ITT: vidya villain tropes you hate
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
ITT: vidya villain tropes you hate
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
this trope done right is one of my favourites actually
>UHM, ACKSHYUALLY---
Debunked.
Uh, sorry sweetie. Snopes fact checked it.
Undebunked.
it was kino in metal gear rising
>I could kill you where you stand!
>...but that would be too easy. Fight my minions instead. I shall take my leave.
>I want to destroy the world just because lol
Hmm...the duality of villain motivations I see.
I was thinking of sephiroth for
as a 'no reason lol' guy, but he is evil to us, and rational according to his alien nature.
But that's not Sephiroth. Dude was already was already unhinged because of growing up like a lab rat + constant admiration of being the strongest.
Then he finds out he's a monster experiment and we fight him while he's playing a 5d chess battle with an alien parasite in his mind.
Sure sure, what about: Sephi is the product of human experimenting with nature/alien, we cannot know when the alien will repossess his blood.
he literally has a reason though. he has the blood of a powerful alien species that humans tried to use for their benefit while hiding the truth from him, which is why he hates and wants to kill us all
this is based
not every villain needs a sobstory
Jack Horner was the best surprise in Puss and Boots
No Twist Villain
No Sob Story
No Subversions
Just a complete butthole
Sundowner was one of the best villains to grace this godforsaken earth.
I love this one
And who is this?
Fandaniel from final fantasy 14
Some people are just buttholes. I think it's a woeful display of zero awareness for anybody on this basket weaving to not understand such a basic concept.
>I have a generic sympathetic backstory to make the player feel bad for me because villains can't just be evil or sociopaths.
I like a villain with depth but it's usually done in such a cliche' way nowadays.
At least make the villain go crazy so his lack of logic doesn't make any sense.
Everyone wants their villain to be Shylock but they forget that abuse he received doesn't justify the abuse he gives to others.
Shylock was right tho? He just got fricked over by everyone else
>AMBITIOUS STORYTELLING... BAD
>CHEAP GOYSLOP... GOOD
Based anon that has read his fair share of stories.
Cringe zoomer that watches marvel movies.
Why not both be sypathic and crazy?
Sympathetic*
Name 10 games
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/NotSoDifferentRemark/VideoGames
>All life is suffering because, uhhhh
>I had a rough childhood, OKAY???
>Now it's time to destroy the world
this. Come up with an actual motivation, you hacks!
>All life is suffering because, uhhh
>*villain proceeds to read off of Schopenhauer and Zapffe's bibliographies*
Literally me
>villain actually cares about his minions and treats them like family
this can be supremely based when spun in a different way
it's got unexplored potential
No frick this guy's subbordinates they're all annoying as FRICK. Ruined the arc for me.
DUHUHUHUHUH DOFEEEEE DHUHUHUHUHUHU
Villain teams being bros with each other is based and horribly underutilized
>Villain is way, way more competent and forward-thinking than the side the PC is on.
>But still has a goal that is wholly incompatible with the PC
The best. Enemies you can respect and admire, yet STILL need to kill (and probably need to kill BECAUSE of this) are the fun ones.
>I'm going to detonate a super weapon which will kill countless innocents, it will be muh legacy
people do this in real life
you'll get the point of this trope someday
Throwing a fit over losing.
>N-no! This cannot be! My plans! My troops! All gone! How could you defeat someone as great as me?!
... and so on. It fits if the villain was always supposed to be a weak person, but if he was an actual threat and a clever person it just make him look stupid and takes away the joy of defeating him. He can be humbled and defeated and still have some dignity.
>the antagonist is the protagonist from the future
it was done well in inFamous 1
It really wasn't
>the antagonist is the protagonist from the past
>the protagonist has amnesia
>The protagonist has amnesia
>Hear about this mysterious guy constantly who is just the biggest dick butthole in the entire universe and everyone hates them
Wonder what's gonna happen
>the antagonist is the protagonist from the first game
>the postgame optional superboss with 18 phases and 50 different fight-specific mechanics that requires a calculator and extremely careful planning to not get instantly wiped out is the protagonist from the first game
>Final boss is the game's superboss
>original game has 3 canon protagonists
>all 3 become bosses in the sequel
Name 5 games
Diablo 2
Diablo 2: Lord of Destruction
Diablo 2 Remastered
I hate when badguys pull a "I WAS TRYING TO STOP A BIGGER THREAT" out of their asses.
