It happened AGAIN.

First off, I'm sympathetic to the feelings of the red-side players, so please don't take any of this as an attack. (Particularly you, Lothic, as you've made your points politely, almost heroically, one might say.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lothic Perhaps someday the idea of playing a multi-player game like this will not preclude a very obvious realm of activity and I'll no longer have to always "lose" while attempting it.

I think this would be possible, although even conceptually it's hard to figure out how. Heroes (mostly) all want to maintain the status quo, while villains (mostly) want to upend it. It's hard to see how a shared game world could allow both conditions to simultaneously exist. Perhaps it couldn't, and would have to be effectively environmental PVP, where the game world changes for all players based on the actions of each player. That would be one heck of lot of branching code and assets, but I suppose it's possible. Can't say I'd ever play it, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lothic I submit that a human player playing a villain ought to be able to "win" at least once in a while, otherwise what's the point?

How would you feel about this scenario? Your villain makes the choices he likes, fights his way past the obstacles to his goal, and then gets to push the red button to destroy the world. You won, in that you got to do what you wanted. However, the Doomsday Device fails to work (or some other deus ex machina), maintaining the world's (and game's) status quo, and you have to make a hasty exit to your lair to plot anew. Would that work for you?

Also -- and I have to plead ignorance on this -- what degree of villainy is permissible while keeping the current rating? Single player games can let you get away with a lot, because you aren't forcing anyone else to be exposed to your digital depravity; are the guidelines different for MMOs?

When CoV was first announced I was skeptical. If this game was going to be any kind of simulation of superhero comics, the villains would have to fail on every major goal they set. How much satisfaction would you get playing a character who by definition has to fail? Of course, they way they got around it was to drop the idea of the game being a simulation of superhero comic book narratives, and allowing -- sometimes encouraging -- violation of some of the basic tenets of the genre. At the same time, they kept enough of them (possibly to satisfy the rating's needs) to ensure that people who wanted to roleplay evil would be dissatisfied, too.

I don't know how to fix things for you guys. Perhaps it's a good thing it isn't my job.

Okay, here's something to ponder:

Antagonists ("villains") usually get to do two very specific somethings that we're not allowed to do in this game. Well, not very much, anyway.

1) They're proactive. They set out to do something because they want to. Protagonists ("heroes") on the other hand are reactive. They set out to do something because they have to - basically, the villains forced the hero to do something.

Consequence: the most villainous thing in the game is the mayhem missions, followed by the tip missions. Because in those two types of missions, we get to choose what we're about to do. We set the ball in motion!

2) They're a catalyst for the protagonist. If you're into the Campbellian mushroom soup, you notice that the villain's role is to cause a change in the hero. The hero must come out of the story a different person - "the master of the two worlds" (the two worlds being the normal world and the world of adventure), "the bringer of the elixir" (whatever was needed to heal the normal world) in Campbell's words. Basically, all hero stories are about coming to terms with one's own self.

The villain's story is quite different. It is not the villain's role to change or to find out who he is (unless he's the anti-hero, i.e. Vigilantes and Rogues). His job is just to challenge the hero. Not to lose. To challenge the hero. There's a very important difference there.

Consequence: again, the most villainous thing to do in the game is the mayhem missions followed by the tips missions. The mayhem missions always has a hero turning up (because you forced him by robbing the bank). The tips missions sometimes has a hero that you set out to foil (but not always - sometimes you just screw up the life for another villain). And we never change! We do it happily over and over again!

---

There are not that many villain stories at all. Basically, it's Mortimer Kal's trial, and there's Lord Recluse's Task Force to a certain degree as Recluse is the instigator, not you. Also, it will probably be different in the future when States disappears from it.

Do you notice something? There's a distinct lack of "saving the world because you have to" here - those are inherently heroic missions, because they a) are reactive, and b) forces something of a change in you. Well, what else would you call having to stand side by side with those pesky heroes and not try to kill them straight? There's a certain insight there, which Campbell definitely would call "the elixir".

Conclusion 1: As soon as you set out to save the world, that's a hero story, a redemption story, no matter how you justify it for the villain.

Conclusion 2: Villain stories don't have to be about the end of the world, or world domination. Villain stories simply have to be proactive.

Okay I have read most of the post in this topic but not all, so keeping that in mind...

1. The idea that villains are proactive and heroes are reactive is absolutely true, with that in mind why not write stories in game that are based on that? The villain story arc comes first in cannon, then there is a hero side arc that is reflective of what the villain did. You don't NEED the villain to be part of the arc, with correct writing, just that the heroes deal with the fallout of said villain arc. Say the villain wants to break someone out of the Zig for one reason or another and that is the red side story arc. Then the heroes have a corresponding blue side arc that gives you the premise that, "a villain has caused an outbreak at Zig, we need you to quash the riot and bring back some of the criminals who escaped."

2. Giving villains rewards for completing certain TFs is great and should be expanded to story arcs as well. Why not have a story arc about building an awesome weapon of mass destruction, then at the end you get a one time temp power nuke similar to the Warburg ones or something of that nature? Yeah it rewards red side over blue side but there is no reason that BOTH sides can't get things like this. But it certainly gives you the feeling of villainy to actually see results from your plans, even if it is just temporary.

Those two things alone would go WORLDS towards making red side content more villainous and less mercenary hero. See, everyone in this topic seems to have this idea that all villains want to destroy the world or save it, why can't most villains do what most villains in comics do and take advantage of the heroes being distracted by a greater threat to enact their own plans? Even if it IS foolish for the villains to assume the heroes can stop the world ending entity, that is what villains DO. It doesn't have to assume that all of our villains have this sense of right and wrong that fits with the heroes. I understand that co-op content gives most bang for the buck but if that is the case then just open up ALL zones to both sides and stop pushing villains aside.