Why is being a villain in a game, not a popular concept? Feels like a very unexplored area

Too much capeshit rot their brains and anything that goes further than being an anti hero is considered too edgy for them

So you too saw the Overlord review huh

Because normies and other groups would kick and scream about how it's trying to normalize being a terrible person, or it's a dog whistle for (group I don't like) instead of it letting you experience first hand the horrors a villian can inflict on the world instead of just coming across the after math.

I'm sure legions of edge teens can't wait to play as an evil conquerer.

Play the Demon Path in Soul Nomad.
It's pretty hard to be more evil than that.

I want to for once be the guy with the edgy "erase the world" plan.

"evil" is subjective and without going into Saturday morning cartoon villain levels of campy it's extremely difficult to write. It's easy to be a hero, conceptually all you need is to see people suffering and a Target to blame this suffering on, but if you want a good villain you need to establish some things. A bad villain to play as is one doing bad for the sake of doing it. You would have to write it off as simply being part of their nature and unless it's some kind of literal monster or demon it's hard to feel cathartic about all the mayhem because you're not some uncontrollable beast doing all it knows how to do, you're just an asshole, and no one likes feeling like an asshole.

Wouldn't Destroy All Humans and GTA fall into that category?
Also Dungeon Keeper and Badman series.

people want to and like to be heroes

I don't think playing an FPS whwre you're the bad guy will get a whole lot of funding. It can work in a fantasy setting and a Sci-Fi one to a lesser extent but games with a lot of un violence where you aren't painted as the hero could easily be seen as problematic.
And you don't want to be problematic, do you user?

Attached: GET YOUR HAND OFF YOUR DICK.jpg (992x996, 80K)

There's plenty of games which gives you a villian route like recently Caligula: Overdose.
There's also porn games.

Who too played pic related?

Attached: images (4).jpg (739x415, 40K)

>There's plenty of games which gives you a villian route like recently Caligula: Overdose.
From my experience, that just tends to be shallow window dressing. In games with an evil route like say Kotor, you're still nominally the good guy, you're just defeating the bad guy in a more evil way.

Literally Infamous and Prototype.

Use your imagination
youtube.com/watch?v=UcSQ_Bn56OM

got so slow and stale after like an hour and a half. Maybe a speed up button would help.

>"evil" is subjective and without going into Saturday morning cartoon villain levels of campy it's extremely difficult to write.
Going into Saturday morning cartoon villain levels of campy is exactly what I want out of a playable villain experience. Are there any games that cater to this currently?

I think Overlord and Overlord 2 are pretty much it.

Figures.

>City of Villains will never come back

Attached: 1367270636178.png (889x526, 141K)

>"evil" is subjective
I think inflicting suffering on others is as objective as it gets but alright.

>I think Overlord and Overlord 2 are pretty much it.
Actually wrong. There's a new review by Mandalore that actually criticizes the game for trying to lead you down the good path and for how the evil path requires too much busywork:

youtube.com/watch?v=xmPI6CLLUoM

You can't do proper villains as a main character in media. And I mean that quite seriously, as a proper villain has almost nothing redeeming about them it would be nigh impossible for the audience to root for, or empathize with, a villain.

You can only do antiheros at best, or misunderstood heroes at worst. The protagonist has to have some positive traits to be respected if you want to make the material enjoyable for the audience to consume. That being said I would enjoy a anti/misunderstood hero as a protagonist who thwarts the efforts of a character more stereotypically recognized as a hero.

why the fuck are fan drawn Nagatoros being posted on Yea Forums every day??

what's going on

Overlord 1 is very "youre evil, but also a good guy" where as Overlord 2 you have more permission to be evil, since your enemy is something worse than you.

beside all the problem of narratives and writing aside
i think another problem would be power level

Just have the character's ideals clash with the rest of the entire world. It'll still feel like a hero story, but only from this single character's perspective. From everyone else's he'll be the villain.

Not that guy but it's not objective at all mate, what about the concept of punish one to save many?

Good and Evil are, by definition, subjective concepts. Of course there are generally accepted qualities that fit into either but they still remain subjective as one might feel they are doing "bad" things for a "good" reason.

>Had a dream about a necromancer game in the style of Mount & Blade but with more of an RPG focus
>You couldn't really be a good guy, at best you could be an isolationist state, all because the undead and necromancy are evil in the eyes of everything
>Woke up to a world without this game
Thanks for the reminder.

Attached: crying-death.jpg (500x500, 220K)

>as a proper villain has almost nothing redeeming about them
quite literally the opposite is true

Attached: f80.png (589x593, 403K)

It is very unexplored, I wish there was another game that could capture the feeling that the evil route had in Soul Nomad, that was a work of art.

it's because it's not a popular concept to be a redundant. stories follow a humanistic hero on a journey to defeat an inhuman villain, you can see even in stories about villains they are generally about falls from grace and redemption, or the villain not really being that bad of a guy. unless the game is intentionally being subversive the concept as playing as a villain isn't one that appeals to most people.

Attached: nagatoro cute 3.png (445x642, 300K)

Because its hard to write a villain that isn't mustache twirling levels of evil. First of all you'd have define a tone for your story, is your character aware that he's doing evil? If so, what are his motives? If not, does your character sees himself as a hero? Is he a moralfag blind to the evil he's doing? That shit is hard to write, no wonder some games leave the "ur ebil" twist to the end part.

Attached: say_one_reason_to_create_a_child_without_using_words_me_i_or_plural_versions_of_them.png (660x720, 441K)

Why can't I just be Doctor Evil evil and do it for laughs?

this lead back to the power level problem

>Why is being a villain in a game, not a popular concept?
Because most people are generally good, and being kind to other people gets you better rewards (just like in real life)

Then limit the resources. Make it like Tropico but more villainous. You could make a giant death ray on the moon but it'll cost the banks and take a long time, enough for the heroes to thwart you.

Tyranny is probably the best example of being able to play the villain and the game has a lot of nuance. The games writing is phenomenal and the gameplay is pretty fun if you like isometric rpgs. The only problem I have with the game is it's too short and has an extremely anti-climatic ending. But a big reason behind that is the game branches hardcore and is clearly meant for multiple playthroughs and it's clear dev resources were stretched to the max. It's worth buying (or sailing the seas for) for sure though, imo it's one of the high points of the iso rpg resurgence along DOS2 and Dragonfall.

Attached: hqdefault (1).jpg (480x360, 34K)

>Get railroaded into disobeying whatever your god was called at the end
I was so upset.
I remember the game to be really mediocre, sadly. And I can't agree on the writing is phenomenal part.
But it did some neat things, like getting direct messages when you talked to the guy with the three heads, I forgot his name.

Attached: 1490320359883.png (300x300, 148K)

It's a shame I can't stand iso RPGs at all.

fuck you i liked it

Attached: 765bc4d5e33eb6dae0e1668c3c378491.jpg (848x1200, 105K)

It got an anime announced so all the dumb ironic weebs are just discovering it

Because villains generally have to be powerful (not just "chosen one powerful" where they have potential that needs to be cultivated) so there isn't much room for a villain to get more powerful. What room there is generally difficult to implement. If the villain doesn't start off powerful and instead has to overcome a powerful foe, then it is easy for the villain to be perceived as an antihero unless the society is a incredibly utopian or the villain is stupidly evil in which case the villain is either poorly written or purposefully comical.

Even a villain thinks he is the hero of his story.

I am pretty sure that a "management strategy Dr.Evil simulator" game already exists. There are the old Dungeon keeper games and there was another game with a name I forgot that is literally that exact concept.

That's a load of fairy tale bullshit if I ever saw it. People should commit to the very end

Because you couldn't really make an interesting game the way villians are portrayed in games. What are you going to do all game, wait for the hero and the final battle? Most of the time it's just an evil route hero and that's fucking pointless. Dungeon Keeper and Overlord are okay, but sometimes controlling minions isn't what people want.

For the same reason games never have even morally dubious, let alone flawed, protagonists anymore. Because screeching moral guardian /pol/fag SJW's will threaten to feel outraged if anything include anything at all that is even ambiguous about conforming to their political bullshit.

For all the shit it gets wrong and the clusterfuck of an overarching plot, I feel Metal Gear is one series that had the depth and characterization to be able to explore it somewhat.

The protagonist of every game in the series is always portrayed as justified and a hero, even if it then contradicts itself and tells you they're not, and an objective look at them from the outside tells you they aren't.

