Do you want an example of "Omnipresent Villain" done wrong? Check late Blizzard games: Diablo III and Star Craft II. They all use a bunch of hyper-talkative antagonists, commenting you every move and interrupting the narrative every minute. Its not engaging, its annoying.
I like how they build up to the final boss in Chrono Trigger, it's not a "character" per se but it's present as hell throughout the second and third acts of the story
While i shouldn't beat a dead horse. Diablo 3 does this to the extreme, and is a good example of going in the other direction At the beginning of every act.you know who you're going to fight. Throughout your journey the big bad villain of that act would pop up and mock you. While this isn't a bad thing to know who you're going to kill, it's taken to the extreme as the show up after every single story beat. The story presentation of diablo 2, the big bad villain of every act was mention only through npc dialog only, a few scenes here and there, and mostly through the player's choice to find out. In diablo 3 its like a Saturday morning action cartoon, with the amount of times villain shows up to tell you how you're going to die. Diablo , Lord of terror, only has a few lines in diablo 2. the most memorable is when you finally fight him in act 4. " Not even death can save you from me. " In Diablo 3, act 4. Every single story beat, he pops up to tell you now you should fear him and how big and powerful he is. it diminishes the threat and mystery of the villain. I wonder if this is a problem with post world of Warcraft blizzard. The seem to aim their games at the teen market. It feels taht way with how their story is written.
I've tried to play Torment three separate times over the years, and bounced off it early on all three times. Sorry. I know, time to hand in my gamer card, here you are.
That's fine, just strange that you specifically mentioned in the description there was lack of a villain - when the game has multiple villains. No biggie
Yeah I guess you can't learn about a game from wikis and walkthroughs without really playing it. It's why I didn't mention it in the video, but perhaps I should have left speculation out of the description as well.
Do you think an antagonist can be compelling via his/her indirect presence? Like the influence that the person has in the world and the impact of that on your characters. A world where one encounters their fingerprints all over it.
I disagree with Harbinger, he is the main antagonist of ME2 and frequently taunts you through the collectors (Though he's a bug for most of it) he leaves behind lines like "I am the harbinger of your destruction" and is responsible for everything going awry during the last push to the pylon in ME3.
Hands down the best villain in ME2-3 is the illusive man. He is someone you can relate to, you converse with and build a relationship with. With harbinger the barked lines are all basically just one line taunts, and it's a completely one-way relationship. It made me hate him, but the kind of way I hate the rain.
Mr Wendal on games Definitely agree that the Illusive Man is a cooler villain. But like Bloodborne did, I feel like there is ways to make "incomprehensible villains" super interesting too. Even tho they dont have much story presence early on.
The Illusive Man especially before he became the obvious villain in 3 was excellent, you always knew you were helping him complete a secondary goal with no idea what it was, it lead to this sense of discomfort my first time through 2 where every time I spoke to him, I wanted to hang up on him just so I could put my head back in the sand
Mr Wendal on games I think you should give witcher 3 a chance if it comes up cheap on a steam sale or something. It's a really encouraging game to play in looking at where games could be at, maturity-wise (don't know if that is a word since I'm not a native speaker but hopefully you understand.)
Yeah, much of what it does looks so awesome. Sounds like they are plugging some of that stuff into Mass Effect Andromeda ... If you haven't seen it I really recommend Game Array's video on the Witcher 3: th-cam.com/video/Of1cr_hcKPQ/w-d-xo.html
"You're ... Immortal ?" That OST is an absolute banger and the rose decision was one of the most impactful decision I ever had in a video game. I don't know why, but I could not decide to take or not that damn rose. I remember staring at my screen for about 5 minutes thinking about it before finally taking it. Great DLC, really. Had a good laugh with the ghost stuff too !
Sephiroth wasnt even the main villain of FF7, Jenova was and posed as Sephiroth multiple times throughout the game, its not the actual Sephiroth for the majority of times you encounter "him". As for my part I'd like to point out 2 great villains in old school jRPGs~ -Magic Emperor Ghaleon in Lunar: Silver Star Story Complete, a really great villain and the contrast with his role in Lunar 2: Eternal Blue makes it a well developed, well used character. -Magus in Chrono Trigger for his portion as a Villain is pretty great, can't really say Lavos is a great villain even if he's the main enemy - he's more the reason for everything happening. I havent played through FF6 yet so I cant comment on Kefka but I hear he's also an incredibly great villain.
