I remember being in middle school playing that game and knowing Vaas monologue by heart. Recently replayed it and got the platty on the ps5. Got the platty back on ps3. Awesome game.
Thanks for mentioned the lethal options in Watch Dogs 2 and how it breaks the game. I think it would have been a better game if DeadSec loses followers with every kill, because viewers would see them more as a terrorist group if they took lives.
what a reductive & contrived superficial 'outlook' that you have on Watch Dogs 2. its like all the thematic processes of WD2 (especially the marketing of the game) has beem completely overlooked for some (superficial) reason.
That was my issue with the game unlike Aiden the main characters didn't feel like the murdering types and stealing from pedestrians also felt wrong with them. But the game does have a lot of alternative options though some missions are harder than others making it harder to not kill people.
better yet maybe if you just cause chaos with your hacker abilites gives you hippy followers who will support you give you bonuses that can create more chaos while if you shoot people up you get followed by thugs or gun fanatics that will send you more guns and shit.
Red Dead Redemption 2 would have been a good one to look at, considering it's Witness/Wanted and Honor systems with killing, and where letting someone live can payoff if you meet them later in the game, and how NPCs even remember you in certain towns if you did bad deeds.
Its not. You kill alot of people during missionsz whether they be police or other gangsters, the game tries to bring it up but says nothing. The game doesnt take any honor away from you for killing lawman or pinkertons in Saint Denis during the two gone wrong robberies in the game but outside of the missions you lose honor. Hell. You lose honor for robbing people in the game, like how come I don't lose any honor during for robbing people during missions etc.
@@felipedias4205I think the killing thing is offset by the main characters responsibility to the gang and uneasiness about changing their life because they’ve been a cold blooded outlaw their entire life. I do think that if Arthur had made it from the final mission he’s in, he would have stopped. I think at the end, he’s doing most of the bad stuff he’s done because he feels some sort of responsibility for everybody instead of just for himself.
nah, rdr 2 karma system and consequences are pretty blank, like yeah you can't kill a npc on the openworld but you can kill lots of guards while rescuing a gang member! it just doesnt work
I love how the game developers of Tomb Raider came out and said “no that guy wasn’t trying to rape her.” Did we play the same game? That dude 100% was going to rape her.
RDR2 also has a very big Ludonarrative dissonance Arthur calls Dutch a cold blooded killer. Despite Arthur himself killing over 1100 people in mission. Over half of those being lawmen with famlies just doing their jobs.
He only calls Dutch a cold blooded killer when he unnecessarily kills Gloria. He does it pretty brutally too. Arthur kills people when he has to. When men are shooting at you there's not much you can do other than shooting back.
He didnt call dutch a cold blooded killer 1100 poeple is over 15 people in every single mission which is plainly untrue Arthurs kills criminal and slavers then occasionally lawmen but usually other gang members or in guarma slavers Dutch kills innocents and plays himself off as being more than a killer
@@adrianrecinos9885 Arthur starts those fights 80% of the time. They're shooting at Arthur because he's just robbed something or someone at gunpoint and then refused to surrender. What about the time where he breaks Micah out of jail and shoots up an entire town? Apparently killing so many people that no one was left to remember him.
I feel like Ghost of Tsushima could also be mentioned here, except that the question is different. The characters live in a world where violence is normal, especially during an invasion that has already overtaken most of the island. Every character we meet deals with breaking their own moral codes, or taking desperate measures in desperate times, and us, and the other characters witnessing these events (whether it be characters witnessing Jin's events, or Jin witnessing others' events) start to struggle how to really judge these actions. With Jin, specifically, the dilemma doesn't come from killing itself, as it is something pretty normalised withing Samuraï society, but the manner in which it is done. Yet, Jin finds himself initially in a position where he must foresake his code because the enemy knows that code in and out, and every loophole around it. So Jin kills someone dishounorably because it was necessary. After which a flashback plays of him being told how killing should ALWAYS be done honourably, showing the inner turmoil. The thing is that the first time you perform any other variation of a stealth kill (like doing an air assassination on an unsuspecting enemy) another brief flashback plays of the same moment, and Jin laments, and says how he's sorry. What makes this so interesting is that this isn't something that happens scripted during the next story mission or something, this will happen whenever you as a player decide to do that specific action. So you could spend the entire game never doing an air assassination, and be halfway through the game, and you randomly decide to do it during a base takeover, and be surprised with it as a player (As a matter of fact, it actually happened while I was doing a random side-quest). As a player, it surprises you, because we are disensitised to it, but notice how our protagonist isn't okay with this. The fact that this could legit happen at any given moment shows how much inner torment Jin feels on his actions. You also notice that unless you upgrade your tanto, the stealth kills will be brutal and drawn out, showing how this isn't suddenly conveniently an easy thing for Jin now. And at the second upgrade, the kills are less drawn out, and more methodical, but still elaborate. At the final upgrade, Jin usually just stabs an enemy in a quick seamless manner, as if it's nothing to him now. so Jin does kinda get a little desensitised to it, yet the people around him, and sometimes his opponents are terrified of him. His allies often comment on his actions, whereas Jin at first acts confused, not seeing how he's special, but trying to downplay his actions, as he's not proud of it, but later actively encouraging others to validate them (at times). His actions do end up having very destructive consequences, and he ends up winning at the end, but at the cost of losing everything he had, and accidentally setting in motion a sentiment of rebellion within the people of Tsushima, causing the Greater Japanese government to get wary and worried. UA-camr Cynic (www.youtube.com/@CynicGTA) actually has a lot of videos on various characters of the game (and characters of other franchises and games as well). Y'all should check them out, they're pretty good.
0:46 gta iv actaully does include a story at its forefront and the story actaully does adress the violence the main player commits in a very interesting way
@@alexzander1142 near the end of the game the main protagonist niko finds darko the man who betrayed him and his sqaud in the war that he fought but when confronted he basically the game basically calls out niko for the horrible things he did just to find darko by having darko say "How much do you charge to kill someone" after he says he sold nikos sqaud out for a thousand dollars.
These video game characters are more fitting of the definition of ‘Mass Murderer’ rather than ‘Serial Killer’. A Serial Killer is someone that murders people with no apparent motive and typically follows characteristic, and predictable behaviour patterns. A good example of the difference within a fictional context would be Dexter Morgan, and The Punisher. Despite killing the same types of people Dexter follows the same repetitive ritual in order to kill his victims, whereas The Punisher is far more unpredictable and random with his methods.
buddy, there's ZERO distinction with these 'definitions' when they're synonymous in its technical meaning. enough with the semantics of what a 'serial offer' is in your arbitrary prescribed meaning that you're fallaciously shifting to what A & B is. Dexter & Punisher are synonymous with what they do in essence, & there's a clear motive for them to carry it on. (P.S don't utilize 'character' like that... its allegorical of its generalizations of a Human being, & therefore makes it paradoxical against a Human)
The cutscenes never attempt to make Drake out as a hero even if he ends up doing heroic things- I think it's made clear you aren't supposed to Idolize drake and that he's not a typical hero- he literally scams Elena in the beginning of the first game. He's an asshole, a thief, and very cunning and Is not afraid to kill others if they attempt to harm him or his friends. There is no disconnect. If you make drake out to be a hero that is your own doing. His heroic efforts are highlighted in the game yes but so is his selfishness, his hypocrisy and the facts that he kills people.
All the people Nathan Drake killed are mercenaries trying to kill him. Nathan doesn’t enjoy going against them. If Nathan’s family and friends are in danger, he always chooses them first over treasure. Sully and Elena and everyone he worked with perfectly knew the risks of being with him. I don’t get why you blame him when they choose the adventure life as well.
What compounds this issue I have with purposfuly misreading uncharted is in uncharted 3 we establish his first kill was very young and he wasn't exactly happy about it. It's more stupid and unrealistic for the story 20 plus years into his life of treasure hunting and gunfights for him to dwell on the murder. It's the equivalent of watching a film about knights only to gripe that after 30 years of being a knight this guy isn't having a metal gear style 4th wall breaking self reflection session. Combine that with the fact he's killing unquestionably evil people, he majority of the time tries to avoid going the kill route with, of course he's not going to dwell on it. Made all the worse that we magical give this pass for something like star wars or Indiana Jones, but some how drake is ludo narratively disonancing or whatever that really bad term invited for a bad review, where it was misused in said review, is called.
One of the early missions in uncharted 2 shows nate and the other evil rob a museum to steal something. Turns out the gun he uses is a tranq gun when coming up against the museum security.
These comments man... I'm not arguing against drake being good but he's not your typical "there's always another way" hero. All the villains in the series don't give him many other choices besides kill or be killed. Drake has no reservations about killing a man who blatantly sticks a gun in his face or threatens the life of his Friends and family. He is still not a "morally superior hero" like we see in most media he does things all the time that the average good Samaritan would never do but that goes back to him loving to seek adventure and being raised by his criminal older brother Sam and Sully who's the biggest con artist he knows. Selina Kyle aka batwoman only Steals from the rich but stealing in it of itself is bad no matter who. Drake steals, lies and kills for a living is he a monster like Lazarveic obviously not but that doesn't make him a hero by any means. Drake never starts any game being the "hero" this is a role he is thrust into come the end of his adventure wether willingly or not. He isn't a goody twoshoes like people keep trying to portray him as. He's complex and should be treated as such. A good guy is Batman- his one rule is to literally never kill even if Joker killed everyone he cared about. Drake would do no such thing and we've seen this. He spends all of uncharted 1 trying to leave and get revenge on Roman for "killing sully" or the moments in uncharted 3
YOU FORGOT UNDERTALE!! The best ending is sparing and befriending everyone, yet if you get a small but non zero kill count then sans (who judges the players actions directly, ranging from hopeful to hateful towards the main character) will comment how self defense is understandable since it wasn't malicious. And he'll only fight the player if the player specifically tries their hardest to eliminate everyone. And his goal isn't to kill the main character, he knows he's powerless and is trying to be just enough of a roadblock to make the player quit.
Exact reason i love far cry 3 so much and wish more games would make killing not just effect the player but the people around him like jason A slowly becomes crazier B the enemies get more and more scared of him
I love far cry 3’s story for how well it shows that all the people you kill affects the main characters mental health and how the characters around you react to your actions
@@celtic19But from a design and gameplay standpoint. This completely and utterly kills the "GTA-style" genre they're going for. They'd have to transition to a linear action game to make the narrative really work, which by this point in the franchise seems like a terrible idea. What they should've done was be more faithful to the first iteration and have the second game be more serious instead of the whole "how ya doin' fellow kids" type shit Ubisoft tried to pull.
10:10 I think that the game works regardless of whether the player chooses a violent approach during combat or just sneaks away from conflict without killing everyone/anyone. And I don't think that these kills WOULD affect Ellie that much. After all: this is the world she lives in. Even in the first game, she learns to kill for survival, and has the potential to do quite a few of those (some we witness as players, some we personally do when we play as her). These people are obstacles in her path. They started shooting first. They are the ones speaking a language of violence, so Ellie very well might respond in kind. Killing for survival or protecting someone you love is something that Ellie knows. Dina is familiar with this too (she killed her first man at age 10 to protect her mother). So this stuff doesn't phase her too much. Murdering someone slowly, ruthlessly, torturing someone slowly... THAT is new to Ellie. And this is stuff that messed with Ellie in the first game too, with David. Killing David, regardless of him fully deserving that, left a mark on Ellie. It truly shook her up. Whereas killing that hunter to save Joel or sniping those guys to help Joel... she accepts fairly quickly. David STAYS with her, tho. Similarly, Ellie can not care about killing regular enemy NPCs. That's just the fog of survival. But when it comes to confronting those who she is ACTUALLY looking for and torturing or killing them... it is different. Because there is an emotional need there, her ego is REALLY wrapped up in that violence, way more than fighting a regular enemy. Add to this that survival is different from a slow torture and murder... And I think her arc remains solid regardless of the approach the player takes. Saying as someone who has played the game both ways. If she kills WLFs or Seraphites to get to her goal, it adds to the violent vibe in Seattle, it adds to her not caring about who is in her path on her way to revenge. If she sneaks by everyone or kills a few folks and just runs for the exit... It highlights her obsessive need to get to the GOAL of her revenge. Either way: it helps to show her one-track mindset, and we see that she is familiar with violence and has engaged with it... even if she isn't really made for it, even if it is damaging to her (and it IS. See: Nora, Mel). And I do think that the tone of violence in the game helps to highlight the brutal, callous nature of the violence that Ellie is inflicting on these enemies, and the enemies are inflicting/trying to inflict on Ellie. I hope this rambling made some sense lol
There is also this whole thing about Ellie wanting to feel like she is in the right. It is why, I believe, she forced Abby into fighting at the end. At first she looks at Abby, sees that she has become a hollow shell of what she once was... She sees that Abby is no longer the monster who robbed her. So she lets it go. Ellie only changes her mind after seeing THAT vision. She sees that the guilt still remains. So she turns back and forces a fight. She wants to kill Abby in combat, instead of beating her while she is unarmed or helpless or not fighting back. She wants it to feel right, so she isn't shaken up again.
@@SidPhoenix2211 I think even more than wanting to kill Abby, Ellie want's to get Joel back. With the final flashback we are shown that it was always about grief and never revenge to Ellie. You could argue that she grieved like Joel would (and did).
@@MangaMarjan yes! That's THE main reason for Ellie setting off on this quest. I figured this was readily apparent so I didn't really go into it. Plus, I had other angles I wanted to talk about
Games usually make the protagonist's desires meet the players' but TLOU2 ultimately doesn't. Ellie realizes that Abby's death won't help or heal her but half the fandom wants that desire so bad that being denied it made them furious. And that's a point in favour to this game: it isn't about us, it's about Ellie
@@guilhermesantos8728 100% Some folks often ask for choices in these games. THEY wanna choose whether to save Ellie or not. THEY wanna choose whether Ellie kills Abby at the end or not. But like you said... It isn't about us. It is about Joel. It is about Ellie. It is about Abby. It is about them and what they want and need. And the games are stronger for this. I ENJOY getting to be in these characters shoes and wrestle with what they choose. Narrative choice doesn't inherently make a game better. In fact, too many games add multiple endings haphazardly and it only results in a poor overall design and then an ending(s) that don't entirely fit the overall story as well. PS: I personally didn't want Ellie to kill Abby at the end. Both of these women had gone through enough and they simply needed to move away from each other.
You forgot to mention how a low chaos run in Dishonored may make the game easier as it has impacts on future levels such as the types and number of guards and vice versa.
Damn opened youtube and saw that I hit my goal. Cant explain in words how hyped I am. Thanks to everyone for the support. But I've been seeing a lot of comments about my pronunciation and voice so i just wanna mention a few things. English is not my first language so I think I over estimated how good I am at speaking it, this is something I'm actively working on improving on. I'm using a very cheap mic right now that peaks a lot so i have to run my audio through a dialogue processor/enhancer and that causes the rasp but if you guys think its hard to listen to I'll just work on trying to buy a better one asap. I'm always looking to improve so if you have any issue or suggestion tell me and they I promise they end up being fixed.
@not_456 your English was very good in my opinion (I only speak English), and I thought the audio and your voice sounded fine. Just keep working on your craft, and I'm sure you'll be like the pros in no time! Can't wait for the next video 😄
If you could add subtitles that'd be very helpful. Cuz I don't have an issue with different accents, but poor mic quality can REALLY deter me from understanding what is being said
My dude, there are native English speakers I find unlistenable. Too hyper, or too slow, or mispronouncing the names of characters in the very game they reviewed. You’re none of that! Please keep being yourself and producing great content! (Pro tip: Gamers will always complain about SOMETHING-so keep that in mind as you encounter comments that aren’t constructive).
In stealth games I always try to go non lethal if its an option as I find it more fun as I don't risk passing out (hemophobia and thanatophobia) and it more of a challenge, but I like it when games make the protagonist and by extension the player question the morality of killing people.
This War of Mine really handles killing quite well. During war a group of citizens must survive for as long as they can and killing people-unless you have a character who is purposely cold hearted- is gonna get to everyone and make them feel upset. If it continues or goes unaddressed the killer may fall into an extreme depression and possibly end their lives
When talking about killing and morality systems, I can't help but remember the Metro Trilogy(which is possibly my favorite post-apocalyptic video game series) where the games are pretty cryptic and extreme in regards to if the player qualifies as a good guy or bad. To avoid spoilers, they have great stories and atmosphere and an always evolving gameplay that got more polish every entry. The morality system would judge the player by how they interacted with NPCs and enemies: if the player gave some currency to beggars, they'd get good karma if they kill enemies, in any way they'd get bad karma. The problem is that in addition to non-lethal methods being only stealth takedowns and ghosting encounters the games aren't clear on the rules of the system: is every enemy death equally valuable to it, including the mutant enemies? Are there exceptions during scripted scenes? Should there be some sort of message explaining it(like in dishonored), or is player immersion more important? The second game in the series "Last Light" was kinda frustrating to me in that regard since in my first playthrough, I spared most of the human and even some of the mutant ones and still got the bad ending even though the game was pretty action packed with an upgrade to the arsenal and a massive battle between the game's factions in the end. It's not bad, but I really hope they will at least make good karma runs easier in the next mainline title by either lowering the number of points necessary for a good ending or by coming up with more than two ways of clearing an encounter without killing anyone.
