"Heroics" that left a bad taste in your mouth

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

Vuliev:
Besides, even if we accept those tight restrictions, your arguments about the Renegade path fall prey to Sturgeon's Law: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately described by stupidity."

Actually that's called "Hanlon's Razor"

The real Sturgeon's Law is "90% of everything is crap"

Shockolate:
First thing to come to mind is fightning Ceaseless Discharge in Dark Souls, since I just killed him yesterday.

You can avoid fighting him if you have high vitality and the Dark Wood Grain Ring, but most people don't know that.

He isn't hostile until you provoke him by either A) Attacking him or B) Taking the suit of armor in his area.

There is an incredibly easy way to kill him in which you lure him out to deep pit, in which he'll jump over it to try and get to you. If you whack his hand enough times, he slips and falls into the pit, supposedly dying. He'll only do this if you've taken the armor.

My friends going crazy, confronting the tragedies of the past, forcing me to kill monsters with good intentions?

Dark Souls is not a happy game.

Gotta agree with a lot of this, I never read into Ceaseless Discharge so much except that he was guarding a body.

I feel like a total bastard now that I killed a guy who was likely in extreme agony who was just trying to protect his beloved sisters grave.

I also hated killing Sif. :(

Warachia:

Saviordd1:

bigfatcarp93:

Um... no you don't? Seriously, when the fuck was this?

Feros, when you have the option (which is the renegade option) to go in guns blazing and shoot all of the colonists. Despite the fact you have knock out grenades and a melee attack.

Bullshit, the grenades thing is based on a theory that has never been tested, they are asking you to run in front of several gun barrels to use a weapon that will most likely do nothing, sure the player knows the grenades will work, but Shepard doesn't.

A lot of the paragon/renegade choices aren't black/white, the overlord one in particular, the guy sacrificed his brother to stop a war they were afraid was brewing, saving others was Gavin's motivation, he just had no problem killing one to save many.

So several SOLDIERS couldn't be bothered to even try out the grenade once from cover?
Yeah thats bullshit.

The end of far cry 3 (SPOILER!)

by the final levels of the game I knew I would have the choice to leave or join, and I was totally like, sure this seems pretty awesome, ill join Citra. Then you keep having these weird Dennis phonecalls and he specifially says he will always be by Citra's side.

Now at this point I was thinking that Dennis had also been with Citra and was getting jealous of me, planning to kill me over Her.

Mentally preparing myself to fight for Citra and the leadership of all the island people, and then I return and she fucking drugs me and tries to make me kill my friends. Fully knowing that if they just leave the island, they will probably never contact me again and my "family weakness" would be contained anyway.

I chose leave with friends and was so digusted with Citra's (and by extensions the rakyat's) backstabbing that I couldnt play the game for another week, then returned later to finish some of the top-level maxxed guns fort liberating funsies and extras.

Saviordd1:

Warachia:

Saviordd1:

Feros, when you have the option (which is the renegade option) to go in guns blazing and shoot all of the colonists. Despite the fact you have knock out grenades and a melee attack.

Bullshit, the grenades thing is based on a theory that has never been tested, they are asking you to run in front of several gun barrels to use a weapon that will most likely do nothing, sure the player knows the grenades will work, but Shepard doesn't.

A lot of the paragon/renegade choices aren't black/white, the overlord one in particular, the guy sacrificed his brother to stop a war they were afraid was brewing, saving others was Gavin's motivation, he just had no problem killing one to save many.

So several SOLDIERS couldn't be bothered to even try out the grenade once from cover?
Yeah thats bullshit.

Yes, clearly the better choice is to place the life of twenty brainwashed colonists above the fate of the galaxy, take needless risks to be gentle with them on the hope that they can in fact be cured (when you have no evidence that they can).

You can disagree with the Renegade choice all you like, but it's naive to think it isn't groundless.

Vuliev:

Saviordd1:
OR
and this is just a theory of course
Your giving Bioware way to much credit.