I was secretly hoping for a tribute to Irenicus/David Warner when you announced the theme of the video. Much pleased :) (spoilers) I remember being very disappointed by the chidish epilogue to the game. After so much time spent by the game's makers forging links between your avatar and his intriguing, classically tragic antagonist, that action movie-like dispatching of the main character felt particularly unwelcomed. Great video as always, Mr. Wendal!
Thinking back about your video, I remember how I used to consider Final Fantasy VII as a cheap knock-off of all the good ideas in Phantasy Star II, without its breadth. But you made me consider a capital aspect I was missing altogether: there are no villains in PS2. Because the genre of that last game is Space Opera, and the scenario is surprisingly good, the "sudden" final boss encounter is that one rare instance where it actually is very thrilling and sticks to the mind, but PS2 also lacked much of any character interactions. I am intrigued I never considered those major differences between FF7 and PS2. Anyway, sorry to turn your comments section into a support for my rambling: again, thank you for this video which made me reconsider my point of view of another game!
That's what comments are for! Thanks for participating. Never played PS2. I loved FF7 back in the day, but when I left my teenage years behind I fell in with the popular opinion that it was highly overrated. Looking back at it now I see what made me like it so much in the first place - the characters, and the music (which I may end up making a video on too). But I don't really have a burning desire to go back and play through it now because your interactions with it were very limited, even in the battles, even for it's day. From what I remember almost every battle kind of plays itself. BG2 on the other hand I loved, even though I missed it back in the day and first played it in about 2007. The combat is deliciously complicated, and holds up today except for the lack of tutorials / explanations / and some UI ease of use. Playing it again for this video I had just as much fun with it, which is why I think people should go back and play it, hence the spoiler warnings for a 17 year old game. And of course the storyline is much more interactive than FF7. Despite being about chasing down Irenicus, which every player does, who YOU are can vary wildly. Here's a line I cut from my script cause it was a little off-topic: "Focusing the main plot on a villain who’s done his evil deeds on you personally, instead of threatening your entire civilization, really allows for player freedom of character. You can genuinely be chaotic evil or any other of the great D&D alignments. You’re not bound by the story to save that civilization and ultimately do good deeds, unlike many newer games and even D&D sequels like Neverwinter Nights."
When I read that part you cut about the villain being a personal, not global, threat, it reminded of how he then appears somewhat 'unfair' (in the sense that he is the incarnation of all that can go wrong in your character's life). It is also what separates the first BG from its sequel in a funny way, at least during my own first playthrough. Imoen, the bratty sister character, is one I didn't give a damn about in the first game. Because of Irenicus, I'd felt strangely protective of her in the sequel. Funnily, this felt more like a split than an evolution of my protagonist between the two games - akin to a similar split between the two games, maybe. To come back to my earlier message, I remember the abrupt and uninteresting dispatch of the big bad affects KOTOR2's (amazing) villain as well, although maybe on a much larger and devastating scale... and I can't talk about it without heavily spoiling it, so I won't do that, in the chance you haven't played it.
FF VII's GREAT OST is the true reason why was, is, and will always be so loved though, as it's what makes so easy to get inside the game, its world and plot. Irenicus truly makes BG 2 great, and I was disappointed by the Throne of Baal's villainess whose name I can't even remember.
20 hours in and you havn't even met him yet... shows his scene in the first act and he is ever present as you tail him cloud style, something he had just lauded lol.
Yeah, you even elaborate on your relationship with him throughout the game both in the past self conversations and your current self's dialogue with others about him.
Regarding your description, Planescape: Torment does have a great villain, it's just not dogging you the whole way. It's just not your preference of style of villain, which is fine, but saying the game has no good villain objectively is a faulty assessment. In fact I don't even think Sephiroth is that great of a villain, personally. He's memorable, but mostly for surface level reasons; an attractive visual design and striking introduction. There's not much more to him than that. The Transcendent One in Planescape is literally your own mortality and amalgamation of life experiences in corporeal form. He has a great voice by the late Tony Jay, a fascinating and thematic design, and the final confrontation with him has a number of interesting means of solving the conflict. In my eyes, Sephiroth can't hold a candle to any of that.
great stuff, always love seeing a new video by you in my sub-box! I agree that the character development of villains and just in games and just their writing in general too has felt particularly lazy recently. I would argue though that everything good about Sephiroth as a villain, Kefka did better before him in FF6.
