spoilers What do you look for in main antagonists?

[Rezanta 373]

I just love good antagonists, like Xemnas, Darkrai, my character Xerain, and so on. But, something irks me when people make/write/have a needed piece to a puzzle as too bland, or bleak in his/her/its goals. I mean, I can't bash them if the overall game play is good, but when the whole game is focused directly on it, then I can't really follow. For example, in my games, Xerian is out to kill the gods of Scalvose to reign as the strongest being. However, Will, Wane, Lek, and others always stop him, even though there's always somebody else ripping holes in peace. In PMD, things like Darkrai and the Bittercold are both out to end the world. (Ironically both in darkness) Darkrai goes so far as to almost kill you, cause you to be taken away from the world, send you away with Dusknoir into the future, and then even then, he causes Dialgia to rampage. Xemnas, in Kingdom Hearts 2, plays with the hero, Sora, and as the game progresses, you get that taste for wanting to kill Xemnas, Siax, and the rest of Organization XIII. Problem is... You can't find where they are and they're stealing the hearts of innocent lives.

 

Examples of poor antagonists? Well, In some games, like Colourblind (Although I love the game), there's little interaction with the antagonist, besides chasing him down in levels to rescue your friend. Pokemon Mystery Dungeon: Gates To Infinity also screwed up be having the story short and game play more to the player just wandering. Sure, they made a slight bounce back when the Voice of the Earth, Hydreigon, was frozen, killed, and shattered into dust by Kyrum, with you nearly following the same fate. However, you only interact with the main antagonist, Kyrum, for three to four times, and then boom! Bittercold, who's just a giant light eating snowflake of ice. You get one fight, win, and done! Game beat.

What are your opinions of good and bad antagonists, and what do you expect?

[xoferew 261]

I like an antagonist who has some little sliver of something human and sympathetic and relateable about them.  Perhaps they were a brave fighter like yourself until they became blinded by vengeance or corrupted with power or twisted by obsessive love.  An abstract godlike being is not as relateable.  And I prefer they should be at least discussed many times way ahead of the final fight even if you don't actually meet them until near the end. 

[+ CVincent 234]

A good antagonist is should be related with just as well as any other main character. The antagonist doesn't even have to be the "bad guy" who does bad things; they can simply be another character in the story who has motives that conflict with the protagonist's intentions.

 

Sometimes you'll see the opposite in games where the protagonist has otherwise questionable morals or motives, but to the player you might consider these characters to be the heroes of the game.

 

Personally I've found many games I've played have made antagonists to be very simple or straightforward characters. While there's not much wrong with that, I think that it'd arguably be better to make antagonist much like the protagonist except with an alternative means of reaching their goals.

 

For example I'm really not into games that have a whole plot based around stopping the antagonist who happens to be some crazy villain that has hopes of destroying the world. It just seems unreasonable to expect that all of these characters need to be disturbing peace in some form or another. When you finally strike a balance between making the antagonist interesting and easy to relate with while not removing their human emotions or values, that's when you'll have created a character worth the player's time invested into getting to know them.

 

All in all, I'd say being creative with antagonists is just as important as with any other main character. Avoiding "bad guy" character behavioural tendencies can make them unique and fun to learn more about as the game progresses.

[+ Chaosian 617]

A good antagonist is should be related with just as well as any other main character. The antagonist doesn't even have to be the "bad guy" who does bad things; they can simply be another character in the story who has motives that conflict with the protagonist's intentions.

 

Sometimes you'll see the opposite in games where the protagonist has otherwise questionable morals or motives, but to the player you might consider these characters to be the heroes of the game.

 

Personally I've found many games I've played have made antagonists to be very simple or straightforward characters. While there's not much wrong with that, I think that it'd arguably be better to make antagonist much like the protagonist except with an alternative means of reaching their goals.

 

For example I'm really not into games that have a whole plot based around stopping the antagonist who happens to be some crazy villain that has hopes of destroying the world. It just seems unreasonable to expect that all of these characters need to be disturbing peace in some form or another. When you finally strike a balance between making the antagonist interesting and easy to relate with while not removing their human emotions or values, that's when you'll have created a character worth the player's time invested into getting to know them.

 

All in all, I'd say being creative with antagonists is just as important as with any other main character. Avoiding "bad guy" character behavioural tendencies can make them unique and fun to learn more about as the game progresses.

 

All very good advice, but I think I'd like to add emphasis to a key word here: "motivation". Blowing up the world, is a terrible motivation, because omnicide and suicide very rarely cross paths and world domination is hardly any better with how stock and shallow it is. If the villain's motivation can in a twisted or even perfectly sound way be seen as understandable, loftier, or even more noble than the hero's, then there's a lot of very interesting ideas that can be reached very quickly.

 

I'm not much a fan of the word "villain", myself, because I far more enjoy the more ambiguous "antagonists". Watch Blade Runner, play or read Metro 2033, Spec Ops, or even Dark Souls - then tell me who the "villain" is.

I dig nuance and depth, and I think the ideas behind the antagonist should be just as fleshed out, if not even more fleshed out than the hero. Fiction is based upon conflict, and the antagonist is the avatar of the conflict, if your antagonist doesn't work, your fiction doesn't work. There's something to be said for very classic stories of good and evil, but there's nothing that hasn't already been said a hundred times over with that dynamic - media, especially games, is ready to take a step beyond simplistic black and white world views.

[lonequeso 1,921]

Depends on the type of game. Mario 64 barely has a story. So having Bowser presented in the way he is, works perfectly. No need for a deep seeded motive or elaboration on how and why he wants to conquer the Mushroom Kingdom. He does because he's the villain. How does he do it? Magic. Done.

 

If you're talking about a more story driven game, I personally like an antagonist who's complex and deep. I have nothing against making a villain whose evil incarnate and wants to destroy the world because that's what evil villains do. Whichever category the antagonist falls into, has to be consistent with the story. If all the story and the heroes are deep and complex, having a very one-dimensional villain doesn't fit together well and vice versa. 

 

As I said before, I like more complex villains. That because when it comes to RPG's I like more complex stories. I like when they have a well-thought out plan. The ones where they always seem to be one step ahead of the heroes or, even better, are manipulating them into doing exactly what the antagonist wants.

 

I really like it when you see more than one side of the antagonist When you get to see what is motivating them to go down this path. Even if the motive boils down to something simple like power  (which is usually what it is) or fame or etc, etc., seeing what is driving them to succeed adds a nice layer of depth to the story.

 

The other type of antagonist is one you don't see as often in games. They're not out to destroy or conquer the world. They aren't motivated by fame or fortune. They just want to see the world burn. I've referenced this guy a lot, the Joker. Specifically form the Dark Knight movie. Criminally Insane, manipulative, and chaotic. Those villains are really fun. I'm not sure if creating an antagonist like that in a game is tougher to pull off or if develop's just don't want to take a chance on something different, but this type of antagonist seems to be pretty rare. It's probably a combination of the two. It's a lot easier to chart the player's journey from Point A to Point B when the enemy has a clear (and usually simple) goal.

[markA 9]

It depends, one of the thing I like is when the main antagonist have a bad quality, either it's too proud of himself, scary or deformed shape, sadistic nature, annoying or anything that make you never wanted to like the antagonist. Any traits that is interesting is definitely going to help. I actually think they don't have to be relatable to begin with, especially at the first half of the story. This make the protagonist have a solid motive to destroy the villain. Some of the story about the antagonist at the end will give more impact both to the protagonist and the player. Voldemort from harry potter or Kuja and Queen Brahne from FFIX is a good example of that.

 

Another one I also like is when the antagonist make the protagonist question if what they're doing is right. Or maybe even make the player to root for the antagonist even though they know the way the antagonist do it is wrong.

 

Even if the main antagonist is not a good character, for me it is always help to have another side antagonist character that is interesting  Not many player really like FFV's main antagonist Exdeath but more player probably like Gilgamesh. My most favorite villain is actually not a main antagonist which is Azula from The Last Air Bender.

 

There's probably a lot of other technique to make a "Good" antagonistic character but that's all that really stood out and inspired me.

[xoferew 261]

It's interesting when the person you THOUGHT was the main antagonist turns out to be of lesser importance or acting behind the scenes in a helpful way and someone you trusted turns out to be the real antagonist.  As long as the reveal happens early enough that it's not just a cheap plot twist.

 

Maybe I should be worried that my game does not have any main antagonist.  I've got 1. Rifts that are letting monsters in from another Realm causing death & chaos and bringing two kingdoms to the brink of war and 2. Everyone hates me because I'm a half-demon, what can I do about that?  (See 1.)

[Rezanta 373]

You can open more rifts!

Anyway, that's interesting to what's been stated, but then, I also have to say that I'm more of a antagonist-liking kind-of-guy that looks for a seemingly simple villian that is all the sudden changed into a- wait for it- A Super-interesting bad guy. See what I did there? Eh? Eh?! ...Wow, that was... bland. Anyway, Xemnas is great about this, and I do have to say Soul Caliber is kind of like that, too.

[lonequeso 1,921]

@Xoferew/Rezanta- You could combine those two ideas. There's a kind of weak, unassuming villain who seems like he's just an underling. Then either he turns out to be far more powerful and dangerous than he led you to believe, or he betrays the big bad and attains his power. 

[Cookie Ninja 374]

What I look for in a antagonist is that they fit the narrative! I mean ganondorf isnt terribly intricate and complex and I didn't mind at all! If your game is very storydriven with thuroughly fleshed out actors it wouldn't make them justice with your avarage "Bad Guy". Having an antagonist that is equally deep as the protagonist(s) is essential for a captivating game!

 

As for execution on the other hand... a little plot twist goes a long way. Just remember to build up to it so that the player feels as if they *should have known* for maximum impact. Should have known also entales that they didn't, herein lies the trick to a good plot twist. How to spell it out beforehand without them figuring out. Misleading them could be a good way to accomplish this effect.

[lonequeso 1,921]

What I look for in a antagonist is that they fit the narrative! I mean ganondorf isnt terribly intricate and complex and I didn't mind at all! If your game is very storydriven with thuroughly fleshed out actors it wouldn't make them justice with your avarage "Bad Guy". Having an antagonist that is equally deep as the protagonist(s) is essential for a captivating game!

 

As for execution on the other hand... a little plot twist goes a long way. Just remember to build up to it so that the player feels as if they *should have known* for maximum impact. Should have known also entales that they didn't, herein lies the trick to a good plot twist. How to spell it out beforehand without them figuring out. Misleading them could be a good way to accomplish this effect.

Very subtle foreshadowing is great for this.  When goes back and plays through the game again, and has that "How did I not see that?" moment. 

[Cookie Ninja 374]

Exactly! Although I have seen more then one game/movie fall flat on this aspect.

[lonequeso 1,921]

*cough* M. Night Shyamalan *cough*

[Rezanta 373]

*takes off shades* Mother of- Bosses! That was an interesting setup.

[devonm0 37]

Speaking of antagonists, the one I have planned for my game really has me thinking all of a sudden.  If a beast feeds off of the misfortune, sorrow, and pain of others, can it be called instinct if the beast induces those things in others to feed?  Or is it more likely to be seen as a lame excuse?  Is it possible for something to be chaotic evil through nothing but raw instinct?

[lonequeso 1,921]

That's a fairly common type of antagonist. No games come directly to mind, but a couple movies do. Pitch Black in "Rise of the Guardians" did it through nightmares as did "Freddie Kruger." Pennywise from "It" did it by luring children into the swears and killing them.

 

Pennywise is best example of what you have in mind. His true from was a monster than literally fed on fear. Just please don't make your antagonist a lame, terrible looking spider. The premise was sound and worked very well in the movie until that point.

 

If you're asking if it's plausible from a philosophical standpoint, we could debate that back and forth all day, and never reach a definite answer. If you're asking if it would be acceptable to have as an antagonist in a videogame, it will work fine.

 

Think of fear as a source of energy. The creature needs to feed on that energy to live. It's a pretty simple premise. Simple premises tend to work well in game design. 

[Skysagi 219]

I like cruel antagonists. Really cruel. Like, they do what they want to do without letting anyone get on their way, no matter what the cost. The ones who really want to accomplish their goals and will try to destroy you if you try to stop them.

These and the creepy-sounding ones are, by far, my favorite kind of villains. I also like the ones that persist until they have nothing left to use against you, as well as having a good strategy and an unbeliavable plan to get you out of their way.

Another amazing kind of antagonist, in my opinion, are the traitors. I really hate the ones that lie to you, deceive you, betray your or whatsoever, so making traitors antagonists is a really good idea for me.

 

The antagonist I've planned for my game is a cruel, mysterious, silent, creepy, scary and powerful human whose story and actual purposes are unknown. He also seems to be unstopable and the kind that will always return even if defeated.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Skyninja

[Rezanta 373]

Interesting. Also, take into consideration, any creature or animal, like Scourge from Warriors, can be an antagonist. (For anyone who views this in confusion.)

[Kayzee 4,032]

Eh... I donno, it seems to me like any type of antagonist will do as long as it's written well. The question should be: What you are trying to accomplish with the antagonist? You want to make them sympathetic, you have to make sure to write them in a sympathetic way. You want to make the audience just hate their guts? You can do that too. You can even both at once if you want, as long as you do it right.

 

Even so here are some things I would like to see in an antagonist (not necessarily all of them in the same character just general ideas) :

 

• I would kinda like to see more female antagonists, especially if they are outright villains. It seems so rare nowadays that woman or especially younger girls are allowed to be evil, at least in games, or at least evil in the same way male villains are.
• I kind of like it when how you see an existing antagonist/hero relationship really shifts over time. Like if the hero hates the antagonist and contently talks about how bad they are and how they are their nemesis, but you finally meet and the antagonist is kind of a decant person and/or has no idea who the hero even really is. Or the opposite, where the hero hates them and things they are out to get them, but all evidence points to the fact the villain is kind of nice and/or doesn't really care about the hero and you find out they really do act as antagonistic as the hero says.
• It's kind of nice to have an antagonist who's life really doesn't revolve around the conflict with the hero or their nefarious plans, and probably visa versa, even if they come to blows over an issue. Like two leaders of nations with opposing political ideologies, people who aren't gonna hang out together and drink tea that often maybe, but they both think of each other as a professional hazard for the most part and don't really hate each other either.
• I am also rather fond of having no antagonist at all. I don't believe story is always driven by that kind of conflict, and it's kinda boring to have every single story always revolve down to protagonist vs antagonist, no matter how much you want to put in some cool final boss.

[Skysagi 219]

I actually intend to make female antagonists (and a female protagonist) in my second project, the Bounty Hunters series.

I agree with you, KilloZapit. The villain I was talking about before is also very polite to ANYONE, even to his enemies, and he sometimes doesn't seem to care about what's going on.

Double agreed. I'm not really a fan of antagonist-less stories, but sometimes it could be good. Maybe making another character fight the Antagonist, instead of the Protagonist? That could be an option.

[lonequeso 1,921]

No antagonist. That's not done very often. It could work. It'd be really hard to make a man vs. man type of story without one. You could do it with man vs. nature or man vs. self.

