Re-Using Main Antagonists?

[Moonface]

How do you feel about games that use a villain for more than one game? Are you always fine with it, or does it depend on certain things?

For me I don't like a single villain that gets re-used when they're introduced after the first game in a series. To name two notable ones that I always think of in relation to this:

1. Ripto in Spyro the Dragon. He was introduced in Spyro 2, and then we only got Spyro: Year of the Dragon (2000) and Spyro: Season of Ice (2001) which both have new villains before Ripto then proceeds to appear in the next four games in a row: Spyro 2: Season of Flame (2002), Spyro: Enter the Dragonfly (2002), Spyro: Attack of the Rhynocs (2003), and Spyro Orange: The Cortex Conspiracy (2004).
   
   
2. Dr. Nefarious in Ratchet & Clank. He was introduced in Ratchet & Clank: Up Your Arsenal (2004), and then acts as a background antagonist from the end of Ratchet & Clank Future: Quest for Booty (2008), and then as a main antagonist again in Ratchet & Clank Future: A Crack in Time (2009), Ratchet & Clank PS4 (2016) and Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart (2021), and any games that happen between ACiT and R&CPS4 are all spin-off titles besides one, so we got basically one game without him as the main antagonist ever since QfB.
   

The main reason I hate these two as well as any other main antagonistic characters that are introduced after the first game in a series is that they get re-used just because they turn out to be the first villain that gets a lot of popularity compared to anything that came before, and then the series proceeds to just lean on that instead of making any new main antagonists anymore. It doesn't feel like they're a natural nemesis to the protagonist like it does when both characters are there from the get go like in Zelda, Mario, etc.
I hate Dr. Nefarious a lot because of how the R&C series leaned on him so hard that Ratchet & Clank PS4 outright throws the main villain of the original Ratchet & Clank game under the bus and suddenly makes Nefarious the main villain when he was never even introduced until the third game!

[Mr EliteL]

I'd be OK with re-using a main antagonist if they were the first original one, perhaps a side antagonist that gets their chance to lead after their master is defeated for one game (Fawful), or if this new antagonist is more of a villain than the original, but not too many times like what Ripto sounds like (as in getting used too much, don't know how the antagonists compare as I'm unfamiliar with them). Is better to have a new antagonist though or use the original if they can still be used as one, unless they were a poor main villain.

[Kyng]

I think it depends on whether they're fully defeated in the first game.

If they're beaten, but still alive (and can reasonably return to power from where they are at the end of the first game) - then, I think it's fine. But if they're killed in the first game, and then the next game finds some convoluted way to bring them back... then, it comes off as cheap.

[Moonface]

I'd be OK with re-using a main antagonist if they were the first original one, perhaps a side antagonist that gets their chance to lead after their master is defeated for one game (Fawful), or if this new antagonist is more of a villain than the original, but not too many times like what Ripto sounds like (as in getting used too much, don't know how the antagonists compare as I'm unfamiliar with them). Is better to have a new antagonist though or use the original if they can still be used as one, unless they were a poor main villain.

In fairness, Ripto is by far the best villain Spyro has ever had in any of the entries that are outside of The Legend of Spyro series. It's hard and almost unfair to make a comparison to any villains within TLoS due to the drastic differences in tone and age ratings. The Sorceress in Spyro: Year of the Dragon might have been a good villain if the game had actually had her and Spyro interact at any point, but because they don't she ends up being a step back compared to Ripto and I always wonder how different she'd be if she wasn't so separated from the rest of the cast.

But if they're killed in the first game, and then the next game finds some convoluted way to bring them back... then, it comes off as cheap.

The only franchise I can think of that pulls this approach off repeatedly and succeeds well at it is The Legend of Zelda, as most of the time the games take place with a new incarnation of Link, Zelda, and Ganondorf whenever the latter is the main villain of the game. It's also how Nintendo got away with having a timeline where Link actually fails to stop Ganondorf without it causing any games in that timeline to be unable to use Link as the playable character again.