"Why don't they just kill the bad guy?"

[Guitarmasterx7]

I was playing a game today (won't say what but it's nothing recent don't worry.) There's a part about halfway through where the main character straight up murders one of the villains. And not like they fight and then he finishes him off, the bad guy is literally walking down the street minding his own business and the main character just comes up and offs him. Keep in mind it's in a T rated game with very clear good guys and bad guys, not something like hitman or GTA where that happens all the time.

It was kinda jarring to see, not on a moral level, in context it's justified. It was just weird because I've been so conditioned not to expect that. Which got me thinking, is there a reason for that?

Even outside of characters like batman with a very clear "no killing" policy you don't see the good guy just kill the bad guy very much without it being in self defense or in some big dramatic battle in a revenge story.

So I guess for discussion value, do people just not like that scenario or something? If it's a villain that really deserves to die is there anything wrong with the good guy murdering them, or is it uncomfortable to see if the villain isn't in the process of trying to kill the hero while arming a nuclear puppy-trampling device?

 

[tippy2k2]

It's just kind of anti-climatic.

I just finished a book series (The Sword of Truth) where a character is like that. A number of fights are ended before they even begin because he straight-up Indiana Jones' the bad guys ass. One in particular where the bad guy begins to taunt the main character about their final showdown when he just stabs him and keeps moving.

I know the bad guy is going to be killed...it's just....weird for it to happen so quickly and efficiently. I know in real life it's exactly what I would do but still...

Spoiler: For you weirdos who do not know what I am talking about with Indiana Jones

 

[madwarper]

I was playing a game today (won't say what but it's nothing recent don't worry.) There's a part about halfway through where the main character straight up murders one of the villains. And not like they fight and then he finishes him off, the bad guy is literally walking down the street minding his own business and the main character just comes up and offs him.

So, how are you liking Tales of Vesperia?

Which got me thinking, is there a reason for that?

I assume it's there to shake you out of the usual preconceptions that everyone is either "clearly good guys or bad guys".

To quote Burn Notice; You have to get comfortable with the idea of people doing bad things for good reasons; doing good things for bad reasons. You do the best you can.

 

[aozgolo]

With most fiction involving a clear hero/villain struggle we've come to expect certain tropes, a certain amount of build-up, an epic final confrontation, a bit of monologue. I think it's just jarring to see that sort of thing ripped out of your hands, and can be very unsatisfying if done in a non-gameplay role (cutscene deaths).

In video games in particular, we expect to see well established villains played off as epic boss fights and it feels hollow or disappointing when you either don't get that at all or the final confrontation feels just like any other ordinary fight.

My Go-to Example

Fallout 3 Spoiler:

Spoiler

I remember being particularly disappointed at the end of the main campaign when you fight Colonel Autumn who in the vanilla game can be killed via headshot at point blank range through VATS in a matter of seconds after he finishes his monologue.

 

[WhiteFangofWhoa]

Not at all, but rule of drama usually makes the villain powerful enough that killing them isn't so easy even if they were to leave their doom fortresses and massive armies behind for some reason.

However, in more realistic games the villain is often just some dude with a lot of soldiers working for him. If they're not a 'traitor villain' that you can't kill beforehand without failing your mission, the game will usually make certain not to give you the chance to just snipe him until the final mission, limiting your contact with him/her to radio transmissions and the like unless you're in a cutscene.

While never a poster child for realism, I liked how technically Metal Gear Solid 3 give you the chance to head-shot both Ocelot and The End prematurely before you even fought them. Though the former would result in a TIME PARADOX (great you just killed the biggest villain in the whole series when he was just a teenager!), the latter is a clever way of avoiding one of the game's toughest bosses, even if the old man makes his disappointment with you taking the easy way out quite clear.

<--- Certainly the three rules of robotics are the ONLY reason that this guy lived through 10+ games.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I think a big part of it is that when we grow up, we're all taught that killing people in cold blood is bad, and that people who are good can only kill in self defense, and give the bad guy a chance to repent, or to defend himself.

You see this all the time in movies, in TV shows, in books, everywhere. Hell, the idea of someone shooting or stabbing another person in the back, and not giving that person a chance to defend themselves, is always seen as cowardly. Since this is so common in every other form of media it just naturally transitioned into video games as well.

 

[aozgolo]

[I still don't get this complaint. He was a human in a uniform, not power armor. Why the fuck shouldn't we be able to just headshot him?

It wasn't so much that I felt he should be headshot proof, it was more just the overall lack of any sort of true final "boss", after fighting Super Mutant Behemoths, Crazy Powerful Enclave Robots, Hordes of Feral Ghouls, and Deathclaws... the damn Deathclaws... you come to expect powerful enemies with superhuman strength, to find your final boss of the game to be nothing more than a squishy human with no protective armor is a little underwhelming.