 

The first thing that jumps to my mind for man vs. nature is a scenario where the MC crash lands in a forest or jungle somewhere and has to survive, and hopefully be rescued. Instead of fighting enemies, they wold battle the elements. Creating shelter, finding fresh water, foraging and/or hunting for food, creating tools with salvaged parts and things they find. There could be enemies in the form of hungry predators, but the main focuses would be exploration and problem solving. That'd make an interesting game.

 

Man vs. self would be harder to pull off as a game. Maybe something where your inside the MC's psyche, trying to repair your fractured mind or overcoming some tragedy. It'd likely make for a really depressing game. You could do a lot of really cool with the visuals and game play though.

[Kayzee 4,032]

What, haven't you ever heard of Yume Nikki? That's kinda what you are talking about with man vs self... or little girl vs her own screwed up imagination anyway.

 

But really, that's not even what I am talking about. It just seems to me like so many game stories use contrived conflict to make a big bad antagonist for the sake of having an epic showdown with a big final boss. Maybe I am just a weirdo, but give me a nice world to explore and/or fun characters to interact with and I don't need a flimsy antagonist to push me forward. I hate to use it as an example, because I love the game and I love the antagonist but Undertale comes to mind, where the antagonist basically shows up to be a bastard near the start of the game and acts as the final boss near the end (well, except for... but that's another story, they are hardly an antagonist anymore in that case), but through out 90% of the game you don't really see or hear much from them and you don't really care that much, because you are busy interacting with fun characters and exploring a fun world. It seems to me like there are lots more examples of games like that, where the antagonist has zero impact to most of the game. At least Undertale has a pretty fun antagonist when they do end up actually being an antagonist.

[lonequeso 1,921]

Well, yes you are weird  I've heard of Yume Nikki. That's about it, though. When you said "without any type of antagonist" I took that as no antagonist at all. Never played Undertale, but I've played plenty of Action/Adventure games like that. One of my favorites is Banjo-Kazooie. The evil witch just watches you through most of the game safe in her fortress. You never actually interact with her until the very end. 

 

Action/Adventure games lend themselves to that really well. It's just as workable in an RPG, but I really haven't played too many like that. 

[KainLightsworn 63]

I've always been rather fond of the Well-Intentioned Extremist type of antagonist, myself. A villain who was a vision for the world, and likely good intentions, truly believing themselves to be the hero the world deserves. A villain whose motivations and intentions were pure, but was forced to take less than noble means in order to achieve them.

 

These types of villains also tend to be rather myopic with their morals and have massive double-standards in what is acceptable behavior for themselves and acceptable behavior for their foes, but that's another thread entirely.

 

The antagonists of my game are fighting against the threat of incoming darkness, a threat against the religion of their culture, the dominant culture. This threat of corruption is backed by a prophecy foreseen by one of the four of them which foretold the coming end of days if they could not avert the coming crisis of faith and the fall of their religion. Faced with what seems the end of the world, what means are NOT acceptable to prevent such an end? Were the story framed from THEIR perspective, they would be the heroes.

 

Yet another set of antagonists is fighting in order to avenge their fallen loved ones, who were slain as a direct or indirect result of the protagonists' actions throughout the course of the plot. As they discover the protagonists' final intentions, to destroy an artifact said to protect the world from evil and kill the ones who guard it, they redouble their efforts to make sure the ones they are pursuing are destroyed. In their eyes, THEY are doing the right thing.

[Kayzee 4,032]

Well, yes you are weird  I've heard of Yume Nikki. That's about it, though. When you said "without any type of antagonist" I took that as no antagonist at all. Never played Undertale, but I've played plenty of Action/Adventure games like that. One of my favorites is Banjo-Kazooie. The evil witch just watches you through most of the game safe in her fortress. You never actually interact with her until the very end. 

 

Action/Adventure games lend themselves to that really well. It's just as workable in an RPG, but I really haven't played too many like that. 

 

Well I just mean, if you have a fun game with an antagonist who doesn't really do much, couldn't the game be rewritten without an antagonist, or atleast without a main one? I don't think those games will suffer much by not having one, because they engagement doesn't come from that conflict.