Every Other Game Ever
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
no, sir, YOU FORGOT...AngryBritishAce said:
[spoiler/]Snape is actually a good guy, and in a lot of ways, it's as much his story as harry's. in my opinion.[/spoiler]
think i got it right that time.
I noticed a particularly good example of this as I was recently playing through Tomb Raider. One moment, an innocent girl that barely knows how to hunt a deer, the next- a demigod massacring hundreds, if not thousands. It's absurd to the point of hilarity.
And meanwhile she's yelling nonsense like "I'm sorry I have to do this!" xD
And meanwhile she's yelling nonsense like "I'm sorry I have to do this!" xD
You know, I see a lot of people criticizing Kratos as a shallow "hate-everything" character while thinking Nathan Drake to be cool, because of the on liners and the fact that he gets the girls.ksn0va said:
But, to me, Kratos works much better, given the circumstances.
Nathan Drake is a murdering professional thief. He is something of a womanizer (more implied than onscreen, actually).
He grew up on the streets, probably has suffered a lot of things (last time I checked, the only way you would learn to fight on the streets was by being beat up).
He is an orphan who made up a lie to feel special about himself.
His wise-cracking really sounds like desperation to me, but his games are always shallow and fun, never touching the rough edges of the protagonist.
I can't really empathyze with someone like him.
But Kratos feels much more relatable to me.
He was a general in Sparta, a land known for its devotion to warfare.
He got whacked up, down and sideways by the gods.
He has nothing to lose, he occasionaly mentions his lost humanity ("by the gods, what have I become?").
That made him a bloodthirsty maniac, and he just accepts it. ("I am what the gods have made me")
And I must confess, when GOW 3 was released I was in a very bad moment in my former job and it was perfectly cathartic to come home and destroy the world, god by god, by my own blades.
I felt what he was feeling. Is it a path of destruction? So be it!
I have been wronged, I am angry, and the whole world is going to pay. I don't care if its wrong, I don't care for anyones suffering. It is judgement day, and I hold the Axe!
Hmmm ... Don't let Fox News get a hold of this post, because they'd probably love it.
I am not a sociopath in real life, but hey that's what we play videogames for, ain't it? Escapism.
I actually just had a great time identifying the movies/games/tv shows that matched with your 'spoilers'martyrdrebel27 said:
OP: The Fallout: New Vegas DLC Lonesome Road is pretty accurate to this comic. When you confront the main villain, he calls you out on the fact that you're similar to him - willing to kill and crush anybody who stands in front of your goal - a goal that you created for yourself. If you have enough speech skill, you pretty much have a philosophical discussion with him about the nature of consequence.
That said, I wish more videogames would step back and question the player's actions, instead of just telling the player "oh you're good because the enemy is TERRORISTS!" as in pretty much any spunkgargleweewee game or fantasy rpg. More games need to recognize that the player character is just as destructive as the villain or at least portray the villains as so completely evil and irredeemable that the pc has no qualms about slaughtering them.
So now every action game calls you a psychotic killer just for playing it the way it was designed to be. Are Grey and Cory ripping on how more games are becoming deconstructionist?
here's the pasty-white, grizzled, armor-clad hero's response: "You send wave after wave of these guys to kill ME while do [evil thing] to [innocent victim(s)]. I'm just out to stop you. Your point is invalid." [headshot]!
Then again, I set out to knock out my enemies most of the time in Deus Ex: Human Revolution, because there's more rewards in XP for it.
here's the pasty-white, grizzled, armor-clad hero's response: "You send wave after wave of these guys to kill ME while do [evil thing] to [innocent victim(s)]. I'm just out to stop you. Your point is invalid." [headshot]!
Then again, I set out to knock out my enemies most of the time in Deus Ex: Human Revolution, because there's more rewards in XP for it.
You must be new here, if you think people think Nathan Drake is "cool". Around here a lot of people hate him exactly because of those two things.Big_Boss_Mantis said:
And to address your points about Kratos, the problem is that in the first God of War, he was a perfectly relateable character. It was easy to sympathize with his pain and the situation he was in. But after that, he became a caricature of himself. They ramped up what they thought everyone loved about Kratos, his insane rage and anger and violence, the same way Saints Row The Third cranked up the wackiness. Kratos was no longer a sympathetic character, which is a pretty damnable thing to do when you're trying to create a modern Greek tragedy.
He was always an anti-hero, but God of War worked so well because he was still a character. He was getting revenge on Ares for what the god had made him do. After that... his motivation was just "kill Zeus because he zapped your powers to stop you from killing everything".
OT: I think the end of Tomb Raider did that "How many people have you killed to get to me?" line too. I may be misremembering... too many games to play, they get criss-crossed every now and then.
Again, I'd actually play this hypothetical game they satirize. I can't remember I played a good, honest, unironic, balls-to-the-wall shooter. One with a defined villain who's visually distinct, a character who is masculine to the point of absurdity, and a plot line that's elegant in it's simplicity.
Too many games it seems, have forgotten that, sometimes we want Kubrick, and sometimes we want Bruckhiemer.
Too many games it seems, have forgotten that, sometimes we want Kubrick, and sometimes we want Bruckhiemer.
That's one of the combat dialogues, a better example would be this:Lucane said:
Mook 1 speaks of running away and being sick of the killing
Mook 2 reminds Mook 1 that if others hear him say that, he would be executed
Mook 1 says he cant keep doing what they do
Mook 2 reminds mook 1 they are trapped on the island and only way out is death, so he better shut up and get used to it
Alas when that happened those 2 mooks were in my direct way so couldn't avoid them :/ But were this not a game i think Lara would have had a good chance of trying to talk her way past these 2 (she also does try to talk to mooks at one point early in the game where a mook is like "dont shoot we just want to talk!", and you do get to talk a bit but then another Mook orders them to just attack so yeh, violence is the only way out in tomb raider).
Anyways yeh, rarely in games do you get option to use non lethal approachs or even intimidation (if you killed a mooks squad, surely that would be cause to coerce them into surrender?) so short of being stealthy when its allowed, all you can do is kill kill kill.
The Idle Thumbs take [https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=YYAMwD22fcE#t=2940s] on the same subject[footnote]Brevity insurance: from The Short-Timers by Gustav Hasford
I know that Leonard is too weak to control his instrument of death. It is a hard heart that kills, not the
weapon. Leonard is a defective instrument for the power that is flowing through him. Sergeant
Gerheim's mistake was in not seeing that Leonard was like a glass rifle which would shatter when fired.
Leonard is not hard enough to harness the power of an interior explosion to propel the cold black bullet
of his will.
Leonard is grinning at us, the final grin that is on the face of death, the terrible grin of the skull.
The grin changes to a look of surprise and then to confusion and then to terror as Leonard's weapon
moves up and back and then Leonard takes the black metal barrel into his mouth. "NO! Not--"
Bang.[/footnote]
I know that Leonard is too weak to control his instrument of death. It is a hard heart that kills, not the
weapon. Leonard is a defective instrument for the power that is flowing through him. Sergeant
Gerheim's mistake was in not seeing that Leonard was like a glass rifle which would shatter when fired.
Leonard is not hard enough to harness the power of an interior explosion to propel the cold black bullet
of his will.
Leonard is grinning at us, the final grin that is on the face of death, the terrible grin of the skull.
The grin changes to a look of surprise and then to confusion and then to terror as Leonard's weapon
moves up and back and then Leonard takes the black metal barrel into his mouth. "NO! Not--"
Bang.[/footnote]
Funny, though I'd like to think my response to his statement would be:
"There are as many dead men as the number of men you sent to stop me. Incidentally, where did you find a small cities worth of people who were unquestioningly willing to sacrifice themselves for your crazy plan cause I gotta say that's some impressive leadership skills."
"There are as many dead men as the number of men you sent to stop me. Incidentally, where did you find a small cities worth of people who were unquestioningly willing to sacrifice themselves for your crazy plan cause I gotta say that's some impressive leadership skills."
Whenever the villain says this I always hate him so much more. No, you are not the same. (generally) the hero is killing your soldiers for a reason, to defend innocents, to win a war, to stop you from killing people, sometimes violence is necessary. Killing people isn't black and white, there are times when it is completely necessary. Now shut up and die in the name of justice for all that you have done.
That's some good points.shrekfan246 said:
Very recently I started participating in the forum, but I'm an avid reader for a while now. I didn't mean Drake was cool here. I just see him treated as a cool guy "on the internetz" generally. People around here always tend to know better!
And I agree partially about "angry Kratos over 9000", but people over simplify his motives in GOW 2.
Zeus not only took his powers. He schemed to steal his powers, killed him (okay, for Kratos being killed is just another Thursday) because he was afraid to die by his hand; then, to add insult to injury, he destroyed the Spartan Army; and, not through yet, as the huge douchebag he always were, he saw fit to personally destroy the whole city of Sparta, out of mere spite!
I'm not sayin' GOW is the pinnacle of gaming storytelling (hell no!). And, in its defense, it never set out to be! But at least they tried something, and it worked surprisingly well for me. (moreso in retrospect than when I played it)
Gameplay was key and the story grew around it, working with the material it had (crazy bald white guy dismembering everything).
And it was better than "genocidal with a golden heart" that most games shove down my throath...
History not your favourite subject eh? [link]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet[/link]bdcjacko said:
However I have no idea why he pulled that name out of his arse to apply to you, lol.
That's the potential problem with those kinds of games: it doesn't always give you a choice. If I could choose whether or not to kill people,and I choose to kill, sure, call me out on it. But if I'm playing the game the way it wants me to, why is it calling me a murderer for it? The only other option is to not play the game.Darth_Payn said:
Yes, Baddie McTrenchcoat, I too would like it if people treated my half-assed self-serving false equivalencies as profound truth. Wouldn't we all?
It's a shame that Support Character/Love Interest [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comics/critical-miss/10214-Every-Game-Ever] couldn't make another appearance. She had well-developed, uh, character. To the point of having back problems, really.
It's a shame that Support Character/Love Interest [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comics/critical-miss/10214-Every-Game-Ever] couldn't make another appearance. She had well-developed, uh, character. To the point of having back problems, really.