Should villains be glamorous or disgusting?

I see this completely the opposite. Yes, all villain zones have places that are meant to be nice... But really aren't. Places like Villa Requin, Aeon City and Jackpot don't - to my eyes - serve to counter-balance the misery and depression of the rest of the zones. On the contrary, the serve to highlight it and make it worse. Because all of these supposedly "nice" places still depress me. They're still grey and black and white, they're still cold and sterile and they're still overrun with trigger-happy "police" that delight in harassing the populus.

Aeon Has to be the worst of the lot. The place looks like a hospital, all manner of thieves and vandals still thrive in there, and one of the biggest things in sight is that HUUUGE Arachnos banner. And if that weren't bad enough, it's an almost literal ivory tower that sticks out of the brown slums on both sides, the small refuge of the select few rich and powerful ones.

Even the best, most optimistic, prettiest parts of the Rogue Isles still come off as depressing and sad, a fine mirror for the fortunes of the villains there. It doesn't matter how hard you work and how well you succeed, because the best you can hope for is the hollow lie of a better life. Because there is no better life for villains. They're the bad guys. They're repugnant. You're not supposed to enjoy yourself playing one. You're supposed to suffer and understand that evil is bad.

And that bugs me, because when properly-written, evil can be COOL! And that, really, is what I feel the Rogue Isles should be about - all the ways in which you can make evil cool and desirable. It's escapist fantasy, after all. We can afford to root for the bad guys. We play them, after all, don't we?

Actually, on second thought, let me cut a somewhat tangential argument short on my part and just say that this is probably where we disagree on a fundamental level - I'm not a political person. At all. I don't watch the news for the most part, I rarely vote, I don't much care what government is supposed to be doing wrong or doing right, and I honestly try to avoid politics as best I can in my escapist fiction. I'm much more interested in heroes punching villains' goons in the face while villains are busy putting the final pieces in their grand master plans than I am about the political structure of the land of evil or how the common men pay their taxes.

This isn't just idle musings, by the way, but is rather quite a bit crucial in determining what kind of villains we like. If you're interested in the political structure of the broader world, you're more likely to favour the more grounded villains who are still subject to those rules, and in so doing you're bound to favour the less "pleasant" ones just by virtue of what the reality of evil is. Personally, I intentionally favour the more unrealistic villains who operate outside of any real political system and who don't even need an established civilised society to operate. Because these are rarely concerned with controlling the populus, they're much more rarely given opportunities to be monstrous, as most atrocities tend to be committed against the defenceless people one has dominion over.

Once you rob a villain of his hard grounding in reality, you also rob him of a LOT of opportunities to be disgusting and leave him not much else to do BUT be glamorous. And I actually feel that's a good way of putting it, now that you bring it up.

I disagree. I see Arachnos as anything BUT control. In fact, Recluse and Arachnos are about as close to the antithesis of control as one gets while still supporting a governed society. Villains run around rampant and do whatever they damn please, sanctioned Arachnos operatives are routinely raiding US territory, the whole place is a rotten, depressing slum and Recluse doesn't really give a damn about any of it. He's too preoccupied with his divorce from the Statesman and he's essentially sucking the Etoile Islands dry for power and resources while at the same time giving nothing back. Yes, the islands more or less govern themselves, mostly because Recluse doesn't care to govern them. He cares about his Operation: Destiny, he cares about the PCM, he cares about Statesman, the love of his life... But the Isles are just chaos.

So what if random people get access to the Warburg nukes? Random people have been getting access to them since Warburg first existed and the world is still alive. Hell, if Mender Tesseract's TF is anything to go by, the Etoile Islands were doing just fine under the rule of President Marchand. The place was decent and clean. Then Recluse took over and now look what it was - a crime-ridden, chaotic mess. I don't see Arachnos as any sort of stable authority. I see them as a parasite on top of barely functioning system.

If we want to talk about order and control, Praetoria is the right example. This is not just a city, but a world well under the control of a dictator. Sure, crime still exists and sure, it's still rotten to the core, but if you're a law-abiding citizen or even a respected member of Powers Division, you won't get to see all that much of it. Because Tyrant cares about running a tight shift. Recluse, by contrast, lets everyone do what he pleases, so Kirk Cage steals red coral, Dr. Aion fiddles with demons, Johnny Sonata sells his soul and who knows what else.

I don't really think that if Arachnos up and disappeared one day that you'll see much of a difference. The banners will be another colour, but the mess will still be the same.

