Why the Archon 'failed' as an enemy.

So the Archon.  One of the more creative and interesting aspetcs of the game to talk about is his character.  He wasn't exactly a great threat, nor a particularily good character.  Though, I did personally like him then some bad guys (Loghain, the Archdemon, the Wild Hunt, the Institute), but he was far less then the ideal or the quality of bad guy characters we have come to associate from BioWare.  

And the fact of the matter is this is not just a problem with BioWare games, per se.  Video Games has, at least in my experience, been just plain bad at creating meaningful antagonists.  As I mentioned, the Wild Hunt, Loghain, The Institute, the list just goes on and on, and on.  Its almost notorious that video games have bad antagonists.  The reason for this is obvious, while novels, tv shows, and movies can switch perspectives, and are even encouraged to make the switch.  Showing large amounts screentime from the perspective of the antagonists.  Getting their perspetive, their backstory, their general information and having a chance to sympathize and bond with the badguys, to an extent.  Video games, on the other hand, are discouraged from doing so.  As general practice it is discouraged from having gameplay interrupted by large segments of 'getting to know the badguy' scenes or generally cut scenes of any length.  

Generally speaking however, there have been three great video game antagonists that are worth pointing out.  Andrew Ryan, Gaunter O'Dimm (probably my favorite video game antagonist actualy) and the Arishock.  

Andrew Ryan, who was Rapture.  We had little information about him in the game, but he tied up himself in his city.  Hence, we knew a lot about him through our explorations of Rapture.  

Gaunter O'Dimm: He was just so creepy, and so atmopheric.  He was a big threat and a big mystery which drew one in.  

But its the Arishock, the Arishock is where I think the potential lies for great bad guys for the future.  Not just because he is one of BioWare's creations, but because he has something worth teling us.  

Back to TV for an instant, but one of the best shows I have seen (Farscape) had the protagonist and the antagonists having to work together at various points in the narrative.  They often went from a point of hating to each other, to having a somewhat of a mutual respect...if nothing else.  But for the audience this added layers and nuance to the overall presentation allowing us to get to know these 'bad guys' and find out they had motivations and characters of their own, and understanding tends to be breed sympahty.  

Video games though tend to take the opposite approach it seems.  Instead of forcing antagonists to work together, they have you work for or with your eventual enemy.  Like the Arishock, for the first part of the game you were working with him, doing errands for him, getting to know him, hearing his point of view...and while I still hate the Qun it gave a unique perspective.  Until the moment of crisis I was scrreaming "no!" at my tv when it was finally revealed that he was a bad guy, and the situation devolved to the breaking point.  And the Arishock is not alone.  Detlaff from the Witcher and the Illusive Man from Mass Effect also fal under this category.  Because, as you get to know these bad guys you hear their perspective, and that breeds eventual sympathy with them.  You know of them, and it gives the player a chance to view these characters as more then one dimensional mustache twirlers.  

Imagine how interesting it would have been to spend the first quest or two of Andromeda working with the Archon?  That he meets you on EOs and together you figure out how to open the first Remnant Vault? Only to later to discover that he is actualy a very bad man?  

Food for thought if nothing else.