One antagonist for the whole seasons or multiple?
In Season 1, we had the bandits and the cannibals.
In Season 2, we had Carver's group and the Russian group.
In ANF, we have The New Frontier for the whole season.
Do you prefer multiple antagonists or just one main one for the whole season?
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
The 'antagonist' will probably be David or Kate depending on your relationship.
I mean Joan is already dead in mine, so....
I would like to see two antagonist groups at the same time. Not one first and a second one after.
I'd prefer one antagonist each season like the comics & show does. It keeps the story simple and the villain interesting if they do him/she/them right.
i think Joan will continue to be the antagonist in episode 5 if she s alive while we will have a conflict of having to stop David from murdering Clint in episode 5 if Joan was killed.
I actually wouldn't mind seeing an antagonist survive across at least 2 seasons anyway. Having them for more than that might be a bit overkill, but having somebody memorable, ruthless and layered would be a great way to keep us invested. Sort of like a Carver or Randall character but with much more longevity.
That's the one thing that I think the comic and the tv show do better than the games - while they're not afraid to kill people off (unless your name is Daryl Dixon), they're also not afraid to keep people around, too. Guys like Negan are intimidating as hell, and having him as a main villain (combined with his charismatic attitude) keeps people coming back week after week.
Maybe Telltale just needs to find their "Negan", and make the person a force to be reckoned with.
I'd like to see two clashing antagonists/ antagonist groups. Love villains clashing with each other.
What if there Clementine is the main antagonist of the whole franchise?
I mean, every group she is part of/she has contact with is either destroyed or killed. Something clearly isn't right.
What about the stranger?
In Season 1, we had the bandits, the cannibals, (arguably Larry), Crawford (An entire episode and investigation was dedicated to it), Vernon and the Stranger.
Gotta say I prefer this than the pudding antagonist.
Yeah, I've been hoping recently that Telltale makes a multi-season story kind of thing. This way, the conflict doesn't get resolved and neatly wrapped up by the end of one season and actually continues on to the next. The full story arc would be longer -- 2 seasons for development of characters, locations, and choices instead of just 1.
EDIT: Though, for this to happen, TTG would need to step their game up and plan out the story for both seasons early on so we get quick Season releases. A 3 year wait would not help this situation. It'd need to be 6-12 months of waiting before we get our second half of the story.
Vernon wasn't really an antagonist though. More like an ally of convenience that decided to hijack the group's plan at the last minute.
I personally like it when there is more than one villainous force in a series or at least differing methodologies amongst the same faction. Part of what I liked about Season One and wish was a little more utilized in Season 2 was how there were all these different forces of evil that looked, thought, acted, and threatened in their own way, sometimes overlapping with each other and the "heroes."
I mean, the villainous roster thus far, while definitely bleeding over more times than I'd like, has still been relatively diverse:
Season One: Walkers, The Save Lots Bandits, The St. Johns, Oberson Crawford, The Stranger.
400 Days: Walkers, Nate, Roman.
Season Two: Walkers, Michelle, North Carolina Scavengers, William Carver and his Inner Circle, the Russian Group and Arvo, debatably Jane/Kenny.
A New Frontier: Walkers, The New Frontier, Joan.
I think a serious limitation of this series is that you really have to push the suspension of disbelief in a convincing way if you want to have a long-term threatening villain. There's also the fact that you kinda want to see group having to contend with itself on occasion as well. Makes it kinda hard to establish Arch-enemies when you can kill or cripple someone in a single hit, particularly with people like Kenny, Lilly, and Jane around. With all that said, I think it could be neat to have more recurring villains in the games.
I prefer ONE worthy enemy who is plain EVIL and has absolutely NO good intentions and leaves 100% SATISFIED afrer killing him...
I would prefer one main antagonist outside of the group with slow build up to allow for a deep attachment to characters in our group/community and other conflicts to be generated by the walkers/leadership/and environment up until the skirmishes with that antagonist. I think it would be powerful to go an entire episode without meeting the main antagonist, but discovering the remnants of what they had done or left in their wake. In a second episode we could learn more about them or earn their attention by rescuing someone - and that enemy group/person captures one of ours. At that end of that episode, we're confronted with a choice to kill the person we saved, or watch one of ours die outside our gates.