DEATH AND ANTAGONISM: COOL VILLAINS
Posts
author=slashphoenixauthor=DudesoftSee, that's why I liked Kefka. Yea, he was cliche and wanted to destroy the world and became a god and all that, but at least he didn't half-ass some lame story about his mom, he was just like "Man maybe it'd be fun to commit genocide today" and then he did it.
I don't really like RPG villains. They're usually some really lameass anime guy who wants to destroy the world. Easy to make fun of, but really not interesting.
Doho but sephiroth has a long sword so powerful no one else can wield and he becomes a god Dohohoho fapfapfap
Actually, he still falls in the same category. Just some guy out to blow up the world, and some plucky team has to stop him. It's the same thing. Difference is that Kefka doesn't have mommy issues, just a clown fetish.
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
Rufus was a good villain. Golbez was too, actually. And Kuja, and a lot of other "disc 1 main villains". In an American production, defeating them would probably be the end of the game.
Japanese fantasy stories have a tendency to pull out the "Hooray, we defeated the meaningful villain that we have a personal grudge against who has personally done awful things to the protagonist... but wait! He actually is, or was actually being controlled by, an eldritch entity who has been manipulating our team's every action from the start, and is trying to sacrifice all life on the planet in order to become/revive a god!"
On the flip side, Japanese people probably look at American productions and are like, "What the hell? I beat the villain I've known about since the beginning of the game, and that's IT? Nothing else? God damn, that's anticlimactic. He wasn't even a god or anything."
Cultural differences, or something.
Japanese fantasy stories have a tendency to pull out the "Hooray, we defeated the meaningful villain that we have a personal grudge against who has personally done awful things to the protagonist... but wait! He actually is, or was actually being controlled by, an eldritch entity who has been manipulating our team's every action from the start, and is trying to sacrifice all life on the planet in order to become/revive a god!"
On the flip side, Japanese people probably look at American productions and are like, "What the hell? I beat the villain I've known about since the beginning of the game, and that's IT? Nothing else? God damn, that's anticlimactic. He wasn't even a god or anything."
Cultural differences, or something.
author=Dudesoft
Actually, he still falls in the same category. Just some guy out to blow up the world, and some plucky team has to stop him. It's the same thing. Difference is that Kefka doesn't have mommy issues, just a clown fetish.
I know! That's my point, his goal is ridiculous and so is he. They didn't try and legitimize his goal, they just made him insane and everything he does reflects that. Sephiroth's goals don't even really make sense, but FF7 tries to make them make sense anyway.
That being said, a more humanized villain can be very cool, but usually he makes for a terrible end boss :P I know there are some good ones, I just forget.
I should stop talking smack tbh. I look at antagonist in the literary way that they're just someone with conflicting goals of the protagonist. However, in most of my stories, I have a villain who is anime or a vivid opposite of the protagonist. Very seldom is it just some guy for me.
I think I've just been talking about my ideals, something I'm trying to learn to utilize.
In the upcoming Radio Drama, the antagonist isn't even a bad guy.
I think I've just been talking about my ideals, something I'm trying to learn to utilize.
In the upcoming Radio Drama, the antagonist isn't even a bad guy.
author=DudesoftI actually agree with this, and I think more games should be doing it! I think giving a hero an antagonist that isn't really an EVIL MASTERMIND~ but has an opposing goal makes the hero more interesting. I don't like it when the heroes are right and the bad guys are wrong - a morally ambiguous protagonist is much more attractive to me, and makes for a far more interesting conflict, I think.
I look at antagonist in the literary way that they're just someone with conflicting goals of the protagonist....In the upcoming Radio Drama, the antagonist isn't even a bad guy.
Also, it fuels inner-party conflict, which is simply delightful. I LOVE inner party conflict. <3
author=emmych
I actually agree with this, and I think more games should be doing it! I think giving a hero an antagonist that isn't really an EVIL MASTERMIND~ but has an opposing goal makes the hero more interesting. I don't like it when the heroes are right and the bad guys are wrong - a morally ambiguous protagonist is much more attractive to me, and makes for a far more interesting conflict, I think.
Also, it fuels inner-party conflict, which is simply delightful. I LOVE inner party conflict. <3
I remember, in the first RPG Maker game I actually spent a long time on, the hero and the villain were just competing businessmen :P the villain had owned a rival company that the hero drove out of business (legitimately) and he was driven by jealous and hate.
It was actually quite cool, you had the hero, who was a rich dude, and he lived in a rich city that had walled itself off from monsters, but it was small and the ones who couldn't afford to live there bunched together in the slums outside the city wall... there was even a big elevator that lowered you to the ghetto. The big baddie was your rival businessman, who was trying to get the poor to gather together and rebel against you.
Gah, I wish I had had better scope back then, maybe I would have had a chance to finish it.















