Should villains be glamorous or disgusting?
Just going to add a small thing here, and leave the deep philosophical angles to others.
I ignore the tip lore completely towards the Going Redside end. Because pretty much your only options are pants on head crazy.
All the talk about shades of grey, but it's even more black and white than ever before because the only way you would ever turn away from Paragon City is because you crave the delicious flesh of kittens, according to the Tips.
Only mildly related, I find it amusing that Rebels get the Villain veteran titles while the Loyalists get the Hero veteran titles. That's some clearly labeled Good and Evil right there in Shades of Grey land. Meanwhile in the Valentines Day events, Rebels are considered Heroes and Loyalists are considered villains for mission requirements.
Clearly, we need more lasers.
That's the point, though. When people asked - nay, demanded - that City of Villains have a more "villainous" option, Westin Phipps was the response. And I agree with you completely: Westin is pathetic. He is weak, slimy, ugly and his whole life is a hollow lie. He is the epitome of the hateful, failed villain that we're all supposed to be disgusted by... And he's our example of "evil?" And, yeah, he is, since Westing more than any other contact leaves a lasting impression on people.
I mostly bring Phipps up to illustrate that the original City of Villains writers really did see villains as repugnant and made their stories accordingly. I6-I7 City of Villains IS Westin Phipps, because it's just one giant depressing, dirty, repulsive, unpleasant experience as though purposely designed to make people regret ever choosing to play it. It's like the authors wanted to tell is "Evil is bad! Don't be evil! Don't support evil! See how unpleasant it is!" but it ends up sinking the entire gaming experience because to get the point across, they had to make all of CoV unpleasant. |
Now Vernon Von Grun, comedy aside....yeah, I just might laugh along with him.
Yeah, that's kind of what I was saying in terms of my own preferences. Even so, I'd swap that out for a bit: Truly monstrous, unpleasant villains are often good as antagonists where the audience is not intended to be invested in all characters. I can, for instance, watch a slasher flick and want to see the slasher set on fire, shot, impaled, crushed and run over in the end, before having to be dropped of a cliff anyway and not really be that much appalled at how unpleasant that antagonist is. That's kind of the point. However, these are NOT something I want to play as, especially for long periods of time. That, really, is the fine line I'm trying to trod: What I'd accept as someone else's antagonist and what I'd actually make as my own player-controlled character. |
Granted, these are just name disputes, but think about it a bit more broadly. Or better yet, think about it hypothetically - consider you wanted to make a character based around racial hatred or **** or some other kind of universally unacceptable behaviour. Now try and imagine how long this character will last before someone reports it and a GM axes the name, costume and bio without a second thought. I wouldn't want to suggest actually trying that (please don't), but I'd have my money rolling on "not very."
|
Eva Destruction AR/Fire/Munitions Blaster
Darkfire Avenger DM/SD/Body Scrapper
Arc ID#161629 Freaks, Geeks, and Men in Black
Arc ID#431270 Until the End of the World
Well, Like you Sam, I prefer the glamorous type. My favorite is Elsbeth, a mastermind. She is a petite blond in a party dress whose zombie army is composed of her ex-boyfriend, his friends, and the police officers that responded to the disturbance (the one where she flipped out and killed them). Along with her undead cat muffin, she is blissfully unaware of reality. She's not really evil, just insane. She thinks she's at the mall.
The Avalanche has already started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote.
Blue Spot, Son Spot, Cyan Siren, Polar Gale, Scarlett Fury, Stygian Warlock, Lady Lilac, Elsbeth (villian), Furious Squirrel (villian)
Infinity server
I play disgusting villains, because I'm weird. Villain's who'd kill a man just to watch him die, or set fire to the world just to watch it burn. I've known too many villains (albeit not superpowered ones) in real life to play them any other way.
Glamorous villains just seem disingenuous to me whenever I try to play them.
We seem to be having this argument a lot recently, but it seems to me that the core question at the bottom of it gets overlooked in favour of arguing whatever the most current example is. I thought it was prudent that we should address this question on its own, outside of any specific context.
