Why do antagonists never kill you when they have the chance?

Why do antagonists never kill you when they have the chance?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=mDC7uOAGK70
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Because then the game ends.

Because they're not monsters.

They don't want to win, they want you to rise to their challenge even if it means you artificially give them an extra chance

Because you're the real bad guy user.

...

bad writing

How was that campaign anyways? Did having Spacey's face add anything worthwhile?

Because they are the good guys

Because it's a silly idea to shoot a man before throwing him out a plane

It is called "plot armor"

Because then the story would end.

Seriously, is there any example where the villain doesn't kill the hero when he can and isn't just arrogance/temporary retardation?

>this native american prick has been fucking up your shit for two decades now
>finally have him on his knees in front of you and practically begging to be shot in the head
>"I will kill you, Connor. This I swear. Not here, though. Not today. No. First... First, I'll destroy all you hold dear."
>this after he already destroyed everything connor held dear in the prologue
solid writing

To be fair, in the context of that guy you were his son's best friend and he really wanted you to take his place.

Drama.
>Just like my English 007 movies!

So why didn't he shoot the other guy?

I hate how modern games don't let you become unstoppable. You are confronted with the final boss early on and could be squished, yet only ten levels higher, with no real abilities, you are suddenly ready to take them on.

Because it starts to dawn on him that he'll never get his son back and that he's turned into someone his son wouldn't be proud of

IT'S KEVIN SPACEY

They aren't monsters.

Right, but having huge laboratories where they harvest human beings and wrap them up like christmas presents for processing didn't cause him to get the hint.

Kevin saw you as a replacement for his dead son, he wanted you to be on his side, even after you betrayed him.

It was pretty good. Especially after how painfully dull MW3 and Ghosts were. Gameplay wise they dropped all pretenses of being anything but fun. Plot wasn't amazing though, standard near future war thriller. Spacey was just there as a billboard for how much money activision has made off the franchise.

Why doesn't Kevin Spacey come out of the closet?

>Why do antagonists never kill you when they have the chance?
Modern Warfare 2 antagonist actually did.
Which is why you switched to a different character.
MW1 did it as well in fact with the nuke part.

No need to. Kevin's comfortable enough with his sexuality that he doesn't NEED to identify as gay to fuck dudes.

because they're actually the good guys

becasue shitty cliches

>start game
>5 minute cutscene explaining lore and shit
>bad thing happened
>antagonist appears
>shoots lover/wife/friend
>shoots you
>game ends
i fucking wonder

>start game
>5 minute cutscene explaining lore and shit
>bad thing happened
>antagonist appears
>shoots lover/wife/friend
>shoots you

This is unironically how Shadow of Mordor starts, complete with you dying.
But then you become an undead spirit ranger on a revenge quest because yolo fuck you.

THE WHEAT
FROM THE CHAFF

You forgot the basics tutorial, other than that spot on.

In MW2 they killed off 2? of the characters you played as, which worked pretty well.

I thought Reach done deaths of Spartans pretty well, even tho you don't play as them, seeing just a normal Jackall snipe Kat after the EMP went off when her shields were down was a pretty "hollllyyyy sheeeeeet" moment.

what is the ideal way to start, Sup Forums?
the best opening i saw was in dishonored 2 where your bodyguard just attacks the bad guy, which was a first. but the logic was too good and the bad guy would die instantly so they needed to make THE ENTIRE ROYAL GUARD turn against you to make it fair

>this happens
>suddenly you start playing as the antagonist

Because they realise you'll just respawn and that it's better to keep you locked up

Because all the antagonists in the land of fiction suffer from a extremely dangerous kind of mental ilness that compels them to act in the most retarded way psooible as soon as complete victory is in their grasp. This ultimately makes them loose, no matter how smart or capable they were for the rest of the story.

They only kill off one player character, but they also kill off the most iconic secondary character of the series, Ghost, at the same time.

As for Reach, most of them felt right. Jorge being the first was the best, he thought his sacrifice would save the planet and it worked really well for me.

But then the rest of them went one by one and it just felt more like they were ticking check boxes off rather than telling a story. Still enjoyed it though.

Is Infinite Warfare any good? All things aside.

Irons did nothing wrong

It innovated a bit for CoD, futuristic tech, jetpacks and whatnot. I enjoyed it. First CoD SP campaign I enjoyed since MW2.

its a cod game, if you want more of the same go ahead if not its shit

It's even worse
>Start Game
>some basic lore explanation
>15 second combat tutorial
>some more shitty story
>10 second sneaking tutorial
>suddenly orcs
>20 seconds of fighting
>now you're dead
>get immediately spawned into an open world
>five meters from you is a "special mission, kill 20 goblins with a bow in 30 seconds"

I uninstalled shortly after.

how can you forget the end of No Russian?
also, I like how they introduced how Roach's first and last scene were cigar flicking
it's like pottery

Because then you'd win.

I also hate videogames

If he kills you, he'll be as bad as you.

>dont delete obvious threat
>thread deletes you several episodes later

every western adventure story ever

>start game
>encounter main antagonist during the 1st hour
>he kills you
>credits roll

>It's a "bad guy holds a weapon to the main character's head and threatens them while monologuing for ten minutes" episode

Has this ever amounted to anything in any medium that exists? Why is this meme so consistently used? The bad guy will literally never shoot the MC anywhere it'll matter, the MC will always escape, and even if the bad guy """wins""" at the end of the day, the whole sequence was pointless because nothing came from it.

>introducing a bad guy means he has to strap you to a chair and put a gun to your head

It alows for confrontation between the good guy and the bad guy without necessarly being the climax. Would you prefer to see the the vilain to come out of nowhere at the end of the movie/game?

Fav Kev movies?
I like K pax, usual suspects and his lex luthor in that superman movie.

I would rather a fight sequence or a natural conversation, threatening or otherwise. The whole faux-tensity is just boring.

...

youtube.com/watch?v=mDC7uOAGK70