Killing is Too Easy
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Makes sense to me. Even if what what the author (supplier) was putting out was crap, it wouldn't go anywhere if it didn't find an audience (demand).llafnwod said:
Yeah this is basically why I felt so detached from the narrative in Far Cry 3 and the Tomb Raider reboot and didn't really give half a toss about anything going on. It's such a ridiculous contrast between srs character arc and being an unstoppable one-man-army with infinite regen health inbetween story missions - from the very start no less.
No, the semi-automatic nature of a pistol does not count as making the character vulnerable, it still kills in a couple hits tops.
Otherwise I agree with MrBtongue, I think we're been iterating violent action gameplay in general and shooters especially so frequently it's the way to go for AAA titles that want to play it safe. I mean it makes to stick to something proven to work so well, that's already been explored and experimented with so frequently, and something that can give casual players a good amount of shooting in a quick session.
I will say tho I only saw a Let's Play of The Last of Us (due to no PS3), so while I can't speak with any sort of authority about that game, it did seem like every character except maybe the goons was a cold-blooded one-man-army. Girl could barely wait to cap her first guy it seemed, except for that one moment where she readily stabbed a bloke but didn't think he'd be killed as well. Weird moment-to-moment contrast between "grown up too fast" and "childish naive" for me in that scene.
When you're just wading through corpses and expect the player to take it seriously, then it usually just produces W40k-style grimderp for me. There's exceptions like the self-aware Spec Ops or to a lesser extent Prototype (since the MC feeling natural as a walking catastrophe is part of his characterization/amnesia plot twist). Maybe I didn't feel as strongly about The Last of Us because I was running most of the gameplay in the background and alt-tabbed usually for story segments.
/rambling post just before bed
No, the semi-automatic nature of a pistol does not count as making the character vulnerable, it still kills in a couple hits tops.
Otherwise I agree with MrBtongue, I think we're been iterating violent action gameplay in general and shooters especially so frequently it's the way to go for AAA titles that want to play it safe. I mean it makes to stick to something proven to work so well, that's already been explored and experimented with so frequently, and something that can give casual players a good amount of shooting in a quick session.
I will say tho I only saw a Let's Play of The Last of Us (due to no PS3), so while I can't speak with any sort of authority about that game, it did seem like every character except maybe the goons was a cold-blooded one-man-army. Girl could barely wait to cap her first guy it seemed, except for that one moment where she readily stabbed a bloke but didn't think he'd be killed as well. Weird moment-to-moment contrast between "grown up too fast" and "childish naive" for me in that scene.
When you're just wading through corpses and expect the player to take it seriously, then it usually just produces W40k-style grimderp for me. There's exceptions like the self-aware Spec Ops or to a lesser extent Prototype (since the MC feeling natural as a walking catastrophe is part of his characterization/amnesia plot twist). Maybe I didn't feel as strongly about The Last of Us because I was running most of the gameplay in the background and alt-tabbed usually for story segments.
/rambling post just before bed
I agree with you on how out over reliance on mindless killing is detrimental to good storytelling. It's difficult to have an altruistic hero who at the same time mows down hundreds of faceless mooks. The main way most games try and resolve this ludonarrative dissonance is by making your protagonist a dark and gritty anti-hero (see Call of Duty).
I do think, however, this over reliance on violence is also detrimental to the development to new gameplay styles as well. See that Mrbtongue video that was posted earlier on how LA Noire shifted from a game about being a post-crime investigator to a game about shooting dudes in the face so suddenly.
That's not to say violent video games can't exist, it's just that they shouldn't be the only type of game to exist.
I do think, however, this over reliance on violence is also detrimental to the development to new gameplay styles as well. See that Mrbtongue video that was posted earlier on how LA Noire shifted from a game about being a post-crime investigator to a game about shooting dudes in the face so suddenly.
That's not to say violent video games can't exist, it's just that they shouldn't be the only type of game to exist.
I think what he's saying comes closer to "the violence is still as cartoony as ever in its quantity, that's why I can't take the narrative nearly as serious as it wants to be." Being a one-man-army and not giving a shit isn't a character flaw, it's a superficial "badass" trait at best and an ignored part of his function as a player insertion at worst.Jim_Callahan said:
It's basically what he criticized in Dead Space, when limbs fly around in all directions at the slightest provocation it doesn't feel nearly as gripping as having to saw off your finger in Heavy Rain bit by bit. Cartoonish one-man-army style gameplay suited cartoonish simplistic stories from back in the day fine, but now narrative is on Hollywood-levels and gameplay-wise devs can't find something fitting. For an impactful narrative involving violence, killing is too easy.
