Sometimes the bad guys in video games had a point. - General

[video]https://youtu.be/SQS1ttWNN-I[/video]

I really wish far cry 4 had gotten some better writers it's a surprisingly decent idea for a plot (and imo does the whole postmodern video game critique stuff better than farcry 3 or spec ops) but the way it's delivered is just really hammy

[QUOTE=cdr248;50772946]I really wish far cry 4 had gotten some better writers it's a surprisingly decent idea for a plot (and imo does the whole postmodern video game critique stuff better than farcry 3 or spec ops) but the way it's delivered is just really hammy[/QUOTE] They should've opened up the secret ending as an entire other way to play the game. It would've been more interesting than the copypaste story from Farcry 3.

[QUOTE=cdr248;50772946]I really wish far cry 4 had gotten some better writers it's a surprisingly decent idea for a plot (and imo does the whole postmodern video game critique stuff better than farcry 3 or spec ops) but the way it's delivered is just really hammy[/QUOTE] Far Cry 2 was as close as we'd get to a decent heart of darkness adaptation. Spec Ops is a second choice but the fact the player character wasn't conscious of it despite the game shoving it in your face let it down quite a bit.

Fable 3 is a horrible example. All it would take is a mention of "dudes there's these soul eating cunts coming to ruin everything" and there would be no need to go and shoot everyone. I mean, is that really too hard to believe in a world where people shoot lightning from their orifices and werewolves exist?

Wow, the Anarky entry is full of shit. Yes, let's sympathize with the kid who recruited the homeless to be his lackeys. The kid who boldly states that Gotham's people aren't innocent but weak, including Batman himself. Yes, Batman is totally responsible for Gotham being the way it is. Not the supercriminals that exist within Gotham regardless of Batman, that's totally irrelevant. And the whole alliance point is equally bullshit. Batman keeps to a code of ethics, Anarky believes the ends justify the means. Batman refuses to kill, Anarky has no qualms with killing innocents. Hell, Bruce Wayne is the very kind of person Anarky despises. These two are such diametric opposites of each other, there's no reason they even would enter an alliance. This guy knows the stuff Batman has, what on earth does he think he has to offer him in an alliance?

Villains that have a realistic logic to them are the best kinds imo. They really make you wonder if they're so wrong and you're so right, or if it's the other way around. Also it's just good story telling, no human that isn't a psychopath just murders puppies for the hell of it. They think themselves the good guys, which is always something you should strive for with villains unless you want them to be psychopaths. Which is kinda lazy.

...Aren't the fireflies just basically executing all of the people who are immune? If you explore around near the end of the game, you find nothing but failed experiments.

Anarky is a punk bitch and seeing him as "he had a point!" is pretty edgy He's also not really a game character

[QUOTE=spekter;50772985]Far Cry 2 was as close as we'd get to a decent heart of darkness adaptation. Spec Ops is a second choice but the fact the player character wasn't conscious of it despite the game shoving it in your face let it down quite a bit.[/QUOTE] far cry 2 wasn't even much of an adaptation, to me it was just more of just a nod to the book's basic framework

Half-Life 2 had a good example with Dr. Breen - when the alien combine forces invaded, Breen called for Earth's surrender in just 7 hours and the combine made him the planet's administrator. He didn't do it to obtain power when in reality he did it so that humanity wouldn't be anhiliated if the war went any longer, saving the it's destruction but enslaving the inhabitants to the combine instead.

[QUOTE=zombini;50772976]They should've opened up the secret ending as an entire other way to play the game. It would've been more interesting than the copypaste story from Farcry 3.[/QUOTE] the point is just that all the killing could've been avoided and the nation would have been united if the player was just a reasonable person and waited to see what Pagan had to say (granted they did a shit job of making you feel safe around pagan) if the secret ending was just another excuse to shoot dudes up then it all kinds of falls apart.

