Why Aren't You The Villain In More Games?

[mornal]

I'd love to see a game where you play as the villain, perhaps in a 'how you rose to power' story. Odds are it would probably suck, but it'd be worth a shot.

I will say I don't ever feel evil in any game with a karma meter of any sort. At most I just feel like a jerk, maybe a murdering jerk but a jerk all the same.

And while we're on the subject, I'd like to go on a minor rant. I have to talk about how much I hated the quest to blow up Megaton in Fallout 3. The 'evil' option just always seemed stupid to me. Blowing up the town got you caps (easily found even at low levels) and karma (useless) while also cutting you off from an entire town's worth of stuff. Maybe I'm just too good on the inside but I can't see the benefit of that especially since taking the 'good' route you get access to Megaton and Tenpenny Towers. It always just struck me as a quest put in so people go 'Did I just do that?' / 'Lolol, I'm so evil'.

 

[Teh Jammah]

If not a single person has mentioned Dungeon Keeper by the time I've posted this, then I will be greatly, greatly disappointed in this community.

Was just considering sniping the OP and replying with "So what you're saying is 'we want Dungeon Keeper 3 then?'

Although the idea of a game where you rise to evil power through some combination of brute force, machiavellian intrigue and all that jazz sounds pretty appealing. A shame there isn't a (mainstream) publisher that'd take the chance on something like that, as opposed to pumping out Cover-based TPS 27, Sport's Sim 20XX or standard j/wRPG 54.

 

[BristolBerserker]

They won't let me be the villain

 

[Total LOLige]

Still waiting for a game where I can play Team Rocket *taps foot*. Ok, so that might not be the point of the post but it WOULD be nice. Come on, did NO ONE want to play the part of Team Rocket as a kid?

No, because they always got "Blasted off again" every time.

OT: It would be less PC to play as the villain, playing as the "Taliban" in medal of honor proved controversial. Or the No Russian mission in MW2. It seems the devs would get more flak from the media if you are the villain.

 

[DEAD34345]

If not a single person has mentioned Dungeon Keeper by the time I've posted this, then I will be greatly, greatly disappointed in this community.

Was just considering sniping the OP and replying with "So what you're saying is 'we want Dungeon Keeper 3 then?'

Although the idea of a game where you rise to evil power through some combination of brute force, machiavellian intrigue and all that jazz sounds pretty appealing. A shame there isn't a (mainstream) publisher that'd take the chance on something like that, as opposed to pumping out Cover-based TPS 27, Sport's Sim 20XX or standard j/wRPG 54.

Thank god I'm not the only one who remembers the game.

As for the game you're describing, Evil Genius [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_Genius_(video_game)] just about fits the bill. You get to build your underground volcano lair, and have to build up money and evil prestige by sending henchmen out on missions across the world. Investigators and other agents visit your island all the time (the quality and quantity depending on how much you've pissed off the various security agencies), and you can either fight them off with henchmen, create elaborate traps to kill/imprison them, or trick them into thinking there's nothing amiss by ensuring they only see the legal parts of your operation.

It's a pretty good game actually, but severely lacking on replay value. It's certainly the closest game to what you're describing that I've ever come across.

 

[Lucane]

Well it wasn't exclusive evil but Transformers:War for Cybertron split the campaign into two, Evil 1st & Good 2nd. (So the heroes stop the villainous gains while still being worse off than they were at the start of the game.)

 

[Ishadus]

If not a single person has mentioned Dungeon Keeper by the time I've posted this, then I will be greatly, greatly disappointed with this community.

As to why there aren't enough games where you play as the bad-guy, it's because game developers are idiots (that statement is hyperbolic, please don't take offence). They tend to think that when we play games we want to play as characters that think like us. Since almost everyone at least thinks of themselves as good people, almost every game has us playing good characters. This is almost the exact opposite of what many of us want. I play games to do things I can't (or just don't) do in real life, and being evil is one of the big ones.

It's a shame very few developers seem to have realised this yet.

