Killing is Too Easy

[GamerAddict7796]

I felt the same thing while playing the Saints Row games. The PC kills tens of thousands of people. Which is totally fine. It's fun and is written into his character.

When I'm meant to give a shit that one of his friends is dead, it falls terribly flat.

 

[abdul]

And Yahtzee demonstrates yet again that he entirely misses the point of violence in The Last of Us. Case in point, he thinks that Joel is meant to be a likeable everyman character.

Joel starts as an A-hole, is an A-hole in the middle and an A-hole at the end. Nothing learned nothing gained.

People still keep forgetting that 20 fuckin years have passed,unlike in the Walking Dead.Joel starts off as a normal single father->20 years later he is a survivor (or an "asshole" if you can't grasp the fact everyone in the world has to be to a degree)->he becomes a father by the end.

Sure,there are lots of kind,selfless people present who weren't assholes during the 20 years,you can see exactly how they're living now:

Spoiler

i can't see how either Ellie or Elizabeth could possibly sympathies with Booker or Joel. both BI & TLoU really needed alternative solutions to killing everyone that becomes an obstacle.

Ellie doesn't know the world as we do,she grew up in the quarantine zone where people are being executed,sometimes on a daily basis (for being infected mainly),think she'd be more used to deaths by now.She's met the infected also before meeting Joel.You're right about Elizabeth though,she spent her entire life locked up in that tower.

 

[Lightknight]

Eh, I really don't have any kind of association with killing in games and killing in real life. No correlation whatsoever. I know from the start that it isn't real and so it doesn't translate into me walking into real life situations and considering choking someone out. If it did, then I'd agree.

As such, I realize that the character's motivations are real motivations. It's me controlling lines of code into changing the arrangment of other lines of code.

Of course, there are times when that control is taken from me and it's the character behaving that way (Hitman shooting his old friend before giving her a chance to talk). Then the blood is on their hands and I begin to not sympathize with them. But basic gameplay mechanics where you need to get from point A to point B with people in between trying to stop you with their gunds? I don't care. They are little more than an obstacle. I do not think of them as people and I doubt most gamers really think of it either.

Yahtzee, however, makes a living considering things like this. His poetic nature would also draw him to consider what he's doing on a higher level than just tearing down obstacles. So I understand why he'd come to this conclusion as well. But it isn't the same for many of us.

 

[Lieju]

Yeah, I feel the same.

I recently replayed Ace Attorney and went. "Damn, it's nice to play a game where the main character is a nice person and not violent in the slightest!"

I tried playing Skyrim like I would actually act, so I only killed in self-defense. And then I had random people attacking me in the wilderness for no reason. Come on, you have the 'Speech' skill, let me talk my way out of this.

 

[Hambers]

I don't think I agree

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

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

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

You sir, have nailed it.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Snip

And the reason you don't want to is because you were born and raised into a society where those things are harshly punished, if you didn't, you'd in all likelihood do so those things all the time, probably without even thinking about it. If you were suddenly thrown into a world where doing those things was necessary to survive, you'd do them. Reluctantly perhaps, but you'd do them eventually, or end up dead yourself.

 

[Animyr]

Oh. I haven't played or watched gameplay videos (until just now), but I had watched a friend play. During that I asked him how far in he was and he said he was at the beginning - but he was obviously past the prologue and apparently didn't feel the need to mention it. So I went back and watched a walkthrough of the prologue (and up to Robert's death) and it kinda blows my argument out of the water.
That said I'm still on Yahtzee's side. There were parts where the game presented killing as the only option when others were available. Case in point: the guard in the beginning. He verbally threatens you. He ends up dead (he didn't even have a weapon that I could see, his friend did). The protagonists could have just wounded him, but instead they kill him. Why? Because he might have sought revenge by sending thugs after them (or coming after them himself)? His boss tried that and it didn't work. Another example: Later you run across two of Robert's guards on patrol. It's a stealth section where the patrolling guards are walking [i/]away[/i] from you. They get killed. Why? The first guard had buddies and may have been a threat, but these guys were [i/]leaving without knowing you were there[/i]. The game could have easily allowed us to let them go, but it had us kill them instead. And all for a stupid tutorial about stealth kills from behind. If they had put the guards in a place where it was absolutely necessary to kill them in order to proceed I could have let it slide, but it didn't. That right there cemented my loathing of the "everyman heroes" this game had (I actually wanted to kill Tess myself long before that to be honest. She was a pain). Then when our protagonists where threatened with death I was supposed to care? They killed people for just getting in their way(!) so I saw it as just deserts (desserts? I can never remember...). Plus, the world is presented as a place where "kill or be killed" was the top law, so why should I care when the nature of the world temporarily turned against the protagonists? In a serious character drama when you hate every side it just doesn't work.

All that just because the game forced you to kill. That's what I think Yahtzee was getting at.

First of all, you keep saying ?forced? but LOU isn?t an exercise in player choice (though you can sneak past many enemy encounters) so I don?t think it?s fair to hold the lack thereof as an intrinsic fault in the story. It?s not the sort of game where you do as you would do in the situation. It?s a character study of Joel (and Ellie, but we?re talking about Joel) and while people often sneer at linear games, LOU is linear for the right reason: so we can experience things as the character does, and do as he does.

On that note, Joel is not an everyman hero like Drake, who is carefully designed?in his appearance, his speech, in the music that plays as he swings into battle-- so that we admire him and feel empowered by playing as him, yet still see ourselves in his down-to-earth temper. He?s a character we?re undeniably intended to root for in all that he does and all that we do as him. The character backfires when we can?t bring ourselves to root for him even though the game clearly expects?-indeed, needs, as escapist entertainment-- us to.

Yahtzee seems to be alleging that this is what happens in LOU too and the more I think about it, the more it astonishes me how thoroughly the typically insightful Yahtzee misunderstood it. Joel is given sympathetic traits and relatable motivations, sure, but the game never, ever demands that you support or applaud his violence (beyond perhaps, a baseline of being willing to play further). Instead it tries to show how he became this way, and why a person might come to do what he does. Yahtzee?s mistake, I think, is that he thinks the game is trying to rally support and adulation for Joel when all it really wants--indeed, all it needs-- from the player is understanding. Whether or not you actually support Joel as a result of this understanding is entirely up to you. The game itself gives no explicit judgment. It doesn't play triumphant music as he slashes somebodies throat open. Many characters feel uncomfortable or outright afraid when around him. Ellie, who Joel cares deeply for, winds up clearly damaged by her association with him, at least on some levels. Joel himself avoids talking about his violence, as if he doesn?t like to think about it. It?s an uncomfortable story that presents a deeply flawed character as he is, and lets you decide how you feel.

I?m baffled by this, really. Naughty dog, of all people, made a game where the violence of the gameplay is reflected in the character?s personality, and suddenly Yahtzee cries ?for shame? and says it?s only okay for protagonists in violent games to either be entirely justified or clearly evil/crazy? He actually kind of implied that the player should be explicitly told how to feel about the character, and he's is the last person I expected to balk at a violent game daring to have a morally ambiguous protagonist, especially after his reaction to Spec ops. Or that he?d at least acknowledge the attempt before explaining why he thought it didn't work. But instead he seems certain that Naughty Dog is certain that they made a slightly darker iteration of Drake in Joel, to which I can only respond with a really hard facedesk.

And you, it seems, have happily judged the game and its characters even though, by your own admission, you?ve only seen a few of the scenes and watched them out of order. I urge you to do yourself a favor and finish watching through the whole game, in sequence, before coming to a final conclusion, much less trying to persuade people. If you still think that Joel is an irredeemable monster at the end and you wish he died slowly, fine. That?s a perfectly valid response. Unlike Uncharted, LOU leaves you entirely free to conclude that. As it is, it seems to me that you (and others) are trying to convince people who actually watched/played the whole game that you actually understand it better than they do ?cuz you read a Yahtzee column. A disingenuous column which, I think, has done the game a disservice.

 

[M920CAIN]

World War 3 will probably start on the Internet as an online game between officials of several countries. Mark my words.

 

[gjkbgt]

fairness where it's due,

There's a video (two) of Joel torturing and murdering two blocks while making a witty quip on the same page you made that comment

To try and help you identify witty quips in the future i'll define them.

A stament who's presents ins unnecessary to the person it is being said to. With reinforces the sayer superiority in a comic (hard to define) manner
e.g. say good night before knocking someone out

 

[Azaraxzealot]

While we should eventually get to the point where we can have AAA games not focused on killing, I think it's important to not stop making the cathartic mass-murder games like Saints Row, GTA, Fallout, Skyrim, and so on. Because we LOVE violence. It's at our very core, and to not have those experiences will just repress our desire for inflicting violence. Looking at the crime rate as compared to the rise of violence in media the two (while not objectively related) show a trend that as one goes up the other goes down.

For me, at least, having that release of violent games made times when I wanted to lash out much easier for me. I think it may help many others as well.

 

[Vale]

Part of the reason for the incredible number of demented tortures the human race has conjured up is because the threat of death really is not sufficient to deter a lot of people. Many of them believe in a sort of "life after death" for instance (ain't I just pretentious) and that helps them ignore their fear of it. Others just plain don't give a fuck, for reasons such as: conviction, insanity, thoroughly unfounded belief in self's immortality. But everybody, collectively, is afraid of bodily harm. This is also the reason why that one scene with a hypodermic needle in a place it really doesn't belong in Dead Space 2 was infinitely more effective than all the human deaths in all of the DS games combined.
Death really is cheap.