This reminds me of a moment early in GTA IV where if you kill a certain character in a specific way, Niko will get frustrated and remark "I promised myself I wouldn't kill people here". I find it interesting that this message only happens if you push the guy out of the window, as there are different lines if he dies in other ways. It's also mildly inconsistent with the reason he's there in Liberty City, but I'm willing to believe that he sees his revenge targets as the exceptions.
Everybody's mentioning how games like the Metro Series, Undertale, Metal Gear, GTA IV, Far Cry 3, and RDR2 weren't even brought up in the video, meanwhile Hotline Miami and its story's take on ludonarrative dissonance is being slept on. I remember watching another video like this and in it, it did bring up Hotline and I remember distinctively this one moment where it shows the protagonist puking due to all of the killing he has done throughout the whole game up to that point. Man, did that hit the feels..
MGSV is the only game that i tried being non-lethal the whole game, and it actually feels rewarding, because you can recruit the soldiers that you keep alive.
Something I’ve kinda been surprised by as I’ve gotten older is that I thought I’d become a lot more cold and unthinking towards violence in games and just not care that much for it. Especially since I grew up playing games since I was five, but I’ve actually had the opposite reaction. This goes towards media in general but truthfully I really hate needless death and especially unjustified violence. I guess as a kid you don’t really think about it all that much since obviously it’s just fun in the moment. But having grownup I’ve found that I’m much more impacted by that sort of thing then I would have expected and can actually feel particularly bad when seeing or doing it. People would probably say that’s weak or some nonsense but I call it “emotional maturity”. Especially given today’s media and pop culture. People rarely care about that sort of thing and don’t really think all that much about it. An example would be something like the ending for TWD Telltale Season 1. Particularly the final choice… As a kid I obviously felt sad after finishing it but could quickly forget it and move onto the next game in a minute. Where as now after I watch or play something similar… I actually need some time to decompress and sit on the moment. Being a fan of story’s especially I often need to take some hours after finishing a movie, TV Series or good game to settle with the emotions. Again pretty sure some edgy kids or block headed people would say that’s sad or some crap but honestly I’m glad I actually think and process this sort of stuff. It’s crazy how inhumane and morally bankrupt people have gotten over the years and I think a large part of that unfortunately is due to the glorification of violence in media and the de stigmatization of death generally. Obviously I’m not gonna blame Video Games for anything but people have distanced themselves from actually feeling and caring even in real relationships. Let alone fictional tales and entertainment. Killing in games is normal and I’m not gonna pretend as if I sit on every poor sap I snipe in Battlefields death 😂😂 But particularly for RPGs, Story driven and even action or whatnot. Death and killing actually stays with me as actually being something impactful which I think game developers need to lean more into nowadays. To this day I’m impressed by games like Far Cry 3 which take the actual game mechanics seriously and reflect your characters breaking mental state at normalizing death so much… That to me is a beautiful, important and unfortunately lacking thing in most games today…
it's such a hard thing to balance because killing things just feels way more satisfying. i can't roleplay a mean character to save my life, but killing enemies is still a blast. i don't play FPSs so it's a bit easier to fill both niches by just playing games that kill monsters or something else instead. like my favourite game of all time is hades, and basically every enemy is a spirit that'll respawn again later like nothing happened (except some satyrs and rats, but you even get assurance that their spirits go to the underworld too). i'm surprised you didn't talk about baldur's gate 3 considering you showed clips of it! it's certainly not in ludo-narrative harmony but it isn't completely dissonant either. it helps that D&D has extensive lore about the afterlife and numerous ways to resurrect people or make them undead, even if not all present in-game. but what the game seems to focus on it whether or not you kill innocents and non-combatants, with varying levels of consequence. raiding the grove in act one is a huge one, it sticks all the refugees in one room cowering and begging for their lives, and every kill nets you a whopping 1 exp. it's fucking gut-wrenching, and you feel the tieflings absence for the rest of the campaign. there's a lot to say about bg3 in this respect, but i'd be here all night if i kept going! it's interesting though, and the fact that every NPC is killable adds flavour to the whole thing i think, it gives you endless options that'll affect events later on.
Sifu does something good in terms of this. For spoiler purposes I won't reveal the details. Its worth a play and achieve both endings. Could be worth a mention in a part 2.
Dishonored really frustrated me because it's One of the games where killing is specifically justified, but they punish you for doing it. In some cases, the fate of the enemy ends up being worse than death if you pick the "good" path. What I ended up doing was figuring out just how many people I was allowed to kill in each level to still get the good ending.
Yeah, like when the game wants you to sell a female villain into sexual slavery. Stuff like that is why I hate karma systems in games. Just give me freedom to play the damn game.
@AWESOMEX711 I could see different factions disliking or liking you for your actions, or if they have objectively good and bad actions (hurting an innocent character), but there has to be some form of logic. The Hitman games at least had the objective of making it look like an accident vs raising suspicion.
I get but disagree with the "ludo-narrative dissonance" arguments regarding Uncharted. If you take such an issue with Nathan Drake killing enemies, don't shoot enemies; that was always an option. But guess what? They'll kill him first. The games aren't aiming for pure realism but it's a harsh reality and one the games don't ignore. Nate can die or survive, it's your call, and his method might not be ideal, but if he survives, he does.
I think Roadwarden handles killing quite well. There’s I believe only one person you can actually kill directly in the game, and it’s treated as a *big* deal, it even has an achievement. (there’s also a few you can get killed, but you don’t directly do it). Violence in general is typically frowned upon, and it’s directly tackled in a quest where you can bring justice to a “malefactor” who harmed people through their actions (actions which are looked upon with either fear, disgust or disappointment by almost every character in the game). Just my two cents though.
In defense of Nathan drake in uncharted 3, there’s a rooftop chase scene and near the end we have a young Nathan accidentally pushes a guy off him and off the rooftop, seemingly killing him (but unconfirmed) we see his face shocked for a brief second then when cornered by another enemy he’s holding a gun but is unable to pull the trigger and is saved by sully. I think this shows how Nathan is human and shows his innocence whereas sully is the more experienced figure that has taken lives before. This is the point where Nathan is taken under sully’s wing and in my head cannon is makes sense that later on when Nathan did kill out of his own volition and struggled with taking a life Sully was there to help him deal with it. the thief life is just something he’s used to since he was young and is why he’s able to kill. As for any other character in the series they mostly just do it for the money or to not die.
I also just remembered that Nathan never kills innocent people and is against it. It’s seen in the first mission of uncharted 2 where they have to sneak their way through a museum and use tranquilizer guns and hand to hand combat to knock them out.
Something i love in pillars of eternity is killing doesnt grant any xp (except generic monsters and thats only to fill a beast log so it stops quickly after). That means being a murder hobo isnt mandatory to beat the game (required leveling) like in Baldur's Gate. I want Underrail since it does the same as Pillars.
Bro, you should do a video essay on "How games handle (or ignore) non-lethality" I think you could make interesting points/observations, like how it's always the "less fun" way of playing a game mainly due to having like 1-2 ways of actually taking out enemies vs. the lethal playstyle. Take Metal Gear Solid for example: Non-lethally, you got like... takedown, stun grenades, and the tranq-gun that sucks balls. Meanwhile, the lethal player gets 800000 guns, grenades, bazookas, exlposives, knives, poison, environmental traps, and at least 2 different close-quarters attacks. Playing "good" is boring while playing "bad" is fun.
No idea how you survived the internet without encounting ludonarrative dissonance but there's one fantastic set piece in the watch dogs dlc I played yesterday where Kenney faces his lifelong trauma where his actions lead to the deaths of 11 people. The only problem is I had to kill 100s to get there. Stuff had zero ludonarrative harmony that what would've been an emotional moment just made me cackle. Also the dishonored chaos level completely changes the last level
also his trauma is fixated on the innocent lives that he took, but that doesn't negate Kenny not offing others in the name of his trauma... especially those who are against him. there's no 'lUdNonArRaTiVe DIsSoNanCe' here bud.
This is why cyberpunk is amazing if everyone is a borderline psycho killer then you being one ain’t that big of a surprise/ take you out of the experience
It's not that the game would be boring, it would just be much shorter if you made it so that all of the combat in game was canonical to the story in the cutscenes. One thing that might help is if there was a story mode that had much briefer encounters and relied more on the cutscenes, and then a gameplay mode that had the hours and hours of mechanics you're talking about. That, or you're going to have to include a lot more elements besides combat in the game in order to keep players engaged and have a longer run time. It would be interesting to see a Fallout game in which you can literally do a speech build that is non-violent rather than trying to start off with a character that has high speech but still has to level up by killing things. Most of your experience points come from combat rather than from accomplishing role-playing goals or meeting milestones in the story.
Ludonarrative in isolation isn't necessarily a good or bad thing. Uncharted in particular is mimicking a staple of the pulp adventure genre going back to decade old novels. Where dissonance is plenty in favor of high action.
I think it’s important to point out that the guy who talks about ludonarrative dissonance is almost entirely wrong about the themes of Bioshock. He wants to play as the oppressor, not the oppressed. The WHOLE POINT of Bioshock is that systems like objectivism force people to act against their own beliefs and turns people into hypocrites. You are given choices that aren’t really choices at all, forced into a violent world in which you as they player have no agency, as the game is incredibly meta and has commentary on the nature of gameplay as a whole. The point is that you have no choice, you have to keep doing whatever you’re told, blindly following orders and not thinking about what you’re doing to people. Ludonarrative dissonance is an important term in this conversation, it’s just important to realize that from its very conception, it was heavily misunderstood
Reading the comments I see enough suggestions that can be cobbled together for a follow up video 😉 I'll add my own random thought: those games that give you ways that absolutely would be lethal in the real world but twists itself into interesting shapes to hand-wave it away so it can maintain that your character canonically never kills. If you've ever thrown someone off a roof in Insomniac's Spider-Man [1] or hit a thug in Arkham Knight with the Batmobile going highway speeds [2], you know what I'm talking about lmao. So on one hand, you're explicitly given the options that you can take or leave to execute those.. executions, in a way that moment-to-moment does satisfy the visceral bloodlust if you don't pay attention to the context. It's only if you suspend your suspension of disbelief and deeply go out of your way to subscribe to the narrative workarounds that you either (a) remain mildly disappointed that you can't go all the way if you're leaning into for the violence or (b) view those methods as genuinely non-lethal so you carry on with a clean conscience, either because they're effective, or entertaining (either because of or despite of the context), or because they so closely resemble the real world counterpart that would have actual consequences. My thoughts on this are half-baked but it's definitely an interesting example. Final contribution is how interesting the other ways games maintain your forever boy scout status where you're otherwise free to act like making harming enemies or certain subsets of NPCs an instant fail state, or by preventing you from harming those people like by disabling a weapon when your crosshaire are on them, or by making the NPCs that they want you not to kill to be straight up invulnerable to your attacks altogether.
In case you didn't know: [1] In Insomniac's Spider-Man if you strike or throw an enemy off a building or high perch, that enemy will have attached to them a web device like the in-game trip mine / web trap/ whatever it's called. While the enemy is falling, it sends out a web line that flies out from the enemy towards the building, attaches, connecting the enemy and the building briefly, then retracts, pulling the enemy into the building and web-sticks them to the outside wall, long before they hit the ground, as if you'd laid a mine against a normal wall anywhere that pulled an unsuspecting enemy into it after they walked by. The "device" is all narrative. You see it in action (the enemy flying into the building via web line mid-fall and then sticking to it) but you never actually see the device itself, let alone when Spider-Man was meant to place it on them after engaging them. It's a micro retcon every time it happens. [2] In Batman Arkham Knight, the Batmobile is fully driveable and you can take it to very high speeds, not to mention that it's assumed to be very heavy from its munitions, fortifications, but most importantly from the way it handles. Yet, there are still enemies scattered outside along the streets of Gotham and therefore you're able to ram them at any speed. At crawl speeds like in turret mode (yes, turret mode - think bean bag riot gun when aiming at people), it's clear that the Batmobile's "countermeasures", its electrified exterior hull, are activated as the enemy is shocked and thrown from where they made contact with the car far out of proportion to the speed you hit them at. The enemy is instantly defeated from the shock, but shown to still be alive to tell the tale. Basically, when you're driving fast, the exact same thing happens.Even if you're going like 90 and you hit a human enemy, the thug is shocked, thrown from the car (just much more forcefully and still out of proportion to the speed) and demonstrated to be defeated but otherwise alive having only sustained injuries from the shock. And because they're always blasted up and away from the car the second you make contact, you can never run over anybody.
Agreed but still there are some games where killing does effect the story and its character greatly, the most well known games or which being red dead redemption 2, far cry 3 and undertale. All though far cry 3 doesnt give you any other choice but to kill you could see how shocked and horrified jason was when he killed his first pirate, and felt even more paranoia when he was later offered a gun when the idea of him shooting someone else seemed so terrible, only for his mind to get more and more insane as he killed more and worked with the tribe more to the point where he may even kill his friends. The story of seeing a regular dude turn into a monster is fucking wild and i love it.
I feel like metal gear games. Mainly V handle this the best. Players are more rewarded for going non lethal and encouraged to do so without being put off from going full on guns blazing. The action and gunplay in V is fun. But it's more rewarding as a player to stealth a base and get out undetected for that S+ rank
I dont agree with the TLOU arguement killing in self defence is normal to ellie torturing and channeling joel is not. So scenes like nora hit, because its different to ellie, having to humanise mel hits because she is pushing further even though in back of her mind she knows she has problems with it her own self. And serves as parallel to dina. i dont see it as ludonarrative dissonance except maybe the upgrade system which i can let go for gameplay reasons...
Watch Dogs 2 failed so because of this badly. The game could have been a masterpiece the level of a Rockstar game imo. They even had a reputation system in WD1. A few custscenes and a bad ending should have been an option if you have low honor in WD2.
'low honor' you do realize that this is WATCH_DOGS 2 & not Red Dead Redemption (1 &) 2... i can tell you've been too indoctrinated by the consensus & this video against Watch Dogs 2 (as well as other subject matters within the video game medium) for its apparent 'lUdNonArRaTiVe DIsSoNanCe'. also, you can't determine what's 'Bad/Evil' in its absolute form of truth you superficial Drone.
Good vid yeah i feel as though its just well we gotta make the player entertained which is valid but an actual reflection of our actions is something that needs to be handled well but in story and gameplay
I feel like Cyberpunk is a good for this. You're a mercenary that was born and raised in one of the hardest cities to live in. So killing people nonchalantly is easy
Even if most of these characters are heroic and the lives they're taking are those of absolutely vile people, taking a life is still a heavy toll that changes a person. Whether that person is good or bad doesn't matter, killing changes you, and it's ridiculous that protagonists are often so nonchalant about it. That's why I personally prioritize nonlethal takedowns whenenever possible, that alligns better with my personal philosophy that no matter how horrible someone is, I am not an executioner. TL;DR, Far Cry 3 nailed it.
I love Bioshock but it is pretty funny how this extremely morally grey world in lore is broken down in gameplay as "Murder child: Yes/No?" Like oh man what a complexinng ethical dilemma. Do I just let them go free or do I absolutely eviscerate them for slightly more energy.
I like to think Joel is just choking people out in the first last of us when you stealth though but we all know thats just wishful thinking. I recently played though MGS5 for the first time and tried to be as non lethal as possible, though i'm not sure if that would be considered cannon.
Honestly i never really took any issue with killing in uncharted when the people you kill are mostly -murderous pirates -serbian war criminals (maybe the worst out of them all due to being somewhat based on real life) -mercenaries -strange british cult members(?) all of whom will shoot you on sight
RDR2 handles in game killing better than people give it credit for. Arthur and his friends are written as delusional and hypocritical about their actions. Arthur has a lot of conversations with Charles' earlier in the game where he seemingly forgets he's a criminal and Charles has to remind him. It's only until the midpoint does he start talking about himself in a realistic way and it's always negative even if you play as a squeaky clean high honor Arthur.
Not true. Arthur never forgets and is one of the few who is not delusional. When Charles is angry at people for killing randomly Arthur's first reaction is something like ''As if we can talk''.
Ok so I don’t agree at all about infamous. you can still be lethal in second son against regular enemies when you’re good karma, in canon good Delsin is fine with killing DUP, he just doesn’t kill surrendering enemies, but if he has to yeah he’ll kill them, it’s all up to how you play it. I never found good karma harder than evil, if anything good karma is arguably easier cause you get an ability that heals you every time you subdue an opponent.
You show he lazarovic scene but you dont show how it ends... Lazarovic tells nathan to ens him as he's already a killer but nathan whom already has weakened lazarovic to the point where he cant fuck up the world lets him live (whilst letting his consequences kill him) walking away showing that he kills when he needs to and that lazarovic kills because he's heartless. Nathan did enough and left to help the peoeple he loved, cloe and elena
I think when it comes to Ellie the ludo narrative dissidence doesn’t apply strictly because I see her as the villain of the story. Don’t get me wrong I love Ellie she’s an awesome character and her decent into villainy was sad but fun to watch and play. I truly believe Abby is the hero of the story; but what she did to Joel was messed up.
I’ve been saying the uncharted issue forever!! Cause I hate how when it comes to killing the main bad guy they don’t it could be someone so evil and they can’t bc they don’t do it in cold blood…. Like ?!?! He could of easily killed rafe but didn’t he’s already mowed down 1000s of people
You forgot far cry3 where the main character gets more and more insane and starts to like killing wich is show through dialogue and his reaction
I remember being in middle school playing that game and knowing Vaas monologue by heart. Recently replayed it and got the platty on the ps5. Got the platty back on ps3. Awesome game.
