New Vergil or Devil May Cry 3 Vergil?

[The Final Offer]

And now you fell to trolling insults. Lol, I don't even think there is anything need to be said about who's trolling here.

I know Innsmouth, it's the nicest thing I could come up with and alot of people are cursing me now because they don't have anything left to work with. So be grateful.

Let's get back on topic shall we?

Now! Where to start.... should this thread begin at? Hm maybe where Chancey proved you are a liar or maybe where I did it? Say Innsmouth, is this the thread where everyone was proving how much of a liar you are?

 

[Innsmouth]

I'm not the guy spreading lies all over the forum here.

Let's get back on topic shall we?

Now! Where to start.... should this thread begin at? Hm maybe where Chancey proved you are a liar or maybe where I did it? Say Innsmouth, is this the thread where everyone was proving how much of a liar you are?

So any proof of my lies? I mean outside of your imagination? nope? ok.

 

[The Final Offer]

So any proof of my lies? I mean outside of your imagination? nope? ok.

Glad you are looking into it. Of course, I can assist you with that with just this thread alone.

"It's pretty funny that people still think whole motivation of DmC's Vergil makes any sense. People keep complaining about whole "POWER" thing, while completely ignore that whole motivation of Vergil form DmC isn't better than "I WILL RULE THE WORLD". That's without mentioning the fact of how stupid it was to even start talking to dante and kat about it in the first place.
And as for how he was going to achieve it, at least in DMC3 Vergil had means to achieve his goals. In DmC Vergil lacked them. He couldn't even rule the world, because he has nothing left in the end. He lost all of his men, his whole base of operation, he kept database on Mundus network (but in the end it was useless since network ceased to exist when hell-gate opened). Well unless people actually think somebody can take the world with one laptop, his motivation and goals are barely hold together and serve only as poor excuse to fight him as the final boss."

"do you really serious? Griffin? 1. Griffith was intended to continue fight, if even suicide attack 2. Dante didn't wanted to fight him any farther. 3. It's not the same. Dante asked Griffin to stop, while Vergil was grinning in background while Lilith wailed. It's not about human look. It's about helpless, handcuffed woman, gets shot in the back. Or do you start counting all bosses from all games as example of cruel demon treatment?"

"Whole point it about Vergil being giant a-hole, who shot helpless woman in the back, enjoyed it, and only than finished the job."

"Yet you praise Tameem for all 3 games, despite you know that HS and Enslaved was written by completely different extern people."

"Well he could have done it right away. But nooo.. he had to fap to it for a few seconds and than shoot"

"No point arguing with fanboys"

"Umm..it's not about child, it's most about that Vergil shoot her from behind in the womb, waited couple of seconds and only than shoot her in the head."

Final Offer Wins
Fatality
​

 

[Innsmouth]

Glad you are looking into it. Of course, I can assist you with that with just this thread alone.

"It's pretty funny that people still think whole motivation of DmC's Vergil makes any sense. People keep complaining about whole "POWER" thing, while completely ignore that whole motivation of Vergil form DmC isn't better than "I WILL RULE THE WORLD". That's without mentioning the fact of how stupid it was to even start talking to dante and kat about it in the first place.
And as for how he was going to achieve it, at least in DMC3 Vergil had means to achieve his goals. In DmC Vergil lacked them. He couldn't even rule the world, because he has nothing left in the end. He lost all of his men, his whole base of operation, he kept database on Mundus network (but in the end it was useless since network ceased to exist when hell-gate opened). Well unless people actually think somebody can take the world with one laptop, his motivation and goals are barely hold together and serve only as poor excuse to fight him as the final boss."

"do you really serious? Griffin? 1. Griffith was intended to continue fight, if even suicide attack 2. Dante didn't wanted to fight him any farther. 3. It's not the same. Dante asked Griffin to stop, while Vergil was grinning in background while Lilith wailed. It's not about human look. It's about helpless, handcuffed woman, gets shot in the back. Or do you start counting all bosses from all games as example of cruel demon treatment?"

"Whole point it about Vergil being giant a-hole, who shot helpless woman in the back, enjoyed it, and only than finished the job."

"Yet you praise Tameem for all 3 games, despite you know that HS and Enslaved was written by completely different extern people."

"Well he could have done it right away. But nooo.. he had to fap to it for a few seconds and than shoot"

"No point arguing with fanboys"

"Umm..it's not about child, it's most about that Vergil shoot her from behind in the womb, waited couple of seconds and only than shoot her in the head."

​

Should I provide you with video proof? Or you bother to take your time and look it yourself? Because I can easily do it.

there you are. enjoy his shiny smile and count seconds.
As for Order, find me any proof it's a lie. I asked you for proofs, not quotes.

 

[The Final Offer]

Then he provides proof that he's wrong in his will video.

Pfft.

That compliment was too good for him.

 

[Innsmouth]

Then he provides proof that he's wrong.

That compliment was too good for him.

I just provided proof I'm right. Or you haven'T played the game? I mean find at least one thing where it contradicts me.

 

[Lord Nero]

I will generally avoid guidebook descriptions of both characters, because arguments get confusing for both sides, especially since mistranslations occur. Vergil, at no point, is described to be honorable in DMC3. He just considers firearms to "not be fitting of a warrior." I don't know where people get that argument from. Having a mentality of only swords does not make you honorable. He rather appears to be more stoic, which gives off an air of honor. That is all I can assume.
.

I pretty much agree with all of what you said. I did want to point out though, that why people think Vergil has honor probably has something to do with his reluctance to kill humans. Old Vergil never cold-bloodedly kills humans or demons who do no harm to him. He cuts down demons that try to attack him, and he cut down Arkham because he could see Arkham had become demonic and had some evil plans. And even then, since Arkham had relinquished his humanity, it wouldn't be a stretch to assume that Vergil knew Arkham would resurrect. I mean, as far as I know, every demon that gets hurt badly goes into Devil Trigger, which Arkham did too. His Devil Trigger is Jester.

New Vergil, on the other hand, kills a demon that seems to have little power. She didn't threaten him, really. He also makes sure to shoot her in the womb so that Mundus's child would die. Now, if you wanted to tick off Mundus, killing his woman might have been enough. Or maybe even hold both her and the child hostage. So at least old Vergil was not a psychopath. Seriously, if anyone here thinks it's okay for new Vergil to shoot both of them, and even waiting for a few seconds before killing the woman, they've got some issues. Also, old Vergil helped Dante beat Arkham in his blob form, when he probably could've killed Dante right then and there, and beat Arkham afterwards. Only the plot required that Arkham (false Sparda) was to be defeated by both of the twins.

Everyone was chilling and calmed discussing their opinions on the matter at hand then you come in like this.

"It's pretty funny that people still think whole motivation of DmC's Vergil makes any sense. People keep complaining about whole "POWER" thing, while completely ignore that whole motivation of Vergil form DmC isn't better than "I WILL RULE THE WORLD". That's without mentioning the fact of how stupid it was to even start talking to dante and kat about it in the first place.
And as for how he was going to achieve it, at least in DMC3 Vergil had means to achieve his goals. In DmC Vergil lacked them. He couldn't even rule the world, because he has nothing left in the end. He lost all of his men, his whole base of operation, he kept database on Mundus network (but in the end it was useless since network ceased to exist when hell-gate opened). Well unless people actually think somebody can take the world with one laptop, his motivation and goals are barely hold together and serve only as poor excuse to fight him as the final boss."

TL;DR: The beginning of your passive aggressive attempts to be that guy who will miss no chance to try and tear down any praise for DmC because you hate it sooooooo much it has become practically a priority for you to try and "prove" how terrible it as and how anyone who likes it is basically just a pleb.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand, you lost. Everyone beat you and proved you wrong. Nice try and come again because you know, you just can't let it go.

Man, I hate DMC 4 but you don't see me stalking that section of the forum looking to bash it any chance I get.

His points are legitimate, though. So maybe he worded it in a bit of an aggressive way... alright, so that was a mistake. But why keep hammering on about a mistake? Seriously, do you want this thread to revolve around somebody's lexicological mistakes? Can't we just decide not to get offended so easily by criticism toward games?

I don't see how he's ''tearing down any praise for DmC''. He's not referring to everything that happens in DmC, he's referring to sections of the game he didn't like. A specific character, actually. I haven't seen him bash DmC in its entirety anywhere on this forum. I'm pretty sure he likes DmC except for how Vergil was portrayed... which is fine. And tbh, I think he's correct in this case. He could go into more detail, but I think we all know that new Vergil just wasn't written that well. Trying to make Innsmouth look like a flamebaiter does not affect this issue.
I don't think I've seen any comments that debunked what he said in that quote either. But I'll double-check just to make sure.

''Yeah sure, she was shot while defenseless, but why is this even an issue? Because it's "not cool"? It's not supposed to be, but it still served a purpose. It was a conniving b!tch getting what was coming to her, delivered by a guy who was just as, if not more, conniving as her. Just desserts, really.''

Holy... I seriously had to quote this. It's not because it was ''not cool'', but because it was immoral. You think there is no problem with killing a child that may not even technically be evil? To snatch its life away from it? You assume Lilith didn't care about Mundus's child, but only about the 'good life' she had with Mundus. Well, it was her child too... so how can we just assume this? The fact that new Vergil killed her and the child just to bait Mundus is insane. It's even worse when you consider that Vergil took pleasure in it and waited for Lilith to notice he had shot her womb out. Dante thought it was insane when it happened too, judging from his reaction.
Like I said in my previous post, they could probably have taken her and the child hostage. And yeah, I'm sure new Vergil was supposed to be portrayed this way, but was that the point in this thread? All I know is that Innsmouth said it made Vergil unsympathetic, and yeah, I totally agree with that.
Anyway, I just wanted to say I was amazed by your comment.

 

[Jack500]

I pretty much agree with all of what you said. I did want to point out though, that why people think Vergil has honor probably has something to do with his reluctance to kill humans. Old Vergil never cold-bloodedly kills humans or demons who do no harm to him. He cuts down demons that try to attack him, and he cut down Arkham because he could see Arkham had become demonic and had some evil plans. And even then, since Arkham had relinquished his humanity, it wouldn't be a stretch to assume that Vergil knew Arkham would resurrect. I mean, as far as I know, every demon that gets hurt badly goes into Devil Trigger, which Arkham did too. His Devil Trigger is Jester.

Did you miss the scene where Vergil stabs Arkham and says i have no use for you.

Or the scene where he uses Beowulfs headless corpse as a punching bag.

Doesn't strike me as something an honorable man would do.

 

[Lord Nero]

Did you miss the scene where Vergil stabs Arkham and says i have no use for you.

Or the scene where he uses Beowulfs headless corpse as a punching bag.

Doesn't strike me as something an honorable man would do.

I already covered that. Vergil probably killed Arkham because he had become a demon and was obviously up to no good. I'd say Vergil realized that Arkham was dangerous when he gripped the Yamato and went down the blade. Now, either Vergil intended for Arkham to receive his Devil Trigger and become Jester (so that they could get it over with), or he actually wanted to kill him. But since all demons get a Devil Trigger, I'd assume Vergil knew he would live. Call it Vergil's way of punching him in the face to knock him out cold.

Why would it matter that he punches the head of a corpse? It's literally dead meat. Maybe he lacks respect for Beowulf, but that doesn't mean Vergil is completely heartless.
And Beowulf was dangerous. Beowulf was made to kill. He intended to kill Sparda's sons, so I think that justifies killing him. It's self-defense... at some point, Beowulf would've come after Vergil, and he would have to kill him. Why waste time? Why not kill him right there? I think that's Vergil's reasoning.

Like I said, I didn't mean Vergil was honorable per se, just that he didn't kill humans or demons that didn't mean any harm. He could've killed Lady or Arkham at any point. Heck, he could've even killed Dante before he got so far up the tower. So he's not necessarily honorable, just... not insanely immoral like new Vergil.

 

[Jack500]

I already covered that. Vergil probably killed Arkham because he had become a demon and was obviously up to no good. I'd say Vergil realized that Arkham was dangerous when he gripped the Yamato and went down the blade. Now, either Vergil intended for Arkham to receive his Devil Trigger and become Jester (so that they could get it over with), or he actually wanted to kill him. But since all demons get a Devil Trigger, I'd assume Vergil knew he would live. Call it Vergil's way of punching him in the face to knock him out cold.

Did you even watch that scene?

Vergil: To further your study of the black arts, you sacrificed your
loving wife, to become a devil as well. Knowing this I thought
you'd be more useful to me, but I was wrong.

It sounds to me, that the only reason Vergil was letting Arkham live, was because he was becoming a demon. Also jester actually appears before this scene, so Arkham did not receive him there. And i don't think jester is Arkhams devil trigger it's just a disguise

Why would it matter that he punches the head of a corpse? It's literally dead meat. Maybe he lacks respect for Beowulf, but that doesn't mean Vergil is completely heartless.

You know i get the feeling, that if new Vergil had done something like that, you would had used it as a another strike against him.

Like I said, I didn't mean Vergil was honorable per se, just that he didn't kill humans or demons that didn't mean any harm. He could've killed Lady or Arkham at any point. Heck, he could've even killed Dante before he got so far up the tower. So he's not necessarily honorable, just... not insanely immoral like new Vergil.

He actually does try to kill lady at one point, in the cutscene after the second fight with Vergil.

 

[DMC]

old vergil always ****ed off....... new vergil... calmer...
old dante... party party..... new dante.... yell scream cry....
wait a sec new dante sounds like nero :O
except Nero has an awesome arm..... kids dont hate nero... hate the creator....
but i like nero so i dont hate the creator.... wait what was the question again? -eats a cookie-

 

[Lord Nero]

Did you even watch that scene?

Vergil: *To further your study of the black arts, you sacrificed your
loving wife, to become a devil as well. Knowing this I thought
you'd be more useful to me, but I was wrong.

It sounds to me, that the only reason Vergil was letting Arkham live, was because he was becoming a demon. Also jester actually appears before this scene, so Arkham did not receive him there. And i don't think jester is Arkhams devil trigger it's just a disguise

You know i get the feeling, that if new Vergil had done something like that, you would had used it as a another strike against him.

He actually does try to kill lady at one point, in the cutscene after the second fight with Vergil.

He let Arkham live because he thought he'd be useful, not necessarily because he was becoming a demon. He let Arkham live because he did everything in his power to further his study of the black arts*. His proficiency with and dedication to the black arts could help Vergil ''undo daddy's little spell''. Once Vergil thought Arkham couldn't help him further with his black arts, he cut him down.
Learn to interpret scenes correctly.

''You know i get the feeling, that if new Vergil had done something like that, you would had used it as a another strike against him.''

I don't care about the 'feelings' you're getting. You can assume things all you want, slander me all you want. That's what these types of conversations often end up like. I don't care about your desire to flame.

If he wanted to kill Lady, he would slash her head off. Plain and simple. I don't know which scene you're referring to, but I do remember one where Dante and Vergil are fighting each other (indeed, after the second Vergil battle) and Lady interferes. Vergil then presses his blade against her bazooka. Seriously, if he wanted to kill her, he could do it in half a second. But he didn't. If he had tried to kill her, he would have succeeded too. So no, he didn't try to kill her.

 

[Algred]

I pretty much agree with all of what you said. I did want to point out though, that why people think Vergil has honor probably has something to do with his reluctance to kill humans. Old Vergil never cold-bloodedly kills humans or demons who do no harm to him. He cuts down demons that try to attack him, and he cut down Arkham because he could see Arkham had become demonic and had some evil plans. And even then, since Arkham had relinquished his humanity, it wouldn't be a stretch to assume that Vergil knew Arkham would resurrect. I mean, as far as I know, every demon that gets hurt badly goes into Devil Trigger, which Arkham did too. His Devil Trigger is Jester.

New Vergil, on the other hand, kills a demon that seems to have little power. She didn't threaten him, really. He also makes sure to shoot her in the womb so that Mundus's child would die. Now, if you wanted to tick off Mundus, killing his woman might have been enough. Or maybe even hold both her and the child hostage. So at least old Vergil was not a psychopath. Seriously, if anyone here thinks it's okay for new Vergil to shoot both of them, and even waiting for a few seconds before killing the woman, they've got some issues. Also, old Vergil helped Dante beat Arkham in his blob form, when he probably could've killed Dante right then and there, and beat Arkham afterwards. Only the plot required that Arkham (false Sparda) was to be defeated by both of the twins.

My two cents on humans and Beowolf.

It is never explicitly shown that Vergil has a reluctance to kill humans. At the
most, it's shown he is totally apathetic to their existence. Arkham, in this instance, does not really count. He clearly shows signs of being at least part demon, and Vergil was at least partly aware Arkham was plotting something before he stabbed him as Vergil interrogates him regarding Lady.
The rest is conjecture. Vergil almost entirely ignores or is blatantly apathetic to their existence. In the fight with Dante and lady, he almost virtually ignores her presence. In fact, he doesn't even seem to care she is there as he never explicitly tells Arkham to deal with her; Arkham volunteers. We cannot dismiss the fact either that raisin the tower killed gods know how many. I wouldn't say he's reluctant to kill; he's just not going to waste his time if he doesn't have to.

As far as Beowolf goes, Vergils entire persona seems loosely based on Samurai culture. If that is the case, it was not uncommon for criminals who were executed to have their bodies used as testing material for new blades. The scene seems to play homage to the idea, and since what we do with a body after death is entirely about belief systems, I wouldn't use it as an example of immorality.

I, again, don't like approaching the scene because people will argue it forever. And because it's so poorly written, and animated (why the Hell does Vergil's car have a huge V on the console, how does a demon who fought Dante and was riddled with bullets die to two, Mundus can see Dante but not the man with THE EXACT SAME FACE next to him?), the entire scene seems like a last minute add on. The issue is that Vergil in DmC seems t be exactly what you claim; he's a baseless psychopath. He witnessed the murder of his parents and loved his mother, but he'll straight out kill her for no stated reason? You can at least assume that because Vergil of DMC witnessed the death his mother, and his quote about might, he harbors guilt for failing to help her. It doesn't help DmC was written by a clear political activist who seems to hate all people with money.

 

[Lord Nero]

My two cents on humans and Beowolf.

It is never explicitly shown that Vergil has a reluctance to kill humans. At the
most, it's shown he is totally apathetic to their existence. Arkham, in this instance, does not really count. He clearly shows signs of being at least part demon, and Vergil was at least partly aware Arkham was plotting something before he stabbed him as Vergil interrogates him regarding Lady.
The rest is conjecture. Vergil almost entirely ignores or is blatantly apathetic to their existence. In the fight with Dante and lady, he almost virtually ignores her presence. In fact, he doesn't even seem to care she is there as he never explicitly tells Arkham to deal with her; Arkham volunteers. We cannot dismiss the fact either that raisin the tower killed gods know how many. I wouldn't say he's reluctant to kill; he's just not going to waste his time if he doesn't have to.

As far as Beowolf goes, Vergils entire persona seems loosely based on Samurai culture. If that is the case, it was not uncommon for criminals who were executed to have their bodies used as testing material for new blades. The scene seems to play homage to the idea, and since what we do with a body after death is entirely about belief systems, I wouldn't use it as an example of immorality.

I, again, don't like approaching the scene because people will argue it forever. And because it's so poorly written, and animated (why the Hell does Vergil's car have a huge V on the console, how does a demon who fought Dante and was riddled with bullets die to two, Mundus can see Dante but not the man with THE EXACT SAME FACE next to him?), the entire scene seems like a last minute add on. The issue is that Vergil in DmC seems t be exactly what you claim; he's a baseless psychopath. He witnessed the murder of his parents and loved his mother, but he'll straight out kill her for no stated reason? You can at least assume that because Vergil of DMC witnessed the death his mother, and his quote about might, he harbors guilt for failing to help her. It doesn't help DmC was written by a clear political activist who seems to hate all people with money.

Maybe I worded it incorrectly. What I mean is, he doesn't kill humans 'just like that'. It's quite possible he indeed has no reluctance to kill humans, but that's irrelevant at this time. In DMC3, he doesn't kill humans... and that's all that matters. He could've killed Lady, could've killed Dante. He didn't. In any case, this apathy you talk about is irrelevant. The fact is that new Vergil cold-bloodedly kills an almost harmless Lilith and an unborn child, taking away their right to live and playing 'judge, jury, and executioner' without it being necessary. Old Vergil didn't do that, therefore he is (at this point) at least less insane.

I don't know, Vergil doesn't really 'interrogate' him, if I recall correctly. He just seems to want to find out what the deal is with Lady. That she's his daughter.
We can't just assume raising the Temen-Ni-Gru killed anyone. That is conjecture on your part. In DMC3, we see that (part of) the city is abandoned, but we don't see any humans get killed.

I don't know about that. Never heard of Samurai cutting up bodies to test their blades. But you're right, I wouldn't use it as an example of immorality like Jack500 did. I was only saying that it might've showed Vergil's disdain for Beowulf. Has nothing to do with morality.

 

[Algred]

Maybe I worded it incorrectly. What I mean is, he doesn't kill humans 'just like that'. It's quite possible he indeed has no reluctance to kill humans, but that's irrelevant at this time. In DMC3, he doesn't kill humans... and that's all that matters. He could've killed Lady, could've killed Dante. He didn't. In any case, this apathy you talk about is irrelevant. The fact is that new Vergil col-bloodedly kills an almost harmless Lilith and an unborn child. Old Vergil didn't do that, therefore he is (at this point) at least less insane.

I don't know, Vergil doesn't really 'interrogate' him, if I recall correctly. He just seems to want to find out what the deal is with Lady. That she's his daughter.
We can't just assume raising the Temen-Ni-Gru killed anyone. That is conjecture on your part. In DMC3, we see that (part of) the city is abandoned, but we don't see any humans get killed.

I don't know about that. Never heard of Samurai cutting up bodies to test their blades. But you're right, I wouldn't use it as an example of immorality like Jack500 did. I was only saying that it might've showed Vergil's disdain for
Beowulf. Has nothing to do with morality.

I think the issue with that argument is neither does DmC Vergil. The most awful act was that one scene and the DLC scene. I do not like that Vergil, but his motivations at least in shooting Lilith was grounded and had a point. Everything, as I previously state about the original DMC series is written in such a way that you have to have conjecture. The argument that Vergil raised the tower in an unpopulated area is just as conjecture as he did it in a populated. But the tower was close enough to Dante's shop that one can assume on evidence there were people living there, especially based on the strip joint and ballroom having alcohol, and power.

I don't like using arguments of morality because that starts on opinion and culture. Neiche would argue Vergil of DmC was justified in shooting Lilith in order to reach the ends of killing Mundus. We find that an outrageous thought, but the greater result outweighed the life of one person. If we discussed his clear narcissism and insanity in killin his mother for an unclear reason, then I'd be more for it. That is the LAST I will talk about that scene. As I previously stated, it's absurdly written.

Edit; apathy is totally relevant. A reluctance to kill versus not caring either are two different mind sets, which affect his character, which is entirely what this discussion is about. Who's characterization of Vergil do you prefer?

Second edit; Vergil WAS goin to kill Dante if Arkham didn't stop him. At the end of the first fight, he goes back to fight Dante after he DTs. It is very likely he would have killed Dante then. It is shown later that Dante become overwhelmingly stronger, to equal Vergil, and then be stronger than him. Just because he did not, does not mean he would not.

 

[Jack500]

He let Arkham live because he thought he'd be useful, not necessarily because he was becoming a demon.

Yeah that's kinda what i meant. I Should have worded that differently.

If he wanted to kill Lady, he would slash her head off. Plain and simple. I don't know which scene you're referring to, but I do remember one where Dante and Vergil are fighting each other (indeed, after the second Vergil battle) and Lady interferes. Vergil then presses his blade against her bazooka. Seriously, if he wanted to kill her, he could do it in half a second. But he didn't. If he had tried to kill her, he would have succeeded too. So no, he didn't try to kill her.

In that scene Vergil knocks lady down, and while she's on the ground he jumps up and dives straight at her, he even batters Dante aside in the process. He would have killed her if she hadn't put her bazooka between them.

 

[Lord Nero]

Yeah that's kinda what i meant. I Should have worded that differently.

In that scene Vergil knocks lady down, and while she's on the ground he jumps up and dives straight at her, he even batters Dante aside in the process. He would have killed her if she hadn't put her bazooka between them.

I don't believe you, but who cares anyway... after these two replies, I'm really done talking.

Like I said, if Vergil wanted to kill Lady, she would be dead. Vergil is a son of Sparda. He's a demon who is lightning-fast and can kill demons that are faster than ordinary humans within a second. The Yamato is an incredibly sharp sword - so sharp it can 'cut through dimensions'. I know, that makes no sense since dimensions have nothing to do with the physical world... but one of the DMC games clearly stated that the Yamato is capable of cutting through anything. You really think Lady stopped Vergil from killing her just because she held up her bazooka? LOL. Besides, if he were just some ordinary murderer, he would've killed her before. He did meet her once before, remember?

So yeah... don't bother replying, I'm not going to respond again. No offense intended, I'm just really tired.

I think the issue with that argument is neither does DmC Vergil. The most awful act was that one scene and the DLC scene. I do not like that Vergil, but his motivations at least in shooting Lilith was grounded and had a point. Everything, as I previously state about the original DMC series is written in such a way that you have to have conjecture. *The argument that Vergil raised the tower in an unpopulated area is just as conjecture as he did it in a populated. But the tower was close enough to Dante's shop that one can assume on evidence there were people living there, especially based on the strip joint and ballroom having alcohol, and power.

I don't like using arguments of morality because that starts on opinion and culture. Neiche would argue Vergil of DmC was justified in shooting Lilith in order to reach the ends of killing Mundus. We find that an outrageous thought, but the greater result outweighed the life of one person. If we discussed his clear narcissism and insanity in killin his mother for an unclear reason, then I'd be more for it. That is the LAST I will talk about that scene. As I previously stated, it's absurdly written.

Edit; apathy is totally relevant. A reluctance to kill versus not caring either are two different mind sets, which affect his character, which is entirely what this discussion is about. Who's characterization of Vergil do you prefer?

Second edit; Vergil WAS goin to kill Dante if Arkham didn't stop him. At the end of the first fight, he goes back to fight Dante after he DTs. It is very likely he would have killed Dante then. It is shown later that Dante become overwhelmingly stronger, to equal Vergil, and then be stronger than him. Just because he did not, does not mean he would not.

Neither does DmC Vergil? What do you mean? My point is that new Vergil kills without needing to kill. He has no regard for life. Old Vergil at least seems to realize that he doesn't have the right to end innocent lives. He knows he doesn't have the right to kill everything he doesn't like. I know Lilith is not innocent, but she is not very dangerous either... and yet new Vergil killed her. Totally uncalled for and immoral. It doesn't matter if killing Lilith ''had a point''. Hitler's gassing of the Jews had a point too, but that does not make it any less reprehensible. It's immoral, and frankly, I find it insane.

*I never said the tower was raised in an unpopulated area. I said that we don't know if humans were killed when the tower was raised. You assumed human were killed. I can't assume that.

''I don't like using arguments of morality because that starts on opinion and culture. Neiche would argue Vergil of DmC was justified in shooting Lilith in order to reach the ends of killing Mundus. We find that an outrageous thought, but the greater result outweighed the life of one person.''

Nothing outweighs life. Nobody has the right to end another person's life just to fulfill a goal. These people have basic human rights, and in DMC, even demons do. Even the act of sacrificing one person against his/her will to save millions is morally objectionable, even though the end result is positive.

The discussion was about old Vergil vs new Vergil, and the debate had devolved into whether the old Vergil is morally reprehensible like new Vergil based on his actions. I say he is not. It may be that he is apathetic towards others' lives. But the fact is that in DMC3 he doesn't kill anyone who doesn't warrant to be killed. New Vergil does. That's all that matters in this case.

And like I said, if Vergil wanted to kill Lady, he had at least two opportunities to do so. He is lightning-fast. He has a blade that can cut through almost any material. According to one DMC game (I think) it could cut through anything. If you really think Lady managed to keep Vergil from killing her by holding up her bazooka... well that seems hilarious to me. Even if Vergil were exhausted, he could probably still cut clean through her bazooka. Lady is also a full human, so ordinarily she wouldn't even have enough speed to counter Vergil's attacks.

And that's all I'll say about it. I'm kind of sick of all the debating now.

 

[Jack500]

The lengths people will go to defend a videogame character :laugh:

 

[Algred]

Neither does DmC Vergil? What do you mean? My point is that new Vergil kills without needing to kill. He has no regard for life. Old Vergil at least seems to realize that he doesn't have the right to end innocent lives. He knows he doesn't have the right to kill everything he doesn't like. I know Lilith is not innocent, but she is not very dangerous either... and yet new Vergil killed her. Totally uncalled for and immoral. It doesn't matter if killing Lilith ''had a point''. Hitler's gassing of the Jews had a point too, but that does not make it any less reprehensible. It's immoral, and frankly, I find it insane.

*I never said the tower was raised in an unpopulated area. I said that we don't know if humans were killed when the tower was raised. You assumed human were killed. I can't assume that.

''I don't like using arguments of morality because that starts on opinion and culture. Neiche would argue Vergil of DmC was justified in shooting Lilith in order to reach the ends of killing Mundus. We find that an outrageous thought, but the greater result outweighed the life of one person.''

Nothing outweighs life. Nobody has the right to end another person's life just to fulfill a goal. These people have basic human rights, and in DMC, even demons do. Even the act of sacrificing one person against his/her will to save millions is morally objectionable, even though the end result is positive.

The discussion was about old Vergil vs new Vergil, and the debate had devolved into whether the old Vergil is morally reprehensible like new Vergil based on his actions. I say he is not. It may be that he is apathetic towards others' lives. But the fact is that in DMC3 he doesn't kill anyone who doesn't warrant to be killed. New Vergil does. That's all that matters in this case.

And like I said, if Vergil wanted to kill Lady, he had at least two opportunities to do so. He is lightning-fast. He has a blade that can cut through almost any material. According to one DMC game (I think) it could cut through anything. If you really think Lady managed to keep Vergil from killing her by holding up her bazooka... well that seems hilarious to me. Even if Vergil were exhausted, he could probably still cut clean through her bazooka. Lady is also a full human, so ordinarily she wouldn't even have enough speed to counter Vergil's attacks.

And that's all I'll say about it. I'm kind of sick of all the debating now.

This is why I said, once again, entering morality onto the equation, especially due to one character's entire basis is conjecture which, you even agreed with, is pointless. Morality is subjective. It is your opinion due to your upbringing or culture that taking life to save others is inexcusable. If we are using Hitler as an example, one could argue killing someone close to him in order to make him vulnerable to kill him before, or even during, the holocaust would have been worth it. The measure of life is a cost that varies by opinion and not facts. Morality is not universal. Regardless if I hate what he did, I can at least acknowledge my morality is not his. To you, all that matters is tht moment, and that's cool. But to me, to back up my dislike, I am using the plot and writing itself, which CAN be backed up, as someone who read and studied the Aeneid and the Comedy in their original languages, to detail why he's just a **** character in context to the world he is a part of .

That is why I don't make an argument his character based on what he morally is because that is all opinion, and Vergil's original design was too PURPOSELY hidden, like near every other character on original DMC, to know. Dante himself thrives as an example every game, as you really DON'T know why he plays the hero, outside he "feels" it's right.

Yamato at no time could cut through anything. That would make every other devil arm obsolete. In that scene, Vergil is heavily injured, and physically drained. Compare the first fight cutscenes verses the second. Everything is much slower and more visceral.

I understand and agree with your argument that x did not happen, but you also are reaching assumptions of his character because that x did not happen. "Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence."

My entire point comes to that, WRITING wise, Old Vergil as a character who is more interesting BECAUSE you can have debates on WHO he is, not only what he did. Each action is so fantastically stacked in mystery, you come to no conclusions on who he is but you WANT to know and ask for more, especially adding in DMC1

New Vergil is such a base character in design with such a convoluted, spelled out background, that when applied to the story and the gameplay, he makes no sense. You don't WANT to know more about him because he appears so detestable by the end of the DLC and you know everything. He's Wesker with blue on his coat, but instead of viruses they're demons, and he's nowhere near as interesting or intelligent. And you really just want him to get killed by Dante in the end.

TLDR; Straight out antagonists who are bad to just be a bad guy are boring. Anti-heroes, whom you're unsure what their actual goals are and who they are, are interesting. Original Vergil is an anti-hero, new Vergil is a Bond Villain.

 

[Chancey289]

Innsmouth is freaking hopeless. I hope one day you see how much industrial grade stupid you've been leaking through this forum and start knocking some smarts in to yourself. Preferably with a big thick dictionary to the face.