By any means necessary - September 9th, 2001 - Nich Maragos
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this column are those of the participants and the moderator, and do not neccessarily reflect those of the GIA. There is coarse language and potentially offensive material afoot. There's blood in my caffeine stream. Don't say we didn't warn you.
Why is this column late? Consider the axiom "Be careful what you wish for," where what I wish for is dozens of insightful and considerate letters to come up with responses to. And I only printed nine of them, so it could have been much worse.
| No-win situation |
| Maybe you don't get as many letters as Brooke because you suck. ;)
Anyway, the topic. With most RPGs today, you have a hero who is overly
compassionate, who fights for the good of the world, who makes a speech
before the final battle about everything they've learned in their
journeys... it makes me want to throw up. For once, I would like to see a
hero who eventually goes insane or becomes depressed, and then decides to
abandon his/her (not enough female lead characters, either) companions and
commit suicide, making the co-lead the new leader, or throws away their
values and joins the enemy. Why can't there be a game like that?
-Esto Carass
|
Maybe because it wouldn't be very good? There's a difference between controlling antiheroes and controlling the enemy, and this column is not about controlling a villain for a few very good reasons.
The biggest problem with an out and out villain would be the ending. There are basically three possible ways for the villain or otherwise evil character's quest to wind up: one, he could see the error of his ways, repent, and become a more standard hero (or an antihero, if you prefer); two, he could lose to the heroes out to oppose him; or three, he could actually win and make the world a terrible place in his own image. I'd argue that only the first two options are viable endings to a game, and both of them wind up with the heroes winning anyway, which sort of negates the point of controlling an evil character--if you can't win, what's the point in playing?
"Well, why not let the villain win?" you may argue, but the reason why option three isn't valid is because there's no closure in it. For good or ill (and you won't catch me arguing for ill), we're trained to associate a satisfying ending with at least some small victory for the forces of good. Let's take a real-life example as a case in point: You're Ferdinand Marcos, would-be scumbag ruler of the Philippines. After finding the magic sword and defeating the angel-winged President Macapagal (it's a parallel world, you see) you assume the role of President and are free to take as many liberties with the country's Constitution as you feel like. The end. This doesn't feel right because it seems like nothing more than the setup to the real story, where you're deposed. The only way it could work is to make the moment personal, to reflect on things a little and show what Marcos has lost personally and morally in his presidential victory--but you see, here again we're back to the villain ultimately losing. I suspect we'll never see such as story as you propose, for the simple reason that it would leave the player feeling massively cheated, and rightfully so.
| Coming up short |
|
First of all, calling Squall Leonhart an anti-hero is like calling the Browns
a professional football team. I suppose it's technically true, but they're a
pretty weak example of the group at large.
Personally, I enjoy anti-heroes, and find them far more fascinating than the
white knight damsel-saving types. What I want to see is a game where the
protagonist is an anti-hero, or close to one, and his comrades-in-arms are
all the typical goody-goodies. How is your healer going to react when your
hero shoots the villain in the face?
Either that, or just give me a Punisher action-RPG. Now *there's* an
anti-hero for you.
-Eightball, watches too many John Woo movies
|
Now that's something I'd dearly love to see which rarely gets any consideration in RPGs: intra-party conflict. It really ought to be in more games, as a matter of fact: most games come to a point where there's really no reason at all for the characters to remain together. And yet, instead of so much as acknowledging that the heroes may have different motivations and goals, and allow some of them to leave in order to pursue said goals, the game will almost always contrive a reason to keep the party together. And that's just acknowledging differences, not even allowing for real conflict. When was the last time you saw one of our party members storm out angrily because they didn't like the way things were being handled? The only such instance I can think of offhand was when Tellah decided he couldn't wait around for the rest of the party to get it together and blasted Cecil with a Bolt spell so he could go off to search for Meteo on his own. And that was nine years ago.
| The courage to smile |
|
Actually, in answer to your question, I could not endure playing a hero
more of a bastard than Squall. Not just because Squall was a bastard....but
because he was a LAME bastard. Unforgivable.
I have had a tough life. Lots of crap hit my fan, and lots of particularly
splatty insects have hit my metaphoric windscreen. Farg...my own father
once held a gun to my head. I have seen some of the finer slices of the pie
of humanity all right. Most of them, good or evil just are plain lame.
Barely there.
And I am sick of 'em all! Sick of most of the human species, to tell you
the truth. Which is why I like fantasy filled RPG fun...preferably with
plenty of nonhuman characters, or at least humans who do not act anything
like humans at all...in short...like heroes. Good, kind, decent, ethical,
generous, heroes. Folks who may have all kinds of odd, eccentric quirks,
sure...but when it counts, they genuinely care.
I am stuck in a real world filled with Gen X snots who actually fail at
trying to make indifference and bitterness look cool. I want my RPG heroes
to be more like...oh, say, Zidane from FF9, than Squall from FF8. Zidane
may have been a letch (at least in the original version), but in any
version, he was a guy who gave a damn. Who had time, who concerned himself
with his world, with just wee child, or with a being utterly unlike
himself. Squall, the lamer, always gave me the feeling that he was just
working the night shift at a Burger King, and really, REALLY did not care
if you got your fries or not. In fact, he just spat in your coke. Not for a
laugh...no playfulness in Squall, no, just 'cause he needed to spit, and
your coke happened to be there. Not even personal. Not anything. This is
not the attitude I want from the character who is supposed to rock my
fantasy world.
I want escape, because that is what all of this fantasy fun stuff is
supposedly about...escape to a world made of our best ideals...both ideals
of Evil and ideals of Good. I want my villains to be really interested in
what they are doing, really up for Evil, and I want my heroes to give a
frickin' damn about...everything, really. I don't want my heroes to be
disaffected losers for ANY part of the game...I want the heroes to get up
in the morning, scene one, and look at the world and be eager to give the
whole shebang an enema if it needs it....and STILL have soul enough left to
help a previous enemy become a pal. I want better than life gives...I want
better than humans usually are.
If I want reality, I'll just go to the fast food, and get the 'extra foamy'
coke from the now unemployed Squall.
-Jennifer Diane Reitz
UnicornJelly.com
|
This was the only argument I really got against the concept of antiheroes, and it's a pretty impressive one. However, I should point out that I was never calling for the abolition of Zidane-style heroes--I like Zidane for many of the same reasons you do; he was one of the most endearing cheery-type protagonists in quite a while. On the other hand, I'm a big Squall fan as well, because I was a moody teen myself when Final Fantasy VIII came out. Squall represented my fears and concerns better than anyone ever in RPGs previously had. (Long story, and since this isn't a personal column, you won't be hearing it.) Heroes like Zidane and Vyse are great, but I wish from time to time that there was a little more balance and variety in RPG party members instead of variously well- or poorly-executed attempts at the same type.
| On the other hand |
|
Nich,
The hero is more of a bastard when he DOESN'T make said villain suffer for
kidnapping his girlfriend, kill his childhood friend, etc. Call me
psychotic, tell me that I have issues, but there's no satisfaction in seeing
someone like that receive any sort of mercy.
-Wesley
|
Good point. Almost as interesting as an antihero type would be a sort of Zen crusader, one who at the very end of the quest struggled not to defeat anyone in particular or uphold any sort of virtue, but sought only to maintain balance and justice. I wonder how an utterly dispassionate hero--or is that a contradiction in terms?--would handle a world-threatening force.
| Hmmmm |
|
Dear Lonliest Nich in the Neighborhood,
Just a note on writing into DA... I don't usually write into DA unless I have a question or there's a topic that really strikes a chord with me, because I always figure that the DA gets enough letters from the other readers... well, I see this isn't true. I usually have an opinion about the given topic, but never really get around to writing in, but after that bit of insight yesterday, I guess we all know the truth. I suppose it's helpful every once in a while to let us know how the DA's doing in the letter department.
Right, well, anyway... isn't there a topic of sorts we're supossed to be discussing?
Ah, right, "anti-heroes"... Well, in RPGs, you could say that all heroes are anti heroes, since we always beat the stuffing out of the bad guy at the end of the game, right? But that's not what you're looking for, is it? I don't know about anybody else, but when I'm playing a game, and I see the designated villain of the game burn a village down (see: Sephiroth) or maliciously kill some farmers (see: Frank Horrigan) or poison the castle's water supply (see: Kefka), then it really pisses me off, I don't care about the hero... I'm the one playing here!.
Although the discription of a hero going soft on a villain doesn't work for the games I referred to... I'll still try my best to make a point. If a villain gives me the strong desire to kick his morally challenged behind, and then I see the hero that I'm supposed to be *controlling* have second thoughts about unleashing hell upon the enemy, or decline to do so entirely, I get pissed at both the bad guy and the good guy, which can't be good...
Like at the end of Blood Omen (or whichever game did what I'm about to describe, I can't remember), a choice should be given to players. How you were given a choice at the end whether to take the Soul Reaver or kill yourself, you should be given a choice on whether or not to spare your enemy's life, depending on how deeply you were offended by the villain's actions during the game. What do you think?
Just throwing out ideas like monkeys throw poop...
-Brian W.
|
I think the biggest problem with that idea is that you only really get control near the end, by which it's too late to really meaningfully impact the storyline. I'm all for non-linearity up to a point, but I think it's best implemented wholeheartedly, and not as an either/or bottleneck. Not to mention that the full potential for this sort of idea was pretty much tapped out in the original Dragon Warrior.
| I don't want the world, I just want your half |
|
How much of a bastard could I take? My friend, if anything, I want the main
character to be a complete bastard making everyone else's life a miserable
little corner in the darkest pit of Lucifer's dwelling. I want the main
character of an RPG (Or, whatever) to save the world from destruction at the
hands of a malevolent force of hatred only so that he can take it over at a
future point in time. Just imagine how amazingly awesome that would be.