@thamolus But isn't that ludonarrative resonance/harmony?
Its also shown through as the player gets better st the game, the more comfortable Jason gets with killing people
Dishonored is not getting any love man
@@SpeedySoloVR ikr, get my half mute man corvo some love
Thanks for mentioned the lethal options in Watch Dogs 2 and how it breaks the game.
I think it would have been a better game if DeadSec loses followers with every kill, because viewers would see them more as a terrorist group if they took lives.
what a reductive & contrived superficial 'outlook' that you have on Watch Dogs 2.
its like all the thematic processes of WD2 (especially the marketing of the game) has beem completely overlooked for some (superficial) reason.
That was my issue with the game unlike Aiden the main characters didn't feel like the murdering types and stealing from pedestrians also felt wrong with them. But the game does have a lot of alternative options though some missions are harder than others making it harder to not kill people.
Pretty good way to handle it to be fair
That’s how it was in the first game
better yet maybe if you just cause chaos with your hacker abilites gives you hippy followers who will support you give you bonuses that can create more chaos while if you shoot people up you get followed by thugs or gun fanatics that will send you more guns and shit.
Red Dead Redemption 2 would have been a good one to look at, considering it's Witness/Wanted and Honor systems with killing, and where letting someone live can payoff if you meet them later in the game, and how NPCs even remember you in certain towns if you did bad deeds.
But then every mission you kill hundreds of people
Its not. You kill alot of people during missionsz whether they be police or other gangsters, the game tries to bring it up but says nothing. The game doesnt take any honor away from you for killing lawman or pinkertons in Saint Denis during the two gone wrong robberies in the game but outside of the missions you lose honor. Hell. You lose honor for robbing people in the game, like how come I don't lose any honor during for robbing people during missions etc.
@@felipedias4205I think the killing thing is offset by the main characters responsibility to the gang and uneasiness about changing their life because they’ve been a cold blooded outlaw their entire life. I do think that if Arthur had made it from the final mission he’s in, he would have stopped. I think at the end, he’s doing most of the bad stuff he’s done because he feels some sort of responsibility for everybody instead of just for himself.
nah, rdr 2 karma system and consequences are pretty blank, like yeah you can't kill a npc on the openworld but you can kill lots of guards while rescuing a gang member!
it just doesnt work
@@soulessboys1845wdym the game allows you to kill every humans and animals except there are witnesses for humans
how could you not talk about metal gear solid
bruh 😭😭😭 fr
Make yo own video goofy
@@JB2FROSTYDamn why does he have to be goofy for that?
No u@@JB2FROSTY
he's a philistine
I love how the game developers of Tomb Raider came out and said “no that guy wasn’t trying to rape her.” Did we play the same game? That dude 100% was going to rape her.
Nah
That’s like if they said the dude from the Last of Us wasn’t tryna SA Ellie, like …. There’s no other implication there
RDR2 also has a very big Ludonarrative dissonance
Arthur calls Dutch a cold blooded killer. Despite Arthur himself killing over 1100 people in mission.
Over half of those being lawmen with famlies just doing their jobs.
He only calls Dutch a cold blooded killer when he unnecessarily kills Gloria. He does it pretty brutally too. Arthur kills people when he has to. When men are shooting at you there's not much you can do other than shooting back.
He didnt call dutch a cold blooded killer
1100 poeple is over 15 people in every single mission which is plainly untrue
Arthurs kills criminal and slavers then occasionally lawmen but usually other gang members or in guarma slavers
Dutch kills innocents and plays himself off as being more than a killer
@@adrianrecinos9885 Arthur starts those fights 80% of the time. They're shooting at Arthur because he's just robbed something or someone at gunpoint and then refused to surrender. What about the time where he breaks Micah out of jail and shoots up an entire town? Apparently killing so many people that no one was left to remember him.
I feel like Ghost of Tsushima could also be mentioned here, except that the question is different. The characters live in a world where violence is normal, especially during an invasion that has already overtaken most of the island. Every character we meet deals with breaking their own moral codes, or taking desperate measures in desperate times, and us, and the other characters witnessing these events (whether it be characters witnessing Jin's events, or Jin witnessing others' events) start to struggle how to really judge these actions.
With Jin, specifically, the dilemma doesn't come from killing itself, as it is something pretty normalised withing Samuraï society, but the manner in which it is done. Yet, Jin finds himself initially in a position where he must foresake his code because the enemy knows that code in and out, and every loophole around it. So Jin kills someone dishounorably because it was necessary. After which a flashback plays of him being told how killing should ALWAYS be done honourably, showing the inner turmoil. The thing is that the first time you perform any other variation of a stealth kill (like doing an air assassination on an unsuspecting enemy) another brief flashback plays of the same moment, and Jin laments, and says how he's sorry.
What makes this so interesting is that this isn't something that happens scripted during the next story mission or something, this will happen whenever you as a player decide to do that specific action. So you could spend the entire game never doing an air assassination, and be halfway through the game, and you randomly decide to do it during a base takeover, and be surprised with it as a player (As a matter of fact, it actually happened while I was doing a random side-quest). As a player, it surprises you, because we are disensitised to it, but notice how our protagonist isn't okay with this. The fact that this could legit happen at any given moment shows how much inner torment Jin feels on his actions.
You also notice that unless you upgrade your tanto, the stealth kills will be brutal and drawn out, showing how this isn't suddenly conveniently an easy thing for Jin now. And at the second upgrade, the kills are less drawn out, and more methodical, but still elaborate. At the final upgrade, Jin usually just stabs an enemy in a quick seamless manner, as if it's nothing to him now. so Jin does kinda get a little desensitised to it, yet the people around him, and sometimes his opponents are terrified of him.
His allies often comment on his actions, whereas Jin at first acts confused, not seeing how he's special, but trying to downplay his actions, as he's not proud of it, but later actively encouraging others to validate them (at times). His actions do end up having very destructive consequences, and he ends up winning at the end, but at the cost of losing everything he had, and accidentally setting in motion a sentiment of rebellion within the people of Tsushima, causing the Greater Japanese government to get wary and worried.
UA-camr Cynic (www.youtube.com/@CynicGTA) actually has a lot of videos on various characters of the game (and characters of other franchises and games as well). Y'all should check them out, they're pretty good.
0:46 gta iv actaully does include a story at its forefront and the story actaully does adress the violence the main player commits in a very interesting way
How?
@@alexzander1142 near the end of the game the main protagonist niko finds darko the man who betrayed him and his sqaud in the war that he fought but when confronted he basically the game basically calls out niko for the horrible things he did just to find darko by having darko say "How much do you charge to kill someone" after he says he sold nikos sqaud out for a thousand dollars.
@@DudleyKetsukane that's pretty awesome
These video game characters are more fitting of the definition of ‘Mass Murderer’ rather than ‘Serial Killer’.
A Serial Killer is someone that murders people with no apparent motive and typically follows characteristic, and predictable behaviour patterns.
A good example of the difference within a fictional context would be Dexter Morgan, and The Punisher. Despite killing the same types of people Dexter follows the same repetitive ritual in order to kill his victims, whereas The Punisher is far more unpredictable and random with his methods.
buddy, there's ZERO distinction with these 'definitions' when they're synonymous in its technical meaning. enough with the semantics of what a 'serial offer' is in your arbitrary prescribed meaning that you're fallaciously shifting to what A & B is.
Dexter & Punisher are synonymous with what they do in essence, & there's a clear motive for them to carry it on.
(P.S don't utilize 'character' like that... its allegorical of its generalizations of a Human being, & therefore makes it paradoxical against a Human)
I have never though as someone like punisher as a serial killer but I can see why he would be called one
@@godzillazfriction he literally just said the distinctions tho?
@@wgnd1614 zero comprehension skills.
@@godzillazfriction how come?
The cutscenes never attempt to make Drake out as a hero even if he ends up doing heroic things- I think it's made clear you aren't supposed to Idolize drake and that he's not a typical hero- he literally scams Elena in the beginning of the first game. He's an asshole, a thief, and very cunning and Is not afraid to kill others if they attempt to harm him or his friends. There is no disconnect. If you make drake out to be a hero that is your own doing. His heroic efforts are highlighted in the game yes but so is his selfishness, his hypocrisy and the facts that he kills people.
All the people Nathan Drake killed are mercenaries trying to kill him. Nathan doesn’t enjoy going against them. If Nathan’s family and friends are in danger, he always chooses them first over treasure.
Sully and Elena and everyone he worked with perfectly knew the risks of being with him. I don’t get why you blame him when they choose the adventure life as well.
