Pay evil unto evil.

[moretimethansense]

I've come to realise that almost any game in which you play a villain you are invariably fighting another villain.

Often the antagonist is far worse than you are, and even if you are worse than they, they will still be evil.

Or the rare occasion that the enemy is "good" they will often be corrupt, incompetent, oppressive or even secretly evil behind the scenes.

In games where you choose your morality it's understandable, since if you were to play the good guy, you wouldn't be killing other good guys, except through some misunderstanding I guess, and I know that many would feel weird murdering innocents or killing genuinely nice, likable people even if they were playing a villain.

So here are my questions:

1)
Are there any games where you play a villain against an unambiguously good enemy?

2)
Why do you think they are so rare?

3)
Would you play a game where the enemy is unambiguously good?

 

[oplinger]

1. not that I can recall off hand.

2. Because people would feel weird. The killing and evil usually need to be justified. However being good usually never needs any real reason. ...and i'm sure there's some psychological stuff in there too, about taking joy in murdering nice innocent people or something. ...And controversy.

3. ...Hell yes I would. It'd be different, I'd have to experience it at least once.

 

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

1) Yes, Dungeon Keeper.

2) It's easier and more 'morally acceptable' to be killing bad guys, it's also a good story ploy for you to be an anti-hero.

3) Again, Dungeon Keeper 2 and yes, endlessly. It's an amazing game and funny too.

 

[moretimethansense]

2. Because people would feel weird. The killing and evil usually need to be justified. However being good usually never needs any real reason. ...and i'm sure there's some psychological stuff in there too, about taking joy in murdering nice innocent people or something. ...And controversy.

You don't necessarily have to be a cartoonish child killing monster, how about a conquering overlord bent on bringing the world to heel?
And the ones you kill don't have to be non-combatants, think noble knights riding to defend their homeland from tyrannical rule?

1) I doubt it. BUT, I hate to use this, think of No Russian. While you still PLAY as a good guy, you're performing pretty terrible deeds. Think of the storm of crap that came with THAT. Now base an entire game with that theme. Yeaaaah...
2) Because people want to be the hero. about half a percent of gamers, maybe LESS, want to play as a dickhead. Not a big market there, right?
3) Maybe. What I want to play is 'Mankind has yet to recognize my genius'. *low brow Yahtzee reference*

1) See my above point about non-combatant

2) Doesn't have to be a dickhead, just evil.
Besides I know it wouldn't warrent a AAA buget but surley there's enough of a market for, something.

3) I don't get the reference but it sounds like a mad scientist type game, I would so play that.

1) Yes, Dungeon Keeper.

2) It's easier and more 'morally acceptable' to be killing bad guys, it's also a good story ploy for you to be an anti-hero.

3) Again, Dungeon Keeper 2 and yes, endlessly. It's an amazing game and funny too.

1) If I remember right the "good guys" were described as corrupt, incompetent and or repressive.
Granted this was told to me by the in game advisor so the info could be unreliable.

2) True though that is, why not a tragic villain?
Alternitivlyk, both you AND the enemy are unambiguasly good but are forced against each other due to circumstance/a misunderstanding.

3) Point one, plus I know that at least one was corrupt and/or incompetent, he abandens his post to treasure hunt? bad form.
I do love me some DK though.

 

[oplinger]

You don't necessarily have to be a cartoonish child killing monster, how about a conquering overlord bent on bringing the world to heel?
And the ones you kill don't have to be non-combatants, think noble knights riding to defend their homeland from tyrannical rule?

Oh damn, Overlord, I completely forgot about that game. There you go.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Overlord, but then all the heroes you kill in that game turn out to be douchebags anyway. I think its a commentary on the whole "he who writes history hangs the true heroes" concept anyway.
But there aren't many games where you really play the uber-evil people for one reason. Game companies more than likely are trying to avoid the "games fuck people up" stigma, so even the "bad guy" main characters are still redeemable in some aspect or are working towards ending world threats, etc. instead of killing everyone/world domination. Sure some games you can be a douche and go the evil route but 9 times out of ten its the "bad ending" sort.

 

[LaughingAtlas]

1. There's the Overlord games, but the main antagonist is usually a world-devouring superdemon, I think.

2. Some folk don't like the idea of being morally wrong. They're fine with doing things considered wrong, (debauchery, theft, murder, etc.) but there apparently has to be someone more wrong to make them feel... right?

3. Yes, Infamous.

Spoiler: Given perspective, of course.

Kessler, the main "bad guy," is more of a hero than Cole even can be in my eyes. He tries to mold Cole into the defender he failed to be rather than let make Kessler's mistakes, killed the woman he loved and thousands of people to save millions from the rampaging Beast. Everything he did was for the greater good, in an "end justifies the means" kind of way. Cole, even as a good guy, doesn't seem to grasp that kind of thinking until after the final conflict, and as evil, there's really not much question as to who would be morally superior.

Then again, if I have to clarify that much, I suppose Kessler wouldn't be unambiguously right, would he?

 

[moretimethansense]

You don't necessarily have to be a cartoonish child killing monster, how about a conquering overlord bent on bringing the world to heel?
And the ones you kill don't have to be non-combatants, think noble knights riding to defend their homeland from tyrannical rule?

Oh damn, Overlord, I completely forgot about that game. There you go.

I've been beaten to it but, in Overlord the "heroes" you fight are corrupt and greedy if not downright malevolent, and in the sequel the enemies Bullied the MC as a child, are completly incompetent PETA stand-ins or are a magicly powered genocidal Roman empiere, so no unambiguasly good enemies here I'm afraid.

 

[moretimethansense]

Spoiler: Given perspective, of course.

Kessler, the main "bad guy," is more of a hero than Cole even can be in my eyes. He tries to mold Cole into the defender he failed to be rather than let make Kessler's mistakes, killed the woman he loved and thousands of people to save millions from the rampaging Beast. Everything he did was for the greater good, in an "end justifies the means" kind of way. Cole, even as a good guy, doesn't seem to grasp that kind of thinking until after the final conflict, and as evil, there's really not much question as to who would be morally superior.

Then again, if I have to clarify that much, I suppose Kessler wouldn't be unambiguously right, would he?

Definitely not, especially given his casual slaughter of civilians, he may have been

Spoiler

Acting toward the greater good, by trying to make Cole ruthless and powerful enough to deal with the beast

but that would make him ambiguous at best and an absolute monster at worst.

 

[LaughingAtlas]

*snip*
that would make him ambiguous at best and an absolute monster at worst.

That's a tad short sighted, isn't it? I think a monster would have just ripped the world apart himself before

Spoiler

the Beast got there, if he bothered to go back at all.

Besides, the casual slaughter was done (I'm pretty sure) with the rest of the world in mind.

Spoiler: another spoiler

The thing with Trish (or a decoy, fucking cheaters) and the doctors looked like a pretty good representation of Kessler's plan and what happened to him, sacrifing few to save many as opposed to holding onto one and losing her anyway.

Then again, (yet again) maybe the Beast even has a good reason for what it's doing. As far as we know it just destroys things, but that's really all we know for now.

 

[moretimethansense]

*snip*
that would make him ambiguous at best and an absolute monster at worst.

That's a tad short sighted, isn't it? I think a monster would have just ripped the world apart himself before

Spoiler

the Beast got there, if he bothered to go back at all.

Besides, the casual slaughter was done (I'm pretty sure) with the rest of the world in mind.

Spoiler: another spoiler

The thing with Trish (or a decoy, fucking cheaters) and the doctors looked like a pretty good representation of Kessler's plan and what happened to him, sacrifing few to save many as opposed to holding onto one and losing her anyway.

Then again, (yet again) maybe the Beast even has a good reason for what it's doing. As far as we know it just destroys things, but that's really all we know for now.

That's why I said at worst, he may well be

Spoiler

acting in the worlds best interest,

but there are some that would say killing even one innocent to stop

Spoiler

the beast

is too much, or that taking the choice away from Cole was him crossing the line.
Some people (myself included) take the freedom off personal choice very sereously.

I'd just like to point out that I'm not bashing the game (or Kessler as a charecter for that matter) just pointing out that at the very least he is a mass murderer, responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands.

 

[Daggedawg]

I'm not sure if it counts as being "evil" and fighting someone truly "good", but in God of War 3, Kratos basically throws the whole world into chaos through his personal vendetta with the gods.

Then again, the ending... kinda redeems him somewhat.

 

[LaughingAtlas]

*snip again*
he is a mass murderer, responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands.

Agreed, which I guess gives reasonable hesitation for the term "hero" for most. Reminds me a bit of the Darth Vectivus school of Sith.(as interpreted by Lumiya) /insanely obscure refference.

 

[moretimethansense]

I'm not sure if it counts as being "evil" and fighting someone truly "good", but in God of War 3, Kratos basically throws the whole world into chaos through his personal vendetta with the gods.

Then again, the ending... kinda redeems him somewhat.

Haven't played them, but if the gods are anything like they are in the actual greek mythology good most certainly wouldn't be a good way to describe most of them, frankly the greek pantheon could probebly use a good thinning out.

*snip again*
he is a mass murderer, responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands.

Agreed, which I guess gives reasonable hesitation for the term "hero" for most. Reminds me a bit of the Darth Vectivus school of Sith.(as interpreted by Lumiya) /insanely obscure refference.

I'm afraid I'm not that well versed in the Star Wars EU, I know that Bobba once fist fought Vader and

Spoiler: Chewbacca spoiler

Chewie got killed when a planet exploded,

that's about it.

 

[Vault101]

In the case of saints row 2 your charachter dose cross the line and while your enemys are quite nasty youre not any better,

in fact I don't think there was a situation that I came across (so far anyway) where one side was more moral than the other, its just two very dark shades of grey, but what makes it intersting is that your charachter is such a lovable sociopath

 

[Gingerman]

1) If I remember right the "good guys" were described as corrupt, incompetent and or repressive.
Granted this was told to me by the in game advisor so the info could be unreliable.

2) True though that is, why not a tragic villain?
Alternitivlyk, both you AND the enemy are unambiguasly good but are forced against each other due to circumstance/a misunderstanding.

3) Point one, plus I know that at least one was corrupt and/or incompetent, he abandens his post to treasure hunt? bad form.
I do love me some DK though.

After replaying DK1 and 2 recently only some of the Lord of the lands were a bit evil. But only a bit overall they were goody two shoes.

I mean the 3rd level lord of the land in DK 2 was only a bit evil hoarding most of the gold, he didn't even impale his followers... rubbish leader.

 

[botobeno]

Evil Genius? Well ok, you're pretty much up against the entire world and if you look in a history book you'll see that pretty much any country or nation that is still around today has done something horrible at some point in the past, a lot of those that arent around anymore did too. And even if you just look at the world as it is now, there is some crime everywhere and unfair policies and whatnot.

So you could contest the 'unambiguously good enemy' part. But, ingame, as far as i remember, they never did anything evil, other then shooting at your non-armed personnel, but hey when the resistance did that to the germans in WW II we were ok with it because the germans were evil at the time. Besides, can you truely say that someone who works for someone evil can claim to be innocent?

Postal 1 and 2? Sure, there are evil people in it, but also lots of innocents.
Mirror's edge? I dont care for the runny jumpy stuff, i killed every cop i could. It's quite fun to wipe out swat teams in melee. But all in all, what evil did they do? They try to stop me from illegally transporting data? They do their job? Are they all corrupt and evil? I've never seen them beat up innocent civilians or anything like that, but i also didnt complete the game so dunno. In all honesty, that game was crap. Runny jumpy freeroam but i cant climb up and kill that cop standing two metres above me? Seriously? Never claim to be jumpy runny freeroam game if you dont allow the player to do jumpy runny freeroam.

At any rate, if they already have parents being furious about their 10 year olds killing evil stuff in a game that's clearly rated 16+, meaning they shouldnt let their kids play it to be begin with and should learn to be responsible parents instead of blaming other people for their shortcomings, most gamemakers problably wont take the risk to make games of evil vs good
There arent that many movies of evil vs good either. Maybe it's just socially unacceptable for most people.

 

[LaughingAtlas]

I'm afraid I'm not that well versed in the Star Wars EU, I know that Bobba once fist fought Vader and

Spoiler: Chewbacca spoiler

Chewie got killed when a planet exploded,

that's about it.

The Vong war was costly...
Anywho, Vectivus was (supposedly) a person who found a way to use the Dark side constructively. "The Sith way is sacrifice," Lumiya says. Being able to kill those most important to you, she tells her apprentice, is a rite of passage to make the job easier, for lack of a better word. Killing few to save many.

That's kind of the "good" most game antagonists are stuck with, Dane Vogel in Saint's Row 2

Spoiler

had the poor joining street gangs and getting shot up or not joining and getting shot up by said gangs to lower property values so he could buy areas and make them into shiny metropoli, remaking Stillwater into a more perfect, corporate image.

Still, I'm not sure his corruption was all that bad compared to the Boss's corruption. "Kill everyone because I can bwahahaha!"
EDIT: Further elaboration: At the end of the game (pre DLC) he/she says "this our city, we do whatever the fuck we want." There wasn't much of a goal beyond retaking the city the Boss deemed his/hers on account of conquering it 5 years prior. Then, crazy with revenge, he/she is willing to leave the his/her beloved conquest to pursue someone who tried to kill him/her, but then left Stillwater, never to return.

At the end of the day it seems game antagonists might be nicer than you, but they'll never be "good."