spoilers What do you look for in main antagonists?

[lonequeso 1,921]

 

 

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

The player is the antagonist sometimes. :-)

Lol I've done that. Making a shed and trapping people inside was always entertaining. Sim City was like that with the disasters. My favorite was making a volcano emerge and erupt. By far the most devastating of the disasters. Edited November 3, 2015 by lonequeso

[Rezanta 373]

Or Bowser... But um... How did he stay underwater all that time? XD

[lonequeso 1,921]

It's funny you mention that. I had the PC version of the original Sim City. A friend of mine had the SNES version. We found it quite entertaining that Nintendo just had to throw Mario in there and have Bowser as a disaster. I guess he was like Godzilla rising from the depths of the sea. 

[TheManlyFairy 51]

I think antagonists should be no different than a protagonists. What I mean is, they should have reasons that are understandable and relatable, as if they were cornered against the wall and ran out of options. They should not be evil by nature but more willing to do the "kill millions to save billions" kind of actions. I think it's always interesting to give the player some kind of hope that than antagonists can be swayed without actually fighting them. It's a part in a story that usually sells well because if you fail to convince them, you get to relate to them when they over dramatically tell why they're doing what they're doing and if you succeed you feel accomplished that you saved both the lives of others and the lost soul of the antagonist.

[lonequeso 1,921]

I think antagonists should be no different than a protagonists. What I mean is, they should have reasons that are understandable and relatable, as if they were cornered against the wall and ran out of options. They should not be evil by nature but more willing to do the "kill millions to save billions" kind of actions. I think it's always interesting to give the player some kind of hope that than antagonists can be swayed without actually fighting them. It's a part in a story that usually sells well because if you fail to convince them, you get to relate to them when they over dramatically tell why they're doing what they're doing and if you succeed you feel accomplished that you saved both the lives of others and the lost soul of the antagonist.

I like those types of antagonists, too. They can make for a more compelling story. As I mentioned somewhere before, I depends on the story (or lack there of). Sometimes the villain who's just evil and villainous for the sake of being evil and villainous is all you need. Those types are really just plot devices. They work great for game that focus more on gameplay than storytelling.

I still want to see more truly psychopathic villains like the Joker that just want to watch the world burn. I also want to a full fledged game where you play as the Joker. 

[Rikifive 3,411]

I like when there's actually a plot twist and the evil turns into good at the end ~ You know how it goes.

Also it's really important if they have an interesting or even I liked when they have a touching story behind them. For example, they're doing evil stuff, because they want to save someone etc..

I just love good endings, so touching stories with evil turning into good is a nice touch.

 

I also love touching sad endings - but they can be sometimes tiring ~ most of the time it makes me ask myself 'Why it has to end like this?'; 'What if...'; 'But how it...' and sometimes I can think and think for weeks or months. There are few games, that were haunting my mind for a long time.

 

So basically main antagonists can't be a cliche main boss, but actually he needs a personality, a purpose, though it also depends.

[Whiona 310]

The best piece of advice I've heard about writing antagonists is to remember that in their head, they are the protagonist and the hero is the antagonist. This is why you always have to think about your villain's motive just as much as your hero's, if not even more. Villains who do evil things just because you said so are boring. Even if your villain recognizes that their actions are morally wrong, they should still have a way of justifying those actions to themselves. It also forces you to consider what actions your villain would and would not take, which lends them extra depth and realism. Just because a person is willing to do one evil thing doesn't mean they're willing to do any evil thing.

 

For example, let's say you have a villain who wants to take over the world and tries to kill anyone who gets in his way - but only because he believes the world has fallen and desperately needs someone strong like him to rule it. In his eyes, the heroes who try to stop him from taking over the world are hindering its progress and condemning everyone else who lives in it, so he can justify attempting to murder them. But would this villain also be willing to murder a harmless serf who has done nothing to oppose him? Probably not...it doesn't make sense for him to do that, as it would only make his future subjects resent him and doesn't contribute to his goal in any way.

 

So yeah, always think about your villain's motive and why they think they can do evil things. Their motive doesn't have to be well-intentioned, either - you can totally have a villain who's just greedy and does everything they do for money, and sees the hero as someone stopping them from getting what they deserve. But then you would have to think about how far their sense of entitlement goes, and what actions they can justify taking for money. Villains who will commit any evil act for no reason other than that you say they're evil are unrealistic; there has to be a justification behind everything they do, even if that justification is only valid in their eyes.

[Kayzee 4,032]

I still want to see more truly psychopathic villains like the Joker that just want to watch the world burn. I also want to a full fledged game where you play as the Joker. 

You know that reminds me... not strictly related but I was wondering the other day why is it that Joker/Kefka like characters are always the bad guy? I don't mean always the antagonist, though it might be fun to play as some psychotic Joker-like character sometimes, but I realized I could see such a character decide that villainy is boring and it's more fun to be the hero.

 

So the question is, who would be their villain? Probably a ridiculously serious person like Batman who is frustrated that no matter how much they try to change the world for the better, nothing will improve, so they just decide to play the villain instead. That would be a interesting dynamic. A hero who really could care less about morality and is just doing it for kicks vs a villain who is actually a very moral person who does what they do out of frustration and anger that the world doesn't live up to their standards.

 

The best piece of advice I've heard about writing antagonists is to remember that in their head, they are the protagonist and the hero is the antagonist. This is why you always have to think about your villain's motive just as much as your hero's, if not even more. Villains who do evil things just because you said so are boring. Even if your villain recognizes that their actions are morally wrong, they should still have a way of justifying those actions to themselves. It also forces you to consider what actions your villain would and would not take, which lends them extra depth and realism. Just because a person is willing to do one evil thing doesn't mean they're willing to do any evil thing.

 

For example, let's say you have a villain who wants to take over the world and tries to kill anyone who gets in his way - but only because he believes the world has fallen and desperately needs someone strong like him to rule it. In his eyes, the heroes who try to stop him from taking over the world are hindering its progress and condemning everyone else who lives in it, so he can justify attempting to murder them. But would this villain also be willing to murder a harmless serf who has done nothing to oppose him? Probably not...it doesn't make sense for him to do that, as it would only make his future subjects resent him and doesn't contribute to his goal in any way.

 

So yeah, always think about your villain's motive and why they think they can do evil things. Their motive doesn't have to be well-intentioned, either - you can totally have a villain who's just greedy and does everything they do for money, and sees the hero as someone stopping them from getting what they deserve. But then you would have to think about how far their sense of entitlement goes, and what actions they can justify taking for money. Villains who will commit any evil act for no reason other than that you say they're evil are unrealistic; there has to be a justification behind everything they do, even if that justification is only valid in their eyes.

 

Like I said before, I don't buy that every single person who does bad things necessarily do so because they think they have a good reason. I bet most of them just don't care enough about it, no matter what excuse they will come up with. Sometimes people do things just because they can or for their own amusement. I mean look at Internet trolls that do things "for the lulz" for example.

Edited November 7, 2015 by KilloZapit

[lonequeso 1,921]

 

A hero who really could care less about morality and is just doing it for kicks vs a villain who is actually a very moral person who does what they do out of frustration and anger that the world doesn't live up to their standards.

That would be fun to play with. If you play as the antagonist it can easily cross over into anti-hero so you'd have to be careful about how it's written. An extreme example would be like playing as Dr. Doom. Someone who goes to the most extreme of extremes because they believe they can fix the world. He could fight someone like The Comedian from Watchmen. He kind of seems like he's doing the superhero thing for kicks. The guy is a sociopath after all. There really aren't a lot of heroes that are heroes just because. It be interesting to create one. Would that still qualify them as a hero if they don't have any noble cause? If so, would that make the antagonist into the protagonist? Hmm... 

 

Really all I want is to play as the Joker and defeat Batman. I'll leave the philosophical stuff to our resident fairy. 

[Whiona 310]

Like I said before, I don't buy that every single person who does bad things necessarily do so because they think they have a good reason. I bet most of them just don't care enough about it, no matter what excuse they will come up with. Sometimes people do things just because they can or for their own amusement. I mean look at Internet trolls that do things "for the lulz" for example.

 

That would still be a reason, though. It's not a good reason, and the villain doesn't have to believe that their actions are moral, just that they're worth whatever pain and suffering they might cause. In this case, a villain who does things for their own amusement would think, "Yeah, what I'm doing is wrong, but who cares? I'm having fun, and that matters more." It's a flimsy justification, but the villain's justification for their actions doesn't need to make sense to anyone else but them; it just needs to be there. In this case, the villain might view the heroes as killjoys trying to get in the way of his fun, so to him, they're the antagonists. What I'm not a fan are villains who take over the world, murder people, or whatever because they're evil. No explanation for why, they just are. I mean, that could work out fine in a game with an incredibly simple story, but once your main characters go beyond very basic characterization, your villains should too. I'm just tired of seeing games where the heroes are well-developed and have clear-cut motivations, but the villain is just evil because the author said so, and they'll do any evil act even if it doesn't make any sense for them to do it.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Whiona

[lonequeso 1,921]

You make a good point, Whiona. A well developed protagonist should have a well developed antagonist. Even if the antagonist's morals or plan are simplistic, the actual character should have some depth. It tends to make for a better story. The irony of this is my antagonist is very simple. He's more of a plot device. That wasn't planned. It just happened naturally, and works for what I'm doing. I'd elaborate, but I don't want to give the story away. Complex protagonist vs. simple antagonist can work in certain situations, but i agree that typically developing the villain as much as the hero make for a deeper story.

Perhaps harder. A one-dimensional hero can get really boring really fast. 

Edited November 7, 2015 by lonequeso

[Rezanta 373]

Meh. In Dragon Quest IX, the knight you have to fight states that his love is in a kingdom, thus he'll down anyone in his way, in a sense. Afterwords, you find out that this witch-like demon had clouded his thoughts and tricked him. I guess that's another way you can have a swayed antagonist. In The Nightmare Before Christmas: Oggie's Revenge, the doc gets turned on Jack because his brain was taken out. Even though I enjoyed the whole "dance and fight with music!" concept, I still didn't see how a play around with pulling the evil brain out and getting his brain in was a setup for an antagonist.

[lonequeso 1,921]

Mind control or is pretty common in games. Most games I played the main villain wasn't the victim. Usually a lesser character. Doing it with a main antagonist is a case where they're really not a villain. Normally, they come to their senses and everyone lives happily ever after. The End. I never liked those types of stories. It comes off as a cop-out to me. I like it when the ending is bittersweet. You learn the main antagonist was tricked or being controlled after they're mortally wounded. Oops. Of course, that villain may also turn out not to be the big bad. What a twist! Then you get to go after the one pulling the strings. 

[Kayzee 4,032]

That would still be a reason, though. It's not a good reason, and the villain doesn't have to believe that their actions are moral, just that they're worth whatever pain and suffering they might cause. In this case, a villain who does things for their own amusement would think, "Yeah, what I'm doing is wrong, but who cares? I'm having fun, and that matters more." It's a flimsy justification, but the villain's justification for their actions doesn't need to make sense to anyone else but them; it just needs to be there. In this case, the villain might view the heroes as killjoys trying to get in the way of his fun, so to him, they're the antagonists. What I'm not a fan are villains who take over the world, murder people, or whatever because they're evil. No explanation for why, they just are. I mean, that could work out fine in a game with an incredibly simple story, but once your main characters go beyond very basic characterization, your villains should too. I'm just tired of seeing games where the heroes are well-developed and have clear-cut motivations, but the villain is just evil because the author said so, and they'll do any evil act even if it doesn't make any sense for them to do it.

 

Well, I mean, I am kinda just as tired stories which feel the need to make excuses for the villain's every action. Sometimes people just are, for lack of a better word, evil, and sometimes people just do things that seem to make no sense. That isn't to say they shouldn't necessarily have reasons why they do what they do, it's just that sometimes it's better if the story doesn't take a lot of time to explain or excuse them. Sometimes it's best if the audience simply doesn't get why a otherwise reasonable seeming person would do a horrible thing, and isn't told. Sometimes you need that vagueness, that disconnect I think.

 

Also, when dealing with villains like Joker or Kefka for example, the story don't spend a lot of time getting in their head and explaining why they do what they do, most of which is just saying "they be mad crazy yo" which only really goes so far, especially since it's not really clear how they are nuts exactly. Because that's not really the point. I mean I guess it's kinda like this video says about villains like that. They aren't really "characters" per say, they are more like forces of nature. Sometimes you have to have a villain like that.

 

[Whiona 310]

Well, I mean, I am kinda just as tired stories which feel the need to make excuses for the villain's every action. Sometimes people just are, for lack of a better word, evil, and sometimes people just do things that seem to make no sense. That isn't to say they shouldn't necessarily have reasons why they do what they do, it's just that sometimes it's better if the story doesn't take a lot of time to explain or excuse them. Sometimes it's best if the audience simply doesn't get why a otherwise reasonable seeming person would do a horrible thing, and isn't told. Sometimes you need that vagueness, that disconnect I think.

 

Also, when dealing with villains like Joker or Kefka for example, the story don't spend a lot of time getting in their head and explaining why they do what they do, most of which is just saying "they be mad crazy yo" which only really goes so far, especially since it's not really clear how they are nuts exactly. Because that's not really the point. I mean I guess it's kinda like this video says about villains like that. They aren't really "characters" per say, they are more like forces of nature. Sometimes you have to have a villain like that.

If that's the kind of villain you tend to like, then that's fair. I definitely don't support the idea of making excuses for a villain's horrible actions - villains are more interesting to me if they have some kind of internal justification for what they do, but that doesn't automatically make it okay. I think it can even improve a villain if you don't necessarily state the reason for their actions in the work, but you still come up with it and keep it in mind when you're writing them. Even if the audience isn't privy to that information, you can at least use it to decide what actions your villain would or would not take.

Edited November 8, 2015 by Whiona

[Yuugami 252]

I think antagonists that have some sort of evolution going on over the course of the game is interesting. Perhaps a person steadily grows more evil as the story progresses, or perhaps you hear of this villain and as the game goes on, the things you hear about him grow worse and worse.

 

Of course, I think the antagonists that are most interesting are the ones that are willing to play on the same level as you, the hero.

 

I can't think of any video game examples, but two movie figures I would like to bring up are Colonel Hans Landa and Keyser Soze. What do these two have in common? Plenty, but the most important thing to remember is that they're egotistical mass murderers, and are quite proud of that fact. They act for their own self-interest: the former would only pick the winning side and easily give up his ideological leaders, and the latter would kill people, their friends, and their families if they could even identify his face. Hell, they don't care about who they do it to: the colonel explicitly stated that his job was to find and kill people, and that the Jews in Europe just happened to be his targets. That lack of empathy and reasoning is so deliciously sociopathic.

 

However, they're both willing to deal with the heroes in the same playing field, and in the case of Soze, even engage with them just to stoke his own ego, and they get enjoyment out of frustrating their opponents. These villains can be charming to the audience, but just as hateful. A villain who is a force of nature is definitely imposing. However, I find that the most interesting villains are the ones that don't hide behind their advantages and are willing to literally beat the protagonist in their own game. It's hard to deny that insanely human quality.

Edited November 9, 2015 by Yuugami

[+ CVincent 234]

I think antagonists that have some sort of evolution going on over the course of the game is interesting. Perhaps a person steadily grows more evil as the story progresses, or perhaps you hear of this villain and as the game goes on, the things you hear about him grow worse and worse.

 

This is quite an interesting concept although it can easily be misunderstood or applied in a fashion that may at first seem interesting and then quickly lose its edge. Take for example how an 'antagonist' may get upset with how often the hero foils his plans, classic antagonists like Team Rocket from Pokemon or maybe even Doctor Eggman from Sonic are defeated multiple times but never give up and come back with something new to defeat the protagonist with. It's easily abused to create a protagonist character that can reoccur in the story without there being much of a drawback.

 

That said, I do like the idea of an antagonist character progressively becoming a worse being as the protagonist stops them. Using everything at their disposal an antagonist could effectively use all of their resources to do whatever they could in their power to make sure they achieved their goal. This antagonist may even become revered after enough damage has been done. It'd be difficult to assume that everyone would be loyal to their 'leader' if their own personal survival had been compromised.

 

You could apply this to many different situations, such as where the antagonist's loyals may turn against them or fight harder against the protagonist's mission.

 

The main point of an antagonist is to create a schism between the protagonist's ideals and their opposite's. It creates obvious conflict that would otherwise may be difficult to understand if the antagonist was not present. In my mind, a good antagonist works behind everything until their efforts have been thwarted enough for themselves to take action. You might see this more frequently in movies where the antagonist is mentioned but not met until much further along in the story.

 

I may be rambling at this point but I truly believe that antagonists do not need to be as one-dimensional as being an amoral force with harmful intentions. As a more recent way to demonstrate this, if you've watched or played through Undertale you may have realized that the lines between morality, consequence and personal values are contradicted by some of the main characters.

 

It is definitely difficult to create a character with conflicting values for obvious reasons but the result leaves impact. If I were to give advice to anyone creating an antagonist it would be to invest more effort in creating them than any other character -- they can be a driving force in the story and may influence the final outcome of said story.

 

However, I find that the most interesting villains are the ones that don't hide behind their advantages and are willing to literally beat the protagonist in their own game. It's hard to deny that insanely human quality.

 

I do agree with this. When you consider characters from series like Batman (where The Riddler consistently tries to best Batman's detective skills) they are usually an underlying force that may not be given the attention they deserve. Applying human quality where one attempts to be better than another at skills such as an elitist might can help in creating a believable antagonist that would otherwise be one-dimensional as mentioned earlier.

 

These sorts of things can make the difference between creating a unique and memorable antagonist versus a simple force fighting against the protagonist's mission.

Edited November 9, 2015 by CVincent