I was to irritated by Fable 2's glitches to focus on character development.Eclectic Dreck said:
Agreeing with the "villain"
- Thread starter Dom Uk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I always agreed with alma her philosophy for revenge and laziness not to just kill everyone is an inspiration to us all
I don't know about games, but in the torchwood: children of earth special i was in favor of getting rid of the worst 10% of the worlds kids, i mean, ultimately it meant less delinquents in the future, and also would have cleaned up the gene pool for us all.
could empathise with Mithos (Tales of Symphonia, Dagoth Ur (Morrowind,) and to some extent President Eden from Fallout 3 (I still made him blow himself up though, It was pretty!)
And I agreed with Kreia in KotOR II, I wanted to join her dammit! At least I could have been given the opportunity to attempt what she was trying to do after she was dead.
And I agreed with Kreia in KotOR II, I wanted to join her dammit! At least I could have been given the opportunity to attempt what she was trying to do after she was dead.
I want a game that when the villain says "Join me and together we can rule the universe!" it actually lets you say "Yes".
Then later if you get bored of co-regency, you can stab him in the back and rule on your own.
Then later if you get bored of co-regency, you can stab him in the back and rule on your own.
The Master from Fallout. He was quite clearly an intelligent fellow, and he was only trying to create the type of sentient being that would be perfect for survival in the post-apocalyptic world. Perhaps if he found a theory that didn't involve kidnapping people and tossing them in the vats it would've benefited humanity. He was a great force, just pushed in the wrong direction.
Ozymandius in Watchmen.
Jon Irenicus in Baldur`s Gate 2.
The little dude in Braid.
(not quite but I sympathized with) Andrew Ryan in Bioshock (but he was still a douche at times).
The noble insects defending their homes from totalitarian invaders in Starship Troopers.
Jon Irenicus in Baldur`s Gate 2.
The little dude in Braid.
(not quite but I sympathized with) Andrew Ryan in Bioshock (but he was still a douche at times).
The noble insects defending their homes from totalitarian invaders in Starship Troopers.
Bah, Timmy Olyphant isnt even on the same playing field as Alan Rickman or Jeremy Irons. Not that his motivations were poorly done, just that he wasnt a strong enough actor to carry it (plus it ruined the whole 'plausibility' thing about Die Hard that made the first 3 so good)BolognaBaloney said:
Alan Rickman as Hans Gruber remains the best villian in anything, ever.
As a matter of fact, there is one game that lets you do that:Hazardlife said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjzsCmkYHVI
Lol, in all seriousness though, I have always wanted that too. It's stupid that, even in RPGs and open-world games, you HAVE to be this goody-two shoes good guy and kill the bad guy.
The fact that they don't espouse any particular cause draws me to them. Once you start moralising, all your actions gain some sort of bias, and that makes you no better than the average patriot/racist etc.StevieWonderMk2 said:
It's how I see it, anyway. I'm probably wrong.
Tyler Durden and the Joker arent as similar as I think that you think they are. Durden's motivations, while extreme, were for a genuine purpose, and a societal-cultural response. You might want to read about anarchism, because I dont think it is what you think it is.samaritan.squirrel said:
Good point. Durden was trying to instigate something. But there was a nihilistic element in there, superficially at least. Going deeper than the cause.Unreliable said:
Mostly anarchy though, or what I understand it to be [a sort of..radical restructuring brought on by momentary chaos?]
Well this seems to be because it comes down to politics and a very unintelligent group of people in the masses. Sometimes doing a "bad" thing is actually the right, or "good" desician, something that MOST stories do not touch upon.
To put it into perspective, mass murdering people (especially civilians) is considered to be "wrong" because it leaves a lot of people dead. However in many cases it's really the only way to change things, and you can see the problem with being too quick to preserve human life when it simply amounts to a cycle of endless enimity with far more deaths over a long period of time when peace (and less deaths and hardship) could be achieved by simply killing a whole lot of people at one time.
It comes down to the mentality between "police actions" (which we currently call wars) and actual wars which were fought from the beginning to permanantly resolve problems.
Heinlan touches on subjects like this, assasination, and other things in his writings.
Or to put it into perspective of my ethics classes many years ago "It's easy to argue against morality by the numbers, as long as the numbers are small enough". It's easy to hate on the man in charge for doing bad things to a lot of people (especially when your one of them), but oddly it doesn't mean that if you were in his seat, with his perspective, that
you wouldn't wind up doing the exact same things due to a big picture most people either do not see, or intentionally do not want to see.
The closest video games TYPICALLY get to situations like this is like in inFamous where you have to choose between saving your girlfriend, or multiple doctors. We know what desician the game decides is "good" but on many levels I tend to disagree.
It also comes down to politics. A couple of times when I was listening to Henry Bendix "getting his evil on" in "The Authority" I was kind of like "well he IS right you know".
At any rate, a lot of it comes down to politics and social philsophy as well. Any discussion about good and evil, or right and wrong tends to develop on so many levels that your never going to get everyone to agree on anything.
That is also one of the major reasons why in many cases that guy who is the "evil Overlord" (ie the buck stops with him) it can be hard to judge, because he's going to do something, and chances are if it got that far to begin with, it's not a black and white problem.
To put it into perspective, mass murdering people (especially civilians) is considered to be "wrong" because it leaves a lot of people dead. However in many cases it's really the only way to change things, and you can see the problem with being too quick to preserve human life when it simply amounts to a cycle of endless enimity with far more deaths over a long period of time when peace (and less deaths and hardship) could be achieved by simply killing a whole lot of people at one time.
It comes down to the mentality between "police actions" (which we currently call wars) and actual wars which were fought from the beginning to permanantly resolve problems.
Heinlan touches on subjects like this, assasination, and other things in his writings.
Or to put it into perspective of my ethics classes many years ago "It's easy to argue against morality by the numbers, as long as the numbers are small enough". It's easy to hate on the man in charge for doing bad things to a lot of people (especially when your one of them), but oddly it doesn't mean that if you were in his seat, with his perspective, that
you wouldn't wind up doing the exact same things due to a big picture most people either do not see, or intentionally do not want to see.
The closest video games TYPICALLY get to situations like this is like in inFamous where you have to choose between saving your girlfriend, or multiple doctors. We know what desician the game decides is "good" but on many levels I tend to disagree.
It also comes down to politics. A couple of times when I was listening to Henry Bendix "getting his evil on" in "The Authority" I was kind of like "well he IS right you know".
At any rate, a lot of it comes down to politics and social philsophy as well. Any discussion about good and evil, or right and wrong tends to develop on so many levels that your never going to get everyone to agree on anything.
That is also one of the major reasons why in many cases that guy who is the "evil Overlord" (ie the buck stops with him) it can be hard to judge, because he's going to do something, and chances are if it got that far to begin with, it's not a black and white problem.
I can't really think of one from a game, but in Afro Samurai(I guess it's a game. It was an anime first) Justice did not have evil intentions. He wanted to become god so that he could rid the world of strife. He just pissed off the wrong samurai.