[QUOTE=cdr248;50772946]I really wish far cry 4 had gotten some better writers it's a surprisingly decent idea for a plot (and imo does the whole postmodern video game critique stuff better than farcry 3 or spec ops) but the way it's delivered is just really hammy[/QUOTE] not to mention [sp]Pagan was actually a very nice and fair guy before your father killed your mother for leaving him and joining Pagan.[/sp]

Kinda surprised Saren, Big Boss, Andrew Ryan, Dr. Breen, and Caesar aren't on this list. I mean there are definitely some arguments to be made that they were on point on things, even if their methods were wrong. And hell, those are all mainstream ones too! There's plenty of more that could make a list like this that aren't featured in popular games.

[QUOTE=Zeos;50773109]...Aren't the fireflies just basically executing all of the people who are immune? If you explore around near the end of the game, you find nothing but failed experiments.[/QUOTE] Apparently they had a better chance with Ellie than with anyone else, no way to say whether it would've succeeded or failed. I was rooting against Joel at the end of my first time though which is why I love the game so much. [QUOTE=CheezMan;50773216]Half-Life 2 had a good example with Dr. Breen - when the alien combine forces invaded, Breen called for Earth's surrender in just 7 hours and the combine made him the planet's administrator. He didn't do it to obtain power when in reality he did it so that humanity wouldn't be anhiliated if the war went any longer, saving the it's destruction but enslaving the inhabitants to the combine instead.[/QUOTE] Exactly, if you listen to his breencasts he has a really, really good point about instinct, evolution, and how the Combine alliance is the only thing that saved our asses from becoming extinct by Xen. The shitty dystopian stuff like food & water shortages is a result of the first alien invasion, not the second one. It's also weird how there weren't any citizens loyal to neutral to the Combine, like 20 years of occupation wouldn't give anyone Stockholm syndrome :v:. There's even some fan theories about HL2 being an allegory for the Iraq occupation, true or unintended it's interesting food for thought. I hope there's some way they can touch on that in a future game.

[QUOTE=Zeos;50773109]...Aren't the fireflies just basically executing all of the people who are immune? If you explore around near the end of the game, you find nothing but failed experiments.[/QUOTE] You can find near the end of the game that Elie is not the first person they've experimented on, and that indicates that there is a chance it might fail yet again. But that's not the point, Elie herself knows that she's likely going to die and is completely fine with the it, she believes in the cause. Joel robs her of that because he can't bare losing another daughter. The fact that Joel flat out lies to Elie about why she is still alive when confronted about it indicates that Joel knows that what he did was 'wrong'. Now it is plausable that Elie did not really want to die and was just suffereing from suvivors guilt and therefore not thinking straight, but the fact Joel does not tell the truth implies, to me at least, that he knew that Elie would still have opted to be operated on regardless of what she'd have been told. Which ultimately brings it down to Joel being selfish. Also Hugh Darrow, depends on how you finishthe game on that one i guess because Darrows ultimate motive is Jelousy, he hides behind the 'nobel' reasoning but it's the fact that his body cannot accept augmentations that drives him in the end.

[QUOTE=Destroyox;50773312]Kinda surprised Saren, Big Boss, Andrew Ryan, Dr. Breen, and Caesar aren't on this list. I mean there are definitely some arguments to be made that they were on point on things, even if their methods were wrong. And hell, those are all mainstream ones too! There's plenty of more that could make a list like this that aren't featured in popular games.[/QUOTE] Id argue big boss is wrong though. He wanted to create a nation of soldiers for endless war so that warriors would never be unnecessary, he utilized child soldiers and nukes. You can say he fell from being a hero after traumatic experiences but I wouldn't say his villainous mission had a good point Edit: I mean I think it's retconned to be he was just trying to stop the patriots, but he's not the villain when that explanation happens

[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50773364]Id argue big boss is wrong though. He wanted to create a nation of soldiers for endless war so that warriors would never be unnecessary, he utilized child soldiers and nukes. You can say he fell from being a hero after traumatic experiences but I wouldn't say his villainous mission had a good point[/QUOTE] It had a point near the beginning to provide a place where soldiers wouldn't be betrayed by their governments. But yeah, I think Solidus is the most redeemable Metal Gear villain but Big Boss was just the first I thought of.

Solidus was a decent person, possible ally right up until he's like HAHA I KILLED UR PARENTS AND MADE YOU THE MOST DEADLY CHILD SOLDIER EVER, FACE ME [editline]25th July 2016[/editline] But yeah I think in Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake, big boss gives a speech that's very anti peace

Well Big Boss was already off the deep end by that point.

[QUOTE=cdr248;50773198]far cry 2 wasn't even much of an adaptation, to me it was just more of just a nod to the book's basic framework[/QUOTE] It still did it a lot better than FC3's in-your-face approach and completely unlikable main character. When Jason gives that big warrior speech then immediately goes back to being spooked by everything it just ruins the traction completely, but I guess that could be put down to the terrible voice actor. The Jackal filled the Kurtz role well and the main story overall adapted well into a modern scenario. Granted, Apocalypse Now is the be-all end-all for adaptations of the book but game-wise I still think Far Cry 2 on a narrative level worked best because it managed to adapt the core elements whilst retaining some individuality.

sometimes the inno people lie so much on the end they get to be guilty.

[QUOTE=zombini;50772976]They should've opened up the secret ending as an entire other way to play the game. It would've been more interesting than the copypaste story from Farcry 3.[/QUOTE] Dude I would have fucking loved being able to stomp a rebellion in Far Cry 4 with the military dudes. Playing as the bad guys is always great fun. A while ago I played a mission with the Facepunch ARMA 3 guys, where 3 people were sneaky beaky solid snake blufor, and we were guards defending an area, and the general rule was; "Act Stupid" There was even an option in the action menu to make the "!" noise and have an exclamation mark appear above your head. Playing as the bad guys is always fun. Just look at Evil Genius.

[QUOTE=Zeos;50773109]...Aren't the fireflies just basically executing all of the people who are immune? If you explore around near the end of the game, you find nothing but failed experiments.[/QUOTE]In my opinion they're too radical and are too quick to jump the gun. They have shown countless times to achieve their goals, they do it through mass amounts of violence and anarchy. It is implied they made quarantine zones uprise against the military which gave birth to the hunters prevalent in Philadelphia. More or less, they had a good goal but they were not cooperative enough with the side they opposed to make a difference. Both sides were too polarized to do anything peaceful.

[QUOTE=MissingNoGuy;50773715]In my opinion they're too radical and are too quick to jump the gun. They have shown countless times to achieve their goals, they do it through mass amounts of violence and anarchy. It is implied they made quarantine zones uprise against the military which gave birth to the hunters prevalent in Philadelphia. More or less, they had a good goal but they were not cooperative enough with the side they opposed to make a difference. Both sides were too polarized to do anything peaceful.[/QUOTE] Also every single Firefly controlled area you find in the game prior to the end is overrun by the infected. They're an incredibly shitty group, both in their methods and their results, and the fact that they tell Ellie that she could save humanity by sacrificing herself without telling her about their previous failures is really scummy.

[QUOTE=cdr248;50773244]the point is just that all the killing could've been avoided and the nation would have been united if the player was just a reasonable person and waited to see what Pagan had to say [B](granted they did a shit job of making you feel safe around pagan)[/B] if the secret ending was just another excuse to shoot dudes up then it all kinds of falls apart.[/QUOTE] It felt super unsafe but he sat down at the same table with a person that really might want to kill him right then.

Where's Saren? "Is submission not preferable to extinction?"

[QUOTE=Chief Martini;50773950]Where's Saren? "Is submission not preferable to extinction?"[/QUOTE] Yeah, I liked Saren as a villain. He was pretty understandable, not a blindly fanatical cultist like you'd expect from a game with such a Lovecraftian edge to it. I'd sooner be arched by the likes of him rather than deal with the fanatical ramblings of some self-absorbed high priest of Ch'thon. (though Grim Dawn is still pretty damn cool regardless)

[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;50773337]Exactly, if you listen to his breencasts he has a really, really good point about instinct, evolution, and how the Combine alliance is the only thing that saved our asses from becoming extinct by Xen. The shitty dystopian stuff like food & water shortages is a result of the first alien invasion, not the second one. It's also weird how there weren't any citizens loyal to neutral to the Combine, like 20 years of occupation wouldn't give anyone Stockholm syndrome :v:. There's even some fan theories about HL2 being an allegory for the Iraq occupation, true or unintended it's interesting food for thought. I hope there's some way they can touch on that in a future game.[/QUOTE] Well, I mean, it's pretty clear that the Combine have no interest in humanity beyond the Earth's resources. The existence of the suppression field, as well as the fact that the original Combine expeditionary force crushed Earth's forces like insects, suggests that they fully intend for this generation of humans to be the last. They are a thorn in the side of the Combine's resource-collection systems, and thus they save on resources by turning humans into soldiers. The fact that these soldiers can be defeated by other ordinary humans (or even one man, single-handedly) suggests that there is no real plan to turn these into shock troops for general use on other planets. At best, Breen seems to be under duress when he makes his announcements, and at worst, he seems to exclusively be caring about his own image and survival. Even as the Citadel is attacked by Gordon, his primary interest is in ascertaining a new body should his current one be destroyed, and then escaping, and it is only when he is totally cornered that he gives up and starts directly attacking Gordon. Perhaps his attitude in HL2 was only the result of him gradually being broken down by attempted negotiations, but judging by the alluded link between him and the G-Man, I wouldn't say it's impossible that he knew about how things would go all along. In any case, acting as if he is selfless within the story itself is majorly buying into his and the Combine's propaganda.

[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50773403]Solidus was a decent person, possible ally right up until he's like HAHA I KILLED UR PARENTS AND MADE YOU THE MOST DEADLY CHILD SOLDIER EVER, FACE ME [editline]25th July 2016[/editline] But yeah I think in Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake, big boss gives a speech that's very anti peace[/QUOTE] He was SORT OF on your side, ultimately. The problem was the means to the ends, and the bad stuff he did in the past. In the end, both him and Snake wanted the same thing: the destruction of the Patriots and everything they gave birth to, and essentialy free the people from them, and be remembered for it. [editline]26th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Jamsponge;50774014]Well, I mean, it's pretty clear that the Combine have no interest in humanity beyond the Earth's resources. The existence of the suppression field, as well as the fact that the original Combine expeditionary force crushed Earth's forces like insects, suggests that they fully intend for this generation of humans to be the last. They are a thorn in the side of the Combine's resource-collection systems, and thus they save on resources by turning humans into soldiers. The fact that these soldiers can be defeated by other ordinary humans (or even one man, single-handedly) suggests that there is no real plan to turn these into shock troops for general use on other planets. At best, Breen seems to be under duress when he makes his announcements, and at worst, he seems to exclusively be caring about his own image and survival. Even as the Citadel is attacked by Gordon, his primary interest is in ascertaining a new body should his current one be destroyed, and then escaping, and it is only when he is totally cornered that he gives up and starts directly attacking Gordon. Perhaps his attitude in HL2 was only the result of him gradually being broken down by attempted negotiations, but judging by the alluded link between him and the G-Man, I wouldn't say it's impossible that he knew about how things would go all along. In any case, acting as if he is selfless within the story itself is majorly buying into his and the Combine's propaganda.[/QUOTE] More interested about the G-Man. But I believe not even Valve knew what to do with him, when they put him in this unknown neutral manipulative character with possibly bad motives.