Lara and the trauma of killing

[Blood Brain Barrier]

I've heard no small amount of praise for how Lara isn't converted from a fresh-faced student into a hardened murderer instantly after her first kill. This acclaim seems very misplaced to me given how the game portrays her conversion (mostly through player-mediated cutscenes). Does it make the slightest difference to me if I have to sit through a few more of Lara's expressions of disgust over her actions? She still becomes a trigger-happy gun-killer by the end, and it's still as ridiculous as it was without these cutscenes, with the game giving the impression that after the first few kills, killing is incredibly easy and natural.

Now, I don't know whether or not this is true - maybe humans actually are natural killing machines. I'm not concerned with that. The problem is, the developers went to so much trouble to eliminate that idea, with Lara's transition extremely heavy-handed in the narrative. You could say that's what the whole game is about. They clearly wanted us to feel the traumatic effect killing has on Lara, that she's human and not a killing machine.

So why not go further and bring some of that into the gameplay? Give her some penalty for using the gun to kill instead of stealthing her way around or choosing not to kill. I don't know what. In turn-based D&D it would be a -1 on her to hit roll. In a real time game like TR it could be the screen going blurry for a second or something like that when she chooses to kill. One game I can remember that did this was the FPS Call of Cthulu. Yeah, I know everyone hates that kind of thing and I do too, but maybe that's good: it's annoying because it's an effect of Lara not being used to killing, and the traumatic effect it has on her. Maybe she could later put skill points into willpower or something like that. As it is, there's no reason NOT to kill. No benefit to a stealth approach, or merely injuring an enemy instead of shooting him in the head.

I'm sure others have better ideas, I'm just saying that if they want to feel the trauma they have to do more than write it into the story and show it to us. After all, the one thing we get to do in the game is kill. We can't even choose not to. Especially with the debates over gaming and gun control I saw some potential in TR's character setting for intelligently demonstrating to the media, NRA and everyone else that games (esp. shooters) aren't just kill kill kill. I don't know how. In the end, they're the game developers, not me. There must be something they can do. Be creative?

 

[DioWallachia]

A game where your choices and actions during gameplay actually alter the personality of the main female protagonist and the story, from an innocent bystander to a murderous hypocrite, who wants to stop a bunch of genocidal aliens by being a genocidal powerhouse? and the story reacts to it by making everyone of your enemies call you on it? and you can avoid all that by not killing anyone if you so choose?

Spoiler

Nop. Never heard that one before. It is OBVIOUSLY clear that the Triple A industry cannot make such a thing for their scripts because its too hard to do. And if they cant do it in 2013, then nobody will, amaright? not even back in 2008.

No sir. What a shame.

 

[DioWallachia]

Also, if you are worried about the "violent videogames" bullshit, i suggest that you present the following counter arguments to the unwashed masses so they can shut up about it:

 

[m19]

I'm quiet happy that this game didn't go the Dishonored route and punish you for doing all the fun stuff. Combat was too much fun. It's ok for games to be cathartic action romps, doesn't mean it can't have a soul either.

 

[shrekfan246]

A game where your choices and actions during gameplay actually alter the personality of the main female protagonist and the story, from an innocent bystander to a murderous hypocrite, who wants to stop a bunch of genocidal aliens by being a genocidal powerhouse? and the story reacts to it by making everyone of your enemies call you on it? and you can avoid all that by not killing anyone if you so choose?

Spoiler

Nop. Never heard that one before. It is OBVIOUSLY clear that the Triple A industry cannot make such a thing for their scripts because its too hard to do. And if they cant do it in 2013, then nobody will, amaright? not even back in 2008.

No sir. What a shame.

You might want to actually... I dunno... state the name of whatever you're trying to disprove him with? Because I have no idea what... game? you're talking about. Just a thought.

OT: Yeah no. It's an action game. Typically it's a bad thing to reprimand and inhibit your player for actually, you know, engaging in the action. You might as well make the argument for why the game isn't more like Deus Ex, giving you wider areas and the ability to slip past enemies without being noticed at all. And that's a can of worms you don't really want to open.

I have to ask, why does it seem like people only have problems with protagonists being murderers when they're not grunting, grimdoom slabs of dull pulled from some generic fictional military force?

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

So why not go further and bring some of that into the gameplay?

Because similar things have been tried before in AAA games and the majority of players hated it. People want to feel like they're in full control of their avatar, anything less and they feel frustrated, which is a problem when people with years of experience playing shooting games pick up a shooter where the main character is supposed to be reluctant to kill.

I read in a recent interview that the game didn't originally have Lara going nuts with the gun right away, but in playtesting too many people complained that they had a gun and nothing to shoot with it, so they added more bad guys. Gamers, right?

With this in mind I think they did OK. The point where Lara first opens fire with the gun happens when she is trapped in a corner. A bad guy shouts "there's nowhere to run" and she takes a deep breath before jumping out of cover and into black-and-white slowmo (a pretty good representation of a huge adrenaline rush). The first really big gunfight (shanty town) doesn't happen until a few hours after that.

 

[DioWallachia]

So why not go further and bring some of that into the gameplay?

Because similar things have been tried before in AAA games and the majority of players hated it. People want to feel like they're in full control of their avatar, anything less and they feel frustrated, which is a problem when people with years of experience playing shooting games pick up a shooter where the main character is supposed to be reluctant to kill.

I read in a recent interview that the game didn't originally have Lara going nuts with the gun right away, but in playtesting too many people complained that they had a gun and nothing to shoot with it, so they added more bad guys. Gamers, right?

Ok, where do the developers find this people? it is the same people that found the original ending for "I Am Legend" too sad even when that was the bloody point of the movie, and had to be changed???

If they pick up "gamers" that like COD, then the only thing they will like is COD. You dont win the crowd of COD by being COD because they already have that "shoot everyone and never question why" already and dont want to be challenged.

And you know what? i would like to see an stadistic to see this "mayority" that hated it. There is just no way in hell that people like this still exist outside you know where.

 

[dyre]

Meh, no one likes penalties for having fun.

However, I think Lara should at least have had a verbal reaction for the next several kills after her very first. Just have the character say "oh God, I'm so sorry" or w/e after skewing some guy with an arrow. Because it's a little weird that she feels so bad about killing that first guy (who was trying to rape/strangle her), but has no reaction to the next ten guys (who are just walking around and get ambushed by her) she kills almost immediately after that.

I believe Far Cry 3 incorporated some verbal responses that changed over time as the character became more of a survivalist; I think Tomb Raider would have benefited from that too.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

So why not go further and bring some of that into the gameplay?

Because similar things have been tried before in AAA games and the majority of players hated it. People want to feel like they're in full control of their avatar, anything less and they feel frustrated, which is a problem when people with years of experience playing shooting games pick up a shooter where the main character is supposed to be reluctant to kill.

I read in a recent interview that the game didn't originally have Lara going nuts with the gun right away, but in playtesting too many people complained that they had a gun and nothing to shoot with it, so they added more bad guys. Gamers, right?

Ok, where do the developers find this people? it is the same people that found the original ending for "I Am Legend" too sad even when that was the bloody point of the movie, and had to be changed???

If they pick up "gamers" that like COD, then the only thing they will like is COD. You dont win the crowd of COD by being COD because they already have that "shoot everyone and never question why" already and dont want to be challenged.

And you know what? i would like to see an stadistic to see this "mayority" that hated it. There is just no way in hell that people like this still exist outside you know where.

CoD, GoW, Halo, you name it. These people make up a huge chunk of AAA game consumers and to ignore them is (more often than not) financial suicide.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

Meh, no one likes penalties for having fun.