Every protagonist is officially declared a terrorist at some point, but each individual or clan is just living for their own relative ideals or agendas. It's not until Metal Gear 1 that things go bat shit and then drop into questionably evil territory like with the child soldiers rescued, but ultimately condemned to live and die by war.

Playing as a villain is fun but fighting against heroes is not fun for most of the time in my opinion.
Villain vs Villain could be interesting though.

I mean a couple of these were shit games but technically you do play for the bad guys directly in MG 1, MGS 1, 3, and V, and then for Peace Walker you ARE playing the bad guy.

What if you get to fight monsters to capture them and release them for the hero to fight? There'd be a lot of upstart heroes, so you try and send out monsters that are strong against their team composition. Maybe you get to recruit minibosses once you defeat enough heroes. Maybe you get to burn down villages to stop the hero from getting items but make him stronger through willpower. There's a lot of ideas to play with.

This picture but unironically. Really unironically.

Just make a "An ancient evil has awoken".
Make the villain lose to the heroes in the prologue and for the rest of the game, villain ressurects and slowly gains his power back by causing mayhem in the peaceful world the heroes have worked so hard to create and maintain.

Attached: doggovr.jpg (453x491, 43K)

That felt really good in KOTOR games.
Also this

>suing parents for unconsensual birth

I can respect that. We don't get to choose our parents and circumstances. They're chosen for you and then you're SOL to deal with the consequences with the expectation that you give back.

But what they don't tell you is that suicide is every man's ace in the hole. The ultimate way to spite them at the price of losing to everything else

That one's pretty good. The heroes could be safeguarding his weapons and armor, and you'd have to collect them like how you'd collect magical gems in a JRPG.

>waiting for heroes
You go to them first. Strike them when they least expecting. Slowly but steadily thinning out any kind of opposition for enemy forces.

I want Nagatoro-san to bully me until I cry.

if good and evil were subjective, then there would be no argument, just like there is no discussion about whether blue or red is a better color. the fact that there is logical reasons to argue for different forms of morality is the only example needed to express that good and evil are certainly not subjective. now maybe you don't mean absolutely subjective, maybe you mean it's "up for debate", but you didn't specify and most people throw around objective and subjective as absolutes as if anything is ever actually absolute. the fact that every civilization to date has formed its own morality or borrowed it from other civilizations is also proof that morality itself is a tangible thing and doesn't exist at whim.

I think you could. You could start the game as a prospective hero out to make the world a better place and then have it immediately teach you that kindness/fairness/justice are NOT rewarded and the most efficient solutions are violence and deception.

Revenge stories with no moral restrictions, stories about a "hero" who is going to fix things no matter how many lives it costs, the only way to make the world safe is by achieving such overpowering strength that no one can stand in your way. The important thing is to have these paths actually pay off in the end instead of immoral actions somehow leading to your downfall.

Answering the filename is easy:

To keep the species alive

Attached: 1493935932338.png (230x300, 49K)

It's a simple and not very interesting twist that's been done before.

A better one would be to play the villain as you gain power and then the latter half / final act of the game has you play the hero sent to deal with him. Your actions as the villain impact the world you navigate as the hero or vice versa, the more power you gain, the easier the game becomes as the villain, but then more difficult in that final act as the hero.

This is EXACTLY what they should have done for MGS' The Phantom Pain. Spend the bulk of the game as or working for the bad guy, build your army, build your base, amass resources and power, build your defenses and by the end it's piss easy as you just walk over everything.

Now the twist is you play the final act as the opposite party and enemy sent into kill them, and infiltrating the exact base you built as the villain is pretty much next to impossible.

He asked for villains.

Mastermind World Conqueror? Old flash game, but you play as a literal Saturday morning cartoon villain.

It would still be difficult to do well. The villain is still fundamentally trying to change society and overcome a more powerful foe. While this doesn't make the villain automatically heroic, if the society is deeply flawed or the villain's motivations go beyond the purely mercenary, most likely your villain is just an antihero. That isn't to say it couldn't work entirely. You could have a cartoonishly evil villain or a villain who is a megalomaniac or has some other character trait that would lead him to believe that his actions are automatically just, the problem is writing a humorously evil or deeply flawed character that an audience would like is more difficult than just writing a protagonist.

In the Last Story the main hero fight for the "villains" in certain part of the game but he is unaware. I waant to play as a based villain for once, not "le random evil guy meme"

Then you are just talking about either an antihero or a megalomaniac. The former is done almost all the time and the latter is defined by one of the most inherently dislikeable traits a person could have.

The trapt/deception games have you play as a villian servant of the dark lord or something and you get points on how hard you torture/humiliate the good guys until they're dead. You can buy better traps with the points and i think you can also fail the levels and still continue the game, at least the first one was that way. More recent games became more animeish from that series.

In SRPG Marker game Aldo Senki if you lose nearly every female character before the final battle, you can play as evil brainwashed slaves of one of the empire generals.

Saints Row 2. I hate that they butchered the characterisation in the later games. In 2 the boss was just a greedy prick

wow okay, is this epic or is this epic? lolz

That assumes keeping the species alive is a worthwhile pursuit.
We take it for granted so we never actually question whether or not that it's true.

Not a villain perse but as stale as the gameplay was it did a goddamn good job of displaying a unapologetic revenge story with a good sidedish of edge.
>needs a distraction to escape the city
>burns the fucking city
felt good man.

Attached: Tales-Of-Berseria.jpg (900x506, 95K)

Its not a worthwhile pursuit, its a force of nature, a directive coded into every living species. Except for those special snowflakes which were born depressed and end up kyssing themselves.

Chuuni hooker :DDDD

The biographies are really good icing on the cake. Sone of them make you feel bad for killing them.

Attached: 35-mplayerc_2007-08-06_18-34-10-94.jpg (1024x768, 328K)

>no game where you can bully the bully until she breaks down adn you can remold her into your perfect little girl

Attached: 1539889149850.png (322x241, 45K)

Manchildren can't handle it. Remember how a single game has been causing immeasurable butthurt here since its launch? Now imagine if there were more.

Attached: Spec-Ops-The-Line.jpg (1280x720, 725K)

>twist is you were the villain all along

Attached: s1kppynuwzlazqv6rx9d.jpg (836x470, 105K)

Aren't those special snowflakes also a product of natural encoding?
And why does human judgement have to bend the knee to nature?

You're not really a villain there, just a really bad guy

>see put of civilians
>user YOU HAVE TO THROW SOME WILLY PETE INTO THIS EMPTY PIT
>no nigga wat the fuck there are civilians down there
>run all around looking for something else
>COME ON DUDE JUST FIRE SOME OF THAT JUICY WP DOWN THIS PRIME LITTLE FUCKABLE HOLE WITH ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN IT
>10 minutes later, realize there is only one way to advance
>do it
>OH MY GOD YOU FUCKING MONSTER HOW COULD YOU THOSE WERE INNOCENT PEOPLE YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO DO THIS
this game is trash

>accidently got nonstandard game over whilst looking for extra Voice dialogue in the Song's antechamber
>Oh, well I didn't mean for that to happen but whatever let's just carry o-
>sent back to the start
I mean it didn't take long to get back to where I was and I've since done a few hardmode runs but it felt like some real BS at the time.

I liked The Witch and the Hundred Knight.

You work for someone who is undeniably Chaotic Evil, wants to take over the world and does some genuinely bad shit during the game including murder and having people raped, and they never get fully redeemed for their actions. The best ending is even called the Bad Ending.

Attached: 67694311_p8.jpg (1367x1853, 1.81M)

There are plenty of games that let you be a dick or have some half-assed morality system, and games where you take on classic villainous roles like the demon overlord or mad scientist.
But you're almost never REALLY presented as a villain. You're not made to feel like what you're doing is REALLY wrong. You're not shown how your actions hurt innocents, at least nobody who YOU really care about. Because nobody wants to just feel like an asshole for playing a video game.

If you want the player to really FEEL like a villain, to choose to hurt people and feel bad for doing it but not so bad that they just stop playing, then you need to get them invested in the world they're going to ruin.
The most effective way to do that is to let them save the world first. Let them experience the world and its people, and once they've had their fill and wrapped everything up nicely, you present them with the temptation for more.
And it's because they care about the world so much that they're burn it all down because they just want to see what would happen if they took the offer.

Attached: demon.jpg (1280x720, 96K)

It's Walker's mistake, not the player's.

the game is made for gaymer dudebros that immediately dropped the WP. Not for intelligent people like you

>Why is being a villain in a game, not a popular concept?
Saints Row 2
Hatred
Postal/Redux
Rapelay
God of War 2/3
Hitman Contracts/Blood Money
Prototype
Infamous
Bioshock
Fallout in general besides 4
Seriously, there are a lot of games out there with at least the option/freedom to be the big meanie. Get creative OP

Attached: 53a0b377214b8eaf6b136fd9a8669b21.png (437x541, 235K)

It surprised me that the game didn't chicken out on anything. The revenge went ballsdeep and they didn't pussy out. It was a damn shame tho that in the end it was you (the minor bad guys) vs the greater evil which still made you look kinda heroic in the end.

Because everyone is the hero of their own story and whoever gets called a hero is usually the one writing the story in the first place and has already won. There are no heroes or villians just winners and losers.

The Deception games are great, but I really hate what they did to the story in Deception IV: it's not even good "anime", which is such a shame because the games used to have interesting and nuanced stories.
At least the expansion is interesting.

Dungeon Keeper. The narrative intros to every new map were villainous gold. God I hated Smilesville, smug cunts.

the only villain in the dungeon keeper series is EA

No.
They would die in the natural world very fast. Humans are keeping the useless alive for an unnaturally long time.

Because, in truth, being evil in a game about being evil is just as boring as being good in a game about being good.

Being a villain/evil in a game about being good is the ultimate patrician gaming experience.

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 51K)

fucking delivered!

Attached: 1546103100993.jpg (707x1000, 236K)

>774 decided to stop drawing lewd smug immortal lolis for a living and go legit
>Deletes his entire pixiv lewd library
Now, this is a true villain

Attached: 1550229817416.png (546x985, 227K)

Human's are also part of nature, it's just a bit obscured since we use cognitive strategies for decision making.
Social animals like elephants also suicide if they feel that they are not contributing to the group, so it's not a completely maladapted trait, even though some humans come up with pretty maladapted philosophies in order to motivate such behaviour in themselves.

i was imagined overload as what that trailer in dungeon keeper 2 for DK 3 was supposed to be

The industrial revolution happened in a remarkably short amount of time followed by the greatest disasters in history, world wars one and
two. Which did irreparable social damage to the west and crippled the genepool. Humans aren't meant to live in a world like this and the high
suicide rates are due to being so far removed from a healthy natural existence where people have three vital things. Space, time and tribal belonging.

It's not so hard to find your own tribe these days. Just pick your poison.

Any tribes that worship a waifu?

Because almost no one likes being evil by choice. It's really that simple.

Attached: 1x4y9m4g22ky.jpg (1095x1188, 379K)

He did? That deserves respect.

Evil Genius bro

RTS games cover this to some extent, such as playing as the undead Scourge to playing as Chaos Space Marines to playing as China to playing as Beasts.

God I want to rape this smug whore until that look gets wiped off her face.

Just keep posting about your waifu, and your people will find you. People have been worshipping their waifus for at least as long as we have written records (in the form of goddesses); it's something we humans almost do instinctively.

Um, no sweety. Games that let you play up being as shamelessly evil and clearly enjoying it are the best.

>what is literally every game with multiple factions

Hey this ain't half bad

Because there'll always be people complaining about not being able to get the good ending

Attached: 5912ee07ae653aca5c3d1732.jpg (323x433, 37K)

Seems like a lot of people like doing evil things in the sims for example.

Why is being a builder/rebuilder in a game, not a popular concept? I'm tired of being destroyer of everything or walking though destroyed something.

Attached: 1540051489751.png (1920x1080, 2.71M)

Play Sim City 4

Are you being silly? I can hardly think of a AAA sandbox game in recent memory that didn't have some base-building/area retaking-rebuilding mechanic

that's same as pretending to be god in B&W. I want to be in the world not above it.

Fo4, what else?

>Why is being a villain in a game, not a popular concept?
Ever heard of Wolfenstein? You play as polish-jewish terrorist trying to destroy civilization.

this is technically very accurate

fuck off /pol/cuck

but it's literally true, in pre-nazi era jews hoarded all technology for themselves(Da'tYichud or whatever they called themselves) and life was average suffering, in nazi-era there are these cool robots, cyborgs, mostly decent and happy people except for few terrorist snowflakes who literally blow up entire cosmodrome and many others acts of terrorism just because they're angry because, since entire world is already controlled by nazis, your influence won't even have a dent in it, you're literally muslim blowing up shit in europe in that game

based

You make a good point

I always looked at the true and bad endings as whether the future the little dude saw became true or not. If it is true then it's the "true" ending other wise it's the "bad" ending.

You're a James Bond villain in Evil Genius.

just like the original star wars trilogy is about an evil terrorist boy who undermines the good ol' empire. kill yourself nazi

Attached: 13.jpg (1920x1080, 536K)

you play as a anti villain at best

Overlord 1 and 2.

>Undermines
But that's the plan, boy got it planned. B.J.s goal is just to kill as much white people as posibble leaving many families without dad, and it ultimately fails at least in Old Blood/New Order because their larp groups is simply too irelevant and small to change global politics.

People without the means to raise a child who wants to live on this earth should not have children. The idea of people suing parents for unconsensual birth works because if the child wants to do that then they were shitty parents anyway so the fact that there's a suit is itself valid grounds for the suit.

Attached: 1551462119214.jpg (773x925, 88K)

Just remember how muricans reacted to the school shootin game

ebin centrism fren

>the fact that there's a suit is itself valid grounds for the suit.
fucking LOL at this retard logic
>i'm gonna sue you for emotional distress!
>you got any claims or proof?
>well i had to sue you, so that proves it!

Lego games
And Okami, I think

Not him, but it actually makes sense. What I like less is the idea that suing your parents to get material compensation will somehow do anything to your distress.

games like AC and other open world games often allow you to invest into renovating something as well

suing somebody on the grounds that you had to sue them because you had to sue them makes sense? on what fucking cognition plane?
suing someone isn't proof in your case, otherwise every lawsuit would be a default win.

Why do no games let me play as a neutral guy who isn't especially evil or good? I just want to gather my own power and pursue personal goals in a game's narrative without murdering children and eating their souls like satan's incarnation. Pic not related.

Attached: 1546410630991.gif (362x512, 1.86M)

They're not being sued for emotional distress. They're being sued for being shit parents. Anyone who raises a kid who's so heartless that they're willing to sue their own parents is a shit parent. Anyone who raises a kid who's so disdainful towards their own existence is also a shit parent. What's the lawsuit about again? Whether or not they're shit parents.

>Tyranny
>"You can play as the bad guys after the ancient evil wins!"
>you're essentially just an enforcer in a run-of-the-mill autocracy

Attached: islep.jpg (311x260, 35K)

>choice is between being everyone's doormat or torturing people

Harvest Moon

Attached: HM_Fomt_Karen_Red_Heart_2.png (240x160, 12K)

> Anyone who raises a kid who's so heartless that they're willing to sue their own parents is a shit parent.
sure, why not
> Anyone who raises a kid who's so disdainful towards their own existence is also a shit parent.
sure, why not
>What's the lawsuit about again? Whether or not they're shit parents.
then say it like it is - the dude sued them on the grounds that they're shit parents and provided such and such proof(or didn't). saying "yeah if he had to sue them that means he's right" is fucking stupid, because that means any crazy fucking cat lady in the usa mass suing her neighbours for parking in front of her house is right, when it's clearly not the fucking case.

why do you need to post his review to say that

In Caligula's case it's more like you can be a double agent and take some quests from villains.

>no game where you can ignore the bully and go for the bullies cute dumb friend

>no game where one girl is nice to you and the other bullies you to try and hide her love for you and you can fuck the nice girl in front of the bully to torture her back

Attached: DOUpdu9WAAAcIzB.jpg large.jpg (1920x1813, 357K)

>Villain acknowledges that killing unarmed civilians among other things is wrong and probably goes to hell for it
>Does it anyway to save his people while fighting with his conscience
>In turn the war claims his family as well
Balkan, 1994

There are fucking heaps
Play more RPGs tardoid

you play the villain in almost all WW2 games

>he's suing them because they're shit parents
>a good parent's child would never sue them so they must be shit parents
Technically it's not the lawsuit itself that proves the child's case, but the child's willingness to sue his own parents is evidence of the parents to raise a child into a decent human being. Point out the fallacy in this logic.

the parents' inability*

fuck it i need sleep, have fun user

If you notice in a ton of fiction, even narratives about 'bad' characters end up with the character either turning good or doing bad 'for the right reasons'.
I legitimately think authors and game designers can't NOT self-insert as the main protagonist of their narrative at least morally because everyone sees themselves as the hero of their own story. Thus we get no 'villain as protagonist' games, books, or movies because of this.

Nonsense everyone loves mowing down pedestrians in GTA so why wouldn't people want to be an evil overlord/mastermind/career criminal.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 201K)

>Point out the fallacy in this logic.
there is no logic. dude alleges his parents are shit, that's it. there is no proof in that sentence, nad your "logic" is just going in circles
>he has shit parents
>because he needs to sue them
>because he has shit parents

> the child's willingness to sue his own parents is evidence
in street gossip? maybe. in professional court setting? no.

Attached: 1476361934014.png (883x990, 89K)

>tfw whacked off to both the mistress and that winged fairy 3d renders.

Attached: 1550355506780.jpg (1920x1080, 237K)

>No one likes feeling like an asshole.
Boi, I can't get sexual arousal unless I KNOW someone is suffering somewhere.

>no one likes feeling like an asshole.
thing is, assholes don't feel like assholes, they feel like they're in the right.

Just imagine MSG V with that concept.

Because you have to write it terribly for it to be socially acceptable. The last time it was done & written well, it was the most depressing thing ever.

Attached: RevyaKillsFuckingEveryone.jpg (1000x734, 880K)

That's what made Soul Nomad's Demon Path work. Because the Demon Path requires you to beat the Normal Path (sure, there's a way to get to the Demon Path much earlier, but good luck fighting lv 100+ enemies at the start of the game), so you're forced to get to know the characters and world and how everything became the way it is. That way, once you hit the Demon Path, it hits much harder just how much everything has changed. What happens when that girl gets raped like her adoptive father had intended? What happens when the arrogant captain gets enslaved before he's allowed to go through character development? What happens when his superior is forced to switch sides in order to save his son? And not changes have to be for the worse either. The big doofus who couldn't cast magic for his life is suddenly forced to become stronger when the whole world is on the line. The monster hiding inside a simple bumpkin waiting to accomplish his evil plan suddenly has a change of heart when people start relying on him to save them. Many characters are forced to become better just as much as many others fall to evil/insanity, and because you've already seen them what happens when you're not evil, you're that much more invested.

Most of those are still anti-heroes who are just doing bad shit 'for the greater good'.

Another thing that makes the Demon Path work is the progression from just another kid to the most dangerous tyrant on the planet and the power fantasy that comes from it. You start the game as a nobody, killing people for shits and giggles. However, as you meet more characters, they encourage you to aim for far more than wanton massacre and you take them up on it, sacking city after city until you take down the biggest kingdom in the country. Then you decide that you want to leave your mark in the most badass way possible, so you declare yourself the Devourlord and create the most kickass Empire ever. However, even your "allies" are getting tired or fearful of your shenanigans while your enemies have slowly grown in power and numbers, eventually culminating in a final battle against everyone. You've ridden this power high all the way to this point and you're not letting these guys in the way of that.

The best part of all of this is that this is no higher villain above you. So many games, especially those with moral choice systems, have to have a villain at the top as the character's motivation, making you feel less like a villain and more like a really shitty hero without ever feeling like you're growing into the villain role.

Otherwise he wouldn't get 3 cents for his post.

Gee maybe because it doesn't feel good to do bad things.

I don't know about that. Forcing Zaalbar to kill Mission instead of doing it yourself in KOTOR was priceless.

Yeah, as I mentioned earlier, you're not so much a villain in those games as much as shitty heroes. Take Infamous for example. Most of that game is still trying to take down Kessler and most of the choices don't go beyond whether or not a nameless NPC gets killed. Maybe if there were missions where Cole got to build his own gang to take control of the city or a mission where you can make Voice of Survival change his stance on you at lightning point, then you'd have a point. Heck, the fact that Cole takes all that shit from his shitty girlfriend really diminishes any good villain points he has. Seriously, why didn't he just off her?

All of this, Soul Nomad's Demon Path was legit horrifying because you really saw how much you fucked things over from making one bad choice and it's hard to stomach because these are people you know. Most games never come to that sort of level and as said it's pretty hard to write a satisfactory villain narrative where you're playing it.

and then what?

Others have answered it better but a large part of it comes from the fact that typically speaking, most people do not like to engage in obvious acts of evil.
You can try and mask the acts under a veil of necessity (I was being attacked so I burned that village down!) or being part of some greater good (I may be evil but my enemies are savages!) but at that point you are making a game about an anti-hero at best.

That being said if you keep it abstract it's possible. You can play as a villain in Civ games by waging war and wreaking havoc to everything around you mostly because that's just a couple clicks and texts telling you stuff rather than any detailed depictions.

Attached: 1496873615880.jpg (1280x720, 81K)

>he's right
god damn it, fuck this gay earth

That's because Spec Ops gave you choices except for the one big choice and then berated you for the unavoidable choice. If you just make it so I can't kill people in certain ways and make it wholly linear then it's not like I can complain. Spec Ops did it in an awful way by presenting choice when it shouldn't have ever let you choose anything at all.

Why aren't there games like Overlord where they make the "innocents" selfish and stupid to the point where you don't feel bad being evil and doing things like . killing them, ransacking their houses or making them starve?

Attached: 1552786609172.jpg (500x713, 125K)

morality and good/evil concepts are mainly evolutionary elements given magical meanings. they come from the instincts. instinct to survive makes death and theft evil (death obvious, theft because less resources like food, shelter or weapons = less chance to survive). instinct to reproduce makes adultery and theft evil (theft of resources = less ability to attract mates, adultery = cuckoldry, failure to reproduce). practically all moral values respond to one or more of these instincts, either of alpha or beta mindset.

communist and religious morals are all about beta mindset and human instincts (protect the weak, oppress the strong to create an equally grey, weak uniform herd), while capitalist morals are closer to alpha mindset, natural selection and human instincts (strong thrive, weak shape up to become strong or fail).

Dungeon Keeper teaches you to be evil and fun at the same time.

Spec Ops never berated you, it berated the character
the narrative is designed to make you identify less and less with the protagonist as the story plays out. by the time shit really hits the fan you should have realized your role is an audience to this chucklefuck's tragedy of errors, to judge the protagonist

this place is crawling with e-celeb worshipping faggots and shills

BEWARE!
THE LORD OF THE LAND APPROACHES!

Attached: dk42.jpg (700x435, 60K)

Except that's not something that happens to you when you are literally allowed to choose who dies in what order. The entire scene after the white phosphorus where you can choose the snipers, the people, or the rope is a perfect example of shit you shouldn't allow the player to do. People don't view a character from the outside even when you reach the end and that's the fault of the developers for giving the player choice. Infinite enemy respawns is just a middle finger to the player when you let them choose if they want to shoot innocent people or run past certain things in the prior areas because it shows you that you can make choices except when they feel like you can't.

If you take away choice and make it linear you have no option but to separate yourself from the character and see him as his own thing rather than someone who can enact choices you choose to happen.

it wouldn't be escapism otherwise.

>capture him
>train him to max level
>possess him
>he's better than the actual strongest unit in the game because of that self-heal ability
>massacre the enemy base by yourself
Good times.

we have a winner!

Attached: velvet.jpg (850x1205, 236K)

>to fulfil a biological imperative, which in most people causes increasing levels of anxiety the longer it is neglected

>Elder God Tier: A villain whose motives are hard to find fault in and even arguably better than the hero's

This is, to Yea Forums, the magnus opum bad guy and yet someone still made this retarded ass post, which means one of two things, you're either an absolute newfag or are an absolute pseud

>What's that?
>It's no longer [mai waifu], now that's the physical manifestation of everyone's hopes and dream
>Well, let's destroy it so we can go back to the real world
FFTA is a treasure

Literally wtf are you on about

Marche wanted out because it was an illusion ruled by a demon. If him and his friends wanted to be in Ivalice, they would have returned (to the real one) by the events of FFTA2, but they didnt