What if the player character in a game was the villain?

[RickyRich]

God of War and [Prototype] would like to have a word with you.

These are all anti-heroes, not villains. Villains are the guys that are evil and don't give two fucks either way. Anti-heroes are doing what they do for a good cause, but in the wrong way.

God of War 1, sure.

God of War 2 is Zeus stripping Kratos of his powers for abusing them and Kratos reacting by setting out to kill Zeus and anything and everything standing in his way.

God of War 3 is Kratos destroying the very foundations of existance in a quest for revenge, with a slight silver lining at the end.

Prototype is (trying to be) an anti-hero story, sure, but Alex Mercer is anything but a hero, anti- or otherwise.

Towards the second and third games, Kratos does start acting like an ass, more than usual anyway, and it does get mildly villainous. And I see your point with Mercer as well, he is painted as the "good" guy and victim most of the time, but it could be hard to see that after watching his city wide killing spree.

 

[ComradeJim270]

While not inherently such at the beginning of the games, you have a choice at the end of the game in both Dark and Demon's Souls to be a villain. While the actuality of being a villain is debatable in Dark Souls, depending on how you view it, you can most certainly become the villain in Demon's Souls. :x I agree, though. I would enjoy a JRPG wherein you are the villain. Now THAT would be interesting.

I thought of one! inFamous! And now I wait for people to call me stupid because they haven't actually beaten inFamous yet.

I don't have a PS3 and haven't gotten very far into Dark Souls yet, so I can't really comment on those games... but a game where you're a villain at the end is not quite the same thing as a game where you're a villain the whole time, and a game where it's an option is not the same as one where it's required.

 

[Exius Xavarus]

While not inherently such at the beginning of the games, you have a choice at the end of the game in both Dark and Demon's Souls to be a villain. While the actuality of being a villain is debatable in Dark Souls, depending on how you view it, you can most certainly become the villain in Demon's Souls. :x I agree, though. I would enjoy a JRPG wherein you are the villain. Now THAT would be interesting.

I thought of one! inFamous! And now I wait for people to call me stupid because they haven't actually beaten inFamous yet.

I don't have a PS3 and haven't gotten very far into Dark Souls yet, so I can't really comment on those games... but a game where you're a villain at the end is not quite the same thing as a game where you're a villain the whole time, and a game where it's an option is not the same as one where it's required.

If you get a chance to play and beat inFamous, you'll realize Cole isn't a villain just at the end. And if you felt like roleplaying it a certain way(because Dark Souls and Demon's Souls are both, indeed, RPGs) you could roleplay them as a villain should you so choose, with their final goals in your mind. So I like to think that you can still be the villain in Demon's/Dark Souls.^^ I understand it's not the exact same thing where you're straight and bound as a villain for the game, but I believe my own suggestions are still valid as any other.

(this post has been edited many times)

 

[burningdragoon]

While not inherently such at the beginning of the games, you have a choice at the end of the game in both Dark and Demon's Souls to be a villain. While the actuality of being a villain is debatable in Dark Souls, depending on how you view it, you can most certainly become the villain in Demon's Souls. :x I agree, though. I would enjoy a JRPG wherein you are the villain. Now THAT would be interesting.

I thought of one! inFamous! And now I wait for people to call me stupid because they haven't actually beaten inFamous yet.

I don't have a PS3 and haven't gotten very far into Dark Souls yet, so I can't really comment on those games... but a game where you're a villain at the end is not quite the same thing as a game where you're a villain the whole time, and a game where it's an option is not the same as one where it's required.

It's kind of cheating to include a game with such a minimalist story in this thing, but after the tutorial, one of the NPCs in Demon's Souls straight up asks if you are there for the power of demon souls or to save the world. You don't explicitly answer, but there are plenty of ways to play the game as pure villain.

 

[krazykidd]

Dungeon Keeper and Evil Genius.

You're the bad guy. There's no "moral choice" or ambiguity, you are plainly and unarguably the villain.

