"Heroics" that left a bad taste in your mouth

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

Daveman:
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.

Torture has been an effective way of gaining information since civilizations were first made. Granted it isn't always effective, you have people who can't be broken, people who put the value of a cause then their life, or people who just give out false information.

On that note I question the heroics of Avan Hardins in Valkyria Chronicles 2. How he preceded to let the mad doctor go after finding out she has put his brother, several countrymen/women, and young orphans kidnapped across the country side into a brainwashing containment zone to turn them into godless killing-machines. Even after she said she would just go to another nation and do it all over again for them. All because the one kid you managed to save would cry.

You are going to let someone get away with war-crimes (And possibly go out and commit them again) all because it might make the one BRAINWASHED survivor sad about losing her false mother.

There's a bit in Fable 3 where you meet a romantic interest from your past, and have to rescue them from a sewer where they starts to remember all their romantic feelings for you. There are two options at the end of the quest, one where you return them to their new spouse and never see them again, and one where you run off into the sunset and leave the new spouse alone. I think they suicide, I'm not sure. Whichever ending I picked I felt kind of bad, either I leave the person with their new spouse knowing that they now have stronger feelings for me, or I run off into the sunset with them and an NPC dies.

I feel the need to come to Kratos' defence on some points -- I'm not contesting that he's a huge throbbing jackass who's killed people for no reason (GOW3), but he's not the complete monster he's made out to be. Every single person he encounters in GOW1-2 that he has to kill could have gotten the hell out of his way, or helped him and earned their lives, but people keep telling him no, apparently oblivious to what happens when you say no to a man who doesn't believe in giving up. The worst you could say is that Kratos is a force for evolution, because he weeds out the stupid with alarming efficiency.

Similarly, I can't feel sympathy for the gods he kills because he is the enemy they created. He would have been happy if they just erased his brain, or just let him die, but no, they HAD to do their usual thing of forcing someone to live in torment.

I also find Nathan Drake's morality quite curious, but I found most of the plot of U2 unintelligible and conforming to the need for set pieces rather than any degree of logic. I usually pretend 2 didn't happen and merrily play 1 and 3.

The entirety of the Orzammar plot in Dragon Age: Origins. The Grey Warden is presented with this big long quest to find a Broodmother and kill her, when the much simpler answer would have been 'enter Bhelen/Harrowmont's residence, lop their head off, a new king is crowned.'

Toy Master Typhus:

Torture has been an effective way of gaining information since civilizations were first made. Granted it isn't always effective, you have people who can't be broken, people who put the value of a cause then their life, or people who just give out false information.

Torture has been an effective way of making a person tell you what he thinks you want to hear. It has never been an effective way of gaining useful intelligence.

Legion:

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.

It comes back to the same place though. Humanity might be native to Sera, but they were colossal assholes for 100% of their recorded history, and the Locust basically assumed that no peace would be possible with such warlike bastards. (Of course, that doesn't actually work, since the whole visual design of the Locust is based around aggression, spikes, and general bastardry, so it's hard to see them as the naturally ambivalent people who made a judgement based on humanity's inability to be peacable. But hey, videogames are rarely made by clever storytellers who consider all aspects of their design and how they interact.

Just Cause 2. I don't know if Rico was really supposed to be a hero, but all he really did was drag civilians out of (and steal) moving cars, destroy a country's infrastructure, kill random soldiers who did nothing but their duty and threaten everyone who tried to help him, like when he threatened to throw Blaine back to Panay.

AgentLampshade:
Snow. Fucking. Villiers. Dumbass self-proclaimed "hero" and complete tool who even says "heroes don't need plans." Argh!

Every single thing he does isn't thought through at all.

Did you play the game all the way through? The point you made is actually brought up and is a main point for his character development. He has to learn to deal with how when he calls himself a hero or does "heroic" things he is really just being a reckless fool.

OT: Dark souls. When you look into the lore of the world, it really makes you question if you are doing the right thing. Some of that stuff can hit really heavily. My favourite examples being quelaag and ceaseless discharge. I mean, the game tells you how you are the chosen one who should save the world and all, then makes you feel like a dick for doing what you thought was right.

Also megaman 7. At the end megaman almost murders Wile in cold blood.

TT Kairen:

Saviordd1:

saluraropicrusa:

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?

When arguing you have to put it into the binary otherwise its un-arguable, which eliminates a few of your points.

And lets not forget how you can shoot Mordin,and Legion.

As for the innocents see Feros.

And so rather than put her daughter in the custody of the Asari government (Which you would do if you didn't want to "interpose your beliefs on another species' culture) you decide to shoot her.

Brilliant.

AgentLampshade:
Snow. Fucking. Villiers. Dumbass self-proclaimed "hero" and complete tool who even says "heroes don't need plans." Argh!

Every single thing he does isn't thought through at all.

You missed the point, he was supposed to be a goof.

All of the uncharted series.... he's doing it for pure personal profits (never finds out about the world saving until the end), and kills people for it. Never felt that he was a hero.

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

I think you missed the whole point of The Batman-Joker relationship:

Tayh:
A renegade Shepard will save

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

(It's been a couple years now, so spoilers aren't really needed anymore. :P)

You can save Kelly as any kind of Shepard--the only condition in saving her is going straight to Legion's loyalty mission, and then going through the Omega 4 Relay. Now, only a "Renegade" Shepard can save the Horizon colonists, since to do that you have to get the IFF as soon as the mission's available, and you have to skip Legion's loyalty and go straight through the Relay.

Save Chambers/crew: Horizon --> (get ALL THE THINGS) --> IFF --> Legion's loyalty --> Suicide Mission.
Save Chambers/crew and colonists: Horizon --> IFF --> Suicide Mission.

I've never really seen the decision to get the IFF (along with plenty of other "Paragon/Renegade" choices) as Paragon/Renegade, but rather as cautious Shepard versus reckless Shepard.

Funny how so few people mentionned anything Kratos does.

I don't know if this one has been mentioned, but in Assassin's Creed 3

Sensko:

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

I think you missed the whole point of The Batman-Joker relationship:

The thematic purpose? I greatly enjoy the thematic purpose of their relationship, due in no small part to how unheroic it paints Batman out to be. I think the point IS how irrational Batman is about the situation, Joker himself knows this, and feeds the dynamic.

"You won't kill me out of some misplaced sense of self righteousness, and I won't kill you, because your just too much fun. I think you and I are destined to do this forever"

The fact that Batman not only won't kill Joker, but has repeatably SAVED him is the reason he's still around, the reason he always gets away.

Saviordd1:

bigfatcarp93:

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.

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.

My first time doing that mission... Oh god...

I thought I equipped the knockout grenades, but I didn't realize until the end of the mission when someone yelled at me that they were normal grenades...

I realize now how retarded that sounds but I seriously had no idea. I felt like a prick afterwards.

Nearly every single game has "heroics that leave a bad taste in your mouth" problem is that the game usually has justifiable reasons to fight/kill the big bosses and plot points. What games seldom ever justify is the trail of destruction you leave in your wake to the "big baddies". The hundreds, nay thousands of underlings and minions the player must butcher in order to reach his objective.

In fact the only game I have seen even remotely tackle this subject is Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater, where the player must journey down a river and confront every single death the player has caused. Mindless underlings all of them, but the game manages to leave you with the impression that these were actual people that you murdered.

Saviordd1:

TT Kairen:

Saviordd1:

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?

When arguing you have to put it into the binary otherwise its un-arguable, which eliminates a few of your points.

And lets not forget how you can shoot Mordin,and Legion.

As for the innocents see Feros.

And so rather than put her daughter in the custody of the Asari government (Which you would do if you didn't want to "interpose your beliefs on another species' culture) you decide to shoot her.

Brilliant.

You shoot Mordin to prevent the genophage cure. The krogan have proved their stupidity numerous times. I actually have no clue when or why you can shoot Legion, so...??

Feros is not "countless innocents" it's 16 people. And why is shooting them evil? So you can try gas grenades which may or may not work, may or may not incapacitate YOU, and may or may not fry their nervous systems, killing them anyway? All the while they're shooting at you, attempting to kill you, when you're pressed for time because you're trying to stop a psychotic turian from destroying ALL LIFE. Hmm.

You are not given the option to turn her over. You can shoot her or leave her there if you let Samara kill herself. I choose to be safe.

TT Kairen:

You shoot Mordin to prevent the genophage cure. The krogan have proved their stupidity numerous times. I actually have no clue when or why you can shoot Legion, so...??

During the mission on Rannoch, at the end when you're deciding who to side with, if you side with the Quarians and let the Geth die, Legion attacks Shepard and tells him he won't let him decide the Geth's fate. Tali stabs him in the back, and you are given a Renegade prompt to shoot Legion, not one, not twice, but three times. If you don't take the first prompt, Tali will shoot Legion. Neither the second or third prompt is needed, they're both superfluous. Here's a video!

Vuliev:

Tayh:
A renegade Shepard will save

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

(It's been a couple years now, so spoilers aren't really needed anymore. :P)

You can save Kelly as any kind of Shepard--the only condition in saving her is going straight to Legion's loyalty mission, and then going through the Omega 4 Relay. Now, only a "Renegade" Shepard can save the Horizon colonists, since to do that you have to get the IFF as soon as the mission's available, and you have to skip Legion's loyalty and go straight through the Relay.

Save Chambers/crew: Horizon --> (get ALL THE THINGS) --> IFF --> Legion's loyalty --> Suicide Mission.
Save Chambers/crew and colonists: Horizon --> IFF --> Suicide Mission.

I've never really seen the decision to get the IFF (along with plenty of other "Paragon/Renegade" choices) as Paragon/Renegade, but rather as cautious Shepard versus reckless Shepard.

Tayh was talking about saving her in number 3. When you meet her on the citadel you eventually get a paragon/renegade option either congratulating her for helping the refugees (paragon fuzzy on wording and all it's been a while) or telling her to change her name/fake her death because cerberus doesn't just let people leave. Later

Of course if she didn't survive number 2 then it's kind of a moot point.

Also I'm not sure that you can save the Horizon colonists. The wiki makes no mention of it. You can save your entire crew via the method you said but I've never heard of any way to speed things up enough to get the colonists back. The collector ship and the derelict reaper trigger automatically after a certain number of missions after Horizon. (5 i think)no mention of doing it faster or saving anyone but your crew.

OT: Killing the colossi made me feel a bit sad but I'm not sure I'd say it left a bad taste in my mouth. Can't really think of anything else at the moment.

Kratos. He's a protagonist, but he's the villain of the story. So you went evil and killed your family. Big deal! Now the whole pantheon is supposed to die just because killing them *might* make you feel better? I expected nihilistic son-of-a-bitchedness, but damn!

Nathan Drake. Supposed to be not just the good guy but a genuine nice guy, the handsome, quick-witted, likeable fellow we'd all like to be. Then he kills how many people? Per game? I grant you most of them were shooting at him at the time, but didn't they have a right to protect themselves? After a 100+ body count, Nate's continued wisecracking seems macabre rather than clever.

AgentLampshade:
Snow. Fucking. Villiers. Dumbass self-proclaimed "hero" and complete tool who even says "heroes don't need plans." Argh!

Every single thing he does isn't thought through at all.

All of the protagonists in that game are shitheads.

kman123:
Dishonored really screwed up on the good/bad moral dilemma, seeing as the 'good' version of doing things is far, far worse than death. Selling someone into slavery for the rest of their life? Giving up that woman to that stalker dude was fucking creepy. I'd rather just kill her but nooooooooo I had to get the GOOD ending.

Corvo isn't supposed to be a hero, he's supposed to be a revenge-driven bastard with a job to do. Besides, you can kill every target and still get the low chaos ending

Seth Carter:

Oh thats not a bug, it always happens. I think it might be a translation goof between Slain/Defeat. That happens with the Hydra too earlier, it just runs away (and regenerates the head, by the by) and everyone gets all crazy about it.

it doesnt ALWAYS happen, it just happens a lot. It's a pretty buggy game.

Tom_green_day:
When the guy in Far Cry 3 dumps his girlfriend. I thought she was his rock, the person meant to represent the side of him which was remaining sane? You can't just forget about her for the second half of the game or you're missing out a vital aspect of his story arc, him not knowing what to do about it and keeping himself on the fence.
He says it in such a bland voice, and then when he leaves he's like 'that wasn't as hard as I thought' Well obviously fekkin not if you didn't even feel a thing about it -.-

I think the deadpan delivery was intentional. Jason is trying to be an action movie star, and always comes up short, even while he becomes a badass. The game doesn't want you to agree with his choices, either, as evidenced by the two endings.

My pick is Kratos. The first two games we are DEFINITELY supposed to be on his side, and the second game gives us no reason to be. Really, Kratos? You're angry that Zeus murdered you? Well maybe you shouldn't have been acting like such a dick. He already had ONE son killed for the exact same thing you're doing, and had you do it! Yeah, the other gods are assholes, but not letting you sit at their lunchtable isn't a good enough reason to destroy the world. But then, all but the first God of War were retarded anyway

Bayushi_Kouya:
I feel the need to come to Kratos' defence on some points -- I'm not contesting that he's a huge throbbing jackass who's killed people for no reason (GOW3)

GOW3 was almost justified: thanks to the retcon bullshit about pandora's box, they were evil and paranoid and were trying to kill him ever since he became a god. But again, its bullshit retconning, so it gets no points from me.

, but he's not the complete monster he's made out to be. Every single person he encounters in GOW1-2 that he has to kill could have gotten the hell out of his way, or helped him and earned their lives, but people keep telling him no, apparently oblivious to what happens when you say no to a man who doesn't believe in giving up.

in GOW2, kratos murders every person he sees so he can take their stuff. Some of them are doing their divinely-appointed JOBS, others are there for the exact same reason he is: selfish hubris. You can't tell Perseus to fuck off because HIS quest to change his fate is less important than YOURS. Or the Barbarian King who beat Kratos in honorable combat, and then got fucked over by deus ex machina.

The worst you could say is that Kratos is a force for evolution, because he weeds out the stupid with alarming efficiency.

No, the worst we can say is that Kratos is a selfish, arrogant psychopath who ruins his own life several times over, fails to accept his responsibility, and blames everyone else and murders anyone who stands in his way as a response to the slights he believes he suffers.

Similarly, I can't feel sympathy for the gods he kills because he is the enemy they created. He would have been happy if they just erased his brain, or just let him die, but no, they HAD to do their usual thing of forcing someone to live in torment.

Well, there's the problem: In the first game, they reward him for his service and he happily takes up the mantle of the God of War and causes WWII. The sequels (as they often do) proceed to ruin everything. But let's go through the whole (main) series to examine why he's so awful
God of War: Kratos is a merciless soldier who revels in brutality and bloodlust on the battlefield. When faced with death, Kratos calls out for divine intervention and uses magical weapons to kill his opponent while he is frozen by Ares. Having been granted the ability to murder HARDER, Kratos becomes even more depraved and racks up higher body-counts. He kills enemy soldiers AND civilians. When told to destroy Athena's temple and slaughter everyone there, he does so with enthusiasm. It is not until he examines the bodies that he discovers he has murdered his own family, placed there by Ares in an attempt to turn Kratos into an amoral engine of conquest. He feels guilt, but blames Ares, not his own blind lust for carnage, for their deaths. He then pledges service to Olympus in return for an escape from his guilt. He doesn't seek forgiveness, he wants the memories of his crime removed so he can continue living (though, he does believe his guilt is actually a torment sent by the gods as punishment for his crime). After killing his brother Ares, Kratos finally begins to show some sign of growth. He is told that the gods cannot remove the memory of his crimes, but that he is forgiven. Faced with the knowledge that his feelings are not divine punishment, he casts himself into the sea (either as an escape or punishment, this is open to interpretation. His line "now there is no hope" says escape to me.) He is saved and granted godhood in Ares station, which he happily accepts and goes on to cause history as we know it to ensue. In the post-game, Kratos visits his dying mother and learns Zeus was his father, whereupon he swears vengeance upon the god because he didn't hang around to be a family. Meanwhile, his little brother looks up from Hades and swears vengeance on Kratos for being physically fit. Clearly, the family just has anger issues.
In GOW2, we have a semi-retcon (as well as one which says Kratos never learned his parentage) that the gods snub Kratos because he used to be mortal. Dickish, but reasonable. Kratos' response is to attack their cities, doing the exact same thing that got his olympian brother executed. By him. Kratos is told to stop multiple times (though only once onscreen) to stop doing that shit. When he doesn't, Zeus shows up as an eagle and shrinks Kratos. Kratos can't be bothered to pay attention and doesn't immediately know WHO shrunk him, even though logically it had to be Zeus even if he HADN'T done it in eagle form. Like a dumbass, kratos gives the rest of his power to a magic sword supplied by the god who clearly just "betrayed" him. Then he gets told exactly what he did wrong, and why he's being punished, and is impaled through the chest for at least the second time in his miserable life. Kratos refuses to accept any wrongdoing on his part, crawls out of the underworld, and says he's going to murder all the gods, especially Zeus. He also decides the only way to go about this is to wreck time and fate in order to time travel, for no good reason except to make it look very dramatic. Along the way he murders several others who share his arrogant idea that deserve to change their own fate, as well as some who are only doing their job to prevent him. At the end of his quest, he kills the only friend he had on Olympus because he refuses to listen to her. He learns Zeus is his father and decides that he needs to kill him HARDER because of this, for some reason. He then frees the titans in order to launch an assault on the remaining gods.
GOW3 retcons it that Athena was evil the whole time, the others are evil and paranoid that kratos would kill them, so they tried to kill him first. Despite learning that killing the gods destroys the world, he continues, because... He's also a dick to everyone he meets. Usually a murderous dick. But, because now THE WHOLE WORLD IS EVIL AND OUT TO GET HIM, kratos is at least partially justified in his slaughter. He also may have learned that killing is wrong. As he dies. With the shattered, ruined world around him. Too bad the only way to get there was massive retcons.

To be fair, a lot of the protagonists of games aren't _supposed_ to be paragons of morality. Especially more recent games, as the medium has sort of grown up and deepened in parallel with the movie industry, it's sort of obligatory to remember that if your character is absurdly good at shooting, kicking, or wrestling people to death in a real-world setting, there is basically no way that they're actually what a normal person would call a good guy. So that sort of leaves you with fundamentally bad people doing good things because it's in their immediate or long-term best interests, fundamentally good people whose morals have been understandably eroded by external circumstance (making them still, technically, bad people), people suddenly given superpowers at random, or outright villain protagonists (Kratos, etc) doing evil things because they're evil and/or dicks.

Basically, entertainment for adults has to at some point acknowledge that the easy familiarity with violence evidenced by characters in action games or movies probably doesn't speak well of the person in question, even if they themselves think their heart is in the right place.

EDIT: The "Kratos wasn't a bad guy" people realize that, not only did slaughtering the screaming, fleeing civilians refill your life bar in GOW 1, but several encounters were designed entirely around you taking advantage of that, right? There was never any indication whatsoever that Kratos was anything other than the villain of the game. Sure, there were reasons he was the villain, but reason =/= justification.

Vuliev:

Tayh:
A renegade Shepard will save

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

You can save Kelly as any kind of Shepard--the only condition in saving her is going straight to Legion's loyalty mission, and then going through the Omega 4 Relay. Now, only a "Renegade" Shepard can save the Horizon colonists, since to do that you have to get the IFF as soon as the mission's available, and you have to skip Legion's loyalty and go straight through the Relay.

I said Mass Effect 3, not Mass Effect 2.

Johnny Impact:
Kratos. He's a protagonist, but he's the villain of the story. So you went evil and killed your family. Big deal! Now the whole pantheon is supposed to die just because killing them *might* make you feel better? I expected nihilistic son-of-a-bitchedness, but damn!

Nathan Drake. Supposed to be not just the good guy but a genuine nice guy, the handsome, quick-witted, likeable fellow we'd all like to be. Then he kills how many people? Per game? I grant you most of them were shooting at him at the time, but didn't they have a right to protect themselves? After a 100+ body count, Nate's continued wisecracking seems macabre rather than clever.

Really? Why does Nathan Drake always come up in threads like this?

Considering everyone he kills is either a pirate, mercenary soldier who have been killing innocents or henchmen for an evil organization that is trying to poison others. To put it simple, all bad dudes.

imahobbit4062:
Really? Why does Nathan Drake always come up in threads like this?

Considering everyone he kills is either a pirate, mercenary soldier who have been killing innocents or henchmen for an evil organization that is trying to poison others. To put it simple, all bad dudes.

When I first booted up the game, not knowing what to expect, I thought it was going to involve more platforming and mechanical/animal hazards, with perhaps a tad of gunplay against humans, just for spice. The opening cinematic set a lighthearted, adventurous, Indiana Jones tone. (Yes, I know Indy kills a few people, but a few is a few). That was what I was expecting, that fights to the death would be rare, dramatic moments. Then Nate goes on to wage a one-man war against an endless army of nameless mooks we're supposed to accept are evil and disposable because they have dark skin. It just seemed out of place. It's been a while since I played the game, maybe I'm forgetting the part where they got hit with the big rubber stamp that says E V I L.

darkcalling:
Tayh was talking about saving her in number 3.

Wherps, my bad. I don't think I even remember this encounter at all, though--I probably missed it.

Tom_green_day:
When the guy in Far Cry 3 dumps his girlfriend. I thought she was his rock, the person meant to represent the side of him which was remaining sane? You can't just forget about her for the second half of the game or you're missing out a vital aspect of his story arc, him not knowing what to do about it and keeping himself on the fence.

Well... that's because he was going insane.

kman123:
Dishonored really screwed up on the good/bad moral dilemma, seeing as the 'good' version of doing things is far, far worse than death. Selling someone into slavery for the rest of their life? Giving up that woman to that stalker dude was fucking creepy. I'd rather just kill her but nooooooooo I had to get the GOOD ending.

You can get the good ending and still kill every target, I'm sure.

I'm not sure about games, but for webcomics, Keychain of Creation had Misho's little interaction with

.

I mean, he's supposed to be a nice guy, and he tries to make it sound like he was just putting on a stern teacher face, that it was neccesary. But seriously:

I get pissed off every time I remember that. It was a dick move worthy of the Ebon Dragon, the universal incarnation of being an asshole in that setting.

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

In the comics, Batman has once admitted to having a fantasy of killing the Joker, but it's a line he will absolutely not cross, for ANY reason. It's a part of the character, and a vital one at that. They did the whole "killer Batman" thing before (when Jean Paul Valley took the mantle) and it's really not the same.

It may sound illogical to you, me, and everyone else, but Batman is nothing if not obstinate.

IllumInaTIma:
Well, in Persona 3 there's a moment that kinda made me question Junpei for a little bit. During one of full moons Ken disappears and Junpei is asked to look for him. After not finding him he says "That little shit is more problems than he's worth". That line totally threw me off! Junpei is supposed to be kind and easy going good guy, and to hear him say something so harsh...

That also threw me off, but even more so when it took Mitsuru and Akihiko took so long to realize that having Ken and Shinji on the same team was a very bad idea especially when they both go missing.

Johnny Impact:

imahobbit4062:
Really? Why does Nathan Drake always come up in threads like this?

Considering everyone he kills is either a pirate, mercenary soldier who have been killing innocents or henchmen for an evil organization that is trying to poison others. To put it simple, all bad dudes.

When I first booted up the game, not knowing what to expect, I thought it was going to involve more platforming and mechanical/animal hazards, with perhaps a tad of gunplay against humans, just for spice. The opening cinematic set a lighthearted, adventurous, Indiana Jones tone. (Yes, I know Indy kills a few people, but a few is a few). That was what I was expecting, that fights to the death would be rare, dramatic moments. Then Nate goes on to wage a one-man war against an endless army of nameless mooks we're supposed to accept are evil and disposable because they have dark skin. It just seemed out of place. It's been a while since I played the game, maybe I'm forgetting the part where they got hit with the big rubber stamp that says E V I L.

You mean Pirates aren't evil? Not to mention the fact they all tried to kill him.

Iwata:

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

In the comics, Batman has once admitted to having a fantasy of killing the Joker, but it's a line he will absolutely not cross, for ANY reason. It's a part of the character, and a vital one at that. They did the whole "killer Batman" thing before (when Jean Paul Valley took the mantle) and it's really not the same.

It may sound illogical to you, me, and everyone else, but Batman is nothing if not obstinate.

The question wasn't "Why does character X behave unheroically" I'm aware of why Batman does what he does, but just because he has reason doesn't make his actions heroic, it's a fundamentally selfish way to behave.

Batmans desire to remain vigilant has cost the lives of hundreds of innocents. Batman has even SAVED the Joker on occasion. Joker knows Batman will never cross the line and kill him, and feeds into the dynamic; he gets away with more and more because Batman is always there to make sure he gets marched off to Arkham so he can escape and continue his reign of terror.

Batman is not only unwilling to stop Joker, he's the reason he's still alive.

I don't give a damn how Batman feels about killing, there are more important things than his sense of self righteousness.

Shocksplicer:

Tom_green_day:
When the guy in Far Cry 3 dumps his girlfriend. I thought she was his rock, the person meant to represent the side of him which was remaining sane? You can't just forget about her for the second half of the game or you're missing out a vital aspect of his story arc, him not knowing what to do about it and keeping himself on the fence.
He says it in such a bland voice, and then when he leaves he's like 'that wasn't as hard as I thought' Well obviously fekkin not if you didn't even feel a thing about it -.-

It's worth noting that he actually said that it was HARDER than he expected.

OT: The non-lethal target eliminations in Dishonored. They're significantly more cruel than just killing your targets, which is intentional and makes sense from a revenge point of view, but when you're doing a pacifist run and your only way of dealing with them is EXTRA cruelty, it does seem a little odd.

For sure, I mean:

I've got some more:

A lot of people mentioned Starcraft, other Blizzard games, and the Call of Duty series. I think that those games are meant to subvert heroics and present many options as morally questionable.

As for God of War, Kratos is not the hero but the villain. Albeit a tragic villain but a villain nonetheless.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked