Killing is Too Easy

[abdul]

Cool story,except the guy tried to kill Tess first and she even says they might've given him more time to make it up to them if it wasn't for that.

Holy shit, I don't know why you used that to defend the game. It just sounded like those two were the heads of a mob gang. "Where's our guns?" Did they place an order for some nukes too?

So guy-on-ground had to make a tough decision on which gang he was going to give his guns to... so whoever he chose, the other gang was going to come and kill him. She didn't open with her expressing disdain for trying to be killed, she didn't ask him why, it was just "where are my guns". Tess really came off as evil, and the whole "I would be nicer if you hadn't tried to kill me" thing was just her justifying her actions. And that's nothing new, gang leaders having been saying cliche'd nonsense like that for ages.

Actually she does start with that,but that's done in-game before the cutscene.Robert starts shooting as soon as they open the door.

edit: hmm,I actually didn't watch the video till the end I linked (only checked if it's the right one,my bad).It has half the length of the original (other half is spoiler though),but now that I did,I can see why it looks that bad with the way it abruptly ends on a bit different tone than the original full cutscene,especially if you know nothing about the event that preceeded it.

 

[Thoughtful_Salt]

I felt the same way Yahtzee did with the Tomb Raider remake. The slaughtering of the island dwellers got out of hand when, further into the game, Lara sounded less like a woman trying to survive and more like a lunatic killing everything in her path. I would have sympathized with both the protagonists and antagonists if they were developed better. Lara's killing of the islanders would have had more impact if there were less of them and you learned more about each individual from items you found on their person (A photograph of an islander's family he longs to see again, a keepsake of someone's love he may never see again, a journal of an islander pouring his heart out on his losses, etc.). Such little details would have made Lara struggle for survival more complex when she realizes that the people after her were victims of the island's magic shenanigans wanting to return home.

And yet they still try and kill her on sight anyways so your point is moot. I do understand the yearning for some more personal details, it would have added some depth....but at what cost? That would have turned the game into something else entirely, a spec ops-ish game. Would we want that in an adventure game?

Tomb Raider slightly justifies the actions of the player by
1.trapping them on the island so there's no way to avoid conflict with the solari (unlike in uncharted where Drake murders people solely for treasure, with plenty of chances for him to just drop the hunt for the macguffin)
2.Make every enemy attempt to shoot lara on sight, negating any chance to talk to them, and turning the scenario into a survival against man and the elements game.
3.Almost every scenario/mission in the game features either: Lara being attacked and/or escaping capture, or her rescuing someone and/or acquiring an item necessary for survival on the island. (It should be noted that there are no enemies in the optional puzzle solving tombs)
4. Make every death lara/player suffers as brutal as possible to emphasize the take-no prisoners aspect of the enemies and obstacles.

At this point self-defense and rescuing people who lara cares about kind of negates any criticisms of ludo-narrative dissonance (or campster's idiotic claim that she is a sociopath by the game's end). In the end it's about lara's journey, not the player and his/her relationship with it.

 

[Jadak]

They're human beings!
They had a mother, they experienced joy, sadness they have a preference jam or honey. They lived every single day for twenty years or more.
I'd love to live in a world where the only people who committed (serious) crimes were inhuman monster that never felt sad or shame never had an unpleasant shit after eating spicy food.
And you might sleep better at night think that the people that committee atrocities are a different species but it's bullshit a lie you tell yourself to feel better.
We're all made of the same stuff like it or not.
And anyway points moot. Only human are legal responsible for there actions if this guy was as inhuman as you think he wouldn't be legal responsible for his actions
He'd be sent to an institution.

***skimming through sentimental garbage for relevant parts***

"I'd love to live in a world where the only people who committed (serious) crimes were inhuman monster that never felt sad or shame never had an unpleasant shit after eating spicy food. "

There we go, that was part of my point, and way I gave an extreme example. Whenever this type of discussion gets brought up, people get so caught up in where to draw the line without ever addressing what I feel is most important. What do you do in the situation is that extreme? The guilt undeniable, the monstrosity of the acts unquestionable?

Sure, there's all kinds of issues that can come into play in any real case, but how can anyone be expected to decide on the finer points when they can't even decide on an absolute, one sided scenario? That's why I start at the worst, as you called it, take an inhuman monster, one where you have no doubts and can unhesitantly deal out any punishment.

With that done, you have a baseline for your beliefs. Can you kill then? Do you still believe in rehabilitation or arbitrary imprisonment? Regardless, with that decided, you can know, with certainty how you believe the worst of the worst should be dealt with, and you can build up from there rather than jumping into the middle and being uncertain about anything.

Of course, the 'asylum vs death' is a worthy discussion all on it's own and adds problems all over the place, but that's an aspect for another day.

 

[viranimus]

Ok..... And?

I stand by my position. These are not people. These are polygonal AI's and scripted algorithms that only exist for the players amusement and whims. To desire to not revel in their every little mental and physical contortion and try to anthropomorphize them is to rob these virtual lives from the only purpose to their existence.

And really to a greater degree this sort of thinking baffles me. Like most of our entertainment media, games act as a form of escapism. Gaming is perhaps one of the greatest forms of this. It allows us to experience a little taste of what it is like to do things we cannot do outside of that media without having to suffer the consequences of it.

Knowing that IRL society demands you behave in accordance with social expectations, which essentially means behaving on the line of "good" To comply with social contract, to submit to notions like selflessness are virtues, and that anything less than good behavior is intolerable and can get you punished be it criminally, politically, socially, emotionally, etc.

So why would anyone WANT to be the good guy ever? Why play into the role that is expected of you? Does that not squander the aspects unique to gaming? What was the point? Why even bother with the extra layers of effort needed to make it a game at all? If the experience amounts to the player escaping the world where they are expected to "play nice" So that they can enter a world where they choose to be nice, what was the point of dilluting the experince inherent in real world complexity to experience the same under a far more restrictive and simple set of variables?



Honestly, such an alien concept.

 

[FallenMessiah88]

I can understand why one would critisize games like Modern Warfare for not having a "non lethal" option, but to me it seems like killing in TLoU goes perfectly along with the themes and the setting of the games. Bear in mind that I still haven't actually played the game, so take my opinon for what it is.

 

[gjkbgt]

They're human beings!
They had a mother, they experienced joy, sadness they have a preference jam or honey. They lived every single day for twenty years or more.
I'd love to live in a world where the only people who committed (serious) crimes were inhuman monster that never felt sad or shame never had an unpleasant shit after eating spicy food.
And you might sleep better at night think that the people that committee atrocities are a different species but it's bullshit a lie you tell yourself to feel better.
We're all made of the same stuff like it or not.
And anyway points moot. Only human are legal responsible for there actions if this guy was as inhuman as you think he wouldn't be legal responsible for his actions
He'd be sent to an institution.

***skimming through sentimental garbage for relevant parts***

"I'd love to live in a world where the only people who committed (serious) crimes were inhuman monster that never felt sad or shame never had an unpleasant shit after eating spicy food. "

There we go, that was part of my point, and way I gave an extreme example. Whenever this type of discussion gets brought up, people get so caught up in where to draw the line without ever addressing what I feel is most important. What do you do in the situation is that extreme? The guilt undeniable, the monstrosity of the acts unquestionable?

Sure, there's all kinds of issues that can come into play in any real case, but how can anyone be expected to decide on the finer points when they can't even decide on an absolute, one sided scenario? That's why I start at the worst, as you called it, take an inhuman monster, one where you have no doubts and can unhesitantly deal out any punishment.

With that done, you have a baseline for your beliefs. Can you kill then? Do you still believe in rehabilitation or arbitrary imprisonment? Regardless, with that decided, you can know, with certainty how you believe the worst of the worst should be dealt with, and you can build up from there rather than jumping into the middle and being uncertain about anything.

Of course, the 'asylum vs death' is a worthy discussion all on it's own and adds problems all over the place, but that's an aspect for another day.

How about actual reading my comment next time. you might learn something.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

"Blame the audience, not the author." I got to remember that one.

 

[llafnwod]

"Blame the audience, not the author." I got to remember that one.

Let me see if I can generalize that. "Blame the demand, not the supplier." Hmm.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

"Blame the audience, not the author." I got to remember that one.

Let me see if I can generalize that. "Blame the demand, not the supplier." Hmm.

Makes sense to me. Even if what what the author (supplier) was putting out was crap, it wouldn't go anywhere if it didn't find an audience (demand).

 

[Darth_Payn]

But for or this one, I'll make it easy, let's say serial killers, or let's go all out and say we've got a racially motivated serial child rapist/muderer (let's say, crazy white southern redneck sterotype who rapes and murders black children - no, handicapped black children, maybe gay, gotta max out the hate motivated crime factor) . How are people guilty of such a thing in any way worth keeping around?

It sounds like this guy pilots drones for the CIA in Afghanistan. We like to blow up Afghani toddlers with drone strikes.

What if you got the wrong guy? We've got a list of 142 death-row inmates that have since been exonerated.

The whole justice system in the US is bunk as it is, busting white-hat hackers for more years than a typical murder or rape, and sentencing possession of cheap drugs far more severely than possession of fancy expensive drugs. (e.g. crack cocaine vs. powder). Rich guys get off while poor guys never have a fighting chance. We can't trust them to fairly give out traffic citations, let alone decide who lives and who dies.

You sound terribly angry, like you want to kill somebody, but justice is not revenge, and no state should be in the revenge business. The US is in the revenge business by way of the war business, but it really shouldn't be.

238U

You must be a lot of fun at parties.

 

[Marik Bentusi]

Yeah this is basically why I felt so detached from the narrative in Far Cry 3 and the Tomb Raider reboot and didn't really give half a toss about anything going on. It's such a ridiculous contrast between srs character arc and being an unstoppable one-man-army with infinite regen health inbetween story missions - from the very start no less.
No, the semi-automatic nature of a pistol does not count as making the character vulnerable, it still kills in a couple hits tops.

Otherwise I agree with MrBtongue, I think we're been iterating violent action gameplay in general and shooters especially so frequently it's the way to go for AAA titles that want to play it safe. I mean it makes to stick to something proven to work so well, that's already been explored and experimented with so frequently, and something that can give casual players a good amount of shooting in a quick session.

I will say tho I only saw a Let's Play of The Last of Us (due to no PS3), so while I can't speak with any sort of authority about that game, it did seem like every character except maybe the goons was a cold-blooded one-man-army. Girl could barely wait to cap her first guy it seemed, except for that one moment where she readily stabbed a bloke but didn't think he'd be killed as well. Weird moment-to-moment contrast between "grown up too fast" and "childish naive" for me in that scene.

When you're just wading through corpses and expect the player to take it seriously, then it usually just produces W40k-style grimderp for me. There's exceptions like the self-aware Spec Ops or to a lesser extent Prototype (since the MC feeling natural as a walking catastrophe is part of his characterization/amnesia plot twist). Maybe I didn't feel as strongly about The Last of Us because I was running most of the gameplay in the background and alt-tabbed usually for story segments.

/rambling post just before bed

 

[Phrozenflame500]

I agree with you on how out over reliance on mindless killing is detrimental to good storytelling. It's difficult to have an altruistic hero who at the same time mows down hundreds of faceless mooks. The main way most games try and resolve this ludonarrative dissonance is by making your protagonist a dark and gritty anti-hero (see Call of Duty).

I do think, however, this over reliance on violence is also detrimental to the development to new gameplay styles as well. See that Mrbtongue video that was posted earlier on how LA Noire shifted from a game about being a post-crime investigator to a game about shooting dudes in the face so suddenly.

That's not to say violent video games can't exist, it's just that they shouldn't be the only type of game to exist.

 

[Marik Bentusi]

Um... so what I got out of reading the article is that Yahtzee's main problem is that he's getting older, and the storytelling medium that he enjoyed for being exclusively mindless and cartoonish as a kid has matured into something capable of telling adult stories with anything from moral shades of gray to outright unsympathetic protagonists.

[...]

Short version: sometimes you're not SUPPOSED to 100% sympathize and agree with the character you play. Adult stories (like, actual adult, not '90s x-treem whatever) have protagonists with flaws that can go deeper than Twilight-level blank-slate clumsiness stuff. Video games aren't 1950s funny-books exclusively anymore, some are closer to an actual novel in complexity and themes.

I think what he's saying comes closer to "the violence is still as cartoony as ever in its quantity, that's why I can't take the narrative nearly as serious as it wants to be." Being a one-man-army and not giving a shit isn't a character flaw, it's a superficial "badass" trait at best and an ignored part of his function as a player insertion at worst.

It's basically what he criticized in Dead Space, when limbs fly around in all directions at the slightest provocation it doesn't feel nearly as gripping as having to saw off your finger in Heavy Rain bit by bit. Cartoonish one-man-army style gameplay suited cartoonish simplistic stories from back in the day fine, but now narrative is on Hollywood-levels and gameplay-wise devs can't find something fitting. For an impactful narrative involving violence, killing is too easy.

Same reason why he can't take 40k serious.

 

[Olas]

This is probably what bothers me most about the Assassin's Creed games. Every time I sneak into the mansion/fortress of an old rich guy to murder them while they're not looking it just feels wrong, especially when it's a character who's just been introduced minutes earlier who'm I've never had time to develop a distaste for.

It's one thing to kill a guard who's actively trying to kill me as well, but another to kill a person who's only goal is surviving my attack.

It doesn't help that the Assassins come across as an extremist domestic terrorist organization.

 

[gjkbgt]

Um... so what I got out of reading the article is that Yahtzee's main problem is that he's getting older, and the storytelling medium that he enjoyed for being exclusively mindless and cartoonish as a kid has matured into something capable of telling adult stories with anything from moral shades of gray to outright unsympathetic protagonists.

I mean, that's not what he's saying outright, but from his selection of examples makes it pretty clear that it's not violence that's bugging him so much as stories with moral ambiguity or a morality that doesn't line up precisely with his own. Which is certainly a legitimate reason to dislike a video game, but presenting it as some sort or universal moral decay rather than a simple matter of personal taste seems kinda disingenuous. Many people _prefer_ literature that shows them a different viewpoint than their own or challenges their normal world a bit, this is the problem with the basic pro-censorship argument used in the article in the first place: the purpose of literature is not necessarily to perfectly reflect our own preconceptions back at us in a comfortable way. Much of it should be a bit uncomfortable, that's how you know you're getting something from it.

Short version: sometimes you're not SUPPOSED to 100% sympathize and agree with the character you play. Adult stories (like, actual adult, not '90s x-treem whatever) have protagonists with flaws that can go deeper than Twilight-level blank-slate clumsiness stuff. Video games aren't 1950s funny-books exclusively anymore, some are closer to an actual novel in complexity and themes.

No he likes boishock infinite, hell his favourite game is Silent hill 2. Both of those games have protagonists that are at best morally grey.
What he said he objects to is the way it's handled in this game is these no pay-off.

they treat Joel as moral prefect he don't end the game crippled by guilt or vowing to do better. And the game always portrays Joel as justified.
It doesn't even make a big deal out of him killing people half the time he makes a witty joke as he does it.

No protagonists don't have to be "good" but we do have to be behind then, especially in a game where you are the one driving the plot. If you want the protaginst to fail because they repulse you, or you can't sympathies with there aims then the game won't work.

 

[Iron Criterion]

The problem with video games like The Last of Us, comes from the very nature of the medium. Games are, by design, played for enjoyment - now that's not to say they can't be emotionally engaging, challenging, etc; but ultimately we feel some enjoyment from playing them. When you are playing as the villain/anti-hero problems arise in that if we are forced to commit terrible acts as part of the gameplay, we don't necessarily feel bad - in fact we possibly enjoy it if the gameplay is designed to be fun. So we have a situation were we are forced to play as the villain and identify with them, whilst not fully comprehending the gravity of their actions as it becomes lost in translation due to the enjoyability of the gameplay.

If The Last of Us was a book or movie, then the story would work as we are experiencing events directly through the eyes Joel without the visceral thrill of actually playing the game. That's my two cents anyway.

 

[EvilRoy]

Um... so what I got out of reading the article is that Yahtzee's main problem is that he's getting older, and the storytelling medium that he enjoyed for being exclusively mindless and cartoonish as a kid has matured into something capable of telling adult stories with anything from moral shades of gray to outright unsympathetic protagonists.

[...]

Short version: sometimes you're not SUPPOSED to 100% sympathize and agree with the character you play. Adult stories (like, actual adult, not '90s x-treem whatever) have protagonists with flaws that can go deeper than Twilight-level blank-slate clumsiness stuff. Video games aren't 1950s funny-books exclusively anymore, some are closer to an actual novel in complexity and themes.

I think what he's saying comes closer to "the violence is still as cartoony as ever in its quantity, that's why I can't take the narrative nearly as serious as it wants to be." Being a one-man-army and not giving a shit isn't a character flaw, it's a superficial "badass" trait at best and an ignored part of his function as a player insertion at worst.

It's basically what he criticized in Dead Space, when limbs fly around in all directions at the slightest provocation it doesn't feel nearly as gripping as having to saw off your finger in Heavy Rain bit by bit. Cartoonish one-man-army style gameplay suited cartoonish simplistic stories from back in the day fine, but now narrative is on Hollywood-levels and gameplay-wise devs can't find something fitting. For an impactful narrative involving violence, killing is too easy.

Same reason why he can't take 40k serious.

I had a similar problem with Homefront. The game tries to make you think that you're a small part of something much larger with the whole cell based resistance system, which is a fairly cool idea, but it was completely undermined by the fact that you still faced and killed regular-fps numbers of enemies.

Like, I'm just a small but critical part of a larger effort, but I'm destroying entire squads of enemies several times per mission, and every difficult task falls in my, the person who is most critical to the plan for our cell, lap. Also the game was generally kind of shit.

 

[llafnwod]

Makes sense to me. Even if what what the author (supplier) was putting out was crap, it wouldn't go anywhere if it didn't find an audience (demand).

I uh... yeah. That's exactly what I was saying. Thus "blame the audience, not the author" is pretty good advice. Was I incorrect in assuming your initial remark to be sarcastic?

 

[Infernal Lawyer]

That bit you mentioned about with the death sentence...I never thought of it that way before, and wow. I'm now even further against the death sentence.

Anyway...I've very recently discovered a game that focusses on this "Killing is too easy" thing - Undertale. It's only a demo, but it made several poingiant points. If you haven't played it and want to, it's a lovely little RPG, give it a go, but DON'T click the spoiler. If you've either played it or don't care...

Spoiler

The game utterly chewed me out for killing some random mooks, stating that I saved Toriel - the lovely mother figure I'd grown to love - ...But what if some of the mooks I had killed were to someone else what Toriel was to me? That made me feel like shit. So...I replayed it, and this is where it gets relevant due to the antagonist's speech.

"So, you didn't kill anyone. This time. But suppose you meet a relentless killer. What will happen then? You'll die, and die, and die. So what will you do then? Will you kill out of frustration, or quit and let me take over?"

This point here reinforces just how easy it has become for a lot of gamers to just kill everyone in thier way, because the option of a peaceful resoloution is more difficult as opposed to just leaving a trail of bodies. This, in conjunction with the "They could have been someone else's Toriel" line, really makes this game stand out as the Spec Ops: The Line of RPGs.

You will be glad to know that this has only strengthened my resolve. I will not take the easy approach. I will prove the antagonist wrong. I will show that it is NOT kill or be killed. The only monster is him, and I will be more than glad to show him who the only person who deserves death in that game is. He is not anyone's Toriel. He is nobody's role model. And he will NOT be mourned, due to the torment he would be putting people through if I wasn't there.

You think that's terrifying? Try

Spoiler: Warning: This shit is actually creepy

saving everyone you meet, but accidentally killing Toriel (due to a random crit or something...), feeling like shit because of it, going back on your save file... And having the motherfucking game call you out on it. Having that bloody flower RIDICULE you for thinking you could play God, thinking you could commit horrific atrocities just to see what would happen, then turn back the clock to rid yourself of consequence.

That really struck home for me. If we do something wrong, does the fact that there's no actual responsibility because it's 'just a game', or having the power to simply reverse the clock and undo that wrong,really make it acceptable our 'right'? I'm probably looking far too much into this than I should, but... Well, let's just say this game scared the living shit out of me. Funny how a retro-looking game, which isn't even a full game, could deliver a message so much more powerful than even Spec Ops: The Line

OT: I've always gotten mad at games, particularly AAA games, for having retarded A.I., despite the millions of dollars being pumped into graphics rather than teaching bots how to act like something other than mindless cannon fodder. This article made me think, well... Maybe there's a reason developers don't want to make a game where the 'bad guys' are anything other than mindless drones, albeit not a good one. Even as we stop shooting faceless demons and start shooting faceless Russians and Arabs and Americans, lots developers don't really want to give their players a reason to think "Wait, why am I doing this again?", since it's just plain-ass easier give players dumb bots who will happily line themselves up like ducks, rather than act with any sense of self-preservation, or fear when their comrades are being slaughtered around them.

As Yahtzee said, this makes sense in goofy or non-serious games such as TF2 or Serious Sam or Deadpool, where it's pretty much said from the get go "You came here to have fun, so fucking have fun", and less so much in games such as COD or Battlefield or Spec Ops: The Line (which was the point in the last one). Am I really expected to take shit seriously when one minute I'm gunning down dozens of idiots trying to run through a narrow doorway, the next the game shunts me in front of a wounded soldier and screams "YOU ARE NOW SAD, BECAUSE THIS MAN IS AMERICAN, NOW HERE'S A COMPUTER SO YOU CAN BOMB SOME MORE IDIOT RUSSIANS."?

Using Batman Arkham City (which of course has no killing on your part) as an example of how games could make enemies seem more human and less mindless: sneaking up on inmates causes them to panic in a hilarious fashion when they turn around, but after that they should be begging for mercy, not deciding it's a good idea to punch the freaking Batman. During a brawl, thugs could have noticed when you're just toying with them (i.e., casually countering all attacks without returning your own), or decide to make a break for it when you wipe out the rest of the mob. Hell, we had games from over a decade ago with enemies who knew how to run and call for backup when overwhelmed (e.g. Thief), how can this be so hard? Small things like these would make games a lot more authentic than any number of polygons being crammed into the character models.

Here endith the rant, and I have a good feeling that I've gone VERY much off topic, but I can't really be bothered editing this any further. Good article and all, I guess.