For the love of god, "Staff," the duck won fair and square. He got the votes. Stop acting like someone violated your naughty parts and give that darn duck his dues. Is this how Gamespot addresses everything that doesn't go their way?

Ugh, don't get me started on the Combine. lol. I still can't fathom how Freeman was voted best hero in gaming.

@tachsniper When you put it that way Kefka makes a bit more sense. Sephiroth on the other hand, is not what I would call "emo." He did seek out the truth. He spent days obsessing over it and reading all about it in the Shinra mansion before finally snapping. He not only felt betrayed by humanity but also felt like he was no longer a part of them. It doesn't matter how rich or popular he was. Social status and personal fortune don't make a sound mind and certainly won't stop anyone from wanting to hurt people. I know if I found out my wife was cheating on me or something my whole world would be turned upside down, so I could only imagine how I would react if I found out I was nothing but a meat puppet. lol. I just think his motives went much deeper than a glorified temper tantrum.

@sleepingzzz Yes, I think they did. For an RPG to have no clear villain at all is kind of a slap in the face itself, though, so I can't blame them.

@tachsniper No, you're definitely not alone. This Kefka vs Sephiroth argument has been going on for over a decade. Personally, I choose Sephiroth. I don't care which is more evil or who did the most damage. I like the fact that Sephiroth had a believable motive and was a deep and interesting character and not just someone who is insane and evil for no other reason but to be insane and evil.

I completely agree about the reapers. In ME1 the main antagonist was actually Saren for the majority of the game. Only through your mission to bring him in did you discover the reapers existed at all. The reapers were his motivation and what made him evil all at the same time. Second game rolls around and you got collectors and reapers. Two faceless groups with no real personality to guide them or give them a voice. They're just the things you have to stop in order to win. There are no real motives or mysteries to uncover save a couple lackluster ones. Sure, the reapers are coming, but after playing ME2 I don't really feel like its going to be such a big deal when they do.

Thanks for this, Kevin. I just can't get into certain games (RPGs mostly) without there being a main antagonist. I like chasing a bad guy or group of bad guys, uncovering their motives, and finally destroying them in the end. A true villian deepens and guides a game's narrative in a major way. A strong antagonist is what set games like FFVII and Mass Effect 1 apart from games like FFXIII and Dragon Age 2.

"What we wanted to do is show in a uniquely Dragon Age way this is something that people and real passions and motivations got involved in. It wasn't just an event that happened because it seemed convenient for the narrative." And there lies the problem. This game NEEDED an event. There needed to be a driving force at the heart of this game besides the central character and his selfish goals. Having a central antogonist or antagonizing event isn't for the "convenience of the narrative" its what the narrative is built on.