I do have to say... I disagree with people saying that many RPGs offer you the choice to be the villain. They will allow you to perform villainous actions, but not to be the villain. There's always something more evil that you're forced to fight against, or somewhat less commonly there's enough moral ambiguity that there isn't a clear "villain" at all.

This . Almost all these responses are not answers to the question OP stated . Either villain took on a new definition or people don't know what a villain is.

That being said i would love to play a JRPG where i am the villain. Hell i would even play a jrpg where i am not the villain but the villain wins at the end.

While not inherently such at the beginning of the games, you have a choice at the end of the game in both Dark and Demon's Souls to be a villain. While the actuality of being a villain is debatable in Dark Souls, depending on how you view it, you can most certainly become the villain in Demon's Souls. :x I agree, though. I would enjoy a JRPG wherein you are the villain. Now THAT would be interesting.

I thought of one! inFamous! And now I wait for people to call me stupid because they haven't actually beaten inFamous yet.

I know right? Why has no one made a jrpg where i am the villain yet , THERES you innovation.

Now i don't think you can count youself as a villain if the last thing you do is evil. I mean seriously . Sure it could be the EVIL ending but still . I want a villain from start to finish. Someone who is define as "the bad guy" from go . Not ,"well was not sure but ima be an asshoel" nor " well i was good then made questionable decisions" , i want " yeah i'm out to destroy the world and no one is going to stop me" villain. I want to play a game as sephiroth or kefka from go and see how it plays out .

I think to be a villain you have to be defined as a villain , not just switch teams midway . No moral choice , just i am the bad guy , you are the good , let's do this .

Bayonetta came close i think , which vs angels is a good start i guess.

 

[Exius Xavarus]

Dungeon Keeper and Evil Genius.

You're the bad guy. There's no "moral choice" or ambiguity, you are plainly and unarguably the villain.

I do have to say... I disagree with people saying that many RPGs offer you the choice to be the villain. They will allow you to perform villainous actions, but not to be the villain. There's always something more evil that you're forced to fight against, or somewhat less commonly there's enough moral ambiguity that there isn't a clear "villain" at all.

This . Almost all these responses are not answers to the question OP stated . Either villain took on a new definition or people don't know what a villain is.

That being said i would love to play a JRPG where i am the villain. Hell i would even play a jrpg where i am not the villain but the villain wins at the end.

While not inherently such at the beginning of the games, you have a choice at the end of the game in both Dark and Demon's Souls to be a villain. While the actuality of being a villain is debatable in Dark Souls, depending on how you view it, you can most certainly become the villain in Demon's Souls. :x I agree, though. I would enjoy a JRPG wherein you are the villain. Now THAT would be interesting.

I thought of one! inFamous! And now I wait for people to call me stupid because they haven't actually beaten inFamous yet.

I know right? Why has no one made a jrpg where i am the villain yet , THERES you innovation.

Now i don't think you can count youself as a villain if the last thing you do is evil. I mean seriously . Sure it could be the EVIL ending but still . I want a villain from start to finish. Someone who is define as "the bad guy" from go . Not ,"well was not sure but ima be an asshoel" nor " well i was good then made questionable decisions" , i want " yeah i'm out to destroy the world and no one is going to stop me" villain. I want to play a game as sephiroth or kefka from go and see how it plays out .

I think to be a villain you have to be defined as a villain , not just switch teams midway . No moral choice , just i am the bad guy , you are the good , let's do this .

Bayonetta came close i think , which vs angels is a good start i guess.

Actually, as I explained earlier, and as burningdragon said, you can indeed play a villain in Demon's Souls from beginning to end. Black Phantoms aren't exactly warm fuzzy creatures. Now, I admit that anyone who hasn't already completed Demon's Souls wouldn't know to have these goals in mind, but to someone like me, who has completed the game, I could roleplay my character as someone that is completely power-hungry, bloodthirsty and feels no remorse for any action he commits. Out to slay anything and everything in my way for more power, with goals not to save Boletaria, but to ensure its, and the world's, destruction. Which is exactly what I do at the end of the game.

