I sometimes think that if the character is fun to play the character leaving the party can be crippling but it contributes so good stories. Why does not anyone do that, or even if someone did what would be the effects on the player's mindset?
That's what sort of happens in my current sci-fi project. I like working with the concept of betrayal in my stories; betrayal, honour, and family were used in my published novel, as well as in my poetry and the two games I've created. This concept is very important to me, because it is something I am always 100% against; all of my personal morals stand defiant in the face of broken promises, gossip, betrayal, etc.
Because it is something I am so opposed to in reality, but which I have been greatly affected by, I enjoy exploring it in in my work. I try to explore the reasons why people might betray one another. I enjoy coming up with a conflict of morality for why friends might turn on one another; I find it better than painting the antagonist as morally wrong, or giving them a nonsensical reason to betray others.
I also like the idea of people coming together under a common ideal, only to discover that some of the people who are on their side are actually people they can't stand. Betrayal at this point is less about becoming a traitor, and more about remaining true to your core perceptions of right and wrong; it is adherence to personal honour. Exploring the initial negative sensations of guilt and shame which follow in the wake of betraying someone, or a cause you thought was just, can make for some powerfully intimate stories. The internal debate about whether your actions and thoughts are right or wrong, based on how others percieve you, and how these things fall within your core moral perceptions\beliefs, can really help shape a character, and their motivations for becoming the so called villain.
The concept of betrayal (switching sides) has a lot of tools and ideas to work with. The growth of a character doesn't always mean said character should remain with those they once agreed with. You can also make it so the former party\group turn out to be far more morally questionable, while trying to make it seem like the betrayer is still the antagonist.
I don't want this post to get too long, so I'll end it here.
I think it can probably be done well, under one of two circumstances.
One if it's the player's choice to become the "villain"; or two if you developed both the main who will become a villain enough to explain it, as well as the successor hero who will contend against the new "villain", so the conflict between the two is meaningful. I.e the "heel turn" as it were is believable to the player, as well as the successor hero's staying true to course, rather than true to their comrade.
I've honestly been considering the topic to a certain degree regarding my own project, regarding multiple endings & effecting various in game factions based on player choice, along with a healthy dose of moral ambiguity. Though I haven't determined exactly how I am going to implement everything.
I have my characters operating as essentially a covert strike team members at the behest of the empire they serve, but are at the same time looked upon with disdain by that very Empire for various reasons, which is also what makes them useful in that role. With a lack of perfect solution to the problems facing the Empire, & the competing interests that divide the Empire. So in a sense no matter what decisions the player makes, they are a "villain" to someone, perhaps even a "traitor".
Because the player must decide which is the lesser of various evils, as a hero they will in effect commit evil. So "hero" & "villain" are largely a matter of perspective based upon how the individual or group is effected by the actions.
In Lost Dimension a core part of the gameplay is working out who of your 10 characters are in fact traitors. 'Deleting' the wrong people causes you to have to fight the real traitors before the final boss, leaving you with a reduced final party size. It can be annoying when your favourite character turns out to be a traitor at the very end (randomised each playthrough). It forces the player to have minimal attachment to each character other than the MC, at least it encourages the swapping of different team setups due to their unique and specialised skill trees.
In Persona 5 there is a character that's present in the story since early on and turns out to be a main villain. However this character is not playable until late game and leaves after that dungeon so the player only feels a minor sense of loss and frustration at losing said party member. Its long enough for the player to get used to having this character hanging around but not too long that they develop a massive attachment and/or invest too much into this one character.
Suikoden 2 (4 does this too but not as well) has a significant party member leave after the first third of gameplay to eventually become the final villain. This conflict between childhood friends is a major part of the story.
I love the idea! As with anything RPG Maker related, it will a depend on how well you implement it.
In my opinion, there are some potential pitfalls you'll want to avoid:
Make sure it makes sense in the story, and is not done for the sake of doing it. Make sure the character has clear motivations that drive his actions.
Make sure the loss of the character doesn't feel bad for the player. If they lose a character they invested gold and items in, they may not care about the story and just feel cruddy about their lost time investment (especially if they could have been leveling a different character and wouldn't have taken a hit to their party's power)
Make sure your enemies remain consistent. For example, a farm boy turned soldier fighting alongside denizens of the dead: make sure it makes sense with your story
If you can make it flow well with the story I see it as a great potential story-telling mechanism. Take your time with it, make it make sense.
For example: a person doing whatever they could to get back to a dead loved one. They might originally dabble in some black magic to raise them, but accidentally raise an army of the dead. They're still committed and try more magic with no concern for anything other than his loved one. That character has a clear motive that can make sense, regardless of whether you agree with it.
For an example of the alternative. Your group of young rebels are fighting against an empire. Half way through the game one betrays you shockingly and becomes the main boss. No other context added.
In the second example the player would not buy into that without knowing more. Why would you join someone you were fighting against without anything happening? Why does it make sense that a young new recruit to an empire suddenly is leading them? Your story needs to provide this context.
@The Stranger I do not think villains need to be have a huge reason to be villains. Most people would see people with a slightly different perspective to be a villain and that is actually a case with the real world. I plan to follow that in my game.
@XIIIthHarbinger When I thought about that first, I think neutral and even good villains can be done. They are not always evil. For example most people would see someone who dabbles in black magic as a villain but if a pragmatist people like me would look at that character I would tell that the source of power is not important as long as it can benefit you.
@Slimsy Platypus If I decide to do something like that the motive will be crystal clear. I can even say some people will sympathize with him.
@ShadowHawkDragon by the way I was looking forvard to knowing you since I plan to use most of your battlers. ^^
Old games like Swords of Heaven did that, the character you started the game with was the betrayer all game. I can say that if I would expect a betrayer, most people would not expect it to be the main character.
I always thought a neat idea would be to have your main character become the new arch fiend after defeating the main bad guy and retain his levels, his equipment, spells learned, etc. Then a new hero would have to emerge but he or she would not have the advantage of the loot and items gathered by the first "hero" Leveling up and gaining items would be a struggle in comparison. The catch I have is how to not make the 2nd half of that game too grinding...
@IguanaGuy so when you defeat a killer you become a killer regardless perspective. A little too dark but it appeals to my taste and I love it. I just do not like the implementation of it.
A friend of mine had a project that did this in a way I thought was fantastic. The MC was collecting allies who would stand against the evil that was forming from the chaos and death that the constant warring for the past decade was forming. He went around, finding everyone who could and would help out. They all trained and looked for equipment to fight the evil. However, there was a legend going around about a lord who would take the power of evil. This legend starts to pop up as the rival party shows their faces. You finally beat the rivals, stopping them from gaining power, and fight the great evil.
Then the MC strangely jumps at the corpse, stunning the party. And as he gather energy from it, the party realizes he is lusting after this power. He goes to explain that he wanted to get everything that could possibly slay him in one room after learning the weaknesses of the party and legendary items. And now suddenly you have to refight the final boss who is smarter and has your old MC alongside it.
What made it so brilliant was the subtle feeling that the woman who joins the party about 1/3 of the way through was far more likable and sympathetic of a character, that you'd eventually just like her more than the MC. After you beat him, she "finishes" the story.
Also, to really drive home that it's the MC, his stats are the same and he steals all the equipment he's wearing. (After I trolled the final boss a second time by removing all the MC's equipment before the first fight, my friend instead makes it so he unequips everything, then equips the legendary gear only he can wear and is required to get here with, so only his levels and skills actually can change).
Attention was payed to so that you would notice all the clues that the MC was bad your second playthrough. And in new game+, you could actually fight the MC at any time as a Superboss and change the story.
If it's not the MC, the blow is much weaker. Even if it is, there's a pretty famous example of losing the MC on the SNES;
Crono in Chrono Trigger sacrifices himself to save the party. And saving him is a sidequest.
@kirbwarrior your example is perfect, but I think of a different scenario. Istead of a lust of power I want the character to act because of desperation. For example I thought a character that got abandoned as one of its parents and another gets killed, the character then gets a lust of power but that power also overcharges the character so think of it. Most people can rely on their other passions instead of people and be happy. This person cannot do that, so the only way to rely on something is to break the boundaries of human limitations. Of course you can start to rely on people since you have to lose all your hopes about people but I want that to be the point if I implement the change.
Even though the character is the villain it will most likely be a victimlike villain and far more relatable than any other villain. I want the player to feel remorse for the vilain. Even the player saying ''I do not want to kill that boss because I feel that is wrong but I have no other choice.'' to themselves and demoralize the player in that fight even more through events like a party member (depends on who you choose with one fixed member) trying to speak through the boss as its HP gets lower and lower.
The player should not be like ''For righteousness! It is not like we talked a lot when we were friends so I can kill the boss lul.'' and instead feel remorse and pain for losing a worthy comrade. I want the player to feel the despair. Even if the players criticize that, well the world is not sunshine and rainbows. The sunshine and rainbows are good and well but the sky also has a dark side, so does the world.
@fireflyege I love the idea you have, but it reminds me of an idea I've heard; Can you, the player, choose which side to follow? Can you choose to continue from the party's perspective or "join" the MC and be the villain, fighting the party for the battle?
Well, as said before, the loss of a MC already happened in that SNES acclaimed RPG game, but also on the Gamecube jRPG
Baten Kaitos, where the MC turns evil for some time
.
I think you should first define if evil is absolute or relative. Maybe the party fights against a different world view where the "villain" truly thinks he's doing the right thing. But in this case, since most of the time the MC is also the player avatar in the world, it would be best that someone else in the party leaves after agreeing with the antagonist.
Lets say your party is a fighter, rogue, cleric, mage, paladin, warlock and you (adventurer class). In the middle of the game the antagonist presents his plan of killing all the gods because they're selfish and sadists. You could either join him or not, after certain plot events show you that the gods don't always do what we want. If you join him, the cleric and the mage join the paladin to continue to fight the antagonist because high powers are needed to instill hope/fear in the common people. If you don't join the antagonist, the fighter and the rogue join the warlock with the antagonist because they think no one should control the destiny of someone else. For easy of party building, after the explanation have some generals of the antagonist defect or not. The party faced two generals: A barbarian and a tactician. The barbarian defects because his totem animal would be killed if the antagonist wins.
But don't make this only near the end. It would work as the end of a "Disc 1" game (in the age of PS, some games would come in several CD - Baldur's Gate had 6! - so you knew the game wasn't ending at the end of Disc 1 even if the plot looked like so), with "Disc 2" you facing the old allies to complete the quest.
@kirbwarrior sadly I do not plan on the players will have that decision.
@Pine Towers I planned it to be the final confrontation actually. In chapter 2 though you play a double agent role for keeping the natural balance and actually behave like a scholar that researches the truth, with a different set of characters with their own stories.
The antogonist's real reason to take all the power and then leave the party is its lack of social needs. The character is left by everyone it loved, faces the whole thing in the game again, and turns into its power where it eventually overloads it. Even its own powers betray that character, so it keeping some of its party is not really possible.
I will rework that idea following your thoughts though, and will find a surprising between so any more opinions from you are greatly appreciated.
Interesting point, and definitely something I've considered when writing for my own game. The most important thing to consider in this is a character's motivation. As the story's creator you need to think:
Why is this happening?
What is the character's motivation?
What makes them different from the other characters?
Am I doing this just for a cool plot twist or does it make sense in the context of the whole story?
Having characters be vulnerable is a great way to draw players into the game's world and make it feel more alive and real. On the topic of that "real" aspect, don't just have a mcguffin "corrupt" a character. The best betrayals come from a character's logic and their own values. Here's an example:
A group of rebels are led by a paragon-type character who values justice over all else. The paragon challenges the superior empire because they personally can't abide living under oppressive rule. They lead a ragtag band from their hometown and draw the empire's attention. The paragon, who values fighting for what is right, wants to fight the empire until the end. However, if this happens, the empire will surely slaughter the band and punish the rest of their hometown. Members of the ragtag band who value their survival and the well-being of their hometown will now betray the paragon, to protect themselves and their families.
This example has characters with clear motivations and goals that conflict without one side being right or wrong. While the characters oppose each other, each group is understandable and real, even. That's the kind of betrayal or "villain" turning I like to see in games.
@Bloopy the character may be vulnerable, but what sets the character apart is that it does not look vulnerable. You will find that character one of the strongest people the whole game until it eventually leads to this moment if I implement it. One may be weak, but that does not mean they cannot look strong.
Sometimes people must look strong but sometimes they cannot just maintain their strenght inside. The character is not even corrupted to begin with.
Just beat the last of us 2 last night and starting jedi: fallen order right now, both use unreal engine & when I say i knew 80% of jedi's buttons right away because they were the same buttons as TLOU2 its ridiculous, even the same narrow hallway crawl and barely-made-it jump they do. Unreal Engine is just big budget RPG Maker the way they make games nearly identical at its core lol.
Can someone recommend some fun story-heavy RPGs to me? Coming up with good gameplay is a nightmare! I was thinking of making some gameplay platforming-based, but that doesn't work well in RPG form*. I also was thinking of removing battles, but that would be too much like OneShot. I don't even know how to make good puzzles!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
