spoilers What do you look for in main antagonists?

[Unishadow 14]

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.

 

I agree with this! :3

[Kayzee 4,032]

I donno, I never liked the idea that the antagonist always thinks they are the good guy if they aren't. I am not one for completely black and white moral absolutism, but there always stuck me as something annoying about a straight up villain who does straight up villainous stuff that they should know is just plain unethical and really think that whatever lame excuse or goal they have justifies themselves. Yes I know there are plenty of people in real life who are too stupid to understand simple ethics, but I don't think they make compelling antagonists, they just make me think they are badly written most of the time.

 

I think it's much more compelling if the antagonist is either genuinely a ethical or moral person who just has opposing goals to the protagonist (the protagonist may just have different morals or be a villain protagonist), or just doesn't care about morals or ethics that much. In fact if anyone should have questionable morals or ethics, I think it should be the protagonist. You can work a lot more with exploring how screwed up their morals/ethics are if you are playing as them and they are expected to be the hero by default. You can work better to deconstruct the player's actions and have the narrative focus either on a quest for redemption or a fall into out and out villainy. I think that's much more interesting. Again I have to bring up the example of Undertale, though in a positive way this time. The game reacts to what you do, and does a good job of calling the player out on their hypocrisy and makes you want to play as an actual hero.

[Rezanta 373]

(Wasn't watching and this thing blew my mailbox up XD) Well, I can see both sides to the no-antagonist v antagonist thing, but cold there be a way where, like Skyrim, you make the antagonist?

[Tsarmina 2,612]

I'm kind of a goody-goody and love happy stories and happy endings with rainbows and stuff, so my favorite type of antagonist is the misunderstood, misled, misguided poor individual who has some upset background history that has caused them to act the way they do, yet they can be a good person.

 

But uh, sometimes I'm in the mood for a stereotypical evil bad guy, too. ^u^ They make me smile.

[lonequeso 1,921]

@Killozapit- Removing the antagonist completely would be an interesting experiment. Like if Bowser wasn't in Mario 64 at all. You just run around collecting stars. Once you get a certain number, "Game Over! You are Victory!" It would actually be easier to do from a development standpoint. Here's the 64,000 dollar question though. How well will the audience respond? Beating the final boss gives the player a sense of accomplishment at the end. You can create a sense of accomplishment by making the player feel special for collecting stars, but I'd imagine that feeling would be diminished. Collection the starts without the end goal of reaching Bowser at the end may prove to be too mindless for player's to keep playing. They're not really working towards anything other than collecting more stars. I don't know if that's enough of a motive to keep people interested.

 

@Unishadow- I like the good-intentioned antagonist, too. Magneto is my favorite. All he wants is the same thing Professor Xavier wants, to protect his fellow mutants. They take very different paths to try and achieve that goal. With Magneto, it often results in him trying to kill every non-mutant. 

 

@Tsarmina- I'm not much of a fan of the bad guy who turns around and becomes a good guy. If it's well done, I like it. Problem is, a lot of villains like this a in stories intended for children so they tend to be really simple an one-dimensional. There is a much darker route you can go with it like in The Cell. It's not so much that the antagonist is misunderstood. He is a serial killer who was physical and verbally abused as a child. It goes into a lot of detail about how his terrible upbringing played a significant role in his becoming a sociopath. Even though he is undoubtedly twisted and evil, by the end of the movie, you can't help but feel a little bit sorry for him.

[CrowTheAlmighty 27]

How about an antagonist you can respect? One that has good intentions but with an extreme solution: Psaro from Dragon Quest and Gaius from Tales of Xillia come to mind when I think of this.

 

They each want whats best for their people, though it requires an extreme solution. Psaro attempts to destroy all humans to give monsters peace and Gaius wants his kingdom to prosper by destroying the rivaling continent with Maxwell's power.

 

The End Justifies The Means

[alberthk 4]

. . .unexpected like Kefka or Joker. . .

 

. . .the hardest part of building this kind of character is the motive. . .

 

. . .you really need to make a reasonable connection between the seemingly random actions they do and the unforeseenable motive behind them. . .

 

. . .and not to mention making a protagonist that has a plausible reason to match it. . .

[Kayzee 4,032]

@Killozapit- Removing the antagonist completely would be an interesting experiment. Like if Bowser wasn't in Mario 64 at all. You just run around collecting stars. Once you get a certain number, "Game Over! You are Victory!" It would actually be easier to do from a development standpoint. Here's the 64,000 dollar question though. How well will the audience respond? Beating the final boss gives the player a sense of accomplishment at the end. You can create a sense of accomplishment by making the player feel special for collecting stars, but I'd imagine that feeling would be diminished. Collection the starts without the end goal of reaching Bowser at the end may prove to be too mindless for player's to keep playing. They're not really working towards anything other than collecting more stars. I don't know if that's enough of a motive to keep people interested.

 

Designing a game around not having an antagonist is not the same as removing any context for doing the game in the first place. You just have to structure the game in a different way. One of my favorite games, Ultima VI, doesn't actually have an antagonist, even if you are meant to thing it does. The whole game is about two cultures who are clashing over issues neither of them fully understand, and it's up to you to fix the problem and make peace between them (plus the whole thing is maybe your fault in the first place). Ultima IV on the other hand doesn't even have the pretense of conflict with a big bad antagonist, and was mostly about morality system sand it went on to be called one of the best RPGs ever. Now I know a lot of people must roll their eyes at morality systems in games (except maybe in Undertale) but Ultima IV was the first game to do it, and still probably did it the best, with multidimensional almost mutually excursive measures of "virtue" being the main gameplay mechanic instead of a generic "good/evil" meter.

 

Could Mario 64 be designed around not having an antagonist? Sure, but it would have had a much different story as a result. Imagine if instead of  Princess Peach being kidnapped again, we had the sad tale of a broken hearted artist who painted paintings in the castle but one day feel into despair, and it's up to you to go in the paintings they created to find the fragments of happy memories that inspired them to inspire them not to give up on life. No need for a big bad antagonist, the context for why you play is completely different, but no less theoretically compelling. You find fragments of happy childhood memories playing in the snow in the snow level, fun times at the beach with friends on the beach level... you get to know the artist. Maybe you find bad memories too, maybe they could even be the boss encounters. The whole thing seems like a metaphor for the depressed person looking at their past work and just remembering the good times and deciding life is worth it after all. Isn't that a more interesting story then "BOWSER KIDNAPS PRINCESS AGAIN"? And it fits the gameplay of going around a castle and jumping in paintings to hunt for mcguffins just as well. Sure if you really need to personify depression as a big bad final boss you can, but even then does that count as an antagonist?

 

And I just came up with that off the top of my head to. I am sure if you tried you could come up with a bazillion different ways of doing a game like that without an antagonist character. It really doesn't matter. Does the gameplay change at all based on what context you use? If an excuse plot about kidnapping princesses is enough context, just about anything can be. It just needs some creative thought.

Edited October 30, 2015 by KilloZapit

[lonequeso 1,921]

Man vs. Self. Your idea depresses me. See? Those types of games are depressing   My original argument was Man vs. Self and Man vs. Nature lend themselves to not having an antagonist. Man vs. Man would be a lot harder to do. By definition, technically it might not even be possible. Personally, Id'd rather have Mario go beat up Bowser for the millionth time than delve into some deep character study.

Mario is bad example to put in Man vs.Self though. Those games are meant to be for everyone (literally rated for it), and that'd likely turn off a lot of younger players. There's a reason games like that have a basic "hero vs. villain" set up. Simple concepts appeal to the widest audience.

Could you turn Mario or any other game like it into Man vs. Self? Sure. Should you? Probably not.

[Kayzee 4,032]

Is it Man vs. Self if your character is helping another character with their issues?

[lonequeso 1,921]

Technically, yes. The definitions are very broad, but it always defines the central conflict. In that case, the conflict would be the Princess losing the will to live. How it's resolved or who it's resolved by is inconsequential.

[Kayzee 4,032]

Hehe, well okay... how about if the person just disappeared and you were looking for clues to find them and figure out what happened, and they had been just accidentally trapped somehow? I donno... like I said, a bazillion diffrent contexts could work.

[lonequeso 1,921]

If the game is about Mario exploring the world, finding stars to magically find the Princess, that's Man vs. Nature. The central conflict is him trying to find what happened. 

 

It does get confusing. Like what if the Princess lost the will to live, and Mario used some sort of magic power to alter her thoughts and regain the will to live? What do you define sentient AI robots trying to overthrow humanity as? Man vs. Self because they have at least human intelligence? Man vs. Nature because they aren't human. Or do you have to create a fourth category all together, Man vs. Technology. I don;t remember when these definitions were made, but I know it was well before man was even at the point of considering that scenario. Confusing.

 

Wasn't "Mario is Missing" the type of game you just described? I never played it. Was Mario simply lost or was he captured/kidnapped by an antagonist? Even if it was the latter, you could make the former work. I'm still not sure if it would be as popular as Mario vs Bowser though. I know "Mario is Missing" didn't fare too well. I wonder how much of that was premise as opposed to execution. Anyway, replacing Man vs. Man with Man vs. Nature would go over better than Man vs. Self.

If it's done well, yes, I think Man vs, Nature could work just as well. It's unlikely to happen within an established franchise.

Develops got their formula, and it works. 

 

Someone would have to come up with an original story concept *nudge* *nudge*

[Tsarmina 2,612]

@Tsarmina- I'm not much of a fan of the bad guy who turns around and becomes a good guy. If it's well done, I like it. Problem is, a lot of villains like this a in stories intended for children so they tend to be really simple an one-dimensional. There is a much darker route you can go with it like in The Cell. It's not so much that the antagonist is misunderstood. He is a serial killer who was physical and verbally abused as a child. It goes into a lot of detail about how his terrible upbringing played a significant role in his becoming a sociopath. Even though he is undoubtedly twisted and evil, by the end of the movie, you can't help but feel a little bit sorry for him.

Yeah, it's sadly often mishandled. But when it's done correctly, it totally strikes home (often right in the feels TT^TT) I watched a really good short show once called Liar Game which entirely masterminded the story from the back history, and by the end I was just crying and screaming because I couldn't decide if the antagonist was the perpetrator or the victim. I think in these kinds of plots, backstory is huuuuge. Exploring that kind of history, when done right, is just--aghhhh. I'm dying. XD

[Tharis 212]

There are some interesting ideas here and as we have seen, a lot of people tend to fall on the side of morally ambiguous protagonists and antagonists. This I kind of feel is more of a Zeitgeist than an evolution of how people want to view their antagonists. Whether you write an antagonist to be 100% evil or only 12% but with questionable tactics of achieving his/her goals one thing to remember is how it's framed. I think the problem with the Black / White, Hero / Villain isn't so much they are predictable it's that people don't really understand what makes a megalomaniac tic, and why anyone chooses to follow them.

Personally I like to have my antagonists be in stark contrast to my protagonists (for the most part) I think some people fear to reach down into the deepest parts of evil and display that, even in a character they have to write. With good reason, look at what happened to Heath Ledger, no one can say that his Joker wasn't purely evil, and I don't know many who didn't find that utterly appealing in an antagonist. So really the audience is going to be attracted to your antagonist in much the same way as your protagonist.

 

One last thing, as I mentioned above about people who are obsessed with ruling the world (or having all of the power, as it were) and this can be VERY difficult to write is that they are often extremely charismatic. That can be difficult because we often have to frame our characters from ourselves and not everyone is charismatic.

 

Well that's just my two bits.

[Kayzee 4,032]

If the game is about Mario exploring the world, finding stars to magically find the Princess, that's Man vs. Nature. The central conflict is him trying to find what happened. 

 

It does get confusing. Like what if the Princess lost the will to live, and Mario used some sort of magic power to alter her thoughts and regain the will to live? What do you define sentient AI robots trying to overthrow humanity as? Man vs. Self because they have at least human intelligence? Man vs. Nature because they aren't human. Or do you have to create a fourth category all together, Man vs. Technology. I don;t remember when these definitions were made, but I know it was well before man was even at the point of considering that scenario. Confusing.

 

Wasn't "Mario is Missing" the type of game you just described? I never played it. Was Mario simply lost or was he captured/kidnapped by an antagonist? Even if it was the latter, you could make the former work. I'm still not sure if it would be as popular as Mario vs Bowser though. I know "Mario is Missing" didn't fare too well. I wonder how much of that was premise as opposed to execution. Anyway, replacing Man vs. Man with Man vs. Nature would go over better than Man vs. Self.

If it's done well, yes, I think Man vs, Nature could work just as well. It's unlikely to happen within an established franchise.

Develops got their formula, and it works. 

 

Someone would have to come up with an original story concept *nudge* *nudge*

 

Why are you so caught up in this Man vs Whatever stuff anyway? It seems like a awful way to categorize stories to me. I never liked the idea that stories revolve only around their conflict, and game stories especially not. And I am not saying that all games should have a story without an antagonist, just that all games don't necessarily need them either. Mario is Mario, and Mario will always have Bowser hanging around kidnapping princesses, but there isn't any particular inherent reason why Mario uses that kind of plot formula other then "that's the way it's always been done, and it's what everyone is used to".

 

Not every game needs the exact same excuse plot to be compelling, and I would argue plenty of games don't need a plot at all. Look at good old Tetris and most other puzzle games. Or if you that that wold never work for a RPG maker game with characters and a world to explore, look at Yume Nikki. You could argue it's Man vrs Self if you wanted to, but the fact is, the whole plot is merely suggested at best. People have goon crazy analyzing it's every detail, but most of the game is just wandering aimlessly, and it's still interesting if not "fun".

 

And no, in Mario is Missing Bowser just kidnaps Mario and Luigi has to save him. It's not a remarkable game in any aspect, story included.

[Rezanta 373]

Let's be honest, Sims 3 never had an antagonist

[Deathcardinal 3]

I really like an antagonist that makes things personal. It has always bugged me that RPGs tend to end with the evil guy trying to destroy the world. Sometimes I would prefer smaller, but still significant stakes that would have a personal effect on the main character. 

[lonequeso 1,921]

@Tharis- Yeah, there's such a thing as digging too deep. I'm torn between evil for the sake of evil, and watching the world burn for my favorites overall. You don't really see that many of the latter in games. 

 

@Killozapit- I'm not hung up on it. It's just something I learned in school a long time ago. It's a great way to identify central conflicts in stories. We learned a simpler version with just the three examples I mentioned. I was curious so I Googled it to see if there were more. And tada! There's seven! That divvies up all the possible conflicts a lot nicer than what we learned. It only relates to stories. Puzzle games like Tetris have no story. Don't get the wrong idea. I'm all for a game that tells a complete story without an antagonist. The Mario v. Formula just works really really well. There's a reason there's so many games like that. I often find myself torn between two contrasting viewpoints. One is thinking out side the box and creating original concepts. The other is, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." There's no right or wrong. I just try to find a happy medium so my head doesn't explode. :wacko:  Nintendo found their happy medium. Their main focus has always been innovative gameplay. That's where they want to push boundaries. They're not really concerned with innovating story concepts. The concepts they have in place allow them to be innovative with gameplay. They drew the same conclusion as I did: gameplay > story. So while they could create a Mario game in one of the ways you mentioned, don't hold your breath.

 

You have a very philosophical approach to game theory which I love about you. You always seem to have a unique perspective. You don't seem too interested in actually creating a game which is a shame. I'd love to see what you could come up with. I bet it would be something amazing.

Edited October 31, 2015 by lonequeso

[Kayzee 4,032]

@Killozapit- I'm not hung up on it. It's just something I learned in school a long time ago. It's a great way to identify central conflicts in stories. We learned a simpler version with just the three examples I mentioned. I was curious so I Googled it to see if there were more. And tada! There's seven! That divvies up all the possible conflicts a lot nicer than what we learned. It only relates to stories. Puzzle games like Tetris have no story. Don't get the wrong idea. I'm all for a game that tells a complete story without an antagonist. The Mario v. Formula just works really really well. There's a reason there's so many games like that. I often find myself torn between two contrasting viewpoints. One is thinking out side the box and creating original concepts. The other is, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." There's no right or wrong. I just try to find a happy medium so my head doesn't explode. :wacko:  Nintendo found their happy medium. Their main focus has always been innovative gameplay. That's where they want to push boundaries. They're not really concerned with innovating story concepts. The concepts they have in place allow them to be innovative with gameplay. They drew the same conclusion as I did: gameplay > story. So while they could create a Mario game in one of the ways you mentioned, don't hold your breath.

 

You have a very philosophical approach to game theory which I love about you. You always seem to have a unique perspective. You don't seem too interested in actually creating a game which is a shame. I'd love to see what you could come up with. I bet it would be something amazing.

 

Yeah, quite frankly I am not convinced any of the literature professors or school teachers in the world who go on about that stuff really know what they are talking about. The ideas of conflict in literature I think ties in to ideas about story structure at least as old as Aristotle, who, though I admire him a lot in some ways, was really a smug ass who was wrong about most everything he said and hardly took the time to test most of it and who's words have been repeated as gospel even to this day despite being provably wrong. Show any one who believes in classical storytelling Waiting for Godot and see what happens. Storytelling is just too diverse to be pigeonholed into one theory. Conflict is a tool, and a useful one. But it isn't the only thing going on with a story. And this is discounting the fact that we are talking about games here, which add a whole new layer to the discussion.

 

Also, I just may be, in fact, working on a game with someone as we speak. It may have an antagonist though, even if it is more off a Man vs Nature story as you would say. I mean, I am just suggesting possibilities, I strongly believe you don't always have to do things one way, but I also believe doing your best to avoid doing everything the same as everyone else is a bad idea too. Just sit down and think what kind of game you really want to make? Anyway, I am mostly doing scripting not writing right now, though the basic idea and theme of the game was something I came up with.

[lonequeso 1,921]

I don't believe in absolutes in literature, either. There's even times where you can break rules on proper grammar and spelling. Namely slang and drunk people.   I think punctuation is really the only ironclad rule, but even in that, there's debate over proper comma use. I think of the rules more as general guidelines. They're a great way to build a solid foundation to build upon.

 

A game you say? You just made my morning. And it's Halloween! Even better! Honestly, I have no idea what kind of game I'd like to see you make. I just want to see what you come up with left to your own devices. Naturally, I'll happy to give feedback on whatever you come up with.

[Kayzee 4,032]

It was or the Halloween contest but... I don't think we will get enough done in time. But we will still work on it anyway!

[lonequeso 1,921]

Yeah, kinda short notice for the Halloween Contest unless you have a time machine.

[Cookie Ninja 374]

*hands over a cookie* Hope it boosts morale! I want to see killos game

[Intocabille 21]

Let's be honest, Sims 3 never had an antagonist

The player is the antagonist sometimes. :-)