 

[uzo]

Portal.

The cake WASN'T a lie.

 

[ComradeJim270]

If you get a chance to play and beat inFamous, you'll realize Cole isn't a villain just at the end. And if you felt like roleplaying it a certain way(because Dark Souls and Demon's Souls are both, indeed, RPGs) you could roleplay them as a villain should you so choose, with their final goals in your mind. So I like to think that you can still be the villain in Demon's/Dark Souls.^^ I understand it's not the exact same thing where you're straight and bound as a villain for the game, but I believe my own suggestions are still valid as any other.

(this post has been edited many times)

I certainly didn't mean to suggest that your suggestions are any less valid than others. Sorry if I came off that way. What I was getting at is that a game where you can choose to be a villain is not quite the same as a game designed around the idea that you are. It's certainly closer, though, than a game that puts you in the role of an anti-hero.

 

[triggrhappy94]

Um...

It's alittle old but holds up really well. It's also pretty challenge.

 

[Fantasylord]

I actually look for games where you can play as the villain though in the case of games where its more an option than the only way i go good first then evil the second time around especially if I found the game to be really fun.

 

[Andrux51]

*snip*
Actually, as I explained earlier, and as burningdragon said, you can indeed play a villain in Demon's Souls from beginning to end. Black Phantoms aren't exactly warm fuzzy creatures. Now, I admit that anyone who hasn't already completed Demon's Souls wouldn't know to have these goals in mind, but to someone like me, who has completed the game, I could roleplay my character as someone that is completely power-hungry, bloodthirsty and feels no remorse for any action he commits. Out to slay anything and everything in my way for more power, with goals not to save Boletaria, but to ensure its, and the world's, destruction. Which is exactly what I do at the end of the game.

This is really getting to the root of my original question. The downside here of course being that you have to know the story to "game the system" in a way that makes you constantly the villain. There's also, I assume (I haven't played the game, but let's say 90% chance) a huge nudge in the direction of doing the right thing, i.e. saving the world instead of blowing it up.

Someone said about seeing a game from Kefka or Sephiroth's point of view. That's good, but would you necessarily run into the issue of a hero stopping you (or trying to) from reaching your goals? Do you think it would be necessary for a game to have a hero-villain dynamic? or could there just be a villain running amok?

Or entirely separate, what about something we see in hollywood and games all the time, where the hero shows up just in time to save the day (in the context of this thread - to stop you, the villain), and taking that away and having the hero show up too late or not at all?

 

[ComradeJim270]

This is really getting to the root of my original question. The downside here of course being that you have to know the story to "game the system" in a way that makes you constantly the villain. There's also, I assume (I haven't played the game, but let's say 90% chance) a huge nudge in the direction of doing the right thing, i.e. saving the world instead of blowing it up.

Someone said about seeing a game from Kefka or Sephiroth's point of view. That's good, but would you necessarily run into the issue of a hero stopping you (or trying to) from reaching your goals? Do you think it would be necessary for a game to have a hero-villain dynamic? or could there just be a villain running amok?

Or entirely separate, what about something we see in hollywood and games all the time, where the hero shows up just in time to save the day (in the context of this thread - to stop you, the villain), and taking that away and having the hero show up too late or not at all?

Here, I have a link for you. Enjoy!

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheBadGuyWins

 

[Exius Xavarus]

Le snip.

I certainly didn't mean to suggest that your suggestions are any less valid than others. Sorry if I came off that way. What I was getting at is that a game where you can choose to be a villain is not quite the same as a game designed around the idea that you are. It's certainly closer, though, than a game that puts you in the role of an anti-hero.

No worries. This is quite true. I think some people like to confuse anti-heroes for villains, though.

Le snip, again.

This is really getting to the root of my original question. The downside here of course being that you have to know the story to "game the system" in a way that makes you constantly the villain. There's also, I assume (I haven't played the game, but let's say 90% chance) a huge nudge in the direction of doing the right thing, i.e. saving the world instead of blowing it up.

Someone said about seeing a game from Kefka or Sephiroth's point of view. That's good, but would you necessarily run into the issue of a hero stopping you (or trying to) from reaching your goals? Do you think it would be necessary for a game to have a hero-villain dynamic? or could there just be a villain running amok?

Or entirely separate, what about something we see in hollywood and games all the time, where the hero shows up just in time to save the day (in the context of this thread - to stop you, the villain), and taking that away and having the hero show up too late or not at all?

To be perfectly honest, I think a Final Fantasy from Sephiroth's point of view would be rather interesting. Spending the game actually carrying out his plans. And my own personal opinion, Sephiroth's battle with Cloud is complete bogus, because Sephiroth is many times stronger and infinitely more skilled. The only reason Cloud won is because "derp, he's the good guy." I can't say a hero-villain dynamic is entirely necessary, but I think something of the sort can be used.

Say you've lived a life of poverty, raised by parents that couldn't give a rat's spit for your well-being, forced to eke out a living selling your sword/gun/abilities, kind of the same way a mercenary does. But the character feels no remorse or regret, and has no issue stealing and slaughtering for your personal gain. You finally decide it's time to show this world who you are, and why it's time for you to get what you want. You lie, cheat, steal, kill and manipulate, to achieve dominance, but the story takes a fork. You could either set out to ruin everything that the world is(quite how, I'm too tired to think of right now), or you can set out to rule it, and create an empire of your own to control and either expand or destroy as you see fit.

I have no idea where I'm going with this.

In regards to that huge push in the direction of doing the right thing:

Spoiler: Read at your own risk, mortal!

There isn't.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

I was just wondering, thinking about games like Uncharted and such, a lot of games have anti-heroes for the main character. But what if a game had the player cast as a straight up villain, who's motivated by greed or personal gain instead of trying to help some greater good?

I'd really like to see more games like this, often it's nice to unwind and get a sneak peak into the logic of a villain. But here are just three pure villains I can think of.

Kratos - God of War

Whilst Kratos starts out as an anti-hero on a quest to redeem himself, save his family and take control of his life, he eventually declines into a pit of his own hatred. By God of War 2 he's already accepted that he'll never recover his family and is using his omnipotence to aid his stand-in family of Spartan warriors in taking over anything and everything. By God of War 3 he's been screwed over by the Gods, has no hope of seeing either his real family or his Spartans again and is then screwed over by the Titans. He's just a hate machine on a mission to kill anything, because it's all he knows how to do. There are no clean cut heroes and villains in the series, but Kratos steadily declines from anti-hero to villain.

The Boss - Saints Row

Saints Row follows a similar structure. Each game sees the decline of the protagonist from a guy who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, to a power hungry gang leader. By Saints Row the Third there isn't much the guy won't do to bring the Saints to the top in Steelport.

Alex Mercer - Prototype
Alex starts off as an anti-hero, but like Kratos this changes as his quest for revenge and answers about his girlfriend goes on. He continually gets screwed over and by the end of the game he's killing anyone who gets in his way, saving only those who can help him.

 

[ChupathingyX]

I'm kinda surprised no one has mentioned Destroy All Humans! and Destroy All Humans! 2.

"One giant step on mankind"

 

[uzo]

Ever played Dreamweb? I've mentionde it here before. Old game from the dawn of CD-ROMs (it was only CD-ROM because every bit of text in it was spoken).

You played Ryan, a guy who was told in a dream that certain evil, insidious celebrities were polluting the 'Dreamweb' - a mystical repository of human goodness. Or something. And naturally, the only way to protect goodness was to eliminate these evil people.

WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE.


This was basically a puzzle game. Think 'Kings Quest', where you have to kill a group of apparently unconnected, random people in a dark and dingy futuristic world. The atmosphere is dark ... it's always raining ... the music broods and lurks ... and you will kill anyone who gets in your way 'for their own good'.

And it's not like you run into a lobby and start blowing away security guards a la Matrix. You kill some rock star's bodyguards ... one you shoot in the face, the other you nail with a fire axe. Then you blow the rock star's brains out with one of his groupie chicks cowering under the bed. There's the TV station security guard you 'retire'. Or the woman you blow in half and then sit next to, discussing why you've blown her in half. With her top half, I mean. Oh yeah .. she's still conscious at this point.

And they were all just innocent victims your diseased mind targeted.


Does this sound like a hero to you?

 

[Manji187]

I was just wondering, thinking about games like Uncharted and such, a lot of games have anti-heroes for the main character. But what if a game had the player cast as a straight up villain, who's motivated by greed or personal gain instead of trying to help some greater good?

Unthinkingly doing evil for evil's sake is utterly uninteresting/ unimaginitive.

I think it would be far more interesting if the main character genuinely believed to be the good guy (fighting for the greater good and all) and then becoming disillusioned when faced with the truth. Basically his interpretation of his own actions flips. Maybe he initially believed in some ideal without realizing just how fucked up that ideal is. The core question would then be: when faced with the truth...what will he do? Will he deny and persist in his folly or accept the fact and try to make amends? Will he try to justify all the shit he did or feel guilt, remorse, shame?

I think the soldier is the perfect specimen. All the conditioning, all the talk of patriotism and loving your country and then having to kill innocents in the name of some ideal.

 

[Andrux51]

Unthinkingly doing evil for evil's sake is utterly uninteresting/ unimaginitive.

I think it would be far more interesting if the main character genuinely believed to be the good guy (fighting for the greater good and all) and then becoming disillusioned when faced with the truth. Basically his interpretation of his own actions flips. Maybe he initially believed in some ideal without realizing just how fucked up that ideal is. The core question would then be: when faced with the truth...what will he do? Will he deny and persist in his folly or accept the fact and try to make amends? Will he try to justify all the shit he did or feel guilt, remorse, shame?

I think the soldier is the perfect specimen. All the conditioning, all the talk of patriotism and loving your country and then having to kill innocents in the name of some ideal.

What if instead of the character believing his actions to be good, he knows full well that his actions are bad/evil (I hate to say evil because I think less extreme than that) - but we're forced to watch as we play and the story unfolds from his point of view. Again harking back to my example of the National Treasure, imagine if the story had followed the blonde "bad guy" as the hero of the story, and Nicolas Cage was constantly getting in his way (ain't it the truth...) - The bad guy knows that what he's doing is wrong, but he's trying to work toward a goal and doesn't like fighting fair to make it happen.

I've seen a few examples around this thread that bring out the point (GoW 3, Saints Row 3, etc.) but it seems to feel like a bit of sequel syndrome, where the developers say "we started this character down a path and where do we go from here?" instead of that being the intention from the beginning. To rephrase, something has to keep the later games in the series from feeling too similar to the first, so the character goes deeper down the rabbit hole.

The Boss - Saints Row

Saints Row follows a similar structure. Each game sees the decline of the protagonist from a guy who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, to a power hungry gang leader. By Saints Row the Third there isn't much the guy won't do to bring the Saints to the top in Steelport.

See what I mean?

 

[Azure-Supernova]

The Boss - Saints Row

Saints Row follows a similar structure. Each game sees the decline of the protagonist from a guy who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, to a power hungry gang leader. By Saints Row the Third there isn't much the guy won't do to bring the Saints to the top in Steelport.

See what I mean?

To be fair to the Boss in Saints Row, he didn't really get a personality (in the first Saints Row he was pretty much a mute). But in Saints Row 2 he was a sociopath, even taking delight killing.