However, I think Lara should at least have had a verbal reaction for the next several kills after her very first. Just have the character say "oh God, I'm so sorry" or w/e after skewing some guy with an arrow. Because it's a little weird that she feels so bad about killing that first guy (who was trying to rape/strangle her), but has no reaction to the next ten guys (who are just walking around and get ambushed by her) she kills almost immediately after that.

I believe Far Cry 3 incorporated some verbal responses that changed over time as the character became more of a survivalist; I think Tomb Raider would have benefited from that too.

But she does. She kills a few guys and within minutes Roth talks to her over the radio, says "that can't have been easy" and she says "it's scary just how easy it was". Admittedly this is just a handwave [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HandWave] or lampshade [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LampshadeHanging] (depending on how you look at it) but it's better than nothing.

 

[jake557]

You might want to actually... I dunno... state the name of whatever you're trying to disprove him with? Because I have no idea what... game? you're talking about. Just a thought.

Pretty sure it's Iji [http://www.remar.se/daniel/iji.php]

Spoiler: Trailer

Give it a try, it's free.

 

[CriticalMiss]

You can kind of sneak past enemies by shooting arrows near them as a distraction. But there are certainly scenes where you are gunning down literal crowds of baddies, maybe they said archaeology was shit? The more recent TR games have seen more and more combat as the series progressed with less and less actual raiding of tombs or tomb-like places, which is annoying to me. It's like if Tetris suddenly had a wave of enemies to shoot down before each piece drops.

I would have liked to see more of an emphasis on sneaking past enemies, but rather than giving a penalty for killing just give a bonus for being stealthy. If you pass a 'checkpoint' without having killed any bad guys, have some free experience (more than getting kills would give you of course). Maybe even not giving out experience for kills? Given that the game allows you to shoot people in the legs to slow them down they could have had a mechanic that lets you pistol-whip them, knocking them out, instead of smashing them in the face with a rock or executing them. Hell, she's on a jungle-y island, why not have some kind of tree frog that has a toxin which knocks people out? Put some on your arrows and you can incapacitate enemies from afar. No frogs? Then mushrooms/herbs/roots.

Seems to me that the devs just took the easy route and gave you full license to murder everyone in sight rather than make Lara a bit more cunning and have to explain it. Then again she is already a master markswoman, bowwoman, climber and lover. Maybe not the last one.

 

[DioWallachia]

You might want to actually... I dunno... state the name of whatever you're trying to disprove him with? Because I have no idea what... game? you're talking about. Just a thought.

I am basically saying that the mere IDEA of making the gameplay affect the story and viceversa possible...
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GameplayAndStorySegregation?from=Main.GameplayAndStoryIntegration

..is still outside the grasp of these profesional writers, but not some random gamer on his spare time making a freeware.

I ask: is it really that hard to get? do the gamers haven't made absolutely clear that this disconection between what the story is telling and what the game is doing KILLS whatever you where trying to say? how sad it is that we are still in 2013 and no one gets it?

Arent the game developers supposed to be professionals in their field, and yet a random idiot on the net can satisfy that "niche" just fine? Just what is missing on this picture?

I have to ask, why does it seem like people only have problems with protagonists being murderers when they're not grunting, grimdoom slabs of dull pulled from some generic fictional military force?

Because nobody gives a fuck about the companies that do such thing. They are clearly jumping the bandwagon and making millions of scruffy straight white males because they are too scared of their audience. They also dont have the writting talent to do so, so complaining about them is completely useless because they wouldnt listen, and why would they anyway? if it sells, then there is no problem at all.


But if its a company that is KNOW for its good storytelling (Obsidian, Old Bioware, etc) or good gameplay (Valve, etc) then you bet your ass that the fans are going to torch the fucking company down for being like the other sells outs. And they will acomplish this with.......posting on the forums. GASP!!

Now with that said, i dont see how Crystal Dynamics (developer) would have such a backlash given that the company barely made anything else than Tomb Raider games over the years, to the point that i was expecting people to act with a resounding "meh" to this game as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Crystal_Dynamics_video_games

And the writer Rhianna Pratchett (the daughter of Terry Pratchett, writer of Discworld) didnt make anything worth noticing or to brag about:

Mirror's Edge by EA DICE
Dungeon Hero by Firefly Studios
Overlord by Triumph Studios
Overlord: Dark Legend by Climax Group
Overlord: Minions by Climax Group
Overlord II by Triumph Studios
Heavenly Sword by Ninja Theory
Prince of Persia by Ubisoft Montreal (additional dialogue, main writer Andrew S. Walsh)
Risen by Piranha Bytes (English localization)
Tomb Raider by Crystal Dynamics

So really, why people are upset of a predictable average game? it is no different than the "grunting, grimdoom slabs of dull pulled from some generic fictional military force". In other words, just like the others, they played it safe.

 

[DioWallachia]

I believe Far Cry 3 incorporated some verbal responses that changed over time as the character became more of a survivalist; I think Tomb Raider would have benefited from that too.

So did IJI back in 2008, to the point that a higher kill count makes IJI act more violently by saying "DIEE!" and more unhinged. And of course, the NPS (both minor and antagonists) react to your acts of violence with varing degrees.

I swear, its almost like Yathzee said once: "It funny how "innovation" means "catching up to Valve" for the modern industry"

EDIT: Fixed Quote

 

[WickedFire]

You can kind of sneak past enemies by shooting arrows near them as a distraction. But there are certainly scenes where you are gunning down literal crowds of baddies, maybe they said archaeology was shit? The more recent TR games have seen more and more combat as the series progressed with less and less actual raiding of tombs or tomb-like places, which is annoying to me. It's like if Tetris suddenly had a wave of enemies to shoot down before each piece drops.

I would have liked to see more of an emphasis on sneaking past enemies, but rather than giving a penalty for killing just give a bonus for being stealthy. If you pass a 'checkpoint' without having killed any bad guys, have some free experience (more than getting kills would give you of course). Maybe even not giving out experience for kills? Given that the game allows you to shoot people in the legs to slow them down they could have had a mechanic that lets you pistol-whip them, knocking them out, instead of smashing them in the face with a rock or executing them. Hell, she's on a jungle-y island, why not have some kind of tree frog that has a toxin which knocks people out? Put some on your arrows and you can incapacitate enemies from afar. No frogs? Then mushrooms/herbs/roots.

Seems to me that the devs just took the easy route and gave you full license to murder everyone in sight rather than make Lara a bit more cunning and have to explain it. Then again she is already a master markswoman, bowwoman, climber and lover. Maybe not the last one.

The problem with is that it would take a hell of a lot of work to put in. Its not as simple as having a weapon that knocks people out. They would need to program the difference between KO and killed, maintain the balance with damage and xp, add all of the extra stuff to levels and in fact alter the level designs to support this method of progressing. And then all the testing and bug fixing .A simple idea becomes a colossal amount of work, which for such a big budget game would amount to thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.

 

[DioWallachia]

CoD, GoW, Halo, you name it. These people make up a huge chunk of AAA game consumers and to ignore them is (more often than not) financial suicide.

Is it really? i mean, it really is a big number or it FEELS like it is because everyone keeps saying that its making more money? I would like to know actual numbers of how many fans of Mass Halo: Space Duty exist, rather than how much money they make.

After all, the is a difference between then a movie selling tickets for 5$ to 3.000.000 customers (15.000.000$ total gross) is more important than a game of 60$ sold to 250.000 customers (also 15.000.000$). Maybe the reason why the number is not higher is simply because people dont like that kind of game, but doesnt mean they dont exist.

Cant companies make a public pool or even ASK the entitled motherfukers what they want?

 

[CriticalMiss]

You can kind of sneak past enemies by shooting arrows near them as a distraction. But there are certainly scenes where you are gunning down literal crowds of baddies, maybe they said archaeology was shit? The more recent TR games have seen more and more combat as the series progressed with less and less actual raiding of tombs or tomb-like places, which is annoying to me. It's like if Tetris suddenly had a wave of enemies to shoot down before each piece drops.

I would have liked to see more of an emphasis on sneaking past enemies, but rather than giving a penalty for killing just give a bonus for being stealthy. If you pass a 'checkpoint' without having killed any bad guys, have some free experience (more than getting kills would give you of course). Maybe even not giving out experience for kills? Given that the game allows you to shoot people in the legs to slow them down they could have had a mechanic that lets you pistol-whip them, knocking them out, instead of smashing them in the face with a rock or executing them. Hell, she's on a jungle-y island, why not have some kind of tree frog that has a toxin which knocks people out? Put some on your arrows and you can incapacitate enemies from afar. No frogs? Then mushrooms/herbs/roots.

Seems to me that the devs just took the easy route and gave you full license to murder everyone in sight rather than make Lara a bit more cunning and have to explain it. Then again she is already a master markswoman, bowwoman, climber and lover. Maybe not the last one.

The problem with is that it would take a hell of a lot of work to put in. Its not as simple as having a weapon that knocks people out. They would need to program the difference between KO and killed, maintain the balance with damage and xp, add all of the extra stuff to levels and in fact alter the level designs to support this method of progressing. And then all the testing and bug fixing .A simple idea becomes a colossal amount of work, which for such a big budget game would amount to thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Considering that games on the PS1 (MGS) could handle the difference between killing and incapacitating, I doubt that current gen developers would find it so difficult to put in mechanics for knocking out enemies. It's not like the game was developed in under a year either so time shouldn't be a major factor if they had started out working on this sort of thing.

 

[Auron]

your choices and actions during gameplay actually alter the personality of the main female protagonist and the story, from an innocent bystander to a murderous hypocrite,

Why does that detail matter? Makes no difference to me. In that regard, she has a decent story now and the gameplay doesn't suck like earlier games so it's all good imo.

It's the same kind of journey Jason Brody had only without the amount of cultist mindfuck, I see nothing wrong with it.

 

[Fumbles]

A game where your choices and actions during gameplay actually alter the personality of the main female protagonist and the story, from an innocent bystander to a murderous hypocrite, who wants to stop a bunch of genocidal aliens by being a genocidal powerhouse? and the story reacts to it by making everyone of your enemies call you on it? and you can avoid all that by not killing anyone if you so choose?

Spoiler

Nop. Never heard that one before. It is OBVIOUSLY clear that the Triple A industry cannot make such a thing for their scripts because its too hard to do. And if they cant do it in 2013, then nobody will, amaright? not even back in 2008.

No sir. What a shame.

You might want to actually... I dunno... state the name of whatever you're trying to disprove him with? Because I have no idea what... game? you're talking about. Just a thought.

OT: Yeah no. It's an action game. Typically it's a bad thing to reprimand and inhibit your player for actually, you know, engaging in the action. You might as well make the argument for why the game isn't more like Deus Ex, giving you wider areas and the ability to slip past enemies without being noticed at all. And that's a can of worms you don't really want to open.

I have to ask, why does it seem like people only have problems with protagonists being murderers when they're not grunting, grimdoom slabs of dull pulled from some generic fictional military force?

Man, I hate when people post pics without the title. After some internet sleuthing I finally found the game. It is Iji (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iji_%28video_game%29).

OT, I actually liked how Tomb Raider presented violence.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

I believe Far Cry 3 incorporated some verbal responses that changed over time as the character became more of a survivalist; I think Tomb Raider would have benefited from that too.

So did IJI back in 2008, to the point that a higher kill count makes IJI act more violently by saying "DIEE!" and more unhinged. And of course, the NPS (both minor and antagonists) react to your acts of violence with varing degrees.

I swear, its almost like Yathzee said once: "It funny how "innovation" means "catching up to Valve" for the modern industry"

I think you quoted the wrong person there.