FFXV is the worst offender because this reveal IS IN THE 6TH PIECE OF DLC, the Ardyn DLC
>I don't need to talk to you or explain what I am doing, I am SO FRICKING SMART. The most you get from me is a quote from some fricking 1800s book the writer read before writing this dumb shit
C O M P L E X
M O T I V E S
>villain wants to control everyone to save the world with order or whatever
>to the point that they're actively willing to mindwipe, crush people with force or commit actual genocide to meet his gials
>throughout the game they've showed no desire whatsoever to listen to the protagonist or his friends/family, maybe even mocked them
>suddenly during the final battle they crack and instantly give up after one fight with the sole reason that they're told this is actually hurting people or becoming the thing they hate
>then the villain sacrifices themselves to save the protagonist in the same cutscene
man, i hope this shit game never happend
It happened in Rune Factory 5 (minus the genocide) for an example, but this general villain type is fairly common.
NOOOOOO YOU'RE NOT ME
only time that I got upset by a villain's backstory was in Army of Two: The Devil's Cartel
>third installement in a series
>the villains are the protagonists of the first two games
it just didn't feel right.
>I am a twisted villain. I want to save the world / humanity and free them of pain, and the only way is to destroy all humankind because they won't be in pain if they're dead.
Okay Seymour/Mithos/[insert most JRPG villains] we get it, you have parent/dead sister/[no friends/family] issues.
At least fess up to hating everyone because of your shit childhood/dead sister/[general mistreatment of others].
I'd respect omnicidal maniacs if their insane logic had internal consistency in the context of their insanity or they fessed up to the protagonists that actually they just hate everyone, frick them all, and they're taking the world with them.
>If you kill him you're no better than him
wow, he really cracked him up there.
>main character can’t kill villain
>villain gets killed by secondary protagonist or dies in some moronic way
>main character can choose to kill the villain
>if you don't do it a side character gets impatient and kills the villain himself
God Fable 2 was such shit.
Fable 2 is the only one I remember.
Borderlands 2 did it too.
>I'd respect omnicidal maniacs if their insane logic had internal consistency in the context of their insanity
Like Old King in Armored Core: For Answer?
Yakuza every single fricking time
Worst part of Xenoblade
Frick you I love Vegeta
>We live in a soci- ACK
this kinda worked well with Swords and Sandals 2 though
>villain is on the ground with a gun next to them
>protagonist and side characters walks away from him
guess the game
Yakuza
I liked it when Zenos called us out on it and we could agree with him and then proceed to punch each other to death
he's just like me
>game 1
>all villain cares about is conquest and manipulates to get his way
>dies to a hero's sacrifice
>game 2
>game 1 villain was actually setting everything up to beat the bigger badder villain but he never told anyone his actual plan at the time
>villain in the first game is some dude who just seems evil because evil
>villain in the second game appears kind of tragic but is actually just manipulative
>villain in a future game of the series turns out to be the original person of the person he possessed of which the 2 persons in which this person split were the villains of the previous games
This sounds familiar but I can’t remember
I have never played Kingdom's Hearts at all beyond the first game years ago, but I am 100% certain this is Kingdom Hearts.
kek, yes its kingdom hearts. And im not a loremaster or anything this was just what I vaguely remembered
>Villain has manipulated literally everyone (including you) in an extremely convoluted plan perfectly for thousands of years to make an insane power grab
>Fails to consider you beating them afterwards
game?
Monster Girl Quest
>porn game
>plot
lol
Borderlands 2 except it was only 5 years
>if you kill a killer, the number of killers in the world stays the same
Now, what if I kill TWO killers?
then you're already too far gone and need to be brought to justice
Literally Punisher.
“It was ME, you’re evil relative that you don’t remember, nor was my identity hinted at throughout the game”
>RUINER
>I want to eradicate all life because my girlfriend died
count bleck Super paper Mario
>"I'm not a bad guy, really I'm not..."
>does only evil and greedy things
It's worse with the hero. New Kratos from GOW was especially guilty of this
>"You don't want to know what I've done. Don't tempt me I don't care about good or evil."
>goes out of his way to do kind and righteous acts and avoid evil, more convenient ways.
Most mentions of good and bad guys to your opponent make me roll my eyes a little, why would you try to convince your enemy by saying you are not a bad guy
It's fine when used in combat as a callout
>good guys = friendlies
>bad guys = hostiles
It can be good.
Technically they aren't the same person.
young Karl looked the same as Charlie judging by Altera and Astolfo's memories.
so Charlie probably has a lot of OGKarl on him in addition to all the italian fanfiction stuff
Karl carried the game. Great presence and every one of his songs were great
Yeah they were.
Karl de Grobe is the man who actually existed in history, Charlemagne is created from how people perceive the myth of Karl's legacy. There is some mixed in there because all forms of the grail are lazy, but just like Jack and Jack the Ripper they're not the same person.
>Charlie calls Karl Charlemagne before the final fight
>Karl calls Charlie Karl before the final fight
kino
>villain is literally me
>I have seen so much shit that this entire world must be purged
>I am so suicidal that it's literally not enough for just me to die
>I am a HARD MAN doing HARD DECISIONS.
Frick you.
it is the most kino
>if you kill him then you'll be just like him!
Has there been ANY justification towards this? If his death will save millions of lives then of fricking course I'm going to finish him off. Hell, I'm sure his people would appreciate me killing their shitty tyrant of a leader so we can actually work towards some kind of liberation or peace.
I liked Max Payne 3 when Max is convinced to not kill the villian because his ally cop has more than enough evidence to sent him to jail and when the bad guy gloats he would still walk away, we get:
>You'll walk, WITH A LIMP!
>*Crushed leg noises*
3 is the one in Brazil, right? Should have killed him, Brazilian jails are either hotrible torture or a small vacation home, from where the top dogs command crime in cells with huge tvs, food brought by Uber Eats, and frick prostitutes every weekend.
It is a moral stance, not a practical one. The idea is not that killing is always inherently a wrong action no matter the context, but that killing as an ends and not the means is. Because of this it is usually presented at a time where the hero has already prevented the catastrophe or believes the fight to be over, IE the hero is standing over them with weapon raised.
Most importantly to keep in mind however is that it is never meant to be taken literally, these are their political views and you won't actually be a war criminal or whatever. Although a little forced it is playing into the classic Hero vs Villain story. Soul Sacrifice Delta is a good example of this taken to its most extreme state in most of the stories.
It's moronic. I don't care if their plan has been stopped.
How is killing someone who tried to kill millions the same as killing millions?
Every single person the Joker killed after Batman first caught him is on his head. Even Buddhists will kill to prevent evil. Just look at the whites who cried about Buddhists killing Muslims who burned Buddhist nuns alive.
Usually they explain Batman's policy by saying he knows he's insane enough that if he starts killing because it's easier he's never gonna stop
>How is killing someone who tried to kill millions the same as killing millions?
It isn't literal. The point isn't that you are literally hitler if you kill the villain under any circumstances, it is that you should hold yourself to a higher stand. I don't know why it is so hard for people to understand that stories, particularly Japanese stories which heavily lean on the Adventure/Hero's Journey format, tend to exaggerate points to hammer things home.
In the real world self defense would likely just allow you to shoot him dead the moment you have enough reason to assume he is going to hurt a lot of people. Nobody except maybe the family would try to prosecute you and or condemn your actions, but that doesn't make for good entertainment. So instead they tie it all to the Hero's inner struggles and character growth.
That's moronic and I hate you for attempting to defend it.
The trope is terrible because it doesn't take into account the context of the game. There's a whole castle of dead goons, but I stop at the boss? How does that make sense? Trying to shoehorn in some vague moral high ground against a literal embodiment of evil, just comes across as a hack. The journey of a hero doesn't require the protagonist to become moronic at the final hurdle
It was a huge issue in TLOU2 because you brutally murder a ton of random nobodies but save the one person you have a legitimate grievance against.
>It was a huge issue in TLOU2 because you brutally murder a ton of random nobodies but save the one person you have a legitimate grievance against.
I know you didn't play the game, because in reality not only does Elie have a personal grievance with Abby, but Abby is also a horrible, evil piece of shit human being and unironically worse than anyone else you've killed, her entire motivation was simping for a bunch of mass murderers because she's a moronic meathead and the only reason Elie doesn't want to kill her is because she's the caretaker of an insane murder child, who you're supposed to feel bad for because he killed his mom after his mom deadnamed him even though in reality that just makes the child seem like yet another horrible murderous psychopath that needs to be put down. God I hate this shit game.
Honestly the whole game plot was trash, the gameplay was mediocre at least.
Still, the cop out of not killing the main villian is hack writing for midwits who want to leave their audience with the least profound message in writing. It's not some epiphany or character growth, it's just cheap emotional writing especially if it's an irredeemable villian like emperor Palpatine or the Joker.
I liked a response I saw here back when it came out and shills were like 'oh it's actually more satisfying with the theme of cyclical revenge etc'.
The response was that the theme Druckman was going for would have been more effective if Ellie (justifiably) killed Abbey like the dog she is, left the kid tied to the stake or whatever, and then went back to where she last saw Dinah when she asked her to desist from revenge. But Dinah is gone as Ellie chose revenge over her. Ellie picks up her guitar to play and remember Joel, but can't because Abbey bit off her fingers. It ends as she either cries or quietly contemplates that avenged Joel, but ultimately lost all the things his sacrifices and teachings helped her to build.
THAT does a lot more with the concept of whether revenge is worth it than a hacky 'actually I'm ending the cycle' cliche. It's clear he wasn't willing to let Ellie develop logically and because of that he couldn't make the hard, narratively satisfying choice.
If Ellie NEVER killed non infected in the game, then the current ending would work better. But she fricking murders a pregnant chick and other ancillary characters and countless faceless nobodies, but not Abby - the one who arguably deserves death the most (outside of the slavers).
Why is Ellie held to this standard of not killing when Abbey ALSO could have made the decision to end the cycle by seeing Joel doing good for his community, especially after saving her ass? Both are protagonists that the game strains over making you identify with. The intended contrast between Ellie and Abbey being more similar than different falls so fricking flat in the context of the gameplay. But I guess that isn't surprising since LoU2 is ostensibly a movie first.
>Abby is also a horrible, evil piece of shit human being and unironically worse than anyone else you've killed
You are moronic, you kill a bunch of sadistic slavers right before the final confrontation with Abby.
And? The slavers don't have the mistaken belief that their actions are righteous, they know they're evil buttholes who are just playing to win. Abby mistakenly believes herself to be a good guy, and will continue to carry out far more heinous acts as a result than a bunch of slavers who will die after capturing a couple of random people anyway.
It isn't batmat's job to decide that. I agree he should be dead, but that's on the criminal justice system.
People mock superheroes for this, but they need to remember superheroes are vigilantes that inherently break the law and the authorities don't have a reason to trust them and not try to arrest ro shoot them on sight as chaotic madmen. But if it's known that a vigilante won't cross a certain line no matter what, that gives them at least some notion of accountability and makes them more trustworthy, especially in a world flooded with vigilantes where having some of them as allies is preferable.
Something else is that, although most superheroes work outside the law, they still generally respect it. Them working outside the law is, ideally, just a result of authorities not being equipped to deal with supervillains. But they're not looking to change the status quo or overthrow the government. Which is why they believe in law and due process. If the law sentences a villain to death penalty, a superhero won't interfere, but they believe they have the right to make decisions like this and take the law into their own hands, only help uphold it.
You don't even have to go that far, just look at the skeleton and it is easy to understand.
>Villain kills out of hate
>Hero hates Villain
>If Hero kills Villain out of hate, both of them kill out of hate
The biggest problem in DC is that their jails are a joke, and they need to be to keep the constant content coming, and that no group of people ever wants to change the status quo without it being completely moronic or evil Superman.
I'm not mad that Batman didn't kill the Joker. I find ridiculous that Joker didn't die trying to escape custody or getting shanked in the shower when the cops let him there with other prisoners "by mistake"
Yeah, I can understand Batman's autism and autbor's fiat means he never kills no one, but a lot of games really push this shit. Especially when the heroes aren't some kind of modern law enforcement or bounty hunters. Why would a knight or a post apocalyptic survivor not execute the head of the enemy faction after beating him in battle?
Druckman is high on his own farts.
I fricking hate this, that reasoning is never done well in any media. It's only acceptable when the reasoning is
>if you kill him, you will never be the same again
which was what happened in Fullmetal Alchemist.
>It's only acceptable when the reasoning is "if you kill him, you will never be the same again"
That IS the reasoning.
Is Breaking Bad any good?
Give me your top 5 series of all time and I'll tell you if you'll like it.
I don't really watch live action TV. Don't really watch movies either unless I really like them. Used to watch a lot of anime.
Guess you can give it a shot. It's pretty good but massively overhyped though.
picked it up randomly during xmas break, ended up watching the entirety of it, along with Better Call Saul
yeah, it's pretty fricking good
Wait does this mean hate as in for what they’ve done and who they are or because their character is terribly written
>Villain that does terrible shit because of traumatic youth and constantly monologues how no one understands their pain
PERRRSONAAAA
PERUSONA
>Villain has justified and normal goal but since they go about it in a sinister way and they look evil we have to kill them
>villain is so evil that he makes the player not care about him by giving the game as little of a story as possible and only really giving some backstory right before the finale in hopes of manipulating the player to just do sidequests forever
>As a last resort he tries to make his final fight as boring as possible in hopes of making the player turn of the game so he can never be defeated
Nice try villain I've played Drakengard.
> villain might just be a stern but loving father
> N-NO HE’S ACTUALLY EVIL NOW
fricking hell, this was a great movie but that bit really did feel like it was character assassination for the sake of not letting an ideology have a morales character. especially when they had Pinocchio talking with the son about sternness and love, I'd be curious to find out why exactly they decided to do it
>we are the same
That CAN be kino when used right though.
>You still foolishly consider yourself an entity separate from the whole, I know better. And I. Will. Show you.
>Villain decides to frick up the whole world just for fun and because they can
>Accidentally fricks it up way more than they meant to, ruins everything for everyone forever including themselves
>protagonist decides to frick up the whole world just for fun and because they can
>purposefully fricks it up way more than they meant to, ruins everything for everyone forever including themselves, main villain of the game is creeped out by them and tries to stop them, protagonist vores him
>laughs about it as the world is erased
Undertale?
No, Undertale's genocide route is literal pussy shit comapred to Soul Nomad.
I'm gonna guess he's talking about Soul Nomad and the World Eaters
>villain was actually just possessed by an evil spirit
JRPGs love this dogshit
>kick villain's ass thoroughly in the boss fight
>cutscene plays afterwards where my character either loses or is barely holding on despite never getting hit by that butthole once in the actual fight
Name seven games.
Trails of Cold Steel
Trails of Cold Steel 2
Trails of Cold Steel 3
Trails of Cold Steel 4
Hajimari no Kiseki
Final Fantasy X
Jackie Chan: Stuntmaster
>Jackie Chan: Stuntmaster
this trope was cool as frick in Persona 4 frick you
>boss' lieutenant/subordinate/right hand is infinitely better both as a character and a boss fight
>Due to the villains actions you get a emotionally numb cute girl you have to foster for her to recover and eventually form a strong bond. And lots of sex
>Villain literally has no motive and is just a fricking lunatic.
Now so rare with all the shades of grey villains I actually wouldn't mind a bad dude I'm cool enough to kill.
they're all white now.
>Uh actually it's society fault I'm evil so that gives me the right to murder a bunch people
A then someone makes a thread on Ganker about their BASED and did nothing wrong.
I AM THE EGGMAN!
>It's another "the villain's motives are better than the protagonist's" trope.
Wow how fricking original, I truly miss villains who were just evil for the sake of being evil. Nowadays everything just needs to have a complacent story behind it for something reasons, villains are meant to be hated.
>x is meant to be y
midwit art take
>Villains are meant to be hated
Frick you. Villains are meant for protagonists to struggle against so that they learn something about themselves.
Yasu did nothing wrong
It turned out that way but it wasn't really by their own choosing.
Villains are meant to be hated, that doesn't mean that's all they are meant to fricking do. You can have a villain who puts a fight and makes the protagonist learn a thing or two unintentionally or whatever. But the second the villain just goes "Uhhh actually I was just trying to make the lives of my people better and shit" is when I roll my eyes back and go "Oh this fricking moronic shit again? Yeah great never would have seen that one coming."
>"Uhhh actually I was just trying to make the lives of my people better and shit
You can have a character that does this and is still clearly villainous. You're viewing this too narrowly.
and I truly miss when I didn't see people say this exact opinion every fricking corner I turn
It's not a particularly good one either.
Characters like Sundowner work because they aren't the main threat. He isn't even the penultimate conflict. A villain who's just an butthole for the sake of it simply isn't good enough to carry a story. They're only good supplements for a nuanced antagonist. You don't see it as much anymore because it's poor writing and 9 times out of 10 makes for an ultimately uninteresting climax.
>You don't see it as much anymore because it's poor writing and 9 times out of 10 makes for an ultimately uninteresting climax.
Or people are so caught up in their pretentious buttholes these days that they can no longer accept a basic narrative for what it is. Everything has to be deep with multiple nuances and shades of grey! We can have both, you know? That's what pisses me off the most, more than the idea itself.
you can enjoy your penny pinchers menu cheeseburger if you want, I enjoy them to. but don't be a gay and stand up when someone decides they want to try something a outside of the norm
Except you are considering that the villain is an butthole and nothing but an butthole. I'm just tired of every single fricking modern day story trying to give villains a redemption moment for some ungodly reason, its ok for villains to die as villains.
And yes it is also ok for them to just be evil.
Not killing the end boss because "le KiLlInG iS BaD"
Nobody cared about the 100s of dead minions, but the one person who absolutely should be killed gets to walk so devs can make a ham fisted moral stance.
>vidya villain tropes you hate
When the villain is established as clearly evil or something close to it but then they do a 180 at the last second and make him ackshully a good guy all along.
>When the villain is established as clearly evil or something close to it but then they do a 180 at the last second and make him ackshully a good guy all along.
Yeah, I hated that in Cold Steel 4 and in the Ardyn DLC
>Villain has a scene where they eat food and its not really relevant to anything. They just eat the food.
>it's the greatest scene in the entire series
Nah the best scene is the one where a single person watches a guy fail high jump 300 times and nobody else is there. PS I now love this guy.
>villain is just kind of a dick and unpredictable
>everyone treats like he's the most evil motherfricker around despite him genuinely helping out the protagonists multiple times
Kirei is extremely based and I hate how TM treated him
Everyone in the same room as Kirei knows he's fricked in the head. It's instinct.
There's a documented phenomena where just being in the same room as a sociopath can unnerve you.
Yeah, I can understand that other characters feel unnerved by Kirei's presence, but I think their antagonism against him is unwarranted a lot of the time.
>Villain literally escapes the final boss fight and goes "hahahahah see you in the sequel"
>It's actually really good, leaving absolutely nothing resolved at all.
LoK is a weird series.
>""""""MAIN TOTALLY THE MAIN VILLAIN ANTAGONIST FINAL BOSS RIGHT HERE GUYS""""" is a bumbling fricking moron
>Side villain/ villain assistant/ chump villain is actually LE BIG EVIL AND IS LE WAY STRONK AND TAKES THE MAGUFFIN THEY WERE THE REAL BAD GUY ALL ALONG
>Work """"Together"""" with bumbling moron """"antagonist"""" (Spoiler alert, they do frick all to help and its really just the protag winning like usual)
>After BIGGU BAD is dead they go back to hating each other and bumbling moron villain continues to be villain
I really fricking hate this one
>Antagonist bodies you right at the start of the game.
>Completely unstoppable
>You're just a lil guy
>Chase him as he stomps through the world wrecking shit
>"How are we gonna stop him?"
>"This is a suicide mission!"
>Heh they don't know I've played video games and know he'll somehow be beata-
>Nope, you can't beat him and he wins and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.
>We did tell you.
I know PoEII isn't exactly great, but honestly this was a nice inversion. Even though by this point I've bodied the avatar of heat death and multiple fricked up things. Still.
>WHAT ARE YOUR PLANS???
>haha.. you are too simple to even begin to comprehend (aka i have a garbage writer)
Anytime a villian refuses to elaborate on their plans, you know the writer is trash.
Most 40K games when dealing with Eldar have this. Only Inquisitor Marty has one of them explaining properly, but only after you kick his ass.
>Ask villains plans
>They say I'm too smart to understand why grognar smash.
>My plan is too complex for your feeble minds to comprehend!!
>*find out later it isn't complex at all*
>Yes now I'm at your mercy and you can kill me but then you'll never know this SECRET
>villain is a wheel
>he can move, he can feel
>you can't stop him turning
I have a vegana Ganker!
>villain is evil because....
>he's hungry???
great writing todd
my most hated is the "bigger bad that has no reason to exist nor had any buildup" that shows up after you beat the big bad.