Same reason why he can't take 40k serious.
This is probably what bothers me most about the Assassin's Creed games. Every time I sneak into the mansion/fortress of an old rich guy to murder them while they're not looking it just feels wrong, especially when it's a character who's just been introduced minutes earlier who'm I've never had time to develop a distaste for.
It's one thing to kill a guard who's actively trying to kill me as well, but another to kill a person who's only goal is surviving my attack.
It doesn't help that the Assassins come across as an extremist domestic terrorist organization.
It's one thing to kill a guard who's actively trying to kill me as well, but another to kill a person who's only goal is surviving my attack.
It doesn't help that the Assassins come across as an extremist domestic terrorist organization.
No he likes boishock infinite, hell his favourite game is Silent hill 2. Both of those games have protagonists that are at best morally grey.Jim_Callahan said:
What he said he objects to is the way it's handled in this game is these no pay-off.
they treat Joel as moral prefect he don't end the game crippled by guilt or vowing to do better. And the game always portrays Joel as justified.
It doesn't even make a big deal out of him killing people half the time he makes a witty joke as he does it.
No protagonists don't have to be "good" but we do have to be behind then, especially in a game where you are the one driving the plot. If you want the protaginst to fail because they repulse you, or you can't sympathies with there aims then the game won't work.
The problem with video games like The Last of Us, comes from the very nature of the medium. Games are, by design, played for enjoyment - now that's not to say they can't be emotionally engaging, challenging, etc; but ultimately we feel some enjoyment from playing them. When you are playing as the villain/anti-hero problems arise in that if we are forced to commit terrible acts as part of the gameplay, we don't necessarily feel bad - in fact we possibly enjoy it if the gameplay is designed to be fun. So we have a situation were we are forced to play as the villain and identify with them, whilst not fully comprehending the gravity of their actions as it becomes lost in translation due to the enjoyability of the gameplay.
If The Last of Us was a book or movie, then the story would work as we are experiencing events directly through the eyes Joel without the visceral thrill of actually playing the game. That's my two cents anyway.
If The Last of Us was a book or movie, then the story would work as we are experiencing events directly through the eyes Joel without the visceral thrill of actually playing the game. That's my two cents anyway.
I had a similar problem with Homefront. The game tries to make you think that you're a small part of something much larger with the whole cell based resistance system, which is a fairly cool idea, but it was completely undermined by the fact that you still faced and killed regular-fps numbers of enemies.Marik Bentusi said:
Like, I'm just a small but critical part of a larger effort, but I'm destroying entire squads of enemies several times per mission, and every difficult task falls in my, the person who is most critical to the plan for our cell, lap. Also the game was generally kind of shit.
You think that's terrifying? TryRossmallo said:
saving everyone you meet, but accidentally killing Toriel (due to a random crit or something...), feeling like shit because of it, going back on your save file... And having the motherfucking game call you out on it. Having that bloody flower RIDICULE you for thinking you could play God, thinking you could commit horrific atrocities just to see what would happen, then turn back the clock to rid yourself of consequence.
That really struck home for me. If we do something wrong, does the fact that there's no actual responsibility because it's 'just a game', or having the power to simply reverse the clock and undo that wrong,really make it acceptable our 'right'? I'm probably looking far too much into this than I should, but... Well, let's just say this game scared the living shit out of me. Funny how a retro-looking game, which isn't even a full game, could deliver a message so much more powerful than even Spec Ops: The Line
That really struck home for me. If we do something wrong, does the fact that there's no actual responsibility because it's 'just a game', or having the power to simply reverse the clock and undo that wrong,really make it acceptable our 'right'? I'm probably looking far too much into this than I should, but... Well, let's just say this game scared the living shit out of me. Funny how a retro-looking game, which isn't even a full game, could deliver a message so much more powerful than even Spec Ops: The Line
OT: I've always gotten mad at games, particularly AAA games, for having retarded A.I., despite the millions of dollars being pumped into graphics rather than teaching bots how to act like something other than mindless cannon fodder. This article made me think, well... Maybe there's a reason developers don't want to make a game where the 'bad guys' are anything other than mindless drones, albeit not a good one. Even as we stop shooting faceless demons and start shooting faceless Russians and Arabs and Americans, lots developers don't really want to give their players a reason to think "Wait, why am I doing this again?", since it's just plain-ass easier give players dumb bots who will happily line themselves up like ducks, rather than act with any sense of self-preservation, or fear when their comrades are being slaughtered around them.