Or--and stay with me on this--you're letting emotion and strawmen get in the way of rationality. To use an old adage, you're refusing to see the forest for the trees. An integral part of RPGs is letting your own mind fill in the gaps, to not take everything presented as adamant fact--and accepting that storywriters aren't perfect helps quite a bit. By no means am I denying that Bioware writing does stupid things on occasion, but I can look past it and glean the intent behind it.

Yes, I'm going to glean a greater purpose from the writers that...
-Made the plot hole ridden mess that was Mass Effect 2s ending.
-Ruined the best gray character they had (Illusive Man)
-Wrote Jacob as a romance
-Wrote Kai Leng in general.
-Gave EDI a body in ME3
-Wrote ME3's crucible plot
-Retconned themselves way to hard on Cerberus in general.
-And, of course, gave us that quality ending.

Yeah excuse me if I fail to see how those same writers wanted to make a greater message or morality.
Renegade and Paragon were written to give the players the ability to make their Shepard their own. There was no underlying theme here; let's get over it and move on.

Oh, and let's not accuse people of strawmen when your argument consists of "Well if you look BEYOND the writers ineptitude and what was presented to us.
If we follow that logic train I can talk about how Twilight was actually a deep message about consumerism.

lacktheknack:
I hate my Saints Row character.

I don't think you understand, I HAAAAAAAAAAATE him.

With the fire of a thousand suns.

So I take great pleasure in the "Health Insurance Scam" sidequests.

Playing this last night, $5000 short of the bloody health insurance target. Grr.. Annoying but addictive. I do find myself thinking "hmmm" sometimes when I shotgun police men in the head.

Smeggs:
The COGS in Gears of War are all assholes. Well, humanity, really.

The Locust are the native species while humanity has been slowly raping their once beautiful planet, and yet the COG armies have the gall to call the Locust the invaders.

Uh...

Humans on Sera didn't come from Earth or anything, you know that right? Sera is humanities native planet as far as Gears of War is concerned.

The Locust did not attack because humans were wrecking the planet. They were doing it because the lambent infection was spreading and wiping them out. They were running out of time and space because the infection could not be contained underground any longer so they needed a new place to live.

They did not believe humans would be willing to share their land (due to them constantly being at war with one another) so chose to invade it rather than attempt to negotiate.

bz316:

rhizhim:
can we pick movies too?

Umm...I believe technically she had sent him somewhere to be brutally worked to death. Frankly, I'd have killed her too.

As for her brother, maybe Dr. Shultz should've just shaken her hand, but he had also just threatened to beat Django's wife to death, so regardless of consequence, I'm kinda glad they both those fucked up siblings got shot.

please think about it.

imagine you had a brother or sister and one day someone comes into your house and executes your sister/brother.
and now consider that you, by default, often hold your relatives in a better light than they should.

wouldnt you be pissed too and wish the killer the worst imaginable?

As some said before, I think Dark Souls fits this topic for me. By the end of this game I felt like Handsome Jack from Borderlands 2, but without the funny parts, just plain bad person blinded by the illusion of being a hero. I was so convinced that my actions are noble, but it wasn't like that.


A big role in immersing a player in this game was the music; the final battle music was so awesome, peacefull, made you feel like the whole struggle to reaching this point is at an end and made me reflect on my actions.
So yeah, in the end my own actions left a bad taste in my mouth and I guess that's the cool thing about Dark Souls vague story, it can be viewed in different ways by each player.

Astafel:
I'm using a film example but still... Anyone remember that film from about 3 years ago called "Harry Brown"? The things he does in that film to the "chavs" (The almost racial epithet ascribed to this group of lower-class teens) repulsed me. He tortures people and mocks them as he kills them... Granted these people are presented as some of the most repugnant people the human race ever produced but seeing as the film acts like it's almost a social commentary the commentary seems to be saying "You see those teenagers loitering out there? Well go get a big knife and gun and just go to town! They deserve it anyway... They're probably rapists and murderers" I'd also like to point out that similar/worse scenes of violence as seen in films like "A Clockwork Orange" or any Tarantino Film do not bother me. As the violence isn't presented positively it's either ironic/over-the-top/cartoon-like or to show how horrible the villain is. Harry Brown doesn't use the violence as comedy/ironic statement it seems to be supporting violence against "chavs".

