Favorite Game Villan

[GhostofAnakin]

the ones that mad Gamespots list are:

The Tyrant of Residen Evil fame, More specifically Nemisis

Bowser

Sephiroth

Ganon

Evil Otto from bezerk... (didn't know that existed...)

M. Bison (In the Japanese version he's Vega, Vega is named Balrog, and Balrog is named M. Bison or Mike Bison).

Lavos

HeiHachi

Donkey Kong

Golbez

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

In other words Gamespots list sucks. :D

[Musopticon?]

Agreed. Like their best games of all time list.

[Calax]

Why you don't like Sephiroth I don't know, But please try to keep the insults to a minimum at least?

[Walsingham]

I don't know who Sephiroth is. But I don't think people were flaming him. In fact I didn't know you could flame a fictional character.

 

If so, I'd like to flame Darth Vader in ep III.

 

"YOU SUCK!"

 

In a few moments I managed to lose all respect for my favourite bad guy of all.

[Calax]

I don't know who Sephiroth is. But I don't think people were flaming him. In fact I didn't know you could flame a fictional character.

 

If so, I'd like to flame Darth Vader in ep III.

 

"YOU SUCK!"

 

In a few moments I managed to lose all respect for my favourite bad guy of all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sephiroth is the main evil man from FFVII... People love him because he is utterly ruthless and is able to slaughter anything on a whim.... He's the one who kills Aris...

[Archmonarch]

This fellow right here:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which moiither fuicker was respoinsible foir the satte oifi ignuis, vhailoir, and woirst oif all deioinarra?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Way to use the broken keyboard to your advantage! Also, what does satte mean? Im assuming you mean death, but how the hell did you misspell it that badly?

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

"Also, what does satte mean? Im assuming you mean death, but how the hell did you misspell it that badly?"

 

State, probably.

[213374U]

Well, I thought Liquid Snake from Metal Gear Solid was a pretty rocking villain, he even had machinery at his fingertips for mass annihilation. Pretty evil too, which is always good.

Aww yeah. Liquid was cool. Any guy that can give you hell in Alaska without a shirt surely deserves mention. :cool:

 

 

Irecnius made himself much more noticeable in BG2 than Sarevok did in BG1 which is what I think many people liked about Irenicus. But this more direct interceding of Irenicus is somewhat of a mixed bag. On the one hand, his character was more detailed than Sarevok's but on the other hand, it removed much of the mystique that Sarevok had. Irenicus being so directly involved in SoA was the greatest strength as well as the greatest weakness of his character at the same time. By the time I got to the final showdown against Irenicus all of the suspense, mystique, and respect for him as a villain had long since vanished. I just don't have much respect for a villain that I have already fought twice earlier in the game and defeated handily.. Where is the villainy in that? To face someone I already vanquished twice (yet again!) in a "final showdown" was a big letdown.

I don't think I felt any of that "mystique" about Sarevok. He killed your PC's adoptive father in the first 5 minutes of the game. So what, you didn't have any time to get acquainted with the old man, let alone become fond of him, anyway. Sarevok simply had no motive for what he did, other than being incurably insane - and probably a fool that misinterpreted the profecies.

 

BG forced you to follow a plot that eventually brought you in conflict with Sarevok, but with the motivation you are given, I would just have walked away if it was a PnP game. This is proven by the way the plot is handled - you only tangentially get in Sarevok's way, as you are probably just minding your own business and doing some cheap mercenary and FedEx jobs during a good part of the game. With Irenicus, there's just no way you would let him get away with it, from the beginning of the game.

 

 

OTOH, Sarevok was only faced once and working behind the scenes there was much more buildup to the final fight with him. Afterall, he was the one who killed Gorion, manipulated the Iron Throne, started a war, killed his own father, FRAMED your character towards the end so you were already going into the final showdown already hating the guy.

Yeah. But Jon gave you those cool nightmare sequences (or did he?). And his actions through the game are quite thoroughly explained and justified (from his pov at least).

He abducted and tortured you, he stole your soul and your sister's to dodge a curse placed by the gods themselves, he planned to destroy his home city just to show them, he intended to become a god to kick the asses of the gods that had wronged him, he made deals with demons and drow, and in the very end he dragged you to the Abyss because he was too stubborn to let go. At the end, his henchmen were Pit Fiends, while Sarevok just had... Angelo.

 

But yeah, I guess he wasn't evil enough.

 

 

On top of this, since he did work clandestinely there was much uncertainty in regards to his abilities, strengths and so on. We just didn't know what to expect when we finally did fight him which made everything all the more suspenseful.

I'll give you that. But in exchange, Irenicus always had an ace up his sleeve. The clones in the asylum, the Slayer in the Abyss... he was anything but predictable.

 

 

2) sarevok were too cookie-cutter clich

[Lancer]

1) those o' you who mentions the transcendent one gotta 'members that you is being asked for your favorite villain and not your favorite game's villain.  transcendent one were poorly developed, albeit for obvious reasons.

 

Yes, but TTO was a very notable exception in that basically TTO *was* TNO. And Torment did the best job out of any game I have known to develop the protagonist (TNO).

In a very real sense, developing TTO's personality was already done via TNO. Learning more about TNO through the game and his many incarnations translated effectively into learning more about TTO as well..

Any extra "development" of TTO would have been redundant.

[Darque]

Albert Wesker - RE/REmake/REZero/RE4

 

He's got the skills and the cool villian look!

[Lancer]

BG forced you to follow a plot that eventually brought you in conflict with Sarevok, but with the motivation you are given, I would just have walked away if it was a PnP game. This is proven by the way the plot is handled - you only tangentially get in Sarevok's way, as you are probably just minding your own business and doing some cheap mercenary and FedEx jobs during a good part of the game. With Irenicus, there's just no way you would let him get away with it, from the beginning of the game.

 

You are discussing how the storytelling style differed between BG1 and BG2 (which is opening up another can of worms I wish not to get into right now) not how villainous Irenicus is with respect to Sarevok and vice-versa.

 

Yeah. But Jon gave you those cool nightmare sequences (or did he?). And his actions through the game are quite thoroughly explained and justified (from his pov at least).

He abducted and tortured you, he stole your soul and your sister's to dodge a curse placed by the gods themselves, he planned to destroy his home city just to show them, he intended to become a god to kick the asses of the gods that had wronged him, he made deals with demons and drow, and in the very end he dragged you to the Abyss because he was too stubborn to let go. At the end, his henchmen were Pit Fiends, while Sarevok just had... Angelo.

 

Sarevok had an army of dopplegangers and single-handedly manipulated the Iron Throne. And how disappointing that Irenicus ALSO wanted to become a god like Sarevok did. You would think that they'd come up with a more original motive for a villain in the sequel.

 

Yes. And aside from abducting you in the very beginning. It was an-all Irenicus show in SoA.. The PC and his motives felt like an afterthought. The whole Bhaalspawn storyline was pretty much ignored in SOA and didn't really pick up again until ToB. But like I said earlier, that is opening up another can of worms.

 

And ,oh yeah, Sarevok was more evil. Sorry, but the fact that you fight the same villain three times in one game makes more for an annoying/pestering villain than one that you love to hate.

 

 

I'll give you that. But in exchange, Irenicus always had an ace up his sleeve. The clones in the asylum, the Slayer in the Abyss... he was anything but predictable.

 

And you consider Sarevok framing you late in the game predictable? Sarevok killing his father was predictable?

So you were able to tell from the get go what Sarevok's motives were with the iron shortage-- to start a war between nations just so that he can cause enough bloodshed to ascend?

 

 

Also, what Gromnir said. 

 

Nonsense...And Irenicus wasn't cookie cutter? Not only did they re-hash the whole "I-want-to-be-a-god" motive from Sarevok himself, but oh no, he wants revenge from those who wronged him. No.. I have never seen *that* one before. "

I am not saying Sarevok was original, but neither was Irenicus and saying so would be wee bit exaggerating.

[213374U]

You are discussing how the storytelling style differed between BG1 and BG2 (which is opening up another can of worms I wish not to get into right now) not how villainous Irenicus is with respect to Sarevok and vice-versa.

Huh? What defines the characters other than the storytelling? I don't care what the people at BIS/Bio wanted Sarevok to be, I know what they made him to be. A cliched, shallow baddie. You claim it's "Mystary!", but in fact it's just lack of fleshing.

 

 

Sarevok had an army of dopplegangers and single-handedly manipulated the Iron Throne. And how disappointing that Irenicus ALSO wanted to become a god like Sarevok did. You would think that they'd come up with a more original motive for a villain in the sequel.

Sarevok wanted to become a god... he just had absolutely no idea of how to accomplish that. He just thought that stirring up a war and murdering those of his lineage would be a good start. He was little more than an empowered thug, in the end. Irenicus had already tried and missed by inches, and had reasons to do what he did.

 

 

Yes. And aside from abducting you in the very beginning. It was an-all Irenicus show in BG2.. The PC and his motives felt like an afterthought to. The whole Bhaalspawn storyline went to hell in SoA, and didn't really pick up again until ToB. But like I said earlier, that is opening up a can of worms.

Nah, you're blowing things out of proportion so you can make a point, which otherwise, you don't have. The game is as much about Irenicus as it is about your character, as he needs you, and clearly explains why. If you say that the Bhaalspawn plot was wasted with all the stuff about the Slayer and your soul being the only thing that can heal him, as well as the final scenes in hell, I'm inclined to think that your personal preferences blind you to the overwhelming facts.

 

 

And ,oh yeah, Sarevok was more evil. Sorry, but the fact that you fight the same villain three times in one game makes more for an annoying/pestering villain than one that you love to hate.

Huh? Your personal feelings towards someone (fictional or real) don't change what that person is. You may "love to hate" me, but that doesn't make me evil. Neither does my pestering you.

 

But yeah, Sarevok is more evil. Just because you say so.

 

 

And you consider Sarevok framing you late in the game predictable? Sarevok killing his father was predictable?

So you were able to tell from the get go what Sarevok's motives were with the iron shortage-- to start a bloodbath between nations? 

Where did I say that Sarevok was predictable? Where did I say I had him figured out from 1/3 in the game? Please, read my posts and address the points I make in them, not some other random ideas you come up with.

 

 

Nonsense...And Irenicus wasn't cookie cutter? Not only did they re-hash the whole "I-want-to-be-a-god" motive from Sarevok himself, but oh no, he wants revenge from those who wronged him. No.. I have never seen *that* one before.  " 

I am not saying Sarevok was original, but neither was Irenicus and saying so would be wee bit exaggerating.

Evil is evil. Irenicus had motives, while Sarevok was an empowered schoolyard bully.

 

But hey, I'm not going to try to change your views on which should be your favorite. It's a matter of taste, after all. But I'm most definitely going to reply when you make claims that are inaccurate or just plain wrong.

[Gromnir]

"Nonsense...And Irenicus wasn't cookie cutter? Not only did they re-hash the whole "I-want-to-be-a-god" motive from Sarevok himself, but oh no, he wants revenge from those who wronged him. No.. I have never seen *that* one before."

 

if that is all you got from irenicus, then we feel bad for you... though we admit that bio dropped the ball on his development... which is exactly what you seem to want less of, so go figure.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Lancer]

But hey, I'm not going to try to change your views on which should be your favorite. It's a matter of taste, after all. But I'm most definitely going to reply when you make claims that are inaccurate or just plain wrong. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

All my comments about BG1 and BG2 have been pretty accurate. This following statement makes me doubt your credibility OTOH:

 

 

Sarevok wanted to become a god... he just had absolutely no idea of how to accomplish that. He just thought that stirring up a war and murdering those of his lineage would be a good start. He was little more than an empowered thug, in the end.

 

If you think that Sarevok had "no idea" how to become a god you obviously need to play BG1 again..

 

 

 

If you say that the Bhaalspawn plot was wasted with all the stuff about the Slayer and your soul being the only thing that can heal him, as well as the final scenes in hell, I'm inclined to think that your personal preferences blind you to the overwhelming facts.

The Slayer stuff was the only thing we get to learn about your character in a game that was about 1.5 times as long as BG1. The rest was all about Irenicus.That is shameful. We don't even begin to learn what it means to be a Bhaalspawn until ToB.

 

 

 

Evil is evil. Irenicus had motives, while Sarevok was an empowered schoolyard bully. 

 

You accuse me of being blinded by my own preferences.. Yet you do just that here. "

 

Sarevok is not an empowered schoolyard bully just because you say so.

[Lancer]

if that is all you got from irenicus, then we feel bad for you... though we admit that bio dropped the ball on his development... which is exactly what you seem to want less of, so go figure.

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Right.. Because I have seen a lot of villains that ascend through wars caused by iron shortages...

[213374U]

If you think that Sarevok had "no idea" how to become a god you obviously need to play BG1 again..

But he didn't. He had just a vague idea. Melissan did know, Sarevok was just screwing around.

 

 

The Slayer stuff was the only thing we get to learn about your character in a game that was about 1.5 times as long as BG1. The rest was all about Irenicus.That is shameful. We don't even begin to learn what it means to be a Bhaalspawn until ToB.

You learn even less in BG1. Just that Sarevok needs your Bhaalspawn essence to become a god. No specifics, no matter how you look at it.

 

 

You accuse me of being blinded by my own preferences.. Yet you do just that here.  "

 

Sarevok is not an empowered schoolyward bully just because you say so. 

Um... right. He was some guy in black armor with delusions of grandeur. Other than that, we don't learn much else. I agree, though. He wasn't a schoolyard bully. I didn't see any bullies at my schoolyard wear heavy armor.

His motivations weren't much more complex, though.

[Gromnir]

1) those o' you who mentions the transcendent one gotta 'members that you is being asked for your favorite villain and not your favorite game's villain.  transcendent one were poorly developed, albeit for obvious reasons.

 

Yes, but TTO was a very notable exception in that basically TTO *was* TNO. And Torment did the best job out of any game I have known to develop the protagonist (TNO).

In a very real sense, developing TTO's personality was already done via TNO. Learning more about TNO through the game and his many incarnations translated effectively into learning more about TTO as well..

Any extra "development" of TTO would have been redundant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

not redundant... and hardly a real exception. tto were a seperate entity with its own goals... but it were, like many other crpg villains, very 1-dimensional. had one goal and no Character beyond that goal. as to being an exception... bah. external villains is most often metaphor kinda characters... the monsters we fight is truly the darkness within each man's soul and all that stuff. the fact that tto were simply an aspect of tno is one of those typical anime hooks; not really signifficant but it gots the kewl factor for the easily distracted/amused.

 

tno, on the other hand, were a protagonist character and as such, in spite of the development he got he too had to be left vague 'nuff so that different players could play him differently.

 

compare tno and tto to ravel. no more need be said, but we s'pose we is gonna have to eventually.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Deraldin]

Calax, I agree, but I still think CABAL is a mite more cool. Easily one of the top-contenders in the "mad AI" department, I'd say. Plus, his voice > SHODAN's voice, easily.

"The systems are impenetrable. There are no weak points. The technology is without flaw. The Human element, as always, is riddled with imperfection."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You realize that now I have to go back and play Tiberian Sun now right?

 

[Gromnir]

"Right.. Because I have seen a lot of villains that ascend through wars caused by iron shortages..."

 

oh please. is simply a mechanic... is not Character. sarevok were the traditional evil and power hungry murderer/mastermind (btw, if you even think 'bout the iron shortage thing for a minute you realize that it is the dumbest plan evar,) who will do anything it takes to win. what is his motivation. what does he want? why does he do as he does?

 

Character is not same as plot... don't get too confused 'bout plot details.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Lord Tingeling]

Calax, I agree, but I still think CABAL is a mite more cool. Easily one of the top-contenders in the "mad AI" department, I'd say. Plus, his voice > SHODAN's voice, easily.

"The systems are impenetrable. There are no weak points. The technology is without flaw. The Human element, as always, is riddled with imperfection."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You realize that now I have to go back and play Tiberian Sun now right?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have to do so too. <_<

 

 

 

Such an underrated game. :/

[Lancer]

You learn even less in BG1. Just that Sarevok needs your Bhaalspawn essence to become a god. No specifics, no matter how you look at it.

 

Let's see from what I recall off-hand.. It's been a while since I played BG1 but this should be pretty accurate.. There might be one more thing I am forgetting.

 

-First off you learn that there is something really special about you and for some reason (you don't know what) Iron Throne assassins are sent to you right and left

-You finally learn you are something called a Bhaalspawn.. One of the sons of the Lord of Murder Bhaal and that you

-You learn about the Time of Troubles and the role of the Bhaalspawn in it

-You learn that your brother (Sarevok) is trying to become the Lord of Murder by killing other Bhaalspawn

-You learn that your brother is trying to become the Lord of Murder by also causing bloodshed through the whole iron shortage/war deal.

 

As you can see, there was a good amount more to the Bhaalspawn storyline in BG1 than in BG2:SoA. SoA, OTOH, only had that you could turn into the slayer. There really wasn't anything else to it. However, it did have tons and tons about Irenicus with his motives having very little linkage to you aside from the fact that he stole your soul and you needed to get it back. And this was the problem with Irenicus.. The whole Tree of Life plotline and revenge plotline, really had nothing to do with you personally or the Bhaalspawn storyline. He stole your soul, and that was it. The revelation about the Slayer was just something that came up along the way.

That is my beef with it.

[Lancer]

  what is his motivation.  what does he want?  why does he do as he does? 

 

Character is not same as plot... don't get too confused 'bout plot details.

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So are you implying that all it takes for a character to not be cookie-cutter or cliche is to add in a few extra nightmare sequences?

 

All characters are cliche. Everything has been beaten to death. Irenicus is cliche. Sarevok is cliche..Irenicus might obviously be a more fleshed out NPC, but not the better villain. There is a clear cut difference between the two.

 

More is not always better. In this case, it wasn't.

 

Not all fleshed out NPCs automatically made good villains nor do all "cookie-cutter" NPCs make bad villains either. It all depends on how well the villain design fits within the storyline you are making him for. I would argue that since The BG series was about YOU and YOUR role in the Bhaalspawn saga, SoA necessarily needed to be more PC-centered than it was... Like BG1 was.. Like ToB was. As a result, having a villain-centered game like Irenicus for the BG saga just wasn't a good idea IMHO. It is possible that a villain like Irenicus would have made a great villain in another game that wasn't as PC-centered... But it was a poor choice for SoA.

[Gromnir]

"Not all fleshed out NPCs automatically made good villains"

 

am not sure if anybody ever suggested such a thing, so your point is? beating on the scarecrow again?

 

*shrug*

 

as noted above, sauron is one dimensional. we noted that such characters can be effective/good. nevertheless, they is simply 1 dimensional. seen one and you has largely seen 'em all.

 

"SoA necessarily needed to be more PC-centered then it was"

 

why? develop the protagonist story and you run into traditional crpg problem: freedom. more freedom you give player to create and develop his character, the less the developer can have to do so.

 

makes more sense to put effort into those characters who can be developed... such as villains. bg2 suffered not 'cause it failed to develop the protagonist, but rather 'cause it failed to develop irenicus more.

 

"All characters are cliche."

 

and so, with this oft repeated and clearly misguided refrain, you make the entire thread largely pointless. congrats.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Lancer]

why?  develop the protagonist story and you run into traditional crpg problem: freedom.  more freedom you give player to create and develop his character, the less the developer can do so.  makes more sense to put effort into those characters who can be developed... such as villains.  bg2 suffered not 'cause it failed to develop the protagonist, but rather 'cause it failed to develop irenicus more.

 

I didn't feel any freer in SoA than BG1 although the antagonist was detailed more in SoA. In fact, there was less freedom in SoA in some respects when they took a lot of the wilderness exploration common throughout BG1.

 

No reason why you can't develop the protagonist and have a game with considerable freedom. And even if it is not common today, I hope you are not implying that it "can't" or "won't" ever be done.

 

 

and so, with this oft repeated and clearly misguided refrain, you make the entire thread largely pointless. congrats.

 

You attack a truism? Nothing wrong with cliche characters, but suggesting originality (with all the literature that exists) today is very strange indeed.

[Judge Hades]

I have to agree with Grommie that Irenicus could have used more development but of all the Bioware villains he was the best of the bunch. The Transcendent one was good but my favorite villain of them all was The Master from Fallout 1.