Jimquisition: To Play The Villain


New member
Jun 19, 2013
"I relaxed and let the slimey cum pool i-"



New member
Aug 25, 2010
I still don't see why people think the protagonists in GTA V are that bad. I haven't finished it yet, so maybe they do something a lot worse at the end? or is it just the mean old torture scene that makes them so terrible? I'm not saying they're nice guys, not at all. I just don't understand why people think they're that evil.


books, Books, BOOKS
Apr 8, 2020
United States
And here I was thinking that the age verification thing was for the torture scene. Instead we got gay furry porn.

After hearing that I think I'd much prefer to watch the torture scene, but maybe I'm just broken. Or something's wrong with me. I dunno.

Anyways, I don't mind playing as villains if it's done right. I'm not a fan of GTA, that's more of a personal preference more than anything else, but I can see how people flock to the game to be a total bastard. I think it all depends on the context for me and if it makes sense, and being a total bastard just for the sake of it with no meaning is more off putting to me more than anything else.


New member
Jan 19, 2011
Orekoya said:
That's kinda a problem because this is a published graphic novel for sale that someone sent him and comics that contain copyrighted characters don't tend to be published for sale because of legalities.
I was under the impression you could buy henti books of copyrighted characters. I've seen hundreds of them for everything pertaining to anime, video games, etc. When these things are posted online, they are usually labeled as 'scans' from their respective books as well, and they certainly look like they've been scanned from a book. That said, I don't know if the people making these should be making them, nor will I agree/disagree with the practice. Just saying they exist.


New member
Jun 18, 2008
Daystar Clarion said:
Huh, wonder why there was an age ga- *Jim proceeds to read furry porn.*

Though somehow it was still less disturbing than his poem about miltank.


New member
Jun 15, 2010
Oh crap. what gay furry porn was he sent? O_O

*Sees it School Daze*

Oh that. Could have been worse. *shrugs*


New member
May 1, 2013
I love Niko to bits. Even though his name is as unsubtle as it gets. "Niko" sounds Eastern European, but is not an actual Serbian name. It comes from "Nikovo", Russian (Niko is a Serbian, mind) for "Nobody". "Bellic", is from bellicose, or just "war" (Latin: Bellum, i think) in general. Nobody from the War. That's him. That's a miserable, arguably suicidal, crestfallen, self-loathing, fatalistic, nihilistic, but noble cynic. Noble, in that he feels obligated to protect the very few people he finds himself drawn to. It's like some murderous but not-quite-completely-evil revenant of some horrifying event (Yugoslav Wars).
Problems are:
1. There's nowhere for him to go, no self-betterment possible, no dream to struggle towards, no victory to achieve. He acknowledges as much himself. His story as a human being ended with one of the most inhuman conflicts of the 20th century.
2. He's a genuinely awful person in most of the ways that count, but he is definitely not the type fit as an open-world crime game protagonist. He's far, FAR too reserved for that. He may kill you if given a reason (money being a good enough one, usually), but he's not going to just flip out and initiate Operation Blaze of Glory.
Thus, GTA IV had a decent-ish story with a decently written (I thought) protagonist, and was also incredibly jarring.
Oh yeah and BIG AMERICAN TITTAIS gets annoying after a while.
Driving without mods was shit too.
Maybe it was just not a great game.


Oct 16, 2012
GTA is dystopian. In gaming and literary senses, I quite like some dystopian worlds: They are interesting and thought-provoking, and the notion of playing the bad guy is best realised in such an environment. But this collection of all the worst parts of American society (exaggerated to the point of non-semblance to the original; I'm not having a go at America here) has never presented a character compelling enough or gameplay fun enough to hook me.
I don't believe for a second that these games influence real life violence, or that playing the villian in games is connected to wrong behaviour. But I just don't want to explore GTA's crude, socially ugly worlds. They are intended to be ugly: it isn't that way by accident. Guns, drugs and crime lack any appeal in this context. Vice City came the closest to providing a compelling narrative, with a few characters that I enjoyed listening to. But that is part of the problem.

Listening to dull, lifeless dialog from lowlife characters, separated in equal measures by running/driving to the next point, clumsy shooting and aimless urban wandering is not fun for me.

That said, if there is something new and amazingly different with this new one then I'd love to hear about it. The heists didn't look too bad.


New member
Aug 12, 2013
Alien1375 said:
So playing a psychopath torturing a man by pulling his teeth out and waterboarding him is fun, but a game where you rape a woman is bad mmmkay?


Hypocrite much? mmmmmmhhhhhmmmmmmhhhh.....
I was hoping someone would point this out. Would Jim really be so eager to play as a "reprehensible" villain who was also a rapist? I mean, that's something criminal scumbags do in real life. Happens a lot.

Still excited to play as the villain?


New member
Jun 17, 2010
Mm, personally I prefer to run paragon, while I do find villains fascinating and many of them quite endearing in a twisted kind of way, they're not the kind of individuals I want to BE, and that sense of discomfort is enough that I just can't even get into the role on the level you're talking about.


A Mistake
Jun 24, 2011
The second I read the title of the book you pulled up in the beginning, School Daze, I literally spit my drink out.

"I won't show you the pictures inside, they're a bit... Salty for the children"... Indeed, you could even say they're quite Sea Salty...


Engh... ._.


New member
Mar 22, 2012
I'm not sure what's worse, the fact that I recognised that comic the moment he held it up, and can name the main character and the author's screen name, or the fact that he has a solid copy that I didn't know existed.


New member
Jul 8, 2011
Good vid Jim. What I have found interesting in the wake of GTA V is how invested people are having the idea that they are good.

Personally I am more for interesting stuff that allows me to grow and learn, experiment and know the world a bit more. Don't remember the last time I did something because it was the right thing.

Screamarie said:
I actually have a hard time playing a bad guy. I don't know why, I know these are virtual worlds, no one really cares what I do in this world.
Brain is not that good at differentiating virtual from real. Let me frame that, your brain does know with their higher functions, but not the lower more instinctual ones; that is why you can see people crying when a celebrity dies even though they never met and rightfully they shouldn't give a crap about them, but the brain has seen the celebrity enough to form an emotional connection. Fun trivia, did you knew your brain is active in almost the same areas when you jack off to something or have sex with someone?


New member
Apr 13, 2009
Jim's defense of playing the bad guy sort of reminds me of how an audience member (I'll just say me) felt while watching The Devil's Rejects, a movie that is evil and disgusting but is a "good" movie purely by virtue of the fact the movie doesn't detract from the Family's evil: They are vile human beings, but doesn't make them Robin Hood types or any other then morally reprehensible monsters.

I don't play many games anymore, but I have a friend who is planning on buying GTA5 soon, I may just play his game and experience the evil for myself. I have no problem playing Manhunt, playing GTA5 can't be much worse, can it?

Great video, Jim. May I say those descriptions were suitably... nauseating, but I'd rather have you read them then anybody else (well, maybe Brian Blessed or Patrick Stewart).


New member
Oct 9, 2008
Imp Emissary said:
geizr said:
GTA is not a series that has ever, and likely will never, appeal to me simply because I can't get past the idea of playing such disreputable characters. I will admit this may seem odd because when I play the board games Descent: Journeys in the Dark (first edition), Mansions of Madness, and Super Dungeon Explore, I am almost always (like 95% of the time) playing the role of the evil overlord, and in all of those games, the rules of the game make explicitly clear that my role is to absolutely murder the heroes. For anyone who plays these games with me in which I'm playing the evil overlord, I make it very clear, especially to new players, that this is the nature of the game and how I shall proceed about it, and I am very, very vicious in my role (I seriously do everything to absolutely _DESTROY_ the hero players). But, we all still have fun.

Now, having said all that, while GTA is not my particular cup-of-tea, I do have to wonder about giving the game a 3/10 review score. If the only complaint Greg Tito had (by the way, I have not read his review; I'm just throwing questions out there for now) that justifies the 3/10 is that he did not like the characters being so despicable, then I would have to say that that feels like an unfair score to me. However, if there are significant demerits regarding the games design and construction, for example, poor controls, poorly written story, poor graphics, excessive bugs, poor gameplay, poor game mechanics, exceptionally bad sound, etc., then there is more reason to believe the 3/10 score, and the disreputable characters are simply the psychological icing on the cake that pushed his opinion further to the extreme to a 3/10 rather than something more like 5/10 or 6/10. Perhaps 4/10 would be a more appropriate score in the later case in an effort to give more proper meaning to the 1 -10 scale of game rating, with scores like 4/10, 5/10, and 6/10 having the meanings of slightly below average, average, and slightly above average, respectively, in quality.

I don't know the exact answer. I need to actually read his review; though, that my not clarify my own opinion much more since GTA is not the kind of game I find preferential to play.
It was 3.5 out of 5. Not Ten. Also, besides the characters (and some of the writing/themes of the game), Greg actually seemed to like GTA 5.

He just said that playing characters who to him seemed like just terrible people, in the end wore him down.

The difference between GTA 5 and other games where you play terrible people, like Spec OPS The Line, is hundreds of hours of being that evil person you don't like.

Some people seem to be forgetting what Jim first said in the video. If you don't like playing the game because you don't like the characters, that is a fair complaint.

Think about it. In the game if you do well at playing you're rewarded. And with story games, one of those rewards is seeing how well the characters do after you help them out. However, if you don't like the characters, then you are then made to help out people you don't like. Thus people you may even hate benefit from your efforts.
If that's how you feel about the game, then it's hard for it to be fun. Not many enjoy helping out people they don't like.
"Congratulations! That person you hate now has even more money and time to spend on being a prick!"

It's not about being the good guys or the bad guys, it's about if you can personally like the characters.
That comes down to the quality of writing, and personal taste.

For example, if you just list off the things The Joker has done without context, then most will end up thinking he is one of the most vile people on earth. People love the Joker, even though he is kind of just plain evil, because of the stories he is in, and the dialogue he is given.
I had heard in Jim's video that the game was given a 3/10. It is possible that I misheard or misconstrued this fact, but that is the perception I was going by in my post. I presented my opinion on why or why not such a score may be justified given two particular hypothetical situations, and I explicitly mentioned (or tried to make somewhat clear) that these points were hypothetical. In my opinion, simply not liking the particular type of character being played is not sufficient to warrant such a low score (though it is definitely sufficient to warrant not wanting to play the game); however, if there were other significant details germane to the quality of design and construction of the game in which the game faired significantly poorly in those regards, then the score may be more justified.

Now, taking what you're saying at face-value, that the score is actually 3.5/5, then this starts sounding a little like the "Hate out of 10" problem that Jim has talked on in a previous video. Couple this also with the score inflation that has been assigned to the perceived meaning of review scores, instead of 5/10 being of average quality, 8/10 is taken as being of average quality.

This probably also points out how a singular review score is not sufficient due to the subjectiveness of the review. A reviewer that prefers a particular type, aesthetic, genre, or style of game is likely to give a significantly higher score to a game than one that is ambivalent or disliking of the game's type, aesthetic, genre, or style. In my opinion, it would be nice to have review scores done in triplets, with one score by a reviewer that has preference for the game, one score by a reviewer that is ambivalent preference for the game, and one score by a review that has adverse preference for the game. These scores would, of course, need to be clearly marked as such. The unfortunately problem with such a system is that it is extremely time and personnel intensive and likely impractical to implement by any singular reviewing publication. However, across the aggregate of reviewing publications (i.e., using the power of the Internet), this may be more realizable. If there is the cross-publication standard for reviewers to clearly notate their preference for the game, then it becomes possible for game buyers to look across reviews and see the balance of scores between the different levels of preference and make a between judgement of the quality of the game. (There probably also needs to be a cross-publication standard for review scores and how they are assigned, but I think most people are smart enough to do the conversion mentally.) The assumption here is that a game of nearly "objectively" (I use that word with a continent made entirely of salt attached) high quality should garner a reasonably high score (7-8/10 or better) from even those of ambivalent or adverse preference toward the game, given those with preference for the game a greater sense of comfort that the game will be one they intensely enjoy. Essentially, it would be nice to have some idea how the reviewer's subjective personal preferences slant his/her particular review score and have that clearly notated.

We all know that one really needs to read the review, not just look at the score, but the score does make a nice quick filter, if the gamer already has sufficient knowledge to determine if the game is within his preference. However, for those borderline cases, for example 6-8/10, filtering by review score becomes error prone, and the gamer is forced to spend effort researching reviews carefully to determine the worth of purchasing a game. While this is doable, it can become exhaustive after a sufficient number of games. At such a point, the gamer will likely just ignore any reviews and just seek a means of pre-testing the game (rentals or borrowing from a friend, relative, etc.) to determine directly if the game is worth purchasing. It becomes the point that only in the extreme cases that the review score allows quick decision on purchase. Even then, due to various corruptions of the review process that may occur, extreme high scores may be held as suspect.

Gah! Sorry for the wall-o-text response. Long story short, I wasn't really trying to state definitely one way or the other on the particulars of Greg's score, only that I could see justification in one situation but not so much in the other, without making any declaration on the exact situation that occurred, since, as I explicitly admitted, I hadn't actually taken the time to read Greg's review.


New member
Aug 22, 2013
Nice topic, we need more playable villains. And Kudos for whoever had the required level of madness to send that reading item to Jim.

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
Thank you Jim X( And I'm fresh out of brain bleach too.
You're right though, villains tend to be better developed and more fleshed out than the heroes, but I'm not very good at playing as one.
Aug 1, 2010
Having finished the video, I now understand the age check.

Thank you for that, Jim.
[sub/]redrusker's work is the best[/sub]

I agree for the most part. Playing a villain is far more interesting.

Where I disagree is playing someone I hope doesn't succeed. That just makes me want to turn off the console to thwart the bastard.