Killing is Too Easy

[KDR_11k]

The other issue with capital punishment is that no justice system is perfect and infallible, false positives will always exist and we can't just resurrect the dead when it turns out they were after all not at fault.

 

[Jadak]

"Removing the problem" what the fuck is wrong with you!

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.

 

[mike1921]

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.

Because you seemed to be trying to justify the behavior instead of recognizing what it is. Like I said, your first response was comparing it to shooting people in self defense in fallout or greedo dealing with Han.

 

[lacktheknack]

I've said this for years. This is the reason I only play stealth games I can ghost through, tend to avoid violent games in general, and all my violent games are violent for reasons beyond "because I don't know how else to make it fun". (Saints Row III gets a pass, for instance, because it merely revels in allowing the player to do things, rather than saying "you must kill everything between you and the exit"... most of the time, and it has the context of "you're a gang leader".)

It's also the reason I put down Bioshock half way through the Medical Pavilion.

But everyone I talked about it with told me to STFU until ludonarrative dissonance became a thing.

 

[Deu Sex]

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

The concept of anti-heroes must blow your mind.

 

[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.