262: Bring On the Bad Guy

Zolem

New member
Jul 28, 2008
77
0
0
Kefka also gets this right. in once scene, the heroes come upon a town where everyone is dead, and then swing panle to Kefka congradulating himself for murdering every man, woman and child in the city, because now the city is easier to conquer if everyone in it is dead.
 

duchaked

New member
Dec 25, 2008
4,451
0
0
excellent article
there may be some exceptions, but definitely a lot of good points to follow/consider

hmmm as for SC:Conviction... not sure I hated the main villain, but he did annoy me
and the...uh, end of him was pretty brutal and/or(maybe) cool except it really didn't take much effort (note: uhh interactive cutscene?)
 

Grahav

New member
Mar 13, 2009
1,129
0
0
Frybird said:
For all those "not really interesting or defined" villians, we gamers have at least Curtis Blackburn from Killer 7:

He's introduced in a first person sequence of him murdering an office building worth of people, and his business choice is kidnapping orphans, slicing them up, removing thier organs and keeping the hollowed-out bodies of the girls for...at least they did not explain this...

And if that's not enough, he raped and killed the entire family of his former business partner for taking his own share of female orphan bodies.

And he essentially brainwashed his girlfriend (who works at the board of education and provided him with literal busloads of victims) into becoming a crazed "magical girl" cosplayer...wich is also pretty terrible.


I think only few, if any, villians in all of fiction can top that.
Holy shit, man!

A villain that I loved to kill, Nemesis. A villain that I loved seeing die, that fucking maniac in Reservoir Dogs.
 

RowdyRodimus

New member
Apr 24, 2010
1,154
0
0
Anah said:
Must.. not.. comment.. must.. not.. comment on.. Reed.. must.. not..
DO you mean the writer using the trailer of Reed as a good way of doing something considering he wrote the story for the game? (I can't be the only one who noticed lol)
 

Anah'ya

a Taffer
Jun 19, 2010
870
0
0
RowdyRodimus said:
Anah said:
Must.. not.. comment.. must.. not.. comment on.. Reed.. must.. not..
DO you mean the writer using the trailer of Reed as a good way of doing something considering he wrote the story for the game? (I can't be the only one who noticed lol)
That, and the fact that Reed was a bad villain.

There. I said it.
 

NotMePleaseIgnore

New member
Jul 20, 2009
47
0
0
Great article and it actually made me think back to games I've previously played and how effective the various villains from the wide variety of games I've played over the years are and once I'd thought about Dr Nefarious, from the Ratchet and Clank games, I kept returning to him as a great example for the points you made and just as a great all-round example for an engaging and most important of all, a fun to fight against enemy.

Apart from the amazingly funny dialogue of the series, which extends to the protagonists as well, I think the one experience that truly bonded me to the character was the Qwark Vid Comics from 'Up Your Arsenal'; a collection of side-scrolling mini games starring Captain Qwark in his battles against the original 'non-robot' Dr Nefarious that effectively explained both characters back stories in one swoop.

But back to your points and this article:

Be onscreen Referring back to my point above, Dr Nefarious' screen time was mostly used by news reports, vid comics and 'Supervillain Weekly', explaining his villainous ways without the game having to come up with an excuse for him to meet Ratchet in person.

Do villainous things The list is so long and evil it'd be hard to know where to start...I still like him regardless :)

Be a character He turned to a life of mad science after being relentlessly bullied in school by Qwark who even thwarted his first evil plan and turned him into a robot. This is basically his back story and it works just fine for him to be motivated enough to want revenge on the world; he's a mad scientist, it's what they do.

Beating the villain has to feel good There has to be at least some satisfaction gained beating Nefarious at the end of UYA after he's turned one of your close friends (and a very funny character) into a robot and his downfall gives new life to the depressed Qwark.

Get your hate on early UYA starts with Ratchet finding out his homeland is under attack by the Tyhrranoids, a blow dealt close to home by Nefarious, and one leaving Ratchet, and hopefully the player, feeling angry.

Don't Just Take Them Out of the Plastic See my earlier point about the Vid Comics.

Another thing I liked about the character were his interactions with his butler Lawrence. The short cutscenes of exposition, normally Dr Nefarious finding out about Ratchet's actions, were brightened up exponentially by the sharp dialogue and satire of the two opposites.

PS. This is mainly about the Nefarious in 'Up Your Arsenal', which is in my mind the best Ratchet and Clank game easily and definitely one of my favourite games ever.

PPS. As Lawrence would say about Dr Nefarious: He puts the 'wit' in twit...
 

neon flame

New member
Jul 19, 2009
31
0
0
You reference the villain monologues in James Bond, but not the right hand men. It a lot of the Bond films there isn't a climactic battle with the main villain, the big fight is usually with some 6ft right hand man.

The main reason I'm mentioning this is because the same thing is done with one of my favourite (well, one I like to hate) villains, LaCroix in Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines. He controls your character and others throughout most of the game. Once you break his grip, the actual final boss fight is with his main lackey, not LaCroix himself. Once you beat the right hand man LaCroix is completely helpless. I'm sure there are other games that do this as well, but this is the one that sticks in my mind. Though your article is played straight with Ming-Xiao.
 

UnclGhost

New member
Apr 7, 2010
20
0
0
I liked Breen as a villain, I guess, but it seemed like the whole time he was just sort of a punching bag for everyone. I guess it is good though when the audience voluntarily boos and hisses.

The Boss from MGS3 is probably the best gaming antagonist in recent memory.
 

skylog

New member
Nov 9, 2009
153
0
0
Yggdrasil from Tales of Symphonia is a good villain. Even though he's not revealed until the end of the first act, we spend that time getting our hate on early with his henchmen, the Desians. And when we later learn his motives, taking him down feels all the more satisfying/bittersweet.
 

Lorechaser

New member
Aug 28, 2004
80
0
0
I can only say here: Rich Dansky! Wraith! Writing for the Escapist! And, apparently, writing Splinter Cell? That's enough to convince me to take a look at them.

/fanboi.
 

drummond13

New member
Apr 28, 2008
459
0
0
Anah said:
RowdyRodimus said:
Anah said:
Must.. not.. comment.. must.. not.. comment on.. Reed.. must.. not..
DO you mean the writer using the trailer of Reed as a good way of doing something considering he wrote the story for the game? (I can't be the only one who noticed lol)
That, and the fact that Reed was a bad villain.

There. I said it.
Okay, good, I'm not the only one who felt this way. I honestly don't remember Reed as a good or bad villain at all, but that's ultimately my point here. I played the game less than two months ago and I can't even remember a thing he did.

I think your article makes a few interesting points, though I don't see why so much emphasis is made on making the villain pure evil. Some of the most interesting villains are ones who aren't really that much worse than the hero, but just have conflicting interests. Making someone stereotypically "bad" often makes them uninteresting and easily leads to cliche.

I could forgive the section where you refer to your own tactic of establishing the villain before the release of the game, as with trailers and such, if I didn't think it was such poor advice. This can lead to some more insight into the villain or establish him earlier, true, but games (like books, movies, and many other forms of entertainment) are meant to be able to stand on their own, particularly when it comes to story. If you can't effectively establish your villain inside the game alone, then you've failed as a writer.
 

Maldark

New member
Apr 27, 2010
37
0
0
I think Alma/Paxton Fettel from the original F.E.A.R. ticked most of these boxes. They murdered several teammates/innocents and due to their convenient immunity to bullets could appear on screen to mess with you from time to time.
 

Anah'ya

a Taffer
Jun 19, 2010
870
0
0
drummond13 said:
I think your article makes a few interesting points, though I don't see why so much emphasis is made on making the villain pure evil. Some of the most interesting villains are ones who aren't really that much worse than the hero, but just have conflicting interests. Making someone stereotypically "bad" often makes them uninteresting and easily leads to cliche.
The only instance that I can think of in which a straight forward evil villain works, is in children's stories. Classic Disney movies illustrate that wonderfully. Anything beyond that leads to a shallow antagonist, much like the protagonist of the story loses his or her credibility if they get by without a single vice.
 

Shjade

Chaos in Jeans
Feb 2, 2010
838
0
0
I was trying to think of a way to do the villainous deeds onscreen without always losing or always relying on forced failure scenarios and...it's not easy. I mean, we know gamers: if there is the slimmest chance of succeeding SOMEONE is going to do it once, get it down to a science, post an FAQ on how to win the Impossible Fight In The Warehouse In Scene 4 and then your villain is always losing again regardless of how finely tuned you thought you made that sequence to be both likely a win for the villain and not a completely forced fail sequence.

Then it occurred to me that winning and losing aren't the only options.

How many villainous events in games have choices involved? Anyone have good examples? I'm thinking of something akin to some skirmish with the baddies happening in Appropriate Location X that culminates in catching up to your nemesis as he's stealing whatever he's there to take...except he has a hostage. Not one he's holding in front of him like a shield, no, that's just a question of marksmanship. He has a hostage hanging out the window over there. You could stay and try to catch/kill him, sure, but that means the hostage is going to go splat. If you dive to save the falling hostage there's no way you're going to catch up to the villain before he makes his escape. Both are viable options, though staying to fight the big bad is no guarantee you're going to get him. There's no way of knowing if he has yet another get out of jail free card up his sleeve, and then you've let someone die for nothing.

Did I mention you don't have a whole lot of time to consider this? I mean sure we're forty flights up, but you'd be surprised how fast a body drops!

Rough messy thought just to get an example up there. I can't think of something like this in any games I've played, but I'm not good at that kind of memory indexing.
 

chaywa

New member
Dec 27, 2008
1
0
0
I will always vouch for the Legacy of Kain games in regards to villainy, although not necessarily in regards to the 'villain'.

The relationship between Kain and Raziel throughout the saga highlights a tense struggle which evolves over the various timelines they pass each other in with expert writing (and VAs) which really highlights each others animosity to each other. Given that they are both playable characters across the saga, this demonstrates a fantastic degree of emotional involvement between the player and the character they are controlling, and really gives a unique insight into each others motives. Its something few games have accomplished in creating, and really sets it apart from other games in the fantasy hack n slash genre.
 

Drakfyre

New member
Dec 15, 2009
4
0
0
The early villain rule I don't think aids villains one way or another, I can think of many games that open with the villains and many games that introduce them literally hours into the game and both categories have about the same number of good villains.

In interactive media, one of the best ways to give the villains ample screen-time and to NOT screw the player with invulnerable or non-interactive scenarios is to have the villain be a playable character. Two of the best examples of this come from Chrono Trigger and Breath of Fire 4.

Spoilers ahead.

In Chrono Trigger, the primary "villain" is Magus (I personally do not consider Lavos a "villain" even though he is the final boss.) Magus is interesting in that you hear tale of him well before you actually see him on screen. His reach in the world is primarily in 600AD medieval time period, but Magus worshipers exist in the present day (1000AD) as well. The first time you see him on screen is during one of Frog's flashbacks, and you don't see him again until you meet up with him for the showdown. AFTER you defeat him, you get to see a lot more of him, both as a prophet in the lost time of magic and as a young boy in the same period. Finally, should you chose to spare him, he joins your party. Magus is the first villain I thought of when reading this article after the Joker, and the only reason I was thinking of the Joker was because of his prominence in the article sidebar.

In Breath of Fire 4, you alternate playing the game from the perspective of the heroes (Ryu, Nina and company) and the villain (God-Emperor Fou-Lu). Firstly, this is one of the only games I've ever played where a super-powerful entity was sealed away from the world for 1000+ years and PEOPLE DIDN'T FORGET ABOUT HIM. When he awakes, he is greeted by the competent General Yohm who intends to kill him for the sake of the current emperor, and Yohm nearly succeeds. Fou-Lu's story basically alternates between being hunted down by humans and being saved by humans. Most of these humans who help him get destroyed by General Yohm and the Fou Empire. Fou-Lu is a tragic villain, and the game story is benefited greatly by this.

I also think the villains in Gunstar Heroes deserve mention here. Yes, they had stupid names (Pink, Orange, Black, Green, Grey, and Smash Daisaku) but they really felt like good comic book/serial villains, with varying levels of competence. Pink, Orange, Black and Daisaku represented the comically incompetent crowd. (Daisaku is the villain who gets the most screen time but he is technically second in command.) Green was the classic hero-turned-villain and is the only villain that shows the main characters a level of respect. Grey is the kingpin, and you see less of him than his generals, but he's a strong character just because of the lead up. The greatest scene in the game, and one of my favorite sequences in 2d gaming history is in this game: The last level is a kind of "Boss Rush" where the level is simple but you are confronted by all the games nemeses, which was common for games of the period. The twist was, the whole level was played on a monitor, with the bosses watching the heroes. As you defeated the villains, Grey would send out the next villain to stop the players. It's a really great sequence and I strongly suggest anyone who hasn't played this game and has a spare couple hours to do so.
 

tkioz

Fussy Fiddler
May 7, 2009
2,301
0
0
ugg... "shooting your own henchmen" God what an overdone cliché, and it's not even a good one! When I see a boss kill his own henchmen for "failure" I don't see an evil overlord I see a moron with anger management issues and start wondering how the hell he got henchmen in the first freaking place.

Seriously.... what is it with games and Evil = Stupid... the most scary evil bastards are the smart ones that convince people to do hideous things of their own free will.