That's because Kefka is a much better villain than sephie... As a matter of fact, FF VI as a whole, is a much better game and holds up better than FF VII to this day.
Well the game game with the best character and villains I have played is The Legend of Heroes:Trails- Series. I mean there is just no other game like it. Leonhardt was a perfect villain
I disagree, according to your criteria, a villain is better the most involved is with the main character/s, why is that? Doesn't make too much sense to me, a villain being good has nothing to do with that, maybe it will make theplayer remember him, but I seriously would priorize good writing (motivations, backstory, etc.) rather than that, it's not the same. Also, I don't think villains need to be close to the main character in RPGs, it's annoying when in an RPG everything revolves around you, like if you were an obvious movie protagonist rather than just a person living in a realistic world, as RPGs should ideally be.
I agree that the whole world does not need to revolve around the character (see my video "A World Not Built For You" but can't help but disagree on the rest. A villain - an antagonist - by definition exists in opposition to the protagonist. It's their role to challenge you, to provide obstacles and conflict to your story. To keep a protagonist and antagonist at a distance, for them to have very little to do with each other makes for a very boring story.
Better villain: Gilliath Osborne. The guy has been a villain for 7 straight games without even appearing in some of them. None of the villains in the games you discussed are particularly engaging except for Baldur's Gate.
In Polish version he has an EXCELLENT voice actor too
Do you want an example of "Omnipresent Villain" done wrong? Check late Blizzard games: Diablo III and Star Craft II. They all use a bunch of hyper-talkative antagonists, commenting you every move and interrupting the narrative every minute. Its not engaging, its annoying.
I like how they build up to the final boss in Chrono Trigger, it's not a "character" per se but it's present as hell throughout the second and third acts of the story
While i shouldn't beat a dead horse. Diablo 3 does this to the extreme, and is a good example of going in the other direction At the beginning of every act.you know who you're going to fight. Throughout your journey the big bad villain of that act would pop up and mock you. While this isn't a bad thing to know who you're going to kill, it's taken to the extreme as the show up after every single story beat.
The story presentation of diablo 2, the big bad villain of every act was mention only through npc dialog only, a few scenes here and there, and mostly through the player's choice to find out. In diablo 3 its like a Saturday morning action cartoon, with the amount of times villain shows up to tell you how you're going to die. Diablo , Lord of terror, only has a few lines in diablo 2. the most memorable is when you finally fight him in act 4. " Not even death can save you from me. " In Diablo 3, act 4. Every single story beat, he pops up to tell you now you should fear him and how big and powerful he is. it diminishes the threat and mystery of the villain.
I wonder if this is a problem with post world of Warcraft blizzard. The seem to aim their games at the teen market. It feels taht way with how their story is written.
Planescape Torment has a primary antagonist though... and thematically it's stronger than most on this list.
And its voice, oh god its voice...
I've tried to play Torment three separate times over the years, and bounced off it early on all three times. Sorry. I know, time to hand in my gamer card, here you are.
That's fine, just strange that you specifically mentioned in the description there was lack of a villain - when the game has multiple villains. No biggie
Yeah I guess you can't learn about a game from wikis and walkthroughs without really playing it. It's why I didn't mention it in the video, but perhaps I should have left speculation out of the description as well.
Do you think an antagonist can be compelling via his/her indirect presence? Like the influence that the person has in the world and the impact of that on your characters. A world where one encounters their fingerprints all over it.
Sebastian LaCroix is my favourite RPG villain.
"Gary, you treasanous maggot!"
I disagree with Harbinger, he is the main antagonist of ME2 and frequently taunts you through the collectors (Though he's a bug for most of it) he leaves behind lines like "I am the harbinger of your destruction" and is responsible for everything going awry during the last push to the pylon in ME3.
Isnt him we meet as a Hologram in Mass Effect 1 too? Where he says something about how we cant comprehend their goal?
No that's Sovereign but it could be argued that adds to knowing the Reaper enemy as a whole
Hands down the best villain in ME2-3 is the illusive man. He is someone you can relate to, you converse with and build a relationship with. With harbinger the barked lines are all basically just one line taunts, and it's a completely one-way relationship. It made me hate him, but the kind of way I hate the rain.
Mr Wendal on games Definitely agree that the Illusive Man is a cooler villain.
But like Bloodborne did, I feel like there is ways to make "incomprehensible villains" super interesting too. Even tho they dont have much story presence early on.
The Illusive Man especially before he became the obvious villain in 3 was excellent, you always knew you were helping him complete a secondary goal with no idea what it was, it lead to this sense of discomfort my first time through 2 where every time I spoke to him, I wanted to hang up on him just so I could put my head back in the sand
What are your thoughts on the villain in Witcher 3: Hearts of Stone?
I've never played the witcher, and I've realized the biggest reason is the complete lack of character customization, something I really like in RPGs.
Mr Wendal on games I think you should give witcher 3 a chance if it comes up cheap on a steam sale or something. It's a really encouraging game to play in looking at where games could be at, maturity-wise (don't know if that is a word since I'm not a native speaker but hopefully you understand.)
Yeah, much of what it does looks so awesome. Sounds like they are plugging some of that stuff into Mass Effect Andromeda ...
If you haven't seen it I really recommend Game Array's video on the Witcher 3: th-cam.com/video/Of1cr_hcKPQ/w-d-xo.html
"You're ... Immortal ?"
That OST is an absolute banger and the rose decision was one of the most impactful decision I ever had in a video game. I don't know why, but I could not decide to take or not that damn rose. I remember staring at my screen for about 5 minutes thinking about it before finally taking it.
Great DLC, really. Had a good laugh with the ghost stuff too !
Sephiroth wasnt even the main villain of FF7, Jenova was and posed as Sephiroth multiple times throughout the game, its not the actual Sephiroth for the majority of times you encounter "him".
As for my part I'd like to point out 2 great villains in old school jRPGs~
-Magic Emperor Ghaleon in Lunar: Silver Star Story Complete, a really great villain and the contrast with his role in Lunar 2: Eternal Blue makes it a well developed, well used character.
-Magus in Chrono Trigger for his portion as a Villain is pretty great, can't really say Lavos is a great villain even if he's the main enemy - he's more the reason for everything happening.
I havent played through FF6 yet so I cant comment on Kefka but I hear he's also an incredibly great villain.
Kefka's a great villain, but i guess too much similarities with joker
I was secretly hoping for a tribute to Irenicus/David Warner when you announced the theme of the video. Much pleased :)
(spoilers) I remember being very disappointed by the chidish epilogue to the game. After so much time spent by the game's makers forging links between your avatar and his intriguing, classically tragic antagonist, that action movie-like dispatching of the main character felt particularly unwelcomed.
Great video as always, Mr. Wendal!
Thanks! SPOILERS:
Yeah i hated it too, so I didn't put it in this video. My saved games down there are called "JUST F-ING END ALREADY". :)
Thinking back about your video, I remember how I used to consider Final Fantasy VII as a cheap knock-off of all the good ideas in Phantasy Star II, without its breadth.
But you made me consider a capital aspect I was missing altogether: there are no villains in PS2. Because the genre of that last game is Space Opera, and the scenario is surprisingly good, the "sudden" final boss encounter is that one rare instance where it actually is very thrilling and sticks to the mind, but PS2 also lacked much of any character interactions.
I am intrigued I never considered those major differences between FF7 and PS2.
Anyway, sorry to turn your comments section into a support for my rambling: again, thank you for this video which made me reconsider my point of view of another game!
That's what comments are for! Thanks for participating. Never played PS2. I loved FF7 back in the day, but when I left my
teenage years behind I fell in with the popular opinion that it was highly overrated. Looking back at it now I see what made me like it so much in the first place - the characters, and the music (which I may end up making a video on too). But I don't really have a burning desire to go back and play through it now because your interactions with it were very limited, even in the battles, even for it's day. From what I remember almost every battle kind of plays itself. BG2 on the other hand I loved, even though I missed it back in the day and first played it in about 2007. The combat is deliciously complicated, and holds up today except for the lack of tutorials / explanations / and some UI ease of use. Playing it again for this video I had just as much fun with it, which is why I think people should go back and play it, hence the spoiler warnings for a 17 year old game. And of course the storyline is much more interactive than FF7. Despite being about chasing down Irenicus, which every player does, who YOU are can vary wildly. Here's a line I cut from my script cause it was a little off-topic: "Focusing the main plot on a villain who’s done his evil deeds on you personally, instead of threatening your entire civilization, really allows for player freedom of character. You can genuinely be chaotic evil or any other of the great D&D alignments. You’re not bound by the story to save that civilization and ultimately do good deeds, unlike many newer games and even D&D sequels like Neverwinter Nights."
