Even though I'm not so sure that fits the more grounded tone that Telltale's TWD aims for, that does otherwise seem like a pretty interesting take on a villain character. However, if they were to make such a character, I'd hope they somehow make them multidimensional and not a caricature. Seems like more of a character that would make an interesting villain for a spin off or a mini-series/DLC.
I want an antagonist who actually likes the apocalypse. They view it was a "cleansing" and a person who murders whoever he views unfit for … morethis new world or uses them as slaves (as seen in the ANF concept art where people were chained up and in slaughter houses) to make the perfect race who will survive in this world. Like a Carver 2.0 to the extreme and he questions the things Clem has done to convince her that shes a prime example of the new race.
Here are some new types of antagonists I would love to see
Robin Hood bandits- A group of noble bandits that raids large self sustainable settlements and shares the supplies with struggling survivors and small communities.
Leaders of large communities (like Richmond) caught in a political struggle- Kinda like what Joan seemed to be like before episode 4, these leaders would be forced into committing reprehensible acts to stock up for the upcoming winter, only this time they wouldn't devolve into mad sociopaths and instead have the guilt of their actions weigh heavily on them as they do whats best for their settlements. The hostilities cause by the leaders of these settlements would run the risk of an all out war between them throughout the entire season.
Robin Hood bandits- A group of noble bandits that raids large self sustainable settlements and shares the supplies with struggling survivors and small communities.
So basically, Joan's secret raiders on a smaller scale.
Leaders of large communities (like Richmond) caught in a political struggle- Kinda like what Joan seemed to be like before episode 4, these leaders would be forced into committing reprehensible acts to stock up for the upcoming winter, only this time they wouldn't devolve into mad sociopaths and instead have the guilt of their actions weigh heavily on them as they do whats best for their settlements. The hostilities cause by the leaders of these settlements would run the risk of an all out war between them throughout the entire season.
Pretty much what Above the Law seemed to be setting up, but the rewritten Thicker than Water dashed.
Here are some new types of antagonists I would love to see
* Robin Hood bandits- A group of noble bandits that raids large self sustain… moreable settlements and shares the supplies with struggling survivors and small communities.
* Leaders of large communities (like Richmond) caught in a political struggle- Kinda like what Joan seemed to be like before episode 4, these leaders would be forced into committing reprehensible acts to stock up for the upcoming winter, only this time they wouldn't devolve into mad sociopaths and instead have the guilt of their actions weigh heavily on them as they do whats best for their settlements. The hostilities cause by the leaders of these settlements would run the risk of an all out war between them throughout the entire season.
So basically, Joan's secret raiders on a smaller scale.
I don't recall Joan's raiders giving the supplies to settlements beyond their own though, I thought they just kept the supplies for themselves. The Robin Hood bandits would raid mostly to help provide for other communities, though of course they steal some for themselves as well.
Pretty much what Above the Law seemed to be setting up, but the rewritten Thicker than Water dashed.
Yeah I would've really liked to see the politics behind a community like Richmond, that would've made the season a bit better in my opinion.
Robin Hood bandits- A group of noble bandits that raids large self sustainable settlements and shares the supplies with struggling survivors… more and small communities.
So basically, Joan's secret raiders on a smaller scale.
Leaders of large communities (like Richmond) caught in a political struggle- Kinda like what Joan seemed to be like before episode 4, these leaders would be forced into committing reprehensible acts to stock up for the upcoming winter, only this time they wouldn't devolve into mad sociopaths and instead have the guilt of their actions weigh heavily on them as they do whats best for their settlements. The hostilities cause by the leaders of these settlements would run the risk of an all out war between them throughout the entire season.
Pretty much what Above the Law seemed to be setting up, but the rewritten Thicker than Water dashed.
So basically, Joan's secret raiders on a smaller scale.
I don't recall Joan's raiders giving the supplies to settlements beyond thei… morer own though, I thought they just kept the supplies for themselves. The Robin Hood bandits would raid mostly to help provide for other communities, though of course they steal some for themselves as well.
Pretty much what Above the Law seemed to be setting up, but the rewritten Thicker than Water dashed.
Yeah I would've really liked to see the politics behind a community like Richmond, that would've made the season a bit better in my opinion.
They did. I was just pointing out that the motivation is fairly similar, is all.
Maybe in some aspects like the need to raid larger settlements (albeit for slightly different reasons) and i guess the secret raiders do make an attempt to be civil (even if those attempts are somewhat undermined by Badger's antics and Joan's sociopathic turnaround.) Aside from that I don't see the Richmond soldiers' actions as selfless in and of themselves. I guess they probably understood that the reason they were raiding was because of the upcoming winter but I can't recall any dialogue that showed they were concerned with the well being of Richmond's inhabitant and not just doing what Joan commanded.
I just thought it'd be interesting to see a bandit camp that would actually have some form of humanity and standards, it would make choosing to side with them or not pretty complicated morality wise, which I think would be right at home with the series.
I don't recall Joan's raiders giving the supplies to settlements beyond their own though, I thought they just kept the supplies for themselv… morees.
They did. I was just pointing out that the motivation is fairly similar, is all.
Yeah I would've really liked to see the politics behind a community like Richmond, that would've made the season a bit better in my opinion.
Well, technically we did, but I was referring to the civil war that David would've started.
Maybe in some aspects like the need to raid larger settlements (albeit for slightly different reasons) and i guess the secret raiders do make an attempt to be civil (even if those attempts are somewhat undermined by Badger's antics and Joan's sociopathic turnaround.) Aside from that I don't see the Richmond soldiers' actions as selfless in and of themselves. I guess they probably understood that the reason they were raiding was because of the upcoming winter but I can't recall any dialogue that showed they were concerned with the well being of Richmond's inhabitant and not just doing what Joan commanded.
At the very least, Max's characterization made him definitely seem like the type who be in on it in the name of the community, particularly given his line "Come on, David--this is Richmond." Also, the story never really states that anyone besides those two's crews were involved with the raids.
I just thought it'd be interesting to see a bandit camp that would actually have some form of humanity and standards, it would make choosing to side with them or not pretty complicated morality wise, which I think would be right at home with the series.
They did. I was just pointing out that the motivation is fairly similar, is all.
Maybe in some aspects like the need to raid larger … moresettlements (albeit for slightly different reasons) and i guess the secret raiders do make an attempt to be civil (even if those attempts are somewhat undermined by Badger's antics and Joan's sociopathic turnaround.) Aside from that I don't see the Richmond soldiers' actions as selfless in and of themselves. I guess they probably understood that the reason they were raiding was because of the upcoming winter but I can't recall any dialogue that showed they were concerned with the well being of Richmond's inhabitant and not just doing what Joan commanded.
I just thought it'd be interesting to see a bandit camp that would actually have some form of humanity and standards, it would make choosing to side with them or not pretty complicated morality wise, which I think would be right at home with the series.
I understand that this is sarcasm, but an antagonist doesn't necessarily have to qualify as a villain. An antagonist just has to have principles, motives and/or desires that contradict those of the protagonist, it doesn't inherently mean those traits have to be heinous.
The good news is Alyssa from Telltale seems to agree that the best stories in TWD are the ones without a defined antagonist based on her post on this thread, so if Telltale holds true to that ideal then we might just get a more compelling narrative.
I think it'd be best for Telltale to cram even more antagonists than previous seasons, cause that's what makes for a compelling narrative...… more Cartoon stereotypical "bad guys." Dick Dastardly's twirling their preverbal Saturday morning mustaches and proclaiming with a last breathe how much fun it was to be "evil."
I think she's long overdue for one that properly contrasts, challenges, or at least mirrors her traits. At this point, the success rate of this type of character is now very dependent on how she's characterized in "The Final Season," given how far she's strayed and all.
The problem with TWD's characters as a whole is because there is such a large amount crammed within a short narrative-span, it means less is dedicated to fleshing them out in any meaningful or impactful way.
