Emperor Tullegolar

A range indicator, like in Fallout? I like it, especially for the Geneforge AP style. This gets my Emperor's Seal of Approval.

Uhg... a confirm option. Say it isn't so! The only time I've ever found one of these useful is when I'm about to destroy an army of monsters in front of me with a spell and several of them are, in fact, allies.

Quote: Originally written by Thuryl: And you forget that not all of us voted for Stalker. Give me a break, didn't I already say this to you? Quote: Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar: I assumed you voted for Stalker. Since you didn't, I really don't know why we're arguing anymore. I also said this back on page one: Quote: Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar: Do the twelve that voted for him care to explain? Don't act like your the only person I'm talking to. That aside, I'm glad you agree with me that Stalker is a weak character. Aren't you disapointed he won the best villain poll?

Not street urchins again! pp pp pp p p p pp pp pp @ <Ah! My gold! pppp ppp p ppp pppp

I never said a villain couldn't be fleshed out and have a personality, in fact, that can only enhance them. You all forget the matter at hand, however. Why Stalker, what makes him so much better than the other choices? He was not so fleshed out, he remains mysterious until you meet him towards the end, at which point all you hear his generic "save the peasants" argument. What makes him so special? Edit: Alorael: Maybe it doesn't, it's just how I feel . I tend to take a historical perspective when I look at the world today. When I see a country, I see it's entire history, not just it's current situation. This is important when looking at things such as the Middle East situation. Crusades, anyone? We were not alive when they happened, yet we continue to pay for them.

I'll have you know I never beat a Spiderweb game without cheating (making myself more powerful, not looking at puzzle answers). The same goes for every game I ever played except for World of Warcraft, but I would cheat at that if I could. You see, I don't play games for a challenge, though I get the impression that most people do. I play solely for story, kind of an alternative to reading those fantasy novels you see at the book store. Who reads those anyway? It's a matter of why you game, really.

Quote: Originally written by Delicious Vlish: Back in my day, we stared at @ all day. Respect.

I don’t know, the release date is dangerously close the the release date of the World of Warcraft expansion pack. Might that effect sales? I mean, World of Warcraft is a staple of the Mac RPG gaming community and that is Jeff's primary audience as well.

Ash Lael: Stalker massacres town. Singular. And it was a sloppy job, too. As for Javert, I believe he was, too, malicious. He went out of his way to ruin a man that had reformed his life. He was evil, and I have no qualms about calling him a villain. *i: You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you choose the Empires point of view, Stalker is a villain, but not a very good one, little more than a common rogue, in fact. If you choose a rebel point of view, you have sympathy for him, and thus you diminish his villain status and make him more of a hero. Your trying to put these two together, which is possible, but if you do that, your going to weaken both points of view, making him neither a good villain or hero. The Bomb: As an American, the bomb is a black mark on my record. I am harmed by being looked at by the rest of the world as a member of the nation that used it, and thus that is why I harbor enmity. Not that this is any of your business...

Quote: Originally written by *i: I still consider Stalker a villain if you agree with the Empire side. Ah, but then you no longer sympathize with him! The fact that you sympathize with him is the only reason people have given for why he is a good villain. Quote: Originally written by Nioca: My definition of villain, for the sake of this poll, is someone that the party, not the player, can view as evil. There you have it. Stalker is crappy at being evil, yet he won. That is why I challenge people's opinions. Quote: Originally written by Dintiradan: by Emperor T.'s definition of villain, the best villain would be someone who causes the maximum amount of harm to the maximum amount of people in the shortest span of time. It seems someone finally hit me with a reasonable argument. Very well, I shall add another element to my definition. A good villain is someone who causes harm to innocents to advance their own agenda, and does it with the greatest amount of style. Quote: Originally written by Nemesis: Does that make the bombers villains? Uh... yes! Who ever said the United States was the angel of world politics? I personally have not forgiven them for using the bomb, and I am surprised Japan has. Quote: Originally written by Lenar, Inc.: the antagonist can still be villainous without being evil This is rarely the case. As for BoA scenarios, it is never the case.

Thuryl: I still think that abandoning ones humanity can make them bizarre and frightening, which makes for a good villain. This is what made such great villains out of Hitler, Attila, Ghengis, take your pick. You can still have a developed character and be a cold blooded killed at the same time. My argument is that I don't think you can be sympathized with a be a good villain at the same time. The point where your evil actions outweigh your good intentions is when the line is crossed into villainhood, and I think that Stalker failed to cross that line sufficiently. You say a good protagonist would have made Rentar more interesting. What about Erika? You even had the pleasure of watching the two of them duke it out. Or Bon-Ihrno, who tried to explain Vahnatai culture to you as best he could? I think you underestimate the Vahnatai as characters. As for your point on non-human characters. I’m afraid I don’t know where you are going with this. Do you seriously think being a vahnatai makes Rentar less interesting? I just don't get that. How can you not like non-human characters in fantasy? I can't help but think they tend to play a major role in just about any really good fantasy out there. They provide not only a window into a bestial word, which humans find unsettling, but they can also force you to see humanity in other things. I don’t understand why you think this is a flaw, rather than a great plot enhancer. In conclusion, I assumed you voted for Stalker. Since you didn't, I really don't know why we're arguing anymore. Do you think he was a good villain or not? *i: Great villain example, it fits my description well. However, I think revealing that he is a villain was in itself a spoiler.

Who are you, Sigmund Freud? I'm sorry, I just don't see the point in knowing the entire background of the villain. Knowing their motivats is important, but why does it have to go so much farther? I think if you humanize the villain too much they lose their... villainyness, which was the problem with Stalker. It never hurts to have an air of mystery about them. People say the Darkside Loyalists are better than Rentar, but we know next to nothing about them. I have given many examples over the course of the thread of my ideal villain, care to give me a few of yours? I mean examples that fit your description. Stalker certainly doesn't, unless I missed the part where he goes into great detail about his family background. As for Rentar, you know the most important things about her, her reverence for her ancestors. Her ancestors were violated, her people didn't back her up, what more do you need to know? Why are those feelings so alien to you?

Very funny. This part still confuses me, however: Quote: Originally written by Spookee Salmon: The point about BoA/E is that the player (you) will react with the scenario is a certain way. Each player will react differently. Some people (gasp!!!) try to kill every creature in every town. Does that make them the villain? Or would the local militia be the villains? What exactly are you trying to prove here? Are we no longer discussing the villains from the poll? Thuryl: Yes, and I responded to your objections... did you have something relevant to say? An objection to another point, perhaps? I asked multiple times, and I will continue to do so.

I can't believe you both picked the Hitler point to disagree with, it was by far the least important point I was trying to make. If it pleases you, fill in the blank with any villain you desire, and my other points will remain intact.

Here is my definition of a villain, I'll even exclude the word 'evil.' A villain is: someone who is willing to harm innocents to advance their own agenda. Any objections? Everyone in the poll (that I am familiar with), and every villain from any other medium I can think of fits this description. Stalker fits this description for his destruction of that one city in A Small Rebellion. Stalker destroys one city, showing he is willing to murder to advance his agenda. His agenda is to save the innocent population, which he is in turn harming. This make him both a crappy villain and a crappy hero. You guys seem to judge a villain by 'how many redeeming qualities does this person have?' I, on the other hand, judge a villain by 'how far is this person willing to go to push their agenda?' Your standards seriously dumbfound me. Why would you judge a villain by how human they are? The best villains are those that abandon their humanity. Thuryl says villains should be like real people. This made me think: who is the greatest real-life villain ever to live? I say Hitler, any objections? What were Hitler's ways? Hate, hate, kill, kill, destroy, destroy. That's what a real-life villain does. Who does that sound the most like? Rentar! Only, Rentar has redeeming qualities, you feel sorry for her in the end (something you guys like in a villain). Why then is Rentar not your favorite villain, instead of this puny, rogue hero-wannabe? I just don't understand. If I seem like I am overreacting, it is because I take villains very seriously. Does that make me one of them?

How hard did you have to look to find that definition? I guarantee that 90% of the definitions out there have the words evil or wicked in it. It makes me so angry that you are all attempting to make yourselves look deep by picking the character that can be sympathized with. It just doesn't work that way. Your supposed to hate a good villain, not agree with him. Your supposed to fear him, not feel bad when you bathe the people he was tying to save in his blood. Good villains: Palpatine from Starwars, The Master from Fallout, Arthas from Warcraft. Good antagonists: Vader from Starwars, Salieri from Amadeus, Brutus from Shakespeare's Julius Ceasar. I wouldn't oppose to Stalker winning an antagonist poll, but this should be the thread all about the guys who sit in their towers cackling and ordering innocent children to be slaughtered! Edit: Had to get Kelandon's quote right.

We're not voting for the best antagonist here. We are voting for best villain. There is a difference. Stalker, if you can even call him a villain, is a poor example of one. Who cares if he has character, that doesn't make him a good villain. He is rather pathetic: I don't fear him, I don't hate him, I feel sorry for him. What kind of villain is so bad at what he does that you feel sorry for him?

Quote: Originally written by *i: "yeah in his/her situation, I might do the same thing" How can the person be called a villain if you think this? Are there any requirements for being a villain at all for you guys? I am begining to think the Silent Assasin is right... clearly Ghandi must be a villain as well.

What makes Stalker so evil? You guys think a good villain is someone who can also be considered good... this baffles me. Shouldn't the best villain be an actual villain? Edit: I guess what I'm trying to say is Stalker just isn't villainy enough. Sure you sympathize with him, but that's what makes him a crappy villain. A villain should invoke hatred, no?

I must admit I am surprised to see Stalker received so many votes. I could have sworn the plot was designed for you to feel sympathetic towards the rebels. Even I, heartless as I am, felt a little remorse when I threw that explosive box thing right into Luna's face. I imagined her being attractive. What a waste. Edit: Stalker is now in first place with 35% with Vahkhos in second with 29%! I don't understand how this is happening. Do the twelve that voted for him care to explain?

The best way to slow your enemies is to go for the Achilles tendon. Keep in mind this stratagy will not work against vlish!

Did you mean to make that the thread title? I haven't played half these scenarios, the ones I played I didn't like, I won't name them... yet. I made the safe bet and went with the greatest villain of all time, even though she's not a villain and was just trying to avenge horrible atrocities committed against her people.

I might be wrong, but can't you change your mind on the very last island right before you enter the final areas?

This is all very subjective. The question is, which ones do you think are the "good guys?" Do you think that creations should be free a the expense of violent warfare? Or do you think creations should remain under the orderly heel of the shapers? It really is your call. I think Jeff intended for people to be sympathetic to the rebel cause, but going with the shapers tends to seem more logical. You get to see one additional area if you go with the rebels, but I don’t think it’s enough that it should influence your decision. Go with who you like better to assure you get the ending you’ll like the best. Personal Opinion: The Shapers are the best way to go. The rebels are just as cruel, only they spread chaos while enslaving lesser creations. I always go with the Shapers. Edit: Alternate solution... play the damn game twice! It's fun.

That's simply not how the geneforge works. You can't just choose what it does to you on the spot. It takes months of forethought, and you have to add parts of people you want to take the strengths of. But what if you could build your own geneforge? Let’s say you find a proto-geneforge, an essence pool or something. Then, you just add the parts that you need to make your character how you want. Want great strength? Go battle a guardian and take his body. Want dexterity? Murder some agent and carry her back to the geneforge. Want to not go insane? Go dig up Ellrah's mangled corpse and throw that bastard into the mix! The last part probably wouldn't work since he is a servile, but you get the idea.