Good Villains Make Good Stories

[Emiscary]

Well it's true. And I bring it up because games tend to miss this point quite alot (AAA games in particular). How often have you played a game in which your ultimate adversary was a lame cardboard cutout of a dictator? Or an unreasonably spiteful species of alien that communicates mostly in angry gargles? Or a cartoonishly evil caricature of a real world ethnicity? Or... a big angry dragon (one of the worst offenders).

Bottom line guys: a memorable antagonist is one of the most important aspects of a story- arguably even more important than a memorable *protagonist*. This is why The Dark Knight was spectacular (RIP Mr. Ledger), and Batman Begins was just good (Raz-al-ghul? I guess that's fine...). It's also probably why the first 2 Mass Effect games had endings that built anticipation and got people excited (Harbinger, Sovereign), and the last one... well that's already well documented (a glowing 6 year old? c'mon...).

As for some examples of what I consider to be good villains? Anton Chigurh (AKA the coin toss guy from "No Country for Old Men"), The Terminator, The Elder God (Legacy of Kain), The Predator, Detective Stansfield (The Professional), etc.

 

[TheIronRuler]

Noximilian from Wakfu is an interesting villain. He has an item that if charged with energy would allow him to turn back time. He lost his family and now he will stop at NOTHING to Drain that energy and go back in time. He will destroy every single artefact and compress it to energy, going as far as killing dragons and entire races. I love this kind of villain because in his mind it is all justified -
He will turn back time with this energy, and thus he will return to his happy days AND all of his evil and murderous actions would have been WIPED! All because he turned back the clock. Brilliant! I was rooting for the villain at some points!
Wakfu is an animated series in French, if you were wondering what I was babbling about.

 

[Emiscary]

... if you missed Harbinger on the first playthrough of ME2, you musta been filing paperwork or jerkin' off or something while you did so...

The first freaking appearance The Collectors make opens with him "assuming direct control" of one.

 

[Sean Hollyman]

Vegeta from DBZ was a good villain, and when he turns Majin and explains you can really see where he's coming from

Vegeta>Goku

 

[Iwata]

Bottom line guys: a memorable antagonist is one of the most important aspects of a story- arguably even more important than a memorable *protagonist*. This is why The Dark Knight was spectacular (RIP Mr. Ledger), and Batman Begins was just good (Raz-al-ghul? I guess that's fine...).

I agree that proper villains make for a betters story, but I do have a problem with your example.

I like Nolan's Batman movies, but characterization has always been his problem. He neutered Gotham of any personality, and his villains are a disaster! The Scarecrow was wasted and so was Raz in the first movie. Ledger's treatment of the Joker is vastly, and I mean VASTLY overrated, and his Two-Face is as close as he ever got to doing a villain justice... until he killed him off to set up the next movie.

Again, I like Nolan's movies, but he fails to realize Batman is the least interesting character in his own comics, and that is why his movies, ultimately, and as a Batman fan, fail. And this new treatment of Bane seems to be heading in the same direction.

 

[Iwata]

I agree that proper villains make for a betters story, but I do have a problem with your example.

I like Nolan's Batman movies, but characterization has always been his problem. He neutered Gotham of any personality, and his villains are a disaster! The Scarecrow was wasted and so was Raz in the first movie. Ledger's treatment of the Joker is vastly, and I mean VASTLY overrated, and his Two-Face is as close as he ever got to doing a villain justice... until he killed him off to set up the next movie.

Again, I like Nolan's movies, but he fails to realize Batman is the least interesting character in his own comics, and that is why his movies, ultimately, and as a Batman fan, fail. And this new treatment of Bane seems to be heading in the same direction.

Yeah, damn Nolan for actually trying to make the protagonist intresting and analyzing why a person would put on a mask and go fight crime. He should make Batman the incredibly dull goody-two shoes with a dull voice who just stops crime because "it's right" and because he's better than anyone else.

I like Nolans movies because they try to analyze the character of Bruce Wayne and point out that, yes, he is in fact just as extremely batshit crazy as those he fight.

Balance, my good man. Balance! You don't just casually dismiss the strongest characters in a franchise because you want to explore the protagonist further without the presence of his strongest assets.

I know it's not exactly "popular" to badmouth this franchise, but as comic book adaptations, in my opinion, they fail miserably. I don't see on the screen any of the characters I read about in the books. I understand it's a re-invention, but I'll stick with Burton's movies for Batman flicks... and I don't even like the man.

 

[Sixcess]

... if you missed Harbinger on the first playthrough of ME2, you musta been filing paperwork or jerkin' off or something while you did so...

The first freaking appearance The Collectors make opens with him "assuming direct control" of one.

Yeah, but that's kinda all he does. He's more meme than vil- I AM ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL.

*ahem*

Sometimes it's true, sometimes it isn't. I find it's more common in movies than video games really, but there aren't many video games that cut away to show us what the villains do, not as often as movies do anyway. I always found that "meanwhile on the bad guy's ship..." scene in ME1 rather odd - especially as it's the only time they do it.

 

[pure.Wasted]

I know it's not exactly "popular" to badmouth this franchise, but as comic book adaptations, in my opinion, they fail miserably. I don't see on the screen any of the characters I read about in the books. I understand it's a re-invention, but I'll stick with Burton's movies for Batman flicks... and I don't even like the man.

But Nolan's franchise doesn't exist to please fans of the Batman comics. It's "simply" meant to be a great film that happens to be inspired by the Batman mythos. If you're a fan of the art of films above all, there's a very good chance you'll like it. And if you're more a Batman fan than that, there's a chance you'll like it and a chance you won't, and that'll depend on which iteration of the characters you grew up with, whether it was the Silver Age or the DarkGrim 80s or the DCAU with Hamill and North or Burton's movies, and how Nolan's vision collides with your particular vision. If it collides well, you'll hit it off, if it doesn't, you'll think it's overrated, doesn't have the right atmosphere, doesn't have the right personalities, so on and so forth. Stop thinking of it in terms of a Batman film and you'll enjoy it far, far more.



The OP's point is very true. An interesting antagonist will raise the quality of an otherwise dull enterprise. I can't think of a better example than Death Note. Without L, there would quite literally be no story, no plot, no suspense, nothing, however amazing and supernatural things might have been leading up to his introduction.

In terms of games... the bad guys in Starcraft: Brood War and Warcraft 3/The Frozen Throne were quite interesting, because more often than not they were just other characters in the story, through whose eyes you'd get to see the plot before the game was done. DuGalle, Stukov, Kerrigan, Illidan, Maiev, Arthas, they absolutely made the story more memorable. ME2's Harbinger wasn't that great. He was memorable enough, but didn't really elevate the story to any new peaks through his presence. Joker and Scarecrow in Arkham Asylum were pretty great, though. One of them was literally capable of changing the gameplay any time he showed up, turning the game into a nightmarish platformer, while the other was very well characterized and written. Hamill did a fantabulous job.

 

[GothmogII]

Are some of you using villain in the sense of the being a 'bad guy' or an 'antagonist'? It's the latter that adds significantly to a compelling story. A villain can take any place in a story and will do little to save a game's story if they only feature barely.

For example, take Dragon Age's so-called 'Archdemon'. It was a villainous creature, sure, but it failed utterly as an antagonist, and as a result the whole game suffered for it. Intelligent my ass, the thing was a mindless beast, only there for a mildly diverting climactic boss fight. If anything Loghain fulfils this role for much of the game, but even he stops being this, although this of course would mean accepting him as the primary antagonist.

Antagonists don't need to be evil, but they do need to be a counterpoint to the protagonist. They more often then not play the role of the hero mirrored, the villain, however the idea is they should be driving the protagonist in some way, either through rivalry, opposing goals or because of having wronged the protagonist somewhere in their pasts. Those are just a few examples though, and there's all sorts of variations.

 

[Scow2]

Harbinger was more memorable as a meme than a villain. Saren and Sovereign, on the other hand, were far better.

But not as good as the Villains of the Baldur's Gate series.

I like Truth from the Halo series, partially because I ignored the Books, which degraded him into standard "Lure these people with lies to their own destruction BECAUSE I'M GENERICALLY EVIL CHURCH-GUY!", instead of the much more genuinely zealous, megalomaniacal character presented in the game (Most telling moment: his dying words)

Are some of you using villain in the sense of the being a 'bad guy' or an 'antagonist'? It's the latter that adds significantly to a compelling story. A villain can take any place in a story and will do little to save a game's story if they only feature barely.

For example, take Dragon Age's so-called 'Archdemon'. It was a villainous creature, sure, but it failed utterly as an antagonist, and as a result the whole game suffered for it. Intelligent my ass, the thing was a mindless beast, only there for a mildly diverting climactic boss fight. If anything Loghain fulfils this role for much of the game, but even he stops being this, although this of course would mean accepting him as the primary antagonist.

Antagonists don't need to be evil, but they do need to be a counterpoint to the protagonist. They more often then not play the role of the hero mirrored, the villain, however the idea is they should be driving the protagonist in some way, either through rivalry, opposing goals or because of having wronged the protagonist somewhere in their pasts. Those are just a few examples though, and there's all sorts of variations.

The real villain/antagonist of Dragon Age was... that wannabe king guy and former hero (I have no clue how to spell the name). The Archdemon was just an unknowable cosmic abomination. He didn't have to be "Deep", "Complex", or "Compelling". He just had to be "There".

Also, as Yahtzee pointed out: Bowser is the most interesting character in the Mario games. Sure, he kidnaps the princess, but he's also known to team up with Mario in other cases, they take time out to go play sports with each other as well.

 

[Seishisha]

I'd be willing to extend to that "good characters make good stories" in my personal experiance, i always tend to enjoy games more if the character is portrayed well, even if the role is cliché if done well it doesnt matter. I find it hard to get invested in the story of legend of zelda because link is such a non-character, even though the games are mechanicly simular i found darksiders to be a better experiance just because war has some atleast some personality.

 

[217not237]

The Boss, Kefka, Sephiroth, Saren... they were all the main reasons I liked their games!

 

[NerfedFalcon]

It's been 16 posts.

How has nobody else brought up GLaDOS

Spoiler: Epic spoiler for Portal 2

and Wheatley

yet?

 

[Emiscary]

GLaDOS has been mentioned, she just wasn't namedropped.

 

[Pinkamena]

Many games without clear villains have been really good. Take the Half Life series. Sure, the "main baddie" was Dr. Breen in HL2 and Ep.1, but he was more of a puppet than a villain.

 

[Terrible Opinions]

Hey, look. This thread hasn't gone too far yet, so what I'm about to say might not get totally god damn buried under lists of names that I agree with (The Joker, Jon Irenicus) and disagree with (I could never take Saren and his Back to the Future hoverboard seriously).

Ya wanna know why villains and antagonists are often more interesting than heroes and protagonists?

Because it's the villains and the antagonists who drive most plots. The heroes and the protagonists are purely reactive forces. The bad guys have goals. They have motivation. They want change. This is inherently more dynamic and interesting for the audience. Heroes and protagonists usually stand for order and homeostasis. The story starts without them because if it was up to them there would be no story.

This setup - antagonist as driver, protagonist as reactive force - is not a matter of necessity, but it's the way a shitload of books and films and games are plotted.