If games were just a bit more realistic in terms of situations and storyline, doesn't anyone feel like the bad guys will always win because the good guys are almost always retarded in some way?

This is kinda why I would rather play evil when given the choice.

Vauge.

Gordon Freeman is a 27 year old Theoretical Physicist (or was it particle physics?). Good isn't dumb.

Really? What is this based on?

*Checks Wikipedia*

Huh, according to this, the Allied forces won World War II, mainly becuase they weren't "retarded in some way". Some examples of what games contain retarded good guys would be nice. As previously stated, this is rather vague.

TsunamiWombat:
Vauge.

Gordon Freeman is a 27 year old Theoretical Physicist (or was it particle physics?). Good isn't dumb.

Not sure.

But the point is, even if Gordon is supposedly that good, why is he mute, and never even invents something in either of the games? Quote "You've destroyed so much Dr. Freeman. What have you created? Can you name even one thing? I thought not..."

Don't get me wrong, he's one of my favorite characters, but I've never really seen many intelligent good characters (like the philosophical Altair).

you base this statement on exactly what? that intelligent people are always self-serving wretches?

I think that might be cutting it a tad wrongly.

Well, the good guys always save some people and save the day at the same time because the devs make it that way, but in real life, you'd have to choose. Being evil is so much better since you have so many ways you can exploit the good guys that are trying to stop you. It's nearly impossible to win in real life. I mean if someone actually managed to do one of the things that you see in a lot of movies, books, and games (the realistic things, not the spaceships and laser robot army things), no one would be able to stop them. If I was the bad guy, I'd set up a bunch of powerful bombs in hundreds of different cities and insurance, so if the good guys try to stop me, I kill millions upon millions of innocent people. There's so many things you can do if you're evil. That's one of the reasons why I hate George Lucas. Star Wars 4-6 sucked balls because it's just so unrealistic. If I was the emperor, I'd have won so damn easily. I'd have put a shielded grate over the exhaust port and used Acclamators and Tartan Patrol Cruisers to defend the death star from those fighters. I'd have also launched a few hundred tie interceptors to defend the exhaust port just in case. Victory for the Empire would have been swift and easy with someone else in control. I want a game in which the bad guys win and the good guy get's horribly killed, but you play as the bad guy. That would be awesome. Taking over the galaxy and vanquishing the good guys:)

Evil can never trust Evil, so can never prosper.
Good will always be there when Evil fails.

I always play the sadistic asshole who eats puppys for breakfast in my games simply because being evil has a larger entertainment value.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the good guys are retarded. It's true that many of them deal in moral absolutes, so that might put them at a bit of a liability in a real world situation. But really, the same thing applies to the bad guys.

We all saw "The Dark Knight." Evil for the sake of evil doesn't work in the real world, and neither does good for the sake of good. The world we live in just isn't that black and white.

Eipok Kruden:
Well, the good guys always save some people and save the day at the same time because the devs make it that way, but in real life, you'd have to choose. Being evil is so much better since you have so many ways you can exploit the good guys that are trying to stop you. It's nearly impossible to win in real life. I mean if someone actually managed to do one of the things that you see in a lot of movies, books, and games (the realistic things, not the spaceships and laser robot army things), no one would be able to stop them. If I was the bad guy, I'd set up a bunch of powerful bombs in hundreds of different cities and insurance, so if the good guys try to stop me, I kill millions upon millions of innocent people. There's so many things you can do if you're evil. That's one of the reasons why I hate George Lucas. Star Wars 4-6 sucked balls because it's just so unrealistic. If I was the emperor, I'd have won so damn easily. I'd have put a shielded grate over the exhaust port and used Acclamators and Tartan Patrol Cruisers to defend the death star from those fighters. I'd have also launched a few hundred tie interceptors to defend the exhaust port just in case. Victory for the Empire would have been swift and easy with someone else in control. I want a game in which the bad guys win and the good guy get's horribly killed, but you play as the bad guy. That would be awesome. Taking over the galaxy and vanquishing the good guys:)

My eyes....

Anyway yeah evil rocks.

Even if I agreed, it wouldn't be because "the good guys are almost always retarded in some way." You should work on the premise, there isn't much to respond to here.

I think Ba'al's approach to the whole "evil villain" thing was great. He was one of my favorite villains of all time:) I wish he hadn't been killed... hmmmmm, maybe he still has some clones somewhere in cryo-stasis or something. That would be awesome.

Evil always looses beause the villians always have too much faith in their plans, and never set up decent countermeasures. Also they are sooo stuck up their own arse they always think they are going to win, thus become sloppy.

I always play as good, because I feel ike if I act nice in a game I'll be a better person in real life. Most of my friends play evil, whoch probably explains their tendency to hit me and laugh. I, on the other hand, choose not to hit anything unless I'm deeply and personally offended or my life is in danger.

A black belt pacifist.

How's that for irony?

Cheesus333:
I always play as good, because I feel ike if I act nice in a game I'll be a better person in real life. Most of my friends play evil, whoch probably explains their tendency to hit me and laugh. I, on the other hand, choose not to hit anything unless I'm deeply and personally offended or my life is in danger.

A black belt pacifist.

How's that for irony?

Irony, my ass. Quoth Vegetius, "qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." He who desires peace must prepare for war.

Space Spoons:
I wouldn't go so far as to say that the good guys are retarded. It's true that many of them deal in moral absolutes, so that might put them at a bit of a liability in a real world situation. But really, the same thing applies to the bad guys.

We all saw "The Dark Knight." Evil for the sake of evil doesn't work in the real world, and neither does good for the sake of good. The world we live in just isn't that black and white.

Quite true.

A real life example would be Julius Caesar. He was a people's person and wanted to make Rome a better place, but to gain that sort of power he had to do eviler deeds than the greediest bastards. Evil for good.

Some also do good for evil, though I can't think up an example.

Games usually tend to make the good guys win in situations that are morally questionable as well. That's one of the things that tick me off the most.

SimuLord:

Cheesus333:
I always play as good, because I feel ike if I act nice in a game I'll be a better person in real life. Most of my friends play evil, whoch probably explains their tendency to hit me and laugh. I, on the other hand, choose not to hit anything unless I'm deeply and personally offended or my life is in danger.

A black belt pacifist.

How's that for irony?

Irony, my ass. Quoth Vegetius, "qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." He who desires peace must prepare for war.

Isnt it "Sic vis pacem parat bellum?"

EDIT: by the way, for the title, I'm just quoting spaceballs, but it really reflects the fact that real villains wouldn't lock up the hero in an "impregnable prison in their volcano forteress of doom" and somehow hope for them to not escape while the volcano explodes you see..

deathkittin:
whats wrong with hurting people for fun????

how does that make you:

a) evil
b) likelier to triumph over people who do not hurt others for fun?

hurting people for fun would actually go directly against the "evil peeps are smarter" statement made by the OP, because it is generally a poor long-term strategy

Being "good" to people provides you more friends, allies, more people who owe you favors. If you're bad to everyone, the everyone will want to hurt you. If, you're good to people than everyone can help you.

I've never understood why people assume that only bad guys are really smart. No matter how powerful you are, you still have to sleep.

The emperor from star wars was done in because his own apprentice killed him. His apprentice killed the Emperor because the Emperor was acting like an asshole.

Pyronox:

Space Spoons:
I wouldn't go so far as to say that the good guys are retarded. It's true that many of them deal in moral absolutes, so that might put them at a bit of a liability in a real world situation. But really, the same thing applies to the bad guys.

We all saw "The Dark Knight." Evil for the sake of evil doesn't work in the real world, and neither does good for the sake of good. The world we live in just isn't that black and white.

Quite true.

A real life example would be Julius Caesar. He was a people's person and wanted to make Rome a better place, but to gain that sort of power he had to do eviler deeds than the greediest bastards. Evil for good.

Some also do good for evil, though I can't think up an example.

Games usually tend to make the good guys win in situations that are morally questionable as well. That's one of the things that tick me off the most.

I think an example of using good to do evil would be Adolf Hitler. He united Germany in a time when it absolutely needed unity, and helped the economy go from broken to bustling. Both, undoubtedly good things. However, we all know what he was intending to do after helping so much.

And it's true what you say about games, too. Look at the original Super Mario Brothers. I think this point has been visited before, but Mario is an invader. He's destroying innocent lives and damaging property, all in his single-minded quest to "save" the princess. There's no questioning that it's a noble goal, but the way he goes about it is at best questionable, and at worst genocidal.

Pyronox:

SimuLord:

Cheesus333:
I always play as good, because I feel ike if I act nice in a game I'll be a better person in real life. Most of my friends play evil, whoch probably explains their tendency to hit me and laugh. I, on the other hand, choose not to hit anything unless I'm deeply and personally offended or my life is in danger.

A black belt pacifist.

How's that for irony?

Irony, my ass. Quoth Vegetius, "qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." He who desires peace must prepare for war.

Isnt it "Sic vis pacem parat bellum?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum The "qui desiderat" version is the quote used on the loading screens in Rome: Total War and is therefore the one I see most often.

RetiarySword:
Evil always looses beause the villians always have too much faith in their plans, and never set up decent countermeasures. Also they are sooo stuck up their own arse they always think they are going to win, thus become sloppy.

Only in fiction, not in real life (unless they're mentally unstable).

SimuLord:

Cheesus333:
I always play as good, because I feel ike if I act nice in a game I'll be a better person in real life. Most of my friends play evil, whoch probably explains their tendency to hit me and laugh. I, on the other hand, choose not to hit anything unless I'm deeply and personally offended or my life is in danger.

A black belt pacifist.

How's that for irony?

Irony, my ass. Quoth Vegetius, "qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." He who desires peace must prepare for war.

I guess I'm prepared then, although I daresay my talents would be more useful to someone who actually desired the aforementioned war.

Eipok Kruden:

RetiarySword:
Evil always looses beause the villians always have too much faith in their plans, and never set up decent countermeasures. Also they are sooo stuck up their own arse they always think they are going to win, thus become sloppy.

Only in fiction, not in real life (unless they're mentally unstable).

Doesn't being mentally unstable disqualify anyone from being evil at all since they aren't in a state to distinguish good from evil?

Evil people usually get the easy way out by simpally detroying anything in their way. "Good" people usually have a tougher time because whatever they try to save or fix generaly results in them having to do a complex task or fight a wave of monsters. So do you mean that evil people are "smart" because they take the path with the least work?

Pseudonym2:
Being "good" to people provides you more friends, allies, more people who owe you favors. If you're bad to everyone, the everyone will want to hurt you. If, you're good to people than everyone can help you.

I've never understood why people assume that only bad guys are really smart. No matter how powerful you are, you still have to sleep.

The emperor from star wars was done in because his own apprentice killed him. His apprentice killed the Emperor because the Emperor was acting like an asshole.

No, the Emperor died because he was stupid. He should've stopped the rebels in A New Hope, but he didn't because he was just too incompetent. If Luke had died in the first movie, he wouldn't have brought Vader back to the light side and the Emperor wouldn't have needed to build the second Death Star in the first place, but probably would've anyway to be more effective. And look at the mob. They might do evil things, but they have honor, a code, they're respected and feared, and they make friends with like minded individuals. Good isn't always the way to make friends or gain allies.

ObnoxiousTwat:
Evil people usually get the easy way out by simpally detroying anything in their way. "Good" people usually have a tougher time because whatever they try to save or fix generaly results in them having to do a complex task or fight a wave of monsters. So do you mean that evil people are "smart" because they take the path with the least work?

No, I mean like this:

Evil is realistic: captures good guy and have them in a position of force (like a gun to their head).

Here's where it goes wrong: Instead of shooting his arch-enemy, the guy asks his guards to take em away, and hero escapes. In a realistic scenario, he'd have taken the shot :\

That's why Mike Myers created Dr. Evil imo :P

Eipok Kruden:

Pseudonym2:
Being "good" to people provides you more friends, allies, more people who owe you favors. If you're bad to everyone, the everyone will want to hurt you. If, you're good to people than everyone can help you.

I've never understood why people assume that only bad guys are really smart. No matter how powerful you are, you still have to sleep.

The emperor from star wars was done in because his own apprentice killed him. His apprentice killed the Emperor because the Emperor was acting like an asshole.

No, the Emperor died because he was stupid. He should've stopped the rebels in A New Hope, but he didn't because he was just too incompetent. If Luke had died in the first movie, he wouldn't have brought Vader back to the light side and the Emperor wouldn't have needed to build the second Death Star in the first place, but probably would've anyway to be more effective. And look at the mob. They might do evil things, but they have honor, a code, they're respected and feared, and they make friends with like minded individuals. Good isn't always the way to make friends or gain allies.

I think he wanted Luke alive so he could brainwash Luke. I interpreted the scene as not Vader going to the light side but rather Vader getting pissed and the guy torturing his son.

Also the mob invites the counter argument that eventually many of the mobsters end up paying for evil actions when they get killed/captured. Henry Hill springs to mind. Not to mention countless mobsters/gangsters who assassinate each other.

A lot of the gangsters were more successful because they weren't all evil all the time. Al Capone was involved in tons of charity projects that gave him public support. After the Saint Valentine's day massacre and beating someone to death with a baseball bat, he lost support, made enemies, and got arrested.

Bleh, a lot of evil overlords are fantastically dumb too, so I guess it evens things out.

Better plot and characters usually fixes the problem on both sides.

Evil tends to be more clever and opportunistic- their intelligence is of the short to medium term. They mentally calculate everything necessary to achieve their aims, but not the spiritual and mental COSTS of their objective. There exists a limit of the amount of force you can apply without destroying yourself, and no one is invulnerable to the consequences of their actions. All of the classical villains are destroyed in the end because they failed to consider morals or wisdom, deriding them as limiting or weak or foolish, when in fact they lead to the more satisfying life in the long run, even if it is not the most successful. Palpatine sowed deciet and treachery and was brought low by it. Dr. Breen averted the extinction of humanity through submission, but in refusing to see the way things had become and becoming addicted to his own power and vision for humanity, damned the race to a slower extinction and eventual subumation into an uncaring alien military.

If anyone is familear with D&D, there is a campaign setting called Ravenloft- essentially it's a demiplane ruled in secret by shadowy unknown godlike beings called "The Dark Power