When I read that part you cut about the villain being a personal, not global, threat, it reminded of how he then appears somewhat 'unfair' (in the sense that he is the incarnation of all that can go wrong in your character's life). It is also what separates the first BG from its sequel in a funny way, at least during my own first playthrough. Imoen, the bratty sister character, is one I didn't give a damn about in the first game. Because of Irenicus, I'd felt strangely protective of her in the sequel. Funnily, this felt more like a split than an evolution of my protagonist between the two games - akin to a similar split between the two games, maybe.
To come back to my earlier message, I remember the abrupt and uninteresting dispatch of the big bad affects KOTOR2's (amazing) villain as well, although maybe on a much larger and devastating scale... and I can't talk about it without heavily spoiling it, so I won't do that, in the chance you haven't played it.
I've played KOTOR2. Yeah the villain was great but the rushed ending was very disappointing.
Great video, really enjoy your content.
Great stuff as always
I so enjoy your videos!
Thanks!
FF VII's GREAT OST is the true reason why was, is, and will always be so loved though, as it's what makes so easy to get inside the game, its world and plot.
Irenicus truly makes BG 2 great, and I was disappointed by the Throne of Baal's villainess whose name I can't even remember.
Talked about villains without Xenogears? Criminal!
Haven't played it, sorry
What? You do come accross Thaos fairly often, and throughout your past selfs memories you get to know more about him.
20 hours in and you havn't even met him yet... shows his scene in the first act and he is ever present as you tail him cloud style, something he had just lauded lol.
Yeah, you even elaborate on your relationship with him throughout the game both in the past self conversations and your current self's dialogue with others about him.
Rip David Warner
what game is it?
1:39
Pillars of Eternity
Regarding your description, Planescape: Torment does have a great villain, it's just not dogging you the whole way. It's just not your preference of style of villain, which is fine, but saying the game has no good villain objectively is a faulty assessment.
In fact I don't even think Sephiroth is that great of a villain, personally. He's memorable, but mostly for surface level reasons; an attractive visual design and striking introduction. There's not much more to him than that. The Transcendent One in Planescape is literally your own mortality and amalgamation of life experiences in corporeal form. He has a great voice by the late Tony Jay, a fascinating and thematic design, and the final confrontation with him has a number of interesting means of solving the conflict. In my eyes, Sephiroth can't hold a candle to any of that.
great stuff, always love seeing a new video by you in my sub-box! I agree that the character development of villains and just in games and just their writing in general too has felt particularly lazy recently.
I would argue though that everything good about Sephiroth as a villain, Kefka did better before him in FF6.
That's because Kefka is a much better villain than sephie... As a matter of fact, FF VI as a whole, is a much better game and holds up better than FF VII to this day.
Wait, BG2 had "Deathmatch Mode"?!?! Also you should really play Pillars of Eternity.
Some of the new graphical and UI options in the remaster of Baldur's Gate 2 look really ugly.
Well the game game with the best character and villains I have played is The Legend of Heroes:Trails- Series. I mean there is just no other game like it. Leonhardt was a perfect villain
I disagree, according to your criteria, a villain is better the most involved is with the main character/s, why is that? Doesn't make too much sense to me, a villain being good has nothing to do with that, maybe it will make theplayer remember him, but I seriously would priorize good writing (motivations, backstory, etc.) rather than that, it's not the same.
Also, I don't think villains need to be close to the main character in RPGs, it's annoying when in an RPG everything revolves around you, like if you were an obvious movie protagonist rather than just a person living in a realistic world, as RPGs should ideally be.
I agree that the whole world does not need to revolve around the character (see my video "A World Not Built For You" but can't help but disagree on the rest.
A villain - an antagonist - by definition exists in opposition to the protagonist. It's their role to challenge you, to provide obstacles and conflict to your story.
To keep a protagonist and antagonist at a distance, for them to have very little to do with each other makes for a very boring story.
Better villain: Gilliath Osborne. The guy has been a villain for 7 straight games without even appearing in some of them.
None of the villains in the games you discussed are particularly engaging except for Baldur's Gate.
Anyone gonna mention Mercer frey. That was a good villain.
In my opinion, the whole "Villain as a main plot engine" concept is too simplistic and horribly overused in pop culture. Good villain is no villain.