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.
Dude, no one has a problem with self defense. Yahtzee specifically said he had no problem with it and really I think it's safe to assume that no one has a problem with it unless they say otherwise. Greedo was an immediate, right now I shoot or I die threat.
Cutscene vs gameplay killing is irrelevant, it's why they're killing that matters.If you are killing someone who is unarmed and begging for mercy, you are not killing for self defense, that's the difference. Like jesus christ, why do I have to explain this?
No, the protagonist is allowed to be an asshole, but the portrayal needs to fit the character. Anti-heroes are allowed to exist, of course they are, if you're arguing that the Protagonist of TLOU is an anti-hero than fine, but don't act like the protagonist could be the ultimate dickhole and be portrayed as a genuinely good guy and there not be a problem. Scarface isn't portrayed as a good guy all the way through because he's not.
Well first of all, great article.
I mostly agree with your observations (although I have a particularly pragmatic stance towards death penalty). As you, I don't enjoy the gratuitous violence in movies (Quentin tarantino really annoys me), nor in games, nor in any sort of fiction honestly.
So I honestly don't understand how you can put into perspective God of War, (maybe just the first one) a game that has currently degraded into: lets smash everything into a bloody pulp while still trying to humanize kratos and show him in a somewhat heroic light. BUT find TLoU objectionable.
God of War 3 literally sickened me, not because it was too graphic or disgusting, but because of the degree of unwarranted wanton grotesque violence, coupled with the clear intention to somewhat justify this character, while additionally doing things as displaying how AWESOME my 400 bloodbath kill streak was (yeah, rip that dude's spine out!). In contrast, although it was harsh I felt TLoU was simply setting a scene for the characters. As many people have expressed, you find Joel as a hardened, hopeless, lost smuggler. The game overtly displays him as a lost soul, just surviving. There is no glorification, there is just showing how low Joel and Tess are willing to go.
They have managed to live in the sidelines of functioning society, but the requirement to escort Ellie subverts the whole system that they have become accustomed to function with. They transverse the re-established equilibrium that the new societies have settled, and it is this transgression that triggers the paranoid defensiveness of that particular reality. It is not just a free for all everyone killing everyone plot.
However in contrast with the conflict that the mission causes, for Joel, the encounter with Ellie serves in fact as a hopeful saving grace. It is HER that begrudgingly gives him a reason to live again. She gives him an opportunity to atone for his failure as a father and in his mind undo all the wrongness and pain that has happened.
At this point in the game, he starts making plans for the future, he dreams, he projects his life as something more than the "shitty people" that Tess describes them as.
Joel arguably finds his highest point of humanity a bit past the middle of the game, although it is still contrasted with brutal violence, now he has a mission that he wants to fulfill.
The tragedy is that this new reason for him to live is also the curse for humanity, hes incapable of sacrificing his new found hope for the grater good, he is incapable of letting go. He remains a traumatized man, his nature remains broken, and as hopeful as we are about him really finding grace, he simply can't find any other solutions.
Now if this was all inferred and absolutely abstract, I suppose you could say I was reading too much into it, but most of this points are quite literally exposed: His violence is not what we look forward to (partly the reason why it is such a viable option to avoid it). Joel is fighting his darker nature, fighting to bring back his dead daughter, to preserve innocence, but in reality, and in the viewer's eyes, only digging himself deeper.
Masterfully, the game asks if his redemption is worth potentially damning the whole human race. What would Jesus do? lolz
On a Gameplay level, when Joel performs a brutal kill Ellie never cheers for him, in fact she even sounds slightly scared and disgusted. You as a player might feel well for completing a section, but the game starkly refuses to give you any sort of congratulatory pat in the back. In fact more than once, even after surviving a particularly challenging section with combat, I didn't feel satisfied, I felt bad and slightly guilty, partly because of how many resources I had squandered, and partly because it was simply horrible... I looked back and I thought: "fuck.. I made a mess here... I should have avoided this."
I was not enjoying the killing of humans... but I had to survive.
( as a random note, the only section where Ellie gives you a HI-5 is in a light puzzling section completely devoid of any violence )
So, I can't agree with you. I think you simply are blaming the Last of us for not addressing certain concerns the way you wished them to be addressed, pointing some complaints that it is rarely guilty of ( ok, that small sniping section felt a bit offbeat ). Anyway, the gist of it is that the game makes a very noticeable tonal, thematic, and narrative effort to implement the discussed character conflict into every aspect of the experience, and it very strange that you have not observed what it so thoughtfully weaves into the final product.
Of course your experience is your experience, everyone is biased, and I'd encourage you to try to observe the game without this preconceptions, even if it is very unlikely that you would change your mind.
In any case I think it's definitely not the reason to justify your contempt for it, nor is it the game to prove your point about violence.
A favorite tale of mine (which was rather upsetting at the time, so I'm eager to tell it) is when I played Star Wars: Jedi Knight 2: Jedi Outcast, and was going through Bespin much the same way that I went through later levels in Star Wars: Dark Forces 2: Jedi Knight[footnote]Yes. It was during the golden age of colon stacks.[/footnote], which is to say I was yanking everyone's guns away and letting them stand there and look stupid. In Outcast, they even knew to raise their arms in the air.[footnote]The Stormtroopers in DF2 would run around like headless chickens yelling "Stand at your post! Stand at your post!" It was hillarious. Good times.[/footnote] Non-aggression. It was the Jedi way. I was so proud.
And then, play just stopped. I plum ran out of bad guys. Things weren't progressing. I searched for the next place to go thoroughly and there was none.
In time I figured out what happened: when you get to this courtyard and defeat all the enemies, this Sith-dude (hardly a Sith Lord) would pop out and fight you, and the path would open up again. But the Sith-Dude event wouldn't trigger until all the previous enemies were defeated.
Defeated as in: not moving. Deader than a doornail. Posthumous. Ex-parrot. To continue the game, I had to go back and execute all the guys whose lives I had previously and cleverly spared. Some of them were still raising their arms in surrender when I got near. Gaaah!
I still haven't forgiven Raven Software for that. in Jedi Academy they'd specify in the mission parameters whether or not you needed to kill all the bad-guys, so I got to disarm them when I could.[footnote]Which I did. My first investment would be into Grip 3, which would cause most baddies to drop their weapons.[/footnote] And most critical event-driving baddies couldn't be disarmed.
"But you're still trying to create drama that appeals to an audience that does not live in that world."
They are trying to immerse us into this world. Every game is a work of fiction, no matter how realistic and gritty it is.
The Last of us never tried to excuse Joel's murderous nature and that's what I really liked about it. In a game like Tomb Raider(2013) the story will go out of it's way to show how evil the badies are while still trying to tell a realistic story about a sympathetic protagonist and that just doesn't work. Its just wrong to complain about a narrative problem that is addressed in the story.
Heh, I actually hate when I am presented with a cutscene or chatter that humanizes the random mooks, cause now I feel bad about it.. And then I ain't having fun any more.
An interesting look into how the gameplay and storytelling clash because the gameplay in serious material is supposed to reflect the motivations as much as the story bits. Also see Other M's "This is Samus "lone stoic wrecker of shit" Aran?!"
I agreed with much of Yahtzee's criticism on The Last of Us but I've been confused on his fixation on this point. The game indicates to you that it's a "dog eat dog world" after the collapse of society, that everyone is doing everything they can to survive.
On the killing of Robert, there's no real need for justification. Robert stole their gun supplies, you know the stuff they've been relying on to survive? They didn't take too kindly to that. Robert was just doing the same thing, to survive, even if it meant backstabbing. There was no right or wrong, there was just humanity acting humanity.
Not only that, how about not spoiling the game, and if you (you as in Yahtzee, not you Lovely M) are, how about a little context?
No spoiler warning as this section was already spoiled by Yahtzee...
Take the killing of Robert. Tess pipes Robert in the leg and eventually shoots him in the head. If you played that section of the game without any context, Tess and Joel would seem like monsters. But here's where Yahtzee's gripe with ND games falls apart. He never gives you any context, on the end result...and Lol...wait till they show their intentions? Please.
So with context.....The first time you meet Tess, she's been beaten up and escaped death. Robert and his men didn't simply steal a few guns and leave. He almost killed Tess as well and who knows what other bad things he tried with her in a screwed up world like tLoU. She didn't beat up herself.
So why did Yahtzee ignore that part? Because this soapbox would look like another I hate Naughty Dog games rant? Of course...
And the Last of Us is a poor example as you can skip almost all combat with humans..
I'd like to bring up Alpha Protocol. It isn't the perfect game but something special about it is that you can finish the game without killing anybody. Choosing to not kill your enemies opens a whole other game and some of my favourite moments hinge on the fact I chose non-lethal force to meet my goals. As much as writers often rely on wanton violence to make something feel badass and mature, being the bigger man can be just as fulfilling.
Okay, I agree with the general point. The killing is a bit out of hand and it can mess with the storytelling.
Fine. Totally correct.
However...
I'm pretty damn sure Joel from The Last of Us wasn't supposed to be a regular everyman. He was a viciously pragmatic survivor in a world were life was cheap as chips and being anything less than selfish was downright dangerous. I thought that was made pretty clear by, well... basically every part of the game. If nothing else, that one bit with the two guys in the Winter chapter spelt it out pretty damn plainly.
Obviously he develops as things progress and he does regular person stuff as well, but that's to be expected. It's not like violent people don't do normal stuff on their off time. Y'know, the nazi war criminal who goes home after a long day at the furnaces, kisses his wife, gives the kids a hug and settles down with a newspaper.
I thought The Last of Us was one of the few games where when a villain said the usual, "We're not so different you and I", line, he totally had a point, and the game made no bones about that.
As for why media, and video games in particular, with violent content are successful.... well, I'm pretty sure that an interest or fascination with conflict is basically hardwired into people. And violence is the simplest form of conflict. Hey, at least FPSs are a step up from public executions or feeding folks to lions.
I also agree with Yahtzee's point about killing, but I still think The Last of Us was great.
Also, to add to that last bit of your post; One of the things William Shakespeare's plays had to compete with for an audience were events were they had bears killing dogs. Which is why Shakespeare's plays often used literally buckets of blood.
So our liking of violence is a lot older than some would think, and has really kept up with us through the ages in our entertainment. As you said, at least it isn't real now(normally).
If I had to guess what started it, it would probably be that those that liked to hunt and kill animals probably got better at it, and had a better chance of living than those that didn't. It's just in our nature.
That all said, I think another problem with the criticisms to The Last of Us(at least from my experience with the game) is that the killing isn't really fun(especially on harder modes). I didn't clear out a space and go "Wow! xD Man that was FUN! Lets do that again!", it was more of a "Wow. Thank God that's over. Now I can just listen to Joel and Ellie while I have a look around".
Don't get me wrong, it was satisfying at points to kill your way through some of the harder enemies (the bloaters), but afterwards I felt more relieved that it was over, and I could just relax than anything else. The Last of Us is a violent game with lots of killing, but I wouldn't call it "fun" killing.
Rossmallo said:
That bit you mentioned about with the death sentence...I never thought of it that way before, and wow. I'm now even further against the death sentence.
Anyway...I've very recently discovered a game that focusses on this "Killing is too easy" thing - Undertale. It's only a demo, but it made several poingiant points. If you haven't played it and want to, it's a lovely little RPG, give it a go, but DON'T click the spoiler. If you've either played it or don't care...
The game utterly chewed me out for killing some random mooks, stating that I saved Toriel - the lovely mother figure I'd grown to love - ...But what if some of the mooks I had killed were to someone else what Toriel was to me? That made me feel like shit. So...I replayed it, and this is where it gets relevant due to the antagonist's speech.
"So, you didn't kill anyone. This time. But suppose you meet a relentless killer. What will happen then? You'll die, and die, and die. So what will you do then? Will you kill out of frustration, or quit and let me take over?"
This point here reinforces just how easy it has become for a lot of gamers to just kill everyone in thier way, because the option of a peaceful resoloution is more difficult as opposed to just leaving a trail of bodies. This, in conjunction with the "They could have been someone else's Toriel" line, really makes this game stand out as the Spec Ops: The Line of RPGs.
You will be glad to know that this has only strengthened my resolve. I will not take the easy approach. I will prove the antagonist wrong. I will show that it is NOT kill or be killed. The only monster is him, and I will be more than glad to show him who the only person who deserves death in that game is. He is not anyone's Toriel. He is nobody's role model. And he will NOT be mourned, due to the torment he would be putting people through if I wasn't there.
Okay. So the story goes, that there is this Knight who takes an oath of celibacy, and goes around saying that he will never break his oath, no matter what.
Well this powerful King(or lord or something) hears about this, and thinks it's stupid to say you won't ever break such an oath, "no matter what". So, he asks the Knight up to the top of this tall tower. There he introduces him to a bunch of very beautiful women. The Lord says to the Knight: "If you don't have sex with at least one of these women, then one by one, I will have them jump out of the tower to there deaths."
The Knight thought long about what to do. Should he stick to his oath, or should he break it to save the lives of the women?
In the end, the Knight chose to not break his oath, meaning all the women died. His logic was that by sticking to his oath, he was doing nothing wrong, and that the deaths of the women were on the lord's soul, as he was the one who made the challenge in the first place.
This makes me think of a question. Are these two "moral extremes" both kind of bad?
(Kill anyone who gets in your way, and never kill anyone, ever.)
Yes, the killing people one is without question worse, but is the never kill anyone thing really something one should stick to, "no matter what"?
I just think that people shouldn't deal in absolutes. Even the "good" ones can end up causing trouble.
That said, I am all for games that let you solve problems by doing more than just killing people.
I've never really saw the death penalty as "punitive revenge". A life sentence is punitive revenge, any arbitrarily long prison sentence or imprisonment where rehabilitation is not a serious consideration is punitive revenge. Death is not revenge, or perhaps not for anyone beyond the victims of whatever crime or their family.
Rather, death is simply the removal of a problem. Taking individuals that are a threat to the society they live in and removing them from it. A life sentence works just as well, but I can't seriously believe that anyone who can be rehabilited by prison would take 20 years to do so, suggesting that rehabilitation is not the goal of a life sentence. And without that, I fail to see the point of wasting resources on keeping them around.
It is an interesting point about how facing a death penalty encourages those facing it to be even more violent, but frankly I'm not sure promising them life in cell instead is going to encourage them to come along quietly either.
I've never really saw the death penalty as "punitive revenge". A life sentence is punitive revenge, any arbitrarily long prison sentence or imprisonment where rehabilitation is not a serious consideration is punitive revenge. Death is not revenge, or perhaps not for anyone beyond the victims of whatever crime or their family.
Rather, death is simply the removal of a problem. Taking individuals that are a threat to the society they live in and removing them from it. A life sentence works just as well, but I can't seriously believe that anyone who can be rehabilited by prison would take 20 years to do so, suggesting that rehabilitation is not the goal of a life sentence. And without that, I fail to see the point of wasting resources on keeping them around.
It is an interesting point about how facing a death penalty encourages those facing it to be even more violent, but frankly I'm not sure promising them life in cell instead is going to encourage them to come along quietly either.
Dude, no one has a problem with self defense. Yahtzee specifically said he had no problem with it and really I think it's safe to assume that no one has a problem with it unless they say otherwise. Greedo was an immediate, right now I shoot or I die threat.
Cutscene vs gameplay killing is irrelevant, it's why they're killing that matters.If you are killing someone who is unarmed and begging for mercy, you are not killing for self defense, that's the difference. Like jesus christ, why do I have to explain this?
No, the protagonist is allowed to be an asshole, but the portrayal needs to fit the character. Anti-heroes are allowed to exist, of course they are, if you're arguing that the Protagonist of TLOU is an anti-hero than fine, but don't act like the protagonist could be the ultimate dickhole and be portrayed as a genuinely good guy and there not be a problem. Scarface isn't portrayed as a good guy all the way through because he's not.
I don't think you read my post? And I never said Joel was a hero. In fact every single rebuttal on this thread is arguing that Joel is not a hero. So just read them.
As you brought up Greedo's imminent threat I compared it to Frank's (was that his name) threat - the guy sent people to kill Tess so he was a threat.
Weather an unarmed 'villain' is a threat or not is a matter of perspective. Tess pulled the trigger because the hitmen were sent after her. He screwed them on a deal and betrayed them again...he sounds like a consistent threat to me
AND again you are totally missing the point of those earlier scenes and explanations setting the tone and rules of TLOU setting. It's a dog eat dog world now, human's are forced to do some messed up things for survival.
Joel even says he used to be bandit, his brother says to Joel he would rather of died then do those sick things. To actually think that the game/story wants you to perceive Joel as a hero is insane.
So just like Scarface, Joel is not portrayed like a hero throughout. Scarface did some messed up stuff but he refused to kill the children b'cos he has certain rules and compassion, joel did some messed up stuff but he is still capable of love/good etc.
So I have come to the conclusion you are basing your view on cherry picked information on TLOU without playing the game or something is wrong with you.
well the vibe I've been getting from Joel so far is that the events during the first outbreak left him damaged in the head, bitter as fuck and not caring about any lives including his own.
Yeah, I didn't get very far in The Last of Us but Joel definitely isn't your typical protagonist - and definitely not the kind you're supposed to sympathise with. That's why Ellie is such an important character.
I haven't played The Last of Us, but I had the exact same problem Yahtzee had with the thematically similar, paternalistic/redemptive themed, Bioshock Infinite. "Oh boohoo, I killed native Americans at Wounded Knee, I feel so bad about it. Luckily I have no problem massacring hundreds of people my horrific spinning blade claw arm."
Writers create stories about people who can so casually murder so many others, yet still expect us to feel empathy when someone near and dear to them is mistreated. It feels so insincere. It is possible to make a serious, cerebral story with unpleasant yet sympathetic people, but there is a knack to it: even Al Swearingen or Michael Corleone have an emotional response to them killing someone.
Take the killing of Robert. Tess pipes Robert in the leg and eventually shoots him in the head. If you played that section of the game without any context, Tess and Joel would seem like monsters. But here's where Yahtzee's gripe with ND games falls apart. He never gives you any context, on the end result...and Lol...wait till they show their intentions? Please.
So with context.....The first time you meet Tess, she's been beaten up and escaped death. Robert and his men didn't simply steal a few guns and leave. He almost killed Tess as well and who knows what other bad things he tried with her in a screwed up world like tLoU. She didn't beat up herself.
So why did Yahtzee ignore that part? Because this soapbox would look like another I hate Naughty Dog games rant? Of course...
And the Last of Us is a poor example as you can skip almost all combat with humans..
It's quite surprising. Yahtzee really did twist the context of that scene to support his argument.
There is plenty of criticism you can level at TLOU. You may find that the way they justified killing was weak or cliché or too quick...but to pretend they didn't even try is misleading.
I really don't know, either his intentionally twisting stuff out of context or all that obvious stuff somehow went over his head.
Dude, no one has a problem with self defense. Yahtzee specifically said he had no problem with it and really I think it's safe to assume that no one has a problem with it unless they say otherwise. Greedo was an immediate, right now I shoot or I die threat.
Cutscene vs gameplay killing is irrelevant, it's why they're killing that matters.If you are killing someone who is unarmed and begging for mercy, you are not killing for self defense, that's the difference. Like jesus christ, why do I have to explain this?
No, the protagonist is allowed to be an asshole, but the portrayal needs to fit the character. Anti-heroes are allowed to exist, of course they are, if you're arguing that the Protagonist of TLOU is an anti-hero than fine, but don't act like the protagonist could be the ultimate dickhole and be portrayed as a genuinely good guy and there not be a problem. Scarface isn't portrayed as a good guy all the way through because he's not.
I don't think you read my post? And I never said Joel was a hero. In fact every single rebuttal on this thread is arguing that Joel is not a hero. So just read them.
As you brought up Greedo's imminent threat I compared it to Frank's (was that his name) threat - the guy sent people to kill Tess so he was a threat.
Weather an unarmed 'villain' is a threat or not is a matter of perspective. Tess pulled the trigger because the hitmen were sent after her. He screwed them on a deal and betrayed them again...he sounds like a consistent threat to me
AND again you are totally missing the point of those earlier scenes and explanations setting the tone and rules of TLOU setting. It's a dog eat dog world now, human's are forced to do some messed up things for survival.
Joel even says he used to be bandit, his brother says to Joel he would rather of died then do those sick things. To actually think that the game/story wants you to perceive Joel as a hero is insane.
So just like Scarface, Joel is not portrayed like a hero throughout. Scarface did some messed up stuff but he refused to kill the children b'cos he has certain rules and compassion, joel did some messed up stuff but he is still capable of love/good etc.
So I have come to the conclusion you are basing your view on cherry picked information on TLOU without playing the game or something is wrong with you.
Than fucking say he's not a hero to begin with instead of giving off explanations that might as well be jokes about what he did being alright. I read other people saying that he's intentionally not supposed to be a hero, not you though, you're just justifying it as if he's just fighting off bandits in fallout and like the only difference is that one's in gameplay and one's not.
Umm...no an unarmed villain begging for mercy isn't a threat. That's just laughable. He lost, you don't need to do that particular fucked up thing for survival.
I would say that killing is just that, too easy. It has become the quick and simple problem solver. To use his stealth example most of the time stealth is simply used as a way to silently murder someone rather than avoid them. That's one reason I think games like Amnesia the dark decent was so popular, you could not fight or kill any of the monsters, you had to hide in the shadows or just plain run like your ass was on fire. And that is far more engaging and interesting than waiting for the monsters to turn around so you can effortlessly shiv them in the back and be done with it. Or take most shooters, where you rack up a body count on par with a small nation by the end.
Than fucking say he's not a hero to begin with instead of giving off explanations that might as well be jokes about what he did being alright. I read other people saying that he's intentionally not supposed to be a hero, not you though, you're just justifying it as if he's just fighting off bandits in fallout and like the only difference is that one's in gameplay and one's not.
Umm...no an unarmed villain begging for mercy isn't a threat. That's just laughable. He lost, you don't need to do that particular fucked up thing for survival.
I don't define protagonists as hero or anti-hero. I go in with a blank slate and experience it as it is presented to me. I had no idea you would be operating under the assumption that I thought Joel is a hero because I didn't state otherwise.
please explain to me the difference between this scene and TLOU. Is this immediately a bad movie because the bad guy was disarmed and begging?
or how about this scene
I won't do what these guys do ever...it doesn't mean I don;t find what leads them to do this stuff interesting.
How about Interview with the vampire? I can't even do that if I wanted to.
Stories set the scene, motivation and personality of their protagonists and what they do makes sense in that context. In the context of the Last of Us, people die left right and centre in this horrible world, and are driven to kill to survive..the authorities had executed someone moments earlier in public. Tess was angry, Tess had a reason to kill someone that had just tried to kill her.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Thank God that's over. Now I can just listen to Joel and Ellie while I have a look around".
