Poll: Hero or Anti-Hero?

[bug_of_war]

Interesting hero = Interesting anti-hero > interesting villain > boring villain > boring hero > boring anti-hero.

I think interesting heros and ant-heros are equal to each other in the sense that they are technically fighting for the same thing, but have different reasons/interests which is what makes them interesting. For example, you have characters like John Marston from Red Dead Redemption whom are technically on a righteous path and intent on being good, but they're still an anti hero seeing as how they are only doing good for selfish reasons (his family/his criminal history). Then you have characters like Leon from the Resident Evil Franchise, he's constantly been shown as being the generic always do good guy character, but he's not your regular do gooder. He is willing to kill (it is kind of part of his job description after all), he's got a personality and is generally an interesting heroic character. As for villains I rarely care about whether they are good or bad, but I always prefer an interesting one over a dull villain. A good villain in my opinion is one similar to Handsome Jack in Borderlands 2, he sees the player as nothing more than an insect and has some great sections where you can tell he is not focusing entirely on what you're doing. As the game further progresses (such as when you start actually fucking up his plans and kill his girlfriend) he begins to take you more seriously. When he talks to you, you can tell that while he still thinks you're not a big deal, he is starting to get annoyed at you. Then once you

Spoiler

kill his daughter

he is pissed. But even during that fight you can see him pleading/begging for you not to do it, while also throwing in threats.

Now onto the bad side, while a bad villain wont ruin the game for me, it can effect my perception on how much I can care for beating him. The Arishock in Dragon Age 2 kind of falls under this category, but not because he is poorly developed, but because everything he does and says makes sense. Instead of seeing him as a villain who has some points but is still wrong, I see him as a guy who has been stuck in a forign land for years, watching all this crap happening and being blamed for most of it. I agreed with almost everything he said and saw him as someone who was at their breaking point because of all these spineless douchebags. DA2 made me think the villain was the hero, and that my character was just someone who wanted everything to stay neutral. A bad hero is worse than a bad villain for obvious reasons, you're generally playing the hero. Personally I thought Jason Brody in Far Cry 3 was a bad hero because his actions seemed inconsistant. For example, you run away from the camp, see your brother die, get attacked by dogs and mercanaries, then get saved and told to do all this other shit. His priorities seem to change instantly from finding his friends to helping a tribe of Maori/South African god worshipers take over an island. I get that they were trying to suggest that your character is acting that way because of the drugs he's been givin, but I rarely took the 'optional' drugs, so technically my Jason Brody should have been sober enough to realise how crazy it all was. Then also the ending, introducing the choice of taking one path or the other was stupid and I really haven't been to keen on re-playing that section, let alone the whole game because I seriously though that the protagonist was poorly developed. The reason why I dislike bad anti heros more than the others is because generally a bad anti-hero comes off as being an angsty douchebag. Dante from the latest DMC fills that category for a majority of the game (I prefer him in some of the later bits, but he starts of like such a wanker), instead of looking/acting like a badass he looks and acts like a teenager with a superiority complex. Also, when he explains about how he tried to cut out his heart, the immagery and dialogue make him look like the biggest angst ridden emo. Later on he becomes a bit better, but for a majority of the game he was a terrible anti-hero.

 

[The Madman]

I'm starting to get pretty sick of brooding anti-hero in games truth be told. Sure if done well it can be fun, but let's be honest; the vast majority of 'anti-hero' in games tend to be angsty annoying twits who's entire purpose in life seem to be acting contrary to everyone else around them and often even common sense itself.

 

[sanquin]

Well or badly written hero's don't do it for me usually. They're very one-dimensional and hard to relate to most of the time.

A badly written anti-hero becomes lame or cliché very quickly. Can very quickly become even worse than a badly written hero. A well written anti-hero though, is awesome. They're far more relate-able and more complex than most hero's I've seen.

I'm starting to get pretty sick of brooding anti-hero in games truth be told. Sure if done well it can be fun, but let's be honest; the vast majority of 'anti-hero' in games tend to be angsty annoying twits who's entire purpose in life seem to be acting contrary to everyone else around them and often even common sense itself.

An anti-hero like this would fall under the 'badly written ones.' It's harder to write a good anti-hero than a good hero, so you'll see more badly written anti-hero's than well written ones I think. Which is a shame.

 

[thejackyl]

To be fair Anti-Heroes seem to be more relate-able. Most people who do "heroics" usually do have some ulterior motive other than "It's the right thing to do". And those that do have that motive only, tend to be rather incompetent or too much of a "Hero" that they end up failing or making things worse and falling into that "Anti-Hero" area.

I don't really know how to word it better. I think it's a lot more interesting when someone is going after something more than simply being the hero, saving the girl, etc.

That being said, a relate-able villain is probably the hardest one to do, but the most effective to pull off.

I mean my username for pretty much everything (now, I don't use this one anymore unless I made it before 2009) is the villain from a game I'm making. His back story wasn't necessarily tragic, but I found it relatively relate-able. Ad despite the fact that by the end of the game he's an insane shell of who he used to be.

Spoiler: Dhallus' Backstory since no one is interested

Basically he was born a member of "The Prise" a race of humans that guides the lower lands, where "normal" humans live. He is a "Reaper", his job is to pass "God's Judgment" to those who don't get what they deserve. One day he was sent after a man who had reformed from his crimes. (A retired Mob Boss, I think was the last draft) and he was tasked with not only killing him, but his whole family(since they believed the business ran in the family... which it didn't anymore). This made him begin questioning his superiors and he began trying to find ways to overthrow the leadership of "The Prise" In the game you play as one of his subordinates and ultimately get to decide who should rule. Him, or the current rulers.

Not anything groundbreaking, but I wrote this about 9 years ago. I was proud of being able to write someone like this while I was still in High School.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

In most cases the only functional difference between the two is perspective. The hero in most games for example butchers hundreds if not thousands with little justification or provocation on their path to victory. There are few examples of characters who act in accordance with the heroic ideal throughout; the difference is if the story dwells on the fact that they commit atrocity in the service of some higher cause.

As a result, there really isn't much of a difference between the two save self-awareness.

 

[Bat Vader]

While I do think Anti-Heroes are pretty cool and usually have better stories than the hero I find villains when weitten well to be the best. Mainly because villains have more fun. Sure, most die in the end, get imprisoned, or turn good but they usually have a lot more fun and live a more interesting life.

Heroes usually have to follow a struct moral path. Anti-Heroes are given more freedom and can have more fun but will still follow some type of moral path or honor code. Villains don't though. Some will have an honor code or a moral path but most don't. They can usually do what they want when they want.

 

[Doom972]

Heroes

I kind of getting sick of jerks with hearts of gold trying so hard to look apathetic. You're neutral, but you've never seen a bus full of children you didn't jump to save. Just fucking commit and be a hero. You can keep drinking and womanizing, just stop pretending you're as much a thug/miscreant as you are a decent dude.

That's just one type of an anti-hero. For example, imagine an ambitious noble who has his own personal goals in life, that is forced into the role of the hero. That character just wants to get this role done with so that he can pursue his goals, and might even be tempted to abandon the heroic quest imposed on him if a chance presented itself.

That kind of character could decide that in certain cases, he doesn't want to do the right thing if the risk isn't proportional to the reward. A hero tries to save everyone, while an anti-hero might just want to keep himself alive through the adventure.

 

[Smiley Face]

Villains! Villains have license to surprise you, to be interesting, while heroes are so often tied down (to varying degrees) by their need to be relateable. Villains must have the ingenuity or power to be a credible threat to the heroes, who by default we expect to win, and they drive the conflict - without their move to provoke the hero, the hero would lack motivation.

Those times where you have a villain as protagonist (does that make them an anti-hero?), or at least someone strongly in the anti-hero category - Richard III, The Count of Monte Cristo - that is a rare delight.

 

[blazearmoru]

Anti-Villain bro. Where is antivillain? Q_Q

 

[Zhukov]

Uh... neither?

Heroic hero-y heroes can be dull, sure.

However, anti-heroes are hard to do well. They tend to try way to hard to be edgy. Raiden is a perfect example.

 

[Athefist]

Cugel the Clever remains the best anti-hero I've ever come across. Many modern anti-heroes really don't fit the title IMO.

 

[Gatx]

Antiheroes don't necessarily have to be that sort of morally ambiguous, badass, grimdark hero like say the Punisher or Spawn or something, they're just characters who don't have normally heroic qualities but end up doing heroic things like say Jack Sparrow, or Homer Simpson.

I personally prefer heroes more. I love that speech Aunt May gives in the second Spider-man movie about how heroes give us something to look up to and strive for. Heroes also don't have to be boring per se - I mean look at Iron Man, who would be an anti-hero I guess, except he grows a conscience which propels him into hero standing and he starts having traditional, straight on heroic traits like wanting to help people. They go through their own trials and tribulations, making personal sacrifices for the greater good, etc. so no loss from a narrative standpoint.

 

[Nouw]

How about both? Character-development is something I'd like to see more of.

 

[Vault101]

anti hero usually means asshole

it all depends on what works in the story....

I CAN be fine with an anti hero as long as their moral "rules" are ones I find acceptable within their situation (for example the bride from kill bill is a killer...however she does not kill people I'd class as innocent)

 

[Serinanth]

I give you Gerald Tarrant of the coldfire series by C.S Friedman and painted by Michael Whelan.
He skirts the Villian/Anti-hero line, but considering all the evil he has done, his lifetime average would probably be villain.

Spoiler

 

[Loonyyy]

I tend to prefer well-done anti-heros or outright villains to heros. I like Jackie Estacado (In both the games and the comics) because he's a human, and a fucked up one. He's not a jerk just to shock you (Which a lot of anti-heros tend to be), he's just not a good person. Breaking Bad's one of my favourite series at the moment, and Jesse Pinkman's probably my favourite character. And heroic types tend to be pretty bad on their own when you consider things critically, so honestly, I prefer characters who actually have a personal motive and stake.

In games it's harder to do it right, since most of them have millions of mooks, which would make any protagonist an anti-hero by the standards of any other medium. And, with the general crumminess of game storytelling, it's pretty hard to get into personal motivations, and actually care enough to believe it. And if the players given any choice, you can get serious dissonance between the gameplay and story (I liked prototype and GTA IV, but if you run off and eat the population of a small nation, or gun down and run over thousands, it gets hard for the story to portray them as anti-heros, or even villains).

 

[jhoroz]

Like somebody previously mentioned, it all depends on how well written a character is. If this was a year ago, I probably would've said Anti-heroes immediately, but considering how over-exposed anti-heroes have become in modern story-telling, to the point that simply appearing to be brooding and edgy is somehow a way of writers to convey a deep and three-dimensional character, but in actuality just come off as shallow and uninspired for the majority of times. Just look at most of the modern Final Fantasy games' characters, (especially VIII).

Of-course, those traits aren't always associated with anti-heroes (e.g. Captain Jack). The thing that I potentially like the most about anti-heroes is that they can be on their own side (i.e. true/chaotic neutral) and choose what side their on based solely on how well it advances their goals, even if those goals themselves are heroic. Good examples of this are like the previously mentioned Captain Jack Sparrow (whose goals are mostly selfish, but occasionally heroic) and Lelouch from Code Geass (who starts off as selfish at first, but gradually becomes more idealistic). When done well, it gives these type of characters an air of unpredictability compared to your more traditional, straight-laced hero, who's morality can't afford them to act this way. A good example of the clashing ideologies between anti-heroes and heroes is between Shirou and Archer from Fate/Stay Night. The former wishes to become your typical, honorable hero of justice, while the latter criticizes him that his ideals and perspective are childish and unrealistic.

Spoiler

It's subverted when Archer and Shirou turn out to be the same person, and Archer is actually the result of Shirou's future self continuously being betrayed and disillusioned by his ideals, to the point that he became the ruthless and pragmatic anti-hero that archer is today, who seeks to travel back into the past solely that he can kill his younger self in order to prevent the suffering that his ideology had caused him. It's subverted again when Shirou chooses to reject Archer's nihilistic beliefs and actually uses this as motivation to strengthen his resolve even further to follow his goals, to the point that Archer himself is convinced

The reason I mentioned Fate/Stay Night into such extensive detail is because of how well it deconstructs the traits usually associated with heroes and anti-heroes, which carries even further into its prequel, Fate/Zero, where the main protagonist who inspired Shirou to become an idealistic "hero of justice" turns out be even more ruthless and fatalistic than Archer.

 

[veloper]

An anti-hero, outside of our gaming definitions, used to mean a protagonist lacking heroic qualities, so not only morally ambiguous, but also lacking in courage, strength, etc.
So a wimp basicly.

The only game genre that commonly features a real anti-hero is the adventure game (point&click or text adventure) and even then not all that often.
Sure I had alot of fun playing Rincewind in the Discworld series, but I wouldn't want to play anti-heros exclusively. They only fit up to a point.

Even going by the badass-hero-with-an-attitude-problem definition, what is the added appeal of that exactly?
The generic VG hero can already take anything that isn't nailed down. He can kill first and ask questions later. The anti-hero's contribution to that is getting out of the wrong side of the bed each morning?

Just give me good gameplay, a nice presentation and a story that isn't totally cringeworthy and I'm content already.