Do FPS have better story than RPG games?

[Hawki]

Haven't we had this thread before?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.1036332-Why-do-people-claim-FPS-have-bad-Story?

Yep.

Anyway:

here we analyse that do FPS games have better story than RPG or not?

Okay, let's have some analysis.

so here we have most popular RPG franchise like elder scrolls, fallout, mass effect and witcher.

Well, that's four RPG franchises out of many, but okay, let's start with them.

witcher story is debatable but its based on book and its story is not very good. elder scroll and fallout story are crap even their fans believe both games story suck. mass effect story is also generic space story.

So basically you've taken four series, said "they're crap," and moved on.

Y'know, usually analysis consists of more than a trio of sentences.

compare them to single player story driven FPS like Half life, Metro, FEAR, System shock, Deus Ex have much better story than average RPG. some could argue that System shock and Deus Ex are not proper FPS but they are hybrid and they have better story than any of pure RPG.

And your argument here is that "their stories are good."

Again, not analysis or argument.

Half life pioneer how to tell the story without interrupting a gameplay when most RPG tell story thought lengthy dialogues system that can get very boring.

That says more about Half-Life's storytelling rather than plot (which are technically two separate things).

even DOOM has pretty good story if you pay attention to it.

Yeah...no.

The only time Doom has ever approached having a good story is Doom 3, and even then I can't call its story "good." Reasonably well delivered, but its plot is pretty basic.

im not saying that RPG have bad story. they have not. but the way i observe FPS do have better stories than RPG.

This might have generated discussion, but at this point, I know better than to bother.

But does any Call of Duty or Medal of Honor game? Nah, those only begrudgingly even have a single player, and its just a demo of the multiplayer.

I have to disagree there, at least for Medal of Honour. MoH's multiplayer was never that stellar (least in my experience), nor have I ever heard of anyone purchasing it just for multiplayer in the way someone might CoD (hello, Black Ops 4). In contrast, while the plots of MoH games have never been stellar, it's clearly where the meat of development time went into (again, least in my experience).

I mean no one plays FF games for the plot,

Yeah...no.

Plot is one of the main appeals of the (mainline) Final Fantasy games. You may not like them, but they're story heavy RPGs that draw people in for said story.

BioShock is arguably among the best, but it is less of a well told story (remember how the last act is totally superfluous and has little connection to the main theme and twist of the game?)

Um...no?

I agree that storywise, the latter half of BioShock is weaker than the first half (and that Fontaine isn't as good a villain as Ryan, but I kinda feel that's intentional), but I don't recall any thematic whiplash.

Which Doom? The new one? I'll at least grant you that the new one actually does have some great writing, by way of interesting lore, weaving some of the narrative into the gameplay, and making the characters really interesting and fun, even if the main plot is essentially "Demons over there, kill they ass, also, chase a few plot maguffins)

Damn it, you were doing so well up till now.

Anyway, probably beaten the Doom horse to death at this point, but I still stand by that Doom 2016 really doesn't have a good storytelling or plot. It has the potential for both, but it's delivered so poorly it can only scope brownie points. Also, it commits the cardinal sin of writing - "if you aren't writing about the most interesting period in your protagonist's life, why?" The Doom Slayer's actions prior to the game are much more interesting than what happens in the game itself. Even if this wasn't the third time the series has done "demons invade Mars," I don't think that sin would be removed from the game.

Also are we pretending Doom had a story before 2016? Even then, that was more world building then story proper, and done in the incredibly lazy wiki-codex format. I have a setting wiki for stuff I write or DM, but I'd never redirect readers or players to it for basic information that was of any relevance to the story at hand.

DM?

Anyway, technically Doom did have a story before 2016, but it's indicative of Carmack's approach to story in games - it's there, but not important.

That said, Doom 3 (and its related continuity) does have a story. A very basic story, but it's still delivered well as far as how the plot unfolds and how worldbuilding is carried out. Again, nothing special, but I'd still put D3's story over D2016's. And, even more controversially, gameplay-wise as well.

(Yes, Doom 3 is my favorite Doom game. Deal with it. )

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Damn it, you were doing so well up till now.

it commits the cardinal sin of writing - "if you aren't writing about the most interesting period in your protagonist's life, why?" The Doom Slayer's actions prior to the game are much more interesting than what happens in the game itself.

This is a very fair point, and a sentiment I had while playing, too. Conceded completely.

I just found myself really enjoying the story. Not just the codex tibits, but even stuff like the holograms throwing out obvious corporate propaganda in the most intentionally cringy way possible. It was fun and enjoyable to read and listen to. *shrug*

 

[Elvis Starburst]

What are you talking about? Clearly you've got all the facts backwards my friend.

Myth 1: RPGs have best story.
Myth 2: FPS have bad story.

Now if we pay attention to facts that I determined with no other evidence other than my own that I gained by looking up and providing my own legitimate sources that I totally provided here, then it proves FPS stories are THE WORST because they have no female characters in them and many many bad moments that I think were bad. All the average FPS has is gritty manly men and no colour to their design, which makes them completely overrated and are the poster children for their genre, ignoring all other FPS games made ever. FACT.

RPGs have better story than FPS always, cause good FPS stories are myths. Also fact.

Sources:


OT: Every genre has its good and bad stories, so I think the debate is dumb

 

[Trunkage]

What are you talking about? Clearly you've got all the facts backwards my friend.

Myth 1: RPGs have best story.
Myth 2: FPS have bad story.

Now if we pay attention to facts that I determined with no other evidence other than my own that I gained by looking up and providing my own legitimate sources that I totally provided here, then it proves FPS stories are THE WORST because they have no female characters in them and many many bad moments that I think were bad. All the average FPS has is gritty manly men and no colour to their design, which makes them completely overrated and are the poster children for their genre, ignoring all other FPS games made ever. FACT.

RPGs have better story than FPS always, cause good FPS stories are myths. Also fact.

Sources:

oh god, let's not go there... Alright, here goes

The funnt thing is: guns, for the most part, dont require that much strength to carry. It does require a lot of stamina. You can't carry a rifle out that long, like you see in games. Since the story is irrelevant to most FPS, it doesnt matter if its male or female.

 

[Chewster]

I would say, single player games with set protagonists (Which many fps are) have tighter more thematic narratives

But suffer in the character aspects that rpgs excel at

This. Because I don't think anyone has ever really said that stuff like Call of Duty 9: Black Ops 5: World Warfare have particularly interesting stories, unless you're into paranoid, Tom Clancy-esque, geopolitical nonsense.

Stuff like Bioshock or (yes I know) Metro have interesting stories, but they are quirky and focus on characters and unique settings. Many FPS games do not.

So, like most things, it very obviously depends on the game. To blanket declare one genre has better stories than another is no less ridiculous than saying sci fi films have better plots than dramas. That will clearly depend on the films in question.

 

[Elvis Starburst]

oh god, let's not go there... Alright, here goes

The funnt thing is: guns, for the most part, dont require that much strength to carry. It does require a lot of stamina. You can't carry a rifle out that long, like you see in games. Since the story is irrelevant to most FPS, it doesnt matter if its male or female.

Oh, I know. Just having a little fun in regards to the OP

 

[Trunkage]

oh god, let's not go there... Alright, here goes

The funnt thing is: guns, for the most part, dont require that much strength to carry. It does require a lot of stamina. You can't carry a rifle out that long, like you see in games. Since the story is irrelevant to most FPS, it doesnt matter if its male or female.

Oh, I know. Just having a little fun in regards to the OP

i couldn't help myself either

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Oh and Knights of the Old Republic 2, because it actually dares slaughter the sacred cow of Star Wars, even if it, just like Bioshock and Spec Ops, is more of a deconstruction of its own universe.

What sacred cow is that?

The over reliance on the force as a plot device and the nature of the Jedi vs Sith war. KotOR2 suggest that both Jedi and Sith are equally callous and indifferent to the plight of the common man, being locked as they are in a perpetual struggle that neither side can win. KotOR2 also suggests that the Force is a jerk if all it really does is propels conflict and select a small fraction of people to aspire to greatness while everyone else is left to suffer at the hands of those chosen.

Um...no?

I agree that storywise, the latter half of BioShock is weaker than the first half (and that Fontaine isn't as good a villain as Ryan, but I kinda feel that's intentional), but I don't recall any thematic whiplash.

I think you misunderstand me. It is not that BioShock has thematic whiplash, it is that the story essentially ends with the meeting with Ryan. Everything after that is a new story that hasn't been seeded properly earlier in the game. Which means that Bioshock, for all its strengths as a narrative and story, still isn't all that good, because it fails one of the basic litmus tests of good storytelling: Never change the plot after the halfway point.

Had Bioshock ended with Jack seemingly dying in Ryan's office after Fontaine activated the killswitch, then Bioshock 2 could have told a good story about Jack seeking revenge on Fontaine for using him as a puppet. As it is, the second story comes out of nowhere (technically, I suppose, there are some hints that Atlas is not who he claims to be) and resolves way too quickly to work in a narrative sense, which is one of the most common criticisms of Bioshock.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

this is what one of its creators have to say about it.
[/QUOTE]Fun fact: that quote was part of a dialogue, an argument between Carmack and Tom Hall, the latter of whom was at the time doing the writing for Doom.

Hall actually wanted Doom to have a much more ambitious and complex narrative. The rest of the team, Carmack foremost, disagreed. It was apparently not the first time not the first time Hall's ideas were rejected, which eventually led to him leaving id to found Ion Storm with John Romero (and later Warren Spector for the Austin Branch). If interested in what some of his vision for Doom was, here's the Doom Bible [https://5years.doomworld.com/doombible/], the original design document.

Not to say Hall's plans for Doom would've been better. No way of telling, since they never came to fruition, after all. Just felt like adding some context to that quote.

OT: I'm with Phoenixmgs. There's not a whole lot of writing talent in this industry. Not for storytelling at least. World building tends to fare better, although it's still debatable.

 

[sXeth]

Also are we pretending Doom had a story before 2016? Even then, that was more world building then story proper, and done in the incredibly lazy wiki-codex format. I have a setting wiki for stuff I write or DM, but I'd never redirect readers or players to it for basic information that was of any relevance to the story at hand.

DM?

Anyway, technically Doom did have a story before 2016, but it's indicative of Carmack's approach to story in games - it's there, but not important.

That said, Doom 3 (and its related continuity) does have a story. A very basic story, but it's still delivered well as far as how the plot unfolds and how worldbuilding is carried out. Again, nothing special, but I'd still put D3's story over D2016's. And, even more controversially, gameplay-wise as well.

(Yes, Doom 3 is my favorite Doom game. Deal with it. )

DM - Dungeon Master/Game Master. Wikiing up is helpful to keep my homebrew settings straight so I'm not criss-crossing myself, or if a new player joins a group and wants some background info without spending even more time doing the creation runaround.

I've only kind of tangentially played/watched my buddy play Doom 3 on his computer, so can't really say much of it.

Doom (Across most of its variations) I also find has the same flaw of most post-apoclaypse/crisis event stories. The actual crisis would've been drastically more interesting then the trek through the ruins really is. 2016 kind of doubled down on having another ancient one that sounded like it mightv'e been interesting, but its almost entirely buried in wikilogs to even know what an Argent D'nur was. The game you just kind of blunder into reviving some knights ghosts to open a portal because unexplained reasons.

 

[Terminal Blue]

The over reliance on the force as a plot device and the nature of the Jedi vs Sith war. KotOR2 suggest that both Jedi and Sith are equally callous and indifferent to the plight of the common man, being locked as they are in a perpetual struggle that neither side can win. KotOR2 also suggests that the Force is a jerk if all it really does is propels conflict and select a small fraction of people to aspire to greatness while everyone else is left to suffer at the hands of those chosen.

Yeah, this is something that's always bothered me about the way Star Wars fans interpret Star Wars (and indeed about the way George Lucas would go on to interpret his own work in the prequel trilogy).

When we encounter the Jedi in the form of Obi Wan and later Yoda, it's clear that they're a religion. They're a mystical religion focused on achieving mastery of an esoteric force which, in their own words, is created by life and binds all things in the universe together. The force is not a power and Jedi don't possess it. They are merely it's "allies". Even Darth Vader, who you'd think would be all about bragging about his own power, chides his officers for being too proud of the Death Star. He's not bragging about his own power, he's warning them that the power of the Force is greater than their planet-destroying superweapon, and he's proven right when Luke, with the force on his side, destroys the Death Star.

Sure, the Jedi and Sith in the original trilogy have powers beyond an ordinary person, but they're not so far beyond that you can't understand why ordinary people (for example, Han Solo) would be skeptical or maybe that these stories would have passed into myth in a relatively short time. The biggest displays of power, Yoda lifting the X-wing and Palpatine unleashing lightning, are set up as big reveals of the actual, hidden abilities of these great masters who had spent their entire lives achieving inner mastery, not things they can do because they levelled up and unlocked telekinesis level 5. Yoda lifting the X-wing is literally set up as a religious parable about not judging things by physical appearances. Luke isn't being trained to use a power, he's being taught to understand the world differently and to overcome his own doubts and fears. That's what's really important to the story, not that Luke can move a lightsaber, but that by the end he has changed as a person.

But in the hands of the fandom and the expanded universe, the force as a religion morphed into the force as superpower, and in doing so they took on some of the deep problems of superhero stories as a genre and ran with them.

Superhero stories are fundamentally elitist, and this is not the same as saying they're bad, but all superhero stories need to spend time establishing why their own elitism is justified. Thus, we are constantly told that superman is the perfect goody who never does anything bad. But at the end of the day, he's still powerful and therefore capable of imposing his view of morality onto the world in a way which is deeply authoritarian. Batman has an even more disturbing dimension because he's not a superhero in the conventional sense, his superpower is that he's rich and smart. Therefore, he's allowed to decide who is good and who is bad, he's allowed to set himself up as the protector of Gotham city, he's allowed to decide who is worth saving and who expendible, who matters and who deoesn't matter, because his wealth and intelligence (properties real people actually have) make him powerful.

Spoiler: Cough

There's an underlying message here that having power makes you important and not having power makes you unimportant (or at least, your importance only derives from how powerful people perceive you), and this carries over to a lot of non-original-trilogy Star Wars. Heck, one redeeming quality of the prequel trilogy is that, for all its problems, this is kind of literally text in the prequel trilogy. The Jedi aren't presented as omnibenevolent, so much as unconcerned with everyone who isn't them. Qui-Gon Jinn only wants to rescue Anakin from slavery because he finds out Anakin has a high midchlorian count. The other slaves, fuck 'em, they aren't powerful and therefore they don't matter. This may be an accident, maybe Lucas intended us to like the Jedi in the prequels and thought this was perfectly fine good-guy behaviour, but it's an honest accident which says something about the way Star Wars stories work.

And yeah, in this context KOTOR2 is actually a really good in-universe narrative criticism of Star Wars as a property. If you consume a lot of Star Wars stories (including video games like KOTOR) without buying into the idea that elitism is okay and that power is a justification for authority, then even the Jedi kind of come off as assholes, and the force itself comes off as profoundly unfair. As long as certain people are arbitrarily turned into God-kings for no reason, then the galaxy is never really going to be free. That ordinary person can never be as important as a Jedi or a Sith, because they don't have the superpowers. In this sense, Kreia is right. Kreia represents a view which we as the audience should maybe indulge sometimes when we look at other Star Wars media, because the same problems are still there.

 

[jademunky]

so here we have most popular RPG franchise like elder scrolls, fallout, mass effect and witcher.

You might want to use examples of RPGs that emphasize the writing and story. Elder Scrolls are about the exploration, and the story itself is always just some "chosen one" crap.

Try something like Undertale, Planescape: Torment or Nier: Automata.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

It?s a combination of lack of writing talent, lack of artistic rendering talent, and lack of acting talent...but even that can only go so far. The problem with story in games is that it should never overshadow the actual gameplay, so we?ll likely never have a gaming equivalent of Breaking Bad, The Road, Westworld, etc. simply because of the style of the medium and how we?re meant to ingest it in the first place. It?s also why movies or even the better TV shows usually don?t hold a candle to the books most of them are based off of.

 

[Erttheking]

In this sense, Kreia is right. Kreia represents a view which we as the audience should maybe indulge sometimes when we look at other Star Wars media, because the same problems are still there.

I don't know much about Kreia, or KOTOR 2 for that matter, but isn't she the person that bitches you out if you give money to a beggar because of some social darwinism stuff about how people need to overcome challenges and stuff like that? (And because it would make him a target and then he gets shanked not thirty seconds later?)

I ask because part of me is curious about KOTOR 2, but the rest of me hears about situations like that and go "oh, it's gonna have THAT kind of writing." I've generally been kind of concerned considering that one of the writers admitted that they basically used her to air their complaints about Star Wars. Kind of like what they did with Ulysses in Fallout. Airing your grievances about a genre you're working in is all fine and dandy. But you still have you give people a narrative they give a shit about. By all means take out the traditional Star Wars narrative, but I do have to ask. What do they put in to replace it?

[ Batman has an even more disturbing dimension because he's not a superhero in the conventional sense, his superpower is that he's rich and smart. Therefore, he's allowed to decide who is good and who is bad, he's allowed to set himself up as the protector of Gotham city, he's allowed to decide who is worth saving and who expendible, who matters and who deoesn't matter, because his wealth and intelligence (properties real people actually have) make him powerful.

Uh. Did Batman ever decide that someone was expendable? Serious question. Or is this about the fact that, if he wanted to, he could decide someone was expendable? For all the brooding the guy can do, he's such a goody two-shoes that he can't even bring himself to let one of his surrogate sons kill his most hated enemy. And I'm not much of a Batman fan, but did he ever decide that someone was bad who wasn't actively declared as bad by the Gotham PD? I mean, the thing about Batman is that in a lot of stories, he willingly works with Jim Gorden and the police.

 

[Hawki]

I think you misunderstand me. It is not that BioShock has thematic whiplash, it is that the story essentially ends with the meeting with Ryan. Everything after that is a new story that hasn't been seeded properly earlier in the game. Which means that Bioshock, for all its strengths as a narrative and story, still isn't all that good, because it fails one of the basic litmus tests of good storytelling: Never change the plot after the halfway point.

Had Bioshock ended with Jack seemingly dying in Ryan's office after Fontaine activated the killswitch, then Bioshock 2 could have told a good story about Jack seeking revenge on Fontaine for using him as a puppet. As it is, the second story comes out of nowhere (technically, I suppose, there are some hints that Atlas is not who he claims to be) and resolves way too quickly to work in a narrative sense, which is one of the most common criticisms of Bioshock.

I can only disagree there. There's plenty of hints/buildup towards the Atlas/Fontaine reveal. If anything, the two halves of the story complement each other - first half Jack is a 'slave,' second half is where he's a 'man' (to borrow Ryan's terminology). I can buy that the pacing of the second half is much quicker than the third half, but narratively and thematically, I'd say they're congruent.

Doom (Across most of its variations) I also find has the same flaw of most post-apoclaypse/crisis event stories. The actual crisis would've been drastically more interesting then the trek through the ruins really is. 2016 kind of doubled down on having another ancient one that sounded like it mightv'e been interesting, but its almost entirely buried in wikilogs to even know what an Argent D'nur was. The game you just kind of blunder into reviving some knights ghosts to open a portal because unexplained reasons.

There's some cases where I'd agree, but Doom isn't necessarily one of them, at least not uniformally. In Doom 1, we enter Phobos hours/minutes after things went to Hell. Doom 3, we see the exact moment when the shit hits the fan. Doom 2016 is the case where I agree that events prior to the game are more interesting than the game itself.

When we encounter the Jedi in the form of Obi Wan and later Yoda, it's clear that they're a religion.

Disagree there. Very little time passes between Obi-Wan introducing Luke to the Force, and him showing tangible uses from it. In contrast, religion (in our world) is entirely faith based, whereas the effects of the Force are quantifiable. You bring up Vader later, but the accusation of it being an "ancient religion" comes from Motti. He promptly shows a tangible use of the Force. Same with Luke deflecting the bolts after Han's "hookey religions" comment.

Qui-Gon Jinn only wants to rescue Anakin from slavery because he finds out Anakin has a high midchlorian count. The other slaves, fuck 'em, they aren't powerful and therefore they don't matter.

He tries to save Anakin's mother as well. He technically could save her, but only through brute force. The Jedi are the servants of the Republic, and if the Republic's going to do anything about slavery on the Outer Rim, pissing off the rich and powerful of Tatooine isn't the best way to do it.

Is that the moral action? No, but the Jedi Order is shown to be flawed in the prequels. I don't think that's an accident.

 

[CaitSeith]

snip

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Disagree there. Very little time passes between Obi-Wan introducing Luke to the Force, and him showing tangible uses from it. In contrast, religion (in our world) is entirely faith based, whereas the effects of the Force are quantifiable. You bring up Vader later, but the accusation of it being an "ancient religion" comes from Motti. He promptly shows a tangible use of the Force. Same with Luke deflecting the bolts after Han's "hookey religions" comment.

Sure, there's tangible uses to the force, but the way it is approached by the characters, in-universe, is the same way we'd approach religion. Obi-Wan isn't so much giving Luke concrete instructions on how to harness his power, as he is giving him meditation advice. The way the OT deals with the Force is not unlike how Christianity deals with saints, as these blessed people that have a tangible connection to something greater that lets them perform miracles. Similarly, as Evilthecat points out, Yoda is not so much telling Luke how to level up his telekinesis skill, as much as he is giving him life advice and personal mentorship. "Do or do not, there is no try" is a philosophical statement, not a statement about skill. The Force is tangible, but the way Yoda, Obi-Wan and Darth Vader (and to some extent Luke) approach it is very much religious. The very fact that there's a dichotomy between Light and Dark, Good and Evil, that runs as a central theme concerning the force should be a obvious indicator that it is not just a bunch of power-ups, but a religious or spiritual force.

He tries to save Anakin's mother as well. He technically could save her, but only through brute force. The Jedi are the servants of the Republic, and if the Republic's going to do anything about slavery on the Outer Rim, pissing off the rich and powerful of Tatooine isn't the best way to do it.

Is that the moral action? No, but the Jedi Order is shown to be flawed in the prequels. I don't think that's an accident.

Whether it is a plot contrivance or a serious plot point is quite up for discussion I think. Notice that the question of slavery is never brought up again and that Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan seem utterly unmoved by the open slavery on Tatooine, until they find that particular boy whom is so powerful in the force that they must bring him along. They also never make a serious attempt at getting Shmi out, unless you count the half-hearted first conversation between Watto and Qui-Gon.

What isn't up for debate is that the Jedi are consistently portrayed as pretty uninterested in the people that lack power, as Evilthecat put it. This is an order (as in, a religious order to build on the previous point) that explicitly separates children that has the power they want from their parents, homes and societies in order to raise them in a secluded, monastic fashion so that the Jedi can hone and use their power. It is important to see this point not on its own but as a supporting argument to Avellone's larger criticism of how the Force is handled in Star Wars. The criticism which he brings forth in KotOR2 and which makes it such a potent deconstruction of Star Wars.

 

[Erttheking]

What isn't up for debate is that the Jedi are consistently portrayed as pretty uninterested in the people that lack power, as Evilthecat put it. This is an order (as in, a religious order to build on the previous point) that explicitly separates children that has the power they want from their parents, homes and societies in order to raise them in a secluded, monastic fashion so that the Jedi can hone and use their power. It is important to see this point not on its own but as a supporting argument to Avellone's larger criticism of how the Force is handled in Star Wars. The criticism which he brings forth in KotOR2 and which makes it such a potent deconstruction of Star Wars.

Don't the Jedi regularly go out and help people? I mean, the Clone Wars series (Both of them) shows the Jedi helping people who are being oppressed by the Separatists fairly often. One episode shows that the Tech Union had kidnapped all of the males in a village and mutated them into horrible monsters, something that drives Anakin goddamn ballistic when he sees it. Kit Fisto goes to help the Mon Calamari, Obi-Wan rescues Twi'lek prisoners, Mace Windu directly coordinates with Twi-lek resistance fighters to help free their world, a bunch of Jedi protect a village of unarmed pacifists, respecting the clones as individuals (the one Jedi who doesn't quickly turns out to be a Sith sympathizer) it's all over the place. Heck, even the Phantom Menace depicts the Jedi Order as sending Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan to find a peaceful resolution to Naboo being blockaded.

I think Qui-Gon's not saving Anakin's mother is something that needs to be dropped at the feet of Qui-Gon, not the Jedi Order as a whole. Also a big motivation for Jedi training kids is to make sure they can control their power and not fall to the Dark Side, something that always seems to come with megalomania.

First off, as a mod: Easy with the hostility. If you don't have anything worthwhile to contribute, stay out of the thread. There's no need to insult the OP

How come you haven't done anything about bcell? He has a bad rep and attracts alot of negativity for a reason. It's unbelievable that he can create so many shitposts on this forum and get away with it.

Having unpopular opinions isn't breaking the site rules.

 

[CaitSeith]

First off, as a mod: Easy with the hostility. If you don't have anything worthwhile to contribute, stay out of the thread. There's no need to insult the OP

How come you haven't done anything about bcell? He has a bad rep and attracts alot of negativity for a reason. It's unbelievable that he can create so many shitposts on this forum and get away with it.

Being hostile towards common sense (or strawmaning general public's opinion and taste) isn't against the site rules (no matter how much negativity it attracts).

 

[Terminal Blue]

I don't know much about Kreia, or KOTOR 2 for that matter, but isn't she the person that bitches you out if you give money to a beggar because of some social darwinism stuff about how people need to overcome challenges and stuff like that? (And because it would make him a target and then he gets shanked not thirty seconds later?)

Yes. But that's not really what I was talking about.

Massive spoilers ahead.

Spoiler

Kreia is a former Sith lord called Darth Traya, and the main antagonist of the game. After being betrayed by her apprentices and cut off from the ability to use the force for a time, she came to the conclusion that the force was responsible for most of the horrible things that had happened in the universe (such as the Jedi civil war, which killed most of the Jedi shortly before) and as long as it existed noone had any possibility of free will. For Kreia, the force is not inseparable from life, but rather is parasitic on life. It gives people power, but the power is an illusion, as the force also makes people subject to a "destiny" they cannot control, and manipulates how they behave and act. Force users believe they are stronger than ordinary people, when really, ordinary people are less dependent on the force and thus, in Kreia's eyes, stronger.

So, and this will probably make sense in light of the above spoilers, Kreia isn't a good person. Her philosophy is essentially a slightly toned down and less stupid version of the Sith philosophy as espoused in the game. Another character, Atton actually points this out at one point when advising the player to be wary of Kreia. She believes strongly in an ideology of weakness and strength, she just thinks that the Sith have it the wrong way around. Ultimately though, she is wrong. It's okay for characters in a story to be wrong. The Brotherhood of Steel in the original fallout are assholes. They're profoundly wrong, but they're remembered favourably by players for what they represented and their role in the narrative.

But I'm not really talking about in-universe rationalizations here so much as themes. When I say that Kreia represents a position we should keep in mind, I don't mean we should support her position that giving money to beggars is bad (although it is genuinely short-sighted and tokenistic, and it's kind of pathetic that it's become our video game standard for a "good" character) I mean that her diegetic philosophy hints to stuff which is non-diagetically wrong with the universe as depicted in Star Wars, with the way it presents morality and power and other very human things which are actually important to us even if we can't move objects with our minds or fight with laser swords.

Uh. Did Batman ever decide that someone was expendable?

His whole thing is that he beats people up to protect other people.

And yeah, maybe we always agree with batman. Maybe he genuinely only ever beats up the people who are irredeemably bad, maybe nothing questionable ever results from his actions. But again, my point is isn't there something a little propagandaish about presenting a world in which that is the case. In real life, we do have to make those decisions too. We have to decide what is an acceptable measure to stop someone who may be a danger to others. If our fantasy life is full of batman beating up the irredeemably bad because he's a good multi-millionaire and always does the right thing, what happens when we are confronted with real world that is more complex than a comic book?

I put a panel from Watchmen in there because that's probably the best example I can think of right now. If we tried to apply comic book logic to the real world, things would rapidly get very dark indeed. Why then do we enjoy these stories about a super-intelligent rich guy putting on a costume to beat up poor people in the street.

I'm not arguing that batman as presented in your typical batman story is secretly a bad dude. Rather, my point is that elitism doesn't work, so why are we still attracted to stories which openly indulge and celebrate elitism by presenting a universe in which it does work, in which all you need to solve your problems is a rich and powerful dude with big fists (again, this isn't saying the stories are bad or that you shouldn't consume them, but there's nothing wrong with asking why, and I think we make stories better by asking why).

Disagree there. Very little time passes between Obi-Wan introducing Luke to the Force, and him showing tangible uses from it. In contrast, religion (in our world) is entirely faith based, whereas the effects of the Force are quantifiable.

Religious people in our world don't always believe that they are acting on blind faith.

Many people believe that prayer actively works. Many people believe that meditation has changed their life. Most Christians believe that Jesus performed literal miracles. The fact that the force in Star Wars seems to be real at least in some sense, does not make the Jedi more than a religion.

To take a similar example, several of the red priests in A song of ice and fire display magical powers, up to and including being able to raise the dead. Does this mean the worship of R'hllor is not a "religion" in this setting?

You know what.. actually scrap this and just re-read what Gethsemani said, because that was really good.