So how do YOU feel? Should villains be disgusting or should they be glamorous? Here's what I mean: "Disgusting" villains are pretty much what Golden Girl would tell you all villains are. It's villains written in such a way that we end up hating our own characters. Everything is depraved, everything is uncomfortable, everything is sad and depressing, the world is bleak, crime doesn't pay but instead only gives a hollow sense of victory that helps us sleep at night and forget about the pain and darkness inside our hearts. It's the writing approach towards villainy that makes us feel bad for playing them. For years people have been asking for villains to be "more villainous" and inferred that this meant that villains should be nastier and more revolting. The upside to this approach to villainy is that it's fairly realistic. Villains are not good people pretty much by definition, and we want to live in a world where good always triumphs and evil always loses, and even when it wins, it's only a Pyrrhic victory. The downside to this is that it makes the whole game very unpleasant to play for long periods of time, and actually even depressing at times. By contrast, "glamorous" villains are generally a good thing. These are villains who, while unpleasant, are much more famous for being cool. These are the villains who don't focus on ruining lives and instead focus on doing amazing things, on overcoming great odds, on breaking new ground and generally on being cool. They have cool lairs, they have sexy minions, they have stylish outfits and they have this unerring knack for accomplishing what everyone would consider impossible. These are the kind of villains that, while most wouldn't admit it, people kind of sort of want to be. The upside to this approach is that it makes the game much easier to play and much more pleasant besides. After all, we want to play games to have fun and not torture ourselves, right? The downside to it, though, is that I suspect not everyone would see robbing banks, building death rays and having volcano island lairs is villainous enough if you're not feeling the visceral revulsion at your villain. Now, for the sake of honesty, I will admit that I'm not exactly objective on the topic. Personally, I prefer glamorous villains every time, simply because disgusting villains are difficult for me to play for any stretch of time. But this isn't about me. I want to hear what you guys think. *edit* Let me rephrase the question: What kind of villains do you prefer to play as, what kind of villains do you prefer to watch movies and read comics about and why? |
Speak for yourself, I love being evil!
I'm only ladylike when compared to my sister.
Not sure there's any interest in what I had to offer, but I found this kind of interesting/weird:
...
Yeah, that's kind of what I was saying in terms of my own preferences. Even so, I'd swap that out for a bit: Truly monstrous, unpleasant villains are often good as antagonists where the audience is not intended to be invested in all characters. I can, for instance, watch a slasher flick and want to see the slasher set on fire, shot, impaled, crushed and run over in the end, before having to be dropped of a cliff anyway and not really be that much appalled at how unpleasant that antagonist is. That's kind of the point. ... |
...
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? ... |
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!!
![Big Grin](images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
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...
and round up everyone that knows more than they do"-Dylan
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.
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.
|
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.
Now Vernon Von Grun, comedy aside....yeah, I just might laugh along with him.
|
![Smile](images/smilies/smile.gif)
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?
|
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 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.
|
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.
I play disgusting villains, because I'm weird. Villain's who'd kill a man just to watch him die, or set fire to the world just to watch it burn. I've known too many villains (albeit not superpowered ones) in real life to play them any other way. Glamorous villains just seem disingenuous to me whenever I try to play them.
|
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?
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.
|
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... |
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. |
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.
UNION @Flitz 50, Lead Hose 50, Red Rag 50
DEFIANT Rose Bloodthorn 34
VIGILANCE Captain Caledonia 20 - Yeah, I made toons on the French server coz we only had 4 back then (might have to transfer/recreate them on one of the US servers)
..and many more!
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?
|
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.
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.
|
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.
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.
|
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.
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.
|
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 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. |
![Smile](images/smilies/smile.gif)
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.
|
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, 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. |
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.
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.
|
IMO.
I think I'm going to classify CoV as 'petty evil' done by 'petty villains'; at least when considering that the player is supposed to be a super.
Paragon is the 'holy grail' of the red-side denizen. Now matter how high up the chain a villain goes... he can only hope to visit Paragon City; never live there (as a villain); build an empire there.
Even at 50 (outside of Incarnate play); at some point the crux of a soloing villain's career is being able to jump in a sub to knock off a bank in Paragon. Secret Base, dimensional and other portals be damned; self-flight and Black Choppers are out of the question... let me sneak my all-powerful, Recluse stomping, Incarnate self into Paragon on a sub and rob another bank; in Paragon City. Its not even a special bank with special inventory... it's just another bank.
(Mayhem scenario/goals need to be expanded; and perhaps Safeguards?)
(Minor Zone Events triggered by completing the same tasks as you would for the current Mayhem/Safeguards?)
Mayhems/Safeguards in general are kind of an implied tether:
Protecting a redside bank isn't worth a hero's time; even though its worth their time to attempt infiltration for their own ends. They're not real heroes; they're only Paragon City's heroes.
Pick a bank, any bank on redside... they're all small potatoes. You could (on a luck roll) rob up to five of them before you get a shot at the big time; some bank in Paragon. Get a go at the streets of Martial for a chance at the Golden Giza? Or tearing through Villa Requin on SH to get at some of that fortressed loot? Not likely.
About the closest a player villain can get to grandstanding without boundary... is within the PvP zones. The closest to 'glamorous' would be in publicly displaying their costumes, powers and bases [and maybe the random NPC chatter on the zone maps].
Apparently, I play "City of Shakespeare"
*Arc #95278-Gathering the Four Winds -3 step arc; challenging - 5 Ratings/3 Stars (still working out the kinks)
*Arc #177826-Lights, Camera, Scream! - 3 step arc, camp horror; try out in 1st person POV - 35 Ratings/4 Stars
![Big Grin](images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
IMO.
I think I'm going to classify CoV as 'petty evil' done by 'petty villains' |
![Stick Out Tongue](images/smilies/tongue.gif)
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
I don't have time today to dive into this thread, so this may have already been covered and you have my apologies.
I just wanted to say that in talking about what it feels like to be a villain, I think the devs are listening. I played the new 1-15 post tutorial arcs from Dr Graves, and on the whole they were a huge success (for me). I don't think it's a spoiler to admit there was a bit of Scirocco ex Machina happening, but I think that's alright for the low levels. I won't detail the rest so people can play it fresh.
My point is, I felt pretty good competing with and beating the principals in the arcs. Maybe I'd feel differently if I wasn't on a character whose actions and dialogue didn't mesh as well with what your character does in the arcs, but on the whole I felt like I was consistently either taking matters into my own hands to advance myself, or playing along as part of a larger ploy and not just as a dupe.
In the end, this game is never going to be the kind of sandbox game where you have free reign to build a good or evil empire as thou whilst. But if they can keep adding arcs where the villainous actions aren't just repugnant, or thinly veiled heroism, then I'm great with it.
"Null is as much an argument "for removing the cottage rule" as the moon being round is for buying tennis shoes." -Memphis Bill
But if they can keep adding arcs where the villainous actions aren't just repugnant, or thinly veiled heroism, then I'm great with it.
|
![Stick Out Tongue](images/smilies/tongue.gif)
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
Paragon is the 'holy grail' of the red-side denizen. Now matter how high up the chain a villain goes... he can only hope to visit Paragon City; never live there (as a villain); build an empire there.
|
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.
I just wanted to say that in talking about what it feels like to be a villain, I think the devs are listening. I played the new 1-15 post tutorial arcs from Dr Graves, and on the whole they were a huge success (for me). I don't think it's a spoiler to admit there was a bit of Scirocco ex Machina happening, but I think that's alright for the low levels. I won't detail the rest so people can play it fresh.
|
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
![Smile](images/smilies/smile.gif)
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.
|
Because supers migrate towards other supers. That's why Paragon City is the hub of super heroes, and that's why super villains want to take it over/down/what have you.
BrandX Future Staff Fighter
![Wink](images/smilies/wink.gif)
The BrandX Collection
Yeah, that's the one thing that always bugged me about the two separate worlds (CoH/CoV)...
I often wanted to be a hero in the dark and grimy world and a villain in the bright and clean city.
Paragon City is full of criminals, crimes and super-powered bad news... But our villains aren't allowed to be regular parts of it.
Now, I understand why it was done that way (Much of that boils down to immersion issues with Darklord Darky Dark doing his thing next to Captain Justice and so on... and then that leads to questions of open world PvP [not really a viable or favorable option for this game]... and, in the end, decisions are made to avoid all that).
I just have never agreed with it (I'd have gone with invitational open world PvP [a challenge/accept mechanic]. If you don't want to PvP, ignore them, just like so many players ignore countless purse snatchers as they fly to Wentworths and such).
Although, if they hadn't done it the way that they did, we wouldn't have the Rogue Isles to enjoy as well... so, I'm not bitter about it or anything!
Still... Allowing all alignments to visit both worlds could help the glamorous villain out some. At least we can make them Rogue and do it. I don't really take the alignments seriously... If I have a character that I want to be able to hang out in the other side... I can make that happen now. Most of my worst villains are (or are going) Rogue, just for that reason.
and round up everyone that knows more than they do"-Dylan
I remember an old quote from Rick Dakan. I don't remember the exact wording, but it went something like: "Yes, I suppose we could have two separate cities, one that's only heroes and one that's only villains, but that would be kind of silly." I believe said quote was dated to somewhere between 2000 and 2002
This is not terribly relevant. I just thought it was funny.
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. |
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!!
![Big Grin](images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
/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.
![Frown](images/smilies/frown.gif)
Same with Freddy... Actually, all I remember about that remake was that the new Freddy had zero charisma... Umm... great job...
![Confused](images/smilies/confused.gif)
Perhaps I'm drifting way off topic here...
and round up everyone that knows more than they do"-Dylan
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. |
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.
Apparently, I play "City of Shakespeare"
*Arc #95278-Gathering the Four Winds -3 step arc; challenging - 5 Ratings/3 Stars (still working out the kinks)
*Arc #177826-Lights, Camera, Scream! - 3 step arc, camp horror; try out in 1st person POV - 35 Ratings/4 Stars
![Big Grin](images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
With Paragon City being the world center for superheroes, it would need to be dealt with by any villain planning to make it big - even if they're not wanting to take ove the world, villains still run into trouble from Paragon City heroes all the time, even when they're doing smaller crimes like robbing banks - so it totally makes sense for any vilain wanting to become powerful to be focused on the place where all the people who can stop them live.
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
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.
|
....But for the moment, you have earned some measure of my respect. You have grown in strength, you have grown in power, and you would challenge even me to battle without fear. I will no longer attempt to use you for Operation: DESTINY. You have grown beyond a mere tool. No, in you I have created something more. Through your long struggle you have become a true villain, wielding power over all and beholden to none. Go now, and work your terrors upon my ex! |
I would SO love to slap Daos upside the head when he tries to threaten me, I gotta' tell ya! |
Eva Destruction AR/Fire/Munitions Blaster
Darkfire Avenger DM/SD/Body Scrapper
Arc ID#161629 Freaks, Geeks, and Men in Black
Arc ID#431270 Until the End of the World
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. |
![Smile](images/smilies/smile.gif)
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.
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'm going to have to disagree with pretty much everything you've said, so please bear with me. Opinion is as opinion does![Smile](images/smilies/smile.gif)
I said I wouldn't say anything good about Sharkhead, but even Sharkhead has Villa Requin. Even Mercy Island has upper Mercy. Everywhere you go in the Rogue Isles, the most powerful villains, and their minions, are building governed places, nice places to live with little or no street crime, no rioting, no anarchy on the streets, plenty of jobs.
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?
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.
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.
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.