Villains' Discussion

+
Villains' Discussion

Let's just discuss anything villain related. What kind of villain would you like to see in CP2077?


I think a great example of a scary villain is Anton Chigurh, from the movie No Country For Old Men:

Chigurh is great while being logical and unemotional, having morals and being unreasonable but more importantly by liking to have power and imposing his views into the world.

Chigurh talks to his victims in a rational way before killing them, while making them know they'll die. Thus, he gives his victims hope to convince him and beg him not to die. He creates fear. He decides the fate of his victims by playing a coin toss. He kills by chance, because of this he is known as "the personification of death" AKA "the agent of fate".

So the creative director said in a speech some years ago that the character Patrick Bateman from the movie American Psycho is a great example of a corporate villain.


Patrick Bateman is nice inspiration for a villain, his superficial charisma and lack of self awareness while at the same time being confident is the key in making a unsettling character. But, he is not as great as Chigurh..

Consider that when we talk about fear and many other fellings, what may happen is way scarier than what will happen. Expectation has a greater potential than reality, because expectation does not focus on what is certain, but rather on the uncertain, in other words it focus in possibilities. Directors and writers know this, if of course they're master emotion manipulators. The element of the unkown is powerfull in horror movies, letting the audience to imagine how the monster looks like might be scarier than actually showing the monster. The fear is based on the unkown. But it has its downsides, specially when it is ONLY based on the unkown and said monster never appears to the audience. It gets boring, given the fact that it is overused in modern stories, the audience knows for certain when a movie will only have suspense and will never show the actual monster in full detail. It's a overused cliche to never show the monster.

The real key is not hiding the monster all the time, or showing it in all scenes, in order to create the element of unsettledness , but to make both at the same time. Patrick Bateman is exactly this, because of his extremely superficial charisma it is easier for the audience to see glimpses of who he really is (even before he starts killing or talking about killing people).

Patrick Bateman is supposed to represent a psychopath, even if not in realistic terms, who is a monster using a human mask (he tries to "fit in" as he even says), a mask that is damaged and full of cracks (as made possible by his superfluous charisma), the audience then can see the monster behind the mask. The audience can see that Patrick Bateman is a psychopath when he is tries to be a part of society. This is illustrated by many scenes when he is talking to other people. It's a dellusional man who believes he is really convincing people, by acting "normal" when he's not. These characters he talks to realize there is something wrong with him, sometimes, in other ocasions they simply think he's being ironic.

Perhaps he is not that scary to the viewers, but to those around him he might be unsettling.
 
Last edited:
I can't view Bateman as a "villain". He's just a man on the edge losing his grasp on reality.

A good "corporate villain" could be someone relatable and a bit Machiavellian like Dick Jones or Tony Soprano or Al Swearengen. Well, ok, Jones' douchery isn't exactly relatable, but anyway.

 
Hi,
there could be more diversity.
Do not to have a single villain, owner of some factory, rich man with visions, as always interpreted.
There could be different groups or individuals with different ambitions, but hating each other for just being different and making themselves to be seen, propagated and "disturb" people from ambitions of others.
There could be drug dealers, factory mans, green peace, religion groups, technology nerds, politicians,...
As I understand it, player is policeman - he could be haten by some just for trying make the world "better" place.
 
0248991;n9259501 said:
there could be more diversity. Do not to have a single villain

Oh, I definitely agree. I don't think the game should have a villain at all, just a cast of characters who define their own moral standings accepting or opposing (or ignoring) of which is the players own responsibility. And goals where some of those NPC's/groups might turn into an obstacle to get past, and only being a villain in those terms (not because "eevile corporations and criminals doing bad naughty things..."). The world there doesn't need "good guys" or "bad guys"; world there needs "opportunists", survivors, people who can justify their actions with reason and logic regardless of whether or not the player agrees (some might be persuaded or decieved to support other views by a clever PC, but... that shouldn't be easy).
 
Last edited:
No Title

I think Ronny Cox as Dick Jones and Miguel Ferrer as Bob Morton from Robocop (1987) make excellent templates for your corporate villain. Both are extremely driven and self serving, but still see the way to ultimate power as increasing the profits of the company at all costs.



Actually, come to think of it, Ronny Cox is a great villain to emulate in many of his roles.
 

Attachments

  • photo162941.jpg
    photo162941.jpg
    62.8 KB · Views: 33
Rawls;n9259221 said:
I prefer villains who are arguably justified. The facts that give the villain motivation are the most important thing to compelling characters IMO. Also a really big mustache helps. I'm a traditionalist.

This. Imagine a villain that is capable of convincing a good hearted person and even the Main Charater of doing evil things, this is what I would like to see in 2077. Having black and white vilains and good guys also sucks.


 
Last edited:
One of the best loved (loved???) villiains in video games was Jon Irenicus from the Baldurs Gate saga.
He had reasons and motivations for doing what he did that you could relate to.
If you're an "Ends justify the means" sort.
 
The Master from Fallout was also pretty well done for "villain" with motivation and logic behind his actions.
 
Consider the circumstances (no need to agree with the logic, just understand where it's coming from). And he's not really all that "insane". Not in the same vein as someone like Bateman or... Joker. If you bring him proof, he admits being wrong and is shocked by the discovery and devastated by the realisation of what he's done due to being wrong.

Yeah, that kinda sounded like an argument. It's not supposed to be. Just to illustrate a multifaceted and relatable (in a way) villain who is not completely dehumaized for being a villain, who has a goal to agree with but, by his own mistake, objectionable methods.
 
Last edited:
Suhiira;n9262841 said:
Well ... what passes for logic if you're insane.

What is the definition of an insane character anyways? What makes someone normal?

Does "insanity" means: to have convictions that are far away from reality, while being normal is the opposite? But since "Reality" has yet no objective truth in defining it what is is...and yet it is also a word with a meaning, and meanings are a consensus. Isn't a "consensus" what the majority thinks its closer to truth?
Then, isn't reality just a meaning based on what the majority thinks it is? So, isn't "insanity" just a meaning based on what the majority thinks it is?
If the answer to all this question is "Yes", isn't Batman as insane as the Joker? So, we call the bad one "insane", while the good one we call "normal", because it is convenient to us? Isn't it all about perspectives? Oh no, I'm talking like an insane villain again.





 
Last edited:
Lisbeth_Salander;n9263761 said:
---what's "insane" asked in the most difficult way imaginable---

What if your perception of the world is actually my reality superimposed over yours or what you might consider to be yours given that you don't know if it is. When a popcorn pops, is it a creation of a universe like ours that only lasts for a second to us but a billion billion years to itself? Does anything actually exists beyond our individual perceptions, and do our perceptions of the world align in any way... is my banana also your banana or do you, in your reality, peel a and eat what I in my reality would call a lawnmower; if I ate a lawmower in my reality would it look to you like I was chomping on a chocolate cake?

Do you know what you don't know? Does knowing what you don't know mean that you don't don't know, and if you don't don't know means that you know, you can't very well not know, yes?
 
Last edited:
kofeiiniturpa


My argument is that the definitions of insanity are perhaps based on what the majority thinks. Instead of making an argument, you made jokes.

While I'm discussing the implications of meaning. You're discussing the implications of reality.

>-what's "insane" asked in the most difficult way imaginable-

Was it difficult, because you didn't understand it?
 
Lisbeth_Salander;n9264171 said:
Was it difficult, because you didn't understand it?

No. Before you edited, it seemed that you were intentionally making it sound difficult with terms and themes whose purpose didn't seem to be anything but to make it sound difficult. Hence my post (out of jest) below it -- there's no argumet there, just an intent of sounding difficult.

