Killing is Too Easy

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

I had kinda noticed that the focus on killing was becoming an increased side-effect of the homogenization of AAA games into generic cover shooters. It bothers me that you get an experience bonus for headshots in the new Thief, given it was an IP in which the character previously prided himself on going through levels without killing anyone. On Expert not killing was a mission requirement.

Interestingly, in the more tactical simmy games, I tended to go with a no-kill policy. In SWAT 4 it was a matter of practicality since my reflexes are too slow to hit that threshold when a suspect is pointing a weapon but hasn't yet put a hole in my face: better to pepper-paintball him in the eye, or let one of my bot-buddies take him out.

This turned out to be a bit of a downer in Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, in which, again, as a super-spy you have the option to knock out or kill. Killing was much more fun, but I felt the sense of duty to leave people alive as much as possible, even if they were drug lord thugs or terrorist factionists. I mean they're human beings too, right? And I AM in a Tom Clancy game. But yeah, not killing in that game is tedious compared to zotting them between the eyes at distance with a suppressed rifle.

A choice, fatty slice of the blame rests on the plate of the ESRB, who has taken to censoring the games for disturbing content. Chris Breault recounts [http://kotaku.com/5557172/you-gonna-read-this-fisher-the-art-of-enemy-taunts] how Castle in The Punisher will torture thugs to death, and that wasn't censored, but the dialogue that might indicate they object (to being tortured and killed), that they are human beings that might actually want to fucking live[footnote]...and someday fuck again, I'm sure they hoped...[/footnote] was too disturbing for a video game. Yes, according to the ESRB, human beings not wanting to die when you shoot them is up there in indecency with full frontal rutting.

This is a situation that has some crossover with the topic of gamers allegedly being desensitized to violence. Granted, there are plenty of games that do feature cartoony violence, or over-the-top cinematic violence as an intended matter of style, but we cannot market a shooter, even, say a tactical sim such as SWAT or ARMA or Pillars of Creation Forbid, Six Days in Fallujah so that simulated casualties actually respond to bullets similarly to the way that real people do. And this prevents games from illustrating why we have (and should have) aversions to killing in real life.

I recently talked about Robert Rath's article [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.820161-Modern-Warfare-is-a-Comforting-Lie?page=2#19791431] that features some crossover to Yahtzee's. But for the ratings boards being overly sensitive to this stuff (and the unmarketability of AO products unless it's all about the vulvovajays) we might actually have games that would be a good lesson about why war is really a thing to be avoided at all costs.[footnote]Contrast the mass cheering at Obama's 2013 State-of-the-Union when he implied that were going to move on Iran.[/footnote]

Anyway, yeah, making games that allow ordinary shlubs to discharge their strength (or pretend to) are going to be especially popular while AAA creativity languishes in the weed choked development pits of the megapublishers. Maybe they can turn Animal Crossing into a cover shooter as well (Animal Crossing: Nook's Revengeance Into Chaos Dark)

238U

 

[Ryan Hughes]

Wait, now hold on, there're four groups of humans in Last of Us. One's the thugs, the ones hired by the guy who stole your stuff (that you need to sell in order to live) and tried to kill Tess, second's the group who kill people just to see if they have stuff worth pillaging their corpses for, third's a group of cannibals and the last are variably nasty as well, depending on how you're feeling. Motivations to kill galore, it's just Joel is a bit too jaded by 20 years of killing to break down into tears after killing anyone, especially people he doesn't like. I remember Ellie was shook up, though, when she killed someone. I'd say in the case of Joel, you are the conscience who feels bad, it's just that you gotta do what you gotta do to progress through the game, right?

Again, though, pretty much anyone Joel killed seemingly deserved to die anyway. Except, maybe, the first thugs who were before Joel had Ellie anyway (AKA, the girl who pretty much made him care for someone again).

I really cannot comprehend why THIS is the game that has people complaining about motivations to kill or complaining about story. This is a good example of how to make a game! I dunno, I dunno...

I have not played "Last of Us," so that is why I did not comment on that game directly, but rather directed my comments towards games I have played, like the story modes of FPS games. Also, changes are in brackets:

"Wait, now hold on, [there are] four groups of humans in Last of Us. [One is] the thugs, the [group] hired by the guy who stole [the supplies] that you need to sell in order to live [remove parenthesis] and tried to kill [a person/friend/loved one?] Tess[. A new period for a new sentence.] [The S]econd [is a] group who kill people just to see if they have stuff worth pillaging [on their person. Add period] [T]hird [is] a group of cannibals[,] and the last [of the groups]are variably nasty as well, depending on how you're feeling. [Second Clause of prior sentence makes little sense to someone who has not played the game, needs a rewrite] [The characters have m]otivations to kill galore[. I]t's just [that] Joel is [Removed useless words] too jaded by 20 years of killing [others] to break down into tears after killing anyone, especially people he doesn't like. I remember Ellie was shook up, though, when she killed someone. I'd say in the case of Joel, you are the conscience who feels bad, it's just that you gotta do what you gotta do to progress through the game, right?

Again[removed comma] though, pretty much anyone Joel killed seemingly deserved to die anyway. Except [perhaps], the first thugs [they encounter,] who were before Joel had [met]Ellie anyway[.] [Remove parenthesis]AKA, the girl who pretty much made him care for someone again.

I really cannot comprehend why [this]is the game that has people complaining about motivations to kill[,] or complaining about [its] story. This is a good example of how to make a game[.] I [simply do not understand.]"

Nice try, so I will give you an F for effort.

 

[octafish]

two scenes really stood out to me. the first was the scene where you nuke megaton in fallout 3. its mostly done for shits and giggles and its disturbing and messed up to say the least. far more personal was call of duty 4 where torture and executing someone wasnt even discussed just an accepted part

I think I give more credit to the makers of COD4. That scene pretty closely matches the opening cut scene where we establish the bad guy's credentials by being executed. I always considered Modern Warfare to be a complex story of dehumanization and horror that was missed by the vast majority of players. There is certainly a lot in the game that I found chilling and disturbing about the way the characters behaved.

 

[Casual Shinji]

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

Joel is a old washed out killer. He doesn't kill because he's crazy or an asshole, he doesn't kill because it's supposed heroic or noble, he kills because it's his job. From the moment Tess is introduced it's made very clear she's the brains of this operation and Joel is just the muscle. In the 20 years he spent surviving, killing and doing horrible things have become as routine to him as getting groceries.

So yes, it is supposed to be like that. Just as Marv from Sin City, or Guts from Berserk are characters who are supossed to represent the world they live in, so too is Joel.

 

[theuprising]

two scenes really stood out to me. the first was the scene where you nuke megaton in fallout 3. its mostly done for shits and giggles and its disturbing and messed up to say the least. far more personal was call of duty 4 where torture and executing someone wasnt even discussed just an accepted part

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

If that dumb ass really wanted to survive, he wouldn't have screwed them over in the first place. And if he was justified in trying to kill them then they were justified in fighting back. He didn't even have the sense to try and defend himself. I don't think it makes them hypocrites, it makes them the ones who survived. Like Han Solo: Other then the fact he's willing to transport fugitives who just happend to be the protagonists, we have no proof that he deserves to live any more then Greedo. It's that the hero DOES kill, it's what that killing accomplished that makes a difference.

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.

there's no reason to kill robert though other than revenge. You probably don't get what I am saying and are probably for the death penalty, but revenge is totally pointless. A completely pointless thing just done so people can feel better about themselves and justify terrible acts.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

But for or this one, I'll make it easy, let's say serial killers, or let's go all out and say we've got a racially motivated serial child rapist/muderer (let's say, crazy white southern redneck sterotype who rapes and murders black children - no, handicapped black children, maybe gay, gotta max out the hate motivated crime factor) . How are people guilty of such a thing in any way worth keeping around?

It sounds like this guy pilots drones for the CIA in Afghanistan. We like to blow up Afghani toddlers with drone strikes.

