The Merits and Drawbacks of Traditional Storytelling in Videogames

[Phoenixmgs]

Yes and no in regard to TLoU2. It's very clear that the writers took the reigns on this project, but at the same time they were too locked into an action game mindset with that writing. Because Ellie and the story feel written in a way to get the player into the stealth action gameplay as quickly as possible, having Ellie act out of character in order to achieve that. Because if there's one game universe where the characters would not want to leave a safe environment for the sake of "adventure" under any but the most dire circumstances it would be The Last of Us. But seeing as a sequel can't NOT have stealth action gameplay, the writing must make sure that the characters are put in that situation. And so Ellie is set off eventhough it makes little sense for her character to do so, because gameplay.

And yes, the single-shot camera added very little to the gameplayplay in GoW '18 (though I'd have to see a version of the game that doesn't have a single-shot camera really), but I reckon it did have an influence on how the cutscenes were shot. Seeing as they couldn't cut they'd have to really plan out the cutscenes and how they're shot. And it shows, because the camera work in the cutscenes is pretty exceptional, actually emphasizing the characters and the mood of the scene. And very few story focused games really invest in cinematography. Even Naughty Dog, with how they're deemed the cream of the crop of cinematic games, have very boring camera work in their cutscenes, usually only doing shot-reverse-shot.

That's basically one of the things I meant to say. Needing mainly combat gameplay in most games dictates the story in a lot of games. There's really no reason outside of "that's what sells" that TLOU2 has the standard stealth action gameplay. Something as ordinary and frequent as a detective story in other mediums is almost a no-show in video games. Disco Elysium shouldn't be something fresh and unique. Video game RPGs are addicted to all the things that RPGs, at their core, are not about. Just think about how much combat greatly narrows the type of characters, stories, and quests we see in RPGs (and a lot of other games too).

Like every game has a single-shot camera in gameplay. The player controls the camera and the camera is not taken away from the player outside of cutscenes. If someone told me after I played GOW4 that it had a single-shot camera, I'd just be like "hmm". Single-shot scenes from stuff like the Kill Bill restuarant scene, Serenity movie (Firefly) opening, Children of Men scenes, those 2 fight scenes from Daredevil (Netflix) are etched into my memory and extremely impactful and with GOW4 it basically translates to "that's neat I guess" and "that's why the fuck fast travel takes so long". No doubt it did impact the cinematography as scenes though. That's another thing games are bad at because games aren't working within the limitations of other mediums, you can put the camera anywhere in the game world and not worry about how do I get a person and a camera there or the added expenses; video game cinematography should be influencing other mediums and not the other way around.

 

[BrawlMan]

What I love about Asura's Wrath is that CC2 did the story, characters, lore, and world building first. The gameplay always came last, and it definitely worked in their favor.

 

[Dalisclock]

I'm sorry, but Red Dead Redemption 2 makes no sense. It's got interesting characters, well written dialogue and an interesting story. But ultimately, the characters are contradictory as hell and the narrative and gameplay are going in opposite directions. Ludonarrative dissonance can be a real problem in games with such a strong focus on story and characters. There are very few story focused games that do this well, though. But there are also only a few games where this problem is so pronounced that you couldn't possibly ignore it.

I thought RDR2 did a surprisingly good job of balancing the open world stuff with the strong storyline with it's setup(the gang is set up to give most people some autonomy to do what they want as long as they're earning and contributing to the gang, except for the women and pearson, who are mostly stuck at camp but they're still doing work). However, I'd like to hear more about where you thought the characters makes no sense.Other then the gang never seeming to have enough money, no matter what they/you bring in, which can be attributed to "Dutch is a narcissistic liar who runs the gang like a cult based around him."

I do agree that the open world has a lot of stuff that doesn't really mesh with the core story. The core story is dramatic and fairly grounded(albeit with a fair bit of hollywood as far as the action set pieces go) but the open world has a lot of weird and crazy shit that includes ghosts, ufos, vampires, bigfoot skeletons, pagan ritual sites, a donkey lady, etc that is in no way connected with or even acknowledged by the main game, because Rockstar for once can't seem to decide if they're going for serious drama with some light satire or Fallout style wierd west satire so they decided just to do both.

I really liked RDR2 but it's got a fair number of flaws. It's just a highly polished game(except in the places it isn't on some of the edges, like new austin, mexico or guarma) that can easily make you overlook said flaws.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

That's basically one of the things I meant to say. Needing mainly combat gameplay in most games dictates the story in a lot of games. There's really no reason outside of "that's what sells" that TLOU2 has the standard stealth action gameplay. Something as ordinary and frequent as a detective story in other mediums is almost a no-show in video games. Disco Elysium shouldn't be something fresh and unique. Video game RPGs are addicted to all the things that RPGs, at their core, are not about. Just think about how much combat greatly narrows the type of characters, stories, and quests we see in RPGs (and a lot of other games too).

Like every game has a single-shot camera in gameplay. The player controls the camera and the camera is not taken away from the player outside of cutscenes. If someone told me after I played GOW4 that it had a single-shot camera, I'd just be like "hmm". Single-shot scenes from stuff like the Kill Bill restuarant scene, Serenity movie (Firefly) opening, Children of Men scenes, those 2 fight scenes from Daredevil (Netflix) are etched into my memory and extremely impactful and with GOW4 it basically translates to "that's neat I guess" and "that's why the fuck fast travel takes so long". No doubt it did impact the cinematography as scenes though. That's another thing games are bad at because games aren't working within the limitations of other mediums, you can put the camera anywhere in the game world and not worry about how do I get a person and a camera there or the added expenses; video game cinematography should be influencing other mediums and not the other way around.

The whole point was to make the journey aspect feel more intimate and focused. You’re right there with Kratos and Atreus the entire time. Only the menu stuff interrupts what is otherwise a very deliberately guided perspective.

The fast travel portal loop thing would’ve taken the same amount of time regardless if you’re running in a circle or staring at a loading screen. It’s not like the classic games that were so linear where a long hallway was all they needed.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

The whole point was to make the journey aspect feel more intimate and focused. You’re right there with Kratos and Atreus the entire time. Only the menu stuff interrupts what is otherwise a very deliberately guided perspective.

The fast travel portal loop thing would’ve taken the same amount of time regardless if you’re running in a circle or staring at a loading screen. It’s not like the classic games that were so linear where a long hallway was all they needed.

It didn't work anymore than any other game because every other game has a camera attached to the main character for all of the gameplay. It's only something you'd pick up on in the cutscenes. I wouldn't even know it was a thing if I wasn't told about it whereas in movies/TV is extremely apparent when you're watching a single shot camera for a prolonged period. Hell, I still remember the single shot handheld camera scene from Unbreakable and I haven't seen it since it came out. Ghost of Tsushima is has like 5-10 second load screens when fast traveling and it's a much bigger world than GOW4.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

It didn't work anymore than any other game because every other game has a camera attached to the main character for all of the gameplay. It's only something you'd pick up on in the cutscenes. I wouldn't even know it was a thing if I wasn't told about it whereas in movies/TV is extremely apparent when you're watching a single shot camera for a prolonged period. Hell, I still remember the single shot handheld camera scene from Unbreakable and I haven't seen it since it came out. Ghost of Tsushima is has like 5-10 second load screens when fast traveling and it's a much bigger world than GOW4.

Of course it’s only picked up on during cutscenes in other games, because GoW doesn’t have “cut”scenes. That’s the difference, whether you care to admit it or not. The only reason it’s more apparent in film is because it stands out more by contrast. It’s also one of those things where the effect is working as intended when you don’t really notice it, like good animation blending.

