For me the antagonist/villain is an important part of the novel, it makes the whole story kinda bland if the villain's badly written. A good/well-written villain, for me, has Purpose, a good reason for doing what they are doing A solid backstory that gives us insight into them as a person rather than just knowing them as a villain Evokes sympathy, a good villain makes you want to sympathize with their reasoning for doing what they are doing, they don't start out "bad" they develop into it because of what they've gone through although this part isn't always necessary there can always be a well-written villain that you don't sympathize with. Sometimes a well-written villain might even make you want to cheer for them over the protagonist, you'll find yourself wanting the villain to be the winner. Morally Grey, again not a particularly important aspect but it makes for an understandable villain. CAN ACTUALLY DO SH*T, I absolutely hate those villains/antagonists that are just simply overpowered by the protagonist and that's it, they have to be somewhat smart and cunning and able to carry out well thought out plans and win against the protagonist a few times or at least be on similar grounds.
My favourite type of antagonists are the ones whose ideologies, psyche, actions or backstory can justifiably oppose things that the protagonist and the society percieve as right or normal. Because that tends to touch the sore spots of the very setting that the plot may be based upon and show the flaws and the dark sides in it. Some examples of this would be Shoho Makishima from Psycho Pass, Pain from Naruto, Meruem from Hunter x Hunter... I was going through some good animes in my head and almost every one of them has this type of an antagonist.
I think any villain can be interesting for as long as they have some sort of somewhat sensible reason to do what they do. Villains like Voldemort are bad because they're evil for the sake of being evil. It's just a stupid racist doing racist things. Like, just give them anything of a remotely understandable goal and it would be fine... Don't make your villains evil because they're evil and it should be enough.
It really depends on the role of the villain in the story. When people talk about villains needing backstories and being sympathetic and whatnot I keep getting flashbacks to an old manhwa where after a full chapter of showing the backstory for a villain of the week, the protagonist just punched the guy and broke his sword and that was it. Or rather, here's an example: Marvel's Infinity Wars. In the movies, Thanos said "The universe is overpopulated so I'll just get rid of half the people." In the original comic book, Thanos had the hots for Lady Death and wanted to rack up an impressive kill count to make her notice him. Which one is a "better" villain? The noble one who's trying to make the world a better place for the remaining half, or the one who's just trying to get laid? I feel like the second one is a lot more relatable. It also makes a lot more sense why his female underlings wouldn't like him so much. And yeah, an incompetent villain can be a lot of fun for a comedic story, a villain that easily loses could set up the protagonist as the bad guy in the court of public opinion, villains that just want to do bad things because they like doing bad things or are crazy or just want to make money are extremely realistic.
As nice as it is to get detailed background stories and characterization for villains, sometimes I feel it is just fine for them to be a simple threat. Not all stories really have the space to develop the villains, especially if the main characters rarely meet the villain face to face and there isn't any scenes centered on the villain alone. In those cases sometimes I feel the story is negatively affected if the author tries to cram a backstory in just for the sake of it. Other than that, my opinion of what is a well written villain is a lot looser, I mostly want a reason for why the character is a villain, it doesn't even have to be a good or rational reason as long as it makes sense for the character. Everything else really depend on what the story need, there are room for even pathetic villains to shine sometimes.
I remember reading or watching something somewhere about pure evil villains. You know, classic Disney villains that are just really selfish or really cruel. Are they bad because they're not morally gray and have simplistic motivations and character? I don't really think so. On the other hand, a complex villain can also be done really well. It adds to the realism when the villain also has a conscience and can be seen as a human being, and readers can even relate a bit to them. But it's a little hard for some to be written right when they become too sympathetic, or it clashes with their actions. All in all, what constitutes a good villain varies by story, writing style, etc. There's a balance in the story, and the villain's relationship with the protagonists is very important as well. Readers' opinions are also variable. But generally I believe that they have to have charisma of some sort, just a way to make the reader like them. And above all, their actions have to be consistent with their character.
when it entertain this cat who is the villain on Tom and Jerry? depend on the story it doesn't matter if the story full of characterisation, development or such if it leave no impression for this cat then meh~ it just part of broader stuff, how the story goes on~
For me a good villain is when they're not unreasonable. I love it when the villain is strong and powerful but not too much. Just enough for the main character to grow or something to make them appear good enough. I also really love it when the villain has good qualities. I want to feel hate and love towards the villain, something like that.
There are a lot of ways to write good villains, and there's no universal rule regarding this aside from the standard "strong characterization is good". Something like "villains should be relatable" would seem obvious at first glance but it's simply untrue. For example, say that the villain in a story is Hitler. Would making Hitler more sympathetic make this story better? Hell no! His purpose is to get shot in the head and for the reader to revel in glee when it happens. Making Hitler more sympathetic and the like just spoils the purpose of the character. At the end of the day it's all about the kind of story that's being told, and what kind of effect the villain is supposed to have on the characters and on the reader.
Yeah, it depends on what kind of villain suits the story. I'm actually kind of sick of mainstream media's propensity to give tragic backstories to villains lately, as if that somehow makes their actions more palatable. A good villain doesn't have to be sympathetic; they just have to be realistic, and have actual motivations (even non-sympathetic motivations) for what they do. Plenty of real-life villains aren't sympathetic in the least! And I wish media would remember that when crafting fictional villains! I'm always impressed when an author is able to craft a non-sympathetic, realistic villain, one with absolutely slimy justifications for doing evil, but whose sliminess I can see actually happening in real life. That's good writing! Tragic backstories are shortcuts! For general antagonists (I'm differentiating antagonists -- as in characters who are on the opposite side of the protagonist of the story -- from outright villains), I'm fine with sympathetic antagonists. Just... backstories are an explanation, not an excuse. (Good example of an antagonist with a sad sack backstory that in no way excuses their actual terrible actions: Ango from 7 Seeds.)
I like the Hitler analogy, because I look at it from a completely different standpoint. To me, I look at Hitler as the evil guy that everyone wants dead because he is evil and a genocider and etc... But he is also the guy that took Germany from a completely disastrous position after WW1 and solved a lot of its problems and made it rise as an international potency, and a lot of his horrible actions were done in order to power Germany up. At that point, the reader still hates Hitler and totally wants him dead, because he is clearly the evil guy that needs to die... But his actions make sense, so I find Hitler to be a solid villain. Contrast that to Voldemort, which is basically a copy-paste of Hitler, but without the parts of actually empowering Germany and having a reason behind his actions... And then you have one of the worst villains I've ever seen in fiction... >.> Like, geez, even Cell from DBZ is more interesting than Voldemort, at least Cell is a plain and simple psychopath who enjoys seeing people's despairing faces. Being kinda crazy on the head is more interesting than being evil because of evil... >.>
I don't think this is particularly true, but it's really besides the point. In a story where Hitler is the villain, letting the reader know his motivation generally doesn't do anything to improve the story. Knowing about his accomplishments doesn't do anything to improve the story. It's easy to be caught up thinking that more is better, but that's not always the case, and villains in many stories only serve very narrow purposes. Expanding a villain beyond these purposes is often pointless or even counter productive.
... You don't think that having properly developed characters improve a story? o.0 And uhn... If the villain is actually doing something good, but is also doing a bunch of much worse things in the process, it means that killing the villain actually has consequences and the hero needs to be aware that while they're doing an overall good thing, they're still going to harm others in the process... That can lead to character development on the hero's side, and for them to try finding a different way to maintain the good things the villain was doing without causing the harm that the big bad was causing. ... On the other hand, an evil for the sake of evil villain is just... A force to be defeated to save the world... It's like... About as boring as it can be. Sure, it can work, especially in battle shounens like dbz, but even that can be poorly made if you just shoehorn a super big bad, that is evil just because they're evil, in a story that tried to have some bigger plot at some point. Like Acknowlogia in Fairy Tail, which is just like... Bleeeeeeeeh. I mean, geez, I don't see how having a villain like Vegeta wouldn't be preferable over a villain like Buu...
I love villains, and I love this thread. For me, what I look for in a good villain is: Three dimensionality! (i.e. not a cookie-cutter villain that's bad for the sake of being bad) Actually competent and intelligent Makes me feel something (anything - it can be sympathy, anger, sadness, pity etc) A convincing backstory that explains the villain's motivation for being a villain and the reasons behind the villain's actions
It all depends on the story, the character's role in it, and what the reader is supposed to get out of it. Theoretically, you can create a deep background and spend 50 pages exploring every single character in a story, but that's probably a complete waste of time. Let's take a different kind of villain: the xenomorph from the Alien films. A story can spend a lot of time taking a look at a specific alien, and looking at how he spends his time, what his hobbies are, and his future aspirations. But if the story is supposed to be a take on slasher films, all of this work will only weaken its effect. In such cases, it's usually better to say as little about the villain as possible. Or let's go back to my Hitler example. Right now I'm reading a book about a soldier in the Red Army during World War II, so his enemies are the German Army and Nazi Germany so Hitler is the ultimate villain. But does it make any sense in such a story to explore Hitler's character in any detail? Is the reader going to care about Hitler's motives in invading the Soviet Union? Are his economic and political accomplishments going to matter? I can see some scenarios where the answers to these might be "yes", but in most cases concentrating on this kind of stuff is just going to drag the story down. Anyways, my main point is that there is no such thing as a universal answer to the OP's question. Different villains are meant to accomplish different goals so they can't be constructed in the same way.
Well, that's similar to Cell in DBZ... Not much to the character because it's not really a story with much of a plot to it, so you don't really need much from the new villains as you are there basically for the action scenes. I'd say that in this kind of example you won't even have a proper villain in the story... You just have a soldier fighting in the army, they're killing people for that is their duty... There is no villain there, there are just targets to kill. Though I understand that it is an example and I get the point of not being an universal answer to the OP's question (even if I don't necessarily agree with it)... I just don't think the example fits.