Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I feel like my simple NO from earlier has been overshadowed, but I'm OK with that.

Please continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, YangustheLegendaryBandit said:

Not really. When Krishna was revealed to be a major figure in SMT4 Apocalypse for example there wasn’t an outcry against the depiction of the character within the game. And SMT is pretty niche, so those who get mad are a vocal minority. I’m Catholic and I’ve never had a problem with how characters are depicted. The games are works of fiction after all.

YHVH in the series isn’t supposed to represent the actual God either from the Christian religion. He’s a gross exaggeration based on the old world teachings that usually takes form in a given SMT game due to the Law factions/people’s “belief,” in the Lord. This results in YHVH being an extreme all powerful figure that heavily wants all under his will, no questions asked.

What IS supposedly God in the series is The Great Will, as talked about in SMT Nocturne. However, The Great Will has nothing to do with games and is more of a backseat “character,” that watches over what happens but never outright interferes. There are beings within the series that are extensions of the Great Will, but they become tainted by what happens to the likes of YHVH.

 

Everyone seems to interpret how SMT games present their content though, which is why the series is so fascinating. I’ve seen and been in many great discussions about the series as a whole or individual games. But if something bothers you about the games and how they depict something, that’s fine. I can totally get why it can rub people the wrong way.

Thanks for defending SMT. It's such a misunderstood series.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DragonQuest2IsGood said:

I found a relevant image:
ac8nrv79kb521.thumb.jpg.cde0401290c4a0b37713cbb3f46a383f.jpg

What don you guys think?

For reference my favorite villain so far is the Wight Knight.

Also where is Mudo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, DragonQuest2IsGood said:

I found a relevant image:
ac8nrv79kb521.thumb.jpg.cde0401290c4a0b37713cbb3f46a383f.jpg

What don you guys think?

That the person who made it is twelve and should get the concept of escapism explained to them, preferably slowly and with pictures.

Also probably only played newest parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, DragonQuest2IsGood said:

Thanks for defending SMT. It's such a misunderstood series.

Yeah! It’s my favorite of all the Persona spin-offs!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I found a relevant image:
ac8nrv79kb521.thumb.jpg.cde0401290c4a0b37713cbb3f46a383f.jpg
What don you guys think?
Corvis has pretty much the same motivations as Psaro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Plattym3 said:
13 hours ago, DragonQuest2IsGood said:
I found a relevant image:
ac8nrv79kb521.thumb.jpg.cde0401290c4a0b37713cbb3f46a383f.jpg
What don you guys think?

Corvis has pretty much the same motivations as Psaro.

And I don’t agree with the reasoning for Dhoulmagus’s placement on that list. He was a failure and wanted more power, so he willingly sought out the Sceptre of Trodain and (as I intrepid it) purposely used the power of Rhapthorne as it finally gave him what he wanted. I’ve always seen it as both Dhoulmagus and Rhapthorne working together to slay the Sage descendants and wanting to kill the party once the find Dhoulmagus.

Whatever the case, Dhoulmagus has never come across as a reluctant villain, and I heavily disagree with that. I would keep him towards the top of a villain tier list for the series, but because of the reason listed in that picture? Hell no.

Also, calling the bottom tier #$*! Tier is unnecessary. A number of those villains, while not having much physical presence in their respective games, have clearly left an impact with how much they are talked about by NPCs or monsters. Hell, Mordegon being in that list makes no sense either. He’s one of the better DQ villains and should easily be towards the top somewhere.

Really strongly disagree with that villain tier list.

Edited by YangustheLegendaryBandit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And I don’t agree with the reasoning for Dhoulmagus’s placement on that list. He was a failure and wanted more power, so he willingly sought out the Sceptre of Trodain and (as I intrepid it) purposely used the power of Rhapthorne as it finally gave him what he wanted. I’ve always seen it as both Dhoulmagus and Rhapthorne working together to slay the Sage descendants and wanting to kill the party once the find Dhoulmagus.
Whatever the case, Dhoulmagus has never come across as a reluctant villain, and I heavily disagree with that. I would keep him towards the top of a villain tier list for the series, but because of the reason listed in that picture? Hell no.
Also, calling the bottom tier #$*! Tier is unnecessary. A number of those villains, while not having much physical presence in their respective games, have clearly left an impact with how much they are talked about by NPCs or monsters. Hell, Mordegon being in that list makes no sense either. He’s one of the better DQ villains and should easily be towards the top somewhere.
Really strongly disagree with that villain tier list.
On the tier of tiers, you're labeling this tier #$*! tier?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Plattym3 said:

On the tier of tiers, you're labeling this tier #$*! tier?

Yes, I suppose I am. I’m no expert on deciphering characters and where they could go on a tier list, but I’m not a fan of the placement of several characters and question it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where would you all of you place the villains in the games if you guys made your own tier lists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tier 1 - DQ Villans, all of them
Tier 2 - RPG Villans, all but...
Tier - Final Fantasy Villans

That's about the gist of it. I decided long ago that if Final Fantasy can have its rabid fanboys that on everything else, so can DQ.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Plattym3 said:

Tier 1 - DQ Villans, all of them
Tier 2 - RPG Villans, all but...
emoji90.png Tier - Final Fantasy Villans

That's about the gist of it. I decided long ago that if Final Fantasy can have its rabid fanboys that emoji90.png on everything else, so can DQ.

Show us on the doll where Final Fantasy hurt you.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Show us on the doll where Final Fantasy hurt you.
Everywhere. 655456086f0117fa23ac59f4be81cb94.jpg
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Plattym3 said:

Everywhere. 655456086f0117fa23ac59f4be81cb94.jpg

Final Fantasy is fun tho. FF3 has a nice DQ feel to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll say this. The game is rather rich with all the different places you explore but the pacing and how they spread out the content is what hurts the game the most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Plattym3 said:

Everywhere. 655456086f0117fa23ac59f4be81cb94.jpg

Bad example using that Cloud doll. Shame on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, DragonQuest2IsGood said:

Where would you all of you place the villains in the games if you guys made your own tier lists?

That would be hard to determine. You have to look at everything each individual villain represents and how they were handled in their respective games.

Take the DragonLord. He’s set up right away as the man that turned Alefgard on its head and stole the sacred treasure of the kingdom and stashed the Princess away somewhere. In the GBC version, you actually see him and his monster army do this at the very beginning of the game, something that other versions don’t do other than by describing it through NPC text. You see that the DragonLord is willing to get things done on his own terms, and once you begin the game and leave Tantegel castle you immediately know where you final destination is: Charlock Castle.

NPCs speak of the DragonLord with fear, warn you of the threats if you try and travel to new locations...his presence is felt throughout the entire game even without making a physical appearance before the hero until the very end of the game.

What’s more, the DragonLord is the only villain to offer the hero the opportunity to control half of the world. True this could be seen as the DragonLord trying to save his own hide from being destroyed, but from my interpretation the DragonLord is a cruel but fair being. He seems to genuinely admire the hero’s strength, and (semi-spoilers for Dragon Quest Builders) if we factor in the first Dragon Quest Builders game, the offer was a sincere one.

While the DragonLord probably is just evil because he’s evil, he still has characteristics that make him more than “LOL I AM EVIL.” He’s got some class to him, and manages to be a powerful and respectful foe. Of course, that’s all my interpretation of the character, so take it as you will. Maybe I’m looking too much into a NES era villain, but I figure to properly judge something you need to look at EVERYTHING you can.

Maybe I’ll try and create a placement list for the villains, but we’ll see.

Edited by YangustheLegendaryBandit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Final Fantasy is fun tho. FF3 has a nice DQ feel to it.
I enjoyed 1-6 and 10. But

3 was cool when it came out on DS. I loved getting the Onion Night back in the early days of game connectivity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/24/2020 at 9:21 PM, DragonQuest2IsGood said:

I found a relevant image:
ac8nrv79kb521.thumb.jpg.cde0401290c4a0b37713cbb3f46a383f.jpg

What don you guys think?

 

I think the more important question is, and you should ask yourself as this relates to the psychology of nihilism; why do you, and so many others, feel a need to empathize with a villain?  Why does a villain in many modern beliefs, only stand as a well designed villain if one can garner sympathy on some level?

The point being, in the general past, there wasn't a desire to do so, as harmful actions were seen as having direct ramifications.  There are various points in time with complex origin stories, but once vilified, a warrior, king, even a god becomes permanently a force for evil, and the motives for this always something petty at the start, and never something to find alignment with, or sympathy for, or even understanding of in lieu of putting oneself in those shoes and finding common ground to grasp why the reader/player would follow a similar path.

Vampires in Chinese lore tend to be more akin to Eastern European.  Bad harmful people who are reborn to suck dry the essence of a person.  Only in the East it is the spiritual/mana/prana, while in the West, the physical blood (which was inherently believed to be WHERE the spiritual strength of a person resided, and why blood letting was so common as a way to remove bad spirits and dark thoughts).

What does it say about a person when the only reason today we even have sympathy for the devil, and see things through a grey scale, is because of the adoption of Nihilism, which even for Nietzsche was merely a pre-condition when one begins to see the yoke of humanity striving in vain for a better world without striving for himself to become a better being first.  Essentially society has adopted wholesale as truth, what Nietzsche himself saw as a first step, which eventually becomes a lie, as the belief taints the soul, as one who adopts such thoughts, through cognitive bias and cognitive dissonance, will ignore good deeds and see only ill deeds and for those doing good deeds, darker motives.  One becomes trapped in a vicious cycle they cannot escape from.  This stems initially from seeing the filth in ones own life, and their own dark works, generating a sense that even oneself is polluted, and finding the source, the teachings and machinations of the larger societal construct.  His solution was a progressive governance run in a strict regimented way that would enforce good behaviour and learning, developing constantly through scientific rigor using the best people to eventually develop a perfect regimented system that through fire and brimstone, would force the general population through hard toil to seek to become better, and in escaping the system, develop the tools of the ubermensch, and with this grander understanding from those trials, and the superior tools and mindset, the nihilism would fall away as one sees the world only through sound reason.

Not that I agree with Nietzsche's proposition, but the man is fount of most of our societal beliefs in the West, and the general play by play of left versus right politics...which is a whole other thing, and connects to spiritual paths (magickal if you want to be more specific...the paths of the Magi in Jewish Mysticism, Boaz and Jaochim...which you can see as order within, chaos without, or order without, chaos within, the goal to play both sides to find the center path which leads to the God-head....this is where political branches of Right and Left originate).  If you guessed which side holds the greatest sway as the left, and the moral ambiguity it brings, such as a desire to find common ground with a villain as much as a hero, stems from ones sense of self being rather low, and ones connection to the divine being nearly non-existent (and no I'm not talking about crazy church people speaking in tongues and frolicking back and forth, or wild dances in the jungle with certain tribal groups, getting into the rhythm and flow, though this does have a correlation...it's just a primitive form of attempting to breach the veil to reach the essence and grandeur of something beyond this world).

======

Another aspect I hadn't considered until now, is the world of the West is based on the court system, and justice of damages done.  What I think most people usually want to know about a person's actions, let's say theft, would be why they took that action. What brought that about?  Not for any other reason than most people cannot see themselves doing such actions, even if they could, because anyone who has ever recalled those moments where the line was nearly crossed, recalls that there is a VERY fine line that determines taking a bad action or either not doing anything or doing something good...usually just bad or nothing.

I tend to find a lot of people either don't want to recall those moments, especially if they took the wrong route, and the lessons they had to go through, or the guilt they felt in taking that action (why feel guilt at all, even if such an action wasn't explicitly taught being another aspect?).  Or they dissassociate.

Yet some part of the mind always has that connection to the dark side, the curiosity of it, as we are inherently dualistic, there's always that desire to know as a way to reconnect with that darker half without actually internally facing our own demons in the mirror.  Thus, with a nihilistic approach to most modern story telling, with the basic premise that because we can, some of us just will, or we don't care and overlook the actual bad things we somehow do (carbon footprint, which is a lie, as we all breath out CO2, but it's used as a tool to tie us down to the idea we're inherently bad and cannot do anything about it, the very act of living...then there's stuff like eating animals, when even breathing will kill organisms, and plants are living organisms as well who also release poisons into their cells when we eat them, just as animals do when they die, that in turn rots the food and harms us in the process of digestion).  Further pushing the notion we should sympathize with the devil. 

Afterall, we ARE the devil in modern society.  We ARE the plague on the planet.  The parasite that was seeded to this world from outside, not truly part of it.  Or so we're constantly bombarded with such messages through various media at various points in time (more commonly TV and certain mainstream shows that appear online for streaming).  That has to play a role in guiding us towards wanting to feel as though a better written villain is a victim, just like us, a victim who is also evil, but who we can see as being superior to us if given the right motivations and righteous reason to enact his/her vengeance upon the scum of humanity. 

Notice how the prime "god-tier" villain has decided to wipe out all of humanity because of the actions of a VERY SELECT few, and a total misinterpretation of the one human he came to love.  A VERY petty, very low-grade motivation (wrath) treated as righteous by someone who obviously feels humanity itself is worth burning to the ground.  That even he/she, the author of this graphic, feels unworthy of life being human, and feels as though the direction of Corvus is correct, so they resonate, and raise Corvus to the top tier, not because he has motivations, but because Corvus aligns with THEIR innermost desires of self-destruction.  Which again falls back on the first point, and the affects of nihilism on the world.

======

The other factor is that it's not why a villain does their evil that is the only aspect of story that needs be told to be a good story.  In this case the idea of control to force people to align with good deeds somehow being a higher level thought that would amount to positive outcome.

There are many other facets to a well written story, and a well written villain.  Does the villain ever pursue, and in either case, why?  What actions does the villain take?  How does this affect the Hero?

I'm too tired to think of other questions...I wish I wrote them out when I was working, but I didn't.  I had a few extras that were fairly good, and another aspect of storytelling that isn't linked to motivations, that define a good villain.  This will do, but my apologies.

I found a few.  Do they attempt to do harm to the Hero's homestead?  To capture him/her?  What further specific actions are taken throughout the course of the story that define that villain.  THIS more than anything, SHOULD be the more defining element of a good villain.  Not the motivation, which is helpful and useful at times, but only if one wishes to find common ground, which I find makes sense only in context of someone who is like us.  A mortal, a human or human-like creature that we can relate to.  A god, a demonic lord?  Why do we need to work out the machinations that guide the hand?  What does that gain us to put ourselves in that role within the context of the story, as in forcing us down the constructed narrative of motivations?

Isn't it more fun, if we're talking about someone who isn't human, or an unstoppable monster, to roleplay that being to figure out what that would be like, and if we want to create a motivation beyond just...this is fun, yeah, let's take over that world, or let's kill that person, or let's see that town burn down...woo, then let that be up to the imagination of the player/user/reader?

Do we know what Sauron's motivation is?  Oh right, it's the ring of power so he can rule, because he wants to.  I don't see people complaining about that.  Or Ungoliant, who simply wishes to feed on everything, to devouring the world as a whole?  How about Nemesis?  Nemesis might have once been human, but once becoming a specialized Tyrant, as far as we know, it just does what it does because that's all it is.  It's Jason or Michael Meyers.  Do we really need to understand the mind of Michael Meyers for him to have been a good villain?  No, and the act of trying to do so polluted the original narrative, creating a grossly inflated script and movie that took us out of the context that Michael Meyer's is a monster who kills because he likes to, because he can, and because it's a game to him.  A child's mind locked into the idea of killing his family on Halloween.  It removes the fear factor of Meyers when we develop sympathy for him.  Thus disengaging the fun of watching the original movie, or the new movie.  It's too complicated now, because HE is too complicated, and the concept of horror is undone.

Similarly with Cosmic Horror.  I do not see people complaining about not understanding Cthulhu's feelings and why he desires to devour souls and bring about the destruction of this world, driving it into an eternal cycle of madness.  Yet he's a great villain?  Why?  We don't know anything about WHY he does what he does, or why he seeks to become the level of god he wants to be?  What about the other Cosmic Horror beings and the old ones, etc. in H.P. Lovecraft.

What if Lovecraft games started coming out, do you really need to know WHY beings beyond our understanding desire to torture and set humanity to flame for them to be good villains?  We certainly have Soulsborne, and Soulsborne borrows almost 1:1 from Lovecraft's universe.  I see no complaints on the discussions of each monster as the game comes across them, or the lore behind them.  Yet nothing is related to a motive, a need to define a desire to explain the nature of these beings.

So why does DQ require this to have good villains?  What really makes a good villain is far more complicated than one element alone, and do you not think it intellectually obtuse to define a villain on the merits using only ONE factor?  That all things hang on that one detail to feel they've been handled well?  I sure as #$*! do not.

Edited by ignasia
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AEA07E01-2BD5-498F-A628-CE8C6FC2E6BA.jpeg.5e5a6077e21f73efe0de043e7d641ce2.jpeg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, ignasia said:

 

I think the more important question is, and you should ask yourself as this relates to the psychology of nihilism; why do you, and so many others, feel a need to empathize with a villain?  Why does a villain in many modern beliefs, only stand as a well designed villain if one can garner sympathy on some level?

The point being, in the general past, there wasn't a desire to do so, as harmful actions were seen as having direct ramifications.  There are various points in time with complex origin stories, but once vilified, a warrior, king, even a god becomes permanently a force for evil, and the motives for this always something petty at the start, and never something to find alignment with, or sympathy for, or even understanding of in lieu of putting oneself in those shoes and finding common ground to grasp why the reader/player would follow a similar path.

Vampires in Chinese lore tend to be more akin to Eastern European.  Bad harmful people who are reborn to suck dry the essence of a person.  Only in the East it is the spiritual/mana/prana, while in the West, the physical blood (which was inherently believed to be WHERE the spiritual strength of a person resided, and why blood letting was so common as a way to remove bad spirits and dark thoughts).

What does it say about a person when the only reason today we even have sympathy for the devil, and see things through a grey scale, is because of the adoption of Nihilism, which even for Nietzsche was merely a pre-condition when one begins to see the yoke of humanity striving in vain for a better world without striving for himself to become a better being first.  Essentially society has adopted wholesale as truth, what Nietzsche himself saw as a first step, which eventually becomes a lie, as the belief taints the soul, as one who adopts such thoughts, through cognitive bias and cognitive dissonance, will ignore good deeds and see only ill deeds and for those doing good deeds, darker motives.  One becomes trapped in a vicious cycle they cannot escape from.  This stems initially from seeing the filth in ones own life, and their own dark works, generating a sense that even oneself is polluted, and finding the source, the teachings and machinations of the larger societal construct.  His solution was a progressive governance run in a strict regimented way that would enforce good behaviour and learning, developing constantly through scientific rigor using the best people to eventually develop a perfect regimented system that through fire and brimstone, would force the general population through hard toil to seek to become better, and in escaping the system, develop the tools of the ubermensch, and with this grander understanding from those trials, and the superior tools and mindset, the nihilism would fall away as one sees the world only through sound reason.

Not that I agree with Nietzsche's proposition, but the man is fount of most of our societal beliefs in the West, and the general play by play of left versus right politics...which is a whole other thing, and connects to spiritual paths (magickal if you want to be more specific...the paths of the Magi in Jewish Mysticism, Boaz and Jaochim...which you can see as order within, chaos without, or order without, chaos within, the goal to play both sides to find the center path which leads to the God-head....this is where political branches of Right and Left originate).  If you guessed which side holds the greatest sway as the left, and the moral ambiguity it brings, such as a desire to find common ground with a villain as much as a hero, stems from ones sense of self being rather low, and ones connection to the divine being nearly non-existent (and no I'm not talking about crazy church people speaking in tongues and frolicking back and forth, or wild dances in the jungle with certain tribal groups, getting into the rhythm and flow, though this does have a correlation...it's just a primitive form of attempting to breach the veil to reach the essence and grandeur of something beyond this world).

======

Another aspect I hadn't considered until now, is the world of the West is based on the court system, and justice of damages done.  What I think most people usually want to know about a person's actions, let's say theft, would be why they took that action. What brought that about?  Not for any other reason than most people cannot see themselves doing such actions, even if they could, because anyone who has ever recalled those moments where the line was nearly crossed, recalls that there is a VERY fine line that determines taking a bad action or either not doing anything or doing something good...usually just bad or nothing.

I tend to find a lot of people either don't want to recall those moments, especially if they took the wrong route, and the lessons they had to go through, or the guilt they felt in taking that action (why feel guilt at all, even if such an action wasn't explicitly taught being another aspect?).  Or they dissassociate.

Yet some part of the mind always has that connection to the dark side, the curiosity of it, as we are inherently dualistic, there's always that desire to know as a way to reconnect with that darker half without actually internally facing our own demons in the mirror.  Thus, with a nihilistic approach to most modern story telling, with the basic premise that because we can, some of us just will, or we don't care and overlook the actual bad things we somehow do (carbon footprint, which is a lie, as we all breath out CO2, but it's used as a tool to tie us down to the idea we're inherently bad and cannot do anything about it, the very act of living...then there's stuff like eating animals, when even breathing will kill organisms, and plants are living organisms as well who also release poisons into their cells when we eat them, just as animals do when they die, that in turn rots the food and harms us in the process of digestion).  Further pushing the notion we should sympathize with the devil. 

Afterall, we ARE the devil in modern society.  We ARE the plague on the planet.  The parasite that was seeded to this world from outside, not truly part of it.  Or so we're constantly bombarded with such messages through various media at various points in time (more commonly TV and certain mainstream shows that appear online for streaming).  That has to play a role in guiding us towards wanting to feel as though a better written villain is a victim, just like us, a victim who is also evil, but who we can see as being superior to us if given the right motivations and righteous reason to enact his/her vengeance upon the scum of humanity. 

Notice how the prime "god-tier" villain has decided to wipe out all of humanity because of the actions of a VERY SELECT few, and a total misinterpretation of the one human he came to love.  A VERY petty, very low-grade motivation (wrath) treated as righteous by someone who obviously feels humanity itself is worth burning to the ground.  That even he/she, the author of this graphic, feels unworthy of life being human, and feels as though the direction of Corvus is correct, so they resonate, and raise Corvus to the top tier, not because he has motivations, but because Corvus aligns with THEIR innermost desires of self-destruction.  Which again falls back on the first point, and the affects of nihilism on the world.

======

The other factor is that it's not why a villain does their evil that is the only aspect of story that needs be told to be a good story.  In this case the idea of control to force people to align with good deeds somehow being a higher level thought that would amount to positive outcome.

There are many other facets to a well written story, and a well written villain.  Does the villain ever pursue, and in either case, why?  What actions does the villain take?  How does this affect the Hero?

I'm too tired to think of other questions...I wish I wrote them out when I was working, but I didn't.  I had a few extras that were fairly good, and another aspect of storytelling that isn't linked to motivations, that define a good villain.  This will do, but my apologies.

I found a few.  Do they attempt to do harm to the Hero's homestead?  To capture him/her?  What further specific actions are taken throughout the course of the story that define that villain.  THIS more than anything, SHOULD be the more defining element of a good villain.  Not the motivation, which is helpful and useful at times, but only if one wishes to find common ground, which I find makes sense only in context of someone who is like us.  A mortal, a human or human-like creature that we can relate to.  A god, a demonic lord?  Why do we need to work out the machinations that guide the hand?  What does that gain us to put ourselves in that role within the context of the story, as in forcing us down the constructed narrative of motivations?

Isn't it more fun, if we're talking about someone who isn't human, or an unstoppable monster, to roleplay that being to figure out what that would be like, and if we want to create a motivation beyond just...this is fun, yeah, let's take over that world, or let's kill that person, or let's see that town burn down...woo, then let that be up to the imagination of the player/user/reader?

Do we know what Sauron's motivation is?  Oh right, it's the ring of power so he can rule, because he wants to.  I don't see people complaining about that.  Or Ungoliant, who simply wishes to feed on everything, to devouring the world as a whole?  How about Nemesis?  Nemesis might have once been human, but once becoming a specialized Tyrant, as far as we know, it just does what it does because that's all it is.  It's Jason or Michael Meyers.  Do we really need to understand the mind of Michael Meyers for him to have been a good villain?  No, and the act of trying to do so polluted the original narrative, creating a grossly inflated script and movie that took us out of the context that Michael Meyer's is a monster who kills because he likes to, because he can, and because it's a game to him.  A child's mind locked into the idea of killing his family on Halloween.  It removes the fear factor of Meyers when we develop sympathy for him.  Thus disengaging the fun of watching the original movie, or the new movie.  It's too complicated now, because HE is too complicated, and the concept of horror is undone.

Similarly with Cosmic Horror.  I do not see people complaining about not understanding Cthulhu's feelings and why he desires to devour souls and bring about the destruction of this world, driving it into an eternal cycle of madness.  Yet he's a great villain?  Why?  We don't know anything about WHY he does what he does, or why he seeks to become the level of god he wants to be?  What about the other Cosmic Horror beings and the old ones, etc. in H.P. Lovecraft.

What if Lovecraft games started coming out, do you really need to know WHY beings beyond our understanding desire to torture and set humanity to flame for them to be good villains?  We certainly have Soulsborne, and Soulsborne borrows almost 1:1 from Lovecraft's universe.  I see no complaints on the discussions of each monster as the game comes across them, or the lore behind them.  Yet nothing is related to a motive, a need to define a desire to explain the nature of these beings.

So why does DQ require this to have good villains?  What really makes a good villain is far more complicated than one element alone, and do you not think it intellectually obtuse to define a villain on the merits using only ONE factor?  That all things hang on that one detail to feel they've been handled well?  I sure as #$*! do not.

I disagree with the notion that horror villains or villains who are monsters having a motive makes them bad.

I understand that villains not being empathetic isn't as bad as people make it out to be but people hate "DQ style" villains because they think it's lazy, no effort writing. Again, I must empathize that I don't agree with those people.

Edited by DragonQuest2IsGood
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, DragonQuest2IsGood said:

I disagree with the notion that horror villains or villains who are monsters having a motive makes them bad.

I understand that villains not being empathetic isn't as bad as people make it out to be but people hate "DQ style" villains because they think it's lazy, no effort writing. Again, I must empathize that I don't agree with those people.

Fair enough.  I'm not saying it necessarily makes those villains bad.  It just dispels their purpose, as it's not longer about some unmovable mountain and nearly unstoppable force wishing to do something, that in the process is infinitely harmful, but those in the way to them are of no consequence, or a bit of fun.  It removes that pure sensation of the shock value of the unknown, of the mystery of not knowing why, or what little we have, is as simple as "I can, I will, I do."

That's good, and in a way I do understand the sentiment.  Until Dragon Quest IV we had no active villains.  They're just present.  Waiting for the Heroes, and we clean up the mess they've made.  Even since they activity isn't as flurried, and there aren't as many counter-moves as I would hope (strangely 4, 5, and 6 have the largest number, and through proxy of the Gittish Empire, as well as the first strike, 9).  It isn't like FF, where we see a constant series of exchanges of interplay, whether political and nuanced forewarnings like with Seymour Guado, or the immediate aftermath of actions taken, as with Ex-Death, Kefka, and Sephiroth.  So they have a point that the villains in Dragon Quest are less proactive in general.  I was hoping in 11 to see more of Mordegon.  Maybe some reprisal for the actions in Heliodor, or seeing more of the world covered in that shadowy mass, and each area that is covered, prior to be saved, has the creepier overworld music that plays until Heliodor is saved, much like with Dragon Quest VII.  That was a VERY nice touch in 7, and one that cemented the ever present darkness.

At least with 7, the nature of Orgodemir isn't inherently lazy by any stretch.  It's generally not a complaint, at least until I saw the picture you posted).  Given the nature of his presence until he's revealed, and the actions he takes in the aftermath make for a very solid villain, and a clever one at that.  The only issue I've ever heard of being his motives are overly simplistic and thus he's a bad villain as a result (a relatively new complaint, one I'd not heard until the 3DS version, as he was considered one of the most beloved, and at least within the Dragon Quest communities in the US...and Canada, can't forget about our 51st non-state ;), he had been revered as one of the most cleverly written villains, even compared to other games.  I won't go into the why's and hows of it, as that would reveal the game to you, and the three twists (though minor for one), related to the villain's storyline, but you do hear about his name literally within the first 10 minutes of gameplay, by two NPCs.  So that part isn't a secret.

 

12 hours ago, YangustheLegendaryBandit said:

AEA07E01-2BD5-498F-A628-CE8C6FC2E6BA.jpeg.5e5a6077e21f73efe0de043e7d641ce2.jpeg

Ah, the wonders of conversation and the turns they take.  It isn't like this isn't normal here, lol.  NOW you complain, when you are the king of topic turning?  Big hug though, much love buddy.

Also, not very random, it's far more specified, and related to the original material, which I hope the above points, at least the last paragraph will finalize the circle and we can get straight to the point of Orgodemir.  However, given the TC has yet to play DQ7, and the bulk of the twists that would ruin the story are tied directly to him as a villain, I would caution what is stated and how much is given away.

Edited by ignasia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ignasia said:

Fair enough.  I'm not saying it necessarily makes those villains bad.  It just dispels their purpose, as it's not longer about some unmovable mountain and nearly unstoppable force wishing to do something, that in the process is infinitely harmful, but those in the way to them are of no consequence, or a bit of fun.  It removes that pure sensation of the shock value of the unknown, of the mystery of not knowing why, or what little we have, is as simple as "I can, I will, I do."

That's good, and in a way I do understand the sentiment.  Until Dragon Quest IV we had no active villains.  They're just present.  Waiting for the Heroes, and we clean up the mess they've made.  Even since they activity isn't as flurried, and there aren't as many counter-moves as I would hope (strangely 4, 5, and 6 have the largest number, and through proxy of the Gittish Empire, as well as the first strike, 9).  It isn't like FF, where we see a constant series of exchanges of interplay, whether political and nuanced forewarnings like with Seymour Guado, or the immediate aftermath of actions taken, as with Ex-Death, Kefka, and Sephiroth.  So they have a point that the villains in Dragon Quest are less proactive in general.  I was hoping in 11 to see more of Mordegon.  Maybe some reprisal for the actions in Heliodor, or seeing more of the world covered in that shadowy mass, and each area that is covered, prior to be saved, has the creepier overworld music that plays until Heliodor is saved, much like with Dragon Quest VII.  That was a VERY nice touch in 7, and one that cemented the ever present darkness.

At least with 7, the nature of Orgodemir isn't inherently lazy by any stretch.  It's generally not a complaint, at least until I saw the picture you posted).  Given the nature of his presence until he's revealed, and the actions he takes in the aftermath make for a very solid villain, and a clever one at that.  The only issue I've ever heard of being his motives are overly simplistic and thus he's a bad villain as a result (a relatively new complaint, one I'd not heard until the 3DS version, as he was considered one of the most beloved, and at least within the Dragon Quest communities in the US...and Canada, can't forget about our 51st non-state ;), he had been revered as one of the most cleverly written villains, even compared to other games.  I won't go into the why's and hows of it, as that would reveal the game to you, and the three twists (though minor for one), related to the villain's storyline, but you do hear about his name literally within the first 10 minutes of gameplay, by two NPCs.  So that part isn't a secret.

 

Ah, the wonders of conversation and the turns they take.  It isn't like this isn't normal here, lol.  NOW you complain, when you are the king of topic turning?  Big hug though, much love buddy.

Also, not very random, it's far more specified, and related to the original material, which I hope the above points, at least the last paragraph will finalize the circle and we can get straight to the point of Orgodemir.  However, given the TC has yet to play DQ7, and the bulk of the twists that would ruin the story are tied directly to him as a villain, I would caution what is stated and how much is given away.

The picture was a total joke. Just thought it would be funny after that big old essay post of yours. 😜

You know me. I can’t help but joke and somehow manage to cause a change in conversation. It’s part of being a legendary bandit.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...