What makes a villain you love to hate?

[incubus9]

Think of the Alien from 'Alien.' No shades of grey there. She wanted to eat and feed her young. You're food. Your moral compass and all of your shades of grey ideas are just chatter to her. She doesn't understand the ideas, let alone your words. I don't think every villain should be like that, but that 'bitch' was a compelling 'villain.' In that story, there were human villains also. They had motives and whatnot. Finally, while I also love the shades of grey idea, not every literary figure need have shades of grey. In fact, some folks in real life, while they still have a variety of motives and beliefs and predispositions, are basically bad at their core. There might be shades of grey in them, but they've beat most of those lighter shades to charcoal colored. Just saying we don't need to have every villain overwrought. Some of them might want nothing more than to feed you to their facesuckers.

 

Inhuman villains can be great as well. I think that the the villain that best fits the topic of this thread should be humanoid. In Aliens we didn't "love to hate" them, we were just terrified of them. Their motivations were so foreign to our own that we couldn't even attempt to understand them, only to fight or flee. These kinds of villains do have a good place in sci-fi and fantasy settings, but I think they do fall short when it comes to being a memorable villain. Villains need to have something relatable to ourselves so we can put their decisions into relation.

[Chunkyman]

I hope they avoid making cardboard villians. I don't want to "hate" very many people. Characters should be multidimensional and allow you to understand them, even if they are an antagonist. I think DA:O did a great job of this with Loghain. The A Song of Ice and Fire series by George R. R. Martin is also a great example of well written antagonists.

[ogrezilla]

Think of the Alien from 'Alien.' No shades of grey there. She wanted to eat and feed her young. You're food. Your moral compass and all of your shades of grey ideas are just chatter to her. She doesn't understand the ideas, let alone your words. I don't think every villain should be like that, but that 'bitch' was a compelling 'villain.' In that story, there were human villains also. They had motives and whatnot. Finally, while I also love the shades of grey idea, not every literary figure need have shades of grey. In fact, some folks in real life, while they still have a variety of motives and beliefs and predispositions, are basically bad at their core. There might be shades of grey in them, but they've beat most of those lighter shades to charcoal colored. Just saying we don't need to have every villain overwrought. Some of them might want nothing more than to feed you to their facesuckers.

 

Inhuman villains can be great as well. I think that the the villain that best fits the topic of this thread should be humanoid. In Aliens we didn't "love to hate" them, we were just terrified of them. Their motivations were so foreign to our own that we couldn't even attempt to understand them, only to fight or flee. These kinds of villains do have a good place in sci-fi and fantasy settings, but I think they do fall short when it comes to being a memorable villain. Villains need to have something relatable to ourselves so we can put their decisions into relation.

ya, aliens aren't really what I'd call great villains. They are a great threat, but not great villains. there is a place for that obviously.

Edited September 24, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Gorth]

I've yet to see a video game capture the personality of J.R. Ewing. Larry Hagman was awesome as the villain you loved to hate, hated to love, or something in between. The guy was oozing charisma while ripping off people (or cheating on them, or whatever).

[agewisdom]

Weighing in on these discussions, could we have a villain that is both intelligent, sinister and has a very real impact on the protagonist's life? These could include:

 

1. Getting the careless/brash protagonist into real trouble

For instance, the villain might feel the protagonist is getting a little troublesome with all his 'ooh... let me help everybody all the time for nothing' quests. So, he gets an NPC to come running to the protagonist asking for help. Help me, there's robbers in my house holding my wife and children hostage. A careful protagonist that probes further may detect the lie but a foolish one will charge right in.

 

Congratulations, you've just arrived at the scene of the crime where an entire family has been butchered using the same type of weapons you're holding. And the door is locked... And the authorities are closing in....

 

2. Keeping tabs and raiding PC's stronghold

Oooh... so the PC has become more and more powerful. Keeping all the great spells and powerful magic items in your stronghold eh. Have you made sure you have sufficient guards and traps to keep the villain away? No? Ok, time to raid, pillage and plunder. Couple of year's worth of loot just fall right into the villain's hands....

 

3. An Intelligent Evil Villain

I am hoping the villain is a reactive one... He doesn't just sit there and wait for the PC to come to him.... No, no... as soon as the PC is seen as a credible threat, he takes actions to get rid of these pesky adventurers. This may include sabotage, poison, placing spies in the PC stronghold and all manners of nefarious plots....

 

[Shardbearer]

Weighing in on these discussions, could we have a villain that is both intelligent, sinister and has a very real impact on the protagonist's life? These could include:

 

1. Getting the careless/brash protagonist into real trouble

For instance, the villain might feel the protagonist is getting a little troublesome with all his 'ooh... let me help everybody all the time for nothing' quests. So, he gets an NPC to come running to the protagonist asking for help. Help me, there's robbers in my house holding my wife and children hostage. A careful protagonist that probes further may detect the lie but a foolish one will charge right in.

 

Congratulations, you've just arrived at the scene of the crime where an entire family has been butchered using the same type of weapons you're holding. And the door is locked... And the authorities are closing in....

 

2. Keeping tabs and raiding PC's stronghold

Oooh... so the PC has become more and more powerful. Keeping all the great spells and powerful magic items in your stronghold eh. Have you made sure you have sufficient guards and traps to keep the villain away? No? Ok, time to raid, pillage and plunder. Couple of year's worth of loot just fall right into the villain's hands....

 

3. An Intelligent Evil Villain

I am hoping the villain is a reactive one... He doesn't just sit there and wait for the PC to come to him.... No, no... as soon as the PC is seen as a credible threat, he takes actions to get rid of these pesky adventurers. This may include sabotage, poison, placing spies in the PC stronghold and all manners of nefarious plots....

 

 

I love when the main villain has a presence throughout, not like he's just waiting at the last level inside his fortress the entire time. The way the dreams were done in The Eye of the World with Baalzamon or even the dreams in BG2 I thought demonstrated the villain's sinister intent and that he knew quite a lot more about whats going on than the protagonist very well

Edited September 24, 2012 by Shardbearer

[agewisdom]

Hi Shardbearer,

 

Yes, the dreams in BG2 is something that I'm looking for. You don't have a BIG BAD just waiting twiddling his thumbs. Sure he may be busy with his other nefarious plans, but as soon as it's clear that the PC is going to be a MAJOR THREAT, it's time for him to take actions to remove the PC.

 

It could be a serious of escalating actions that would also add some 'urgency' to the game, as some of the other threads were talking about. The PC can't be traipsing around smelling the flowers when you have a major villain breathing down your neck and trying to turn you into a sheeshkabob...

[JWestfall]

Think of the Alien from 'Alien.' No shades of grey there.

 

I would say the Alien there wasn't the real villain in that story, though. The alien was just an "elemental" force, providing a background for the conflict with the true villain - the "company" acting through the android character (forogt his name).

 

Villains (in my mind) cannot be inhuman - otherwise they become just another force of nature, like hurricanes or disease.

[Wolfenbarg]

I actually don't love to hate villains, I love to understand them. As good as he was in the early stages of the game, I actually don't care for Irenicus at all in the later stages when you actually discover what happened to him. I understood Sarevok's terrible childhood and prodding by numerous ambitious mentors leading to him becoming a bastard who wants to cause slaughter on a godlike level for his ascension. I understand Saren allying with Sovereign to give the citadel races the chance to survive. I understand The Transcendent One expanding his plane of power to put a permanent end to you and what you represent. I like villains with real depth, not just excuses. Irenicus was a bad egg *before* was exiled and had his soul stolen. I can't even pretend I understand his actions. I don't like villains like that.

[Monkcrab]

Think of the Alien from 'Alien.' No shades of grey there.

 

I would say the Alien there wasn't the real villain in that story, though. The alien was just an "elemental" force, providing a background for the conflict with the true villain - the "company" acting through the android character (forogt his name).

 

Villains (in my mind) cannot be inhuman - otherwise they become just another force of nature, like hurricanes or disease.

 

Elemental forces can make for very effective 'things that work against you', though. Say what you will about FFX, but Sin was fascinating and terrifying when it was just an unexplainable force of nature, lashing out and destroying everything with no reason, pity nor mercy, rich and poor alike. The real villains in that game were silly and lackluster, but Sin, Sin. Sin was wonderful, and I'm sure many people bought the game because of its powerful imagery. At least until they reveal what it actually is.

[Cantousent]

My point about the 'bitch' from "Alien" is that villains (and I understand that folks will want to discount the counter-example, but we can merely call her the chief adversary if you'd prefer) need not all become confusing chacters wrought out of different shades of grey. Some of the most memorable examples of literary antagonists have been by and large two dimensional. Look, most of the time, I'm jonesin' for someone a little edgy or interesting, but I don't think that's the only option that works in every case. In many ways, I think the 'bitch' from Alien is actually one of the most splendid villains/adversaries from any movie or book. She's completely foreign to our experience, but we understand her on some primal level. In terms of being a force of nature, something entirely inhuman, at some level most true psychopaths fall under that category. They're human, but their thoughts are foreign to us. Cujo, a beloved pet, provides a terrifying adversary. So, I agree with the idea that nuanced villains are great, but sometimes the devs can use a stereo-type villain to great ends, especially in contrast to the more subtle villains.

[ogrezilla]

Think of the Alien from 'Alien.' No shades of grey there.

 

I would say the Alien there wasn't the real villain in that story, though. The alien was just an "elemental" force, providing a background for the conflict with the true villain - the "company" acting through the android character (forogt his name).

 

Villains (in my mind) cannot be inhuman - otherwise they become just another force of nature, like hurricanes or disease.

 

Elemental forces can make for very effective 'things that work against you', though. Say what you will about FFX, but Sin was fascinating and terrifying when it was just an unexplainable force of nature, lashing out and destroying everything with no reason, pity nor mercy, rich and poor alike. The real villains in that game were silly and lackluster, but Sin, Sin. Sin was wonderful, and I'm sure many people bought the game because of its powerful imagery. At least until they reveal what it actually is.

 

Sin was great, but that kind of threat needs to be used properly. The part of that story that really stuck out to me was how the entire world was just refined to the idea that the best they could do was temporarily defeat it. If the story was just about some monster that they all agreed they needed to destroy I think a lot of the emotion would have been taken out of it. But everyone had to be convinced that they didn't have to repeat history over again; they could stand up and actually defeat it.

 

But I do agree. Sin was great. It was just a constant feeling of looming defeat. Similar to Lavos in Chrono Trigger. Completely flat "character" but it didn't matter. It destroyed the world. I never hated Lavos yet it was a very effective big bad threat.

Edited September 24, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Kilroy_Was_Here]

I like Grahf from Xenogears. (If you've played it, you've noticed already )

 

Trying to avoid spoilers here... Grahf was a man who defined himself in his ability to protect something, but in the end he failed. So he went on a quest to attain ultimate power. He acquires this power and becomes immortal but can never go back and reverse his own failure. So he goes around and tries to awaken others with his gift of 'power' which makes those affected insanely destructive.

 

I liked him because he never wanted any glory or recognition, and avoided taking the center stage except to block you when your goals interfered with his. In being reactive like that, he makes a good foil for most heroes who are proactive in their efforts to 'save the world'.

 

PS Plus he can take out giant robots with his bare hands; and who can honestly say they don't respect that?

 

PPS He also has epic theme music. That should be a requirement for video game villains.

[dknight99]

Think of the Alien from 'Alien.' No shades of grey there.

 

I would say the Alien there wasn't the real villain in that story, though. The alien was just an "elemental" force, providing a background for the conflict with the true villain - the "company" acting through the android character (forogt his name).

 

Villains (in my mind) cannot be inhuman - otherwise they become just another force of nature, like hurricanes or disease.

