As i get older i sympathize more and more with the antagonist(s) in many vidyas and other media

>as i get older i sympathize more and more with the antagonist(s) in many vidyas and other media
>not in an edgelord way, just a 'wow the bad guys are a lot more reasonable than the good guys'
>get ostracized for it when i argue for the villain
Is my feel the only feel? Am I in the wrong?

No, you're right. Consider that most video game makers are hardcore SJW liberals who insert their conservative enemies into everything. Consider then the fact that most people get more conservative as they get older and mature.

Your definition of "most" is way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way off-base.

I feel the same, but I do personally advocate for the genocide of certain minority groups in my country.
So I'm probably just evil.

You're probably not as much wrong as you're likely shit at arguing.

Nah, you're just human. There is nothing wrong with wanting to protect and defend that which you consider pure and good in this world.

He is right just wait until you grow up kid.

can you go 4 fucking seconds without tipping your fedora

Way off basline?

I would have said the same until late last year. Every AAA game blatantly has some obnoxious political bent to it these days, usually just for the sake of advertising.

Depends on what kinds of games you are playing. Antagonists are not villains. Antagonists can have a sympathetic motive or goal, or even be more suited to the hero role than the protagonist.

Protagonist just means the perspective you take on. Antagonist means the character opposed to you. Hero and villain are moral judgments which are entirely separate.

>used to be a total Shufag
>nowadays I see that Cao Cao was the only truly stable ruler for that time period of China
Maybe if Liu Bei had a legitimate heir and some kind of long term plan for conquering Wei while also keeping Wu in check I could still support Shu, but "muh benevolence" doesn't mean much to me anymore. Not nearly as important as it was to me as a kid.

Also Dong Zhuo did nothing wrong. Liang is an innocent province. Eunuchs and scholars get out.

Wait, how far off-base?

I mean for example, I was talking about Battlefront 2 (EAshit version) after someone brought it up. They mentioned how cool it was to "be playing the bad guys" and I was like
>eh the empire's not really evil imo
and they acted like I was either crazy or joking or both. It was either say that opinion of mine or give the objective truth that EA sucks camel ass and so do all of its recent titles.

>Nah, you're just human
Or muslim

>get ostracized for it when i argue for the villain
Rooting for the villain is pretty common. Especially in western media. It has to do with the villains being more colorful and interesting than the protagonists, who are usually either listless wanderers thrown into trouble they never asked for or white knights who go out of their way to save the day.

Most people who watch Disney movies care more about the villains for example. Because they're just more interesting and the only real character with a goal. Even if the goal is to kill dogs or become king.

>liking Liu Bei
Liu Bei is a delusional moralfag would see the entire Empire burn just to show he is right.

The empire is traditionally evil, though. That's cut and dry because George Lucas is a hack.

There may be individuals in the empire which are not evil, but their overall goal is to bend everyone's will to the Emperor through force, and the Emperor is a Sith lord, which is pure evil because Lucas writes in black and white.

>Is my feel the only feel? Am I in the wrong?
You're just angry at the world, many edgy teenagers as well go through that "ideolize the villains" phase, something which has been proven to happen with young adults as well.

Weirdly enough, I feel this a lot.

Much more often than not the villain is the only one with a real goal or intentions, and good or bad, it makes them more interesting than the heroes, whose only goal is often just stopping the villain and nothing beyond that.

They feel less like a character and more like a reaction to the antagonist.

>Be massive Shufag, favourite character has always been Zhao Yun
>Watch Three Kingdoms
>Fall in love with Cao Cao, Sima Yi and Cao Ren
Still hate Wu though

See, that's where I disagree, and I dispute the whole "Lucas is a hack who made Star Wars black and white" with "1. It can be changed by interpretation and 2. Who gives a shit what Lucas says?", but I often find myslef at odds with people, even people who are nerds for the same thing, because I apparently think wrong.

>Consider then the fact that most people get more conservative as they get older and mature.
Why would an oldman become liberal, old people wants things to remain as they were because those people tend to idealize the past, pure common sence.

I wish more story writers knew this

Cao Ren is pretty great in Three Kingdoms. Zhang Fei is also god tier in pretty much anything he's in.

if a villain can be sympathized with that just means they're well written. the best villains are ones who make the hero question their motives and/or have equal or better motives than the hero themselves.

it doesn't mean you're wrong or getting jaded, it just means you can better appreciate nuances in storytelling.

The best is when the protagonist of an earlier game is the antagonist of a later one. Tactics ogre was pretty great doing this with Alphonse.

It defiantly made me appriciate the side characters more
[My Land, my beautiful Land/spoiler]

The empire only looks evil because people are morally retarded.

Well, in video games it's tricky to have the main character have explicit motivations, because they're also supposed to be controlled by the player. I think the main genre where it works is the classic adventure game, where the puzzles usually consist of figuring out how to do something the main character wants done.

>Shit Tier
The villain is irredeemably evil and does evil things with no greater purpose
>Bad Tier
The villain does not understand what they are doing (typically a mindless beast) and just destroy as it is in their nature
>Okay Tier
The villain has some greater ideal or noble aspiration in mind, but loses sight of their vision or otherwise takes "the ends justify the means" out of control
>Acceptable Tier
The villain has a more sound and logical ideology than the protagonist
>Good Tier
The villain has a more sound and logical ideology than the protagonist, forcing them to learn, reflect, and grow as a person before being able to decisively deconstruct the villain's argument in a satisfying manner to the audience

Sometimes it's just a result of shitty writing on the heroes' part.

See Borderlands, where the villain is the most reasonable guy in the entire game, and whether it's due to Burch's incompetence at writing protags or a of stroke of genius in writing the antag is highly debatable

user, the dark side of the force is evil incarnate. It's not only destructive to others, but self-destructive as well. It does not cause civilizations to flourish, the Republic was bigger before it became the Empire even after all the military conquest. Sith kill each other for purely selfish reasons and their philosophy itself is retarded.

There is no argument here.

No my friend as you get older and wiser you begin to distinguish actions that benefit people in the short term and those that benefit them in the long term.

Actions that usually benefit in the long term, make things really uncomfortable in the immediate future. Most of the best written villains have this as their base philosophy while the protags just yell thoughtless rhetoric like "why can't you just let people do what they want/love prevails!" And most often this would just throw the world into economic/social crises in like 30 years. This is what's happening right now in the real world actually.

Instant gratification vs long term happiness. One requires sacrifices to be made.

This is the difference between a child and a man.

This is how an SJW makes a point, folks.

>there is no argument here

If we're supposed to take your incredibly generalized, broad, and unsupported summary as fact, then yeah, there isn't.

>Well, in video games it's tricky to have the main character have explicit motivations, because they're also supposed to be controlled by the player.
Japanese games do it well enough. Ironically, the games that do it the best are games where you play as a silent protagonist. Because they allow the character to express their feelings and desires through facial expressions and actions.

Some western games do this, yes. But a lot of the high budget RPGs and action games try too hard to make the main character a stoic loner who never shows emotion. And they give them a voice, separating them from the person playing the character.

>still no examples posted
Please, what games can you think of where you would be happy for the antagonist to win?

They blow up planets, how would you feel if this planet was blown up.

Try making an argument to the contrary then. Any examples at all. Shit flinging at other people's examples without providing one of your own is lazy and pointless.

They blew up one (1) planet that was the main stronghold of a rebel movement whose declared goal was the overthrowal of the state and its sovereign.

That's not how it works. When you tell someone "no, there's no argument here" and then when told that's really generalized you respond "I made the statement, prove me wrong", it's a fallacy.

When you make sweeping statements the burden of proof is on you, not everyone else.

>barely 20
>feel like a jaded oldfag whenever I let my guard down

Why'd you do this to me guys.

I was just a kid

I was your son.

No, that's how a debate works. I provided examples and you did the old boring
>not an argument
shit. You're just a faggot and argue like a typical Sup Forumstard.

Most games I've played have the main character led around by other characters, be they quest-givers, party members, or villains. Or perhaps more importantly, you're led around by the convention that you have to basically do what the designers wanted you to do in order to progress the game, and players are sensitive to the cues they get (again, through quests, party members, or villains). This understanding is why people can still talk about "player agency," because otherwise we descend into the comic where the journalist chooses not to jump over the goomba.
This can't be too on the nose, or else it moves from social contract to leaning on the fourth wall (as done intentionally in BioShock and The Stanley Parable). This is why the main character is almost always the tabula rasa, and stoic loner is one brand of blank.
It takes a lot of finesse to have a defined main character (in a non-point-and-click), someone with goals and motivations separate from the player's and from the developer agreement, without just ruining everything. KOTOR2 is a fine example, but it's also the only specific example I can come up with. Particularly compared with Revan, who lost his memories and is therefore another blank slate.

I wonder if this is due to the massive amount of media the average person intakes these days. Even though it's vicarious all that shit we see and experience has to wear us out.

I'm 30 traveled the world, played just about every game, watched every movie and even sucked a dick once. What's left to experience? I'm ready to die.

>"bad" guy turns out to just be a normal guy who has seen a lot of shit in his time and is tired of it
>is opposed by some idealist teenager who doesn't know jack shit about the real world

Yeah I get you OP, villains are often the more sympathetic ones.

If he could've pulled it off, things probably would've gone better if Inquisitor Mendoza in Risen had won. Maybe Dagoth Ur. Of course, Kreia and Krelian both did win.

>almost 29

>don't get streaming and "streamer culture" thing at all

So this is what it's like getting older huh.

Bad guys usually need SOME kind of reason to be bad guys, whereas the protagonist's reason for being good is rarely anything more than "I have to stop the bad guy".

It's the quickest shit-test to see if something's poorly written.

Are we really getting more "conservative" or is the overton window just sliding hella far?

You either die a hero...or live long enough to become the villain.

You are right that it takes a lot of finesse to have a good main character. And this is why very few games pull it off. But also why it is so puzzling that so many games are specifically trying to do it. The trend for the last 15 years has basically been to make your character as if they're in a movie, then stick some gameplay in between the cutscenes. No wonder crap like Final Fantasy and Assassins Creed fails so often. Yet the games with silent protagonists like Zelda or Dragon Quest tend to avoid most of these problems. Not all of them, but most.

If you break it down to its base it just means you want to conserve the way of life you know and keep it the same. The world changes a lot since you were a kid but you on some level want to go back to those earlier times, so people tend to become conservative to resist the constant change in the world.

Which, returning to the original point, means that you'll often end up with a defined villain and an undefined main character: it doesn't take finesse to make the player character a narrative vacuum. Of course, characters like Ganon and Exdeath aren't anything to write home about; interesting villains are also hard to find, just not as hard.

>just realized I have spent two (2) hours going through steam game lists trying to find something to get into
>last game I played was Bloodborne in 2015 and have never been more disappointed in my life with a game purchase, had a blast for three hours then never touched it again
>considered getting Cuphead for a minute because the art looked nice, watched some videos of it being played and feel like I've played it myself, so don't want it now

This is agony lmao I cant have fun anymore.

Nah, that's not what it means. There is actually a lot more to political beliefs and personal temperament than gross over-simplifications like that. You'll understand when you're older.

growing up is realizing Char was right and Amuro was a pawn

growing up is killing yourself because why bother anymore

Yes. The older you get the more mental illness begins to manifest. There is something fundamentally wrong with you.

It's because games are made by adults and as you get older, you learn to see the world like an adult as well.

Growing up is realizing the writing in Gundam is as shallow as a pond. Just like Game of Thrones.

just fucking kill yourself already you miserable sack of shit.

>t. federation apologist

>watched some videos of it being played and feel like I've played it myself
You are retarded.

>I only watch thinly veiled pedophilic anime designed for high IQ individuals with thinking man's fetishes

That's not so much a villain/hero thing or what your views are, but more the fact that you've grown too old (I'm not age-bashing by the way, I'm probably older than you).

Games are aimed at younger people and the way characters are portrayed reflects that. The antagonists are arrogant, old (or trying to set themselves apart from their peers by acting older than they are), authoritarian, set in their rigid ways of thinking, whereas the protagonists are cocky, plucky, young, dynamic and fun-loving.

As you grew older, how you respond to those qualities can change. The action-oriented, witty quipping hero now strikes you as an insufferable hyperactive little shit, and the boring, snooty way the villain talks resonates with you as calm, well-reasoned, and cultured.

I don't have the energy to do anything that would require exerting any will or force into the world. I can't even play video games myself anymore without getting frustrated at how awful I am within 10 minutes and giving up. I'm so tired of everything and all there is to pass the time is half-watching someone else playing a game while I waste my time playing solitaire in the foreground. I'm pathetic.

In a sense, it already existed while we were kids in another form, albeit on a much smaller scale. I had a couple of friends who'd prefer to watch me play some game rather than play it themselves. One of my friends has experienced nearly every single Zelda game this way.

There are a few streamers I enjoy watching myself, but they typically fall outside of the typical streamer culture. That whole thing comes from desperate and lonely people acting like the streamers are their friends while they're throwing money at them. It reminds me a lot of televangelists, actually.

...

Not to sound like a prat but really having Villains in the first place is a bad sign. Stories should be about conflict and clashing of ideals, even Man vs Nature/himself with no antagonists at all instead of this basic Cops vs Robbers like this was some Hollywood shitpile.

Something like KotoR 2 but less pretentious.

>Stories should be about conflict and clashing of ideals
you literally almost have that with villains.

>43 next year
>understand the ridiculous bullshit that is streamer/youtuber culture because it's straight forward as fuck
Don't worry, it's all inane bullshit anyway.

Some villains are just mindless or forces of nature and that works well within some games.

I prefer stories without a stock villain. But there's still some stories that need them. The problem with most stories is they insert characters they want to see, not what the story needs. Or vice versa.

A good writer will realize that things need to change as the story progresses. You might even have to go back and rewrite the entire thing. But when you have something like Final Fantasy or Star Wars or whatever, they write the story with set demographics in mind. The main character has to be a gritty anti hero who hates the world. Despite being in a story about growth and change, the main character never changes. Because the development team think their target demographic (young males) would get mad at seeing a character break their harsh facade. Then they might not buy the next half dozen planned sequels.

To be fair to Gundam that's pretty much the point of Zeta

It also works within prose as well dummy
If the villain is mindless or animalistic they're just an extreme vs. nature case

>and even sucked a dick once. What's left to experience?
Getting fucked in the ass, faggot.

Well it's harder to make something happen than to throw your shit at the guy doing something worthwhile.
When you think about it the good guy is the real villain.

Try stalker.
No villains no bad guys.

thats because average non-"ancient evil" villains are just impatient, pragmatic and self-absorbed idealists who want to make change NOW. they strive to achieve good by "breaking a few eggs" which is considered not moral and bad. you being older and realizing how little you achieved and how little you have a chance to achive ever in the first place sympathize with them cause given magical powers and chance you would do the same. most people would. changing the world and living it, becoming a legend. thats a dream as old as civilization itself.

>I'm pathetic.

At least it's something thay we both agree about

>villian wants to kill most of the population to save the planet
>faggot MC stops him because YOU CANT KILL
>either figures out some bullshit way to save the planet in five seconds with no prior thought or even worse, just ends ambiguously, planet probably being doomed

>as i get older i sympathize more and more with the antagonist(s) in many vidyas and other media

so you just turned 16

>literally enslaving people with your psychic powers
>no villians

The Templars in Ass Creed.

>Footage of Char as he never betrayed anyone in his life.

>be murderer who can freeze time with photos
>"boy do i hate minorities and health care"

>commit crime on a fucking planetary cosmic level
>it's ok cause there were a bunch of rebels on it!

>acquire wisdom
>get more misanthropic and start to only care about results, not rhetoric and sophistry
just the way it goes, kiddo

>tfw too young to even be able to grow a majestic beard like the left
When the fuck will I be ready? Do I even have any hopes if I have curly body hair? Fuck I hate curly body hair

Yes, submit to the D A R K N E S S

>31
>way more mellow and happier after clawing my up out of the pit of depression

I have to maintain this shit and keep active because I'm going to be fighting this the rest of my life but honestly I don't care about what other people like all that much, I just focus on what I like and am happy to find other people who like it too

y'all niggers need to get out and exercise

Quality post

What are some deep stories you like?

It's probably because the protagonists are usually kids and the villains are adults.

I would like to say that straight up evil assholes can be entertaining as well.

I'm the opposite, as a kid I always liked the bad character.
All the way back I'd root for Tom to finally catch that faggot mouse.
These days I'm all about the good guys.

can this shit Sup Forums fad among young people fucking END already
good grief ya broken fuckin record

Is this a veiled Wolfenstein thread?