Samven's Writing Lectures
11-22-2012, 09:11 PM
An interesting read. I too noticed Barubary's attitude was quite... noble and proud warrior-like. I never really thought about it in contrast with major Final Fantasy villains though, which is interesting. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any FF villains that avoid the "Evil! Evil! Oh how I am evil!". Kefka is lovable because he's basically crazy. Unhinged and unpredictable, self centred and unsympathetic, meaning that esper juice he got pumped with must've really screwed him up. Kuja has a plan and he's not going to let anyone stop him, his ability to show a good side was also crippled for plot-specified reasons.
Does establishing why a villain cannot do good things make them better? A villain, who is established as, if their brain chemistry wasn't messed with, would be more human? Contrasted to an event that makes them snap, wanting revenge on the entire world, or having a lack of empathy from the very beginning of their existence?
It has me thinking of my own antagonist - or one of them - and where I could have the opportunity to talk about them or develop them. A lot of the gameplay is focused on characters other than the main hero. Complete character quests to see how other characters deal with their personal rivals, know their history, and too see how there must be a way to reach out to their human side. However the main hero is more like a shofer for the rest of the party - their personal struggles are limited so as to give more time to work with the other characters, because gameplay "days" are also limited. Their own rival has a short history with them, butting in on the party and wanting to stop them because they're being "heroes" and that hurt his precious pride.
The reasoning is shallow, potentially making the character shallow, and without much room to explore the antagonist's story because they have no bigger bond than the player does a few hours into the game, I wonder if the character is terribly necessary at all. There is a bigger threat in store, and this guy is getting in the way just because he wants to feel higher up the societal ladder.
Does establishing why a villain cannot do good things make them better? A villain, who is established as, if their brain chemistry wasn't messed with, would be more human? Contrasted to an event that makes them snap, wanting revenge on the entire world, or having a lack of empathy from the very beginning of their existence?
It has me thinking of my own antagonist - or one of them - and where I could have the opportunity to talk about them or develop them. A lot of the gameplay is focused on characters other than the main hero. Complete character quests to see how other characters deal with their personal rivals, know their history, and too see how there must be a way to reach out to their human side. However the main hero is more like a shofer for the rest of the party - their personal struggles are limited so as to give more time to work with the other characters, because gameplay "days" are also limited. Their own rival has a short history with them, butting in on the party and wanting to stop them because they're being "heroes" and that hurt his precious pride.
The reasoning is shallow, potentially making the character shallow, and without much room to explore the antagonist's story because they have no bigger bond than the player does a few hours into the game, I wonder if the character is terribly necessary at all. There is a bigger threat in store, and this guy is getting in the way just because he wants to feel higher up the societal ladder.
