>>313100568
Because those people mostly care for the story.

In modern cuck relativist society every villain must be repeatable or secretly right all along and every hero must be some morally gray degenerate who only does good deeds begrudgingly or for selfish reasons

>>313100808
But there are people who are senselessly evil who don't have any actual good reason in real life, so why is the concept too farfetched to be in a video game?

Villains can't have sympathetic motives. They can have origin stories that make you think they maybe got the raw end of the deal but if their motives are in any way understandable they are not a villain.

>>313100568
Being evil because they're evil is considered really shallow as far as character development goes. They don't even have to be "sympathetic" to be well-written. They just need to have more to their personality than "hurr durr I'm bad".

I don't really fucking care either way, as long as the boss battle is good. People who want deep, compelling stories implemented in video games can fuck off.

Because the push for realism.

>>313100568
Because it reeks of lazy writing and the people who care want a story with more complicated characters. It's an equivalent of pointing at something and saying "bad".

Video games have done that for decades and while it's effective for setting up backdrops for good gameplay, it isn't innovating when it comes to demonstrating writing talent.

>>313102018
Hello Reddit.

>>313101079
No there aren't. Any given person has a reason for being considered evil, from poor upbringing to mental disease.

The reason is because people want morally gray characters and plots and consider black and white "hero = good, villain = evil" rather lazy and cliche. This isn't just an issue with villains: heroes tend to get a lot of shit for being bland goodie two shoes and unabashed good.