On a bit of a second note, the upcoming Final Fantasy X seems to be the only
RPG that, in a long time, excites me. The more I think about it, the more I
can't wait for that game to come out here in America. This, by the way, has
nothing to do with the fact that the game will have technology. I honestly
don't care if Spira has satellite television or not. Nay, my anxiousness
derives from the new systems that will be implemented in the game. From the
new battle system, to the first non-menu based skill system I can think of,
to Lulu. Come now, even the most cynical of people (such as I) can't keep
from looking at her without saying to themselves, "Damn, she is going to kick
ass".
-Lee, hoping she will.
|
Sounds like you need to play through Mint's quest in Threads of Fate (formerly Dewprism). It's probably more cutesy than you had in mind, but world domination is definitely a theme. The only reason I'm not really including her more in this whole discussion is because her "malevolence" was played for laughs instead of seriously, not that there's anything wrong with that.
By the way, she does. Kick ass, I mean.
| Squall the ogre |
|
Before I say anything else . . . What the hell possessed everyone to
leave "Onward" sniveling and shrinking from the cold by the wayside
alluva sudden?
Anyway. . . .
I usually get my non-conforming little @$$ flamed for mentioning this,
but Squall was really the only recent Squaresoft hero that I didn't mind
being stuck with for 60+ hours. I relished every single "Whatever. . .
. " I loved his blatant disgust with the rest of cast's attempts to
push he and Rinoa together. And unless miserably insecure Zell was
involved, I usually chose the more bastardly of Squall's dialogue
choices.
It could be because I've simply had it with these damn bland white male
protagonists that you can never ever get out of your freaking party.
You can only be nice and blindly rescue the princess for so many
consecutive years of your life before it gets mind-achingly dull. I
anxiously await the day when razing villages and leaving opposition
dangling from cliffs and whatnot to eventually slip to their death
instead of being forced to lend them a Batman-ly hand is entirely up to
the player.
Until then, I'm going to keep choosing "Hey giant woman."
-Erin "Zedelia" Mehlos
|
I should have thought it would be obvious that "Onward" was something Chris developed as his own personal trademark of sorts, and the reason Brooke and I don't use it is because it's just his thing. Otherwise, I'm pretty much in agreement with the rest of your letter, although I never actively tried to make Squall even more of a petty ass than he already was.
| Heroes for hire |
|
I don't have anything against anti-heroes in and of themselves. Squall
wasn't so much an anti-hero in my opinion as he was just an obnoxious twit
with no redeeming features whatsoever. I would love to play an RPG where the
main character is along the lines of Clint Eastwood's Man With No Name
character. I think the closest I've seen to that so far was the hero in
Grandia II.
To use an anime example, look at Zelgadis from the Slayers series.
Throughout all three seasons, his primary focus is trying to find a way to
change himself back to normal, and that colors everything he does. He's not
the nicest guy around, but he does what needs doing.
Part of the problem lies in the formula most RPGs work with. A large part of
most games is going from place to place and helping people with their
problems. If the main character doesn't want to help people, that makes for
a pretty short game.
One idea that might be interesting would be a format where the hero is more
mercenary, and offers to help for a fee. The hero has a list of fees he can
demand, but if the lower the fee he sets, the better his reputation or some
other intangible benefit, giving the player a choice between cash or
reputation (or maybe lower fees get better items or something).
-Andrew Ross
|
I think your idea for a mercenary system has even more potential than you realize. If I was designing the game, I think I'd tweak it so that you actually had to suffer the consequences of not charging exorbitantly. The more virtuous and kindhearted a mercenary you were, the harder you'd have to work, and the more challenging enemies would be without the best equipment money can buy. A really good moral system in an RPG should have roots down to how you play the game, and making coldheartedness pay would be an accurate, though unfortunate, reflection of how the real world works.
| Ordinary people |
|
Nich,
pure and straight-forward heroes limit the narrative possibilities of RPGs,
and have done so since the genre's birth. Fantasy novels had the same
problem, until guys like Moorcock came up with characters, which were less
idealistic, but more realistic (I'm talking about "Elric of Melnibone").
Controlling a "hero" is pretty boring, because all his actions are
predictable. He won't surprise you, his enemies or friends will (in a good
game, that is). The hero will always do what's "best" for The Greater Cause.
What I would like to see, is a more human protagonist (_main character_, not
necessarily hero), with real, sometimes selfish needs and goals that don't
involve saving the world for the world's sake.
Why is there no RPG, where the main character has to betray and lose
friends, in order to achieve his own goals? Why is the other side always
"evil"? I feel that RPG designers limit themselves, and often waste the
players' time to establish how bad the bad guys really are.
If it adds to a game's depth, and makes for a more satisfying playing
experience, then I'm all for abandoning the hero-cliche.
-Mirko
|
This letter effectively sums up what I want to see: real people. Heroes who face tough decisions, don't always make the right choices, and have to face the consequences. They don't even necessarily have to be bad people, or have "attitudes," or be antiheroes. I'd settle just for flaws here and there.
Closing comments:
Brooke's back tomorrow, so talk to her about the obverse of today's topic. Never mind unsympathetic heroes, tomorrow let's get some discussion going about sympathetic villains. Not looking for specific examples here, I'm just interested in hearing what you think about whacking away at a villain who's less than totally evil.
-Nich Maragos, going to the hidden place
|
|
|
|