 

Elemental forces can make for very effective 'things that work against you', though. Say what you will about FFX, but Sin was fascinating and terrifying when it was just an unexplainable force of nature, lashing out and destroying everything with no reason, pity nor mercy, rich and poor alike. The real villains in that game were silly and lackluster, but Sin, Sin. Sin was wonderful, and I'm sure many people bought the game because of its powerful imagery. At least until they reveal what it actually is.

 

Sin was great, but that kind of threat needs to be used properly. The part of that story that really stuck out to me was how the entire world was just refined to the idea that the best they could do was temporarily defeat it. If the story was just about some monster that they all agreed they needed to destroy I think a lot of the emotion would have been taken out of it. But everyone had to be convinced that they didn't have to repeat history over again; they could stand up and actually defeat it.

 

But I do agree. Sin was great. It was just a constant feeling of looming defeat. Similar to Lavos in Chrono Trigger. Completely flat "character" but it didn't matter. It destroyed the world. I never hated Lavos yet it was a very effective big bad threat.

 

Funny you mention Lavos and Sin because I remember both of those villains / force of nature well and I thought they were wonderful antagonists when I was playing those games. They were the end boss but there were other villains to take of as well. DA: Origins also had a force of nature enemy at the end with the Scourge / horde dragon thing but I didn't have the same feeling for that enemy as compared to Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasy X. My biggest problem with DA: Origins was that it felt like it was only Act 1 of a three Act play and it just left me hanging after I defeated the dragon. I was like that's it? It's like playing BG2 and getting to Spellhold and beating Irenicus there and the game is over.

 

BG2 would not have been as well beloved if the game simply ended there and that was the feeling I got when I finished DA: Origins.

[ogrezilla]

Think of the Alien from 'Alien.' No shades of grey there.

 

I would say the Alien there wasn't the real villain in that story, though. The alien was just an "elemental" force, providing a background for the conflict with the true villain - the "company" acting through the android character (forogt his name).

 

Villains (in my mind) cannot be inhuman - otherwise they become just another force of nature, like hurricanes or disease.

 

Elemental forces can make for very effective 'things that work against you', though. Say what you will about FFX, but Sin was fascinating and terrifying when it was just an unexplainable force of nature, lashing out and destroying everything with no reason, pity nor mercy, rich and poor alike. The real villains in that game were silly and lackluster, but Sin, Sin. Sin was wonderful, and I'm sure many people bought the game because of its powerful imagery. At least until they reveal what it actually is.

 

Sin was great, but that kind of threat needs to be used properly. The part of that story that really stuck out to me was how the entire world was just refined to the idea that the best they could do was temporarily defeat it. If the story was just about some monster that they all agreed they needed to destroy I think a lot of the emotion would have been taken out of it. But everyone had to be convinced that they didn't have to repeat history over again; they could stand up and actually defeat it.

 

But I do agree. Sin was great. It was just a constant feeling of looming defeat. Similar to Lavos in Chrono Trigger. Completely flat "character" but it didn't matter. It destroyed the world. I never hated Lavos yet it was a very effective big bad threat.

 

Funny you mention Lavos and Sin because I remember both of those villains / force of nature well and I thought they were wonderful antagonists when I was playing those games. They were the end boss but there were other villains to take of as well. DA: Origins also had a force of nature enemy at the end with the Scourge / horde dragon thing but I didn't have the same feeling for that enemy as compared to Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasy X. My biggest problem with DA: Origins was that it felt like it was only Act 1 of a three Act play and it just left me hanging after I defeated the dragon. I was like that's it? It's like playing BG2 and getting to Spellhold and beating Irenicus there and the game is over.

 

BG2 would not have been as well beloved if the game simply ended there and that was the feeling I got when I finished DA: Origins.

 

I never actually finished DA:O so I can't comment on that. But I do know that kind of big boss needs to be handled properly. For one thing, it can't just randomly show up at the end. And honestly I think that kind ends up working better the less you know about them. Story-wise, the real villains of FFX and CT aren't Sin and Lavos, they are the people trying to use or manipulate them for their own gain. It works very well for video games because it allows the story to feature more realistic villains but still finish with a supreme boss fight. They both also had extra credibility added to their threat by showing what the world is like after they have done what they do.

 

wild prediction: the "event" will be some sort of vision of the future ala Frodo looking into the mirror of Galadriel.

Edited September 24, 2012 by ogrezilla

[dknight99]

@ogrezilla

 

I agree absolutely. It's the same as the Alien Queen in Aliens. The real villain really was Burke and the Corporation trying to make the Aliens a biological weapon, and Ripley even asked, "Who is worse? Us or them?" Despite Burke getting killed earlier in the story it doesn't make the ending any less satisfying with that end fight. There was so many elements at work in that movie and I think at the end it's just really good story telling. I really do believe that great villains help drive a narrative and stories do not need to limit themselves to only needing one villain. There can be multiple villains who serves in different roles with different motivations. The different villains can work against each other because after all an enemy of my enemy is an ally. Perhaps the PC is actually the villain if looked on from a different set of eyes like in Blade Runner.

[GhostofAnakin]

I like intelligent villains. I like villains capable of manipulating events through schemes and politics, rather than just some muscle guy who takes over a city/country/world because he can beat everyone else up. Give me Kreia over Malak any day (KOTOR reference, for those unaware).

 

I also like villains who are willing to go to any lengths to make their plans come to fruition. If they kill someone's family, it's not because they're EVIL! and want to massacre everyone just to say they can. It's because it's a part of the grand plan and they have no qualms about murdering innocents if it furthers their goals.

[ogrezilla]

ya I'm even just thinking what Chrono Trigger would be like with player decision input. How many people would kill Magus before he joined you if they game let them?

 

I like intelligent villains. I like villains capable of manipulating events through schemes and politics, rather than just some muscle guy who takes over a city/country/world because he can beat everyone else up. Give me Kreia over Malak any day (KOTOR reference, for those unaware).

 

I also like villains who are willing to go to any lengths to make their plans come to fruition. If they kill someone's family, it's not because they're EVIL! and want to massacre everyone just to say they can. It's because it's a part of the grand plan and they have no qualms about murdering innocents if it furthers their goals.

 

definitely. Though the crazy guy who just wants to watch the world burn has his place too. Ideally, they aren't strong enough to do it without being smart though. Kefka would have been boring if he was all powerful from the start.

Edited September 24, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Terror K]

I like a villain who is not only brilliant, but you can see his point of view, and it even makes sense to you from certain perspective as to why he/she/it is doing it.

[Zero]

I like a villain who is not only brilliant, but you can see his point of view, and it even makes sense to you from certain perspective as to why he/she/it is doing it.

 

I think a key part when dealing with this aspect if you are talking about the "MAIN" villain is that you can't have it be too sympathetic. Especially since you are usually a character with free agency. For me when I'm in a game where the villain is a well intentioned extremist or something of the sort, I usually want to take other approaches as opposed to "I MUST STOP YOU BLAHMCEVILPANTS". The man or woman basically has to have broken a moral taboo and I think it has to not be abstracted , I think it needs to be in the viewer's face. And they need to be resolute and unapologetic (ultimately).

 

For a villain to be conflicted or anything of that sort causes them to enter tragic villain/figure territory, which works in some stories. I don't think it works for stories where you want "BIG BOSS FIGHT". I kind of went on a tangent.

[dknight99]

Team Rocket

Oh yeah! XD

 

Won't steal my pikachu 'Cause I don't use one :|

 

 

Kefka was great. Unlike a lot of villains who do nothing but talk and scheme and manipulate people, Kefka actually trashed the place and drove everyone to despair. Most scheming villains... scheme and scheme and scheme until the moment of their ascension comes around -- wheeen they're suddenly stopped by the heros. -__-' An enormous display of evilness - that's what Kefka had.

 

Also Irenicus was whiny. After listening to his speeches, I just wanted to curb stomp him - but he'd run off on me. :/ He never felt like a threat, because he never threatened me in-game with his power (I mean by trouncing my party in a battle) or even did anything other than defeat a few low level mooks in cutscenes.

 

A competent villain would also get in the party's face a lot. Not just once or twice or even three times. Not, 'the villain does something bad in the first quarter of the game yet we don't see him again until the finale'. Try to stop the party from messing up his plans. Be nasty about it - no weak assassin or underlying attacks. Come after the heros!

 

I like villains that

- threaten me with their power. Makes me respect their power.

- do some big bad - not just 'almost' do big bad.

- get in my face a lot. Don't ignore me.

 

 

Yup ^-^ That was all totally coherent.

 

EDIT - Zero, "Blah McEvilPants" is the best villain name ever. ;3

 

That list is pretty much what I want to see in my villain. I think a villain needs to do bad things, not almost doing it or accidentily did it or even for the greater good or whatever.

[horocaust]

I like villains who aren't really villains, just people whose path had crossed with the hero's. People who could be your allies if only you weren't opposing each other. Like The Transcendent One, who wanted nothing but just live free, or Kreia, who wanted to free the world from tyranny of the Force, or the Master, who wanted the best for humanity. Yes, methods they used weren't the nicest, but then again, the protagonist is not necessarily the messiah, either. The conflict I like is not the conflict of black and white, or even of different shades of gray, but the conflict between blue and orange, purple and brown, one opinion with which you could wholeheartedly agree and another. Using Kreia as an example, if I could support her until the bitter end, I would've done so, because I agree with her on the points she made, at least considering the Force. I expect antagonists in PE to be reasonable, likable, strong as persons, and ideally for the game to give an option to take their side in whatever conflict will arise during the story, like in New Vegas with Caesar.

[TrashMan]

Personally I consider Kefka (and practicly everything from FF) horribly written.

 

I also consider the Dark Knight the worst of the 3 Bat-Bale films. While it was an interesting take on Joker, I just didn't care about him at all (partialyl because of all the PLOT HOLES).

 

Irenicus..now that is one villain I do agree is well written (and voiced).

 

Kreia...ugh.. I really hated her. Not because I think she was excellently written, but because she was so annyoing. And obvious. I knew before the first level was done that she will be the bad guy. And I couldn't kick her out of hte airlock.

As much as I like KOTOR2, I hate all the things done with the force (hole in the force? force hunger? Wound in the force? Super-jedi-mater-insta-kill Kreia power?)

 

 

But what makes a compeling villain?

That's nearly impossible to pin down.

Edited September 24, 2012 by TrashMan

[Gibbscape_Torment]

Letho and Loghain would have to be my favourite antagonists. They're just guys with different view points, and different goals. The absolute last thing i want in this game is for someone with a twirled mustache whom owns a couple kittens with broken ribs.

 

Irenicus is the kind of villain whom i think should be left in the past. Sure, there was a catalyst for his mustache twirling, but he was still twirling that mustache. I don't like black and white characters.

[Longknife]

I would ask a different question, which is do we WANT a villain we love to hate? Just wanna clarify...

 

I personally prefer Caesar over Benny. Benny has "no redeeming qualities" (not entirely, but close) because he'll literally keep trying to stab you in the back whenever he gets a chance, Caesar on the other hand is a definite villain for many, but you can understand his motivation.

 

If loving to hate a villain comes at the cost of them being so senselessly evil that they lack a sympathetic motivation or the like, then I say it's not worth it. Kefka and the Joker are fine for their settings, but personally I do NOT want to see another cliché fantasy setting where you fight the bad guy "becuz he's evil." I prefer morally grey, with an enemy I can sympathize with and have a chat with them. I prefer killing them not because they're downright disgustingly evil, but because they simply have an opinion on how things should be that vastly opposes my own and they refuse to back down from their own opinion and I from mine, thus forcing a fight. I prefer Caesar and Dagoth Ur over Ganondorf and the Joker.