Insanity is a range of abnormal behaviors and perceptions that distances the person from the rest of us. In layman's terms. If you wish to find some sort of "deeper philosophy of insanity" or some existential debate about "who's really the insane one"... I suppose there needs to be some sort of point of reference to begin from since it's hardly universal.
 
kofeiiniturpa;n9264311 said:
Hence my post (out of jest) below it -- there's no argumet there, just an intent of sounding difficult.

What one does for redpoints, huh? Even to ridicule others in order to sound funny. Are humans in their last extremity really a bag of shit?

Suhiira and I discussed for 7 days if it would be plausible for CP2077 to have AIs in the other thread. He/she was objective the whole time, you couldn't be objective in your first direct reply to me in this thread.

kofeiiniturpa;n9264311 said:
Insanity is a range of abnormal behaviors and perceptions that distances the person from the rest of us.

>Your definition is "Insanity is a range of abnormal behaviors and perceptions that distances the person from the rest of us."

>My questioning was "So, isn't "insanity" just a meaning based on what the majority thinks it is?"

Hmmm. I wonder if there is correlation between the two?

kofeiiniturpa;n9264311 said:
No. Before you edited, it seemed that you were intentionally making it sound difficult with terms and themes whose purpose didn't seem to be anything but to make it sound difficult. Hence my post (out of jest) below it -- there's no argumet there, just an intent of sounding difficult.

I edited 3 minutes after you replied, I didn't refreshed the page to see your reply.

So I did it intentionally? Ok.

I suppose there needs to be some sort of point of reference to begin from since it's hardly universal.

It is in the sense that all its meanings are based on the subjective. That was my point.
 
Last edited:
Lisbeth_Salander;n9264441 said:
>Your definition is "Insanity is a range of abnormal behaviors and perceptions that distances the person from the rest of us."

>My questioning was "So, isn't "insanity" just a meaning based on what the majority thinks it is?"

Hmmm. I wonder if there is correlation between the two?

That's two different things, though. "Thinking" - as you put it - someone is insane =/= someone actually being insane. It's not a "majority opinion", it is based on concrete behavior (that not all might even think is automatically insane for what ever reason...).

Lisbeth_Salander;n9264441 said:
What one does for redpoints, huh? Even to ridicule others in order to sound funny. Humans in their last extremity are really a bag of shit.

That I willingly admit I don't understand.

Well, I understand what it says, but the point escapes me. You think I post shitty stupid posts because I crave for some forum approval points and think that is the best way to get them? No no, missy. I get my dose of delicious reddies from my superbly intelligent posts, those with the subliminal messages that feed the cerebral cortex and gives the urge to press the REDpoint button. (This post has none of that.)

And lastly, I'm not dead yet.

Lisbeth_Salander;n9264441 said:
It is in the sense that all its meanings are based on the subjective. That was my point.

It's only subjective if you deny the abnormality of it (in medical terms). It's a comparison, not so much an opinion.

 
Last edited:
Have you guys ever wondered why www.reddit.com/r/cyberpunkgame is popular and this forum is kinda dead? Of course there are thousands of thousands of users in reddit as a whole, but what explains here being dead? I wonder what kind of elements keep users from posting here hmmm.

kofeiiniturpa;n9264621 said:
I get my dose of delicious reddies from my superbly intelligent posts, those with the subliminal messages that feed the cerebral cortex and gives the urge to press the REDpoint button. (This post has none of that.)

kofeiiniturpa;n9264621 said:
What can I say. I'm a horrible person and I love it. (Technically it wasn't a direct reply.. I didn't quote you. But that's nitpicking.)

>openly admits you're not objective
>openly affirms you are smart

Jesus Christ.

kofeiiniturpa;n9264621 said:
That's two different things, though. "Thinking" - as you put it - someone is insane =/= someone actually being insane. It's not a "majority opinion", it is based on concrete behavior (that not all might even think is automatically insane for what ever reason...).
>implying there's no correlation between behavior and thoughts

huh?
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom