Villain Games and atmosphere

[Manofdusk]

 Right now I'm swapping back and forth between 2 games (I get bored easily ) and, in one of them, you play as the villain.


 ... or so I would have liked it. Unfortunately, I can't seem to fully swing the main character into full on villain territory without him becoming completely unrelatable. Instead, he's an antihero with a choice.


 This is something I've noticed in a LOT of "villain protagonist" games... where the villain is really just an antihero fighting enemies that are just as evil, if not moreso, than he is. Another thing I noticed is that the vast majority of "villain" games remain wholly in the realm of lighthearted comedy... not that there is anything wrong with that, mind you... it's just that a true villainous game with a serious tone is like a unicorn. They just don't exist (not that I've seen).


 ... so I thought I'd start a discussion here about why that is. Is there a way to create a game centered around a villain protagonist and give it a serious atmosphere?


 Or is it just better to start them as an antihero and let their choices determine how villainous they become?


-------------------------------------


 Another question (and one that ties more closely to my game idea but is still generally applicable) is, how does one create a foil for the villain protagonist that isn't a horrible person in their own right? As I mentioned before, most games where you play the bad guy are evil vs worse evil. How would one set up a situation where the villain protagonist has a reason that the player can identify with/get behind?


  As an example: In my game, the villain protagonist was actually a good guy. He was a prince, next in line to the throne, about to get married... and BOOM, gets framed for murder. The brother takes over the throne and his bride-to-be and then begins warmongering, driving the people to rebel. He then starts crushing the rebels.


 The rebels need to be there in case you want to try to be a "good guy" and not summon a horde of zombies to eat everyone... but the lengths the other brother needed to go through to force the rebellion of a once peaceful kingdom places him firmly in villain territory.


 So how would one go about creating a foil for the villain (that the player is not sympathetic to) while still making it feel as though you are the villain, fighting the forces of good?

 

[Roscalin]

Main player morality, whether he/she is for the light or for the dark or the in between. has their different moments.


I don't think that the perfect villain game play is a legend, it's just that A LOT people can't envision evil like they want their character to be if it was a villain.


If you want certain examples of what to look for in a evil character/anti-hero, look into certain bad guys from other games, comics, or movies.


A lot of villains are based off other evil/anti-hero characters.


Most Notable evil characters to study for your character would be

Spoiler

-- DC UNIVERSE --


The Joker 


Lex Luthor


Ra's Al Ghul


Darkseid 


-- FINAL FANTASY VII --


Sephiroth 


Dr, Hojo 


Genesis Rhapsodos


Jenova


-- MARVAL UNIVERSE --


Thaanos


Magneto


Red Skull


Apocalypse


Loki


Mr.Sinister/Dr.Nathaniel Essex

Just about any villain can be used as a study reference for a evil character to use as a main character.


As for the second question, That also requires study and it's a tougher subject to study i'll give you that.


Most times evil characters tend to be foiled by betrayal of a Anti-hero they recruited who was secretly good. or are dying internally and just want to watch the world burn as they wither away.


One would be Lex Luthor who eventually died to cancer from Kryptonite radiation he got from his piece he keeps on him at all times, thanks to his paranoia of Superman eventually going evil..


so just study certain aspects of what you want to look for. that's about what anyone can say or do, unless their truly evil at heart in which case you may want to get that checked out in a hospital or a therapist.


Hope this helps! \(^_^)/ 

 

[Wavelength]

What you're asking about is - in my eyes at least - purely a storytelling matter and only related to video games as much as it's related to any other storytelling medium - TV, literature, film, anime, etc.  I guess the one difference is that it's more important to make a villain protagonist relatable in a video game because the player is being asked to be that character instead of just observe him (and it's almost always a "him"), but I think the techniques to pull it off are very similar across all media.


So if you don't think it's done well in games often enough, look to popular works in other formats that have a villain protagonist.  Most of what I can offer is fairly lowbrow stuff, but here are a few examples of works I'm familiar with that play the villain protagonist in a serious way and are relatively well-liked.  One thing that all of the following works have in common is that the audience is given a lot of time to understand the character through their thoughts, philosophies, and (in some cases) relationships, which define them as a human, rather than just their actions (which define them as a villain):

• Death Note - the protagonist starts off as a full-on hero with lots of admirable qualities, and starts losing them all in very understandable ways as power and ambition corrupt him, turning him into a complete villain.  The antagonists are mostly antiheroes and it tears a lot of viewers to pieces because they can probably understand everyone's mindset.  It's a textbook example of how to invest the audience in a pure villain.
  
• Frankenstein - the protagonist starts of largely driven by zealous scientific ambitions with maybe a good heart but very little regard for what consequences his ambitions would bring, and creates a (literal) monster (interestingly, some readers find more heroic qualities in the monster).  As he realizes the horror of what he's done, he's slowly driven into more and more erratic and desperate decisions until he ends up ruining his own life.
  
• Log Horizon - kind of an interesting one in that the protagonist is clearly not a villain... to the viewer.  But (with several exceptions) most of the other characters view him as a villain (not just a jerk, but an actual villain with diabolical ambitions) that they're compelled to work with as a matter of convenience, and his mannerisms do little to break that illusion and he has to find a way to work within that persona.  This one's a good reference if you're trying to make a lighter, more likable villain in a game with a serious tone.
  
• Game of Thrones - the 'protagonist' perspective is constantly switching between characters - some anti-heroes, some anti-villains, and a couple of outright heroes and villains.  The viewer is given a lot of understanding about every character, including the villains, so you can understand what makes them tick and you can relate with or admire their more human qualities and desires while despising their actions.  Interestingly, this is a work where clear heroes and clear villains often find themselves allied with, or even fond of, each other, and I think this is an element that could be played to great effect in a video game.
  
• Heart of Darkness - The protagonist and narrator is more of a passive actor, a grunt who watches the action unfold around him as the more powerful actor - the "Company" that he works for - does its thing and the protagonist realizes - pretty late in the work - what a monster and villain he is for being a part of it (there are analogies that could be made to Cloud before the start of FF7, when he's still a member of SOLDIER), and that the vilified 'savages' are actually the most noble people around.  This is normally where a heel-face turn happens, but he's weak and powerless to stop the horrors, even once he realizes them.
  

 

[Manofdusk]

 Comic book villains are great in their own right... but most of the themes and mindsets can be hard to translate into a fantasy style game. As for the foil, THAT is difficult when making a villainous protagonist. I suppose, in my story, the best bet is to lighten him up a bit. Sure he betrayed his brother and stabbed his father in the back (literally), but he ended up making a decent king despite that (meaning that your rebellion destroys the peace).


 I had actually forgotten about Death Note (of the ones you've mentioned, it's the only one I've seen). You're right about it though... and it even synchs well with what I'm trying to accomplish with what I'm doing (as an analogous work). The player is basically handed unlimited power... but that power is fueled by corrupt and evil deeds (corrupt is defined in the game as "looking at the NPCs as though they were a resource").


 Naturally, the more power they get, the easier things get while trying to remain good gets progressively harder (you can't change classes, get the best items/equipment, or recruit the most powerful allies). The underlying theme to the game is: "How far will you fall to see justice/revenge done?"


---------------


 And that brings up another thought, one that is possibly more related to games


 In games like this, where morality is the driving factor, how much should one limit player access to "the cool toys"?


 By that, I mean... the best stuff (or even the moderately good stuff) is reserved for evil/corrupt characters while the good characters are left with only the basics (whatever they can scrounge up through exploration and diplomacy).


 In my game, for example, even the class changes you get are evil (recruited characters don't change class)... and once you change your class away from "Prince" (which is a buffing class with no real offence or survivability) to one of the (more powerful/offensively geared) classes, you can't change back.


 HOWEVER, characters that can resist that temptation get significantly better endings as a reward.


 How far should something like this go? I mean, how much restriction is too much if you're trying to be a good character?

 

[Pine Towers]

Uni-dimensional villains, villains-just-for-the-sake-of-being-evil, are not good protagonists. The player can't relate to them and may find from boring to outrageous, making the game not worthy of playing.


A good type of villain is the insane ones, like the Joker. But they too are not good protagonists since the player, again, can't relate to them, since their method is erratic and illogical.


To the other extreme, hyper-logical villains (most robots with the to-save-the-planet-we-must-kill-or-slave-humanity) still aren't good protagonists, because the player, even understanding the reasons, won't accept the consequences.


IMHO the best villain protagonist is the one who must do what he can. If you're a fallen prince being hunted, maybe the only way to survive is to hide in a necromancer's lair, using the bodies of defeated foes to make your own bodyguards. But how to show the citizens you're good if you keep murdering the usurper king soldiers and reanimating them? So you use the skeletons to enforce your rule when you take the town. But are you now a liberator or just another dictator?


But this kind of character progression must be done well, or you end up with a Anakin-turned-evil-because-by-the-episode-4-he-must-be-Darth-Vader.

 

[Oddball]

theres two ways to do this (at least that i know of. im not an expert) villinous goal or villinous means. villinous goal youll have to show motives and backstory people can relate to. villinous means can have a nobel goal. maybe someone wants to make a country perfect but does so by seriously limiting what people can do. thats all i know about this subject

 

[Dr. Cakey]

Maybe this isn't exactly what you're looking for, but I think we should step back a little and think about the characteristics villains tend to have. What do they tend to do?


The answer is, not much. They usually just tell other people to do things, or maybe go places and get, like...crystals or something, but half the time they just teleport to the crystal or let the hero fight the monsters and solve the puzzles for them. I mean, since Sephiroth is your avatar, what does Sephiroth do? Well, nothing, because he spends the entire game in the Northern Cave. But even when you include his clones, he doesn't do much besides mind-control Cloud and kill Aerith.


This is significant because it's clearly the opposite of what a protagonist does. A villain places obstacles in the way of the hero, the hero breaks them down. And often, particularly in video game stories or fantasy stories, they place these obstacles from a remote distance and/or just lay out the obstacles and then wait.


The other hallmark of villains is their strength. As a general rule, antagonists should be at least equal in power to the protagonist (power can be anything depending on the kind of story), and fantastical villains tend to be near-omnipotent.


So, tying it all together, a villain is generally someone who 1) isn't very proactive, and 2) effortlessly accomplish the few things they actually do.


When you write a villain protagonist, then, you give the character various evil qualities and start laying down the plot...but wait, something doesn't feel right. This isn't a villain, it's an anti-hero! And they aren't an anti-hero because they're not "evil enough", but because they don't act like a villain.


This is before you get into the problem of making the character 'relatable', which in my opinion is less about making a character relatable to the audience and more about making a character relatable to you the writer. After all, how are you going to write from their viewpoint if you don't like that viewpoint? Writers tend to warp the world of their stories to make their protagonists 'better' than they should be. How much more of a problem is that when the protagonist isn't 'good' to begin with?


Games exacerbate these problems, too. How do you play omnipotence? How do you maintain the awe-inspiring majesty of villainy when you go to town to buy items or talk to NPCs?


Oh, and the other problem is that writers are terribly un-creative. You might have the best ideas in the world but the minute you put pencil to paper, "Uh...there's a guy in like...a remote farm village...and um...a demon king and...a...princess. And they guy, like, gets a magic sword and...saves the princess by...killing the demon king. Pretty sure nobody's done this before."

 

[Manofdusk]

 Well, I have a solution to the "near omnipotence" power level (and the "buy items/gear while maintaining awe-inspiring majesty")... and that's that the player begins with an artifact that gives you as much power as you want... as long as you're willing to pay for it (and the only way to pay for it is to be evil). This goes for gear as well.


 Then you have the option to conquer towns (rather than just visit them).


_______________


 My opinion on the matter is that villainous protagonists have to have a choice... and so the RPG has to be nearly sandbox in nature to accommodate the villainy... but how do you maintain an engaging story in a sandbox type game? A villain goes where he wants and does what he wants.


 My idea is to have the game progress independently of player action (meaning that, if the player doesn't put roadblocks in the antagonist's way, then the antagonist will succeed automatically).

 

[Wavelength]

MINOR SPOILERS FOR SEVERAL WORKS AHEAD


I like a lot of what Dr. Cakey said and I think that the good doc brings up several points that you absolutely need to consider as you develop a villain protagonist.  With that being said, I think that a lot of these "problems with villains" are that they are seen from the viewpoint of an average game with a hero protagonist - perhaps the villains don't do a lot in this game, and aren't shown struggling through obstacle after obstacle, precisely because they aren't the protagonist!


Using a few examples from good "villain protagonist" works I mentioned above - Lyte (Death Note) has the entire world working against him and has to constantly come up with extreme gambits that play his enemies off against one another in order to survive, Tywin Lannister (Game of Thrones) has to fight hard to keep his familial house of cards from collapsing and, because he isn't omnipotent, eventually fails to do so, and Marlow (Heart of Darkness) can be seen as a villain only because he is so powerless to stop the evil that he and his company are doing.


Voldemort (Harry Potter) fell into the traps you mentioned, but got enough of a background story that readers can only imagine what kind of interesting and active stories they might expect if he had more "screen time" in the books as he experienced his formative years, rose to power, and led an evil "purist" cult of diverse and often eccentric personalities.


As one other interesting point, the video game Undertale does actually make things easier as you choose to become a villain to the people of the world, letting you skip puzzles and one-shot bosses.  It gives you a taste of what it's like to have that kind of power and absence of moral restraint, and for kinder players the upshot of what it does to you as a character (and to the world around you), it ends up being a very bitter taste left in your mouth.


In summary, I don't think that these sore points Dr. Cakey mentioned are nearly-universal problems with villains, but rather traits of weakly-written characters that tend to affect villains and antagonists more than heroes and traditional protagonists.  So definitely think about these potential pitfalls, but don't be scared to write a villain protagonist just because of them.

 

[AwesomeCool]

This is a hard thing to do, for the player has to find something they like about the main character to care about the story.


Aka the villain has to have really good and understandable reasons to do what he is doing (no other option, terrible life, etc).  And I mean really good (to offset all the things that will make the villain main character seem unlikable).


I personally suggest making all the main characters a hero and a villain at the same time (all of the game characters having grey morality).  It would be easier to pull off, avoid issues of players liking the antagonist more then the protagonist, and would create more interesting dynamics between the antagonist and the protagonist.

 

[Oddball]

i say lyte is a good exame of one way to do a villian protagonust in that you show there goal, and then the dark path they walk towards that goal and there goal transcending into something darker

 

[Manofdusk]

 An interesting thought occurred to me today. What if the evil, villainous path is only evil and villainous to those on the outside looking in?


 Say, for example, a necromancer pulling the souls out of the dying and reanimating corpses to serve as an army. Anyone looking at it from the outside would consider this to be evil... but the player learns that it is only to combat something worse that can steal souls from the dying. How do you explain the situation to someone who does not... and cannot... understand without witnessing it with their very eyes?


 Though, in that situation, the character is more of an antihero shrouded as a villain.


--------------


 Death Note is a very good example of a good villain protagonist fighting against genuinely good people... but it can be hard to create situations where the player has a clear goal (that the player can relate with/agree to) that is worth committing atrocities over. I liked the Death Note series... but I never really liked Lyte as a character. It was interesting to see how he would react to situations... he became less and less human as time drove on (of course, that was the whole point. The Death Note cursed those that used it).

 

[Oddball]

in some cases, a protagonist doesnt have to be likeable. i heard Katniss from the hunger games wasnt likeable in the books (i know she was the hero, thats not the point)


actually, that brings up another point, what if its someone starting off doing whats needed to survive. slowly going down the villians path that way. It brings empathy to the charecter very quickly and might make the player feel like its a shame they ended up like they did.


I guess to make a good villian, use the same concepts to make a good hero, the first being empathy

 

[Taemien]

Its very rare that a villain (in a serious story) actually sees themselves as a villain. They've convinced themselves that the ends justifies the means, or may even be totally ignorant of the consequences of their actions. Or perhaps what they are doing isn't considered evil in their organization, culture, or affiliation. It can even go deeper than that. Maybe they think what they are doing to their opposition is 'good' for them. Such as bringing order and safety, while reducing freedom.


At some point in the story the Villain, whether it be the protagonist or not. Will come to a crossroads. Maybe that's when they finally do become the villain the story is making them out to be. Maybe its the tipping point of committing some act that makes them nonredeemable. Or in some cases the opposite if you wish to have a 'good' ending.


While greed, revenge, and lust for power are all realistic traits for a character, and serve well for an antagonist. For an actual protagonist.. they're largely unrelateable for most players. Not to say that you shouldn't use them. But if you're going for a story where the villain is played by the player and you want the player to feel for the character and further their goals through actions and choices.. then you've got to take it in a different angle. Thankfully there are a few examples.


Everyone remembers Magneto from the X-Men comics and movies. He founds the Brotherhood of Mutants as a means of protecting his own kind and advancing their influence over the world. Doesn't sound too bad except for the fact that he intends to destroy or enslave mankind for being what he believes to be inferior. He's not above working with his old friend Xavier and the X-Men if there is a greater threat. But make no mistake, such alliances are temporary. Ironically he doesn't take it personally that they oppose him.. at anytime it appears that individuals can 'repent' in his eyes and join him.


The Operative from the movie Serenity (based on the Firefly series). This one is actually one of my favorite villains. He actually sees the things he does as being evil. However he does it for the good of all (in his mind). He's a believer and that makes him dangerous. He has no name nor rank. He does the things that must be done to ensure the order and safety of the Alliance. Of course.. if that involves slaying innocents.. he does so without a second thought. This one seems hard to pull off for a protagonist.. but Cecil from FInal Fantasy IV was also such a character. At first.


The Clans from the BattleTech universe. BattleTech is notorious for selecting villains and antagonists that could be the heroes and protagonist in another book. That is because there is no good or bad guys. There's good and evil, but every affiliation has them. But the clans are noteworthy because of the the fact that they had returned to Conquer the Inner Sphere. At a first look that sounds villainous.. until you find out the Clans are descendants of the Star League Defense Force that went into exile to keep the Inner Sphere from using them to destroy itself. Now after four civilization crippling wars, the Clans have come back to reunite the Star League, by force.

 

[Dr. Cakey]

I dislike the idea that there are certain kinds of protagonists you "can't" do.


If stories serve no higher purpose than entertaining the audience, then it seems to me the protagonist can be anything as long as they're interesting. Who cares if they're relateable? (And, as an aside: do I have anything in common with a simple farmboy who wants to go on adventures? Not really. Someone who wants to possess the world? Sure, I just think smaller. He wants the world, I want a couple boxes of eclairs. Somebody who wants to erase humanity from existence? Hey, we all have our long dark teatimes of the soul.) Does the audience want to root for an evil person? No, probably not, but as long as they know they're not supposed to, most people won't mind, I think.


Are you going to limit your audience? Yeah, maybe, but there's nothing wrong with making a niche product. JRPGs are a niche product. And 32x32 (sorry, 48x48) pixel art JRPGs are a very niche product.

 

[Oddball]

@Dr. cakey. i think your missing the point. Being relatable is about connecting with the charecter on a emotinal level. If you dont have that, you often lose the reader/veiwer/player as there watching someone who isnt belivable. empathy connects us with the charecter and immerses us in the story and lets us feel emotions on a deep and meaningful level

 

[Lornsteyn]

I have a few examples for villains in games:


1. Breath of Fire IV - For a short time you play as the villain.


2. Suikoden - Mostly every villain here has some good reasons for what they do.


3. Final Fantasy - World destroying villains who wish to kill all humans because of different reasons.


Another example:


The maincharacter have been betrayed in the beginning.
While on path of revenge, he drifts further into madness.

 

[Dr. Cakey]

@Dr. cakey. i think your missing the point. Being relatable is about connecting with the charecter on a emotinal level. If you dont have that, you often lose the reader/veiwer/player as there watching someone who isnt belivable. empathy connects us with the charecter and immerses us in the story and lets us feel emotions on a deep and meaningful level

Yeah, I know, but that line is 1) not universally applicable, and 2) instructions for Hollywood screenwriting, not actual writing advice. I mean, as far as a lot of run-of-the-mill JRPG and anime protagonists go, it's patently false. A JRPG protagonist: 1) has the mental fortitude to go on a journey to save the world, and 2) wants to do nice things for people. You've lost me. I have more in common with a banana than that guy. That guy is a mixture of: what the plot requires from its protagonist, an ideal to aspire to, and a fantasy to escape into (modern anime lean very heavily on that last one).


(Also back in the 90's when people were handed an actual relateable JRPG protagonist, i.e. Squall, they complained)


Now is the audience feeling a connection and saying to themselves "yes, that's what life is like!" good? Yes, it's transcendent and wonderful and probably the best thing a story can do, but that doesn't mean you have to do it (and it doesn't happen very often). There are a lot of different kinds of stories. People enjoy villains. There's no reason you can't tell a story from the perspective of one. You just have to do it well.

 

[Oddball]

im sure that alot of people on this forum would rather have a well-rounded villian to a flat one. Understanding what lies beneath the surface is part of what makes a well rounded charecter. also, espeacilly if there going to be spending large quantities of this game with the charecter, a well rounded charecter that you understand there motives is needed

 

[Dr. Cakey]

im sure that alot of people on this forum would rather have a well-rounded villian to a flat one.

Sure, and if you asked me if I wanted a final boss with one form or a final boss with three, I'd say three. But not all games need to be that way.


Darth Vader (in the first two films) isn't a great villain because he's a complex character, the Joker (in The Dark Knight) isn't a great villain because he's a complex character, Kefka isn't a great villain because he's a complex character, [name redacted] from Danganronpa isn't a great villain because she's a complex character, Harime Nui isn't a fantastic dayum antagonist because she's a complex character, they're great because they're brilliant on-screen presences (and they usually do a good job of pushing the story forward as well).


To be honest I'm not 100% sure what the core of your contention is, and I'm not sure you do, either. You say "motivation" but most villains have crystal clear motivations. They know what they want and they take it. It doesn't get much more motivation-y than that. And a character can have complexity while still not having any redeeming features. The Last Airbender (the show, not the movie, obviously) gives two of its antagonists redemptive moments in one episode. But the third, Azula, stares that opportunity in the face, thinks about it, and says "nah, I'm just a bad person".


The only problem I see is audience discomfort in following someone who's clearly the villain, but that depends on exactly what that character does, and plenty of people aren't going to be bothered by following the villain no matter what they do.


In my own writing I tend to default to "the antagonist wasn't actually a bad guy", but despite (or because of) that I really appreciate a well-constructed unquestionably evil character.