MULTIPLE ANTAGONISTS

Posts

Pages: first prev 123 next last
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
author=Dyhalto
I think we can all agree on one thing : Single antagonist is little more than The Dark King, no matter how much window dressing you add.


If this is true, then by extension, multiple antagonists are little more than multiple The Dark Kings.
author=Scourge
author=eplipswich
There can also be games whereby the secondary major antagonist turns over a new leaf and helps the heroes defeat and main major antagonist and so on. Ideas, ideas :)
I'm not a huge fan of this unless there's a darn good reason for the secondary antagonist to do so. I dislike games where an antagonist joins the players because they had no idea just how evil the main villain was. (I mean, really?) If a game did this, I'd like to see that secondary antagonist join the players and then turn right around and stab them in the back after the players take down his former boss. This is a little overused as well, though.

In Chrono Trigger Magus who is introduced as a villian turns out to just be an anti-hero who is set out to destroy the same entity that you are, even tho you did not yet know of this entity yourself.

I may turn out to be a bad writer but I'm trying to write a "novel" to go along with my game. Though it will be tough since I want to make the story versitile with optional story-archs, bassed on the choices you make through-out the game. These choice will dictate which protagonists join your party and which don't and which protagonists might betray you also because of your choices (if your views eventually conflict with theirs). So I think I will most just write the central plot for the "novel" and chose my favorite story-arches for filler.

Here is a summery I wrote for something to try to catch the attention of the reader:
In a land ravished by war, and ruled by Warlords, and Nobles, a run away Kunoichi discovers the world is has been descending into darkness with the influence of accursed demon who seeks to corrupt the souls of all mankind. Once a man with a hunger for power he became the demon of nightmares, whose name has long since been forgotten. Now known only as The Nightmare, he seeks an immortal reign over the world to remold it into his own twisted image of horror, vile and disgust.
Max McGee
with sorrow down past the fence
9159
I may turn out to be a bad writer but I'm trying to write a "novel" to go along with my game. Though it will be tough since I want to make the story versitile with optional story-archs, bassed on the choices you make through-out the game. These choice will dictate which protagonists join your party and which don't and which protagonists might betray you also because of your choices (if your views eventually conflict with theirs). So I think I will most just write the central plot for the "novel" and chose my favorite story-arches for filler.

You misspelled versatile and you mean "story arcs" not "story-archs". This probably isn't an exhaustive list of the mistakes in this paragraph either. And RMN forums have a spell-checker which caught these mistakes. So...

This does not bode well for the novel.

By the way, "kunoichi" means "female ninja". Unless all of the sentences after the first in that "summery" are describing the demon, not the protagonist.
author=LockeZ
author=Dyhalto
I think we can all agree on one thing : Single antagonist is little more than The Dark King, no matter how much window dressing you add.
If this is true, then by extension, multiple antagonists are little more than multiple The Dark Kings.

Multiple antagonist allows the antagonists to play off against each other, in alliance or rivalry, and create more depth in the storyline. Even the most basic "I'm not the true boss. He is" adds an extra layer (though thin).
Single antagonist, no matter what justification you give him, becomes the Big Bad trope in very short order. Multiple-angle conflict is then delegated to his henchmen or one-shots (like Bikke the Pirate) while he remains untouched and unassailable until the very end.

This is all assuming we're talking about Man vs Man. Not Society, Self or Nature.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
I'm pretty sure you can make a game where there's only one main villain, but he interacts with the heroes and with other characters constantly throughout the game, and you both touch him and assail him numerous times.

Hell, the Pokemon games are like that. You always fight your rival the first time in your hometown, again in the second town, and again several more times as the game progresses. You're on very equal terms with him; he's not ruling from a castle at the center of the earth, he's your rival, travelling along a similar route to you and clashing with you every step of the way. You could easily do the same thing in a game with a real plot.

The antagonist doesn't have to be trying to destroy the world. Doesn't have to be responsible for every bad thing that happens in the game. He or she just has to be opposed to the protagonist.
Rivalry is a bad example because the conflict is more Man vs Self. The rival is there to provide a progress barometer. The 'antagonist' is the hero's own innate resistance to push his limits and better himself (corny as it sounds). It can also be assumed the rival is going through the same struggle.
If the rival stays on par with the hero then nothing changes and the game ends with "I won because I ate Wheaties". If something happens and he leaps several tiers ahead in power, he leaves rival realm and approaches big bad guy status (even though his motives may not be bad).

In hindsight, my invoking of the 'Big Bad' trope is wrong. I only meant the overreaching, all-powerful characteristics. Not the parts where everything bad is his doing.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Well the rival in Pokemon feels like that because there is no real conflict with him, especially in some of the later games. So you're right, in that example, the goal of the game is not to beat him, it's to become the GREATEST POKEMON MASTER

But it doesn't have to be like that. Like, okay, let's take, for example... uh. Erm.

Yeah okay I have no examples. Fighting/racing games, maybe?

Which RPG Maker game was it where the main villain repossessed your house, and the goal of the game was to get the house back from him? I think it was The Most Stupidest Game Ever? Not really relevant to my point, but still an interesting and funny case, and possibly relevant to the topic in general I guess.
Max McGee
with sorrow down past the fence
9159
Characters who are are neither 'heros' nor 'villains' are good to include also. In fact, in some games, all characters are like that.
I hate to bring up Xenogears again, but I think it's absolutely the best example of a narrative which has a shit ton of antagonists who are allied, fight each other, stab each others backs, and switch sides, sometimes doing all of the above at the exact same time.
author=Max McGee
I may turn out to be a bad writer but I'm trying to write a "novel" to go along with my game. Though it will be tough since I want to make the story versitile with optional story-archs, bassed on the choices you make through-out the game. These choice will dictate which protagonists join your party and which don't and which protagonists might betray you also because of your choices (if your views eventually conflict with theirs). So I think I will most just write the central plot for the "novel" and chose my favorite story-arches for filler.
You misspelled versatile and you mean "story arcs" not "story-archs". This probably isn't an exhaustive list of the mistakes in this paragraph either. And RMN forums have a spell-checker which caught these mistakes. So...

This does not bode well for the novel.

By the way, "kunoichi" means "female ninja". Unless all of the sentences after the first in that "summery" are describing the demon, not the protagonist.


I am a horrible speller, but MS Word has a spell and grammar check that I rely on, unfortunitly I was not aware that this forum had a spell checking. I can't seem to find it though. If it is automatic, it doesn't show up for me. Thanks for the constructive criticism, I will try to add more information about the protagonist.

I had writen out a longer post because I misunderstood what you said a little. I was a little offended when you were telling me what "kunoichi" means, until I reread what you said before I sent my response. I wasn't attacking or anything, just stating why I was offended. But anywho, the following sentences are infact about the demon. I guess I need to work on my paragraph to clarify this more. A reader should be able to easily follow along, and it is appearent that I did not accomplish this. Again I like to thank you for your constructive criticism.
This... is a hard topic for me to explain in words. Even when there's more than one antagonist, there must be something that can set them apart in a sense that their intentions are not so clean cut. I'll try giving out samples at the best of my knowledge...

There can be antagonists who looks upon the protagonist/ main character with contempt, as he/she is not convinced of his/her potential and needs to prove whether that person is not fit to go on with the quest or prove their conclusion wrong. This antagonist can be recruited at the right circumstances, becoming influential allies.

There are antagonists who are manipulative in some form or way. It can be a usurper pulling the strings that can instigate a war that spreads over the world, or an enigmatic being who controls the protagonist's destiny and guides the intended fate. In some case, the protagonist does not face that antagonist, rather the allies would do the work due any justified reason.

There's also antagonists who are focused on their self-focused intentions. Ranges from greedy tyrants to a vulnerable innocent turning into a cruel villain by an unfortunate incident. This feels like a textbook selfish villain, though, fallen by a hero, typical or otherwise.

And... uh... I'm going to need some time recollecting more antagonist archetypes. This may take a while, since I have played so many games through out the ages, starting from the age of the SNES and the original Game Boy.

*starts to contemplate*
I think I like the Golden Sun method too, which is what I use in Blackmoon Prophecy. I have three antagonistic forces (four at one point, but the fourth goes out of the picture pretty quickly).

Unlike what you describe, none of my three ever interact with one another. One is an evil empire (think FF6), one is a being who wants to take over the planet (no example needed) and the other is a race of cross dimensional beings that see YOU (the player) as a bad guy who must be stopped. They all have their own agendas and they don't overlap or anything until basically the end. I did this to leave the player thinking "which one of these three am I going to be left to fight with at the very end?"
author=UPRC
I think I like the Golden Sun method too, which is what I use in Blackmoon Prophecy. I have three antagonistic forces (four at one point, but the fourth goes out of the picture pretty quickly).

Unlike what you describe, none of my three ever interact with one another. One is an evil empire (think FF6), one is a being who wants to take over the planet (no example needed) and the other is a race of cross dimensional beings that see YOU (the player) as a bad guy who must be stopped. They all have their own agendas and they don't overlap or anything until basically the end. I did this to leave the player thinking "which one of these three am I going to be left to fight with at the very end?"


The antagonist who opposes the protagonist due to the protagonist's negative background or reputation is probably one of the types I overlooked or forgot... That one I sometimes notice in novels... but there's one of them that still eludes my recollection.
author=Scourge
I've seen this topic debated on a few other forums, so I thought I'd bring it up here. How do you folks feel about a video game having more than one antagonist?

How's that a debate? A good storyteller would know the limitations of their craft, and thus write an appropriate number of antagonists. If you think it's more than you can handle, don't do it. The possibility isn't under question, I'm sure it is possible to have even well-developed multiple antagonists. It's rare because good writers are, not because it's a bad thing to do. It also takes time, and a well crafted world needs naught but one major antagonist, so even good writers are drawn away from that.

I can't honestly see a debate in that. :/

Of course I believe that an antagonist isn't necessarily a villain, the antagonist can very well be your own mother!
Vianoce, keep your games and your writing as separate as possible or they will mess each other up.
author=Billwilliams
Vianoce, keep your games and your writing as separate as possible or they will mess each other up.


Maybe your right. I just thought it might be fun to try. :) I will most likely follow your advice though.
In my current project, I'm gonna do something like this:

There are two villains, one obvious and one not so obvious. the obvious villain goes around causing all of the problems in the game world, while the lesser obvious villain silently observes the player's actions, and might even be perceived as a good guy at first. After events transpire that take out the obvious bad guy, the other steps in and fills in all the holes about what's really going on, and assumes the position for "big baddy".

Not saying that this method is awesome or original or anything, but it works quite well in my game. Since my game has a satirical yet philosophical theme, the villains are there to symbolize certain ideas rather than be just a plot twist.
chana
(Socrates would certainly not contadict me!)
1584
Interesting!
On the subject of silent antagonists:

It would be cool if someone made a silent Antagonist that also acts as an Oracle. Your death is prophesied by this Oracle, who would have spoken the truth if he had not lied. Defying an Oracles words though, takes courage and skill.

To sell the point - as so it does not appear so obvious - this Oracle could act in your favor telling you how certain events unfold. Even events that save your life in several occasions. Until the last occasion when, Bam!, the Oracle could no longer be trusted.

Then you wonder if the Oracle had been telling the future, or fabricating events as you made your way along the story. Was event "x" a hoax, or a legit foresighted event?
Not a legit foresighted event I think. If the Oracle could foretell the future, he would have known that he would be defeated in the end. Then he would not have tried to save the player by foretelling event "x". Or maybe he's a playa and likes to gamble, so he helps them just to see if he can really handle them in the end. That is so not the typical Oracle.
Pages: first prev 123 next last