How come? It is beautifully delivered and you can feel the struggle and emotional undertones. It is sincerely acted and his story arc supports it, he attempted to clone her, constructed a sanctuary for her, lingering for his memory and past.
All I saw was a creepy objectification of a woman and a desire to own her, not love.
That's kinda part of it though. Although I would say that rather than objectify her directly, he objectifies their love. And of course, all his attempts to recreate their love fails to satisfy him, because he can no longer love. He only remembers the feeling and knows that this wasn't it. And over time even the memory fades and he stops spending time in his recreated chambers, stops trying to clone her, stops trying to recreate his feelings, and all that remains is the abandoned attempts to do so alongside all the other long abandoned and forgotten projects that litter his laboratory (remember Reevar anyone? The poor servant and friend, ever dutiful to Irenicus, now trapped in continual torment and unlife in that vat as Irenicus has forgotten he even exists? I don't even want to go back and see what that monologue was like in fear of it being ruined by my maturity, but I can tell you that when I played BG2 as a younging that tragic "I no longer wish to come back" sound clip absolutely broke my heart). And instead the knowledge of having lost it festers in him and becomes bitterness and hatred.
Originally Posted by Alyssa_Fox
I actually prefer realistic villians with motivation that complements their nuanced worldview, Master and Kerghan are good examples, and so are Illusive Man from ME, Kreia from KOTOR2, Caesar from Fallout New Vegas. Yes, they aren't examples of outstanding writing, they are written in good and decent ways, not outstanding, but nevertheless as characters they are complex and for them power is means to achieve something, not an end of their ambitions. If we talk about outstanding writing of villians, here's an example:
Now, I hardly think Irenicus is the height of mature and nuanced writing (I consider him to be a great example of how even a meagre villain can be elevated to heights far above it's own writing by great acting, since it is Warner's performance that 100% makes that character in the way he breathes life into the pompous and stereotypical voice lines) either, but when you say you like nuanced and complex characters and then go on to list Wyll and, of all things, somebody as flat as the Illusive Man alongside examples like Kreia, and I have to say you come of as somebody who likes the idea of being somebody who likes complex characters more than somebody who is able to tell what gives a character depth, especially with how you just casually dismiss the nuance even meagerly written characters like Irenicus does have and reduce him to a one-dimensional caricature what BG2 actually presents. Sure, Irenicus (the forum poster) is in my opinion completely inflating Irenicus' (the character) complexity. But that's little different from how you blew up Wyll's complexity in response just a few posts ago too.
Or maybe you're just doing said dismissing like that for the sake of arguing on the internet after somebody disliked something you like.