They actually had to think of it as a Broadway play more-so than film anyways -

...And it wasn’t just the script that needed to be molded to fit a one-shot perspective. Effects rippled throughout the game’s design, influencing how characters were positioned and animated. Principal animator Bruno Velazquez found that choreographing the characters became easier if he treated a sequence less like Hollywood and more like Broadway.

“In essence the way we shot each scene was approached more like a stage play rather than a film; each was a careful ballet between the virtual camera operator and the actors, each remembering their cues and placement within the scene.”

Most game progression is designed piecemeal over the course of whatever length. The director will patch in various scenes to serve the script without a second thought about things like camera or character performances. Contrast that to having the entire game planned out from beginning to end on a single cinematic thread.

There’s also a far greater variety and density of micro detail in GoW’s maps, so whenever fast travel is used (which is where the only actual loading is noticeable) it’s not that surprising it takes longer than highly compressed data streams where most of the differences boil down to art direction ie color changes. While the efficiency is impressive, that’s really all there was to it.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Adam Jensen]

I thought RDR2 did a surprisingly good job of balancing the open world stuff with the strong storyline with it's setup(the gang is set up to give most people some autonomy to do what they want as long as they're earning and contributing to the gang, except for the women and pearson, who are mostly stuck at camp but they're still doing work). However, I'd like to hear more about where you thought the characters makes no sense.Other then the gang never seeming to have enough money, no matter what they/you bring in, which can be attributed to "Dutch is a narcissistic liar who runs the gang like a cult based around him."

I do agree that the open world has a lot of stuff that doesn't really mesh with the core story. The core story is dramatic and fairly grounded(albeit with a fair bit of hollywood as far as the action set pieces go) but the open world has a lot of weird and crazy shit that includes ghosts, ufos, vampires, bigfoot skeletons, pagan ritual sites, a donkey lady, etc that is in no way connected with or even acknowledged by the main game, because Rockstar for once can't seem to decide if they're going for serious drama with some light satire or Fallout style weird west satire so they decided just to do both.

I really liked RDR2 but it's got a fair number of flaws. It's just a highly polished game(except in the places it isn't on some of the edges, like new austin, mexico or guarma) that can easily make you overlook said flaws.

Hey, I love RDR2. I truly do. But I'm not blind to its flaws. And its flaws that are typical for Rockstar, are quite pronounced this time around. This crap kinda started with San Andreas, when they first attempted to create a more relatable "good guy antagonist".

The problem is that most of the characters are portrayed as good natured, or at the very least not completely maniacal. Which is in stark contrast to what they do during missions. They kill a lot of people in cold blood for petty cash. Sometimes they claim to be common criminals, other times they say things like "the people don't want folks like us no more", implying that there was ever a point in time when people wanted a bunch of fuckin' thieves and murderers running amok. It's nonsensical and detached from reality in a sociopathic way that was clearly not the writer's intention.

 

[Dalisclock]

Hey, I love RDR2. I truly do. But I'm not blind to its flaws. And its flaws that are typical for Rockstar, are quite pronounced this time around. This crap kinda started with San Andreas, when they first attempted to create a more relatable "good guy antagonist".

The problem is that most of the characters are portrayed as good natured, or at the very least not completely maniacal. Which is in stark contrast to what they do during missions. They kill a lot of people in cold blood for petty cash. Sometimes they claim to be common criminals, other times they say things like "the people don't want folks like us no more", implying that there was ever a point in time when people wanted a bunch of fuckin' thieves and murderers running amok. It's nonsensical and detached from reality in a sociopathic way that was clearly not the writer's intention.

Yeah, that quote about "People don't want folks like us no more" feels really fucking wierd no matter how you slice it. The nicest interpretation I can think of for that line is "We can't get away with what we used to be able to because the law is cracking down" said in Arthurs folksy way. Since the closing of the Frontier and the death of the wild west is kind of a big theme, I can buy that even if it's really awkwardly put.

However, I can totally believe the gang would be friendly and amiable with each other while acting like total douchenozzles when out on robberies, because for all intents and purposes, they're in the same tribe/family together. Not to mention humans can be very likable and still be awful/amoral, because they inflict pain upon "the other". and not the people they really care about. I'm sure a lot of war criminals were really nice and friendly if they liked you(Hitler apparently really loved his dog, go figure), and then order another atrocity without blinking, to use an extreme example.

Keep in mind that a lot of the members of the gang have either bought into Dutch's BS, see Dutch as essentially their father(Arthur and John particularly), see life in the gang as significantly better for themselves then the alternatives(either for legit reasons or because, again, Dutch got them to believe that) and the fact that many of them are so deep in the life they can't really see a way out(rightly or wrongly). Charles and Lenny both mention that they're treated a lot better in the gang then in society at large, Javier fled Mexico and believes he can't go back(and didn't speak English when he arrived) or he'll be killed, etc. Not to mention presumably at one point they gang did actually help the poor when their takings, giving them some belief in moral legitimacy(it's brought up that they haven't done that in a while). Apparently it's gone from "Rob from the Rich, give some to the poor" to "Rob from the Rich, give half to dutch, keep the rest for ourselves".

And again, you can tie this back into Dutch making them feel like they're the good guys with this flowery speeches he cribs from the books he reads, and them being happy enough to believe it due to lack of perceived alternatives, Dutches Charisma(and supposed empathy), and that "We're sticking it to a corrupt society" that tends to resonate, particularly in the gilded age.

Arthur is one of the few who seems to see through all of this and knows it's all coming apart eventually, but he also can't shake his loyaltly towards Dutch due to the gang being the only family he's ever known, Dutch being his father figure, and his inability to really walk away and start a new life(He has a $5000 bounty on his head. John probably had far less, John did try to go straight and we saw what happened to John). Hell, do the bounty missions. You can bring in a $25 bounty and see the guy hang a few days later. There's zero chance of Arthur being able to just walk away without either skipping the country or making everyone think he died and/or both.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Hey, I love RDR2. I truly do. But I'm not blind to its flaws. And its flaws that are typical for Rockstar, are quite pronounced this time around. This crap kinda started with San Andreas, when they first attempted to create a more relatable "good guy antagonist".

The problem is that most of the characters are portrayed as good natured, or at the very least not completely maniacal. Which is in stark contrast to what they do during missions. They kill a lot of people in cold blood for petty cash. Sometimes they claim to be common criminals, other times they say things like "the people don't want folks like us no more", implying that there was ever a point in time when people wanted a bunch of fuckin' thieves and murderers running amok. It's nonsensical and detached from reality in a sociopathic way that was clearly not the writer's intention.

Look up “RDR2 hidden dialog” on YouTube and there’s a plethora of stuff revealing who these characters are, what they think of each other, of Dutch, what they’re doing, etc. The reason it’s “hidden” is because the game would probably be a couple hundred hours longer (well maybe not quite, but probably a few dozen at least) if it were all part of the main story. But the intent is to reveal they’re all depicted as fleshed out people, flaws and all. A lot of it fills in the gaps of logic as best can be expected. This one in particular touches on what Dalisclock mentioned -



There’s also stuff like this that attempts to bridge the ludo narrative dissonance gap -



You’re right though about it being virtually impossible to walk the morality line with an established narrative in a game this big that involves some player agency. Aside from the economy, the honor system feels like one of the more gamey-ish aspects. I get why it’s there, but it might’ve been better narratively speaking if it wasn’t an actual mechanic.

 

[happyninja42]

Look up “RDR2 hidden dialog” on YouTube and there’s a plethora of stuff revealing who these characters are, what they think of each other, of Dutch, what they’re doing, etc. The reason it’s “hidden” is because the game would probably be a couple hundred hours longer (well maybe not quite, but probably a few dozen at least) if it were all part of the main story. But the intent is to reveal they’re all depicted as fleshed out people, flaws and all. A lot of it fills in the gaps of logic as best can be expected. This one in particular touches on what Dalisclock mentioned -



There’s also stuff like this that attempts to bridge the ludo narrative dissonance gap -



You’re right though about it being virtually impossible to walk the morality line with an established narrative in a game this big that involves some player agency. Aside from the economy, the honor system feels like one of the more gamey-ish aspects. I get why it’s there, but it might’ve been better narratively speaking if it wasn’t an actual mechanic.

My issue was how forced a lot of it was. I remember, in my first sit down with that woman, where Arthur talks about his problems. He says 2 things, that I can only think were based on my actions in game, but they were contrary to what I was actually doing.

Arthur specifically says he feels bad because I had done the following things.

1. Killed animals for no reason. (No I didn't, I killed them for fucking crafting and food, because the game TOLD ME TO!)
2. Killed men for no reason. (No I didn't.) Aside from the game FORCING me to kill people in shootout missions in the game, I was going as non-violent/pacifist as the game allows, yet Arthur talks like I've been just violently roaming the countryside, shooting anyone I saw, when in EVERY case up to that point, it was self defense.

So either the game just was coded so poorly it couldn't understand the difference, which if so, it shouldn't be judging me for such actions. Or it just didn't give a shit about my agency, in which case it shouldn't bother with that damn white/black hat morality meter.

That line about "I'm no better than Micah" I'm like "really? Because I fucking disagree! I've been playing myself WAY better than Micah!"

It made me very unmotivated to keep playing, so I stopped.

 

[Dalisclock]

My issue was how forced a lot of it was. I remember, in my first sit down with that woman, where Arthur talks about his problems. He says 2 things, that I can only think were based on my actions in game, but they were contrary to what I was actually doing.

Arthur specifically says he feels bad because I had done the following things.

1. Killed animals for no reason. (No I didn't, I killed them for fucking crafting and food, because the game TOLD ME TO!)
2. Killed men for no reason. (No I didn't.) Aside from the game FORCING me to kill people in shootout missions in the game, I was going as non-violent/pacifist as the game allows, yet Arthur talks like I've been just violently roaming the countryside, shooting anyone I saw, when in EVERY case up to that point, it was self defense.

So either the game just was coded so poorly it couldn't understand the difference, which if so, it shouldn't be judging me for such actions. Or it just didn't give a shit about my agency, in which case it shouldn't bother with that damn white/black hat morality meter.

That line about "I'm no better than Micah" I'm like "really? Because I fucking disagree! I've been playing myself WAY better than Micah!"

It made me very unmotivated to keep playing, so I stopped.

I think it just takes numbers into account rather then context. I never actually got the "killing animals" but I didn't shoot animals that often. Pelts don't pay very much, you find food everywhere so unless you're going for crafting, that's the big reason to shoot animals. The downside is, given how much emphasis the game puts on perfect pelts for crafting, I just kinda stopped bothering after a while.

Anyway, Even if you play nice guy arthur, you still end up killing a lot of people. As you said, the game forces a massive gun battle through the local town center in every chapter, more or less. Arthur likely has a much bigger body count then micah ever will, but Arthur at least feels horrible about it, unlike Micah who seems to enjoy it.

I guess for me that's what I like about Arthur. He's a bad person but he's introspective enough to realize this and feel awful about it, but can't get himself out of it even if he wanted to. Which is why the last chapter focuses on his efforts to get John and his family out of the gang as Arthurs Redemption. Not to mention you can play certain missions in a more positive way.

I don't know, for me the whole aspect of making Arthur canonically a thug and an asshole was necessary to setting up his possible seeking of absolution at the end when he's got the TB death sentence hanging over his head while the gang collapsing around him, Dutch is losing the plot and the pinkertons putting enormous pressure on them. I found him by far the most likable of Rockstar's protagonists, even moreso then John in RDR1. I liked RDR1 but John comes across as the only sane man in the west and almost everyone he deals with is either an asshole or a jerk of some sort, so Johns massive body count feels somewhat less egregious and john never has to confront the morality of his actions because his family is the only thing that matters to him and everyone else is a dick. Arthur at least has to reconcile the fact he's being tasked with beating up people for their lunch money because an accountant asked him to, his father figure would(and did) leave him to die if it was convenient and all he can do is watch the end rush towards him like a freight train.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Of course it’s only picked up on during cutscenes in other games, because GoW doesn’t have “cut”scenes. That’s the difference, whether you care to admit it or not. The only reason it’s more apparent in film is because it stands out more by contrast. It’s also one of those things where the effect is working as intended when you don’t really notice it, like good animation blending.

They actually had to think of it as a Broadway play more-so than film anyways -

...And it wasn’t just the script that needed to be molded to fit a one-shot perspective. Effects rippled throughout the game’s design, influencing how characters were positioned and animated. Principal animator Bruno Velazquez found that choreographing the characters became easier if he treated a sequence less like Hollywood and more like Broadway.

“In essence the way we shot each scene was approached more like a stage play rather than a film; each was a careful ballet between the virtual camera operator and the actors, each remembering their cues and placement within the scene.”

Most game progression is designed piecemeal over the course of whatever length. The director will patch in various scenes to serve the script without a second thought about things like camera or character performances. Contrast that to having the entire game planned out from beginning to end on a single cinematic thread.

There’s also a far greater variety and density of micro detail in GoW’s maps, so whenever fast travel is used (which is where the only actual loading is noticeable) it’s not that surprising it takes longer than highly compressed data streams where most of the differences boil down to art direction ie color changes. While the efficiency is impressive, that’s really all there was to it.

Any scene where I'm just watching something is what I consider a cut-scene. I just didn't find the single-shot thing to be very impactful and found it more of a gimmick than anything. I would've have preferred the extra work needed for that to be accomplished be put into say refining (or making better) the combat system or writing a better script. I think the key thing in that article about Ghost is that the devs worked hard to properly load only what needed to be loaded. The whole bit about re-running the "spawn" process when you die. Most games reload EVERYTHING back in when you die vs just loading in what needs to be loaded it. The world (where the player is at) is already loaded into memory, that doesn't have to be re-loaded in on a player death when only really the "spawns", as Sucker Punch put it, needs to be loaded.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I would've have preferred the extra work needed for that to be accomplished be put into say refining (or making better) the combat system or writing a better script.

That doesn't really make sense since different departments work on those things. More time spent on making the single-shot work doesn't take away from time spent designing the combat system; both are being worked on simultaneously and by different people. Just as gameplay mechanics and concept art is being worked on while a script is still being written. If this game didn't have the single-shot camera the combat would've been exactly the same.

 

[BrawlMan]

This crap kinda started with San Andreas, when they first attempted to create a more relatable "good guy antagonist"

What you meant to say is villain protagonist, but I understand where you're coming from. Fuck CJ too! Franklin is a better CJ, than CJ will ever be.

 

[happyninja42]

What you meant to say is villain protagonist, but I understand where you're coming from. Fuck CJ too! Franklin is a better CJ, than CJ will ever be.

I've never been a fan of villain protagonists, as I just don't empathize with the "justified asshole" trope very well. It brushes up against Anti-hero tropes, to the point where they are almost interchangeable, but it's very rare that one makes me empathize with them. In gaming, I think the last one I enjoyed was Kratos, from the original trilogy, but by the 3rd game, when he was SO far over the edge where I felt I was playing the villain of the game, who was just wantonly murdering everything in front of him (which I was), I got really disgusted with the game. GoW 1&2 at least had the premise of him trying to atone (GoW 1), and trying to get revenge for Zeus wronging him (GoW 2). But there is a point of no return for me, and Kratos crossed it hardcore in GoW 3. It's why I like him in the new game, as he's finally learned, and is trying to NOT be like he was before. Outside influences push him to continue to be violent, but he is very reluctant to do it. The way he just lets the Stranger punch him in the face multiple times, and only growls out "Leave, my home." Is a HUGE personality shift for Kratos.

But just someone who is an asshole, and I'm supposed to like that because "hey sometimes it's fun playing an asshole" ? Sorry, for me, it's not fun.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

I've never been a fan of villain protagonists, as I just don't empathize with the "justified asshole" trope very well. It brushes up against Anti-hero tropes, to the point where they are almost interchangeable, but it's very rare that one makes me empathize with them. In gaming, I think the last one I enjoyed was Kratos, from the original trilogy, but by the 3rd game, when he was SO far over the edge where I felt I was playing the villain of the game, who was just wantonly murdering everything in front of him (which I was), I got really disgusted with the game. GoW 1&2 at least had the premise of him trying to atone (GoW 1), and trying to get revenge for Zeus wronging him (GoW 2). But there is a point of no return for me, and Kratos crossed it hardcore in GoW 3. It's why I like him in the new game, as he's finally learned, and is trying to NOT be like he was before. Outside influences push him to continue to be violent, but he is very reluctant to do it. The way he just lets the Stranger punch him in the face multiple times, and only growls out "Leave, my home." Is a HUGE personality shift for Kratos.

But just someone who is an asshole, and I'm supposed to like that because "hey sometimes it's fun playing an asshole" ? Sorry, for me, it's not fun.

True, but it can still be interesting to me if done well, since it’s not something that can or should be aspired to IRL. Reasoning is similar to why many actors and actresses get excited about being able to play the villain in movies.

 

[happyninja42]

True, but it can still be interesting to me if done well, since it’s not something that can or should be aspired to IRL. Reasoning is similar to why many actors and actresses get excited about being able to play the villain in movies.

I get the basic human desire to "be bad", I just don't share it. I have too much empathy most of the time, and just don't like doing dick things to people. I think part of the difference, between acting and playing, is that, for me at least, when I'm playing the game, that's ME doing that stuff. I fully embrace player insert with the protagonist, it's one of the main reasons I enjoy playing. So I'm not playing as Random Jackass McDickface, it's ME running around, doing stuff. So the idea of hiring a prostitute to hump me in my car to refill my health, and then get out and BEAT HER TO DEATH just so I can reclaim my $50, when I've got like $100k, just feels terrible. I don't find it funny, or enjoyable, or liberating, or cathartic. It's just....being an asshole. And I deal with enough assholes in real life, I don't want to emulate them in gaming.

Plus the level of terrible shit the games these days let you do, pushes to a level of pure pscyopathy that I just don't find fun.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

I get the basic human desire to "be bad", I just don't share it. I have too much empathy most of the time, and just don't like doing dick things to people. I think part of the difference, between acting and playing, is that, for me at least, when I'm playing the game, that's ME doing that stuff. I fully embrace player insert with the protagonist, it's one of the main reasons I enjoy playing. So I'm not playing as Random Jackass McDickface, it's ME running around, doing stuff. So the idea of hiring a prostitute to hump me in my car to refill my health, and then get out and BEAT HER TO DEATH just so I can reclaim my $50, when I've got like $100k, just feels terrible. I don't find it funny, or enjoyable, or liberating, or cathartic. It's just....being an asshole. And I deal with enough assholes in real life, I don't want to emulate them in gaming.

Plus the level of terrible shit the games these days let you do, pushes to a level of pure pscyopathy that I just don't find fun.

I get that. It’d probably drive me partially insane taking it to that level as I grew up with pretty severe OCD in my teens, but I get it.

What game would you say is your personal benchmark for being in the protagonist’s shoes?

 

[happyninja42]

I get that. It’d probably drive me partially insane taking it to that level as I grew up with pretty severe OCD in my teens, but I get it.

What game would you say is your personal benchmark for being in the protagonist’s shoes?

What do you mean specifically about my benchmark? You mean an example of being a heroic type character?