What if you got the wrong guy? We've got a list of 142 death-row inmates that have since been exonerated.

The whole justice system in the US is bunk as it is, busting white-hat hackers for more years than a typical murder or rape, and sentencing possession of cheap drugs far more severely than possession of fancy expensive drugs. (e.g. crack cocaine vs. powder). Rich guys get off while poor guys never have a fighting chance. We can't trust them to fairly give out traffic citations, let alone decide who lives and who dies.

You sound terribly angry, like you want to kill somebody, but justice is not revenge, and no state should be in the revenge business. The US is in the revenge business by way of the war business, but it really shouldn't be.

238U

 

[mike1921]

two scenes really stood out to me. the first was the scene where you nuke megaton in fallout 3. its mostly done for shits and giggles and its disturbing and messed up to say the least. far more personal was call of duty 4 where torture and executing someone wasnt even discussed just an accepted part

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

If that dumb ass really wanted to survive, he wouldn't have screwed them over in the first place. And if he was justified in trying to kill them then they were justified in fighting back. He didn't even have the sense to try and defend himself. I don't think it makes them hypocrites, it makes them the ones who survived. Like Han Solo: Other then the fact he's willing to transport fugitives who just happend to be the protagonists, we have no proof that he deserves to live any more then Greedo. It's that the hero DOES kill, it's what that killing accomplished that makes a difference.

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.

there's no reason to kill robert though other than revenge. You probably don't get what I am saying and are probably for the death penalty, but revenge is totally pointless. A completely pointless thing just done so people can feel better about themselves and justify terrible acts.

...Why are you quoting me? I'm against the death penalty and I don't know what I said would possibly prompt what you're saying

 

[gjkbgt]

No, what the fuck is wrong with you?

Is there some reason you want these people alive and imprisoned instead? Am I supposed to be in favour of keeping them around?

The determining factors regarding which crimes and circumstances merit such consideration is certainly up for debate, as is the standard of evidence required, and that's all fine for a different discussion that quite frankly, I don't know where I'd draw the line on.

But for or this one, I'll make it easy, let's say serial killers, or let's go all out and say we've got a racially motivated serial child rapist/muderer (let's say, crazy white southern redneck sterotype who rapes and murders black children - no, handicapped black children, maybe gay, gotta max out the hate motivated crime factor) . How are people guilty of such a thing in any way worth keeping around?

They're a blight on society in a way few would debate. A cancer cell in the organism that is society that is best cut out, a rapid dog that needs to be put down.

They're human beings!
They had a mother, they experienced joy, sadness they have a preference jam or honey. They lived every single day for twenty years or more.
I'd love to live in a world where the only people who committed (serious) crimes were inhuman monster that never felt sad or shame never had an unpleasant shit after eating spicy food.
And you might sleep better at night think that the people that committee atrocities are a different species but it's bullshit a lie you tell yourself to feel better.
We're all made of the same stuff like it or not.
And anyway points moot. Only human are legal responsible for there actions if this guy was as inhuman as you think he wouldn't be legal responsible for his actions
He'd be sent to an institution.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Show me ONE example from the game where the protagonists are not killing out of self-defense.Also you actively chose to kill everyone instead of stealthing through where it was possible,clearly the game's fault.

Well, there were these two guys....

Granted, they did try to kill Joel, but he didn't really NEED to kill them. Don't see why Yahtzee didn't used that example instead of Robert's death.

What I don't get is how people are saying the game is trying to make Joel look like a hero.

0_o Did you see what he just did?! If that's the hero, I'd hate to see the villain.

Spoiler: The villain.

Bloaters...

 

[Cat Cloud]

I feel like recently a lot of triple A games have been going with the whole "your character is an unsympathetically killer" thing. Bonus points if they do it partially to survive. I know that it's a more convenient and easy personality to write because violence and video games go together like peanut butter and jelly, but I think a game where the main character has more of a conscious and tries to follow morals could be interesting, too. And not in one of those games where you choose to be good or bad, either.