Considering the class "difficulties" and the kind of "ghetto" and "sub-people" attitude many British people seem to have adopted to teenagers and especially council-house dwellers, this film comes off as basically immoral because it glorifies this de-humanization. I'd like to point out that this is literally the only film/book/anything I have ever regarded as such that (at least in my experience) no-one really questioned. I can't help but think that if a similar film was made about slaughtering "black" thugs, or "gay" thugs with such reckless "they're all the same" abandon people would be calling for the filmmakers heads.

Mate if you lived on or by a council estate you see people like that everyday, young people who are so bored/malicious that they attack people or simply make their lives hell. I actually lived next to people like that in the 90s long before the word chav was invented and they made living unbearable even regularly threatening me with knifes and beatings. I'm not saying they should be killed but not all of these working class teens (of which I was one) are innocent wayward souls that need hugs, they can be viscous monsters who lack a moral compass.

Worgen:
I tend to fly close air support in planetside 2 and I feel bad when I kill someone who is battle rank 1... well I feel bad when I kill a br 1 no matter what since its usually after they drop pod in and that is how the game starts, it just drop pods you into a big battle with no instruction, so killing a br 1 who just dropped in means your probably killing someone who just started playing and I don't like doing that.

Don't beat yourself up, my first three kills in the game was when I drop-podded in and aimed at a passing Liberator, br. 1 players aren't so helpless. :)

pokemon. i was traveling an area i had been through like three or fourgyms ago and found a trainer i missed the first time through. i kinda felt like a dick for demolishing his party of first stage pokemons with my fully evolved critters and then taking his money. but tat dick started it so i don't hate myself TOO much

Catfood220:

Unia:
Sometimes the protagonist of a game does something you find distasteful or morally suspect and then just passes it off with a oneliner we're apparently supposed to laugh at.

In Uncharted 2 there's a bit where Nathan goes off with a buddy to get something from a Turkish museum. Drake objects to using guns, to which I thought "Oh, he doesn't want to shoot guards for doing their job. Maybe this guy's alright after all." Nope. Few minutes later he throws a guard to his death, and his buddy even jokes about it.

Drake doesn't kill the guard, if you look down after you pull him off the roof, you can quite clearly see him swimming away. I know this to be true, I checked it out the last time I played through the game.

That really doesn't work. The guard may have survived, but there was no way in hell Drake could know he would. That was like a 100m drop and Drake just saying 'I'll just throw him down a deadly drop. He'll make it.' is, frankly, blinding yourself to the fact that Drake tried to murder that guy. That, or he's a complete retard who doesn't understand physics. While the guard may have lived, Drake attempted murder. It just didn't work.

Besides, the waves in the narrow strait and a god knows how long swim might well kill the dude anyways. It's not like he can call for help.

Face it: Drake is a murderer. A failed one perhaps, but not for lack of trying.

You're just kidding yourself.

Fracture is basicly genocidal cyborgs trying to wipe out geneticly enhanced humans and you are one of these cyborgs.

Deathninja19:

Astafel:
I'm using a film example but still... Anyone remember that film from about 3 years ago called "Harry Brown"? The things he does in that film to the "chavs" (The almost racial epithet ascribed to this group of lower-class teens) repulsed me. He tortures people and mocks them as he kills them... Granted these people are presented as some of the most repugnant people the human race ever produced but seeing as the film acts like it's almost a social commentary the commentary seems to be saying "You see those teenagers loitering out there? Well go get a big knife and gun and just go to town! They deserve it anyway... They're probably rapists and murderers" I'd also like to point out that similar/worse scenes of violence as seen in films like "A Clockwork Orange" or any Tarantino Film do not bother me. As the violence isn't presented positively it's either ironic/over-the-top/cartoon-like or to show how horrible the villain is. Harry Brown doesn't use the violence as comedy/ironic statement it seems to be supporting violence against "chavs".

Considering the class "difficulties" and the kind of "ghetto" and "sub-people" attitude many British people seem to have adopted to teenagers and especially council-house dwellers, this film comes off as basically immoral because it glorifies this de-humanization. I'd like to point out that this is literally the only film/book/anything I have ever regarded as such that (at least in my experience) no-one really questioned. I can't help but think that if a similar film was made about slaughtering "black" thugs, or "gay" thugs with such reckless "they're all the same" abandon people would be calling for the filmmakers heads.

Mate if you lived on or by a council estate you see people like that everyday, young people who are so bored/malicious that they attack people or simply make their lives hell. I actually lived next to people like that in the 90s long before the word chav was invented and they made living unbearable even regularly threatening me with knifes and beatings. I'm not saying they should be killed but not all of these working class teens (of which I was one) are innocent wayward souls that need hugs, they can be viscous monsters who lack a moral compass.

Oh I know, I'm not saying they're all totally innocent fluffy little bunnies but still it's just the fact that no-one ever really called Harry out on the torture and killings, it was presented as almost necessary to "clean up" the neighbourhood. I just think Harry should have been portrayed a little more morally ambiguously, cold-blooded torture and murder should never be so relatively positively portrayed. I may be misinterpreting the film, or maybe I missed something but I just felt like the movie really wanted me to go along with and enjoy Harry's vengeance spree.

Well, this character doesn't really shrug off what he does with a oneliner, but he definitely does some questionable things.

Ryo Narushima, the protagonist of the manga Shamo.

-The story starts with him murdering both of his parents with a knife because he got sick of the way life was. His parents didn't abuse him or his sister or any of that, he just slashed their throats because he wasn't content with his life.

-Goes off to train on a remote island and takes a prostitute with him. At certain point the woman wants to leave the island, go home and not do it anymore, but he laughs her off and proceeds to be a bit rape-y.

-He wants to fight this one guy. The guy doesn't want to fight him. So he finds her girlfriend/fiancee and rapes her to taunt him to fight him.

And stuff like that.

Norrdicus:

Vuliev:
Besides, even if we accept those tight restrictions, your arguments about the Renegade path fall prey to Sturgeon's Law: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately described by stupidity."

Actually that's called "Hanlon's Razor"

The real Sturgeon's Law is "90% of everything is crap"

Ah dammit, and I corrected someone the other day for doing the exact same thing. >_<

Saviordd1:
snip

Fine, continue to grind your face in the bark--I'm rather content to enjoy both tree and forest despite their flaws.

Mikejames:

TrilbyWill:
It isn't about morality. It's about revenge, and getting rid of a corrupt regime.
Bear in mind, you don't learn about most non-lethal options until half-way through the level. Corvo is going into these missions planning to kill his targets. Then some guy says 'I could do this instead...' and Corvo says 'Yeah, okay'. If he doesn't want to kill someone, he has to take the option presented to him, because that's the only one he has.

Incidentally, you only get the High Chaos (Bad) ending if you kill LOTS of people. You can kill your targets, and still get Low Chaos (Good) ending.

Corvo can get away with offing plenty of people regardless of their level of involvement; his personal revenge is a pretty thin justification at that point.
I just don't like the ideology that selling your enemy's accomplice to a potential rapist is what's supposed to lead to a happier ending on your part.

I might be wrong about this because I'm only something like 4 hours into the game but it seems like Corvo is ment to be this man who is driven by blind and senseless rage and almost everything he does is worse than things that he is taking his revenge for. He reminds me of Kratos only difference being that Corvo can be more sophisticated with his revenge while Kratos just absolutely has to beat everyone he meets into bloody giblets.

Yoshemo:

theemporer:
Killing Saint Astraea in Demon's Souls.
Killing Sif (especially after seeing the cutscene if you play the dlc first), Ceaseless Discharge, Gwyndolin, various hollow npcs (especially Solaire and Laurentius) and Quelaag from Dark Souls.

Sadly Sif is honorbound to protect Artorias' grave from any and all intruders, including his good friend. Saddest fight ever ;-;
Killing Quelaag is self defense. Killing her sister though? That makes you a monster

I usually kill her just to put her out of her misery.

Res Plus:

lacktheknack:
I hate my Saints Row character.

I don't think you understand, I HAAAAAAAAAAATE him.

With the fire of a thousand suns.

So I take great pleasure in the "Health Insurance Scam" sidequests.

Playing this last night, $5000 short of the bloody health insurance target. Grr.. Annoying but addictive. I do find myself thinking "hmmm" sometimes when I shotgun police men in the head.

That's the mini-game where you need to get hit by cars, right? Here's all you gotta do: steal a car and get to the highway. Stand in the way of highway traffic and get ready for the big bucks, because there are a lot of cars and they won't stop for you.

The largely self-congratulatory dickishness of the SR games grates on my nerves sometimes, but there's usually enough evidence of self awareness and parody for me. At this point I still am enjoying SR3.

Vuliev:

Norrdicus:

Vuliev:
Besides, even if we accept those tight restrictions, your arguments about the Renegade path fall prey to Sturgeon's Law: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately described by stupidity."

Actually that's called "Hanlon's Razor"

The real Sturgeon's Law is "90% of everything is crap"

Ah dammit, and I corrected someone the other day for doing the exact same thing. >_<

Saviordd1:
snip

Fine, continue to grind your face in the bark--I'm rather content to enjoy both tree and forest despite their flaws.

More like your enjoying a tree with a forest that needs a lot of work and has huge gaps.

Saviordd1:
More like your enjoying a tree with a forest that needs a lot of work and has huge gaps.

Glades are perfectly natural phenomena and occur in pretty much any forest I can think of, metaphorical or otherwise. You're really not helping your case by demanding that the forest be entirely uniform in consistency, because it's just not going to happen--and to say "This forest sucks because it has a clearing" is just silly.

Actually, no--what you're doing is more akin to what I said earlier, i.e. grinding your face in the damaged spot of a tree, when there are numerous other healthy trees not two feet from you. Or, perhaps, it's like walking into a clearing and going "What the hell, why aren't there any trees? What am I supposed to do? This forest sucks." Or, for some of your gripes, like walking out of the forest entirely and going "What the hell, why aren't there any trees? What am I supposed to do? This forest sucks." Or even worse, walking into a section of the forest that's simply less dense than the rest of the forest, and then saying "What the hell, why aren't there any trees? What am I supposed to do? This forest sucks."

If you want more trees in a forest that already exists, you have to plant them yourself.

I've complained about it before, but Batman Arkham City goes so overboard with it's gritty setting that Batman's obstinate refusal to allow lethal force for any reason by anyone on anyone stops seeming heroic and starts being sociopathic. I feel funny mentioning this here, since most of the examples are about protagonists who kill too casualy. And indeed, that's a common problem. But damn it, Arkham City managed to get me cheering for a less moral hero.

The chatting you frequently overhear from the mooks are about how much they enjoy committing murder, torture and rape, or about how afraid they are of their bosses, who are even worse. And it's not just talk either, the mooks do enact everything on the doctors or political prisoners**, and the Joker infected a few thousand people with a deadly disease as a side plot to motivate Batman from finding the cure, all while they're in the prison. So, in the Gotham verse, imprisonment doesn't work. As was seen in the first game Arkham Asylum, therapy either results in jack-shit or in a dead therapist. So when Dr. Strange revealed his diabolical master scheme was to kill all the prisoners I found it pretty hard to argue with him. I'm not even in favor of capital punishment in the real world, but in the world DC and the developers of Arkham City created... well, you'd have to do something. And of the super-villains imprisoned in Arkham, Dr Freeze was the nice one, and he was perfectly willing to destroy the cure for thousands of people because Batman didn't agree to saving his wife fast enough.