And that's a problem, the same one I have with Praetoria - this interpretation of events assumes that my villains care about the Etoile Islands and keeping them safe, or indeed that they care about keeping the place safe. Mine don't, but I suspect you and I are speaking of entirely different types of villains. In fact, if... Let me think... Yeah, if any of the villains I have were held to task with the various ways he or she has harmed the people of the rogue isles, all of them would shrug and do the "Yeah, and?" look. Because they care about their own agendas. The Isles are a means to an end. If they have to burn in the process, then well... That's a small price to pay. And that's speaking of my more reserved villains. Remember, I'm also talking about those that want to kill all life on the planet, and even one particular one who wants to destroy all created things and start creation anew.

One story arc (I think it's the Wheel of Destruction) has the contact explain that the Banished Pantheon have no respect for the local gangs. This struck me as something that's very cool about the gang - they serve a dark god who means to consume the entire world. What do they care if they upset the local rough necks? The will of Lughebu is so much greater than that.

---

This really doesn't fit into the "glamorous vs. disgusting" duality, but it is a good point to make: Some villains are much more involved in the world around them and much more interested in both playing by its rules and affecting the people in it. Other villains, on the other hand, simply feel their purpose is more important than anyone and anything else. I suspect most people might disagree, but it is the latter type of villains that really works for me.

There's an old quote from the chief antagonist from the Monster Warriors (crappy) series that I like to use in situations like these: "I make ze monsters BIG!"

*edit*
I apologise if my post comes off as mean or dismissive. That wasn't the point. I honestly was looking for something a lot like this discussion, and now that it's going, I find it a bit more interested to stick to personal preference than try to be objective, and I encourage others to do the same.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

Honestly, I don't think so. I think Westin Phipps was an honest attempt to let us "be more evil." I think we're supposed to enjoy poisoning children and kicking puppies for teh evulz. Unfortunately they completely missed the point; I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly don't want to do that stuff for teh evulz. Sure, I have villains who would do it for the right reasons, but none that would giggle along with Westin as that impoverished mother begs him to help her blind children. They have greater goals. I don't dislike him because he's vile, I dislike him because he's beneath us.

Now Vernon Von Grun, comedy aside....yeah, I just might laugh along with him.

I'd still rather have a well-developed antagonist. See, when the Freddy or Jason or whoever doesn't die at the end, I'm annoyed. They're only there to be defeated, so when they come back for the sequel, it's almost cheating. But the Doctor Doom? Hahahaha, pathetic heroes, you really thought you had defeated DOOM?

I think you could do it, but you'd have to be very very careful in how you presented the character. The examples you mentioned are blatant and childish, whereas this kind of character would actually fall under the actual definition of "mature RP." I'd also make sure to write the bio in the third person and in such a way that makes it clear that you, the player, do not condone the views and actions of the character.

Depressing?

Speak for yourself, I love being evil!

Aside from getting the Doctor Doom thing and enjoying that as well, myself...
And this has little to do with playing a video game, so much as this is just about enjoying villains in slasher films...

I watch those films (Jason and Freddie) and root, cheer and enjoy the monstrous villain slasher/killer!
To me... that is the point!

Kill those delinquent camp counselors!!
Slice that annoying character in half!!!!!

Most of those films set up completely annoying characters that I'm forced to dislike... and then, in comes the monstrous, unbelievable, unreal super-powered slasher that is going to slaughter them all...

Line them up and enjoy the killings!! Woohoo!!

I hate it when the "good guys" win in the end.
Oh, I like the good characters to survive!
However, I'd prefer it if they didn't manage to kill the monstrous villain... There are plenty of other annoying people in the world that I'd like to see them slaughter in the next film, please!!


Just a different opinion and angle of enjoyment for such types of entertainment that I felt compelled to represent here... As, clearly, you people are very weird!!

Chh Chh Chh Ahh Ahh Ahh...

The Electric-Knight ______ Malfaz _____ Zox'Oculox

@Zethustra

"Now at midnight all the agents and the superhuman crew come out
and round up everyone that knows more than they do"-Dylan

www.pauldamonthomas.com - Original Music

Not at all. I am nothing less that delighted that, so far, everybody in this discussion understands that, to borrow a phrase from Robert Anton Wilson, we're not talking about objective reality, we're talking about our own nervous systems; we're not (thank the gods) arguing about whether or not the piece of art we're talking about "really is" (fill in the blank), but the much more useful subject of how that piece of art is perceived by your nervous system, versus how it's perceived by my nervous system, versus anybody else's nervous system. Again, to borrow a RAWism, it's not like we can hook up a "glamor-ometer" to get an objective reading off of the game.

Do you really find, say, the border between old Haven and Aeon City to be more depressing than the Hazard Zone gate between Steel Canyon and Boomtown? To me, the environment of the game seems almost perfectly designed to indicate how humiliatingly futile for apolitical heroes to try to punch their way out of the supervillain problem: thanks to Statesman's call, and Freedom Phalanx's example, of superheroes staying mostly out of politics and concentrating all of their energies on just punching out bad guys? Every single year, Paragon City gets worse: yet another neighborhood blown up, yet more villain groups on the street, yet another timeline that hates our timeline so much they have to kill us all and that blames Freedom Phalanx, so they concentrate on Paragon City first.

(Yes, I do remember when the cops stopped running away and started shooting back; I remember that fondly, actually. And yes, obviously, I remember when northern Faultline got rebuilt, again, quite fondly. But where is the memorial, however improv, to the victims of Battle Maiden's attack on Blyde Square?)

The Rogue Isles only look grittier for two reasons: the sky is cloudy, and the trash pickup isn't so great. So, okay, it's Portland. But aside from "Rikti terrorists casually and safely chilling out in the richest neighborhood in town," you know what I notice the Rogue Isles don't have? Muggers. In six years, we have never seen a single purse-snatching in the Rogue Isles.

Sure, parts of it are over-run with mobsters ... they're almost (but not quite!) as common as the mobsters in Independence Port. Only, in the Rogue Isles, instead of visibly standing on street corners shaking people down in plain sight, they stand around talking (dirty, out of sight) business. (Dockside is, like much of Sharkhead, an aberation in the Rogue Isles.) What's the difference? In the Rogue Isles, they're the government of at least two of the towns, Port Oakes and St. Martial. And especially in St. Martial, they're doing a far, far better job than Paragon City ever can of keeping it safe, well lit, and tourist-friendly.

(Which is why I laughed myself silly when Basse Croupier saw how little the Tsoo had stolen in their casino robberies and pointed out that they could have made more than that per hour, entirely safely, if they'd just come to the Family for a casino license. It's true, you know.)

I think I absolutely do disagree with you, by the way, on another artistic point: the idea that, "They're the bad guys. They're repugnant. You're not supposed to enjoy yourself playing one. You're supposed to suffer and understand that evil is bad."

First of all, I can't entirely tell if you're saying that that's your preference, or if you think that's what the Freem Fifteen were thinking when they first wrote City of Villains ... but I think you meant the latter; apologies if I respond to the wrong point, in advance.

The default storyline(s) for villains, from issue 6 and 7, do not strike me as an example of how you're supposed to hate your character for being bad. What they do strike me as is the story of someone who starts out as nobody, as nothing, as lower than dirt ... who, by proving himself or herself to The Scariest Villains in the World, earns grudging respect, somewhere in the level 45-50 range. My problems with that are the "lower than dirt" part and the "not until level 45+" part -- I wish there was some way to play someone who, while not really feared by The Scariest Villains in the World, gets some respect.

There's a line in the new level 2-5 villain missions where someone (Golden Scarab?) says that due to the invasion of Mercy Island, Arachnos is getting so desperate that they're sucking up to those worthless "Destined One" scums, "treating them like kings and queens." Would that it were so!

I mentioned, earlier, my mafia lawyer character? Mr. Bradley, level 50 mercs/poison -- I used to joke that his only real super power was that he had a cell phone and more money than Thurston Howell the IIIrd, enough to hire special forces types as his personal entourage and toss around the most rare and dangerous drugs in the world as if they cost him nothing. Always wore an impeccable white suit and a Hermes off-white scarf. ... Still got talked to, by almost every contact he worked for, like a level 1 Hellion in ragged sneakers, like a homeless guy who just got off the helicopter yesterday in an orange Zigg jumpsuit. That's what I mean when I complain that they haven't, even yet, made it possible to play a glamorous villain.

That's really what's so disappointing about Westin, though, and something I probably didn't get across very well - I'm not sure if whoever was writing him intended him to come off as effectively a parody of a villain, and I do suspect he was a genuine attempt to make the game more evil. But it's a very... Awkward attempt, and a good display of a writing team profoundly missing the point, at least from where I'm sitting. They wrote a game they thought was good and cool, we made a big stink about it and someone on writing duty went: "Oh yeah? Fine! How about THIS! Is THAT evil enough for you?" It smacks of forcing a writer to write something he's not only not comfortable with, but doesn't actually even get.

I mean, you can tell the story is genuinely trying to impress us with Westin's villainy, but it completely fails to impress and instead just disgusts. This is not the kind of villain I want to play for 750 hours.

Heh, I agree with you there. I'm generally a person who hates fun, and even I chuckled at Vernin's antics But more than that, Vernon is one of the few contacts in City of Villains who actually makes my villain feel like a bigshot and, even though the plan is still horrible and repugnant, it comes off as more high-profile excitement than mean-spirited drudgery.

Indeed, and that's a good distinction to make - is this a villain we hate and want to see die a horrible death, or is this a villain we kind of sort of secretly like and want to see more of? Purely personally speaking, the former is a good antagonist, but the latter is the kind of villainous protagonist I want - nay, NEED - in order to be able to enjoy a villain-centric game.

And this, really, is the central issue we keep dancing around - are we supposed to enjoy playing as villains? Should we be allowed to commit evil acts and STILL enjoy ourselves? The original CoV writers would say "no," at least judging by the tone of their writing. Back in I6, City of Heroes was the place where you went if you wanted enjoyment while City of Villains was the place to get downer ending drama, per chance your life was a little too happy and joyful.

Now, I don't argue that unpleasant, repulsive villain SHOULD exist as an option for those with stronger stomachs than I have. I'm not trying to dismiss that. But what I am going to argue for is that villains can be, and indeed SHOULD be, about much more. Again I got back to literally the first response I got in this thread - I'm going to be playing these villains. I need to enjoy playing them or it's no longer a fun game. Designing villains primarily as objects of scorn seems - to me at least - to be missing the point of making a player-villain-centric game.

I don't disagree that this could be done in a (somewhat) tasteful manner, but game rule limitations actually ARE a pretty big factor in what we can ask for our villains to be. I generally have no problem with Mature RP, but the thing is, it sort of exists in this game on a "don't make a problem and you won't have a problem" basis, in that it's not officially allowed, but no-one is going to bother you for engaging in it if you don't bother other people. It's sort of the exception to the rule of what is still a PG13 game.

All I was really saying with that example, though, is that there actually ARE at least a few hard lines that we can't really afford to cross regardless of our personal opinions, and those are PlayNC's regulations on content.

Isn't that kind of the point, though? I mean, if you've known many actual real-life evil people, then I'm sure you'll agree that we don't want to sympathise with them and work to help them succeed. The reason I personally vouch for glamorous villains is exactly because that's the only kind of villain I don't instinctively hate. And when I have to play said villain and work to succeed, I want... NEED to be able to like him. If I can't, I lose my motivation to log into said character, and if I leave a character sitting unused for too long because I dread logging him in, I delete him to make room for another one I like more.

I think it comes down to a pretty simple matter of choice. I get to choose what I play every time I type my account name and password. And so long as I have a choice, I will always choose the characters that make me happy over the ones that depress me. Sometimes, that means choosing obviously unrealistic fantasy over grounded reality, but isn't that what games are for?

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

Yep, I enjoy a good slasher flick as well. Hell, I usually enjoy the bad ones too.

Still haven't found any that top the classics for me though. The original Halloween is still my all time favorite movie. It's more about the psychological fear of being stalked by an unstoppable killing machine than it is about the gore (there's almost no blood depicted in the movie at all).

Michael Myers is, to me, an excellent example of a villain who just IS. He exists, and if you live in Haddonfield, Illinois, he is going to kill you. And that's really all you need to know. He wasn't overthought, and they didn't go out of their way to explain things other than "he just snapped one day and killed his sister". He was meant to be an incarnation of the "bogeyman" that children are afraid is lurking in their closet at night, and in that regard they did a good job of it.

Sometimes, that kind of villain is exactly what a story needs. I have often felt when watching the movie that if they had tried too hard to explain his motivation it would have kind of ruined it. He's killing people, he seems unstoppable, and no one really knows WHY he is doing this. You've got to admit, if a guy like that was stalking your neighborhood it'd be pretty scary once the bodies started turning up.

Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison See, it's gems like these that make me check Claws' post history every once in a while to make sure I haven't missed anything good lately.

My main villian Red Rag is a mutant, abandoned as a child, brought up in foster homes and badly treated for being different, he ended up in with the 'wrong' crowd and then in the Zig. He has a lot to be angry about and when he gets angry things around him tend to catch on fire, which doesn't help. He's been used and manipulated by pretty much every villain group in the Rogue Isles and has learned to take what he wants and to hell with the consequences. Get in his way and he'll take you down because he believes its either you or him.

Rose Bloodthorn is a plant so who knows how she really thinks. She understands what man has done to the environment and considers it a declaration of war. As humans started the war, she has no compunctions about killing them.

Konkurrent is a Russian assassin who kills people with electricity. She's pretty amoral but sees what she does as just a job.

I do, actually. The border between Old Haven and Aeon City is depressing, because as I look down on the poor people being taken apart by Vahzilok and robbed by Gold Brickers, I am constantly reminded of the horrors I'm only just barely safe from because Aeon City is exclusive. The TVtropes article on Crapsack World had a very good illustrative example. It's a child having a tea party in a bubble of blue skies, green grass and happiness amid a dead, ruined, horrible world, as if the child is either unaware of the doom of all things or is simply choosing to ignore it for a few last moments of false happiness before the inevitable end.

The Rogue Isles depress me, because even in its nicest parts, I'm still reminded of its worst parts constantly. Because even in my ivory tower in Aeon City, I can still see the rest of the world down there living in pain and misery. Because any comfort I might find in the few not-so-dirty places in the Rogue Isles is ruined in knowing I'm still living in a hellhole, I'm just pretending I don't see out my window. And believe me - I know enough about that in real life to not want it in my games.

There is a historical story about Vlad the Impaler, talking about how he ate breakfast next to a field of stakes with thousands of people impaled on them, dead or dying. This is how I see City of Villains - my small bubble of comfort only works if I put my hands on the sides of my head and don't look out, because if I DO look out, I'll realise how rotten everything is.

In Paragon City, things are entirely different. The whole city is nice, clean and optimistic. Sure, there are bad areas, like there are in any real city, but those only serve to contrast the GOOD sections. And while, yes, hazard zones do exist and they have to be cordoned off, there generally aren't people living in there, commuting with murderers and monsters. The city is neat and clean and where danger exists, it is contained. Granted, there are still areas like Brickstown and Kings Row and Independence Port, but those only serve to contrast areas like Steel Canyon and Atlas Park and Talos Island. City of Heroes has a variety of themes from nice and friendly to dark and dangerous. City of Villains has a variety of dirt, from horrible to just sort of uncomfortable. What City of Villains singularly lacks, however, is a place I can go to that doesn't constantly remind me of the crime, corruption and horror of the place. Not even the Golden Giza, because if there's one place that DOESN'T put my mind at ease, it's a casino.

I feel there's much more to it than that. To my eyes, the Rogue Isles look depressing because they're almost entirely drawn in heavy black shadows with dark grey shades, contrasted by sterile whites and everything which isn't monochrome is brown. The whole game makes me feel like I'm playing Limbo, which by the way, if you're looking for a damn depressing game, try that one. You'll see a man hang himself before five minutes have elapsed. It's just that all of the Rogue Isles look like one of those cubist WW1 anti-war that show soldiers soldiers sleeping and chatting next to the mangled bodies of their comrades. Art can influence emotion with more than just the content it shows. It can influence us with the very style it uses.

There's also the fact that in Paragon City, the good and the bad are kept separate. If you go to Kings Row, it's pretty much all glum and depressing, but that's the zone's thing. It's a bad, run-down neighbourhood that went to hell when the factories closed down. However, when you leave and go to Steel Canyon, that's the business district. It's where everything's brighter and sunnier. I get a much more comfortable feeling in Paragon City because even though not all places are perfect, at least SOME places are. In the Rogue Isles, by contrast, the juxtaposition of nice and nasty is such that there really is no "nice." Just like you wouldn't like to sit down at a nice posh cafe if your table were next to the stinking, filthy garbage container, so living in Aeon City where I see human misery out of at least ONE window in every single building there undermines any nice quality it might have. And it doesn't help that the place looks like a hospital, with that strangely white concrete and strangely black stone.

I haven't seen muggings, either, but that doesn't really mean much, all things considered. People of the isles simply don't have much to mug. About 20 years ago when communism "ended" in my country, cars were an amazingly expensive commodity, and car theft was rampant. Crime rates here these days are far worse than they were back in 1989, but you almost never see cars stolen. I've accidentally left my car unlocked a few times and my mother even left the keys in the ignition once. No-one has ever stolen it. And that isn't because there's less crime, but more because no-one cares about my 20-year-old beaten up rusty Fiat.

Besides, if I had to choose between muggings and what actually takes places in the isles, I'd choose muggings. Instead what I've seen is police brutality by the RIP who don't seem to have any professional ethics, people killed and cut up for spare parts and all of those lovely men hopping around with hands tied behind their backs and their feet encased in a bucket of concrete. Not 100 yards from the front door of the Golden Giza. I recall a piece of NPC dialogue that shocked me, once a long time ago. A bunch of Family goons were digging a hole in the sand under the bridge that leads to the Golden Giza and one said to the other: "Are you sure this spot is clear? I hate it when we dig into one of our old graves." That is worse than having your purse tugged out of your hands.

Besides, the bright idea of making this a city of villains means that there really aren't any actual civilians. Everyone's a criminal of some sort, even if most are very small time.

This is something I can never, ever agree with. You're suggesting that a corrupt, criminal government led by people who murder other people and bury them in shallow graves is better than an ineffectual government - at least that's how it seems - and I just can't agree with this. I may be biassed in this regard because of where I live and what my government is doing, but I still disagree. *unnecessary political rambling removed*

Again, this is probably my personal bias talking here, but I don't care if a local government brings down the stars from the night sky for me, I still won't see them as a good alternative when their methods might just include dragging me out of my house, shooting me in the face and throwing me in the bay with a boat anchor chained to my neck. I simply can't accept the argument that "Oh, sure, they murder people, but look at how clean the streets are!" I don't care how good they are, they still murder people. They're still criminals. The entirety of Going Rogue is built on precisely this premise.

I'm saying the latter, actually I don't know if the original CoV writers actually intended to make playing villains a bitter-sweet experience or if they honestly believed that the horrors of villainy was an integral part to PLAYING a villain, but that's how it came out. The original City of Villains content seems almost purpose-designed to humiliate my villains and show me that "crime doesn't pay." I don't like this one bit, because when I play a game, I want to enjoy myself, not be hurt and saddened for the sake of teaching me a life lesson. I want my villains to be cool and inspiring, not horrible and repulsive. Or both, if need be, but never only the latter.


And this, in a nutshell, is my problem. I don't know whose bright idea it was to make all the I6 contacts (save for maybe a couple) talk down to us, but it was a BAD idea. Sure, have a few of those (and add in an option to kill them and end the arc), but why have that be ALL contacts? Why write a story where our entire villain's journey is as someone's lackey? Why put a mission briefing text that says, word for word: "This should earn you some brownie points with the Spider?" These days it's a lot better, but it's still very hard to play a glamorous villain because CoV was written with a singular lack of glamour of any kind.

This goes back to my problem with the design of the Rogue Isles... They aren't glamorous. Ever and anywhere. The closest you could come to glamour is the fake glitter of being to top dog in a rotten slum. Yes, you're "glamorous" as compared to the drecks of society that you rule over, but compared to even Countess ******* Crey, you're still a dirty unwashed peasant who has to take lip from god damn Darla Mavis and be brainwashed by a ratty old TV set like some chump.

You know who I want to grow up to be like? Clarissa Von Dorn, the Nemesis, the Centre, even Stephen Richter. Because those guys have glamour on their side. Because those guys are masters of their own destiny. Because when Terrance Dobbs realises he's messing with Crey, he backs off. This is too big for just a simple monster killer. We're playing with the big boys now. Crey, they're too big to handle, so we'll just tell Arachnos and let them handle it. Because they're big boys, too. When am I going to be one of the big boys?

Michael Myers is something of a body horror, in the sense that he plays on our innate fears. We like to think our homes are safe and secure and we can sleep soundly at night. But Michael Myers is the kind of villain who violates that safety and makes us face the very real fear that not only is this uncomfortable to watch, our real life homes aren't really all that secure, either, and that if a real guy like that snapped, the results may not be too terribly different. And if you watch enough crime documentaries, you'll likely know that things like these have happened before.

The thing, though, is that this is the kind of villain who's mostly... Only, really, good as an antagonist. And as such, he's very good. I don't really need to know why he's evil or what he's thinking because that's not what the movie is about. This isn't a "villain" so much as it's a force of nature. Whether you're running away from a slasher villain, from a forest fire or from Geiger's Alien, the point of the movie is on the survival - or lack thereof - of the victims.

Turn that around and make that the protagonist, though, and you have problems... The same problems a lot of modern remakes of classic horror films and prequels to modern horror films suffer. If you try to give depth to these villains and actually make the movies about them, you simply sink the franchise like an anchor chained to a very large rock. What was the latest I saw... Oh, yes, Film Brain's review of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning. No link, because this is not a good movie and probably one that breaks the forums' age rating.

My point, though, is that having these villains kill random people for a movie and then die or disappear is fun once. But make too many movies out of them, and it starts to resemble an MMO kill quest, and in turn starts getting boring.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

The correct term is "dirty Villains"

The new First Wards arcs aren't even veiled heroism

I'm not sure if that's what you're saying, but I think you just put your finger one of the biggest problems of classic CoV-side - our villains' obsession with Paragon City and, by extension, Longbow. See, for Recluse, it kind of sort of works that he's having a constant relationship breakdown with his boyfriend, Statesman. They have a lot of history together, they probably hugged a few times and now that Recluse is evil and Statesman is good, it's natural that Recluse's biggest goal in life is to blueball Statesman and Statesman is prone to flying into a fir of jealous rage every time Recluse shows up at his front door unannounced. It works for these guys.

It doesn't work for any of MY guys. And, OK, granted, the game can't work for ALL villains, but ask yourself this question - you're a villain in the Rogue Isles. Suppose you don't care about Paragon City, Longbow or Jack Emmert #1. What then? Your biggest two goals in the whole game are showing up Recluse and beating up Statesman, but why? I get that this is just a case of reusing existing game resources, but it feels like every villain on the Rogue Isles is secretly in love with Paragon City, wants to go there and live there and beat up cops but he's just not BIG TIME enough to do that aside from short picnic visits to knock over the same bank about eleventy times.

Why are my villains obsessed with Paragon City? Why are they obsessed with the US in general? Wouldn't knocking over a bank in the UK or, hell, one of those Swiss banks that hold all of the criminal world's dirty money, be somewhat easier? Our villains come off less as wanting to be big-time and more as wanting to be just big-time enough to thumb their noses at Paragon City. We so very rarely have any ambitions beyond wanting to spite them American heroes that our villains just come off as hollow.

It hasn't been mentioned yet, actually, and you make a very good point. I've spend the last... *finger-counting* Six years poopooing the City of Villains writing, but I have to admit, some of the latest stuff to show up there is very, very good. Dean McArthur may well be my favourite contact in the entire game (and that's saying something considering I hate fun and loath annoying contacts) and his and Leonard's arc is amazing. Vincent Ross' arc comes off a bit like someone pulling plot points out of the air, but even that has a very satisfying, very uplifting feel to it. This is what I want my villain to be doing - shoot for those cloning factories and those godlike powers, shoot for the bigtime. And when you fail, make sure everyone else fails ten times harder. This is quite literally exactly what I've been asking for since 2005.

I haven't actually run the new Villain early levels on Beta (lost patience when the wipe happened), but I hear you're able to off quite a few of your new contacts. I always approve of villains having that as an option, especially now that the game actually supports it. I would SO love to slap Daos upside the head when he tries to threaten me, I gotta' tell ya! So, yes, I agree. The developers are definitely listening, and that's very much a good thing.

That, though, is kind of why I want to discuss this now. If they're listening to us, we should probably sit down and talk about what to tell them I'm obviously not speaking about having any kind of organised player consensus - that won't happen. I just mean that it feels like a good idea to sit down and discuss this just so that we have a few more arguments and, possibly, a bit of a better understanding of what we want.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

The Electric-Knight ______ Malfaz _____ Zox'Oculox

@Zethustra

"Now at midnight all the agents and the superhuman crew come out
and round up everyone that knows more than they do"-Dylan

www.pauldamonthomas.com - Original Music

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

I used to think Freddy was my favorite, but then I got into the Friday the 13th series (My wife and I and some friends slowly collected each one, watching them in order over a small period of time) and I had to admit that I was wrong and that Jason was the king.

Still... the idea of Freddy is still more my thing (not so much the execution, short of the very first film maybe).

They can each have their depth... It really comes down to what that depth is though.

What I like most about them is that they are not real and it is funny... but that sort of sweeps these monsters towards the side of Sam's glamorous villain.
I mean... know that they are not at all what Sam has been defining and talking about regarding glamorous villains... However, there's another aspect not represented in Sam's two sides: Monstrous beyond reality! If done right... it removes much of the pain of watching/experiencing a story based around a purely sick and wretched villain doing despicable things... And, instead, turns it into a more abstract aspect of fear and evil that we can step outside and enjoy more than just simply what can happen when a bad person does terrible things.
Just like Godzilla is the embodiment of humanity's push towards self destruction... the mythical slasher is the embodiment of that lack of personal safety.

One of my favorite horror films is a Japanese movie titled Ju-On.
It has a fantastic moment that destroys one of our last, most safe refuges against primal fear...

[SPOILER:

The ghost character haunts a person to the point where they crawl into their bed and hide beneath the sheets and covers... and the ghost crawls up from inside the bed, right there with her!! Now I can't even pull the covers over my head when I'm scared!!

/SPOILER]



I agree with Sam in that the remakes have been terrible.
And much of that is because they have gone for adding some sort of "depth". However, that supposed depth seems to always be more of a humanizing aspect than exploring the fantastical side of the character.
They made Jason Vorhees more into some backwater isolationist torturer killer creep.
Duh... he is a zombie monster undead super-powered killer with an interesting mystical background... Not some serial killer from the hills.

Same with Freddy... Actually, all I remember about that remake was that the new Freddy had zero charisma... Umm... great job...


Perhaps I'm drifting way off topic here...

The Electric-Knight ______ Malfaz _____ Zox'Oculox

@Zethustra

"Now at midnight all the agents and the superhuman crew come out
and round up everyone that knows more than they do"-Dylan

www.pauldamonthomas.com - Original Music

To me, it seems that Paragon City should be just as much as part of the (free roam) status quo as the Isles for Villains (and vice versa). If either were allowed to maintain their core 'alignments' despite residence (and have the infrastructure to sustain and progress those residencies), I think one would find that the storytelling opportunity could increase and expand. IMO, that should be the next-big-thing.

Praetoria is a great example of providing cross faction play on the same free roam map without having to use the co-op system. [or PvP.]

Once this happens, I think that some of the obsessing that you mention could be downplayed a bit; allowing the world view more opportunity to grow. (even if it only means instanced maps to non-Paragon/Isles locales).

Maybe it is the narrow scope of being tied to a single signature locale (a Gotham or a Metropolis) or even being caught in a Tale of Two Cities that provides the most limitation in a story that ultimately has the players transcend such a small stage (hero or villain). Especially when there are so many that do so.

The other thing, IMO, is the almost linear progression through Contacts and maps and then abrupt halt at the end (followed by endgame). I like when they reuse Contacts/zones for different level ranges (Ashley McKnight, Kalinda, etc) and persistent Contacts (like Borea -who could stand to offer more/different options for different level ranges). This could possibly be the simplest way to provide content that acknowledges player progression in an inspired fashion.

From Recluse himself:

Yeah, there should really be a tip mission where you get to beat the crap out of that guy. Of course, it would contardict half the level 40-50 arcs but.... Basically if you're only doing something because a jumped-up bureaucrat tells you to, you shouldn't be doing it. I'm a villain! I spit upon your petty bureaucracy! Or better still, I create some sort of half-Arachnoid half-snake half-Coralax abomination to spit upon it for me!

Actually, that's not as far from my idea for a "glamorous" villain by that much, but that's probably hard to tell from the way I described it. Again, we're just proving that my original post was crap. Oh, well

You make a very good point, though. When a villain - in this case a slasher - is so absurd and fantastical that we take him/her/it as more of a force of nature and less as just a very depraved individual, this does tend towards the glamour side of things. Someone already mentioned watching slasher flicks to see the annoying, horrible people that serve as victims killed off and cheering for the killer, and that's not a sentiment I'm hearing for the first time. But think about it - hen you're cheering for the villain, like the villain and want him to succeed... You're buying into the glamour of the presentation, rather than the revulsion of the reality of the story.

Let me put it this way - if a cloven, chainsaw-wielding maniac were trudging through your house looking to saw you in half, you wouldn't cheer him on. No-one wants to die a violent death, after all. But when it's on the screen and it's drawn up in such a way that the horror becomes exciting and even entertaining, that in itself becomes glamorous. It's Happy Tree Friends all over again.

Now, granted, I may not appreciate the same kind of glamour as you do, and that's to be expected. Some find glamour in posh cars and expensive clothes, some find it in absurdly overpowered computers, some find international fame, and some indeed find it in hard work and dedication. What we find glamorous is unique to who we are as people, and if you can find glamour in a masked man knifing annoying people in a movie, then more power to you. But at the end of the day, that's still a villain we enjoy watching, isn't it? And that, I feel, is what makes him glamorous.

Now flip that around and go watch something like Salo - the movie that even the Cinema Snob had to review while throwing up in his bathroom (for comedy!) - and see the stark difference. Some villains we're meant to like, or at the very least respect. Some villains we're meant to simply hate and revile.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.