As Yahtzee said, this makes sense in goofy or non-serious games such as TF2 or Serious Sam or Deadpool, where it's pretty much said from the get go "You came here to have fun, so fucking have fun", and less so much in games such as COD or Battlefield or Spec Ops: The Line (which was the point in the last one). Am I really expected to take shit seriously when one minute I'm gunning down dozens of idiots trying to run through a narrow doorway, the next the game shunts me in front of a wounded soldier and screams "YOU ARE NOW SAD, BECAUSE THIS MAN IS AMERICAN, NOW HERE'S A COMPUTER SO YOU CAN BOMB SOME MORE IDIOT RUSSIANS."?
Using Batman Arkham City (which of course has no killing on your part) as an example of how games could make enemies seem more human and less mindless: sneaking up on inmates causes them to panic in a hilarious fashion when they turn around, but after that they should be begging for mercy, not deciding it's a good idea to punch the freaking Batman. During a brawl, thugs could have noticed when you're just toying with them (i.e., casually countering all attacks without returning your own), or decide to make a break for it when you wipe out the rest of the mob. Hell, we had games from over a decade ago with enemies who knew how to run and call for backup when overwhelmed (e.g. Thief), how can this be so hard? Small things like these would make games a lot more authentic than any number of polygons being crammed into the character models.
Here endith the rant, and I have a good feeling that I've gone VERY much off topic, but I can't really be bothered editing this any further. Good article and all, I guess.
Infernal Lawyer said:
Yes, I'm aware of that. It's SUPPOSED to do that. That crit is unavoidable when she's low hp. Thing is, I was one attack away from that, but luckily I was livestreaming. Unbeknownst to me, because the chat window was obscured, someone was pleading at me to stop and was telling me how to do it correctly. He resorted to calling me on skype to stop.
More examples of how much a game can affect someone.
Also, two things. 1: It works in reverse, too. Yknow how some games, some people be a dick after being nice just to see what happens? FLOWEY KNOWS. (Please youtube it and save yourself the heartache of doing it yourself). And 2: ...
Go check the final page of your manual again.
More examples of how much a game can affect someone.
Also, two things. 1: It works in reverse, too. Yknow how some games, some people be a dick after being nice just to see what happens? FLOWEY KNOWS. (Please youtube it and save yourself the heartache of doing it yourself). And 2: ...
Go check the final page of your manual again.
OK it's simmered in my magnificent brain just long enough to spurt out in this post exactly why I find this column so backwards. I knew there was something familiar about it, but I could not put my finger on it at first.
I'm generally on the same page as the spirit of the article. Not the bits that call out Last of Us so much as the general tone. What jostles my flaps, to steal a line from the author, is the vessel by which all this sudden good will toward man is delivered.
This smacks of the kind of "do as I say" message mongering that old washed up rock-n-rollers use to do years after their poignancy has long since faded. Like Ozzy Osbourne after YEARS of drinking himself stupid shows up with a song about the evils of drinking and how it can destroy you or Alice Cooper singing "Hey Hey Hey Hey, Hey stupid" at people who would dare to do the same shit he had made his living doing only with less elaborate stage shows.
Yahtzee I've been here from the start in 2007. I'm a long time fan. And while I appreciate the fact that getting older lends itself to wisdom, you've been going on about killing hookers and hobos and your fellow man for over 5 years and reaping the rewards of it all. And having people cheering you on the whole way. You have made every possible joke at the expense of stabbing, strangling, or whatever other horrible means to dispatch another human being as casually as the joke can be made only now to show up and shake a finger.
It's fine to try and share your wisdom now that you're a bit older. Even a good thing if handled properly. But don't blame the games and don't cast a disapproving stare at the people who you've been marketing the same thing to for years without end. It's a bit incongruous for a man who once merrily quipped that he couldn't cum if the body didn't twitch to show up and start gabbing on about how casually GAMES regard the sanctity of life when that particular arrow lies handily in your quiver as well.
I'm generally on the same page as the spirit of the article. Not the bits that call out Last of Us so much as the general tone. What jostles my flaps, to steal a line from the author, is the vessel by which all this sudden good will toward man is delivered.
This smacks of the kind of "do as I say" message mongering that old washed up rock-n-rollers use to do years after their poignancy has long since faded. Like Ozzy Osbourne after YEARS of drinking himself stupid shows up with a song about the evils of drinking and how it can destroy you or Alice Cooper singing "Hey Hey Hey Hey, Hey stupid" at people who would dare to do the same shit he had made his living doing only with less elaborate stage shows.
Yahtzee I've been here from the start in 2007. I'm a long time fan. And while I appreciate the fact that getting older lends itself to wisdom, you've been going on about killing hookers and hobos and your fellow man for over 5 years and reaping the rewards of it all. And having people cheering you on the whole way. You have made every possible joke at the expense of stabbing, strangling, or whatever other horrible means to dispatch another human being as casually as the joke can be made only now to show up and shake a finger.
It's fine to try and share your wisdom now that you're a bit older. Even a good thing if handled properly. But don't blame the games and don't cast a disapproving stare at the people who you've been marketing the same thing to for years without end. It's a bit incongruous for a man who once merrily quipped that he couldn't cum if the body didn't twitch to show up and start gabbing on about how casually GAMES regard the sanctity of life when that particular arrow lies handily in your quiver as well.
Because now you are now literally defining the value of life to what you see fit, and that leads to a whole plethora of issues. When we deem one life unworthy of living, what is suitable for living? Should we kill homosexuals? After all, several countries enforce the death penalty for them. What about Black people that are statistically more likely to commit crimes due to a racist system. Some people think even a single murder should be punished with death, do we now enforce the death penalty to every murder despite context? Hell, Dante's Inferno puts people who commit fraud on some of the lowest levels of hell. Since we've defined some life as worthy of living and some not, clearly there must be different levels of value for people. Poor, homeless, sickly people are not as valuable as rich, young, healthy people, so therefore there is no reason to help those in need as their lives are not valuable.Jadak said:
This is not a slippery slope argument. This is exactly what you are doing by deciding what lives are worthy and what aren't. And I would rather not have one person decide who lives and who dies.
This isn't even going into how rehabilitation and treating humans, because make no mistake they are humans, decently within our prison systems (Europe's got it down pretty good) is a much more effective method than the current system of tossing anyone undesirable
But, of course, this is all off topic and something to discuss in another thread. To connect this topic to the current one, the value of life, whether it's treating every life with dignity or willfully slaughtering those "unworthy", is not a very common topic in games. Personally, I think The Last of Us does delve into this topic to an extent, mainly in "is it even worth it trying to survive in this world", though not particularly into the specific theme of the fragility of life and death.
fairness where it's due, I've played through the game twice now, and not once did I ever hear Joel crack a joke after a kill. early on, when he had tess or bill with him, there would sometimes be conversation after a scuffle, but it was generally of the breathless "thank god that's over" variety than any sort of action movie bond one-liner. Joel ain't nathan drake.gjkbgt said:
as to the article, I honestly wish Yahtzee had simply stated some of these opinions during his review of "the last of us" proper. Now I see that it's not that he ignores the fact that moral ambiguity and an unpleasant main character are what the game was going for, simply that he can't enjoy a game with no likable characters. not a sentiment I agree with, but it's a whole heck of a lot easier to understand and respect than semantics like why they don't use the word "zombie" and random uncharted comparisons.
Depends on the party. You should have seen me when Jehovah's Witnesses came to my door to teach me about the meaning of Christmas.Darth_Payn said:
Really, I just want people to actually be informed, and think about things critically. We humans do have a tendency to ignore evidence that disagrees with our current positions.
No. You discussed the notion that our justice system is less than adequate, but then you went on to fabricate a villain that should (according to you) be eradicated, but you didn't address how we know he's guilty. In the real world, we never are certain. Evidence beyond reasonable doubt has too often proven to be wrong.Jadak said:
I'm sensitive to this particular detail because of the war on terror. Those who advocate enhanced interrogation have done so on the basis that we only torture terrorists. We don't have a terrorist detector. Nor do we have a guilt detector, even for crimes as heinous as raping children and bombing government buildings. There are assuredly innocent men detained at camp X-ray.
If we did want to go into hypotheticals, let us imagine, then, that we could truly rehabilitate the guy. Our treatments are ineffective now, but lets say we make some major advancements in psychiatry in the next fifty years, and can fix what's wrong in a convict's head that made him aberrant. Should we do this? Or should we still mix him the ultimate cocktail?
238U
Yes. "Blame the audience, not the author" I agree with that wholeheartedly. Goes along with the idea that if you don't like something don't buy it. Don't add to it's audience.llafnwod said: