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.
