By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Carl2291 said:
Khuutra said:

But he's not iconic as a video game villain, which was the entire point. He's a movie villain, even in video games. I mean, you realize some video games have had God as the final boss, yeah?

And no, mine isn't based solely on opinion; subjective opinion on iconography is less than useless, it's actively deceitful because thee's no way for iconography to be meaningfully measured subjectively. One of the best ways to determine iconograpy is through recognizability, and without a meaningful level of study the only real way to extrapolate that is via

Wait for it

Waaaaait for it

Waaaaaaait for it

Sales.

Which meanns of course that the Goomba gets as much rrecognition as Bowser (or more), but that doesn't make it an iconographic villain, just an iconographic enemy.

This thread doesn't specify that they have had to become iconic FROM videogames though. As long as they are a videogame villain. And Darth Vader has appeared as a videogame villain on plenty of occasions. If you want God to win. Go for it. Your opinion, if you can bring yourself to back anything other than Bowser. I think it's Darth Vader though...

Yet Goomba's can still be counted as villains. Not just enemies... If you look at definitions of the word. Same goes for Bowser obviously. But whatever. If you want to say Bowser it's your choice.

Sorry, the dismissiv "that's, like, your opinion man" thing doesn't work so well on me, especially when the discussion at hand has nothing to do with iconography.

The distinction between enemy and villain is an extremely important one in literary contexts - Goombas are enemies, Bowser is a villain.

And no, it doesn't specify game villains in particular, but it's not about being iconographic, either, it's about being bad-ass looking, so you have no particular leg to stand on either way.