Killing is Too Easy

Mr. Q

New member
Apr 30, 2013
767
0
0
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.
 

Krantos

New member
Jun 30, 2009
1,840
0
0
I actually agree with Yahtzee completely on this one. Not necessarily about TLOU, simply because I haven't played it, but more about the casual way games treat Death.

Any game that gives me a non-lethal option gets major points from me. Likewise, any game that expects me to mindlessly mow down mooks and still care about my protagonist is likely going to lose a lot more points.

The more games give weight to death and the more they show the impact killing has (on the world and the protagonist) the richer the medium will become.

That said, I think there will always be room for games like Borderlands that makes killing fun. It just can't take itself too seriously if it goes that route.
 

IronMit

New member
Jul 24, 2012
533
0
0
mike1921 said:
Fallout3 is a game in which you have a choice though. There's a difference, a significant one, between a pre-written character in a linear game doing shit to cause you to not like them or a character that you created doing shit that makes you not like them because you made them do it. If you didn't want to play a psychopath, don't make your character nuke a city. in Fallout you get to be a dickhole but only if you want to


The idea is that the protagonist isn't supposed to be a shitbag who tortures and kills people who ceased to be a threat unless it's intentional.
Greedo wasn't begging for mercy, and Greedo seemed to be a very real threat. Whether Han shot first or Greedo, I'm pretty sure he intended to shoot or was ready to.
Really? when human Raiders attack me in fallout 3 I don't really have a choice. Other then shoot back or die and stop playing. Why is it a cutscene killing is so much worse then gameplay killing in your head.

Yep. Greedo was going to shoot Solo. Just like how the other dude sent thugs to kill Tess. This is the first thing you learn in the first conversation between them.

You and yahtzee act like that first killing in TLOU was just for the sake of killing. It was to introduce you to the dog eat dog post zombie apocalyptic setting on this fiction.
All this stuff about the protagonist having to be a goody goody character are bull. Certain rules and redefinitions of morality are set and the protagonist is often slightly less evil then the evil world around him. Just like goodfellas and scarface. oh, the protagonist just watched a kid die...i can no longer relate to him..the movie is a flop.
 

Twinkey

New member
Feb 15, 2011
12
0
0
I think this article was pretty much spot on for what i feel aswell.

Although it should be noted that i haven't played The last of us yet
so im no gonna comment on that example.
 

Eternal_Lament

New member
Sep 23, 2010
559
0
0
I don't think I agree

I've seen this attitude more and more of "Oh, why do games make me kill?" and I can never get behind it. Why? This is going to make me sound odd, but it's the gods honest truth. The folks over at Rage Select put it best: on some basic level, whether we like it or not, there is something intrinsically fun about killing in games. Maybe it's because we're used to it, but on some level there is some satisfaction in it. It's something that's easy to quantify as a measure of success, and easy to also understand the consequences of actions (not talking morally here, rather "What happens when I do X?") To me it's just something that I am willing to expect or accept if it is presented to me. You can have fun non-violent games, I'm not saying games are only fun when they're violent. I'm just saying that the intrinsic fun in killing in games is something of a shorthand for progression and success, sort of how a health-bar is a short hand for survival, even though in the context of the story it can seem ridiculous, even with in-cutscene deaths.

As for The Last of Us...I think this is because of the confusion as to what constitutes a regular protagonist. The folks over at Spill I think gave a good assessment in that "If you think of Joel as a traditional hero, you may feel off or angry during parts of the game. But if you view Joel not as a hero, not even as an anti-hero, but a borderline villain? That's where everything fits together." That's honestly how I look at The Last of Us. I understand Joel's situation, and I understand why he does the things he does. He's still a villain though, in so much as his intentions, while sound and understandable, are ultimately dark, and sometimes evil, in nature. I don't see the killings in The Last of Us as "Oh, in this world life is so cheap that you're lucky if you only get three near-death experiences a day." I see the killings as the means that Joel understands the world, and that for him it's not just what will you do to survive, but what will you do to live? The game has never been one about the survival of the human race for me, but rather an understanding of what one will pay in order to do more than just survive and actually live, to have a life, to feel alive.

At first I thought that the last Hospital section was your standard "Stealth game needs action section, RAWR!" but as I thought about it, I realized that maybe it's because it represents the very thing I was discussing, living over surviving. If all this ever was for Joel was a means to survive, he would've just left before starting shit, resigning himself to Ellie's fate. Let's say for arguments sake that he stays and wishes to save her, but is still concerned more on survival. His shoot-out sections would be considered reckless at best, suicidal at worst. I think, on some level, it sort of shows that for Joel he could simply sneak and survive, but it's no longer enough for him. If he does a shoot-out, he may be reckless, he may get hurt, he may even die, but at least he's living. I think, on some level, Joel enjoys the killing. I'm not saying he's a psychopath who gets a thrill from seeing people die, rather I think it helps him cope with the surviving/living conflict. I think when he's with people he cares for, whether it's Triss or Ellie, his purpose on living has to do with them, but when alone or his relationship with others starts to crumble, I feel that's when he becomes the most reckless and is more likely to kill, because for him, that's the only way he knows how to actually feel alive. It doesn't justify his actions, it doesn't make him sympathetic, and it doesn't serve to make him a hero. What it does do is show a villain that, on some level, disturbs us, and one we would be eager to call out on, if it weren't for the fact that, like Joel, things start to feel panicked, rushed, and tense when things get chaotic and we start having to kill. Like Joel, it can feel fun. Like Joel, we start to feel alive.
 

Headdrivehardscrew

New member
Aug 22, 2011
1,660
0
0
Aw, Yahtzee!

That was a bit of a bummer!

Now, here's the thing:

I just can't have you pee all over my enjoyment of shooting at, whacking at, pummeling and pounding on, maybe even killing virtual people, the likenesses of breathing thingamabobs made out of pixels, bleeding red pixels all over my squeaky clean screen. That would be tantamount of siding up with all the censors, old farts, backwards bears of war and transforming forces all rolled into one. I don't want you to be part of the no-fun club.

Welcome to the thirties. If you feel existentialism and reality creeping up on you, don't you worry! It only goes downwards from here on out.

Everything.

No matter what the positivist braindead folks tell you. Eat less. Do more sports. Keep up a schedule and the most sincere OCD tabs on anything medical. Go see the nice lady that removes the gunk from your teeth. Drink less. Go have some kids, if you're so inclined. Enjoy more. Time is running out. Statistically speaking, you only have thirty to fifty years left. Then again, every day could be your last. Sucks, doesn't it. Well... time to ponder on things. AND WRITE ANOTHER BOOK YOU LAZY TWAT.

<youtube=5Fl1pCPb504>

Captcha: bangers and mash - awwwww captcha! So sweet of you! See? It's the little things that make life worth living!
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
So, Yatzhee took the highly polarizing topic of video game violence, and actually took the side of people that think maybe we have gone too far for too long? Ohh, boy...

 

Aiddon_v1legacy

New member
Nov 19, 2009
3,672
0
0
TloU is a game that wants to have its cake and eat it. It really wants you to identify with Joel and sympathize with him, ultimately he's really just a douchebag lunatic no better than the people he's killing. And before anyone says "that's the point" I'm just gonna say this: NO. Anyone with ANY writing experience will tell you that most of the time when a protagonist comes off as more of an asshole than the people he's against then it's mostly because someone screwed up. Instead of getting a complex protagonist we really just get an incongruous one. The "it's supposed to be like that" argument is one used as a last resort by people who realize that they've made an asshole protagonist
 

Willyfromescapist

New member
Jul 9, 2013
1
0
0
I absolutely agree, whenever I would go to my friends place and play gta vice city I'd just go on a killing spree, because I wasn't in the mood for missions, now I bought GTA IV which is trying to be realistic and all and you know what? I just can't kill people! When I have to kill cops I shoot them in the legs on purpose.
 

Steve2911

New member
May 3, 2010
79
0
0
Aiddon said:
TloU is a game that wants to have its cake and eat it. It really wants you to identify with Joel and sympathize with him, ultimately he's really just a douchebag lunatic no better than the people he's killing. And before anyone says "that's the point" I'm just gonna say this: NO. Anyone with ANY writing experience will tell you that most of the time when a protagonist comes off as more of an asshole than the people he's against then it's mostly because someone screwed up. Instead of getting a complex protagonist we really just get an incongruous one.
Surely if nothing else, the ending tells you that he's not a man to be sympathised with? Even if you completely empathise with his motivations.
 

IronMit

New member
Jul 24, 2012
533
0
0
Aiddon said:
TloU is a game that wants to have its cake and eat it. It really wants you to identify with Joel and sympathize with him, ultimately he's really just a douchebag lunatic no better than the people he's killing. And before anyone says "that's the point" I'm just gonna say this: NO. Anyone with ANY writing experience will tell you that most of the time when a protagonist comes off as more of an asshole than the people he's against then it's mostly because someone screwed up. Instead of getting a complex protagonist we really just get an incongruous one.
Yes I agree. So Scarface, American Psycho, spec ops: the line are rubbish. Oh wait no...they're actually quite good and everyone is a bit of a douche in them
 

Playful Pony

Clop clop!
Sep 11, 2012
531
0
0
wombat_of_war said:
two scenes really stood out to me. the first was the scene where you nuke megaton in fallout 3
I felt super guilty after doing this actually! I wanted to be like a wasteland badguy, so I took all kinds of evil choises with my character, but after nuking Megaton I felt so bad about it that I spent the rest of the game trying to make up for it by making the kindest decisions, always helping out and sparing even a bandits life if I could help it, and the strangest part is I didn't even notice this change until I talked about the game with a friend weeks later! Very strange... In Fallout New Vegas I immediately went for the life-loving diplomat, and only took a life when it was absolutely necessary.

I guess this is why I'm enjoying Deus Ex: Human Revolution quite a bit right now, bought it a few days ago... I am disapointed that there is a bunch of people you can't avoid killing though, even though I have taken some lifes on purpose... Some of those badguys are just too evil to let live!
 

Dr. Crawver

Doesn't know why he has premium
Nov 20, 2009
1,100
0
0
IronMit said:
A different take on violence/killing

Glad to see I wasn't the only person who thought of Btongue here.

But I do kinda agree with yahtzee here. If we're meant to side with a character, they kinda need to not like a villain.
 

Ryan Hughes

New member
Jul 10, 2012
557
0
0
Well said Yahtzee. From the standpoint of storytelling there is really no excuse for casually killing people and letting the characters deal with it in an easy come/easy go fashion. I can understand this from a gameplay standpoint -as players need enemies and obstacles in their path- but have not we already explored that area to death with the Modern Warfare craze, and all the way back to games like Contra?

In order to justify mass slaughter, you either need to show the player-character as an unreliable source, or at the very least weigh the lives that are taken against those that are saved, with the characters feeling the weight of these choices throughout the narrative. No one likes a sociopath, and they make for poor, transparent and boring characters when you get right down to it.

This brings me to one of my biggest disagreements with Yahtzee though, the Metal Gear games. I always liked that for the most part, especially from MGS2 onwards, the player had the choice to kill or not to kill their enemies. Often times, killing is the easier option, but I find the added challenge rewarding on a gameplay level, not just on the moral or storytelling level. While the stories are silly, and gleefully break the fourth wall, I find this keeps Snake from becoming a sociopath like so many other long-running heroes, and ironically makes him so mouch more human and "real to me, rather than some grizzled soldier just killing because he was told to by the brass.

The real artistry lies in games that confront killing and death head on, and do not hide behind excuses like gameplay.
 

thirion1850

New member
Aug 13, 2008
485
0
0
Fully agree. Death is a hardball endzone that you cannot reverse. In the context of a serious game with a serious protagonist it should be treated, well, seriously.
 

Artea

New member
Jul 9, 2013
25
0
0
This made me think about Planescape: Torment (which is always a good thing). I think you can actually finish that game without killing anyone (not just humans, but also other sentient creatures). I can only think of two mandatory fights where you have to 'kill' someone: one is a zombie (an animated corpse, therefore already dead) and the other is someone whom you kill in self-defense and who later turns out to have been playing dead.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
Well, there's a few angles to approach the issue of death in video games from..

As a gameplay mechanic, violence is the easiest method of establishing conflict, with death being a very easy outcome to implement. Even better, death and violence are universally understood concepts, even when scaled up in explicitness (Condemned springs to mind) or down in abstraction (strategy games; even plain chess is often used as an abstraction of a war game).

Unfortunately, this also means that combat and death are the central focus of conflict resolution for an incredible sum of games; easily the majority of those that make it to market. Outside of puzzle and stealth games, it's very difficult to find examples where the player is not required or encouraged to employ violence, and I find it morbidly funny that discussing problems rationally is considered the gimmicky or novelty method of conflict resolution in games just because violence is the standard by plurality.

(Though that could also be due to the fact that discussion is inherently more complicated in design than just shooting your problem in the head.)

In this, violence killing and death are overused as conflict establishment-resolution methods, never-mind the fantastical setting. Every victim is fake, whether they be human, robot, zombie, monster, demon, goomba...Of course the player isn't going to treat fake life-and-death as seriously as real life (barring insanity), though a good game can convince albeit temporarily.

The biggest problem, is that older gamers (or at least those who have lived and played games for a substantially long period of time) have seen every flavor of violence out there; to the point where it stops being cool or novel and starts to tire.

This is a total shot in the dark on my part, but I think that's really the "problem" Yahtzee is dealing with:
Violence isn't as interesting a gameplay concept anymore. Death as a gimmick is so overdone, it's cheap, and shocking for the sake of being shocking isn't edgy, it's just exploitative and cliche (possibly to an insulting level).
If that be the case, he's not alone in thinking that.

ASIDE: As for any "artistic" merits of the interpretation/implementation of death in games; gaming is overwhelmingly fictional even in most "realistic" settings. (go ahead and list those games that are "based on a true story". I'll wait.)
To be blunt and keep this short: "Universal Logic" is self-contained and arbitrary. Because of that you can spin death in any way you want from the simplest, forgettable applications to the positively absurd (even romanticized and/or comedic, ala Grim Fandango).

Whether or not death should be given moral weight is up to its implementation in the work (in ANY medium); and not some catch-all "based on real life" rule.
 

gjkbgt

New member
May 5, 2013
67
0
0
Yahtzee Croshaw" post="6.821408.19845396 said:
hello
Just wanted to thank you for this article
I commented on ZP that your review saved me £160 (the cost of the game and a ps3)

I mentioned the E3 demo and how it put me off as you kill people often without any warning or justification.
A lot of people shouted me down for suggesting murder is wrong

I tried defend myself by making the points you just made but a bit less articulately.
Now i can just point at this and say "see this for full details"