Favorite Game Villan

[Lancer]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Don't mind villain development as long as the PC gets his due as well. SoA didn't do that.

 

It is notable to add that SoA was the only game in the BG saga that wasn't PC-centered. Some people might like that, but I didn't.

[Gromnir]

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

 

is a truism 'cause you say so? HA! bs. is a cheap dodge, nothing more.

 

and as for truisms, it is AXIOMATIC that the more a developer developes the protagonist, the less a player will be able to do so. you cannot possibly need it explained, can you?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Judge Hades]

Well, the universe doesn't revolve around the PC, but there needs to be a balance. I think BG 2 did well in this regard.

[Lancer]

and as for truisms, it is AXIOMATIC that the more a developer developes the protagonist, the less a player will be able to do so.  you cannot possibly need it explained, can you? 

 

Not quite.

 

If you suggest that you can't have a deep protagonist with lots of options then either you are pessimistic or you haven't played (or don't remember) Deus Ex or even Ultima. Heck, even Torment fits here. I felt quite free in that game. *Lots* of roleplaying possibilities!

 

And it will be more commonplace with more luck in the future.

[Lancer]

Well, the universe doesn't revolve around the PC, but there needs to be a balance.  I think BG 2 did well in this regard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

SoA was about 80% Irenicus and 20% PC. How is this balanced?

[Fionavar]

Please continue tangent character development discussion here: http://forums.obsidianent.com/index.php?showtopic=36975.

 

Otherwise, feel free to discuss the thread's topic here.

[roshan]

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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actuially I meant 'state', I was typing toioi fast and ended uuip switching the a and t.

[roshan]

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!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

TTO was definitely a oine dimensioinial character... His suirvival instinct was his oinily moiitivatioin, juist like an animal. Juist like a proiiper wild animal he is even has a cage. (the foiritress oif regrets)

 

In any case, it is rare that we have a villain whoise oinily goial is to live, uinlike the many whoii are oibsessed with infinite poiwer/goidhoioid/wealth etc.

[roshan]

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.

 

Sarevoik wanted toi kill yoiui merely becauise he wanted toii eliminate all his rivals soii that he woiuild be the oinie toii ascend toii goidhoioid. There was noithing in bg1 aboiuit sarevoik needing yoiuir essence or whatever.

 

And he planned toii doi this by slauightering millioins in a sacrificial war. (Unlike ireniucuis whoi wanted toi........ steal soiimeoines soiuil? Whatever. Thats suich a pathetic way of getting things doiinie.)

[Calax]

TTO was definitely a oine dimensioinial character... His suirvival instinct was his oinily moiitivatioin, juist like an animal. Juist like a proiiper wild animal he is even has a cage. (the foiritress oif regrets)

 

In any case, it is rare that we have a villain whoise oinily goial is to live, uinlike the many whoii are oibsessed with infinite poiwer/goidhoioid/wealth etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ultimatly if you look at it everyone wants to survive and to be immortal... but anyway back to the villans, Numbah two on my list is Albedo from Xenosaga. Who else do you know will wrench of his own head just to scare you?

[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!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

TTO was definitely a oine dimensioinial character... His suirvival instinct was his oinily moiitivatioin, juist like an animal. Juist like a proiiper wild animal he is even has a cage. (the foiritress oif regrets)

 

In any case, it is rare that we have a villain whoise oinily goial is to live, uinlike the many whoii are oibsessed with infinite poiwer/goidhoioid/wealth etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

so? what is your point? seems lie you is kinda reaching... trying real hard to give tto something special that weren't there.

 

like ps:t all you want, but tto were a pretty weak adversary/villain.

 

ravel, on the other hand, had soul

[EnderAndrew]

2) sarevok were too cookie-cutter clich

[Gromnir]

2) sarevok were too cookie-cutter clich

[EnderAndrew]

Yes, but why nominate him for being a GREAT villian? Several people have done as such. He is cliche at best.

[Gromnir]

Yes, but why nominate him for being a GREAT villian?  Several people have done as such.  He is cliche at best.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

same reason folks nominate tto. they loved the GAME. the game gave 'em warm fuzzies... so they recalls sarevok with qualities he not necessarily possessed. folks is actually voting for favorite game

[Lancer]

Yes, but why nominate him for being a GREAT villian?  Several people have done as such.  He is cliche at best.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He may not have been a *great* villain but nor was Irenicus. Irenicus was cliche at best and worst off didn't do much in advancing the Bhaal storyline. Those claiming that Irenicus was a *great* villain and isn't cookie cutter in any way are delusional and probably a little nostalgic at best.

[Lancer]

To say the truth, there really hasn't been a crpg villain that has *truly* impressed me. There have been movie villains that have left me awe-struck at how purely evil they are but in the realm of crpgs, almost all villains have been mediocre to decent at best.

[Gorth]

Maybe thats why the thread is not about the best villain, but plain and simple, just peoples favourite villain, which can be a favourite for any number of reasons, obscure or rational

[alanschu]

I'd probably have to go with the Guardian being the best villain too.

 

He played things very well and just gets foiled by the Avatar. Just another in a long line of interesting villains that the Avatar has foiled, but the first in the trilogy of trilogies where the villain was the villain for the entire trilogy.

[Ewen Brown]

the stop sign in bloodlines, it's just so unbeatable that it's frustrating

[vaxen83]

Also, what about fighting villains in multiplayer mode?

[213374U]

He may not have been a *great* villain but nor was Irenicus. Irenicus was cliche at best and worst off didn't do much in advancing the Bhaal storyline. Those claiming that Irenicus was a *great* villain and isn't cookie cutter in any way are delusional and probably a little nostalgic at best.

I see. You are just trying to "win" this thread, aren't you?

 

"If Sarevok wasn't great, then neither was anyone else! Nuh-uh!"

 

I already defused all of your arguments rather easily by means of plain logic, to which you responded with a lame flame bait. But I'm willing to try again, nevertheless.

 

Again, how does Irenicus not furthering the Bhaalspawn plot affect his quality as a villain? I'll tell you: in no freaking way.

How does his being a rehash of classic evil themes affect his quality as a villain? Again, in no way, as most villains in any media are created that way. The quality is more affected by the way the character is developed and presented than anything else. And where Sarevok was a "me will smash your face!" kind of evil, Irenicus' past, motivations, and personality were well explored and defined.

 

Basically, what you are saying is that since you don't like what the focus of SoA was, then Irenicus must suxx0rz. Sorry, but that's only a valid argument in bizarro world-o. But then again, I'm beginning to see that that's where you have been arguing from the whole time.

[Guest Fishboot]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If one wanted to defend BG2 from this charge, it's notable that it was supposed to be the middle installment of three games when originally developed, with ToB being a full third game rather than an expansion. I know the, "The developers weren't able to realize their grand plan!" defense is a cliche, but it makes it easier to understand some of the artistic choices in BG2.

[Calax]

look people have their opinions and that's what this is about you don't have to argue about weather or not their OPINION is correct do you?

[Walsingham]

Reading through I still say Irenicus over Sarevok, because:

 

1) I actually wanted to kill Irenicus, irrespective of playing as good or evil. He takes my party away, then he takes my kit away, then he takes me away from home, then he takes my SOUL. Then he gloats excessively. Then he refuses to die.

 

2) More importantly, Irenicus was more active as an enemy. He did all kind of things,

playing you both ways with Bodhi, and leads you on a merry dance, and does super evil things like destroying the Elvish city, and sponsoring serial killers.

Sarevok does absolutely nothing. He hires some mercenaries,

poisons some iron (which you fix within days of getting started), and dopplegangs some potentates. Like that last point is a hard one to second guess.

.

 

Moreover, we know precisely how thuggishly simple Sarevok is in ToB when he joins your fething party, you nitwit. He's all, like, "Gee I dunno. I suppose I was traumatised at an early age and just wanted to be loved. Or something"