Games where you are the bad guy (but don't know it)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

TheMann:

Fiz_The_Toaster:
In my defense, I didn't feel the need to since the thread title did hint at how games end, so my bad. Didn't mean to ruin the ending for ya.

Eh, fair enough. That's a valid point. I'm actually not that butt-hurt; it was free DLC anyway. Now, on the other hand, if anyone ruins the end of Bastion, or the new-to-PC, Alan Wake for me, I will reach through the internet and employ my Fist of Doom. Don't make me get out the fist. (Besides, Amnesia: A Machine for Pigs looks to be awesome.)

Yeah I'd be super pissed if anyone ruins Bastion for me, I haven't played it yet and I've been avoiding threads about that game like the plaque. Ditto about that new Amnesia game, I can't wait to be scared and have sleepless nights!

Hmm, I could see Dead Space on that list almost. I never fully played the sequel, but since:

A) You enter the scene in denial of what happened to your girlfriend
B) You aren't exactly a sane person during the entire game
C) You effectively have no face or personality until the end of the game (he can't see himself trapped on USG Ishimura fighting for his life against zombie-analogues)

I half expected Isaac to wake up in an asylum after single-handedly killing the entire crew of the planet-cracker USG Ishimura and the military USM Valor in a crazed rage. Perhaps the necromorphs were just a side effect of his mind snapping.

edit:

Richard Hannay:
Braid. Turns out you're a creepy stalker who can't move on.

Damn... ninja'd..

Ah well, he's right. Doesn't stop it from being one of my all time favourite games. Ever.

It's just...really good.

Actually, the Legacy of Kain/Soul Reaver Series pull this off pretty well.

I find the story's twists and turns throughout all four games to be quite enjoyable, and the world it crafts to be quite rich with lore, and one I would dearly love to explore again.

Richard Hannay:
Braid. Turns out you're a creepy stalker who can't move on.

OR you might also be the guy she gets back together with. It's not terribly clear at the end (by which I mean the epilogue tomes, and not the much more straight-forward "Ohhhhhhhh" moment).

Knights of the old republic one , you are well everyone should know by now

kiri2tsubasa:

JaceArveduin:
The Bard's Tale (2005) you actually are helping the bad guys, and at the end, you get to choose if you want to be good, bad, or not give a fuck and walk straight out. Good game, funny as hell.

Shame they never made a sequel to this game. But I doubt the sequel would have been as good/funny as the first.

Bard's tale was a reboot/sequel anyway. The original was much, much older.

waj9876:
Well, it seems not many people are too keen to read anything passed the title. Because if they were, they'd realize they weren't supposed to name ANY game where you are the villain. Just the ones that are presented as good, and in hindsight are HORRIBLE people.

I'd have to say Heather Mason from Silent Hill 3. Even after the possibility that the monsters you've been killing are actually just random people she's murdering, does that stop her? No.

In all fairness, it's a Silent Hill game - in most cases, if you're killing stuff instead of running away, you're doing it wrong.

Haze, of course. That's pretty much follows the exact formula.

Soooo many people missed the point of this thread... It's about protagonist fridge-logic in games people, not the game's story where it turns out you're the villain.

OT: Fallout 3 or NV, where you start to think up tragic back-stories for the poor and sickly drug addict you just gunned down in cold blood.

Any Warhammer: 40K game. You're a monster no matter what race you choose.

Prey: Your actions will prevent the seeding of life on countless worlds.

A good number of JRPGs fall into this category:

The second Tales of Symphonia was already mentioned, but the first falls into this category too.

Personas 3 and 4

Really, just about any Shin Megami Tensei game.

Okay, so I've made a few comments to other people's posts, but I've yet to really add my own.

So: Earth 2140 (as evidenced by both the intro and the plot of Earth 2150).

The intro sequence shows 3 minutes of glorified massacre on both sides, culminating in data-theft and the self-destruction of a base. This is actually directly tied to the start of both campaigns.