I think it would be more compelling to see a character honestly trying to be a good person, but then have all of their good intentions twist around and blow up in their face, rather than a character that kills selfishly and indiscriminately, but hey they like kids.

 

[Pebkio]

Cool story,except the guy tried to kill Tess first and she even says they might've given him more time to make it up to them if it wasn't for that.

Holy shit, I don't know why you used that to defend the game. It just sounded like those two were the heads of a mob gang. "Where's our guns?" Did they place an order for some nukes too?

So guy-on-ground had to make a tough decision on which gang he was going to give his guns to... so whoever he chose, the other gang was going to come and kill him. She didn't open with her expressing disdain for trying to be killed, she didn't ask him why, it was just "where are my guns". Tess really came off as evil, and the whole "I would be nicer if you hadn't tried to kill me" thing was just her justifying her actions. And that's nothing new, gang leaders having been saying cliche'd nonsense like that for ages.

I saw nothing else there but a girl who was going to kill a guy because he stiffed her on her gang's equipment; I'm watching a mob boss getting revenge.

---

I've seen a lot of people comparing this to Scarface or American Psycho. You all realize that those are movies about a a mob boss and/or a psychopath, right? So scarface is less about rooting for the protaganist and more about experiencing the detereration of a criminal; American Psycho was less about rooting for the protaganist and more about experiencing the deteriation of a madman.

And it's worth noting that THEY BOTH LOSE. In the end, all of their poor behavioral choices lead them into a bad place. We get to watch these unlikable people ultimately lose.

But even in other cases, when the lead starts out as a mass-mudering douche, there's usually some kind of redemption. A point when the person suddenly realizes that they've gone off the deep end and then work to become better or more normal. Or even to punish themselves. This is where Spec Ops: The Line comes in... the point in Spec Ops was to show us just how far we've all been going. And, in all but one of the endings, he loses. He learns the dark truth about himself and it destroys him.

Do we get to see that in Last of Us? Not really. The guy acts just as selfish throughout the entire game.In fact, the last thing that happens is him lying to a little girl to keep her from saving the world. She knows the score and is willing to make the sacrifice. But screw that, HE wants to be happy.The point here, is that he's a muderous, greedy, self-centered, asshole villain who learns nothing and changes nothing. If there were a lession to be learned that would be alright, but there isn't. He starts as a villain, ends as a villain and wins as a villain. Then tie that into how gruesomely they murder people.

 

[secretkeeper12]

This is why I HATE the Boomers in Fallout: New Vegas. Those assholes happily glorify the dozens if not hundreds of wastelanders they've killed and continue to kill. Why the hell should I try to help them? Not to mention that they have the nerve to blame YOU after one of their love interests is killed coming to their camp (though to be fair, you do have to send her yourself). Can you tell I hate those fucking hypocrites?

Also, you're thoughts on how to "solve humanity's problems" are completely and utterly retarded. If you place value on humanity, then completely killing off half of its population should be a pretty bother. Not to mention it wouldn't solve much, since the causes of war, hunger, or other hardships would still be very much around. Class inequality, escalating conflicts, and just plain old greed is always going to be present in our species, so if you honestly want to solve our problems, work on reforming our societies to minimize the harm these inflict, instead of just ending it entirely.

In Fallout New Vegas I immediately went for the life-loving diplomat, and only took a life when it was absolutely necessary.

You can actually complete the whole game without killing a person or even a creature. Even beat a bunch of sidequests too (Crazy, Crazy, Crazy and Come Fly With Me are SO MUCH BETTER this way). I HIGHLY recommend you try it!

 

[Lovely Mixture]

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..

Well said.

I think the indication in the game was that Robert had stolen their guns a long time before he sent those guys to kill Tess.
But your point stands regardless. The context is that he stole their supplies, and considering it's a post-apocalypse those WERE VERY important supplies. And talking wasn't an option considering it's a rule-by-force world.

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.

Like him as the protagonist or not, I'd say it was intentional. He's a tragic hero with a tragic beginning instead of a tragic end. With tragic heroes you can be able sympathize them and despise them.

I don't think they screwed up, it was pretty clear to me. He lost his daughter and became ruthless, but later becomes ruthless for the sake of protecting Ellie rather than just his own survival.

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

When you argue "he's an asshole." You're saying "I didn't enjoy seeing this asshole as a protagonist."
When people say "that's the point" they believe you're criticizing the story as itself, not evaluating your personal enjoyment.

You can acknowledge that it's the point, but you're allowed to say that it's irrelevant to you because you didn't like it.

I had a whole thread about this.

 

[abdul]

Show me ONE example from the game where the protagonists are not killing out of self-defense.Also you actively chose to kill everyone instead of stealthing through where it was possible,clearly the game's fault.

Well, there were these two guys....

Granted, they did try to kill Joel, but he didn't really NEED to kill them. Don't see why Yahtzee used that example instead of Robert's death.

I dunno,what were his other options? Leaving them in the cabin to starve to death or if he releases them,they would've warned the town.It's not like Joel kidnapped two random guys,minutes ago they were trying to gut him.I think it was justified but that's just me.

 

[Jadak]

It sounds like this guy pilots drones for the CIA in Afghanistan. We like to blow up Afghani toddlers with drone strikes.

What if you got the wrong guy? We've got a list of 142 death-row inmates that have since been exonerated.

The whole justice system in the US is bunk as it is, busting white-hat hackers for more years than a typical murder or rape, and sentencing possession of cheap drugs far more severely than possession of fancy expensive drugs. (e.g. crack cocaine vs. powder). Rich guys get off while poor guys never have a fighting chance. We can't trust them to fairly give out traffic citations, let alone decide who lives and who dies.

You sound terribly angry, like you want to kill somebody, but justice is not revenge, and no state should be in the revenge business. The US is in the revenge business by way of the war business, but it really shouldn't be.

238U

I addressed the point about the justice system in my post, and as I said, that sort of stuff is for another discussion, my point was merely addressing where my beliefs ultimately rest, in the absolute sense of crime vs punishment. Application of such things is something else entirely, and I agree that the justice system is garbage and not even close to fair enough for such punishments to be applied appropriately.

So, to restate what I was saying originally, my post was less regarding whether the current legal system has either the credibility or integrity to implement such systems and more of a response to those who would argue against killing for the sake of being against killing, on morale grounds or what have you.

 

[abdul]

Cool story,except the guy tried to kill Tess first and she even says they might've given him more time to make it up to them if it wasn't for that.

Holy shit, I don't know why you used that to defend the game. It just sounded like those two were the heads of a mob gang. "Where's our guns?" Did they place an order for some nukes too?

So guy-on-ground had to make a tough decision on which gang he was going to give his guns to... so whoever he chose, the other gang was going to come and kill him. She didn't open with her expressing disdain for trying to be killed, she didn't ask him why, it was just "where are my guns". Tess really came off as evil, and the whole "I would be nicer if you hadn't tried to kill me" thing was just her justifying her actions. And that's nothing new, gang leaders having been saying cliche'd nonsense like that for ages.

Actually she does start with that,but that's done in-game before the cutscene.Robert starts shooting as soon as they open the door.

edit: hmm,I actually didn't watch the video till the end I linked (only checked if it's the right one,my bad).It has half the length of the original (other half is spoiler though),but now that I did,I can see why it looks that bad with the way it abruptly ends on a bit different tone than the original full cutscene,especially if you know nothing about the event that preceeded it.

 

[Thoughtful_Salt]

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.

And yet they still try and kill her on sight anyways so your point is moot. I do understand the yearning for some more personal details, it would have added some depth....but at what cost? That would have turned the game into something else entirely, a spec ops-ish game. Would we want that in an adventure game?

Tomb Raider slightly justifies the actions of the player by
1.trapping them on the island so there's no way to avoid conflict with the solari (unlike in uncharted where Drake murders people solely for treasure, with plenty of chances for him to just drop the hunt for the macguffin)
2.Make every enemy attempt to shoot lara on sight, negating any chance to talk to them, and turning the scenario into a survival against man and the elements game.
3.Almost every scenario/mission in the game features either: Lara being attacked and/or escaping capture, or her rescuing someone and/or acquiring an item necessary for survival on the island. (It should be noted that there are no enemies in the optional puzzle solving tombs)
4. Make every death lara/player suffers as brutal as possible to emphasize the take-no prisoners aspect of the enemies and obstacles.

At this point self-defense and rescuing people who lara cares about kind of negates any criticisms of ludo-narrative dissonance (or campster's idiotic claim that she is a sociopath by the game's end). In the end it's about lara's journey, not the player and his/her relationship with it.

 

[Jadak]

They're human beings!
They had a mother, they experienced joy, sadness they have a preference jam or honey. They lived every single day for twenty years or more.
I'd love to live in a world where the only people who committed (serious) crimes were inhuman monster that never felt sad or shame never had an unpleasant shit after eating spicy food.
And you might sleep better at night think that the people that committee atrocities are a different species but it's bullshit a lie you tell yourself to feel better.
We're all made of the same stuff like it or not.
And anyway points moot. Only human are legal responsible for there actions if this guy was as inhuman as you think he wouldn't be legal responsible for his actions
He'd be sent to an institution.

***skimming through sentimental garbage for relevant parts***

"I'd love to live in a world where the only people who committed (serious) crimes were inhuman monster that never felt sad or shame never had an unpleasant shit after eating spicy food. "

There we go, that was part of my point, and way I gave an extreme example. Whenever this type of discussion gets brought up, people get so caught up in where to draw the line without ever addressing what I feel is most important. What do you do in the situation is that extreme? The guilt undeniable, the monstrosity of the acts unquestionable?

Sure, there's all kinds of issues that can come into play in any real case, but how can anyone be expected to decide on the finer points when they can't even decide on an absolute, one sided scenario? That's why I start at the worst, as you called it, take an inhuman monster, one where you have no doubts and can unhesitantly deal out any punishment.

With that done, you have a baseline for your beliefs. Can you kill then? Do you still believe in rehabilitation or arbitrary imprisonment? Regardless, with that decided, you can know, with certainty how you believe the worst of the worst should be dealt with, and you can build up from there rather than jumping into the middle and being uncertain about anything.

Of course, the 'asylum vs death' is a worthy discussion all on it's own and adds problems all over the place, but that's an aspect for another day.

 

[viranimus]

Ok..... And?

I stand by my position. These are not people. These are polygonal AI's and scripted algorithms that only exist for the players amusement and whims. To desire to not revel in their every little mental and physical contortion and try to anthropomorphize them is to rob these virtual lives from the only purpose to their existence.

And really to a greater degree this sort of thinking baffles me. Like most of our entertainment media, games act as a form of escapism. Gaming is perhaps one of the greatest forms of this. It allows us to experience a little taste of what it is like to do things we cannot do outside of that media without having to suffer the consequences of it.

Knowing that IRL society demands you behave in accordance with social expectations, which essentially means behaving on the line of "good" To comply with social contract, to submit to notions like selflessness are virtues, and that anything less than good behavior is intolerable and can get you punished be it criminally, politically, socially, emotionally, etc.

So why would anyone WANT to be the good guy ever? Why play into the role that is expected of you? Does that not squander the aspects unique to gaming? What was the point? Why even bother with the extra layers of effort needed to make it a game at all? If the experience amounts to the player escaping the world where they are expected to "play nice" So that they can enter a world where they choose to be nice, what was the point of dilluting the experince inherent in real world complexity to experience the same under a far more restrictive and simple set of variables?



Honestly, such an alien concept.

 

[FallenMessiah88]

I can understand why one would critisize games like Modern Warfare for not having a "non lethal" option, but to me it seems like killing in TLoU goes perfectly along with the themes and the setting of the games. Bear in mind that I still haven't actually played the game, so take my opinon for what it is.