I want another Bowser or Gannon

[Falkon Swiftblade]

You know what, in all my years of playing Super Mario Bro's or Zelda games, it never bothered me I had to fight the same boss over and over throughout the game. In fact, I think it made that nemesis that much more despicable and fun when I really did "defeat" him. I like the concept of having a complex character that might take a few games to play through and you have the option of eventually truly defeating them on even play field, or maybe even decide to switch sides and future games you are on his side fighting folks like your typical hero. I don't want to deemphasize the importance of choice, I just feel morality in games is ambiguous without a real moral compass to gauge from.  

 

Having a character like the female boss in Reckoning whose name I'm forgetting of hand was awesome. She hated that her lot in life was to be killed because she was perceived as evil, whether or not she truly was or not was an interesting take on her character, and I liked that the player had a choice of how they decided her fate. The announcement of having prisoners in the stronghold is an interesting one, and I could see it going in any number of ways. I wonder if we'll have the discussion to release the prisoner after a time? I also thought it would be an awesome game play mechanic if you let an underling escape, they'll remember you slaughtered his clan or whatever they are, and later in the game, he's now a mid level boss you encounter.

 

I also think it would be great to have a character who has a warped perception of some truth he followed. Maybe it was just blind pride. Like Vegeta in DBZ. He was an angst heavy d-bag most of the time, but he had good intentions of bringing honor to his race as the last surviving Prince of the Saiyans. Another thing that I liked about that series in general was the characters had a realistic character ark they went through. They actually had to practice a skill set a lot before it was perfected and they got stronger. It wasn't so random, like I killed 50 bunny's, now I know how to cast fireballs. I like the option of choice, but I like a narrative wrapper that goes around it giving the player or npc have some depth to them. Hopefully the guys working on the game will give us some thoughtful conflicts and likable characters.

[Lephys]

I think it'd be pretty cool to have a "bad guy" who no one actually knows, personally, is behind anything. Orders come from some capitol in some city, because this guy's pulling the strings, but no one's got any reason to believe it isn't just that council/leader making those decisions. Maybe the bad guy actually appears throughout the game, in various disguises, or even just as the same person, and seems completely innocuous. Maybe he even helps your party through certain situations (because your success at some specific task is integral to his plans). Then, when you finally find out who's behind it, at the end of the game, it's actually quite a shock.

 

I think that type of villain is much more frightening than one who's all "LOOK HOW BIG MY ARMY IS! I'M OBVIOUSLY BAD! EVERYONE, GO AHEAD AND OPPOSE ME!" Because, despite your best efforts, you don't even know who it is you're fighting. Even if you think you do. Heck, even the people/army doing the conquering/villaining might end up having been duped into their current stance, by this crafty, crafty baddie.

[Falkon Swiftblade]

I agree Lephys, kind of like the emperor in Star Wars. Political favors can be a real tension getter. Sometimes you meet people and you have no idea the real reason you thought you were being hired for was for a bigger nefarious plan. Like maybe a group of soldiers hired to fight some thugs in a nearby area who are harassing the farmers think they're doing the right thing. You think you're doing them a favor by defending them, only to find out much later you were actually used to muscle the supplies from the farmers & delivering the supply of local drug plants in the region. The supplies you thought you were returning wasn't really food, it was many years salary worth of illegal substances. 

Edited September 7, 2013 by Falkon Swiftblade

[Keyrock]

I'm not particularly looking for an ultimate bad guy (or gal) of any specific type, necessarily.  My main concern is that they have well thought out and constructed complex motivations set up so that you can kind of see things from their perspective and almost sympathize with them.  I definitely don't want an enemy who just strictly relies of brute force and violence.  Enemies who act through cunning and trickery, often operating completely within the laws, bending and twisting those laws to their benefit and the detriment of others, are far more interesting and frightening than the bloodthirsty warlord who crushes villages with his horde.