You play as either Not-The-USA or Not-The-USSR, sending out either terminators or conscripts to win a bitter war for supremacy to decide who gets to milk the Earth for its fading resources.

This isn't like Total Annihilation, where it all starts over a difference in ideology. War breaks out simply because both sides have run out of space to pilfer resources from and they want more - none of which will be evenly distributed, since Not-The-USSR is a Stalin-esque dictatorship and Not-The-USA uses robots while the rich sit quite literally fat and happy in their underground cities, consuming like good little sheep.

Both victories are essentially the same: Congratulations, you've broken the back of the other army and won the war! Now you can pick off the stragglers at your leisure...

Which brings us to the mission packs!

The first one is just 40 more missions (you read that right, it's game-sized) of wiping out pockets of resistance with a couple of new units, but the second one introduces super-weapons. And to memory, you already had nukes by the end of the first one, so now you get super super weapons!

The resulting clash of which ruptures tectonic plates and knocks the Earth out of its stable orbit around the sun.

Cue Earth 2150: The Earth is doomed, so mine the crap out of it and build an escape ship!

Seriously, that's the basic plot of 2150. Neat game though, especially for anyone who played Dune 2. Remember wishing you could use your carry-alls to pick up tanks and drop them on each other? Well, now you can...

Also, I saw someone else refer to Warzone 2100. Earth 2150 is arguably a copy (or more flatteringly, an "evolution") of Warzone, and not just the build-your-own-tanks mechanic - the backstory of Not-The-USSR holds some startling similarities to the beginning of Warzone as well (except that it starts in nuke-winter-Russia instead of nuke-winter-USA).

World at War.

How will General von Reich be able to feed his 3 children now that his head has been re-purposed as a fatally wounded drinks holder?

Command and Conquer? I mean at least Kane wanted to save the Earth and actually do something about it unlike EDI who only interests is stopping him but not looking at the big picture (how to stop Tiberian).

I am going to say the Uncharted series seeing as Nathan Drake has almost killed as many people as Stalin.

zerobudgetgamer:
Actually, the Legacy of Kain/Soul Reaver Series pull this off pretty well.

I find the story's twists and turns throughout all four games to be quite enjoyable, and the world it crafts to be quite rich with lore, and one I would dearly love to explore again.

I will have to disagree with you on the first game since...

We cant talk about this game without spoiling ANYTHING -_-

How has nobody mentioned FFvii yet?

In the opening scene, you a invading a power station with the express purpose of bombing it to scare people out of their dependence on mako energy.

How do you spell "hero" in FFvii? T E R R O R I S T

as others have mentioned the paradox grand strategy games. it doesnt matter the country as they all play the same.

last time it hit badly was when i finished a game of hearts of iron 3.. the german empire stretched across the globe, from the americas to asia, from siberia to australia.

yay i had won.. and then it struck me.. the world i had just created, a world where the 3rd reich ruled the world and was uncontested, where nukes had rained down on los angeles, new york and washington DC a world where death camps and indocrination would be common place a world where slavery now existed enmass

I was thinking this way about the bandits when I was playing Borderlands the other day.

While the bandits are barbaric and violent in pretty much everything they do, and are indeed very bad men, the "good guys" aren't much better.

The bandits are abandoned to live on this planet that is incredibly harsh, populated with animals that would rip them to shreds if you go anywhere near them. So they are forced to devolve into territorial creatures that have to band together to survive. So having joined together as well as taking in the mad and cribbled, who couldn't survive on their own, they made settlements and tried to survive everything the planet throws at them.

Then a bunch of trigger happy mercenaries land on a lawless planet in search of a legendary treasure. So the bandits have to band even closer together having to deal with this new, very well armed threat. So after years of agression from the mercs the bandits have started lashing out as a show of dominance in an effort to dissaude the mercs from further aggressions against them.

So when I showed up on Pandora and start killing them for vandilizing an annoying robot, and getting in the way of my treasure, I was attacking a rudimentary society that more resembles territorial dogs than men, and are simply trying to protect themselves from everything, because everything they've known has tried to kill them.

Scarim Coral:
Command and Conquer? I mean at least Kane wanted to save the Earth and actually do something about it unlike EDI who only interests is stopping him but not looking at the big picture (how to stop Tiberian).

Not really, in the first game it was basically an extremely large terrorist group. In the second game, here's the Brotherhood of Nod ending:

"Slavik's forces successfully position the three ICBMs to destroy GDSS Philadelphia. Subsequently, the World Altering Missile (WAM) is launched and turns Earth into one Red Zone, turning carbon-based life into Tiberium-based life. Curiously, as the missile was launched, Kane mysteriously dissolved into light."

In case you don't understand, Nod COVERS THE EARTH IN TIBERIUM.

Finally, in Tiberium Wars their goal is still to embrace tiberium as the future of humanity, they've just started helping people in poorer countries to gain support now.

Only in Command and Conquer 4 does this change. The idea that the brotherhood ever wanted to stop tiberium before CnC 4 is just plain wrong. GDI wanted to stop him because they wanted to stop tiberium, whereas he wanted to cover the planet with it.

Treblaine:
Oh yeah, Of course, Modern Warfare 2

Mainly for the final act, just realise.

Just take a step back and think about this. Price has just spend the past few years in a horrible Russian prison, who knows if he has defected in that time. And what happens immediately after he is released and back in service? He hijacks a nuclear submarine and fires a nuke to detonate over the United States! That is fucking insane.

Then when Shepard attacks him Price suddenly assumes "oooh, Shepard is a bad guy" never stops to considerer they are trying to arrest him as they think he is compromised. This is after Price specifically disobeyed orders and deliberately cut communications. Yes, Soap gets killed by Shepard but how do we know Shepard doesn't just think that Soap is a traitor in a foiled attack at nuking the United States.

Makarov is responsible for framing America (totally implausibly) for the massacre and not only is Shepard never implicated but at no point are the key characters ever given any reason to think he is. They don't just abandon hunting Makarov, they actually cooperate with him saying they will HELP him by killing Shepard.

KILLING SHEPARD!!!

FUCKING WHY?!!??!!!
Go to the UK, send a message to the UK, tell them what you think this crazy general has done. Price is acting UTTERLY INSANE to think that it's a good idea to go and kill Shepard. And it's not a precision strike, it involves killing dozens of allied servicemen who were your friends! Killing so many of your own side just to kill Shepard.

just look at this and consider the dialogue based on the presumption you are playing crazed traitorous assassins who have been manipulate and Shepard is just a loyal soldier:

Notice Shepard never admitted to anything. He never said he started this war... he never said he staged or allowed the massacre... just stating the obvious that with this war there will be no shortage of volunteers. He is gloating to a vanquished terrorists! YOU ARE THE TERRORIST! the person leeding ALL of this is Price who just spent the past Half Decade being indoctrinated and tortured by the Russians likely polluting his mind with doubt and to betray his masters.

While you make some good points about the fact that Shepard never says he had any responsiblity for the war, and the fact that Price was acting like a rogue operative, and his motive to destroy a US military base and kill dozens of soldiers doesn't hold weight as anything other than blind revenge. (Even if Price was a completely righteous soldier.)

But if Shepard wanted to arrest Price he could have done it before they searched Makarov's safehouse. They were working together and coordinating on how to take Makarov down, so Shepard could have arrested Price and just gotten on with the taking Makarov down with the rest of 141. And when he takes out 141 he admits that he's taking care of loose ends, and doesn't even try to arrest Ghost and Roach, he flatout murders them.

SaneAmongInsane:

I'm with you on mario

Komrad Mario, the people's choice.

image

The Shadowlord:
...Really guys? Really? Not a single mention of NieR? Which is probably the embodiment of the idea of playing the unsuspecting villain.

Was gonna mention that one.

One of the ones I wanted to point out was Suikoden 2 really began to blur good or evil. At least when it came to the later parts (Luca Blight was a dick no matter how you look at it.)

Another one is (gonna spoiler the game itself because it's not out in Americaland yet. A hint, it's a JRPG, is on the Wii and starts with an X)

Well in Age of Mythology the Titans, the protagonist is tricked into weakening the Norse, Egyptian and Greek gods by Kronos which leads to Kronos' escape from Tartarus but he eventually learns that what he did was wrong and joins the fight against him. However if you think about from the games' basis in mythology, Zeus was kind of a jerk and you're supporting his rise to power while dooming the Titans to be locked away in an I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream-type prison. I mean Kronos sort of deserves it, but at one point in the game you send Prometheus back to his prison which was having his liver torn out every day for the heinous crime of, helping humans.

Yeah, you really do play the bad guy in AoM

Like people have already pointed out, KotOR.

Weealzabob:

Treblaine:
Oh yeah, Of course, Modern Warfare 2

Mainly for the final act, just realise.

Just take a step back and think about this. Price has just spend the past few years in a horrible Russian prison, who knows if he has defected in that time. And what happens immediately after he is released and back in service? He hijacks a nuclear submarine and fires a nuke to detonate over the United States! That is fucking insane.

Then when Shepard attacks him Price suddenly assumes "oooh, Shepard is a bad guy" never stops to considerer they are trying to arrest him as they think he is compromised. This is after Price specifically disobeyed orders and deliberately cut communications. Yes, Soap gets killed by Shepard but how do we know Shepard doesn't just think that Soap is a traitor in a foiled attack at nuking the United States.

Makarov is responsible for framing America (totally implausibly) for the massacre and not only is Shepard never implicated but at no point are the key characters ever given any reason to think he is. They don't just abandon hunting Makarov, they actually cooperate with him saying they will HELP him by killing Shepard.

KILLING SHEPARD!!!

FUCKING WHY?!!??!!!
Go to the UK, send a message to the UK, tell them what you think this crazy general has done. Price is acting UTTERLY INSANE to think that it's a good idea to go and kill Shepard. And it's not a precision strike, it involves killing dozens of allied servicemen who were your friends! Killing so many of your own side just to kill Shepard.

just look at this and consider the dialogue based on the presumption you are playing crazed traitorous assassins who have been manipulate and Shepard is just a loyal soldier:

Notice Shepard never admitted to anything. He never said he started this war... he never said he staged or allowed the massacre... just stating the obvious that with this war there will be no shortage of volunteers. He is gloating to a vanquished terrorists! YOU ARE THE TERRORIST! the person leeding ALL of this is Price who just spent the past Half Decade being indoctrinated and tortured by the Russians likely polluting his mind with doubt and to betray his masters.

While you make some good points about the fact that Shepard never says he had any responsiblity for the war, and the fact that Price was acting like a rogue operative, and his motive to destroy a US military base and kill dozens of soldiers doesn't hold weight as anything other than blind revenge. (Even if Price was a completely righteous soldier.)

But if Shepard wanted to arrest Price he could have done it before they searched Makarov's safehouse. They were working together and coordinating on how to take Makarov down, so Shepard could have arrested Price and just gotten on with the taking Makarov down with the rest of 141. And when he takes out 141 he admits that he's taking care of loose ends, and doesn't even try to arrest Ghost and Roach, he flatout murders them.

Actually, he couldn't have arrested him, he's on the other side of the world from Price who is on the hunt for Makarov and in a radio conversation ordering him to stand down he broke communications. HE clearly can't order him to do anything he doesn't want to do and I'll tell you that makes him a fucking shoddy soldier. He needed to intervene personally as he thought he was the highest level defector so he then send him on a wild goose chase where he can try to pin down this extremely dangerous man.

Remember, this sneak attack likely had inside help, what if he had other evidence to indicate that 141 had been compromised and could not be trusted? He could be just sorting things out Cold War style as that IS how they got rid of suspected traitors, they just suddenly got shot without any explanation.

And disregarding ALL that, EVEN IF Shepard is totally implausibly the bad guy... how the hell is mowing down a hundred US Servicemen JUST to kill Shepard when that does NOTHING but make a martyr out of him and prove that he was right to label Price and all of 141 as traitors! Are they really stupid enough to think Shepard would be the ONLY person in on this supposed plot (for which we see no evidence for but is assumed to exist)? His second-in-command is probably totally in on it and hang on...

Why can't they just WAIT! Wait till - I don't know - wait till World War 3 is over? Wait till they have caught Makarov? and THEN at least TRY to bring evidence before British government of his treason.... rather than confirming the treasonous assumptions about themselves by KILLING HIM and sabotaging the whole war effort!

Witty Name Here:
Europa Universalis 3, Crusader Kings, Hearts of Iron, and pretty much any paradox "Grand Strategy" (or even regular, happy go lucky 4x strategy games like Civilization) are essentially the ultimate level of bastardry a single human being can reach... Without even knowing they're a bastard.

Throughout the game, you never see any of the things happen, they're mostly described in events or in a top down view, however if you take a second to think about it, you realize you're an absolute monster. You realize that fighting off those natives before you colonize so you're colonists can land safely is essentially your troops committing genocide on a non-hostile (well... Most of the time) people "just to be sure". That random event where you can get a huge boon to population after encountering natives? It's because you're forcibly enslaving them and integrating them into your society. It's seen as a wiser move to heavily centralize your government and stay narrowminded to ensure you have as much power as possible and suppress as much revolts as possible. Crusader kings can be worse when you take a step back and realize you've been spending the past hour sending assassins to murder five year olds so your family can gain more power.

But the absolute WORST would have to be the Civ series. It might seem to be a "cutsie" or very idealistic game... Until you realize that you carelessly let some cities starve to focus more on production, destroy entire forests, build nuclear weapons and launch them at food supplies to starve your enemy's people to death and almost all the endings can be considered horrible in some way. In the "Culture victory" you've eliminated all other cultures and forced them to correspond to your own, in the domination victory you've (in most cases violently) taken over more than half the world to the point where no nation can stand up to you or stop you despite anything you do, in the conquest victory you've conquered all your neighbors, and in the diplomacy victory, you essentially used mob rule to appoint yourself ruler of the world, hell you destroy entire cities throughout the game if you feel they're not near any valuable resources!

There are other ways to play Paradox games, however. It's not impossible to even be an Innovative Papacy/Hedjaz or a passive Germany. I typically do things based on the morality of the flavour text rather than the statistical benefits of the decisions.

immortalfrieza:

-Drifter-:
I feel that most of the people in this thread have missed the point. He's talking about games where the designated hero can, with a different perspective, easily be seen as the villain, not games where it's dramatically revealed or presented as a choice. At least, that's the impression I got.

I think the OP is trying to say that you spend most of the game thinking you're the hero when it later turns out you really aren't, at least that's how I understand it. If you're talking about that the hero of a game can be considered a villain from another prospective, it's hard to find a game where that isn't the case.

I don't mean considered the villain from ANY another perspective, I mean stepping back a NORMAL PERSON would say the hero is Evil or Insane by just thinking OUTSIDE of their brain loop (not just from perspective of antagonist) how easy it is with certain modes of thinking to do very bad things. It's not a matter of later realisation, in the game Leon Jet-skis off into the sunset thinking he hasn't done a thing wrong.

Of course in a World War 2 game fighting the Germans, the Germans will of course think American Troops are the bad guys. BUT, they didn't start this war to indulge Hitler's desires for "living space", enslavement and genocide... they are fighting against that. I think some third party who isn't involved in that war, like for example a Mexican could easily say that Germany was in the wrong (PS, the average German soldier likely had no interest or full knowledge of Hitler's aims, just a brainwashed loyalty).

But take Resident Evil 4, if Leon tried to actually explain what the HELL he was doing in rural Spain the automatic assumption is "oh my god, this man is insane! He's gone on a horrific shooting spree", lets just list them:
-claims unwarranted attack yet broke into someone's home with weapon drawn which started violence
-killed EVERYONE, even the women
-HE THEN ROBS THEM!!
-they were unarmed or have extremely crude weaponry, against firearms
-Then sells their stuff to a purple cloaked wizard that teleports all over the place!
-his police escort died... did he kill them? Had they arrested him? Did Leon take their gun!
-makes the most insane claims of giant monsters and undiscovered castles full of cultists
-claims to have seen and had a conversation with a woman who is dead (Ada Wong)

You don't need to be one of the villagers to see this is wrong. A regular guy back in Leon's home country is going to take a look at Leon's actions and assume he belongs in a mental asylum... only by experiencing the game AS Leon can you accept his actions. In a way, Resident Evil 4 is the perfect insight into the mind of a madman.

Either Leon is insane... or everything around him is.

League of Legends.

Cute cell shaded look, vivid champions, hilarious quotes and bright colours.

Depending which city-state you support there's a 90% chance you're fighting an offensive war. Demacia is basically Nazi Germany, including the killing of refugees. Noxus is Commoragh. Zaun is the Undercity. Bilgewater is of course a "free trade enclave", ie pirate/slaver city. Even Freljord has been raiding Demacian and Noxian territory for no reason. The only faction that isn't out for war is Ionia.

And the free riders are usually in it for either personal glory or revenge on other champions or even the Institute or are simply mass murderers or supernatural evils like Renekton (who the Institute intentionally protected from Nasus). The Institute offers these assorted nutcases a chance to participate in the League and make their wishes come true.

Between it all, their reckless use of magic is causing the Void to seep into the world. Of course the League was immediately stopped, and by that I mean they enslaved the first demons that passed through the rift to fight for them in the League and continued on.

You heard it here first: League of Legends is basically Twisted Metal.

While I'm on a roll: Red Dead Redemption

Apparently we are supposed to feel so sorry for John Marsten and that Ross is the real villain, that it's a terrible betrayal for the army to come after him (though I personally relished the new fighting as RDR had turned into farming simulator).

But Ross challenged that John was responsible for murdering men, women and children... and John didn't deny it, it shut him up and he changed the subject. John by all rights should pay the capital punishment for his crimes.

John complain about Ross kidnapping his family when we later learn that his wife is in fact a prostitute and has not been kidnapped but imprisoned. WHAT?!? Is John seriously calling lawful imprisonment kidnapping?

And after John gets killed in a shoot out WITH THE ARMY why does Jack want revenge? John worked his ass how getting freedom for his wife and son and then Jack throws it away by murdering Ross who was just trying to enjoy his retirement. I couldn't even shoot the gun out of Ross's hand, I HAD to kill him and the worst part both Ross's Wife and brother know I came for him so I'd be prime and likely suspect for his murder.

John WAS the bad guy, and he could only get Redemption by bringing in the rest of his gang AND dying for his crimes but Jack threw all that away by murdering Ross.

Being the real villain is some people's interpretation of Shadow of the Colossus.

God of War 3 defiantly gives this feeling, when each God you kill just destroys part of the world. Not sure why I'm still suppose to be rooting for Kratos.

Though the best example of this is probably twist reveal in Digital Devil Sage 2:

A common theme in RPG's is you are working for the bad guy all along, which is only slightly different from being the main villain. It can often be sum up with the Millenia (a devil) quote from Grandia 2: "You never thought for yourself Elena. You, you were always just following orders. You never thought about what's right and what's wrong."

More recently, in FFXIII you are the evil guys that will bring down Cocoon, and you basically live up to that in your actions through utter stupidity as far as I can tell. FFXIII-2 repeats this theme a few times, but I won't spoil all the ways good intentions + time travel = whoops.

Katamari Damacy. Rolling up unwitting people and animals and turning them into stars isn't very nice.

daveman247:

ELCTea:
snip

At the beginning yeah, but at the end he starts to go a bit funny :P And then on peacewalker he pretty much loses it.

Ahhh never played peace walker

Treblaine:
While I'm on a roll: Red Dead Redemption

Apparently we are supposed to feel so sorry for John Marsten and that Ross is the real villain, that it's a terrible betrayal for the army to come after him (though I personally relished the new fighting as RDR had turned into farming simulator).

But Ross challenged that John was responsible for murdering men, women and children... and John didn't deny it, it shut him up and he changed the subject. John by all rights should pay the capital punishment for his crimes.

John complain about Ross kidnapping his family when we later learn that his wife is in fact a prostitute and has not been kidnapped but imprisoned. WHAT?!? Is John seriously calling lawful imprisonment kidnapping?

And after John gets killed in a shoot out WITH THE ARMY why does Jack want revenge? John worked his ass how getting freedom for his wife and son and then Jack throws it away by murdering Ross who was just trying to enjoy his retirement. I couldn't even shoot the gun out of Ross's hand, I HAD to kill him and the worst part both Ross's Wife and brother know I came for him so I'd be prime and likely suspect for his murder.

John WAS the bad guy, and he could only get Redemption by bringing in the rest of his gang AND dying for his crimes but Jack threw all that away by murdering Ross.

Those are all very fair points but Ross doesn't see the hypocrisy of his actions. John was trying to give up his old gang life and start a ranch with his family, had Ross not captured his family then he never would have killed all the people that he encounters in the main game. Ross was the one that forced John to take up the gun again.

Besides John acknowledges the crimes he committed in the past and he says that he pays for them daily as they haunt him. If John was truly beyond redemption he wouldn't have tried to fix up his life in the first place. Even his wife gave up the life of a prostitute so that she could join John in trying to rebuild their lives and create a better future for their son Jack. Given how Jack and Abigail seem to have come to no serious harm it does come off more as "protective custody" but Ross still took John's family away from him.

Furthermore Ross explicitly says that if John does what Ross asks of him then he will make sure that John receives a pardon and will be able to move on with his family life. John did everything Ross asked and should have had his criminal status under the law removed. Beyond that there are laws against the Army storming a private citizen's house which Ross would have broken by sending them to storm John's house and have him killed.

Ross comes off as a corrupt Federal Agent who not only kidnaps a man's family to blackmail him into doing what he wants but goes back on his promise of leaving John alone. He didn't deserve a peaceful retirement after what he did to John. I would have been able to forgive the man had he left John alone but clearly he didn't.

Now I'm not saying that Jack should have killed Ross, no, I agree with you when you say that invalidates everything John did to provide a better life for his son. John built up that ranch so Jack could one day inherit and live a comfortable life but he also sacrificed himself to Ross so that his family wouldn't be caught in the crossfire. Jack's revenge has made him an outlaw and made his life empty, this is reflected in Jack's gameplay quotes when he questions what he has become. Jack has become exactly like what his father once was, which John didn't want. Plus killing Ross still hasn't fixed John's reputation, in official history John Marston will be remembered as an outlaw and Ross as the hero who took him down. Even in death Ross won.

John was the bad guy who worked hard at gaining his redemption, Ross was a federal agent whose position over the law is meant to protect the citizens of the local population and yet he abused that power for his own gain to receive glory and fame. John deserves to be remembered as a hero, not Ross.

I'm still wondering if in Dark Souls I'm actually a bad guy or not. There is a lot in game to support it, but just as much to support that being wrong.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked