PDA

View Full Version : An example of a good Assassin's Creed Villain?



JustPlainQuirky
05-24-2014, 03:07 AM
Pretend you're suddenly apart of the Assassin's Creed development team.

It is your job to come up with a credible, interesting villain for the series.

I personally feel from my experience the Assassin's Creed franchise has had some very lackluster main villains recently. (Haytham is not one of them) Though some of you may disagree. I would like a description of what you think would make a credible, interesting villain

BUT

(yes there is a but)

you must also provide a legitimate reason for the main character to want/need to kill that villain. Preferrably not for something petty but something justified. (for example, many disagree with Connor's reason to kill Charles. But that is another debate entirely so please do not discuss that here)

Go on then. I'm anxious to hear your repsonses. :D

SixKeys
05-24-2014, 03:15 AM
The villain doesn't necessarily have to be eeevil, they can be generally likeable like Haytham or Al Mualim (through most of the game). The need to kill them should arise from them being a direct and sizeable threat to both the hero (personal) and the world (global). Al Mualim was like a father to Alta´r, so it was difficult for Alta´r to kill him. But Al Mualim showed himself to be a danger on both a personal and global level when he used the Apple to enslave the minds of Masyaf residents and when he tried to use it against Alta´r. We saw that he could not be reasoned with. That was a good motivation to want to kill him. Vidic was a good villain for the same reasons, albeit underused. He orchestrated Desmond's kidnapping and meant to use the Apple to rob mankind of its free will. Desmond tried to reason with him in AC, but Vidic refused to listen.

JustPlainQuirky
05-24-2014, 03:21 AM
@sixkeys

I don't mean they have to be eeevil.. :rolleyes:

I get what you mean. I found Al Mualim a bland villain though. IMO.

Sigv4rd
05-24-2014, 03:38 AM
A non Templar...

ze_topazio
05-24-2014, 03:46 AM
Duccio, I feel like punching him every time I see him and that's exactly what I do, the story even requires me to do it so Ezio and the producers agree with me.

I-Like-Pie45
05-24-2014, 06:27 AM
Yves Guillemot

SpiritOfNevaeh
05-24-2014, 08:43 AM
Yves Guillemot

Lol at this.

But I would say a good villain is someone who just wants to take over the world or doesn't respect life and just wants to take it for fun, I guess... Now that sounds like a cruel person just because lol, and in some cases it may seem cliche.

Hassassiyin
05-24-2014, 08:59 AM
A combination of Al Mualim, Lex Luthor, Vaas and Zeus (from GOW).
A character who looks down on mankind and who believes that the templar order
is the true way of maintaining order and peace.
Who would do murder, steal and other evil deeds for the greater good and
willing to kill any assassin that would endanger their mission.

king-hailz
05-24-2014, 09:13 AM
Ok, so their is a husband and a wife who is pregnant, the husband is an assassin however the wife is not. One day templar guards come to their home with the master templar with them, the guards capture the husband and the master gets the wife. To make the husband angry the templar master beats up the wife punching her several times in the stomach, she falls to the floor however her eyes are still open and she sees the guards kill her husband then she faints. She wakes up 2 days later in a different house with a woman (nurse) and when she looks down her stomach is flat, she had a miscarriage because the templar master had punched her there. After she recovers she has to find the man who did this and kill him. She finds out that nobody knows where her husband is and that's he's dead. So she realises to get to the templars she has to become an assassin. And the only way the assassin will allow her to be one of them is if she has the skills... so she goes to her fathers house to get training since he used to be an assassin, he never let her be an assassin because she was a girl and she hated that. So she told them what happened and her father finally agreed, he trained her in everything and taught her the ways of the assassins,then her father said you can go to the assassins and join them, so she left but before going there she went home and wore her husband robes... she then goes to the assassins and does everything she can to kill the templar master, not just for revenge because of what happened to her, but so no other person has to suffer the losses she did.

EDIT: I didn't mention the villains traits at all... lol I got carried away... anyways, the villain actually respects the assassins and realises that they are very string he understands their ways and why they do them however he doesn't agree that all are equal he in fact thinks women are just a distraction for men and therefore are evil, he actually forces his templar associates to be castrated, this is what the real assassins used to do, so when the main character goes to kill him he really underestimates her since she is a woman... and at the end when she kills him, he makes a final speech saying he underestimated her and admits that he was wrong about her. She tells him that he is responsible for the death of her unborn child... she then tells him that no other woman has to suffer because of men like him and she kills him.

Kirokill
05-24-2014, 09:26 AM
A respectable man with respectable ideals of order using the wrong ways but with big presence. Something like both Haytham and Torres, but they're presence was not major nor they were the main villain.

The villain if found you he wouldn't need to call GUARDS!. He either leaves you for what he considers "important" and is very skilled in combat and a strategist.

The protagonist would need to kill him because he's an assassin. The main villain or templar ways are not too cruel to kill anyone who disagrees with him rather strike fear first, and when failed he uses violence.

the villain also wouldn't be a bit arrogant to want the high place for himself but doesn't kill his assistance if they disagree with him either. His last words should be also respectful and praising for the one who killed him. Instead of being a selfish fool like Cesare Borgia.

Hans684
05-24-2014, 10:47 AM
A honorble and reflective "villain" with the most clear assassiny goal of control. That kind of villain that will make you qestion that we might be the bad guys by using assassiny means to reach their goal. The villain will use their own creed agains them, giving honorble examples while the points is clear as crystal. Making the protagonist(and us) qestion if there is a "wrong way" do reach a goal wether Templar, Assassin or outsider and showing the assasins clearly in a bad light, for once. A more tactical/stratigist, like a Chess player, always more than 2-3+ steps ahead and would leave you for something more "important"(as said by Kiro). Not cruel nor power hungry, a villain that cares for the people the villain wants to rule and doesn't kill them becouse it would further their goal. Would use people friendly ways, like manipulating them without killing a single innocent. Growing in power becouse the people want the villain as their leader, the Templar Grand Master responsible for the Golden Age of the Templar Order and the Dark Age of the Assassin Order.

RinoTheBouncer
05-24-2014, 12:35 PM
I’d choose Al-Mualim and Haytham Kenway as the best villains and make them an example of what upcoming villains should be like. I don’t want them to copy those and paste them forever in future games but that kind of villains that make you think if he’s actually a villain or he’s right and we just can’t admit it, is the best type of villains.

I know that history had a lot of real life villains like Cesare who were just bad and selfish. But I think we’ve had so many of those in the various form of art including video games and AC is a game about ideas and thoughts and stories that makes you think. So I believe we need more of these villains who make us think rather than the plain and one dimensional ones.

I also believe it would be great if they bring us a villain from the same group as ours. Perhaps two lovers, one is an Assassin and the other is a Templar, or two brothers or friends. People who have actually grown together for ages and suddenly discovered that hidden side of each others’ lives. It would be really interesting. I know we had Connor and Haytham as father and son, Altair and Maria as a couple and Altair and Abbas as friends. But those either did not live together nor even met like Haytham and Connor and only met to fight later in their lives, or Altair and Maria who left the Templars and lived with Altair or Altair and Abbas who lost their friendship since a very young age.

I’d rather see it happening between two people who have stayed together, loved one another for so long that when the revelation comes, they just don’t know if they should even fight each other or their own causes that they fight for. Imagine two friends who have shared all the bad and all the good together since a very young age, suddenly finding out that they’re each other’s targets or something like that. Are they gonna kill each other and give the priority to the mission? or are they gonna fight against the orders they belonged to and the causes they fought for? will friendship outweigh their loyalty to their creed or order? or will it be the other way?

I’d love to see that.

Megas_Doux
05-24-2014, 02:52 PM
To me a good Assassins┤s creed villain is one that understands what freedom can cause in the "wrong hands", one that acknowledges why control for the greater god equals true peace. Hence Al Mualim, Prince Ahmet, Haytham and Torres, more or less, have been good antagonists.

roostersrule2
05-24-2014, 03:52 PM
He would look like Leonardo Dicaprio mixed with Brad Pitt.

Talk like Morgan Freeman mixed with Michael Caine.

Be as tank as Godzilla mixed with Liam Neeson.

And eat weet-bix for breakfast.

He would be John Cena.

LoyalACFan
05-24-2014, 11:56 PM
The need to kill them should arise from them being a direct and sizeable threat to both the hero (personal) and the world (global).

I disagree. A personal motivation is an essential ingredient, but I don't think a good antagonist necessarily needs to pose any threat to anyone. Think about Edgar Ross from RDR and Don Ciccio from the Godfather II. There was plenty of personal hostility between them and their respective killers and it was really satisfying to see them go, but they were both essentially decrepit old retirees. It's not like the protagonist was removing some terrible threat by killing them. Obviously we're playing as someone who's part of a Brotherhood at war so it's a little different, in that many of our enemies are just contracts who by definition HAVE to pose a threat to the Assassins, but as long as the main antagonist provides a solid reason for the protagonist to want them dead, that's all they need. Bartholomew Roberts was actually pretty close to this; if he didn't have the Skull, the Assassins wouldn't have cared about him, but he still would have been fine as the main antagonist for Edward.

---

To be honest, I think the main problem with AC nemeses is that they've almost all been given inadequate screen time. Al Mualim and Haytham Kenway are consistently pointed to as exemplary villains for the franchise, and I don't think it's a secret why; we saw them in almost every sequence (Altair had a lengthy conversation with Al Mualim after literally every single kill). Al Mualim is a bit of a special case since he was a traitor posing as an ally for the whole game, but there's nothing special about Haytham other than the fact that we saw him a lot. Ideologically, he's a pretty run-of-the-mill Templar, and that's fine; the Templar ideology is a fantastic recipe for an antagonist. Sure he was Connor's father, but that's arbitrary; the antagonist needs some sort of personal connection to the protagonist, but it doesn't need to be familial, it just happened to be in that case. Laureano Torres was actually a very similar character, but he had a very weak connection to Edward and completely disappeared from the story (not even mentioned) for eight freaking sequences. The end result is a very bland, forgettable villain (despite a cool performance from whoever played him) whose death was merely a checked box rather than a truly compelling narrative event. Roberts completely stole the show, which is sad, since he too was absent for huge chunks of the story.

Obviously we're not going to get three sequences of player control to introduce every future antagonist like we got with Haytham, but I don't think we need it. They just need to get a significant and CONSISTENT amount of screen time. Templar ideology + well-developed enmity with protagonist + plenty of screen time = perfect nemesis.

JustPlainQuirky
05-25-2014, 12:18 AM
I agree with LoyalACfan.

The villains need more screentime.

AdamPearce
05-25-2014, 05:55 AM
The antagonist should be the main character.

LoyalACFan
05-25-2014, 06:01 AM
The antagonist should be the main character.

Well, Edward WAS his own worst enemy, so...

AdamPearce
05-25-2014, 06:19 AM
Well, Edward WAS his own worst enemy, so...

Yeeeeeeeah, not really. He kinda was but the story didn't really turned around it.

What I mean is a character who ends up destroying himself and everything he has built but cannot stop doing it. For example an Assassin who has to kill his whole family because they are rich and abuse workers (BS I know but I had to come up with something quick). But all on his own, no forced mission or something like that, a totally assumed decision.

Oh yeah he would end up killing himself.

AssassinHMS
05-25-2014, 06:57 AM
Yeeeeeeeah, not really. He kinda was but the story didn't really turned around it.

What I mean is a character who ends up destroying himself and everything he has built but cannot stop doing it.

Ah, like Darth Vader minus the redemption...I like it.

LoyalACFan
05-25-2014, 07:10 AM
Yeeeeeeeah, not really. He kinda was but the story didn't really turned around it.

Completely disagreed, the entire story was about Edward being a greedy bastard. They practically beat you over the head with it, almost every sequence showed him going on about finding the Observatory, while Kidd/Adewale say "No, Edward, you suck, don't do it"


What I mean is a character who ends up destroying himself and everything he has built but cannot stop doing it. For example an Assassin who has to kill his whole family because they are rich and abuse workers (BS I know but I had to come up with something quick). But all on his own, no forced mission or something like that, a totally assumed decision.

Oh yeah he would end up killing himself.

Something like that HAS to be a "forced" mission, it can't be left up to player agency. It's virtually impossible to make a plot that's truly driven by the player's unique actions.

AdamPearce
05-25-2014, 07:18 AM
Completely disagreed, the entire story was about Edward being a greedy bastard. They practically beat you over the head with it, almost every sequence showed him going on about finding the Observatory, while Kidd/Adewale say "No, Edward, you suck, don't do it"

Yeah well it was a pretty cheap manifestation in my opinion. I mean I wanted to get to the Observatory too, since I knew it was First Civ. related. Other than that, I just did not feel like Edward was a **** to anyone. Maybe because I did not give a damn about them.




Something like that HAS to be a "forced" mission, it can't be left up to player agency. It's virtually impossible to make a plot that's truly driven by the player's unique actions.

You misunderstand. I don't want the character to kill them because he his an Assassin and this is his duty and blabla . I want it to be a fully assumed and personnal idea, this could happen in the beggining of the game, without the character beyin' involve in any way with the Assassins or the Templars. I don't want it to be something to be done because the hero has to do it, I want it do be done because the hero [I]wants to do it. That's the whole difference.

LoyalACFan
05-25-2014, 07:28 AM
Yeah well it was a pretty cheap manifestation in my opinion. I mean I wanted to get to the Observatory too, since I knew it was First Civ. related. Other than that, I just did not feel like Edward was a **** to anyone. Maybe because I did not give a damn about them.

We can argue about how well it was executed all day, but I'd rather not because I've been doing that for the past year and a half about AC3 :p I thought it was fairly well handled, but we'll agree to disagree on this point.


You misunderstand. I don't want the character to kill them because he his an Assassin and this is his duty and blabla . I want it to be a fully assumed and personnal idea, this could happen in the beggining of the game, without the character beyin' involve in any way with the Assassins or the Templars. I don't want it to be something to be done because the hero has to do it, I want it do be done because the hero [I]wants to do it. That's the whole difference.

Oh, I thought you meant "forced" as in "scripted." In that case I agree, but I think a personal rather than professional motivation should be a given for every major kill. I wrote a very lengthy post about that earlier in this thread that I don't want to rehash here, but you can still dig it up if you like, I think it was on Page 2.

Farlander1991
05-25-2014, 01:56 PM
Roberts completely stole the show

Which is good, considering he's the main antagonist of ACIV ;)

I don't agree with the notion that the villain has to have a lot of screentime. They can be very powerful even if we see them for a few times only.

LoyalACFan
05-26-2014, 03:22 AM
Which is good, considering he's the main antagonist of ACIV ;)

I don't agree with the notion that the villain has to have a lot of screentime. They can be very powerful even if we see them for a few times only.

This is sometimes true (Sauron in LOTR is the best example I can think of off the top of my head) but I think in an open-world video game the antagonist needs a regular presence. To continue the LOTR example, there was never any doubt that Sauron was a definitive presence in the story, despite the fact that Frodo never once laid eyes on him. But novels provide a linear narrative, which means all of the events contained within can occur under the direct influence of the enemy's presence or power. With an open-world game, much of what you're doing is going to be independent from the events of the story, which inherently disrupts the narrative. In AC4, if I'm introduced to Torres as this grand mastermind menace who's supposed to be my nemesis, but then he disappears suddenly and I spend fifty hours exploring, harpooning, looting, and periodically doing story missions without seeing him, am I supposed to care about him when he suddenly pops up again and I'm told to go in for the kill?

ACB offered something of an alternative by giving the main antagonist relatively little screen time, but a HUGE amount of influence over the game world. That game practically clouted you over the head with the word "Borgia" every five seconds, even though Cesare himself was gone for most of the story. Despite having these constant reminders of my enemy, I had a hard time getting invested in the actual character, because the man himself was constantly absent (and poorly written, but that's another story).

TL;DR version- basically, I'm saying that sandbox games, by their very nature, sacrifice a certain level of narrative cohesion, and to counter that, the villain's presence needs to be consistently and compellingly portrayed throughout.

Farlander1991
05-26-2014, 06:36 AM
I do agree that narrative in open-world works a bit differently. For example, AC4 story feels paced much more differently if went through in a linear fashion rather than in an open-world state. Ironically enough, the game that has got one of the solution for this is AC3 - where you can always find different characters in the world and have a bunch of conversations with them (imagine if we'd have a chance to talk a bunch of times with Blackbeard in a tavern on Nassau, for example). So if something works for a linear narrative, doesn't necessarily mean that it does for an open-world one.

That being said, I don't agree with your consistent use of Torres as an example. Torres is not our nemesis, nor he wasn't introduced as one (heck, he was introduced as some noble schmuck, but that's what he was to Edward). As AC fans we may have this tendency to automatically lock Templar Grandmasters (or smb high-ranking at least) as our main antagonists/villaisn (Robert in AC1, though there was a switcharoo there with Al Mualim, the Borgias in AC2/ACB, Haytham/Lee in AC3), but let's not forget that they're also our goals there. Everything in AC1, we do it to get to the last Templar, everything in AC2 - we do it to get to Rodrigo, etc. Well, not everything, but the point is - they're constantly on our minds. Roberts is the nemesis of AC4 (even if originally we don't see it as such, but then again we don't see Al Mualim as our nemesis at first either), AND he's got the most story presence - the Observatory and him being the main topic of the Templars talk, and having constantly searching for Roberts until we actually meet him and build a (not so great) relationship with him. Plus, Roberts is also essentially everything Edward could've been, so he's the Shadow.

MageAquarius20
06-10-2018, 06:02 PM
Haytham is blander than Bubblegum, Al Mualim is the true father of Understanding and the Boss.