Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
RETHINKING ANTAGONISTS
Posts
Kylaila
View playlists
Closeauthor=Sooz
What would a game without a big villain look like, in terms of things like a final boss? Would there BE a final boss? How would y'all alter your gameplay if you were making a gam with no central villain?
To note may be some of the Persona or SMT games where you have bosses and endbosses, but no real villain.
The end endboss is either a trial - a test of strength to see if you can bring change to the world, or worthy of that right, so to speak (be that by gods or similar). Or a more metaphorical manifestation of all you had been fighting that is more a byproduct and simply an end to your struggles without it actively having done anything (Persona 3).
This way, it gives more meaning to your purpose, intent and course of action (especially as those games revolve around different paths you can take), while at the same time building up to a climax and a turning/end point. Without pinning any good or evil to what you're fighting, it simply exists, and you need it for what you are trying to do.
Often a higher power that you are trying to borrow. There sometimes is a conflict between demons and angels / god and lucifer, tho neither side is portrayed as inherently better, and there are additional other ways too.
The endboss could be the enemy of the side you've taken (if there are groups) neither really better by any right, but you believe in one over the other, and you take the first big action against them (or final) by going against their leader or patron. That doesn't make them evil, it just makes them stand in your way.
Or the endboss could be the figure you were searching for all along - superficially- when the actual main conflict was underlying and separate from that (Persona 4), which would mean a layered approach. Upper layer: murder mustery - find the culprit! Lower layer: self-reflection, perception of self and conflict by yourself and in group dynamics, shame etc, grow to be proud of your true self in daily situations.
It still is a villain, but only for a small part of what has been going on as the actual danger lies elsewhere.
Then there is a less personal way often seen in dungeon crawlers where the focus is on exploration.
You explore everything, and you fight what you need along the way. The end.
It's very goal orientated (not to mention that the crafting also lends some merit to killing all those creatures and salvaging all kinds of loot)
Etrian Odyssey never really had any villains, maybe the end goal was to find an artifact, maybe it was to completely map out this unknown territory and create a passageway to forage and gain whatever you can from this maze. Maybe there was some internal strife along the way or not, the end boss is just the last big guy in the dungeon before you got to where you wanted to be. Or found what you needed to find.
So the focus is more on the surroundings, and why you go there perhaps as well. There is little done to set it up storywise other than hearing occasional tales or stories at most (of course, having a proper big room and anticipation for the upcoming big battle is a thing), but that also allows it to be a different focus.
Why do the enemies need to be the only important thing? I can totally see an exploration group setting up villages in foreign wilderness and fighting through all kinds of things so they can get their infrastructure going. You are still fighting but eventually end the game having reached a safe point. There might be a big guy there, but the important thing is the security and safety you have established thanks to getting past them, not that this big guy was so evil.
For gameplay changes .. I think different paths work really well because, well, there was no THIS IS EVIL in the first place, so multiple ways are valid and can be explored to deal with the conflict at hand, whatever it is. It at the same time it allows things to have sides and groups and organizations around it. And I personally really like seeing that. haha.
.. now I want to play Devil Survivor again. *chuckle*
Tho having more freedom and a self-contained smaller story also works well. Trying to answer a question, build something somewhere, explore something. It all can be the end of a journey/game. Be it tied to an endboss or not.
I hope to one day find a revenge plot where the protagonist grows over the long journey to realize that the revenge is already meaningless and lives a peaceful life thereafter. That's one way to end inner conflict *chuckle*
It'd need to have an interesting journey and turning point for it to feel satisfying, but that's why it'd be so curious and wonderful to see.
A final "mission" instead of a final boss often works. Some extremely hectic thing that you need to do. I think the first Resistance game just had a final "area" rather than a regular final boss. Craploads of regular enemies attack while you're trying to destroy a reactor. I never beat the other games in the franchise but that one was just "us vs them" and the interesting parts come from the alien's technology. If they added some oldskool X-com-style research aspect it would've been better, learning about what the aliens do when they're not killinating humans and other interesting points to flesh them out better.
Resolem (the main one I'm working on now) has multiple main characters and antagonists and although they all have the goal of "survival" each has their own independent goals too. This allows me to make the final battle more about personal victory rather than overall victory.