[Lephys]

I agree Lephys, kind of like the emperor in Star Wars. Political favors can be a real tension getter. Sometimes you meet people and you have no idea the real reason you thought you were being hired for was for a bigger nefarious plan. Like maybe a group of soldiers hired to fight some thugs in a nearby area who are harassing the farmers think they're doing the right thing. You think you're doing them a favor by defending them, only to find out much later you were actually used to muscle the supplies from the farmers & delivering the supply of local drug plants in the region. The supplies you thought you were returning wasn't really food, it was many years salary worth of illegal substances.

Yup yup. Especially with things like Illusion magic in the mix.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I hope there is a "mecha" version in the sequel.

[Lephys]

Haha.

 

"You thought you ended my life? I ANIMANCED MYSELF INTO A STATUE OF ME!!! MUAHAHAHA!!!"

[rjshae]

Do you suppose there's an animancer who has figured out how to reincarnate his soul into a living vessel so he keeps coming back, over and over, like an evil Dr. Who? Somebody like that can devise plots lasting many lifetimes, creating plans and schemes that only the gods can know...

[Falkon Swiftblade]

this is quickly becoming my favorite thread, these are great ideas!

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Do you suppose there's an animancer who has figured out how to reincarnate his soul into a living vessel so he keeps coming back, over and over, like an evil Dr. Who? Somebody like that can devise plots lasting many lifetimes, creating plans and schemes that only the gods can know...

You mean The Master or The Valeyard?

[Keyrock]

Just as long as we don't wind up fighting a Shadow <PC> at some point.

[Messier-31]

Even though I never played Zelda I bet Ganon was one hell of a villain, same as Bowser (everybody knows King Koopa)... at the time. A forever and ever recurring nemesis is somewhat an infantile cliche, don't you think? A childish idea of a bad-guy that will reappear after his numerous defeats. Some immature scheme which shows the younger generation, that even it was you who was victorious (again), the beaten one will come back, he's all right, so don't worry. That was fun when you we're, oh I don't know, 10 y.o.?

 

"Haha, you thought, you killed me? I am back, more powerful than... that last time... when I was more powerful than the time before that... cough! So anyway prepare to die, this time for realz!"

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Eternity is going to be set in a dark(ish) world, where pain, injustice and death are present big time, like in the dark ages of medieval societies, not some happy-go-lucky fantasy world of fairies and princessesss's's's. Sure, maybe some comebacks are to be expected, but not so long-term. Imagine fighting Sarevok instead of Irenicus in "Shadows of Amn", and throughout "Throne of Bhaal", hell maybe even in those console spin-offs of the BG series. Not much of a climatic role-playing game if you ask me.

 

"And I would've gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling adventurers... and their dumb familar, Dragon-Doo"

 

Maybe there should be more recurring characters of a little less storyline based importance. Anyone remember Saemon Havarian?

Edited September 7, 2013 by Messier-31

[Falkon Swiftblade]

Just as long as we don't wind up fighting a Shadow <PC> at some point.

 

that is pretty cliche and the only time I saw it used in context I enjoyed it, was in Killer Instinct when Spinal could turn into you briefly as a shadow and used your attacks on you. Generally though I feel like shadow's have been done almost as much as vampires and zombies, of which i'm personally fatigued from playing anymore.

[Falkon Swiftblade]

Even though I never played Zelda I bet Ganon was one hell of a villain, same as Bowser (everybody knows King Koopa)... at the time. A forever and ever recurring nemesis is somewhat an infantile cliche, don't you think? A childish idea of a bad-guy that will reappear after his numerous defeats. Some immature scheme which shows the younger generation, that even it was you who was victorious (again), the beaten one will come back, he's all right, so don't worry. That was fun when you we're, oh I don't know, 10 y.o.?

 

"Haha, you thought, you killed me? I am back, more powerful than... that last time... when I was more powerful than the time before that... cough! So anyway prepare to die, this time for realz!"

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Eternity is going to be set in a dark(ish) world, where pain, injustice and death are present big time, like in the dark ages of medieval societies, not some happy-go-lucky fantasy world of fairies and princessesss's's's. Sure, maybe some comebacks are to be expected, but not so long-term. Imagine fighting Sarevok instead of Irenicus in "Shadows of Amn", and throughout "Throne of Bhaal", hell maybe even in those console spin-offs of the BG series. Not much of a climatic role-playing game if you ask me.

 

"And I would've gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling adventurers... and their dumb familar, Dragon-Doo"

 

Maybe there should be more recurring characters of a little less storyline based importance. Anyone remember Saemon Havarian?

I understand what ya are referring to about the childish and cliche boss, but I also wonder the same thing about people who are in bad relationships. Why do they keep putting themselves in patterns with the same people? Why do people who know they have an addiction with something still go back to it when they know their addiction only fixes their condition for that moment in time...? In the case of a reoccurring nemesis it's kind of like that psycho ex girlfriend who just won't obey the restraining order you have against her and it's more of a nuisance being around her than thinking of I just knocked you off the bridge for the tenth time, would you die already!? 

 

My issue with most game bosses is they don't have any depth or mystery about them. They're the bad guy because the dev said so. They arbitrarily have the most guns, if it's a fantasy game it's almost always a dragon that's the final boss, and usually the encounters are pretty one sided. Or there's like one weapon or one ability that you have to have to win. That doesn't feel very fun to me.

 

The game is said to be dark yes, but dark to me doesn't mean we have to have the same zombie and dragon enemies that are in everything we ever played and spam magic missile over and over on. To me those are the same game play mechanic issues you're describing with having a psycho Susie boss who won't take no for an answer. At least I can relate to someone like that who has compulsive obsessive and attachment disorders, than I can for some random dude who is just as cliche of a bad guy as is in just about 98% of every other game out there.

Edited September 7, 2013 by Falkon Swiftblade

[Osvir]

I believe in a sort of philosophical extraordinaire as a last boss. Something that makes the Player question their experience in the game world as a whole, the final page of the book. In many ways the last boss doesn't even have to be "the end" of the book either. An epilogue chapter would be nice for various reasons (you can add end-game content into it, such as my Stronghold Defense Mini-Game idea*, you can also close the "story" nicely too).

As for Mid-Bosses (Disgaea reference) and such, I think they can be put into the world without much "reason" a la "This is a bad guy defeat him". They serve more or less as "obstacles" anyways, but it'd be nice if they too had depth to them. It's also a little bit "eye of the beholder" (as in: Watching art, subjective, not the eye of the beholder).

What else did I want to squeeze into this post?? Right!

Haitani, a brilliant display (in my opinion) of a mid-boss that is tipping on the edge of being "Badass Last Boss" and "Badass Mid-Boss going Last Boss". You don't quite know what his objective is, except that he is spurring on the protagonist to his own goals. Haitani wants to achieve goals, and he'd probably sacrifice himself in doing so as well, because he understands that he is only a chess piece in his own scheme. He is not the King, but he appears throughout the story of Zetman time and time again as this annoyingly powerful character that just plays with the "Hero". A manipulative S.O.B.

I find him very intriguing, intelligent. But he's not quite the Gannon or Bowser material that people talk about in this thread, yet he's definitely someone or something that could reappear in several sequels depending on how such a personality type is handled.

I've talked about this one before in other threads (Haitani), but it's a brilliant (imo) display of a great model for a sort of "deep", "mysterious agenda" type villain. Additionally, he outright helps the hero several times, but only so that he can achieve his own goals.

Another twist is to have someone of the VIP's be the main bad guy. Aloth, Forton, Edair, Sagani etc. etc. or even potentially become the bad guy. Though, then I'm talking about dynamic last bosses and that'd get hard to do, probably. Imagine picking up Aloth, he's bratty or whatnot, then at the end he's a monster Wizard who's been playing you for fools all the time. Or something. I don't think this model would be very appreciated though, unless done in a very good manner. I could see lots of "Damn, I just lost my Wizard that I've been playing with all game! And now I don't have a replacement!!! Gaaah!"-complaints and stuff. So maybe not. But I'm just brainstorming through it.

* TL;DR @link: Being able to talk to someone at the Stronghold to set up a "Defend your Stronghold!" mission and play it as much as you want~ self-challenging stuff~

Edited September 7, 2013 by Osvir

[Falkon Swiftblade]

^^ that's what I'm talking about Osvir, you're on point. I agree with basically everything you stated. I'll have to look into the Seiji Haitani reference, but that would make a really strong nemesis boss type of character that I would like to play against. Another character I thought of that was a bad guy that I loved was Ben in the Lost TV show. He was smart, not physically massive, he had a master level of persuasion to make people do what he wanted, and he always had a plan b.

[AGX-17]

I agree Lephys, kind of like the emperor in Star Wars. Political favors can be a real tension getter. Sometimes you meet people and you have no idea the real reason you thought you were being hired for was for a bigger nefarious plan. Like maybe a group of soldiers hired to fight some thugs in a nearby area who are harassing the farmers think they're doing the right thing. You think you're doing them a favor by defending them, only to find out much later you were actually used to muscle the supplies from the farmers & delivering the supply of local drug plants in the region. The supplies you thought you were returning wasn't really food, it was many years salary worth of illegal substances.

Yeah, that completely fits King Koopa's M.O. Super complex and nuanced character, I agree with your OP.

 

If there's one thing video games need more of, it's deep characters in the vein of Snidely Whiplash and Dr. Wily.

Edited September 8, 2013 by AGX-17

[mcmanusaur]

Make of it whatever you will, but I find that for me often times antagonistic characters are just so full of cliches and tropes that impersonal antagonists (man vs. self, vs. environment, etc.) work better. If we must have an antagonist character, let's make sure that their identity is betrayed by a thick accent, facial hair, or other shallow features that reveal them to be a mere xenophobic caricature of foreign cultures.

 

That said, given the traditions associated with PE, I think a characater antagonist is largely inevitable, but it's actually interesting to think about how RPG characters mirror our Western culture's preoccupation with individuality.

Edited September 8, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[Fearabbit]

The villain(s) should definitely appear several times in the game. But not in the way Ganondorf or Bowser keep coming back. Because that means I'd have to fight and defeat them several times, which is repetitive and boring.

 

There's this classic situation that goes like this. You meet the villain three times, and this happens:

1) You lose (at the beginning of the game to show how powerful the villain is)

2) You win, but he escapes (in the middle to show that the tide is turning) and then

3) You win and kill him for good (in the final battle)

Everytime you're in some kind of villain's lair, in some kind of trap or whatever. Most likely there will also be mooks to kill in the second and third encounters.

 

I think we need to get rid of that. There are other ways of fighting a villain, and there are other kinds of villains. Personally I'd love it if we didn't have to fight the villain himself in the end at all, because his fighting prowess isn't the danger - his strategic mind is, and after we managed to foil his plans and defeat his army, he just isn't a huge threat anymore.

 

Two villains I like very much in fantasy literature:

Tarquin from The Order of the Stick - anyone reading the comic will know what I mean. He's challenging the whole notion of defeating the villain, and he's mostly powerful because he's a good General and a cunning schemer. Taking him out requires a unique approach. Tarquin's a classical Evil-with-a-capital-E villain, yet he keeps things interesting.

Adron from the Khaavren Romances (by Steven Brust, hands down my favorite fantasy author) - He's not even a bad guy, though history remembers him as such. He saw the decadence of the emperor and knew something had to be done, and he was absolutely right about that. His approach was interesting, but not "evil" - it just so happened that it coincided with another event, creating a resonance that destroyed the whole capital city and weakened the defenses of this world against another. (Simply put, bad stuff happens.) What's interesting is that he's introduced as a very likable character. Yes, he's planning a rebellion, but he has good reasons for that and he accepts that his friends, the protagonists, are bound by honor and loyalty to be on the opposing side (the one of a decadent and brutal emperor). His last words to the protagonist? "Don't tell them that I meant well."

 

So... yeah. There are many possible ways a villain can be designed and some of them are still very fresh and rarely used.

Edited September 8, 2013 by Fearabbit

[Messier-31]

I understand what ya are referring to about the childish and cliche boss, but I also wonder the same thing about people who are in bad relationships. Why do they keep putting themselves in patterns with the same people? Why do people who know they have an addiction with something still go back to it when they know their addiction only fixes their condition for that moment in time...? In the case of a reoccurring nemesis it's kind of like that psycho ex girlfriend who just won't obey the restraining order you have against her and it's more of a nuisance being around her than thinking of I just knocked you off the bridge for the tenth time, would you die already!?

 

People in bad relationships are not having these relationships because their partner is a strange resurrecting villain cliche. They just choose it to be that way - on their own! Sorry, but this part of your post is completely missing the point. Still, I loved that part when I read it; it made me chuckle

 

My issue with most game bosses is they don't have any depth or mystery about them. They're the bad guy because the dev said so. They arbitrarily have the most guns, if it's a fantasy game it's almost always a dragon that's the final boss, and usually the encounters are pretty one sided. Or there's like one weapon or one ability that you have to have to win. That doesn't feel very fun to me.

 

You didn't notice the depth? Your games lack mystery? C'mon, weren't the antagonists of Infinity Engine games the opposites of your description? I got a feeling you were playing some other games than me, because none of those evildoers match your description. They were mysterious, they had depth, they were bad-ass characters with a purpose, a man-with-a-plan. I see what are you reffering to, but a nemesis of this sort, a typical generic bad-guy being evil just because devs want them to, your usual dragon... well, there you put Dragon Age. Pretty cool, but far away from aforementioned titles.

 

The game is said to be dark yes, but dark to me doesn't mean we have to have the same zombie and dragon enemies that are in everything we ever played and spam magic missile over and over on. To me those are the same game play mechanic issues you're describing with having a psycho Susie boss who won't take no for an answer. At least I can relate to someone like that who has compulsive obsessive and attachment disorders, than I can for some random dude who is just as cliche of a bad guy as is in just about 98% of every other game out there.

 

I hope we will get back to this conversation after the game is ready, and compare our thoughts after beating the sh@# out of that bastard, whoever it will be

 

Tarquin from The Order of the Stick - anyone reading the comic will know what I mean. He's challenging the whole notion of defeating the villain, and he's mostly powerful because he's a good General and a cunning schemer. Taking him out requires a unique approach. Tarquin's a classical Evil-with-a-capital-E villain, yet he keeps things interesting.

 

Tarquin is also the man pulling all the strings behind the back of his superiors (or at least one superior, even though stupid she may be). Don't mind the people behind the curtain. Should the villain be known to us - gamers - from the beginning, or should he/she be revealed later on? Whatever the devs decide, I don't want to know at this point. The less we know, the bigger fun out of discovering the story.

[teknoman2]

Tarquin is hands down the best bad guy ever in an rpg related story.

what i like in stories is the puppet point. the point where you realise that the guy you were out to get for whatever reason was just a puppet of someone or you were the puppet of that someone. however in a good RPG under certain conditions, there should be the option to figure out the existence of the puppeteer before reaching the predetermined point

[JFSOCC]

I want to be surprised. I'd be very upset, truly one of the very few dealbreakers for my support of P:E, if the antagonist ended up as some terrible cliché.

I want the player to suffer right up till the end, let the player lose, a lot, to this superior foe. Otherwise it's not a superior foe.
Give a player too many fires to put out and whichever they fail to put out, THAT's where the antagonist gets what he or she (or they) wants.

And let the antagonist cast (real) suspicion on a dupe, whether a puppet or otherwise. Let the player run around being not one, but three steps behind.
The ultimate antagonist will be memorable Because you hate him/her so much, because your are constantly frustrated by the antagonist, and because you truly suffer from their actions.

That's how you'll end up with an antagonist that you will remember, and one you will feel all the more gleeful about when you do finally score a victory.

You want a memorable adversary? Make them not suck, make them smart, efficient, collected, and most of all, active.

-

The antagonist lets others do the dirty work, no, they do not share information with the goons executing the plans. No, they hire professionals, not idiots who are easily beaten and talk when pressed.

The antagonist "real" life is filled with virtue and little fame or ambition.

The antagonist has friends and allies, who help him for other reasons than fear or coercion.

The antagonist has a real base of power, both public and secret.

The antagonist is ruthless, but not needlessly cruel.

The antagonist accurately gauges the threat you pose to him or her, and provides you with serious obstacles. obstacles anyone would reasonably think would be enough to stop you.

The antagonist doesn't stick to one tactic. If force doesn't work, persuasion, distraction or evasion might.

[Auxilius]

I'm not sure I like this idea. I mean, is there is a bid bad evil overlord, sure, but it's been seen way too many times.

Because the enemy organization got a leader doesn't mean the leader is THE MAN. Hell, he could be a front man, with an honorific title, while the whole organization, that is made of a lot of persons, cells or whatever, is the real villain. Something a little more whole, so to speak. Because you get him doesn't mean it's the end for the whole thing around him. Because the President of a nation dies doesn't mean the nation is defeated.

 

I get the idea that a big villain is an unavoidable character. His characterization can decide of the fate of the story he's in. But there is a whole new world here, and it would be sad to see the story mainly defined by only one guy (and some sidekicks). The worldbuilding would certainly suffer from it. That's why people like Mask of the Betrayer. There were not only several villains, but antagonists, and all of them have an agenda and a different purpose, that happened to interconnect.

 

Maybe this dude could be one man among many, but I guess it would defeat the purpose of the idea of this thread to make him so.

[teknoman2]

I'm not sure I like this idea. I mean, is there is a bid bad evil overlord, sure, but it's been seen way too many times.

Because the enemy organization got a leader doesn't mean the leader is THE MAN. Hell, he could be a front man, with an honorific title, while the whole organization, that is made of a lot of persons, cells or whatever, is the real villain. Something a little more whole, so to speak. Because you get him doesn't mean it's the end for the whole thing around him. Because the President of a nation dies doesn't mean the nation is defeated.

 

I get the idea that a big villain is an unavoidable character. His characterization can decide of the fate of the story he's in. But there is a whole new world here, and it would be sad to see the story mainly defined by only one guy (and some sidekicks). The worldbuilding would certainly suffer from it. That's why people like Mask of the Betrayer. There were not only several villains, but antagonists, and all of them have an agenda and a different purpose, that happened to interconnect.

 

Maybe this dude could be one man among many, but I guess it would defeat the purpose of the idea of this thread to make him so.

if you go high enough, it always is one man that runs the show. however, to get that high you will have to go through the guys that seem to be the boss and all those who are under them

[Yonjuro]

Because the enemy organization got a leader doesn't mean the leader is THE MAN. Hell, he could be a front man, with an honorific title, while the whole organization, that is made of a lot of persons, cells or whatever, is the real villain. Something a little more whole, so to speak. Because you get him doesn't mean it's the end for the whole thing around him. Because the President of a nation dies doesn't mean the nation is defeated.

 

 

 

 A major advantage to this idea is that it could add (a lot of) replay value to the game. If you picked up 5 of the recruitable NPCs you might be better off solving the main quest in one way whereas if you picked up a different subset or rolled some of your own characters it might work better to do an entirely different set of things and/or to do them in a different order due to the character classes having different strengths. If that were the case, someone wishing to write the comprehensive munchkin walkthrough with the 'solution' would need to write 56 of them (for the (8 choose 5) combinations of joinable NPCs) and that still doesn't account for smaller parties, player rolled characters and parties that change over the course of the game.

 

This seems promising though it could be hard to do this on a a given budget and make it a compelling story that is also fun to play (if it becomes a guessing game of what to do next based on who you have in your party, then that isn't the same thing as 'replay value'   ; if any subset/order is just fine, then you have the 'open world wander around doing whatever and wondering if you're making any progress because there is no obvious thing to do next' problem  ).

Edited September 10, 2013 by Yonjuro