals that you may not necessarily agree with, but that actually do accomplish something. Methods are usually the hangup between pro and antagonists. If you can see the "villain's" point of view and almost agree with him/her, then that's a well-written antagonist. Knight Templar types (see TVtropes entry) or He Who Fights Monsters types (again with TVtropes) make the best villains, in my experience. What I don't want is a villain with no discernible reason for what they do, or that they do it "For the Evulz." It's fine for those types of characters to exist, but they really shouldn't be the main antagonist.

[Jorji Costava]

An Andromeda patriot. A guardian. A watchful protector. Someone who has to take action before Milky Wayers (I still don't know how we should call original species) steal all planets.

 

I was thinking of something somewhat along those lines. After all, it's us who are the interlopers in Andromeda; makes sense that the current residents might want to keep us out in order to protect their own interests. I don't know if anyone here has seen The Battle of Algiers, but I think a good example would be the film's antagonist, Col. Mathieu. The film is about the violent Algerian movement for independence from France. Col. Mathieu is in charge of crushing the revolutionary movement (known as the FLN); here, he's being questioned by journalists about his methods:

 

Spoiler

COL. MATHIEU: Let us be precise. The word "torture" does not appear in our orders. We use interrogation as the only valid police method against clandestine activity. The FLN asks its members, in case of capture, to remain silent for 24 hours. Then they may talk. This gives the FLN time to render any information useless. And us? What form of questioning must we adopt? Civil law procedures which take months for a mere misdemeanor? 

 

REPORTER: Legality can be inconvenient.

 

COL. MATHIEU: Is it legal to set off bombs in public places? Remember Ben M'Hidi's answer when you asked him that question. No gentleman, believe me, it’s a vicious circle. We could talk for hours to no avail, because that isn't the problem. The problem is this: The FLN wants to throw us out of Algeria, and we want to stay. Even with slight shades of opinion, you all agree that we must stay. When the FLN rebellion began, there were no shades at all. Every paper, the communist press included, wanted it crushed. We’re here for that reason alone. We are neither madmen nor sadists. Those who call us fascists forget the role we played in the Resistance. Those who call us Nazis don't know that some of us survived Dachau and Buchenwald. We are soldiers. Our duty is to win. Therefore, to be precise, it's my turn to ask a question: Should France stay in Algeria? If your answer is still "yes," you must accept all the necessary consequences.

[Ahriman]

I was thinking of something somewhat along those lines. After all, it's us who are the interlopers in Andromeda; makes sense that the current residents might want to keep us out in order to protect their own interests.

Yes, he might be ugly, aggressive and  homicidal, but I want to feel some sweet bitterness when shooting his men in front of him.

[SKAR]

Hey finally you got one! Nice

thanks

[Halfdan The Menace]

Alien Nazis and their allies? the ultimate villain tbh.

[Hadeedak]

Someone intelligent, not stupid evil. Like Littlefinger. Master manipulator. You don't really know who's side he is on. I would love there to be personal connection between the hero and the 'villain.' They have their own personal goal and they would do anything it takes to succeed. If they believe in something then I want them to believe in it until the bitter end - no indoctrination, switching sides or suicides. They could try to make the protagonist see things their way... it would be nice to able to choose if you want to side with them. Or at least not kill them / let them go in the end. 

 

Oh Kriea. Years and years (SO MANY YEARS) later, I still love to be terrified of you.

[Teabaggin Krogan]

I disagree about the Illusive Man, except his name, it sounds silly lol but otherwise I really liked him! But I totally agree with you on those other villains there ^ awesome choices! 

 

Different strokes for different folks I guess. And what I'm saying is entirely subjective of course, so cheers if you do like him!

[iM3GTR]

I want a big villain to be set up, then he is killed near the end, and one of your companions reveals themselves to be the villain under your very nose.
No idea how the writers could do this without it being too obvious, but I'm not a writer.

[SKAR]

I do like how the illusive man was similar to smoking man from the x files or Albert Wesker. I like those types of shady villains.

[SKAR]

I want a big villain to be set up, then he is killed near the end, and one of your companions reveals themselves to be the villain under your very nose.
No idea how the writers could do this without it being too obvious, but I'm not a writer.

they've done that a lot but that would be interesting. It would suck if the person you've been sleeping with betrayed you though.

[Dubozz]

The best antagonist is the one showing up in the last 5 minutes of the game. What a twist that would be, right guys?

[In Exile]

I was thinking of something somewhat along those lines. After all, it's us who are the interlopers in Andromeda; makes sense that the current residents might want to keep us out in order to protect their own interests. I don't know if anyone here has seen The Battle of Algiers, but I think a good example would be the film's antagonist, Col. Mathieu. The film is about the violent Algerian movement for independence from France. Col. Mathieu is in charge of crushing the revolutionary movement (known as the FLN); here, he's being questioned by journalists about his methods:

 

Spoiler

COL. MATHIEU: Let us be precise. The word "torture" does not appear in our orders. We use interrogation as the only valid police method against clandestine activity. The FLN asks its members, in case of capture, to remain silent for 24 hours. Then they may talk. This gives the FLN time to render any information useless. And us? What form of questioning must we adopt? Civil law procedures which take months for a mere misdemeanor? 

 

REPORTER: Legality can be inconvenient.

 

COL. MATHIEU: Is it legal to set off bombs in public places? Remember Ben M'Hidi's answer when you asked him that question. No gentleman, believe me, it’s a vicious circle. We could talk for hours to no avail, because that isn't the problem. The problem is this: The FLN wants to throw us out of Algeria, and we want to stay. Even with slight shades of opinion, you all agree that we must stay. When the FLN rebellion began, there were no shades at all. Every paper, the communist press included, wanted it crushed. We’re here for that reason alone. We are neither madmen nor sadists. Those who call us fascists forget the role we played in the Resistance. Those who call us Nazis don't know that some of us survived Dachau and Buchenwald. We are soldiers. Our duty is to win. Therefore, to be precise, it's my turn to ask a question: Should France stay in Algeria? If your answer is still "yes," you must accept all the necessary consequences.

 

I'm not sure I follow what I should be taking away from the interview? The position articulated by Col. Mathieu is clearly just a justification for torture and massacres. 

[Giantdeathrobot]

Someone intelligent, not stupid evil. Like Littlefinger. Master manipulator. You don't really know who's side he is on. I would love there to be personal connection between the hero and the 'villain.' They have their own personal goal and they would do anything it takes to succeed. If they believe in something then I want them to believe in it until the bitter end - no indoctrination, switching sides or suicides. They could try to make the protagonist see things their way... it would be nice to able to choose if you want to side with them. Or at least not kill them / let them go in the end. 

 

I'd rather not a Littlefinger. if you analyze the books a bit, you realize that he appears smart because Martin constantly makes everyone around him dumber than a sack of bricks.

 

I'd like someone who was both a physical and intellectual threat. A guy who is big and powerful, but also highly intelligent. Villains usually tend to be one or the other, with the physical threat being subversient to the intellectual one. In a fantasy series, I'd picture it as a huge guy with an axe and heavy armor that can nevertheless plan with the best of them. Kinda like a smarter Arishok. In Mass Effect? A Krogan villain, maybe. An evil (or utterly ruthless) Wrex. Or an Okeer that doesn't end up killed by lame poison gas.

[GoldenGail3]

Howe is this thread doing without the mention of that menace? I hate Howe. All video games need a Howe...

[In Exile]

I'd rather not a Littlefinger. if you analyze the books a bit, you realize that he appears smart because Martin constantly makes everyone around him dumber than a sack of bricks.

 

I'd like someone who was both a physical and intellectual threat. A guy who is big and powerful, but also highly intelligent. Villains usually tend to be one or the other, with the physical threat being subversient to the intellectual one. In a fantasy series, I'd picture it as a huge guy with an axe and heavy armor that can nevertheless plan with the best of them. Kinda like a smarter Arishok. In Mass Effect? A Krogan villain, maybe. An evil (or utterly ruthless) Wrex. Or an Okeer that doesn't end up killed by lame poison gas.

What if we had a villain who quite literally has an idiot ball, the power of which is to make people around him or her dumber? Think of how writers could weave in their poor set up as actual plot! 

[Master Warder Z_]

What if we had a villain who quite literally has an idiot ball, the power of which is to make people around him or her dumber? Think of how writers could weave in their poor set up as actual plot! 

 

That actually worked well for Futurama.

[9TailsFox]

Hell no, not someone like the illusive man again. For one his name sounds like something a third grader came up with for himself. And the guy was a a megalomaniac a-hole Idiot! Emphasis on the word idiot because if he was smart, the megalomania and being a douche would've added to the antagonist personality even if that's kinda mainstream. Instead he just turned out to be a tryhard idiot in a suit!  To be fair though, it's a cool suit.

And the whole logic he followed in Me3 was just sad Imho;

 

Scumbag Tim.

[Furisco]

I liked Saren a lot. He was different than other Turians and had this great presence in his scenes. I really feared and loved him at the same time. That's the kind of villain i want.

[Statichands]

A Wilson Fisk style of villain would be pretty cool

 

You're not supposed to say his name...

 

The Greek God of War should be the villain. Ares feeds off of war and the war with the reapers was enough for him to build his strength and return to mortal world again. Now it is up to the mc and the goddess Athena to bring him down.