Personal victories are a great way to end a story without having to save the entire world, which may seem out of scope for the characters. Or rather, you can put the world in threat but make the goal to be smaller in nature. Valkyria Chronicles for example. Massive empire conquering all? Let's focus on driving them out of our home, stabilizing our home, and dealing with the aftermath of these battles. At the end, the empire isn't gone. You've killed the politically weakest of its many many many bigwigs and some of its mighty generals. So while those games do have a regular final battle and regular villains, the goals met in the story aren't on the same size as the scale of the threat.
Resolem (the main one I'm working on now) has multiple main characters and antagonists and although they all have the goal of "survival" each has their own independent goals too. This allows me to make the final battle more about personal victory rather than overall victory.
Personal victories are a great way to end a story without having to save the entire world, which may seem out of scope for the characters. Or rather, you can put the world in threat but make the goal to be smaller in nature. Valkyria Chronicles for example. Massive empire conquering all? Let's focus on driving them out of our home, stabilizing our home, and dealing with the aftermath of these battles. At the end, the empire isn't gone. You've killed the politically weakest of its many many many bigwigs and some of its mighty generals. So while those games do have a regular final battle and regular villains, the goals met in the story aren't on the same size as the scale of the threat.
Kaempfer
1932
My first real, in depth RPGMaker project features an antagonist who was, effectively, a very skilled and sneaky civil servant. He twisted the will of the government and its resources against you and eventually opened the door for other bad things to happen, but in the end he was just some dude. The second-to-final boss was a group of his most powerful followers, each with their own strengths and weaknesses, then you fought him. Being a civil servant, all he could do was flail uselessly at you and your amigos who, after a game's worth of fighting, were incredibly powerful. You could choose to spare him, but if not you could end the final battle with a single attack. Take that, bureaucracy!
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=Feldschlacht IV
There's tons of games already like that, though. It depends on what you mean; if you mean a game without any antagonists at all, then yeah, that's a hard sell, there's only a few. If you mean games without a BIG VILLAIN, then yeah, there's a ton; Deus Ex, some of the GTA games, Shadow of the Colussus, some of the Tactics Ogre games, etc. I can list more!
author=Shinan
I assume by games you also mean very specific games because there are simulation games and sandboxy games that don't have a final boss or a central antagonist. Games like Crusader Kings 2, Left 4 Dead and Stardew Valley or... others. (I tried examples that have a story element, obviously we have storyless games too)
I don't "mean" anything, I'm just trying to get discussion going in a direction other than the usual Kefkachat. The topic is antagonists outside of a single, central character, so let's talk about that!
Kylaila gets what's up!
suzy_cheesedreams
1480
To games without a traditional final boss: an RPG with a linear plot about violence could have less violence as the story progresses. Fewer battles and more instances of the protagonist rejecting the idea of having to kill everything in their path to succeed. And not so much in a Moon Remix RPG or Undertale kind of way. It could work well in a grimdark setting, in my mind at least...
...Even games about violence trying to deconstruct the idea of violence-centric video games end up having climactic sequences of head-splattering violence to show how gritty, dark and desperate the characters are. That is I would guess due to the importance of mass appeal and convention in AAA games... and also because that is a valid way of examining that issue... but indie games have a lot more freedom, so why not end unconventionally with a character refusing to participate any longer in the violent world - they could renounce violence, they could die out of passive resistance, they could run away.
The antagonist then could be the world itself, getting in the way of the character trying to live a peaceful and non-combative life.
You could have a Harvest Moon type of game, but set in a really shite hellhole where people keep trying to raze your farm. Maybe the goal of the game is to produce enough resources to last through attacks and spiteful weather till your character dies of natural causes, not at the end of a raider's sword.
...Even games about violence trying to deconstruct the idea of violence-centric video games end up having climactic sequences of head-splattering violence to show how gritty, dark and desperate the characters are. That is I would guess due to the importance of mass appeal and convention in AAA games... and also because that is a valid way of examining that issue... but indie games have a lot more freedom, so why not end unconventionally with a character refusing to participate any longer in the violent world - they could renounce violence, they could die out of passive resistance, they could run away.
The antagonist then could be the world itself, getting in the way of the character trying to live a peaceful and non-combative life.
You could have a Harvest Moon type of game, but set in a really shite hellhole where people keep trying to raze your farm. Maybe the goal of the game is to produce enough resources to last through attacks and spiteful weather till your character dies of natural causes, not at the end of a raider's sword.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=suzy_cheesedreams
...Even games about violence trying to deconstruct the idea of violence-centric video games end up having climactic sequences of head-splattering violence to show how gritty, dark and desperate the characters are. That is I would guess due to the importance of mass appeal and convention in AAA games... and also because that is a valid way of examining that issue...
At the risk of another tangent, I feel like this is a two-pronged problem, where 1) it's hard to hit that sweet spot of "just awful enough" and not go into "laughably/gloriously overblown" and 2) we're so darn accustomed to the ol' ultraviolence that it's really hard to hit levels that aren't generally ho-hum.
Well, usually, dramas occur when you have people you love making bad decisions and hurting you and others, or just people who manipulate others for selfish gain. I think it's easy (and often effective) for games to have a single massive antagonist because they become a formidable force that you can stage all conflict against. If your plot falters at points, you can revert back to "we need to kill/stop/maim/kiss/marry that person!" as your throughline. So to have a person be the object of the main plot's conflict can be a simple way to create story... is this question about whether they need to be some huge powerful beast or not? Or is it about whether we need certain people to have all the blame for the intention of our protag? I think at least the protag should have enemies/obstacles to block your protag's intent. This creates conflict, which is a surefire way to make your story super interesting. But to create conflict without a singular huge main obstacle... just make lots of little smaller obstacles to your main goal? Slice of life dramas are usually examples of this. Down and out protag is down on their luck and money and women and company and good vibes... they contend against this with great force after being humiliated and suddenly we're rooting for our underdog straggler!
So yeah. Multiple villains are possible... or at the very least multiple obstacles against the player's intention that cause conflicts.
I'd say it's the tragedy of the fallout of the antagonist's actions that makes them more feared. It's when the external visceralness of the villain's evilness exceeds their actual tragic import that they become too overblown and, I would like to say, ineffectual. I think when people say villains are evil-for-the-sake-of-evil, it's when the tragedy of their self destruction is not deep enough. Really all of my favourite villains are doing is destroying themselves and others and not really achieving true happiness. That's the dramatic irony I think can be really captivating with villains.
So yeah. Multiple villains are possible... or at the very least multiple obstacles against the player's intention that cause conflicts.
author=Sooz
At the risk of another tangent, I feel like this is a two-pronged problem, where 1) it's hard to hit that sweet spot of "just awful enough" and not go into "laughably/gloriously overblown" and 2) we're so darn accustomed to the ol' ultraviolence that it's really hard to hit levels that aren't generally ho-hum.
I'd say it's the tragedy of the fallout of the antagonist's actions that makes them more feared. It's when the external visceralness of the villain's evilness exceeds their actual tragic import that they become too overblown and, I would like to say, ineffectual. I think when people say villains are evil-for-the-sake-of-evil, it's when the tragedy of their self destruction is not deep enough. Really all of my favourite villains are doing is destroying themselves and others and not really achieving true happiness. That's the dramatic irony I think can be really captivating with villains.
suzy_cheesedreams
1480
author=Soozauthor=suzy_cheesedreamsAt the risk of another tangent, I feel like this is a two-pronged problem, where 1) it's hard to hit that sweet spot of "just awful enough" and not go into "laughably/gloriously overblown" and 2) we're so darn accustomed to the ol' ultraviolence that it's really hard to hit levels that aren't generally ho-hum.
...Even games about violence trying to deconstruct the idea of violence-centric video games end up having climactic sequences of head-splattering violence to show how gritty, dark and desperate the characters are. That is I would guess due to the importance of mass appeal and convention in AAA games... and also because that is a valid way of examining that issue...
Well, yeah. It's a matter of taste, for one thing. One person's gratuitous gorn-filled nightmare is another person's beloved grimdark.
author=suzy_cheesedreams
Well, yeah. It's a matter of taste, for one thing. One person's gratuitous gorn-filled nightmare is another person's beloved grimdark.
This. I showed a fairly new friend (at the time) some anime because he didn't really know what it was. When we got to one of our action selections, he got freakin traumatised because there was blood in a non-comedic setting, whereas I grew up with the stuff. I wouldn't go and start somebody off with Genocyber or something but it just didn't ding with me that, to some people, South Park is the bloodiest animated thing they ever see.
Tieing two points together, we have Fist of the North Star. For those unaware, basically, mix Mad Max with every insane kung fu movie ever. It tells the story of three brothers in a blown-out radioactive wasteland trying to save their world in their own separate ways. Kenshiro travels the land, saving those in need from raiders and such. Raoh travels the land to conquer and control in an effort to make the people strong enough to fight for themselves. Toki travels the land to as a doctor, healing those who are unable to care and fight for themselves. The big draw is that all three of these routes have the potential to let humanity survive.
I mention this series because, if it focused on a character similar to Toki, you could very easily build a story-driven game around that. Going from settlement to settlement, meeting challenges to help those in that stage like some mix of Trauma Center, Harvest Moon and Tower Defense. You'd learn about the world, the past, the relationships and personal stories of those you're saving, and yourself.
Other examples of man vs world in games are stat-management sims like Princess Maker or Long Live the Queen. In those games, your biggest adversary is money and political intrigue respectively.
In Atelier Rorona is a jRPG/alchemy sim that is pretty much a slide-of-life story about an alchemist and her friends trying to keep her shop from getting shut down by a government official. You don't end the game by killing him or anything. You just have to perform tasks to prove to his superior that your shop is a necessary part of the community and that while axing it may be good for short-term financial growth it would be horrible for the long-term. So although there was a villain, your real enemy was the time constraints and resource limits imposed on you via the story.
The more I've thought about this, the more examples I'm remembering where games had either no character villains, or no single villain.
RyaReisender
200
It's funny because all mentioned games here that are said to have a complex villains and still were received well, are games I either never finished because I found them too boring or I finished but can't even remember what the villain was. So I guess I can't really comment on them.
Do most of those games even have a villain?
------------
Rethinking villains in the sense of if you need them at all is actually the more interesting discussion.
First thought: I like villains mainly because of final boss battles. Final boss battles in quite many JRPGs are actually much better than all battles before. Not only do they usually have the best song of the whole game playing (Sephiroth even got a chorus!), but they are also mechanically interested and different from normal battles. Also in several RPGs, it's the first battle that is a real challenge or putting you into the situation of having to grind. It also feels graphically better and much more polished that all battles beforehand.
I actually realized that final battles are the best game parts a long time ago already, like in 1999. I even wrote down a game concept that consisted only of final boss battles at that time. (I mean, not that any of the battles are final, but rather, all the battles have this final battle quality and the game is just a bunch of challenging battles with nothing else.) That would actually already be one concept with rethought villains. So here it is.
Games without villains... the problem with that is that if there's no final battle and the end, you will feel unsatisfied when the game ends.
For example one game that comes to mind: Terranigma
In that game you could easily remove the villain which only really was arbitrarily added to the story anyway. You just restore the continents of the earth and when the earth is complete again, it could say "Thank you for saving the earth - The End". But it wouldn't feel satisfying even with the huge benefit of seeing the earth restored. It just needs that one cool final boss battle at the end to feel complete.
So I'm not fully convinced if removing villains is a good idea, even though I can think of tons of good game concepts that wouldn't require a villain. Except unbeatable games that have as only goal to get a high score. There of course it's satisfying enough to reach a new high score.
Do most of those games even have a villain?
------------
Rethinking villains in the sense of if you need them at all is actually the more interesting discussion.
First thought: I like villains mainly because of final boss battles. Final boss battles in quite many JRPGs are actually much better than all battles before. Not only do they usually have the best song of the whole game playing (Sephiroth even got a chorus!), but they are also mechanically interested and different from normal battles. Also in several RPGs, it's the first battle that is a real challenge or putting you into the situation of having to grind. It also feels graphically better and much more polished that all battles beforehand.
I actually realized that final battles are the best game parts a long time ago already, like in 1999. I even wrote down a game concept that consisted only of final boss battles at that time. (I mean, not that any of the battles are final, but rather, all the battles have this final battle quality and the game is just a bunch of challenging battles with nothing else.) That would actually already be one concept with rethought villains. So here it is.
Games without villains... the problem with that is that if there's no final battle and the end, you will feel unsatisfied when the game ends.
For example one game that comes to mind: Terranigma
In that game you could easily remove the villain which only really was arbitrarily added to the story anyway. You just restore the continents of the earth and when the earth is complete again, it could say "Thank you for saving the earth - The End". But it wouldn't feel satisfying even with the huge benefit of seeing the earth restored. It just needs that one cool final boss battle at the end to feel complete.
So I'm not fully convinced if removing villains is a good idea, even though I can think of tons of good game concepts that wouldn't require a villain. Except unbeatable games that have as only goal to get a high score. There of course it's satisfying enough to reach a new high score.
Aye, the grand finale definitely has a quality to it.
Now, the SMT games I mentioned don't have end villains, but some of the most amazing end bosses I have seen in games and they carry the same quality.
I feel it is possible to have the same feeling of reaching a peak, of feeling accomplished without having to vanquish evil incarnate.
Every last dungeon in itself is a full buildup - scenery, music, monsters - they all draw close and create the atmosphere you want. (I remember being in awe entering the last dungeon in Tales of Symphonia 2)
In SMT III aka Nocturne you literally climb a gigantic pyramidic tower to reach the last boss, and even the worldarea surrounding it has different badass music.
It all gives the last fight more value, outside of "who" you are fighting. It was a glowy thing, that's all I know (well, there IS a little more .. but just .. things that explain the gameworld a little better you are in. nothing personal at all, nothing describing any sort of "character", nothing that is "villanous" in the least). It focuses more on "how" and "why" you are fighting them, as well as everything that led to this point, a reflection of sorts.
The world there is literally ending and it's perceived as a good thing, and you are putting the lid on it. That's what you are doing.
Do they have villains? Uh, maybe sometimes? Sometimes somewhere inbetween, they never are the biggest impact, nor that important tho. They are either sideshows or puppets for greater influence, or a trigger to set things into motion. It's like main vs side quests. So even if you did finish them I can totally see why that wouldn't be an important thing to remember (like in Atelier Iris etc.).
Persona 2 literally has Hitler to fight at the end, but he wasn't the one pulling the strings.
They are the peak of your journey, and where you meet the end of things.
It simply doesn't make them full characters, but more a metaphorical trial (in that way encompassing your entire gameplay / journey) giving you a similar feeling of accomplishment and satisfaction. Also, badass music and fight.
A lot of the other games (at least the ones I know) fall into similar categories.
Still, given how you perceived those games, it can also mean you value fullfledged villain characters a lot to pull you along the story. That's perfectly fine~ Just makes you know what to look out for *chuckle*
There might be little to gain for you by removing them. I hope this gives a little insight of why others feel it can make them enjoy games more.
Personally I would be fine without a big battle at the end if there are other things coming to a peak (given how I am also perfectly okay with non-combative games), similarily to how really emotional cutscenes can be a highlight without a battle involved, but I can definitely see the allure of giving a grand finale either way.
I am also perfectly fine without a villain pulling me along. They have as much draw as a wet blanket most times for me. (I find it hard to even think of any. The "villain" in shadow hearts I liked, for one, but he wasn't a simple mwahahahah villain either.. and other examples follow lol)
I like my layered cake~
Now, the SMT games I mentioned don't have end villains, but some of the most amazing end bosses I have seen in games and they carry the same quality.
I feel it is possible to have the same feeling of reaching a peak, of feeling accomplished without having to vanquish evil incarnate.
Every last dungeon in itself is a full buildup - scenery, music, monsters - they all draw close and create the atmosphere you want. (I remember being in awe entering the last dungeon in Tales of Symphonia 2)
In SMT III aka Nocturne you literally climb a gigantic pyramidic tower to reach the last boss, and even the worldarea surrounding it has different badass music.
It all gives the last fight more value, outside of "who" you are fighting. It was a glowy thing, that's all I know (well, there IS a little more .. but just .. things that explain the gameworld a little better you are in. nothing personal at all, nothing describing any sort of "character", nothing that is "villanous" in the least). It focuses more on "how" and "why" you are fighting them, as well as everything that led to this point, a reflection of sorts.
The world there is literally ending and it's perceived as a good thing, and you are putting the lid on it. That's what you are doing.
Do they have villains? Uh, maybe sometimes? Sometimes somewhere inbetween, they never are the biggest impact, nor that important tho. They are either sideshows or puppets for greater influence, or a trigger to set things into motion. It's like main vs side quests. So even if you did finish them I can totally see why that wouldn't be an important thing to remember (like in Atelier Iris etc.).
Persona 2 literally has Hitler to fight at the end, but he wasn't the one pulling the strings.
They are the peak of your journey, and where you meet the end of things.
It simply doesn't make them full characters, but more a metaphorical trial (in that way encompassing your entire gameplay / journey) giving you a similar feeling of accomplishment and satisfaction. Also, badass music and fight.
A lot of the other games (at least the ones I know) fall into similar categories.
Still, given how you perceived those games, it can also mean you value fullfledged villain characters a lot to pull you along the story. That's perfectly fine~ Just makes you know what to look out for *chuckle*
There might be little to gain for you by removing them. I hope this gives a little insight of why others feel it can make them enjoy games more.
Personally I would be fine without a big battle at the end if there are other things coming to a peak (given how I am also perfectly okay with non-combative games), similarily to how really emotional cutscenes can be a highlight without a battle involved, but I can definitely see the allure of giving a grand finale either way.
I am also perfectly fine without a villain pulling me along. They have as much draw as a wet blanket most times for me. (I find it hard to even think of any. The "villain" in shadow hearts I liked, for one, but he wasn't a simple mwahahahah villain either.. and other examples follow lol)
I like my layered cake~
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
IMO a Final Boss is important if the gameplay has been based primarily around learning fighting strategy- it's all about using the techniques you learned and the power you've gained to pass a final challenge. If you're not going to have any final boss fight, it's important to rejigger the gameplay so that it's focused on something else.
Much like any other narrative, there generally needs to be a sense of rising action in the gameplay, with things gradually getting more challenging, coming to a climax (each boss battle), then dropping back a bit before repeating to a higher level:
Ideally, the gameplay narrative and the story narrative are both rising at roughly the same rate, peaking with each climax. (In the case of JRPGs, a boss battle.)
A battle-based gameplay with no final boss makes the game feel like there's no climax to gameplay, unless things have been planned to lead the player in that direction from the start. (I'm not really sure how one would do that, which is why I'm so interested in this discussion in general: it feels like a cool way to explore different gameplay.)
A villainless narrative with a final boss needs some careful consideration, or else it feels like the boss battle is a bit out of left field. I can see this working as some kind of "final test," guardian of a maguffin, or the like, but in order to keep the rising action going properly, there's should probably be an unrelated story climax in there as well.
It's tricky, but doable.
Much like any other narrative, there generally needs to be a sense of rising action in the gameplay, with things gradually getting more challenging, coming to a climax (each boss battle), then dropping back a bit before repeating to a higher level:
Ideally, the gameplay narrative and the story narrative are both rising at roughly the same rate, peaking with each climax. (In the case of JRPGs, a boss battle.)
A battle-based gameplay with no final boss makes the game feel like there's no climax to gameplay, unless things have been planned to lead the player in that direction from the start. (I'm not really sure how one would do that, which is why I'm so interested in this discussion in general: it feels like a cool way to explore different gameplay.)
A villainless narrative with a final boss needs some careful consideration, or else it feels like the boss battle is a bit out of left field. I can see this working as some kind of "final test," guardian of a maguffin, or the like, but in order to keep the rising action going properly, there's should probably be an unrelated story climax in there as well.
It's tricky, but doable.
Red_Nova
Sir Redd of Novus: He who made Prayer of the Faithless that one time, and that was pretty dang rad! :D
9192
If you don't want to have a climactic final battle with a main bad guy (or if you don't have a main bad guy in the first place), then it's generally a good idea to replace that fight with something else. If you're taking the psychological character development route, then that finale could be some major revelation that changes the entire premise of the story. It could be that you were chasing a villain throughout the game, but that "villain" was nothing more than an illusion created by the protagonist, and the peak of the story is finally tracking down this "villain" and learning this. Play it right, and it could pay off just as much as an actual battle would.
You could potentially ease the blow of not having a final battle if, near the end of the game, your party members get picked off one by one by the enemy. And not in the, "I didn't actually see them die so they could come back in a grand hype moment," but actually KILL them. If you had five party members for most of the game, but arrive in final stage with only one, I doubt many players are going to be certain that a huge, epic boss fight awaits them.
You could potentially ease the blow of not having a final battle if, near the end of the game, your party members get picked off one by one by the enemy. And not in the, "I didn't actually see them die so they could come back in a grand hype moment," but actually KILL them. If you had five party members for most of the game, but arrive in final stage with only one, I doubt many players are going to be certain that a huge, epic boss fight awaits them.
author=Rys
It's funny because all mentioned games here that are said to have a complex villains and still were received well, are games I either never finished because I found them too boring or I finished but can't even remember what the villain was. So I guess I can't really comment on them.
Do most of those games even have a villain?
I'm not bagging on you dude, but I think a lot of the disconnect between our ideas is that for as long as I've known you, you've only seemed to really like JRPGs/anime based games and not much else!
You like what you like and that's fine, but it can be inherently limiting, especially when it comes to conversations on writing.
RyaReisender
200
Nobody finishes all games or even just a large amount of games he gets, so not knowing all final villains in existence would be an issue for literally everyone.
I know what villains and stories I like.
I would play games of all genres if they were good. it's not like I don't give other genres a chance at all just because they are another genre. Not my fault that JRPGs have the best villains. :p
I know what villains and stories I like.
I would play games of all genres if they were good. it's not like I don't give other genres a chance at all just because they are another genre. Not my fault that JRPGs have the best villains. :p
But your tastes can definitely influence your input in a discussion. I'm not knocking your contribution to the topic, it just seems to be fundamentally limited in my opinion!
RyaReisender
200
Everyone's taste limits his input in a discussion.
Seems like you are fixed on that thought that Kefka and Sephiroth are not actually the best villains ever, so you want to talk with people who are more into "political" villains. What's wrong with coming in and pointing out that Kefka and Sephiroth really are the best villains? What is a discussion without different viewpoints.
Also even in JRPGs there many different villains. The E.G.G. in SaGaFrontier 2 and the final boss in Unlimited Saga are for example ones which I consider a natural disaster. SaGaFrontier 1 has 7 villains that are all not very deep so I wouldn't mention those even though SGF is my favorite game of all time. There are also political villains in JRPGs, Suikoden for example. But I just didn't like them. They all seem so meaningless when they don't go psycho and kill everyone.
Seems like you are fixed on that thought that Kefka and Sephiroth are not actually the best villains ever, so you want to talk with people who are more into "political" villains. What's wrong with coming in and pointing out that Kefka and Sephiroth really are the best villains? What is a discussion without different viewpoints.
Also even in JRPGs there many different villains. The E.G.G. in SaGaFrontier 2 and the final boss in Unlimited Saga are for example ones which I consider a natural disaster. SaGaFrontier 1 has 7 villains that are all not very deep so I wouldn't mention those even though SGF is my favorite game of all time. There are also political villains in JRPGs, Suikoden for example. But I just didn't like them. They all seem so meaningless when they don't go psycho and kill everyone.
RyaReisender
200
Btw, next to Kefka and Sephiroth, my other favorite villain is Lezard Valeth who is quite a bit different. He is actually driven by love, but what makes him a great villain is how far he is willing to go for it.
author=Rys
Seems like you are fixed on that thought that Kefka and Sephiroth are not actually the best villains ever, so you want to talk with people who are more into "political" villains. What's wrong with coming in and pointing out that Kefka and Sephiroth really are the best villains? What is a discussion without different viewpoints.
Your viewpoints are your own! I'm just saying what I personally believe. Also it's just 'The Egg', it's not an acronym.
