Grasping At Immorality: A Tale of Two Games

[DeathWyrmNexus]

*Le Snippity snip snip, the Snipper.

Dammit Ninja'ed...

I was ninja'd on being ninja'd...

But he is right. The level of hypocrisy has reached nosebleed levels...

 

[BlindChance]

Oh, you mean the very last mission in the game, when you suddenly, for no apparent reason, agree to save the country and then commit suicide because the guy you were sent there to kill in the first place says you have to? Where I come from, we call that a half-assed, hastily-tacked-on ending designed to give the thing a false feeling of gravitas. I thought it was actually quite a let-down, a cop-out really; a way to make gamers feel better about spending 95% of FC2 being the worst human being on the face of the planet.

It's a bit sudden, isn't it?

I don't quite think so bad of it as you do: When you look at the way it's building up the refugee missions, the way the Jackal is made so ambiguous, the grotesque self-absorption of the factions, and most of all the way that it never, ever gives you any mission that puts you one step closer to your target, it's clear the game wants you to start questioning the merit of killing the Jackal. He's a convenient target; most similar to the way the US started saying, "If we kill this guy in Iraq, it'll all be fixed!" over and over again.

The problem is, I think, that it didn't given us a chance to make that choice ourselves. I really wanted to go into that crucial point and have the choice: Get into a gunfight, or hear what he has to say?

The game needed a little dose of free choice, with some alternate endings.

 

[Starke]

It occurs to me that the primary resource in Far Cry 2 is conflict diamonds, and one of the main scavenger hunt minigames is looking for more. In a way, that's more morally ambiguous than the airport assault in MW2.

 

[Starke]

Oh, you mean the very last mission in the game, when you suddenly, for no apparent reason, agree to save the country and then commit suicide because the guy you were sent there to kill in the first place says you have to? Where I come from, we call that a half-assed, hastily-tacked-on ending designed to give the thing a false feeling of gravitas. I thought it was actually quite a let-down, a cop-out really; a way to make gamers feel better about spending 95% of FC2 being the worst human being on the face of the planet.

It's a bit sudden, isn't it?

I don't quite think so bad of it as you do: When you look at the way it's building up the refugee missions, the way the Jackal is made so ambiguous, the grotesque self-absorption of the factions, and most of all the way that it never, ever gives you any mission that puts you one step closer to your target, it's clear the game wants you to start questioning the merit of killing the Jackal. He's a convenient target; most similar to the way the US started saying, "If we kill this guy in Iraq, it'll all be fixed!" over and over again.

The problem is, I think, that it didn't given us a chance to make that choice ourselves. I really wanted to go into that crucial point and have the choice: Get into a gunfight, or hear what he has to say?

The game needed a little dose of free choice, with some alternate endings.

In a way, the ethics of the Jackel aren't that ambiguous, what he does do is actually buy into Nietzche (without seeing himself as an ubermensch, no less), and ironically, he's trying to do what he percieves as the right thing, protecting people. You can start to see why he does this in the audio tapes, where he has something of a conflict between his philosophy and his humanity.

There's an implication someplace that he's the one backing the underground evacuation, and what he is really doing here is trying to get the two sides to wipe each other out. There's hints very early on in the game that that is his goal. Conversations you walk in on in before the briefings. Its rare to get a character that's this complex in a videogame though, especially a shooter.

That said, yes, there should have been a lot more in the way of meaningful choices in the game. Rather than playing both mission threads, make us choose between the UFLL or the APR. Once we choose, then make us decide if we're subverting missions for them, or actually helping them. That gives us 4 endings for each act, now give us different endings. If we worked for the UFLL but subverted all their missions we get set up because we're a traitor, if we didn't then the APR comes after us, and so on.

 

[BlindChance]

In a way, the ethics of the Jackel aren't that ambiguous, what he does do is actually buy into Nietzche (without seeing himself as an ubermensch, no less), and ironically, he's trying to do what he percieves as the right thing, protecting people. You can start to see why he does this in the audio tapes, where he has something of a conflict between his philosophy and his humanity.

He certainly tries to give that impression, yes, and I'm more or less willing to believe him by the end of the game. But it is worth noting that we have no real proof of this. For all we know? If you chose to blow up the bomb, then he absconded with the diamonds and tricked you into killing yourself. We never really get any proof of his nature.

There's an implication someplace that he's the one backing the underground evacuation, and what he is really doing here is trying to get the two sides to wipe each other out. There's hints very early on in the game that that is his goal. Conversations you walk in on in before the briefings. Its rare to get a character that's this complex in a videogame though, especially a shooter.

I wouldn't say he's especially complex. He's a mirror for the player, in weird ways: You come into the game with allegedly righteous intentions, and he's leaving it with allegedly righteous intentions. But both of you massacre hundreds, if not thousands in the process. I'd be willing to argue he's of ambiguous moral nature.

That said, yes, there should have been a lot more in the way of meaningful choices in the game. Rather than playing both mission threads, make us choose between the UFLL or the APR. Once we choose, then make us decide if we're subverting missions for them, or actually helping them. That gives us 4 endings for each act, now give us different endings. If we worked for the UFLL but subverted all their missions we get set up because we're a traitor, if we didn't then the APR comes after us, and so on.

I disagree. The factions need to remain more or less a fiction -- The joke of the game is that both are the exact same thing, and it doesn't really matter one sweet damn who you side with. That's why you constantly switch sides. The game is trying to make you realise the conflict is between two groups of exactly the same repugnant nature.

Here's how I see the endings, in my fantasy Far Cry 2 director's cut.

Spoiler

1. You can earn this one when you first meet the Jackal on even ground, in the jail. You hear him before you see him, and he says he wants to talk. But if you shoot first, he'll run and shoot back. He will yell back, "Stop shooting, you moron!" and so forth, and if you take cover and don't shoot for ten seconds, he'll yell, "I'm coming down. Don't shoot!" and talk again. But you can kill him here. And if you do? You're damn well stuck. There's no way out of the country. The factions roll in afterwards in a battle you can't win. When you die, the game fades to a Non-Standard Game Over, explaining the aftermath.

2 and 3. These are the standard two in the game. You can take the gun and the diamonds and escort the refugees out, or can take the bomb and blow up the valley. Either way, you die, the refugees escape, and the country tears itself apart without spilling into other countries.

4. You meet the Jackal again, and hear his plan. And then you pull out your gun and shoot him. This time, only one shot is needed. You take the diamonds, fight through a few more piddling troops, shoot the boarder guards, and leave the country with millions. The epilogue describes the massacre of millions of refugees by the factions, and the violence spills out into the surrounding countries. Violence is a disease. It destroys everything it touches.

They're not complicated ending conditions. Most of the game proceeds as planned. But this lets you not buy into the Jackal's idea: It gets you killed, but you can avoid doing so. And also, the game lets you learn it, understand it, and deliberately reject it. The violence can win.

 

[Starke]

In a way, the ethics of the Jackel aren't that ambiguous, what he does do is actually buy into Nietzche (without seeing himself as an ubermensch, no less), and ironically, he's trying to do what he percieves as the right thing, protecting people. You can start to see why he does this in the audio tapes, where he has something of a conflict between his philosophy and his humanity.

He certainly tries to give that impression, yes, and I'm more or less willing to believe him by the end of the game. But it is worth noting that we have no real proof of this. For all we know? If you chose to blow up the bomb, then he absconded with the diamonds and tricked you into killing yourself. We never really get any proof of his nature.

It is true we don't have any proof of his intentions, and for what its worth, the reverse is somewhat true, if you choose to send him to blow the bomb, there's no reason to believe you actually used the pistol on yourself. Though there is a gunshot in the closing narration (IIRC).

EDIT: I do want to say that his personal conviction does tend to indicate he's being straight with the player though. If he was really self serving, then why wouldn't he have killed you either of the times you met him when you were crippled. He couldn't have predicted that the bomb would malfunction.

There's an implication someplace that he's the one backing the underground evacuation, and what he is really doing here is trying to get the two sides to wipe each other out. There's hints very early on in the game that that is his goal. Conversations you walk in on in before the briefings. Its rare to get a character that's this complex in a videogame though, especially a shooter.

I wouldn't say he's especially complex. He's a mirror for the player, in weird ways: You come into the game with allegedly righteous intentions, and he's leaving it with allegedly righteous intentions. But both of you massacre hundreds, if not thousands in the process. I'd be willing to argue he's of ambiguous moral nature.

The catch is, and the game forces this on the player somewhat organically, is that neither of you have attacked civilians. You've masicered those who took up arms. Based on The Jackel's comments, killing these people isn't immoral, it's imperetive to save the "uninfected". Obviously that's a somewhat skewed morality system, but it does render him more complex than most characters we find in videogames. And you're right, he is a mirror to the player character.

That said, yes, there should have been a lot more in the way of meaningful choices in the game. Rather than playing both mission threads, make us choose between the UFLL or the APR. Once we choose, then make us decide if we're subverting missions for them, or actually helping them. That gives us 4 endings for each act, now give us different endings. If we worked for the UFLL but subverted all their missions we get set up because we're a traitor, if we didn't then the APR comes after us, and so on.

I disagree. The factions need to remain more or less a fiction -- The joke of the game is that both are the exact same thing, and it doesn't really matter one sweet damn who you side with. That's why you constantly switch sides. The game is trying to make you realise the conflict is between two groups of exactly the same repugnant nature.

I agree that the factions are basically a fiction, but at the same time, I'm left with the feeling that they should be, you know, factions. For instance, you sign on with the UFLL in Pala, as the game plays through act 1, you're actually accumulating territory for them, friendly territory, no less, where the patrols won't attack you on sight, and so on. When you travel through that territory you see the UFLL "troops" doing horrible things to the civilians that are left, you find villiges in flames, ect. So obviously you chose the wrong side. Jump ship in the middle and side with the APR (or start a fresh game to do so), and what you'd find is the APR is doing the exact same thing, only now they don't shoot at you on sight.

I'm not saying that there should be a real difference, there shouldn't, but that you should have more flexability to stay with a single side, and that your actions should have more of an (unintentionally) negative effect on the game world.

Here's how I see the endings, in my fantasy Far Cry 2 director's cut.

Spoiler

1. You can earn this one when you first meet the Jackal on even ground, in the jail. You hear him before you see him, and he says he wants to talk. But if you shoot first, he'll run and shoot back. He will yell back, "Stop shooting, you moron!" and so forth, and if you take cover and don't shoot for ten seconds, he'll yell, "I'm coming down. Don't shoot!" and talk again. But you can kill him here. And if you do? You're damn well stuck. There's no way out of the country. The factions roll in afterwards in a battle you can't win. When you die, the game fades to a Non-Standard Game Over, explaining the aftermath.

2 and 3. These are the standard two in the game. You can take the gun and the diamonds and escort the refugees out, or can take the bomb and blow up the valley. Either way, you die, the refugees escape, and the country tears itself apart without spilling into other countries.

4. You meet the Jackal again, and hear his plan. And then you pull out your gun and shoot him. This time, only one shot is needed. You take the diamonds, fight through a few more piddling troops, shoot the boarder guards, and leave the country with millions. The epilogue describes the massacre of millions of refugees by the factions, and the violence spills out into the surrounding countries. Violence is a disease. It destroys everything it touches.

They're not complicated ending conditions. Most of the game proceeds as planned. But this lets you not buy into the Jackal's idea: It gets you killed, but you can avoid doing so. And also, the game lets you learn it, understand it, and deliberately reject it. The violence can win.

I appologize, when I was talking abou the end, I meant the end of act 1, which I just replayed a little before making that first post, so, the context in my head wasn't in the post. So, at the end of act one, your choices end up with you being routed from the north for a veriety of reasons.

I do like the idea of simply ignoring The Jackle at the end and leading to a bad ending, something the game could have benifited from. I'm less sold on the non-standard game over. If you do your job and execut the Jackel, I could see the game playing further through the established territory as a third act, trying to find a way out of the country, while the soldiers are increasingly running out of weapons, or their weapons are of even poorer quality before (IE: the AI sufferes from jams, and exploding weapons). All the while their persecution of the civilian popuation rachets up because they know they're running out of resources and getting desperate.

EDIT: The riots at the end of San Andreas come to mind actually.

I actually had a second paragraph defending the complexity, that was kinda off topic, but, here it is.

A lot of this comes from the source material though. When you poke the designers with a stick, they admit that Heart of Darkness was a major influence on the setting. One of the more obvious pieces of evidence regarding this influence is the in joke names that appear on the achievment list, some of which dirrectly reference Heart of Darkness. That can end up informing the player's perceptions of the various characters and their roles.