Just say 'no' to Johnny Quest villains!

[Gromnir]

"With that in mind, I'm not sure I'd want them to stop using a formula that, for whatever reason, worked for me personally."

 

yeah, but the formula is also a trap.

 

can kotor2 do what kotor did... can it simply give us a recreation of star wars characters and plot and themes?

 

the obsidians have a great opportunity with kotor2... they is gonna be developing one of the most anticipated titles of the year, and Gromnir don't think they has the luxury of being able to take advantage of bioware's simple (albeit very clever and undeniably efficacious) approach to story elements. obsidian is going to have to do something different...

 

or maybe not...

 

kotor was a game that despite so many seeming flaws, succeeded with an overwhelming number of folks... gestalt.

 

example: combat was very easy and poorly balanced, but it had a kewl factor for most peoples that made it enjoyable... and the cinematic aspect of combat (something that necessarily limited its tactical appeal,) further bolstered the feeling of nostalgia that seemed to be the main goal of the game. lightsabre combats was looking like movie lightsabre combats 'nuff to make folks get that warm and fuzzy feeling they gets when they recalls first having seen such battles on the Big Screen... which was reinforced by the story aspects.

 

would a turn-based kotor with overhead perspective have been able to create a nostalgic glow in folks as they watched one of their party avatars move forward 4 hexes and then take a single swipe with their lightsabre?

 

so

[Ivan the Terrible]

as to kotor and simple Good v. Evil characters...

 

duh.

 

the star wars movies used the traditional archetypical characters and plots and themes.

[Phosphor]

the star wars movies used the traditional archetypical characters and plots and themes. kotor brazenly, unapologetically, and successfully recreated what many folks liked

[Ivan the Terrible]

Irenicus had more complexity than Bioware's average "villain", but of course, most of the others didn't - Sarevok had potential but was underdevelopped, Melissan was the classic villain, so was the Creator Race's overlord thingy, (though Aribeth had the whole redemption thing going), etc.

Even Irenicus was a disappointment. When I first started BG2, it almost seemed like he was trying to help you reach your true potential; i.e. that he was evil, a torturer and murderer, but that he was doing so to help you, which would have been an interesting twist.

 

But nooooo....he was just trying to get at your soul so he could lay waste to his homeland. In the end, he was trying to get revenge for something when they were perfectly justified in whatever they did to him (he DID, essentially, try to kill them all so he could become a god.) It was thus difficult to sympathize on any level with him.

 

He could've been a contender....but no.

[AlanC9]

Not so with KOTOR. When you talk to the majority of Sith, their reasons don't extend much beyond 'Malak will make you weakling Republics suffer, and subjugate this pathetic galaxy beneath the power of the Sith!'

 

That's not a very good explanation of why they're willing to fight and die for the cause. In fact, it's downright lame. The Sith can represent evil without having every last Sith trooper long only to kick puppies and launch children into orbit unprotected.

Well, what other reason would you like them to have expressed? Are there any sensible reasons for signing up with the Sith besides wanting to commit evil without repercussions? (An Imperial officer could be in it because he believes the Emperor is the legitimate head of state, but that's not possible for someone following Revan and Malak)

 

Truth is, it's not very hard to get folks to sign up for that sort of thing in the real world. See, for instance, Rwanda, or Nazi Germany, or frontier wars in North America, etc., etc.

 

Of course, only a tiny fraction of the population are actually going to go evil like that. But how many do you need?

 

Edit: a big KotOR plot hole for me was that the officers and men of Revan's fleet seemed to follow him without question. Are Republic soldiers only loyal to their leaders, and not the Republic itself? Sounds like late Republican Rome. If the Republic's that shaky, how did it last 400 more years.

[Gromnir]

"Even with Darth Vader and the Emperor, dialogue spoken with no purpose but to show how 'evil' they were was the exception rather than the rule. "

 

oh come now... that ain't true and you know it. the dialogues and scenes with the emperor and darth vader was almost exclusively included to show us just how nasty they was. dress 'em up in black and play ominous music, and have them torture folks or reveal plans to kill/hurt the hero's loved ones and friends.

 

"The Sith can represent evil without having every last Sith trooper long only to kick puppies and launch children into orbit unprotected."

 

is hardly accurate. is a number of folks on korriban that not fit this description including archeologists and students and prospective student, so try not to be overstating for effect... diminishes your point.

 

"I don't think this point is being missed by anyone"

 

really? sure seems that way. go read some reviews or maybe check out some threads at bio or here or codex. if you have folks saying, "why are the villains and heroes in kotor so stereotypical," when the reason "why" is so damnably obvious, then we cannot help but think that some folks has missed something. look at reviews and threads here and elsewhere that talk 'bout how unoriginal kotor story and characters was. why is the kotor villains and heroes so stereotypical? answer:

[Spook]

Those that have fallen to the dark side should follow the me-first-obey-or-die type, but the common soldier should not all be of that moled. Most of them probably joined up to be on the winning side or just to be safe. They don't need to actualy agree with any of the Sith philosophy at all, but might just want to survive.

 

The lower ranks of the "dark-minions" need to be more "human" and deverse in behavior then the steriotypical stormtrooper/officer that we could see in KotOR. This is needed for roleplaying reason if nothing else, so that it might be a reason to do thing another way then just wade in and kill everything that moves (which is not the Jedi philosophy by the way) that you commonly see in games.

[Ivan the Terrible]

Well, what other reason would you like them to have expressed? Are there any sensible reasons for signing up with the Sith besides wanting to commit evil without repercussions? (An Imperial officer could be in it because he believes the Emperor is the legitimate head of state, but that's not possible for someone following Revan and Malak)

 

Truth is, it's not very hard to get folks to sign up for that sort of thing in the real world. See, for instance, Rwanda, or Nazi Germany, or frontier wars in North America, etc., etc.

 

Of course, only a tiny fraction of the population are actually going to go evil like that. But how many do you need?

Hmmm....Lemme make an argument.

 

"I joined the Sith because the Republic is a stagnating relic of the past. For years, they've limped from one war to the next, barely surviving each one and yet never being prepared for the next. The Galactic Senate has thus proven itself ineffective in the face of change, a bureacratic mess which exists only to leech off the people for it's own benefit; what the galaxy needs now is decisiveness, action, and direct leadership. What we need is a leader who can make firm decisions and have them carried through without all the red tape, a (wo)man who can unite the people into a new golden age. What the Galaxy needs is Revan!"

 

There was some hinting made at this viewpoint, for example with the Selkath judges, but it was never really carried through. The efforts to present this charade by the Sith themselves were pretty feeble to non-existent.

 

And I would argue that even in the case of Nazi Germany, Rwanda, etc. there was a half-way reasonable ideology being put forward rather than just 'let's kill people'; if Hitler had stepped before the masses and said, 'Let's crush this puny Continent, my minions! We shall bring a new age of darkness to Europe, and all the world shall despair!', I doubt he'd have gotten much support.

 

With a villain like Sarevok, who's inner circle was so small and his 'evil' plans unknown to the vast majority of the guys who were going to fight for him, such an approach can work since it's never expressed outside of that inner circle. But Revan and Malek were leading an army of millions upon millions of soldiers!

 

In answer to your last question, to subjugate a galaxy and crew all those ships being churned out by the Star Forge, you need a lot of people, and you just aren't going to get a very dedicated or large group if your only argument is that you want to enslave the galaxy.

[Gromnir]

btw, it seems that folks still is missing the point of irenicus... but that fault is mostly the fault of the biowarians. his motivations was hardly as simple and clich

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I don't particularly feel Irenicus to have been good or bad. I think he had the potential. He had the motivation, and somewhat intricate at that; his actions, however, just felt somewhat erratic.

 

As for villains one could sympathize with... i'd have to throw in the Master from Fallout, but also Kerghan the Necromancer from Arcanum. Ravel as well.

[kefka]

oh come now... that ain't true and you know it. the dialogues and scenes with the emperor and darth vader was almost exclusively included to show us just how nasty they was. dress 'em up in black and play ominous music, and have them torture folks or reveal plans to kill/hurt the hero's loved ones and friends.

There's one scene with the emperor that always cracks me up. When he's bragging about Endor being a trap, he leans forward slowly, and in his best mocking tone, says: "oh I'm afraid the deflector shield will be quite operational when your friends arrive"... and then smirks... I half expected him to twirl his moustache (if he had one), it was such blatant, cartoonish evil.

[Lohengrin]

Well, what other reason would you like them to have expressed? Are there any sensible reasons for signing up with the Sith besides wanting to commit evil without repercussions? (An Imperial officer could be in it because he believes the Emperor is the legitimate head of state, but that's not possible for someone following Revan and Malak)

 

Truth is, it's not very hard to get folks to sign up for that sort of thing in the real world. See, for instance, Rwanda, or Nazi Germany, or frontier wars in North America, etc., etc.

 

Of course, only a tiny fraction of the population are actually going to go evil like that. But how many do you need?

Hmmm....Lemme make an argument.

 

"I joined the Sith because the Republic is a stagnating relic of the past. For years, they've limped from one war to the next, barely surviving each one and yet never being prepared for the next. The Galactic Senate has thus proven itself ineffective in the face of change, a bureacratic mess which exists only to leech off the people for it's own benefit; what the galaxy needs now is decisiveness, action, and direct leadership. What we need is a leader who can make firm decisions and have them carried through without all the red tape, a (wo)man who can unite the people into a new golden age. What the Galaxy needs is Revan!"

 

There was some hinting made at this viewpoint, for example with the Selkath judges, but it was never really carried through. The efforts to present this charade by the Sith themselves were pretty feeble to non-existent.

 

And I would argue that even in the case of Nazi Germany, Rwanda, etc. there was a half-way reasonable ideology being put forward rather than just 'let's kill people'; if Hitler had stepped before the masses and said, 'Let's crush this puny Continent, my minions! We shall bring a new age of darkness to Europe, and all the world shall despair!', I doubt he'd have gotten much support.

 

With a villain like Sarevok, who's inner circle was so small and his 'evil' plans unknown to the vast majority of the guys who were going to fight for him, such an approach can work since it's never expressed outside of that inner circle. But Revan and Malek were leading an army of millions upon millions of soldiers!

 

In answer to your last question, to subjugate a galaxy and crew all those ships being churned out by the Star Forge, you need a lot of people, and you just aren't going to get a very dedicated or large group if your only argument is that you want to enslave the galaxy.

I think its reasonable to assume that if Malak conquered the galaxy, your average sith trooper would gain quite a few priviliges. I dont think most of them need much more incentive than that.

 

Anyway, the sith troopers on Taris seemed human enough.For example the woman in the cantina, who complained about the work hours and monotony of sith duty, clearly had just made an ill-informed career choice.

[Ivan the Terrible]

"Even with Darth Vader and the Emperor, dialogue spoken with no purpose but to show how 'evil' they were was the exception rather than the rule. "

 

oh come now... that ain't true and you know it. the dialogues and scenes with the emperor and darth vader was almost exclusively included to show us just how nasty they was. dress 'em up in black and play ominous music, and have them torture folks or reveal plans to kill/hurt the hero's loved ones and friends.

 

"The Sith can represent evil without having every last Sith trooper long only to kick puppies and launch children into orbit unprotected."

 

is hardly accurate. is a number of folks on korriban that not fit this description including archeologists and students and prospective student, so try not to be overstating for effect... diminishes your point.

 

"I don't think this point is being missed by anyone"

 

really? sure seems that way. go read some reviews or maybe check out some threads at bio or here or codex. if you have folks saying, "why are the villains and heroes in kotor so stereotypical," when the reason "why" is so damnably obvious, then we cannot help but think that some folks has missed something. look at reviews and threads here and elsewhere that talk 'bout how unoriginal kotor story and characters was. why is the kotor villains and heroes so stereotypical? answer:

[Gromnir]

"When they commited their evil deeds, they didn't describe in intimate detail how perverse and cruel and nasty they were, randomly throwing in adjectives like 'pathetic' and 'worthless' to describe pretty much everything simply to show how mean they were."

 

not get your point. vader walks in on leia with a with a torture device. we see the remains luke's family, slaughtered by stormtroopers in one of the most grisly scenes of the entire film, admiral announces that a planets is destroyed to make a point. the emperor tries to goad luke into attacking, and announces the imminent death of his friends to accomplish this.

 

etc.

 

"When they commited their evil deeds, they didn't describe in intimate detail how perverse and cruel and nasty they were, randomly throwing in adjectives like 'pathetic' and 'worthless' to describe pretty much everything simply to show how mean they were.

 

"If they did, it would've been pretty lame."

 

as noted above, they did on more than one occasion...

 

the absence of specific dialogue is hardly meaningful. you not have actors in a game who can be subtle. you not got great camera work or direction and you only can work in so many cutscenes and they is rarely is detailed 'nuff to have the same impact as something on film. you got loads of dialogue though. a game is gonna convey story through dialogue. compare the amount of dialogue in The Grapes of Wrath book v. movie. is lot less dialogue in the movie, no? is not just a matter of length neither.

 

*shrug*

 

so it ain't that all of the sith was spouting their evil rhatoric, but you thought too many did. when an admiral balks an order to destroy a planet in kotor or when you meet an archeoligist more interested in knowledge than power or when you convince a student that the sith way ain't all that it is cracked up to be, or when you meet any number of sith on taris who, whether it be in bars or in the undercity, who just seem to be following orders rather than having AGENDAS OF EVIL, then you see as exceptions proving a point?

 

okie dokie.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

p.s.

 

"I don't think this point is being missed by anyone"

 

was a comment by phosphor... we was being economical by responding to both o you in one post.

[Dabrinko]

And why does all Bioware Villains (except Sarevok) speak British English?

 

And why does Sarevok speak American English? Because he's more Brutish than Irenicus?

 

WHY does Villains overall have speciel accents?

[birdiedude]

The problem with many of Bioware's villains (along with many other villains) is that they try to make the villain personal, something which often has the effect of diluting their "evil" for people who simply don't take a game personally.

 

The Dark Side is also often misinterpreted, it isn't mean to be evil for the sake of being evil, it is more a reaction to losing one's balance. It's a personal fall, not something that should simply happen to hundreds of people suddenly in times of trouble.

[tripleRRR]

And why does all Bioware Villains (except Sarevok) speak British English?

 

And why does Sarevok speak American English? Because he's more Brutish than Irenicus?

 

WHY does Villains overall have speciel accents?

Did Vader and the Emporer have accents?

 

 

TripleRRR

[Gorth]

Did Vader and the Emporer have accents?

Yes, they spoke "Evil English"

[Sylvius the Mad]

BioWare does tend to have a very flat representation of evil, particularly in the options available to the player. Being evil generally involves being mean for no other reason than to hurt people. That can happen, but to make it the only option makes evil synonymous with sadism, and evil is much more broad than that.

 

I do not think, however, that Star Wars always presents that same flat evil. Darth Vader had purpose behind his cruelty. He wasn't being cruel just because he liked hurting people - there was an overarching motive... Order. He even mentions that to Luke - bringing order to the galaxy. Darth Vader clearly sought totalitarian rule of the galaxy, but he wanted to rule an orderly galaxy, and order is arguably a benefit to some people. Even the destruction of Alderaan doesn't appear to be strict sadism. We know nothing about Alderaan (except the words of Leia, who lies to Vader with every word she speaks), so it could be a viable military target. At the very least, the royal house actively harbours rebels.

[Drakron]

No, she is not lying since the Alderaan people are devoted pacifists.

 

Alderaan on the other hand was a Core world and have no much significance to the Empire in any field, also even if they had no sociaty bend into armed rebellion they did not liked the Empire and likely supported the Rebel Alliance.

 

However Darth was attached to the Grand Moff Tarkin and it was him that ordered the plantet to be destroyed and not Vader.

[Enoch]

This is an interesting argument and all, but I'm more interested in Gromnir's earlier point about where to go from here? Should the next game try to capture that same warm and squishy nostalgia of archetypal (archetypical?) character roles, or move on into new, more risky territory?

 

Consider, though, that one of the few substantive facts we have about the game is that it has multiple villians. That means there's room for some variety here. There can be a Malak-style bully, a revengent Irenicus type, and a Ravel-esque doomed-by-my-inner-nature villian. Each of the Sith Lords probably has a different set of motivations for his or her actions, and these different outlooks will hopefully affect the protagonists options in dealing with them.

[Atreides]

Maybe the resolution to the final conflict with the boss(es) will be a round of Oprah-like "group healing"/constructive conflict resolution. I bet Malak would have been in tears (though whether through boredom is another matter).

[Tigranes]

Right. Missed quite a few posts, but I'd just like to make a few points here.

 

Why were Sarevok and Irenicus, both potentially complex, 3-dimensional and emotionally connectible villains, not developped more fully?

I really think it was the failure on Bioware's part, to do so little credit to the villains - but everyone knows the huge undertaking the BG series was, especially to a company like Bioware in its early days, (by that I mean small) and lots of other things were cut. I think, however, that Irenicus got a somewhat decent portrayal, compared to the very neglected Sarevok.

 

But Star Wars is about good and evil, not grey in between. Jedi are good and Sith are evil, so the fully evil villains are viable.

I do not contest this; though this is one of the reasons I dislike the Star Wars universe, I will accept this as a fact it is. However, this is not the problem in the KOTOR series. The problem is that Bioware has never realised what "evil" really is. It is *not* the cartoonish, cardboard-cut thin, mean bully that Bioware throws at us with disturbing frequency. Is an evil overlord someone who plots deviously, manipulates cunningly, massacres people? In a sense, yes. But the Bioware Evil Villain is *also* a petty bully, foulmouthed, maniacal, megalomaniac, irrational, and ultimately a mish-mash of all things between evil, villainous and petty mean to create something that is a very low standard of evil. In the Star Wars universe, yes, you are allowed a not-very-humane villain; but you are not allowed a pathetic bully.

 

Eldar: Fully evil characters like Morgoth and Sauron were also successful/famous/acclaimed.

They are villains in a different sense. Firstly, Morgoth was much more of a Sarevok; I have no idea how well acquainted you are with Tolkien's myths; I'm not an expert in any case; but I will simply state that Morgoth was a character with a strong personality. His evil qualities are that of a calm, calculating thinker, and he is plagued by fear, paranoia and becomes chained in his own autocratic megalomania. He is at the very least a Sarevok in those terms, possibly more; he is a paragon of the evil overlord, and if he does not show any remorse or redemptive qualities, that is because he's an Evil God, the equivalent of Satan.

Sauron, on the other hand, *is* rather pathetic. He was designed this way because he was not supposed to be like Sarevok or Irenicus, with whom the player character had a personal relationship with. Sarevok was simply "the" evil; rather like satan in the biblical story, a far cry to the avatar of evil in the world. You never heard Sauron talk (well, once?), or Sauron physically do anything, etc, in the story of LOTR; he was never supposed to be a living villain like Saruman was. - and following up on that, Saruman provides the missing piece in the villain ranks, an evil man broken by his own fears, distrust, obsession. They all may not be the best villains (certainly not sauron), but they serve their purpose well in their designated way.

[Gorth]

Eldar: Fully evil characters like Morgoth and Sauron were also successful/famous/acclaimed.

They are villains in a different sense. Firstly, Morgoth was much more of a Sarevok;

(Sorry, being lazy)

he was never supposed to be a living villain like Saruman was. - and following up on that, Saruman provides the missing piece in the villain ranks, an evil man broken by his own fears, distrust, obsession. They all may not be the best villains (certainly not sauron), but they serve their purpose well in their designated way.

The shortest version of Morgoth (or Melkor) and Sauron I can possible imagine. Morgoth was of the "Valar", the first beings amongst Eru's creations. Morgoth was more skilled and gifted etc. than his siblings and it got to his head, to a point where Eru told him to stop being childish and humiliated him in front of his peers. His temper and attitude went downhill from there. Sauron was a "Maia", as was the Balrog, the 5 Istarii (Gandalf, Saruman, Radagast etc.). Originally one of the good guys (ok, neutral then), until recruited by Morgoth, to lead his armies against the Eldar, and later also Edain, Numenorians and all their offspring

 

Sounds a bit like Palpatine and Anakin, The Emperor and Darth Vader ? One wonders where Lucas might, amongst others have gotten his inspiration from.

 

Ok, probably not from The Silmarillion, but the similarities are there.

 

Morgoths evil stems from his resentment of not being able to shape the universe to his will alone. Eventually, it blinds him to all else and he becomes obsessed with conquest and domination. If he cannot create it to his will, he can take what is there an mold it to his diseased mind. Sauron was just the henchman that tagged along, doing his best to please his master and do his every bidding.

 

Sounds familiar ?

 

Edit: Yes, this was the very short, very interpreted and completely unauthorised version of the story of Morgoth and Sauron B)

[kefka]

The Silmarillion?

 

What's that?

 

I bet most people, even LotR fans, have never even heard of it. A strange book that's heavy going for some.

 

Sauron is mostly the same - power hungry, with hatred and spite oozing from every pore. The chapter involving the tree is a perfect example of Sauron's ability to deceive and corrupt. His "fair" appearance and "wise" words impossible to resist.