Edit: Seriously, no-one mentions Dungeon Keeper!? Pathetic. I thought better of you guys (or gals I guess, but let's face it, mostly guys).

Hey you just got to it before me, that's all

Dungeon Keeper was both hilarious and awesome. But even then, yes you're evil, but it still has this comedic undertone to it. Don't get me wrong, it worked brilliantly, but I think the OP is talking more about being genuinely "evil" and less "lol I just toally slapped an imp to death!!"

 

[Something Amyss]

I've wondered that too. While making choices is all the rage, you usually otherwise get lumped in the comfy shoes or sandals of a do gooder or an anti-hero.

Unfortunately, most moral choices are pretty shallow. There are some wide-impacting ones, but even they rarely impact the actual story.

It'd be awesome to have more games where your choices really impact the world, and you could be both here AND villain, but most games put us right back in that same trap. Even if you're a Renegade, by the end of Mass Effect, you've saved the Universe and whatnot.

Then again, Zero Punctuation points out(Yahtzee on Overlord) that a good chunk of the fun of being a jerk comes from going against the established rules. Simply being evil when the game tells you to takes away some of that appeal.

 

[adragonofgold]

How about Overlord? But really going old school how about Rampage? Rockstar games. City of Villians. And depending on your point of view.. Pretty sure your the Villian in the "Gears of War" games.

 

[teebeeohh]

why would destroying the world be a good idea for a villain? how does a destroyed world help them, unless they are some kind demon monster alien thing that doesn't need the world most villains would rather control the world and make it a place they can easily control.

and we did move away from the hero/villain to protagonist/antagonist because you can only tell the story of a hero saving the world so many times, most games nowadays try to make the story about a character and when you try to make your characters realistic you end up with a bunch of dicks, some are just more likable and may put their life on the line for others when pushed far enough. Classic villains and "save the world" stories are just lazy writing (remember the first uncharted where "i just want to get rich" turned into "zomg, bio-weapons threaten world peace" that was just stupid) and only work as a parody or when they are padded with enough other side story to make it interesting. Like in Dragon age, my character was a huge dick and was killing folks left and right for fun and profit but he saved the world because it was in his own best interest. He did stab everyone in the back at the end because for him that was the best combination of staying alive.
On that note, very few RPGs give you much options to play a bad guy to your liking, i KOTOR as a sith you had to be the violent psychopath kind of you wanted the bonus of full dark side powers, which i hated because i would have preferred her to be a more the Machiavellian, manipulative kind.
give me that, give me dungeon keeper but with the option to infiltrate the good kingdom by day and torture wizards by night.

 

[Tonythion]

because most cute ickly boys always grew up wanting to be the super hero, the fireman or the police officer. We grow into the thought that it will always be cooler to be the good guy.

I myself wasn't like that, I always felt bad for the villains because it was society that made them that way. They were bullied or ostracized (am I the only one that pictures an ostrich with that word?) thats what made them evil but they ultimately do to much evil and people end up hating them more. Then the super hero comes and and saves the world. He gets the money, the fame, the women--its much more "profitable" to be the good guy.

Most of my friends given the option of playing either a good, bad or neutral character, will always go for the good option.

So game producers always go with what will make the most money--and they'll throw in the option of being a dick through out the whole game but at the end you save the world and everyone loves you.

This pisses me off, I played Fable and I was a complete douche bag the whole game--I murdered everyone I came upon (not the children...I wanted to but they would stare blankly up at me and ask me what I was doing in their house murdering their parents) I was going around with red eyes, necromancing powers and horns but once I did one good mission I was considered good again. Or the one time I did no good deeds but ended up saving the world anyways...I was so horribly angry.

 

[Zantos]

I have wondered a few times why I can't be bad. Not the villain, just bad. I would have loved Oblivion so much more if I could have just destroyed the mages guild and joined up with the necromancer fellow.

The Fables had a decent idea, mostly just by making the morality completely seperate to the story. The same logic can be applied to all Fable games but take 3 as the example I latest played. It doesn't matter whether you want to be fuzzy huggy bear or evil tyrant Hitler that breathes fire, (incase you haven't played it yet I'll spoiler it)

Spoiler

It is my fucking kingdom Mr. Black goo darkness, and you are not going to fuck with it, and especially not going to kill me!

Doesn't matter which moral path you take, they covered both bases quite nicely there.

 

[Juventus]

you're pretty much the villian in god of war 3. i mean you do murder eveyrthing, and not in a light hearted way....more like in a eyes poking, head tearing, skull smashing way.

and the reason? just cause.

like a a boss

 

[Scow2]

The only games I know where you can effectively be a "villain" are Simulation Games like Roller Coaster Tycoon (Where you can be the deceptively sadistic park manager who traps hapless victims in a seemingly-fun park, and turns what's supposed to be an afternoon of fun and relaxation into murderous, nightmarish hell) and Sim City, where you can be a tyrannical overlord.

Oh yeah... you can also be a villain in games like the Total War series (The evil overlord who takes over the world) and Stronghold series.

 

[Sinclair Solutions]

The only games I know where you can effectively be a "villain" are Simulation Games like Roller Coaster Tycoon (Where you can be the deceptively sadistic park manager who traps hapless victims in a seemingly-fun park, and turns what's supposed to be an afternoon of fun and relaxation into murderous, nightmarish hell) and Sim City, where you can be a tyrannical overlord

In Roller Coaster Tycoon, I usually drowned anybody who wasn't enjoying my part. Anyone with a frowny face, dead. They got what they deserved.

 

[coolkirb]

I could never be the villian I had trouble killing the women who sold Boon's wife to slavers in Fallout New Vegas

 

[Scow2]

because most cute ickly boys always grew up wanting to be the super hero, the fireman or the police officer. We grow into the thought that it will always be cooler to be the good guy.

I myself wasn't like that, I always felt bad for the villains because it was society that made them that way. They were bullied or ostracized (am I the only one that pictures an ostrich with that word?) thats what made them evil but they ultimately do to much evil and people end up hating them more. Then the super hero comes and and saves the world. He gets the money, the fame, the women--its much more "profitable" to be the good guy.

Most of my friends given the option of playing either a good, bad or neutral character, will always go for the good option.

So game producers always go with what will make the most money--and they'll throw in the option of being a dick through out the whole game but at the end you save the world and everyone loves you.

This pisses me off, I played Fable and I was a complete douche bag the whole game--I murdered everyone I came upon (not the children...I wanted to but they would stare blankly up at me and ask me what I was doing in their house murdering their parents) I was going around with red eyes, necromancing powers and horns but once I did one good mission I was considered good again. Or the one time I did no good deeds but ended up saving the world anyways...I was so horribly angry.

Generally, the superheroes have a worse lot in life than the Villains. And the truly charismatic villains don't have targic, wangsty backstories. The most recent "Critical Miss" sums up my feelings on "Society makes people into villains!"

In Fable, you can choose to not save the world, instead taking the power of the Sword of Aeons and mantling Jack of Blades yourself. Unfortunately, the game doesn't change to reflect whether you're the conqueror or savior of the world. The only reason you "save" the world is jealousy: This is your world to fuck with, not some pussy-ass wannabe "Dark Force"s.

What I don't get is how destroying Jack of Blades at the end of "Lost Chapters" is an inherently good act, especially if you end up being worse than the monster you destroyed.

However... as I noted above: you need underlings or oppressable people in order to actually feel like a villain. The Stronghold series is particularly great in that regard (as long as you don't play the campaign :/)

 

[Saelune]

Overlord, God of War 2 and on, Prototype, how you view it, Hitman (though he generally kills criminals, and are penelized for killing innocents), GTA series, Saints Row Series...
Thats all I can think of at the moment.

 

[Inkidu]

Now I'm not talking about you, the player, I'm talking about the game protagonist. And while you can definately be villainous in some games like Mass Effect and Fable you're end game is usually somewhere on the lines of saving the world. And thats <- generally a good thing.

I was thinking about it and I realized that in most games today the protagonist is usually a complete dick. He's still saving the world but I suppose shoving glass into people's mouths, shoving people out windows or tying a whore to your horse and galloping across the countryside makes me think that this is something an antagonist should be doing. Not that we can't have (loosely defined) "gritty realism" in games but if we're standing right at the edge of the divingboard of a pool of crazy batshit insane whats stopping us from jumping right on in?

The closest I've ever been to being a straight up villian was in Fallout 3. If only because I took the term survival to the utter extreme and was bent on killing everyone I could because that meant that there was no chance that they could kill me later. Don't get me wrong, I killed everybody. I even killed everybody except for the two litte kids (because they're invincible) in Megaton before I blew it to kingdom come. Because if I had blown it to the moon beforehand I couldn't have gotten all that delicious exp and all their stuff. But unfortuantly Fallout 3 karmatically balances itself out because the game gave you the option to massacre in the same hand as the option to save everyone. And thats the problem, its perfectly fine to suffocate an entire village in their sleep because you also could (but won't) fix their house to look better than a shiny car on a warm day, buy them nice clothes and do their dirty laundry.

But Flailing," you might say. "Games do exist where you do nothing but be a massive twat." And while I guess thats true those games are generally shit. For example I had the misfortune of playing Overlord 2 a couple months ago because it sounded like a good idea. Who doesn't want to play as a cruel and satanic overlord that destroys the entire world by throwing little, retarded monkeys at it. The stupid part is that destroying the world slowly becomes more of a day job than anything else. Sure, you're destroying the world but its so tedious by the end all I wanted to do was sit in my evil fortress and mope all day.

My point is in a bucket load of games today you can fuck, maim, torture and massacre your way to saving the known world. I remember thinking at the end of Dragon Age II that Kirkwall must be pretty empty by now; because I had killed thousands of people by then and I still got the good ending. And if you can shoot kneecaps, break bones, strangle people in their sleep, cut off fingers, fuck prostitutes and extinguish entire villages while still being completely "Paragon" whats stoping games from letting us play as Pyramid Head or a serial killer. The MO may be different (mostly bandits and Nazis) but thats exactly what we're doing.

So yes, games do exist where you are nothing but a total and complete asshole. But too few games exist where you are nothing but a total and complete asshole that are actually good. There are games out there that "allow you" to be a total and complete asshole but thats not your only choice. And I've been seeing fewer and fewer games where being a good guy is a hard and difficult slope to climb (like it should be).

I don't know if many of you remember the Dragon Age: Origin's dlc where you get to replay the final battle through the eyes of a darkspawn but imagine if there was an entire game like that. Where your ultimate goal is pretty much to destroy the world. Instead of having the option to help people you could just have the option to not kill them. Which is just as good by some rights. Imagine in Limbo instead of playing as the little large head boy you played as the world itself. And carefully set and set off traps as little large headed boys wandered through them. The death animations wouldn't be anymore gruesome than in regular Limbo but whats stopping an idea like that from taking flight?
...
I guess so 16 year olds won't think that shooting up their school or punching their little sister in the face is a good idea.

Well It's kind of hard for people to be the villain. People don't naturally like to be rooting for the bad guy and destroy the world, because in the end the good is supposed to triumph and evil be vanquished. It's a cultural thing. There are a few of us who would like the chance to twirl the mustache of menace. Think about it though.

No villain ever thinks of themselves as a villain. They might think what they're doing is wrong, but ultimately for the greater good. So a straight villain would be a psychopathic asshole. They're the stuff of cartoons. Easily identifiable foils to the heroes so they can be the laughingstock of children.

That's why video games don't do the straight-up villain approach. We don't identify as people. Still, the new Resident Evil game, Operation Raccoon City has you playing the U.S.S. Umbrellas black ops team. You go around killing Leon and Claire.

Yeah, would I like to play a villain? Yes. Could it be done seriously? No. Why do you think Overlord 2 had so much humor?