**Most of whom are imprisoned by Dr Strange for no benefit to him whatsover. When I kept finding political prisoners who helped build the wall and control tower I assumed the mysterious Protocol 10 had something to do with a secret function of the builidings, and that the builders had been thrown in to ensure it's secrecy. Turns out, there's nothing special about the wall or the tower, and the only reason those prisoners are there is to have victims for the mooks, and possibly to try to make the player give two shits when Strange starts blowing the place up.

But the player isn't given any choice but to fight tooth and nail to stop it. And I just find it bizar that the whole story and setting seems to be trying to make you think about how far one should go to stop evil. Yet they don't give any answer more substantial than 'Batman doesn't allow it'. But what about the lives that could be sa-'Batman doesn't allow it'. But how can we morally justify- 'Batman doesn't allow it'. But if no other sollut-'Batman doesn't allow it'. But- 'Batman doesn't allow it, and he will monotonously drone on about not allowing it without ever explaining why'. At some point 'My mommy and daddy were killed, therefor no killing by anyone ever' just doesn't cut it anymore.

Darth Reven, before the player steps into his head. Oh and in TOR.

Reven is the freaking personification of "For the Greater Good". He was pragmatic, ruthless, and efficient. But he still came across as a dick going over his actions during the Mandalorian Wars, not to mention his solution to the Sith Empire inevitably coming to curb-stomp the Republic. Namely make his own sith empire, conquer the republic, and turn it into something that stands half a chance. That or fail and force the Republic to become strong enough to face the sith through failure.

Rather than say, bringing the information before the Senate (Not the Jedi Council, they are ALWAYS useless) and pushing them to fix things. When that ineviatbley fails (because Bureaucracy) then he can go ahead and Sith Empire, Trial by Fire, Sith Empire to beat other Empire or Strong Republic.

SPOILERS!!!

And his Genocide thing in TOR. I just have issues with him because that plan would kill defectors to the republic, like Dorne. Not to mention Ninety-Eight percent of the Imperial population.

Apparently 300 years with nobody to talk to except the Sith Emperor who is trying to rip information out of your brain does weird things to you.

Saviordd1:

saluraropicrusa:

Saviordd1:
This is implying Renegade/Paragon was anything other than "black v. white"

I mean, in the first game you have the option to slaughter a colony because renegade shepard just isn't feelin' the whole saving people thing today.

I would contest that Paragon/Renegade is, for the most part, anything BUT "black v. white." The majority of renegade choices aren't about being evil, they're about being kind of a dick but doing so with the ultimate goal of saving everyone. Renegade Shepard doesn't have time for anyone's shit, they want to finish the job in a way that gives them the best possible advantage against their enemy without caring who they have to step on. That's not evil, it's just being an ass about it.

I figured the way renegade Shep would justify their actions on Feros would be to say that they're working to save the ENTIRE GALAXY, so a handful of dead colonists was the least of their worries. It's strange that your teammates just go along with it though.

No, that's lazy and evil.

Lets also go down the list of things renegade Shepard has done

*Shot their friends
*Continuously tells their teammates to shut the hell up about their problems
*Punches a reporter
*Kills the leading government for humanities gain
*Gets countless innocents killed cause fuck it
*Leaves a refinery to burn for one mans personal bullshit
*Let one of the greatest warriors in the galaxy commit suicide and then killed her daughter, cause fuck it

and more I've forgotten.

These aren't "Looking at the big picture" these are being evil and lazy. That's what renegade Shepard is, and has been, evil and lazy.

For one, if you look at Shepard in either 100% Paragon or Renegade at all, you're doing it wrong. Anybody who does a 100% playthrough doesn't know how to roleplay a character, and is probably a boring person.

That said, there are certain Renegade options that are very impulsive and seem to have no basis. You only listed one.

1) Shot their friends. The ones you can shoot being Wrex, and surviving squadmate in 3. Both have perfectly justifiable purposes.
2) Tells their teammates to shut up. Insensitive and maintains a level of professional distance, yes. Evil? No.
3) Punches reporter. Reckless and impulsive. Likely put in for the lulz.
4) Kills the leading government for humanity's gain. What you fail to mention is that there are two options for the Council dying, but you only mention one in a biased attempt to strengthen your argument. Yes, selfishly allowing them to die is possible. But another, also Renegade option, has you genuinely leave them to die for the sole purpose of throwing as much fire at Sovereign as possible. Obviously the player knows Sovereign dies either way. Shepard does not.
5) When does he get countless innocents killed for no good reason? Ever?
6) Leaves a refinery to burn for one man's vendetta. What you fail to mention is the person he is hunting. He is a proven murderer, backstabber, drug dealer, slaver, and a far bigger general asshole than the guy you're helping. Sacrificing 20 or so meaningless refinery workers to stop a man who's probably caused the deaths or ruination of thousands of people through his organization is an easy choice.
7) Lets (spoiler) kill herself and then kill her daughter because fuck it. Uh, no. Allowing her to kill herself is simply allowing her to fulfill her own Code without interference. Do you presume to interpose your beliefs on another species' culture? Quite insensitive. The daughter is an Ardat-Yakshi, so I can see the practical reasons for killing her, as far as containing the Ardat-Yakshi threat. If you're killing her to prevent Banshification though, you're an asshat. There's already a billion Banshees, will one more really make or break your mission?

****Snippy snip snip***

minarri:
That's the mini-game where you need to get hit by cars, right? Here's all you gotta do: steal a car and get to the highway. Stand in the way of highway traffic and get ready for the big bucks, because there are a lot of cars and they won't stop for you.

The largely self-congratulatory dickishness of the SR games grates on my nerves sometimes, but there's usually enough evidence of self awareness and parody for me. At this point I still am enjoying SR3.

Hey, thanks mate, that works a treat. I do enjoy SR3, it really is very inventive and keeps changing the game with the various challenges, which is fun.

Just imagine the anti-games lobby getting their hands on any SR, luckily they are so narrow minded the never look past Call of Duty.

Vuliev:
[quote="Saviordd1" post="9.397897.16271555"]
A Paragon Shepard is one that seeks to save as many lives as possible without sacrificing ultimate victory, choosing to center the burdens and costs of the struggle on himself; a Renegade Shepard is one that views the loss of those lives as necessary to ultimately save countless more in victory, choosing to spread the burdens and costs out into the whole.

A renegade Shepard will save

in ME3. A Paragon Shepard won't.
Just thought I'd throw that out there.

A section in Fable 3 has you capture a key character of important relation to you. A mass-murderor and tyrant, your only options are to kill him like the noble king/queen you are.... or let him join you like the noble king/queen you are. Neither is techincally a 'wrong' choice, you'll just piss off some other characters either way.
But, wait, I cna either stoop to his level, or give him a clean slate? Nobody in Albion ever heard of prison? Hard labour? Why straight to capitol punishment?

Astafel:

Deathninja19:

Astafel:
I'm using a film example but still... Anyone remember that film from about 3 years ago called "Harry Brown"? The things he does in that film to the "chavs" (The almost racial epithet ascribed to this group of lower-class teens) repulsed me. He tortures people and mocks them as he kills them... Granted these people are presented as some of the most repugnant people the human race ever produced but seeing as the film acts like it's almost a social commentary the commentary seems to be saying "You see those teenagers loitering out there? Well go get a big knife and gun and just go to town! They deserve it anyway... They're probably rapists and murderers" I'd also like to point out that similar/worse scenes of violence as seen in films like "A Clockwork Orange" or any Tarantino Film do not bother me. As the violence isn't presented positively it's either ironic/over-the-top/cartoon-like or to show how horrible the villain is. Harry Brown doesn't use the violence as comedy/ironic statement it seems to be supporting violence against "chavs".

Considering the class "difficulties" and the kind of "ghetto" and "sub-people" attitude many British people seem to have adopted to teenagers and especially council-house dwellers, this film comes off as basically immoral because it glorifies this de-humanization. I'd like to point out that this is literally the only film/book/anything I have ever regarded as such that (at least in my experience) no-one really questioned. I can't help but think that if a similar film was made about slaughtering "black" thugs, or "gay" thugs with such reckless "they're all the same" abandon people would be calling for the filmmakers heads.

Mate if you lived on or by a council estate you see people like that everyday, young people who are so bored/malicious that they attack people or simply make their lives hell. I actually lived next to people like that in the 90s long before the word chav was invented and they made living unbearable even regularly threatening me with knifes and beatings. I'm not saying they should be killed but not all of these working class teens (of which I was one) are innocent wayward souls that need hugs, they can be viscous monsters who lack a moral compass.

Oh I know, I'm not saying they're all totally innocent fluffy little bunnies but still it's just the fact that no-one ever really called Harry out on the torture and killings, it was presented as almost necessary to "clean up" the neighbourhood. I just think Harry should have been portrayed a little more morally ambiguously, cold-blooded torture and murder should never be so relatively positively portrayed. I may be misinterpreting the film, or maybe I missed something but I just felt like the movie really wanted me to go along with and enjoy Harry's vengeance spree.

Fair enough but I think the scenes with the two police explains the film's moral standpoints pretty well and does question the motives involved, even if they did ultimately support Harry Brown's worldview it at least explained that view well enough.

rhizhim:
can we pick movies too?

Sorry, I don't follow.

Batman in Arkham City once again refuses to kill the Joker, because apparently his life more valuable then all the people he's killed

Unia:
Sometimes the protagonist of a game does something you find distasteful or morally suspect and then just passes it off with a oneliner we're apparently supposed to laugh at.

In Uncharted 2 there's a bit where Nathan goes off with a buddy to get something from a Turkish museum. Drake objects to using guns, to which I thought "Oh, he doesn't want to shoot guards for doing their job. Maybe this guy's alright after all." Nope. Few minutes later he throws a guard to his death, and his buddy even jokes about it.

Alpha Protocol has you do a lot of shady things but what stuck with me was framing a guy as a convicted pedophile to get ahead. This wasn't even optional far as I could tell. Sure the man was working for The Evil PMC but for all we know he was some ignorant lackey.

Before anyone mentions Spec Ops: The Line, that one's *supposed* to upset you. Games where doing evil things is optional don't really count either.

TLDR; Ever looked at a protagonist the game portrays as a hero and said to your self: "what a prick"?

Umm... Alpha Protocol... that IS optional. Go straight to his room without even trying that one, he'll be there, and you can just knock him out or kill him. Whatever. And Alpha Protocol was also trying for the shady/gray area. You're a SPY. How often do you think real spies get to go for the best possible option?

OT:

Fallout 3. There's an optional side-quest where you can either convince a girl to give up on a guy she likes... or give her ant queen pheromones so that she can date rape him. (sort of, apparently he kind of liked her too, but... really?) You get good karma for this. Someone at Bethesda has bizarre priorities.

Mass Effect 2: Legion's loyalty mission. Your choice boils down to brain-washing or genocide. The brain-washing one is given Paragon points. Which, despite Bioware's claims, are the 'good' points in the series.

All I can think of at the moment.

Connor in Assassins Creed 3. Even after he finds out the truth he keeps doing the same thing. And being a non-stop douche.

Captain Price in Modern Warfare 1 using torture made me pretty uncomfortable. What made me even more uncomfortable is that they also showed it working. They also did the same thing in Modern Warfare 2.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked