Favorite Game Villan

[Gorth]

the stop sign in bloodlines, it's just so unbeatable that it's frustrating

Talk about persistent villains...

[Lancer]

I already defused all of your arguments rather easily by means of plain logic, to which you responded with a lame flame bait. But I'm willing to try again, nevertheless.

 

Wow.. You *are* delusional...I was right after all. Quite amusing.

 

Flame bait? You are calling my opinion flame bait just because I don't happen to like your favorite villain? It is a simple opinion. Nothing more.

 

Again, how does Irenicus not furthering the Bhaalspawn plot affect his quality as a villain? I'll tell you: in no freaking way.

 

SoA made me learn something I hadn't learned up until that point about villain design.. That not only does the villain need to be a good stand-alone villain but it needs to fit in context with the overarching story. If he doesn't then it is a bad villain for that story. Period. It really is that simple.

 

And this might not have affected the quality of the villain for you, but it did for me. People are different and like different things. It is called "preferences."

[Lancer]

If one wanted to defend BG2 from this charge, it's notable that it was supposed to be the middle installment of three games when originally developed, with ToB being a full third game rather than an expansion. I know the, "The developers weren't able to realize their grand plan!" defense is a cliche, but it makes it easier to understand some of the artistic choices in BG2.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How about ESB? It was the middle movie of the trilogy yet it expounded on the Force, Jedis, Luke, his relationship to Vader and so on a lot more than ANH did. Just because SoA was the middle game of the serious does not exonerate it from doing the same.

 

Yes. And unfortunately, most of you feel the need to to defend Irenicus as a villain since for many SoA was your favorite game of the series. There is a key difference between liking a game and liking the game's villain (as Gromnir as mentioned) and I fear that most don't make the distinction.

 

Though I did like SoA, I just didn't care much for Irenicus being in it. He just ended up sidetracking the storyline for the reasons I have already stated.

[Lancer]

look people have their opinions and that's what this is about you don't have to argue about weather or not their OPINION is correct do you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Unfortunately some people seem to struggle with the concept. They take it personal when someone disagrees with their opinion and try to provoke others..

 

It'll be interesting to see future responses..

 

EDIT:I do apologize for this hijacking of the thread though..Stating that you dislike Irenicus in SoA is tantamount to blasphemy for some!

[Walsingham]

Am I a gimp for objecting to double posting?

[Judge Hades]

I still like Irenicus over Sarevok. ToB was crap.

[Walsingham]

Lancer, you seriously have to calm down. Give me your definition of a good villain and weight the two fethers against it.

 

Or I should say that if your definition is simply how closely they adhere to some kiddy definition of bad dude - big fellah taking over stuff full of self overcomplex plans being scuppered by plucky hero - then maybe Sarevok is a better villain. But then I say nuts to villains. I don't want them in my damn games.

[Lancer]

Lancer, you seriously have to calm down. Give me your definition of a good villain and weight the two fethers against it.

 

Did I miss something? Not calm? Where have I expressed anger? Annoyed, slightly.. Amused.. But not angered.

 

Or am I not calm just because I prefer Sarevok over Irenicus and you don't?

 

And apparently you just jumped into this. I already discussed my reasons in earlier posts which you may read but I am not repeating again.

[Lancer]

I still like Irenicus over Sarevok.  ToB was crap.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks for your .02 cents.

[Lancer]

To get this thread back on the right track...

 

As for console RPGs, my favorite villain was probably Kaizack for Super Hydlide on the Genesis.

 

For JRPGs, I thought ID from Xenogears was the best. I had actually forgotten about ID until now, but come to think of it he is probably the best villain I have seen in any RPG (computer or console).

 

[213374U]

Wow.. You *are* delusional...I was right after all.  Quite amusing.

 

Flame bait? You are calling my opinion flame bait just because I don't happen to like your favorite villain? It is a simple opinion. Nothing more.

I pointed to the flaws in your points. You failed to come up with a coherent rebuttal, and instead replied with this flame bait:

Apparently, some people failed logic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You auto-lose.

 

 

SoA made me learn something I hadn't learned up until that point about villain design.. That not only does the villain need to be a good stand-alone villain but it needs to fit in context with the overarching story. If he doesn't then it is a bad villain for that story. Period. It really is that simple.

Which is the same as saying nothing. You say that Irenicus doesn't fit because the BG saga is supposed to be about your character alone and with serious focus on the Bhaalspawn plot. But then again, you fail to grasp the idea that the game isn't about what you think it should be, but about what the writers wanted it to be. So, yeah.

 

 

And this might not have affected the quality of the villain for you, but it did for me. People are different and like different things. It is called "preferences."

Unfortunately some people seem to struggle with the concept.  They take it personal when someone disagrees with their opinion and try to provoke others..

 

It'll be interesting to see future responses..

 

EDIT:I do apologize for this hijacking of the thread though..Stating that you dislike Irenicus in SoA is tantamount to blasphemy for some! 

You have just proven that you just don't (can't?) read:

But hey, I'm not going to try to change your views on which should be your favorite. It's a matter of taste, after all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The only thing that is "tantamount to blasphemy" for me are outright lies, or patent idiocy. I tend to react strongly to those, yes. Not to personal preferences and opinions. If you had just said "I don't like Irenicus", I wouldn't have had anything to say. But for starters, it was you who stirred up the debate and claimed that Irenicus wasn't a "good villain". Do you want me to look the quote up, too?

[Walsingham]

Bah. And I have been reading this whole damn thread. Every word. And am wondering if I should have bothered.

 

Walsh definition of a good villain in one sentence:

 

An individual who poses interesting obstacles in the path of your character, while inciting the urge to defeat them, and whose character and motivations are interesting in themselves.

 

Lancer definition of a good villain IN ONE SENTENCE: ...

[Lancer]

Numbersman:

Still going at it man? You are still hitting nothing but air.

 

So are you arguing that is a *fact* that Irenicus was a good villain just because you say so? It is IMPOSSIBLE that someone out there may find him not so good of a villain? You argue this?

 

It is my opinion that Irenicus wasn't a good villain. Period.

Is it too difficult to comprehend that someone may think that Irenicus wasn't a good villain for SoA? Or does it bother you that someone holds the opposite opinion to you on the matter? In which case, I would respond that you have some people skills to learn, my friend.

[Lancer]

Bah. And I have been reading this whole damn thread. Every word. And am wondering if I should have bothered.

 

Walsh definition of a good villain in one sentence:

 

An individual who poses interesting obstacles in the path of your character, while inciting the urge to defeat them, and whose character and motivations are interesting in themselves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

To satiate your curiosity.

[alanschu]

At the same time, it seems just as difficult for you to comprehend that someone may think Sarevok is not as good a villain as Irenicus.

[Lancer]

At the same time, it seems just as difficult for you to comprehend that someone may think Sarevok is not as good a villain as Irenicus.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ahhh.. No. I never attacked anyone who said that Sarevok wasn't a good villain.

I, OTOH, have been attacked for saying that Irenicus is a bad villain. Try again.

[Walsingham]

Bah. And I have been reading this whole damn thread. Every word. And am wondering if I should have bothered.

 

Walsh definition of a good villain in one sentence:

 

An individual who poses interesting obstacles in the path of your character, while inciting the urge to defeat them, and whose character and motivations are interesting in themselves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

To satiate your curiosity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Right I just read the wiki link, and it tells me nothing.

 

"The standard action story invariably begins by demonizing the villain

[213374U]

Numbersman:

Still going at it man? You are still hitting nothing but air.

 

So are you arguing that is a *fact* that Irenicus was a good villain just because you say so? It is IMPOSSIBLE that someone out there may find him not so good of a villain? You argue this?

 

It is my opinion that Irenicus wasn't a good villain. Period.

Is it too difficult to comprehend that someone may think that Irenicus wasn't a good villain for SoA? Or does it bother you that someone holds the opposite opinion to you on the matter? In which case, I would respond that you have some people skills to learn, my friend.

Nah, it's you who is still clueless. Hopelessly clueless, it would seem, judging by the tone and purpose of your last posts.

 

You see, discussions go like this: when you make a certain statement that goes outside of what are strictly your personal preferences (ie. "Irenicus isn't a good villain"), people will expect you to back said statement with either undisputable proof, or a sound reasoning. You have failed to produce either, so far.

 

But hey, you're not the first one to do that, and I'm afraid that you won't be the last. Keep going, though. That's how "legends" are forged.

[Lancer]

"The standard action story invariably begins by demonizing the villain

[Lancer]

Keep Going Numbersman.. You are doing great!

[213374U]

Keep Going Numbersman.. You are doing great!

Typical Volourn post.

[alanschu]

At the same time, it seems just as difficult for you to comprehend that someone may think Sarevok is not as good a villain as Irenicus.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ahhh.. No. I never attacked anyone who said that Sarevok wasn't a good villain.

I, OTOH, have been attacked for saying that Irenicus is a bad villain. Try again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You have quite adamantly defended Sarevok, especially compared to Irenicus, this entire thread.

[Walsingham]

Don't dodge the question. I'm not saying in general. This is a game forum. I'm saying what makes a good game villain. I gave you my definiton in one sentence. So step up and pitch yours!

 

And quit double posting, cornsarnit.

[Lancer]

Keep Going Numbersman.. You are doing great!

Typical Volourn post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You mean you are going to finally end your endless rambling and let this thread run its course? (w00t)

 

As I was saying, ID was a good console RPG villain...

[Lancer]

You have quite adamantly defended Sarevok, especially compared to Irenicus, this entire thread.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Is this hard to understand? I believe Sarevok is a better villain than Irenicus. Of course I am going to defend him just like you would defend Irenicus.

 

But notice I did it without insulting anyone personally or talking in a condescending tone although I have received that from some of you (not from you in particular of course) various times in this thread and I have tried my best to remain my cool... :cool: