Tender Rondo

I was fast-forwarding through an interview with Peter Molyneux when I heard him say something that I had to chew for a while. I'm not going to go back and quote him (there's a reason I was skipping it,) but it was to the effect of "I don't want to give [the antagonist] any clear motivation because I want the player to wonder why he's doing [all this shit.]"

So, part of me wanted to rail against this viewpoint for being regressive. Most games in the late 80's/early 90's had an unexplained antagonist who only existed to give you a kickin' final boss to waste quarters/hours on. But then I thought about the game I'm playing right now (still Tales of Vesperia, wow is that game long.) The villain wants to wield ultimate power so he can bring happiness to the world, even if it means hurting countless people in the process. I don't give a damn about the conflict, because it is a Xerox of an archetype.

I think that a well-motivated, unique antagonist is an agreed-upon ideal. Which means I don't care if you disagree, for the sake of my point. I find myself asking, is it better to have a villain that is a blank slate, or an outline, made to quickly and unerringly be recognized? I feel like my writing is slanting towards Mr. Molyneux's bent, but I'm honestly not sure. Does it change depending on the type of game? Do people who play bullet hell shooters really care if their villains have a reason to exist? Does it matter more in RPGs or adventure games? Or is it simply a function of the player and her preferences?