 

[hornedcow]

Wow, I don't think I've ever disagreed with Yahtzee this much. I mean, he's just flat out wrong here. And don't get me wrong, I do agree videogames have started take murder way too lightly, but this really doesn't apply for The Last of Us (I'd also argue it's acceptable in Uncharted due of the pulpy nature of the story). That being said, this is still a good article, unlike last week's review the writing was suitably elegant for the subject matter, your point about the death penalty is possibly the strongest argument against it I've ever read, remarkable considering it's a half paragraph side note to an article about a video game, and it does raise an interesting discussion on the acceptability of a morally questionable protagonist in an interactive medium.

 

[jackinmydaniels]

Sheesh, I've never seen Yahtzee miss the point of a game so hard as he has with The Last of Us.

 

[kael013]

First of all, you keep saying ?forced? but LOU isn?t an exercise in player choice (though you can sneak past many enemy encounters) so I don?t think it?s fair to hold the lack thereof as an intrinsic fault in the story. It?s not the sort of game where you do as you would do in the situation. It?s a character study of Joel (and Ellie, but we?re talking about Joel) and while people often sneer at linear games, LOU is linear for the right reason: so we can experience things as the character does, and do as he does.

I said forced once. As for LoU being an exercise in player choice, every game is. Sure those choices may not be integrated into the plot a la Mass Effect, but they still tend to give you choices as to how you play the game. You said you can sneak past many enemy encounters; that's a player choice and can color your view of a character even in cases you know it shouldn't. Though on the other hand, I am mainly an RPG player and I tend to avoid games like LoU (they're just not my cup of tea) so my views on this are pretty colored.

[quote/]And you, it seems, have happily judged the game and its characters even though, by your own admission, you?ve only seen a few of the scenes and watched them out of order. I urge you to do yourself a favor and finish watching through the whole game, in sequence, before coming to a final conclusion, much less trying to persuade people. If you still think that Joel is an irredeemable monster at the end and you wish he died slowly, fine. That?s a perfectly valid response. Unlike Uncharted, LOU leaves you entirely free to conclude that. As it is, it seems to me that you (and others) are trying to convince people who actually watched/played the whole game that you actually understand it better than they do ?cuz you read a Yahtzee column. A disingenuous column which, I think, has done the game a disservice.[/quote] Yes I have judged the game and it's characters from just the opening. That's called first impressions. Will mine be proven wrong further into the game? Maybe, but until then I'll stand by them. However, where did I try to tell you your ideas were wrong and mine were right? I was just giving my impressions from what I saw at the beginning. Nowhere in my response did I tell you I understood the game better than you did. All I said was I still agreed with Yahtzee that games use death as a short-hand for "this is a serious work guys" too much. It's, in my opinion, cheap and there are other ways to show the world is messed up. Is LoU a great example for this argument? Not really, but it has small moments that can be used to support the argument.

 

[K12]

Snip

And the reason you don't want to is because you were born and raised into a society where those things are harshly punished, if you didn't, you'd in all likelihood do so those things all the time, probably without even thinking about it. If you were suddenly thrown into a world where doing those things was necessary to survive, you'd do them. Reluctantly perhaps, but you'd do them eventually, or end up dead yourself.

This is a complete guess on your part. You seem to believe that you know how I would react in a given hypothetical situation better than I do myself, this is a very bizarre position for you to take. If I lived in a kill and steal or die society (I have no idea how rape would ever be necessary or even helpful to my survival) then I greatly doubt that I would ever actually want to do those activities even if chose to do them rather than placing myself in danger.

I agree that having legally enacted repercussions for certain actions is a good thing but I completely reject your insistence that I (as in me personally) would not have any qualms in performing these same actions if these repercussions were absent. It may be true for some (although I think it would still be a minority, though even a minority could have a devastating effect) but I don't believe it's true that I would and I don't think I'm being arrogant or "holier than thou" for saying so. People are capable of empathy, compassion and guilt without needing a government telling them to do so.

The value of a legal system also doesn't defend the death penalty as an effective system of punishment. It certainly prevents that one guy/gal from killing again but it makes murder rates increase across the population and surely that is the important thing when you're talking about protecting the populace.

 

[zalithar]

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

Actually Joel is a dick bag, that your not supposed to like. Did you respect the 'protagonist' of Spec Ops? If yes, your either an asshole, or you using a different context for the word like. If what your saying is true than Spec Ops is shit writing, when Yahtzee called the most interesting narrative development in years, and many others agreed. The reason people will call you out and say that's the point is because, THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT!! Ellie even calls out Joel as a murderer of innocents shortly after the highway ambush:
Ellie: How did you know about the ambush?
Joel: I've been on both sides.
Ellie: So you killed a bunch of innocent people?
Joel: uhh....
Ellie: I'll take that as a yes.
Joel: You take that however you want.
HE IS A DUCHEBAG LUNATIC!

On a different note am I the only one who got through the hospital scene and only had to kill the one guy who burst through the door? (not counting Ethan or the 'doctor')Cause on hard it's pretty easy to get through with only one kill; but very difficult to not get detected.

 

[Animyr]

As for LoU being an exercise in player choice, every game is.

Not in terms of morality. Most linear stories with linear gameplay? many shooters, for instance--don?t give you much of a choice on your actions. I just pointed out about the sneaking option in response to your extended rant about how the game made you kill people. Even if you manage to sneak the whole game though, Joel still clearly has an established character that is rooted in violence and who doesn?t hesitate to consider violent solutions, regardless of the players actions.

I know that player choice is one of the mediums most unique powers, but not every game has to be about that, you know. Instead, it could (ideally) be about you acting out the role of an established character, about you stepping into their shoes through gameplay. In that case, giving you a choice wouldn?t make sense.

However, where did I try to tell you your ideas were wrong and mine were right?

You were explaining why you are standing by your position, thus reaffirming it and implicitly rejecting all contrary positions, at least provisionally. That is why you posted, correct? You admitted here that--

Yes I have judged the game and its characters from just the opening. That's called first impressions. Will mine be proven wrong further into the game? Maybe, but until then I'll stand by them.

Clearly, despite the fact that you?ve only seen small parts of the game, you still felt confident enough to declare agreement for Yahtzee?s judgment of the entire thing, and to rise to his defense against rebuttals from other people who also went through the whole game and think Yahtzee is completely off the mark(as you did in the first post I responded to). All that based on what you freely admit are first impressions? I think that's inappropriate and unfair, especially if you aren't going to move further into the game.

Also, my first impression of the game was of a struggling single father having his world turned upside down before having his daughter die in his arms. Now from what I gather, your first impression of the game was of him brutalizing people, and then of an internet critic harping on the subject. You viewed events out of order and I?m wondering if it?s affected your perceptions of the game a little.

All I said was I still agreed with Yahtzee that games use death as a short-hand for "this is a serious work guys" too much. It's, in my opinion, cheap and there are other ways to show the world is messed up. Is LoU a great example for this argument? Not really, but it has small moments that can be used to support the argument.

That?s not all you said, but I do agree with the general sentiment. I already wrote a bit how I do think that LOU was hurt by excessive combat. Certainty there is room for improvement, for LOU and in general. But to reiterate on what you just admitted there are far, far better examples of this, and if anything I?d say that LOU is a significant step in the right direction were videogame violence is concerned. The violence the characters witness and are forced to commit (including in gameplay) leaves deep psychological scars. They become withdrawn, suicidal, or calloused and desensitized. But Yahtzee not only does not acknowledge this, but actually holds LOU up as some sort of smug posterchild for easy-going brutality. I think that?s wildly inappropriate, and does a disservice to both the game and to Yahtzee?s position.

 

[Panda Mania]

Amen. Amen, amen, amen! I was just thinking along these lines the other day...I struggled with Tomb Raider and Bioshock Infinite because of the relentless killing of people, both preemptive and in response to attack. (I have not played The Last of Us, so I can't speak for it.) Faceless goons, as it were, but I couldn't stop placing myself in the situation, imagining it if it were in the real world...and I knew I wouldn't even pick up a gun, let alone use it to slaughter dozens of individuals I didn't know in the slightest. I found myself wishing for a nonlethal option, like in Dishonored.

I was morally troubled, but I think it also has to do with suspension of disbelief. Believability. "Serious" material treats suffering seriously. Well, usually. Because like Yahtzee said, in real life suffering is serious--a pretty big deal. It's very hard for a work to put a low price on death and suffering and succeed in saying something meaningful beyond "Oh look how cheaply they treat human life and isn't it terrible?"

Games are evolving far enough to be entering a tricky period in which they have to weigh entertainment and depth, fun and meaning. How will you make a profound FPS? How will you create a character for the ages in a puzzle game? It will take some thinking.

 

[Sabin Felea]

BAM!! This article nails it on the head! You chose your words carefully sir, but you did the subject matter justice And no, I don't believe you're overly-serious and condescending about the subject matter.

 

[samwd]

Sheesh, I've never seen Yahtzee miss the point of a game so hard as he has with The Last of Us.

Im guessing the entire point of the game was "Look, people! MURDER THEM" and then you shoot them.

sounds like a fun game, I love murdering things.