From what I've seen within the show and games, either the majority are pure and good without any faults to distinguish them or they're so far into being a one-dimensional sicko it's truly hard for me as someone who enjoys compelling narratives to take it seriously, especially since it's a series that prides itself in it's emotional drama elements.
I understand that this is sarcasm, but an antagonist doesn't necessarily have to qualify as a villain. An antagonist just has to have princi… moreples, motives and/or desires that contradict those of the protagonist, it doesn't inherently mean those traits have to be heinous.
The good news is Alyssa from Telltale seems to agree that the best stories in TWD are the ones without a defined antagonist based on her post on this thread, so if Telltale holds true to that ideal then we might just get a more compelling narrative.
I want an antagonist who actually likes the apocalypse. They view it was a "cleansing" and a person who murders whoever he views unfit for … morethis new world or uses them as slaves (as seen in the ANF concept art where people were chained up and in slaughter houses) to make the perfect race who will survive in this world. Like a Carver 2.0 to the extreme and he questions the things Clem has done to convince her that shes a prime example of the new race.
The problem with TWD's characters as a whole is because there is such a large amount crammed within a short narrative-span, it means less is dedicated to fleshing them out in any meaningful or impactful way.
For the most part I can agree, though I would say it's more the rewrites, determinant statuses and shock-value deaths that kill off any meaningful characterization rather than an excessive amount of characters, though that can also be a problem.
From what I've seen within the show and games, either the majority are pure and good without any faults to distinguish them or they're so far into being a one-dimensional sicko it's truly hard for me as someone who enjoys compelling narratives to take it seriously
As far as the games are concerned I can understand why you think some of the villains are one dimensional sickos but aside from maybe Season 1 Clementine and some other characters that didn't get enough time to be fleshed out for reasons above the rest of the characters are pretty flawed and don't always make the right moral calls. I guess you could argue that the morally questionable actions the seemingly good guys make does turn them into one dimensional sickos like when Jane hid the baby in the car or (again arguably) nearly every controversial decision Kenny makes but in my opinion it helps make them in a moral grey area.
The problem with TWD's characters as a whole is because there is such a large amount crammed within a short narrative-span, it means less is… more dedicated to fleshing them out in any meaningful or impactful way.
From what I've seen within the show and games, either the majority are pure and good without any faults to distinguish them or they're so far into being a one-dimensional sicko it's truly hard for me as someone who enjoys compelling narratives to take it seriously, especially since it's a series that prides itself in it's emotional drama elements.
Carver was such a refreshing villain. Unlike David, who kept convincing himself he was always acting in everyone's best interest no matter how much pain and misery he caused, Carver had no delusions about the kind of man he was, or what he was doing to the people around him. There were no annoying attempts at a moral "gray area" with Carver, and that's why he succeeded as a character where David and Joan failed. Another uncluttered, straightforward, upfront antagonist along the same lines as Carver would be appreciated.
Refreshing? More like a one note, psychopathic egomaniac they tried to build up as being morally ambiguous only for his actual personality and actions to say otherwise and the promise of a supposed mystery/myth arc around him and the Cabin Group to go undelivered.
Carver was such a refreshing villain. Unlike David, who kept convincing himself he was always acting in everyone's best interest no matter h… moreow much pain and misery he caused, Carver had no delusions about the kind of man he was, or what he was doing to the people around him. There were no annoying attempts at a moral "gray area" with Carver, and that's why he succeeded as a character where David and Joan failed. Another uncluttered, straightforward, upfront antagonist along the same lines as Carver would be appreciated.
Eh. Too bad they brought Kenny back anyway and had him eat up most of the screentime that was supposed to go to fulfilling Carver and The Cabin Group's myth arc.
Personally Kenny's arc was my favorite part of Season 2. I'm glad he had that much screentime and I wish he could've had at least half of that in ANF (for the people who stayed with him).
Eh. Too bad they brought Kenny back anyway and had him eat up most of the screentime that was supposed to go to fulfilling Carver and The Cabin Group's myth arc.
Personally Kenny's arc was my favorite part of Season 2. I'm glad he had that much screentime and I wish he could've had at least half of that in ANF (for the people who stayed with him).
I wish he could've had at least half of that in ANF (for the people who stayed with him).
Ugh...thanks but no thanks. I think we've had way more than enough Kenny to last us for infinity.
Undelivered? The entire mystery around Rebecca's baby was resolved (more or less), so I'm really not too sure what you're on about. If you actually believe David is a more layered character than Carver, you're way out of your depth. If they were trying to go down the "morally ambiguous" route with David, it blew up in their faces.
Refreshing? More like a one note, psychopathic egomaniac they tried to build up as being morally ambiguous only for his actual personality a… morend actions to say otherwise and the promise of a supposed mystery/myth arc around him and the Cabin Group to go undelivered.
The entire mystery around Rebecca's baby was resolved (more or less),
Was it though? He honestly looks more Rebecca than he does his namesake or what was implied to be his real father.
so I'm really not too sure what you're on about.
Okay, how about Carver's backstory? How did he get his start?
And what was going on between him and Luke? Was Luke his partner or was he just a particularly outspoken employee?
And how about his intense animosity with Carlos? Why did the two seem to hate despite they're comments suggesting they mutually respected each other on some level?
And how about his connection to Alvin and Rebecca? How long did he know them considering he seemed really concerned with them even outside of the affair?
And what did each of his inner circle members do to get so close to him?
And his possible connection to Sarah's PTSD? Why did he seem unusually stern when dealing with her compared to just about everyone else?
And if he has any history with the Randalls? Was there any specific beef that estranged them as well?
And his supposed motivation about raising a heir?
Did I forget anything?
If you actually believe David is a more layered character than Carver, you're way out of your depth.
When you're as pastiche a character as Carver, just about anyone is sure to seem more layered compared to you.
Except Justin. He just sucks.
If they were trying to go down the "morally ambiguous" route with David, it blew up in their faces.
Undelivered? The entire mystery around Rebecca's baby was resolved (more or less), so I'm really not too sure what you're on about. If you a… morectually believe David is a more layered character than Carver, you're way out of your depth. If they were trying to go down the "morally ambiguous" route with David, it blew up in their faces.
Alright! With the latest news of The Final Season I'd like to bring some of my old threads back.
Do you think this last season is going to have some character be an absolute antagonist? Do you think one of the new kids might turn on Clementine at some point in the story, maybe even based on player choices?
Alright! With the latest news of The Final Season I'd like to bring some of my old threads back.
Do you think this last season is going t… moreo have some character be an absolute antagonist? Do you think one of the new kids might turn on Clementine at some point in the story, maybe even based on player choices?
Clementine needs a personal antagonist. Arvo wouldn't be formidable enough, Kenny is determinant, and Christa wouldn't be believable. What about Lilly? She has a past with Clementine and has proven that she is more than capable of killing in cold blood.
Eh, I don't know. His "sendoff" was because of circumstances suggesting he'd severely darkened in aura and he was capable enough for a scrawny guy with a full leg brace. I could totally see him working.
Not that I'm interested in seeing him return anymore.
Clementine needs a personal antagonist. Arvo wouldn't be formidable enough, Kenny is determinant, and Christa wouldn't be believable. What a… morebout Lilly? She has a past with Clementine and has proven that she is more than capable of killing in cold blood.
A female antagonist would be cool
Maybe a villain that everyone sees as evil and purely psychotic but we learn about a hard past and see a vulnerable side later on?
Comments
Of course JOAN! enter link description here
Use the image function to post pictures. Or if you wanna link through text, highlight the word(s) before you click link.
Even though I'm not so sure that fits the more grounded tone that Telltale's TWD aims for, that does otherwise seem like a pretty interesting take on a villain character. However, if they were to make such a character, I'd hope they somehow make them multidimensional and not a caricature. Seems like more of a character that would make an interesting villain for a spin off or a mini-series/DLC.
Here are some new types of antagonists I would love to see
Robin Hood bandits- A group of noble bandits that raids large self sustainable settlements and shares the supplies with struggling survivors and small communities.
Leaders of large communities (like Richmond) caught in a political struggle- Kinda like what Joan seemed to be like before episode 4, these leaders would be forced into committing reprehensible acts to stock up for the upcoming winter, only this time they wouldn't devolve into mad sociopaths and instead have the guilt of their actions weigh heavily on them as they do whats best for their settlements. The hostilities cause by the leaders of these settlements would run the risk of an all out war between them throughout the entire season.
So basically, Joan's secret raiders on a smaller scale.
Pretty much what Above the Law seemed to be setting up, but the rewritten Thicker than Water dashed.
I don't recall Joan's raiders giving the supplies to settlements beyond their own though, I thought they just kept the supplies for themselves. The Robin Hood bandits would raid mostly to help provide for other communities, though of course they steal some for themselves as well.
Yeah I would've really liked to see the politics behind a community like Richmond, that would've made the season a bit better in my opinion.
Nate
They did. I was just pointing out that the motivation is fairly similar, is all.
Well, technically we did, but I was referring to the civil war that David would've started.
Maybe in some aspects like the need to raid larger settlements (albeit for slightly different reasons) and i guess the secret raiders do make an attempt to be civil (even if those attempts are somewhat undermined by Badger's antics and Joan's sociopathic turnaround.) Aside from that I don't see the Richmond soldiers' actions as selfless in and of themselves. I guess they probably understood that the reason they were raiding was because of the upcoming winter but I can't recall any dialogue that showed they were concerned with the well being of Richmond's inhabitant and not just doing what Joan commanded.
I just thought it'd be interesting to see a bandit camp that would actually have some form of humanity and standards, it would make choosing to side with them or not pretty complicated morality wise, which I think would be right at home with the series.
At the very least, Max's characterization made him definitely seem like the type who be in on it in the name of the community, particularly given his line "Come on, David--this is Richmond." Also, the story never really states that anyone besides those two's crews were involved with the raids.
This.
I understand that this is sarcasm, but an antagonist doesn't necessarily have to qualify as a villain. An antagonist just has to have principles, motives and/or desires that contradict those of the protagonist, it doesn't inherently mean those traits have to be heinous.
The good news is Alyssa from Telltale seems to agree that the best stories in TWD are the ones without a defined antagonist based on her post on this thread, so if Telltale holds true to that ideal then we might just get a more compelling narrative.
What kind of antagonist (or any character) do you think would make a good foil to Clementine?
I think she's long overdue for one that properly contrasts, challenges, or at least mirrors her traits. At this point, the success rate of this type of character is now very dependent on how she's characterized in "The Final Season," given how far she's strayed and all.
The problem with TWD's characters as a whole is because there is such a large amount crammed within a short narrative-span, it means less is dedicated to fleshing them out in any meaningful or impactful way.
From what I've seen within the show and games, either the majority are pure and good without any faults to distinguish them or they're so far into being a one-dimensional sicko it's truly hard for me as someone who enjoys compelling narratives to take it seriously, especially since it's a series that prides itself in it's emotional drama elements.
Lilly or Christa. Imagine her seeing someone she knew turned into an antagonist. That'd be something hard to deal with.
That was the original plan for Season 2.
So we'd basically be fighting Nazis/Neonazis? Um. Pass?
For the most part I can agree, though I would say it's more the rewrites, determinant statuses and shock-value deaths that kill off any meaningful characterization rather than an excessive amount of characters, though that can also be a problem.
As far as the games are concerned I can understand why you think some of the villains are one dimensional sickos but aside from maybe Season 1 Clementine and some other characters that didn't get enough time to be fleshed out for reasons above the rest of the characters are pretty flawed and don't always make the right moral calls. I guess you could argue that the morally questionable actions the seemingly good guys make does turn them into one dimensional sickos like when Jane hid the baby in the car or (again arguably) nearly every controversial decision Kenny makes but in my opinion it helps make them in a moral grey area.
Carver was such a refreshing villain. Unlike David, who kept convincing himself he was always acting in everyone's best interest no matter how much pain and misery he caused, Carver had no delusions about the kind of man he was, or what he was doing to the people around him. There were no annoying attempts at a moral "gray area" with Carver, and that's why he succeeded as a character where David and Joan failed. Another uncluttered, straightforward, upfront antagonist along the same lines as Carver would be appreciated.
Refreshing? More like a one note, psychopathic egomaniac they tried to build up as being morally ambiguous only for his actual personality and actions to say otherwise and the promise of a supposed mystery/myth arc around him and the Cabin Group to go undelivered.
I know they meant to use Kenny as the S2 antagonist, but to be honest I'm glad they didn't go that route. I think Carver works much better.
Eh. Too bad they brought Kenny back anyway and had him eat up most of the screentime that was supposed to go to fulfilling Carver and The Cabin Group's myth arc.
Personally Kenny's arc was my favorite part of Season 2. I'm glad he had that much screentime and I wish he could've had at least half of that in ANF (for the people who stayed with him).
Ugh...thanks but no thanks. I think we've had way more than enough Kenny to last us for infinity.
What's the problem with him still appearing for people who want to stick with him?
Nothing, in theory. In practice, it's more nostalgia-pandering shilling for a single, very overexposed character.
Well, he's been there since day 1, I consider him as important as Lee and Clem are. Personal opinion, of course.
Undelivered? The entire mystery around Rebecca's baby was resolved (more or less), so I'm really not too sure what you're on about. If you actually believe David is a more layered character than Carver, you're way out of your depth. If they were trying to go down the "morally ambiguous" route with David, it blew up in their faces.
Was it though? He honestly looks more Rebecca than he does his namesake or what was implied to be his real father.
Okay, how about Carver's backstory? How did he get his start?
And what was going on between him and Luke? Was Luke his partner or was he just a particularly outspoken employee?
And how about his intense animosity with Carlos? Why did the two seem to hate despite they're comments suggesting they mutually respected each other on some level?
And how about his connection to Alvin and Rebecca? How long did he know them considering he seemed really concerned with them even outside of the affair?
And what did each of his inner circle members do to get so close to him?
And his possible connection to Sarah's PTSD? Why did he seem unusually stern when dealing with her compared to just about everyone else?
And if he has any history with the Randalls? Was there any specific beef that estranged them as well?
And his supposed motivation about raising a heir?
Did I forget anything?
When you're as pastiche a character as Carver, just about anyone is sure to seem more layered compared to you.
Except Justin. He just sucks.
That, I can somewhat agree on.
Lily, because her and Clementine have history.
Well, the last season certainly needs to steer clear of any large communities and groups.
Alright! With the latest news of The Final Season I'd like to bring some of my old threads back.
Do you think this last season is going to have some character be an absolute antagonist? Do you think one of the new kids might turn on Clementine at some point in the story, maybe even based on player choices?
Based on your choices, I would hope that you could turn ALL of them against you.
A relative of Lee's.
Clementine needs a personal antagonist. Arvo wouldn't be formidable enough, Kenny is determinant, and Christa wouldn't be believable. What about Lilly? She has a past with Clementine and has proven that she is more than capable of killing in cold blood.
rick and the gang becomes clementines enemy
Whatever threat it is will probably try to attack the boarding school and when all hope seems lost, clem gathers the garcias over to help her.
Eh, I don't know. His "sendoff" was because of circumstances suggesting he'd severely darkened in aura and he was capable enough for a scrawny guy with a full leg brace. I could totally see him working.
Not that I'm interested in seeing him return anymore.
A kid/youth that actually gets breathing and flexing room, babe.
A female antagonist would be cool
Maybe a villain that everyone sees as evil and purely psychotic but we learn about a hard past and see a vulnerable side later on?