What compounds this issue I have with purposfuly misreading uncharted is in uncharted 3 we establish his first kill was very young and he wasn't exactly happy about it. It's more stupid and unrealistic for the story 20 plus years into his life of treasure hunting and gunfights for him to dwell on the murder. It's the equivalent of watching a film about knights only to gripe that after 30 years of being a knight this guy isn't having a metal gear style 4th wall breaking self reflection session. Combine that with the fact he's killing unquestionably evil people, he majority of the time tries to avoid going the kill route with, of course he's not going to dwell on it.
Made all the worse that we magical give this pass for something like star wars or Indiana Jones, but some how drake is ludo narratively disonancing or whatever that really bad term invited for a bad review, where it was misused in said review, is called.
One of the early missions in uncharted 2 shows nate and the other evil rob a museum to steal something. Turns out the gun he uses is a tranq gun when coming up against the museum security.
These comments man... I'm not arguing against drake being good but he's not your typical "there's always another way" hero. All the villains in the series don't give him many other choices besides kill or be killed. Drake has no reservations about killing a man who blatantly sticks a gun in his face or threatens the life of his Friends and family. He is still not a "morally superior hero" like we see in most media he does things all the time that the average good Samaritan would never do but that goes back to him loving to seek adventure and being raised by his criminal older brother Sam and Sully who's the biggest con artist he knows. Selina Kyle aka batwoman only Steals from the rich but stealing in it of itself is bad no matter who. Drake steals, lies and kills for a living is he a monster like Lazarveic obviously not but that doesn't make him a hero by any means. Drake never starts any game being the "hero" this is a role he is thrust into come the end of his adventure wether willingly or not. He isn't a goody twoshoes like people keep trying to portray him as. He's complex and should be treated as such. A good guy is Batman- his one rule is to literally never kill even if Joker killed everyone he cared about. Drake would do no such thing and we've seen this. He spends all of uncharted 1 trying to leave and get revenge on Roman for "killing sully" or the moments in uncharted 3
@@sement1143 I agree with your comment, i just pointed out that nate can resort to non lethal means if the situation calls for it.
I clicked on the video from my Recommended and I’m surprised this doesn’t have more views. Very well done. I had to subscribe 🙏🏼
All I'm hearing is "this is why metal gear is such a good series"
YOU FORGOT UNDERTALE!! The best ending is sparing and befriending everyone, yet if you get a small but non zero kill count then sans (who judges the players actions directly, ranging from hopeful to hateful towards the main character) will comment how self defense is understandable since it wasn't malicious. And he'll only fight the player if the player specifically tries their hardest to eliminate everyone. And his goal isn't to kill the main character, he knows he's powerless and is trying to be just enough of a roadblock to make the player quit.
there's no 'best' ending you arbiter.
@@godzillazfriction the pacifist ending is absolutley the best ending in the game?? What are you on about
@@rex2546 ok superficial Drone.
@@rex2546 Bruh the pacifist ending forces you to reset.
I've never actually played it but it might come up in a another video I'm making about Pacifism in games.
Exact reason i love far cry 3 so much and wish more games would make killing not just effect the player but the people around him like jason A slowly becomes crazier B the enemies get more and more scared of him
Cyberpunk 2077 is a good example of non-lethal gameplay, you can choke people out, quick hack and knock them out or modify your guns to be non-lethal.
INFAMOUS MENTIONED 🔥🔥🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️
Hell yeah replaying infamous 1
only reason i clicked on the video
I love far cry 3’s story for how well it shows that all the people you kill affects the main characters mental health and how the characters around you react to your actions
watch dogs 2 killing is so hard to believe that i play the entire game without shooting someone
All the guns should have been non lethal. I’m sure if they did enough research there would be atleast a half decent pool of them as a weapon selection
@@celtic19But from a design and gameplay standpoint. This completely and utterly kills the "GTA-style" genre they're going for. They'd have to transition to a linear action game to make the narrative really work, which by this point in the franchise seems like a terrible idea.
What they should've done was be more faithful to the first iteration and have the second game be more serious instead of the whole "how ya doin' fellow kids" type shit Ubisoft tried to pull.
10:10 I think that the game works regardless of whether the player chooses a violent approach during combat or just sneaks away from conflict without killing everyone/anyone.
And I don't think that these kills WOULD affect Ellie that much. After all: this is the world she lives in. Even in the first game, she learns to kill for survival, and has the potential to do quite a few of those (some we witness as players, some we personally do when we play as her). These people are obstacles in her path. They started shooting first. They are the ones speaking a language of violence, so Ellie very well might respond in kind.
Killing for survival or protecting someone you love is something that Ellie knows. Dina is familiar with this too (she killed her first man at age 10 to protect her mother). So this stuff doesn't phase her too much. Murdering someone slowly, ruthlessly, torturing someone slowly... THAT is new to Ellie. And this is stuff that messed with Ellie in the first game too, with David. Killing David, regardless of him fully deserving that, left a mark on Ellie. It truly shook her up. Whereas killing that hunter to save Joel or sniping those guys to help Joel... she accepts fairly quickly. David STAYS with her, tho.
Similarly, Ellie can not care about killing regular enemy NPCs. That's just the fog of survival. But when it comes to confronting those who she is ACTUALLY looking for and torturing or killing them... it is different. Because there is an emotional need there, her ego is REALLY wrapped up in that violence, way more than fighting a regular enemy. Add to this that survival is different from a slow torture and murder... And I think her arc remains solid regardless of the approach the player takes. Saying as someone who has played the game both ways.
If she kills WLFs or Seraphites to get to her goal, it adds to the violent vibe in Seattle, it adds to her not caring about who is in her path on her way to revenge. If she sneaks by everyone or kills a few folks and just runs for the exit... It highlights her obsessive need to get to the GOAL of her revenge. Either way: it helps to show her one-track mindset, and we see that she is familiar with violence and has engaged with it... even if she isn't really made for it, even if it is damaging to her (and it IS. See: Nora, Mel).
And I do think that the tone of violence in the game helps to highlight the brutal, callous nature of the violence that Ellie is inflicting on these enemies, and the enemies are inflicting/trying to inflict on Ellie.
I hope this rambling made some sense lol
There is also this whole thing about Ellie wanting to feel like she is in the right. It is why, I believe, she forced Abby into fighting at the end.
At first she looks at Abby, sees that she has become a hollow shell of what she once was... She sees that Abby is no longer the monster who robbed her. So she lets it go. Ellie only changes her mind after seeing THAT vision. She sees that the guilt still remains. So she turns back and forces a fight.
She wants to kill Abby in combat, instead of beating her while she is unarmed or helpless or not fighting back. She wants it to feel right, so she isn't shaken up again.
@@SidPhoenix2211 I think even more than wanting to kill Abby, Ellie want's to get Joel back. With the final flashback we are shown that it was always about grief and never revenge to Ellie. You could argue that she grieved like Joel would (and did).
@@MangaMarjan yes! That's THE main reason for Ellie setting off on this quest. I figured this was readily apparent so I didn't really go into it. Plus, I had other angles I wanted to talk about
Games usually make the protagonist's desires meet the players' but TLOU2 ultimately doesn't. Ellie realizes that Abby's death won't help or heal her but half the fandom wants that desire so bad that being denied it made them furious.
And that's a point in favour to this game: it isn't about us, it's about Ellie
@@guilhermesantos8728 100%
Some folks often ask for choices in these games. THEY wanna choose whether to save Ellie or not. THEY wanna choose whether Ellie kills Abby at the end or not.
But like you said... It isn't about us. It is about Joel. It is about Ellie. It is about Abby. It is about them and what they want and need. And the games are stronger for this. I ENJOY getting to be in these characters shoes and wrestle with what they choose.
Narrative choice doesn't inherently make a game better. In fact, too many games add multiple endings haphazardly and it only results in a poor overall design and then an ending(s) that don't entirely fit the overall story as well.
PS: I personally didn't want Ellie to kill Abby at the end. Both of these women had gone through enough and they simply needed to move away from each other.
You forgot to mention how a low chaos run in Dishonored may make the game easier as it has impacts on future levels such as the types and number of guards and vice versa.
I’m surprised some of the games that play with that aren’t mentioned. The Metro Series, Undertale, Metal Gear, for example.
Damn opened youtube and saw that I hit my goal. Cant explain in words how hyped I am. Thanks to everyone for the support. But I've been seeing a lot of comments about my pronunciation and voice so i just wanna mention a few things.
English is not my first language so I think I over estimated how good I am at speaking it, this is something I'm actively working on improving on.
I'm using a very cheap mic right now that peaks a lot so i have to run my audio through a dialogue processor/enhancer and that causes the rasp but if you guys think its hard to listen to I'll just work on trying to buy a better one asap.
I'm always looking to improve so if you have any issue or suggestion tell me and they I promise they end up being fixed.
@not_456 your English was very good in my opinion (I only speak English), and I thought the audio and your voice sounded fine. Just keep working on your craft, and I'm sure you'll be like the pros in no time!
Can't wait for the next video 😄
Your English is great. Other than some minor pronounciation issues (so minor I don't think I can really list them) you speak really well.
If you could add subtitles that'd be very helpful. Cuz I don't have an issue with different accents, but poor mic quality can REALLY deter me from understanding what is being said
My dude, there are native English speakers I find unlistenable. Too hyper, or too slow, or mispronouncing the names of characters in the very game they reviewed. You’re none of that! Please keep being yourself and producing great content! (Pro tip: Gamers will always complain about SOMETHING-so keep that in mind as you encounter comments that aren’t constructive).
Don't stress bro. You good.
Went from a goal of 200 by the end of the year to 2k before the year end. Proud of you dude!
In stealth games I always try to go non lethal if its an option as I find it more fun as I don't risk passing out (hemophobia and thanatophobia) and it more of a challenge, but I like it when games make the protagonist and by extension the player question the morality of killing people.
This was great, glad the algorithm brought ur channel to my attention. Keep up the good work!
This War of Mine really handles killing quite well. During war a group of citizens must survive for as long as they can and killing people-unless you have a character who is purposely cold hearted- is gonna get to everyone and make them feel upset. If it continues or goes unaddressed the killer may fall into an extreme depression and possibly end their lives
My three favourite words in a video essay about violence in video games.
When talking about killing and morality systems, I can't help but remember the Metro Trilogy(which is possibly my favorite post-apocalyptic video game series) where the games are pretty cryptic and extreme in regards to if the player qualifies as a good guy or bad. To avoid spoilers, they have great stories and atmosphere and an always evolving gameplay that got more polish every entry. The morality system would judge the player by how they interacted with NPCs and enemies: if the player gave some currency to beggars, they'd get good karma if they kill enemies, in any way they'd get bad karma. The problem is that in addition to non-lethal methods being only stealth takedowns and ghosting encounters the games aren't clear on the rules of the system: is every enemy death equally valuable to it, including the mutant enemies? Are there exceptions during scripted scenes? Should there be some sort of message explaining it(like in dishonored), or is player immersion more important? The second game in the series "Last Light" was kinda frustrating to me in that regard since in my first playthrough, I spared most of the human and even some of the mutant ones and still got the bad ending even though the game was pretty action packed with an upgrade to the arsenal and a massive battle between the game's factions in the end. It's not bad, but I really hope they will at least make good karma runs easier in the next mainline title by either lowering the number of points necessary for a good ending or by coming up with more than two ways of clearing an encounter without killing anyone.
This reminds me of a moment early in GTA IV where if you kill a certain character in a specific way, Niko will get frustrated and remark "I promised myself I wouldn't kill people here". I find it interesting that this message only happens if you push the guy out of the window, as there are different lines if he dies in other ways. It's also mildly inconsistent with the reason he's there in Liberty City, but I'm willing to believe that he sees his revenge targets as the exceptions.
Everybody's mentioning how games like the Metro Series, Undertale, Metal Gear, GTA IV, Far Cry 3, and RDR2 weren't even brought up in the video, meanwhile Hotline Miami and its story's take on ludonarrative dissonance is being slept on. I remember watching another video like this and in it, it did bring up Hotline and I remember distinctively this one moment where it shows the protagonist puking due to all of the killing he has done throughout the whole game up to that point. Man, did that hit the feels..
Very surprised to see 60 something views and 400 subs, great video
Watch dogs 2 Mentioneed 🗣️🔥🔥
MGSV is the only game that i tried being non-lethal the whole game, and it actually feels rewarding, because you can recruit the soldiers that you keep alive.
Something I’ve kinda been surprised by as I’ve gotten older is that I thought I’d become a lot more cold and unthinking towards violence in games and just not care that much for it. Especially since I grew up playing games since I was five, but I’ve actually had the opposite reaction.
This goes towards media in general but truthfully I really hate needless death and especially unjustified violence. I guess as a kid you don’t really think about it all that much since obviously it’s just fun in the moment. But having grownup I’ve found that I’m much more impacted by that sort of thing then I would have expected and can actually feel particularly bad when seeing or doing it.
People would probably say that’s weak or some nonsense but I call it “emotional maturity”. Especially given today’s media and pop culture. People rarely care about that sort of thing and don’t really think all that much about it. An example would be something like the ending for TWD Telltale Season 1. Particularly the final choice…
As a kid I obviously felt sad after finishing it but could quickly forget it and move onto the next game in a minute. Where as now after I watch or play something similar… I actually need some time to decompress and sit on the moment. Being a fan of story’s especially I often need to take some hours after finishing a movie, TV Series or good game to settle with the emotions.
Again pretty sure some edgy kids or block headed people would say that’s sad or some crap but honestly I’m glad I actually think and process this sort of stuff. It’s crazy how inhumane and morally bankrupt people have gotten over the years and I think a large part of that unfortunately is due to the glorification of violence in media and the de stigmatization of death generally.
Obviously I’m not gonna blame Video Games for anything but people have distanced themselves from actually feeling and caring even in real relationships. Let alone fictional tales and entertainment. Killing in games is normal and I’m not gonna pretend as if I sit on every poor sap I snipe in Battlefields death 😂😂
But particularly for RPGs, Story driven and even action or whatnot. Death and killing actually stays with me as actually being something impactful which I think game developers need to lean more into nowadays. To this day I’m impressed by games like Far Cry 3 which take the actual game mechanics seriously and reflect your characters breaking mental state at normalizing death so much…
That to me is a beautiful, important and unfortunately lacking thing in most games today…
Solid video, a great topic to discuss.
it's such a hard thing to balance because killing things just feels way more satisfying. i can't roleplay a mean character to save my life, but killing enemies is still a blast. i don't play FPSs so it's a bit easier to fill both niches by just playing games that kill monsters or something else instead. like my favourite game of all time is hades, and basically every enemy is a spirit that'll respawn again later like nothing happened (except some satyrs and rats, but you even get assurance that their spirits go to the underworld too).
i'm surprised you didn't talk about baldur's gate 3 considering you showed clips of it! it's certainly not in ludo-narrative harmony but it isn't completely dissonant either. it helps that D&D has extensive lore about the afterlife and numerous ways to resurrect people or make them undead, even if not all present in-game. but what the game seems to focus on it whether or not you kill innocents and non-combatants, with varying levels of consequence. raiding the grove in act one is a huge one, it sticks all the refugees in one room cowering and begging for their lives, and every kill nets you a whopping 1 exp. it's fucking gut-wrenching, and you feel the tieflings absence for the rest of the campaign. there's a lot to say about bg3 in this respect, but i'd be here all night if i kept going! it's interesting though, and the fact that every NPC is killable adds flavour to the whole thing i think, it gives you endless options that'll affect events later on.
Sifu does something good in terms of this. For spoiler purposes I won't reveal the details. Its worth a play and achieve both endings. Could be worth a mention in a part 2.
I misheard artistic with autistic at 0:23, and Honestly i think autistic would have been a better term to use lol
Dishonored really frustrated me because it's One of the games where killing is specifically justified, but they punish you for doing it. In some cases, the fate of the enemy ends up being worse than death if you pick the "good" path. What I ended up doing was figuring out just how many people I was allowed to kill in each level to still get the good ending.
Yeah, like when the game wants you to sell a female villain into sexual slavery. Stuff like that is why I hate karma systems in games. Just give me freedom to play the damn game.
@AWESOMEX711 I could see different factions disliking or liking you for your actions, or if they have objectively good and bad actions (hurting an innocent character), but there has to be some form of logic. The Hitman games at least had the objective of making it look like an accident vs raising suspicion.
I get but disagree with the "ludo-narrative dissonance" arguments regarding Uncharted. If you take such an issue with Nathan Drake killing enemies, don't shoot enemies; that was always an option. But guess what? They'll kill him first. The games aren't aiming for pure realism but it's a harsh reality and one the games don't ignore. Nate can die or survive, it's your call, and his method might not be ideal, but if he survives, he does.
You completely misunderstood what the guy is even talking about
I think Roadwarden handles killing quite well.
There’s I believe only one person you can actually kill directly in the game, and it’s treated as a *big* deal, it even has an achievement. (there’s also a few you can get killed, but you don’t directly do it).
Violence in general is typically frowned upon, and it’s directly tackled in a quest where you can bring justice to a “malefactor” who harmed people through their actions (actions which are looked upon with either fear, disgust or disappointment by almost every character in the game).
Just my two cents though.
In defense of Nathan drake in uncharted 3, there’s a rooftop chase scene and near the end we have a young Nathan accidentally pushes a guy off him and off the rooftop, seemingly killing him (but unconfirmed) we see his face shocked for a brief second then when cornered by another enemy he’s holding a gun but is unable to pull the trigger and is saved by sully. I think this shows how Nathan is human and shows his innocence whereas sully is the more experienced figure that has taken lives before. This is the point where Nathan is taken under sully’s wing and in my head cannon is makes sense that later on when Nathan did kill out of his own volition and struggled with taking a life Sully was there to help him deal with it. the thief life is just something he’s used to since he was young and is why he’s able to kill. As for any other character in the series they mostly just do it for the money or to not die.
I also just remembered that Nathan never kills innocent people and is against it. It’s seen in the first mission of uncharted 2 where they have to sneak their way through a museum and use tranquilizer guns and hand to hand combat to knock them out.
That’s the worst excuse ever. He has killed a LOT he definitely doesn’t feel remorse
Something i love in pillars of eternity is killing doesnt grant any xp (except generic monsters and thats only to fill a beast log so it stops quickly after). That means being a murder hobo isnt mandatory to beat the game (required leveling) like in Baldur's Gate. I want Underrail since it does the same as Pillars.
Mgs v and watchdogs 2 are the only games were i purposefully go nonlethal
Bro, you should do a video essay on "How games handle (or ignore) non-lethality"
I think you could make interesting points/observations, like how it's always the "less fun" way of playing a game mainly due to having like 1-2 ways of actually taking out enemies vs. the lethal playstyle. Take Metal Gear Solid for example: Non-lethally, you got like... takedown, stun grenades, and the tranq-gun that sucks balls. Meanwhile, the lethal player gets 800000 guns, grenades, bazookas, exlposives, knives, poison, environmental traps, and at least 2 different close-quarters attacks. Playing "good" is boring while playing "bad" is fun.
Enjoyed this essay verry much dude
In the last of us 2 isnt there a room in the wlf base thats full of grunts that ellie had killed up until that point
No idea how you survived the internet without encounting ludonarrative dissonance but there's one fantastic set piece in the watch dogs dlc I played yesterday where Kenney faces his lifelong trauma where his actions lead to the deaths of 11 people. The only problem is I had to kill 100s to get there. Stuff had zero ludonarrative harmony that what would've been an emotional moment just made me cackle.
Also the dishonored chaos level completely changes the last level
gotta love the superficial parroting of what 'lUdNonArRaTiVe dIsSoNanCe' is...
also his trauma is fixated on the innocent lives that he took, but that doesn't negate Kenny not offing others in the name of his trauma... especially those who are against him.
there's no 'lUdNonArRaTiVe DIsSoNanCe' here bud.
@@godzillazfriction Being against a killer doesn't mean you deserve to die. All those guards he killed to save his buddy didn't deserve to get shot.
@@AugustRx did i argue about that he shouldn't off ppl because there are ppl against him that are just 'doing their jobs' stop strawmanning.
Is it possible that Laura is more upset about what almost happened to her rather than the act of killing?
Broski lowkey sounds South African. Well made video 🎉
2:39 I don’t know if it was your accent mate, but it sounded like you called Sully, “Scully”. 😂😂 I was like “wait who?”
This is why cyberpunk is amazing if everyone is a borderline psycho killer then you being one ain’t that big of a surprise/ take you out of the experience
Uncharted 3 had the good flashback moment where young Drake can’t fire the gun
NieR Replicant and Drakengard are also games that like to tackle killing in video games.
Amazing video
It's not that the game would be boring, it would just be much shorter if you made it so that all of the combat in game was canonical to the story in the cutscenes. One thing that might help is if there was a story mode that had much briefer encounters and relied more on the cutscenes, and then a gameplay mode that had the hours and hours of mechanics you're talking about.
That, or you're going to have to include a lot more elements besides combat in the game in order to keep players engaged and have a longer run time. It would be interesting to see a Fallout game in which you can literally do a speech build that is non-violent rather than trying to start off with a character that has high speech but still has to level up by killing things. Most of your experience points come from combat rather than from accomplishing role-playing goals or meeting milestones in the story.
Ludonarrative in isolation isn't necessarily a good or bad thing. Uncharted in particular is mimicking a staple of the pulp adventure genre going back to decade old novels. Where dissonance is plenty in favor of high action.
Thank you for mention the spoilers
I think it’s important to point out that the guy who talks about ludonarrative dissonance is almost entirely wrong about the themes of Bioshock. He wants to play as the oppressor, not the oppressed. The WHOLE POINT of Bioshock is that systems like objectivism force people to act against their own beliefs and turns people into hypocrites. You are given choices that aren’t really choices at all, forced into a violent world in which you as they player have no agency, as the game is incredibly meta and has commentary on the nature of gameplay as a whole. The point is that you have no choice, you have to keep doing whatever you’re told, blindly following orders and not thinking about what you’re doing to people. Ludonarrative dissonance is an important term in this conversation, it’s just important to realize that from its very conception, it was heavily misunderstood
Reading the comments I see enough suggestions that can be cobbled together for a follow up video 😉
I'll add my own random thought: those games that give you ways that absolutely would be lethal in the real world but twists itself into interesting shapes to hand-wave it away so it can maintain that your character canonically never kills.
If you've ever thrown someone off a roof in Insomniac's Spider-Man [1] or hit a thug in Arkham Knight with the Batmobile going highway speeds [2], you know what I'm talking about lmao.
So on one hand, you're explicitly given the options that you can take or leave to execute those.. executions, in a way that moment-to-moment does satisfy the visceral bloodlust if you don't pay attention to the context. It's only if you suspend your suspension of disbelief and deeply go out of your way to subscribe to the narrative workarounds that you either (a) remain mildly disappointed that you can't go all the way if you're leaning into for the violence or (b) view those methods as genuinely non-lethal so you carry on with a clean conscience, either because they're effective, or entertaining (either because of or despite of the context), or because they so closely resemble the real world counterpart that would have actual consequences.
My thoughts on this are half-baked but it's definitely an interesting example.
Final contribution is how interesting the other ways games maintain your forever boy scout status where you're otherwise free to act like making harming enemies or certain subsets of NPCs an instant fail state, or by preventing you from harming those people like by disabling a weapon when your crosshaire are on them, or by making the NPCs that they want you not to kill to be straight up invulnerable to your attacks altogether.
In case you didn't know:
[1] In Insomniac's Spider-Man if you strike or throw an enemy off a building or high perch, that enemy will have attached to them a web device like the in-game trip mine / web trap/ whatever it's called. While the enemy is falling, it sends out a web line that flies out from the enemy towards the building, attaches, connecting the enemy and the building briefly, then retracts, pulling the enemy into the building and web-sticks them to the outside wall, long before they hit the ground, as if you'd laid a mine against a normal wall anywhere that pulled an unsuspecting enemy into it after they walked by.
The "device" is all narrative. You see it in action (the enemy flying into the building via web line mid-fall and then sticking to it) but you never actually see the device itself, let alone when Spider-Man was meant to place it on them after engaging them. It's a micro retcon every time it happens.
[2] In Batman Arkham Knight, the Batmobile is fully driveable and you can take it to very high speeds, not to mention that it's assumed to be very heavy from its munitions, fortifications, but most importantly from the way it handles. Yet, there are still enemies scattered outside along the streets of Gotham and therefore you're able to ram them at any speed. At crawl speeds like in turret mode (yes, turret mode - think bean bag riot gun when aiming at people), it's clear that the Batmobile's "countermeasures", its electrified exterior hull, are activated as the enemy is shocked and thrown from where they made contact with the car far out of proportion to the speed you hit them at. The enemy is instantly defeated from the shock, but shown to still be alive to tell the tale.
Basically, when you're driving fast, the exact same thing happens.Even if you're going like 90 and you hit a human enemy, the thug is shocked, thrown from the car (just much more forcefully and still out of proportion to the speed) and demonstrated to be defeated but otherwise alive having only sustained injuries from the shock. And because they're always blasted up and away from the car the second you make contact, you can never run over anybody.
Great Video
Agreed but still there are some games where killing does effect the story and its character greatly, the most well known games or which being red dead redemption 2, far cry 3 and undertale.
All though far cry 3 doesnt give you any other choice but to kill you could see how shocked and horrified jason was when he killed his first pirate, and felt even more paranoia when he was later offered a gun when the idea of him shooting someone else seemed so terrible, only for his mind to get more and more insane as he killed more and worked with the tribe more to the point where he may even kill his friends.
The story of seeing a regular dude turn into a monster is fucking wild and i love it.
I feel like metal gear games. Mainly V handle this the best. Players are more rewarded for going non lethal and encouraged to do so without being put off from going full on guns blazing. The action and gunplay in V is fun. But it's more rewarding as a player to stealth a base and get out undetected for that S+ rank
New subscriber, I like this video 😊👍🏾
I dont agree with the TLOU arguement killing in self defence is normal to ellie torturing and channeling joel is not. So scenes like nora hit, because its different to ellie, having to humanise mel hits because she is pushing further even though in back of her mind she knows she has problems with it her own self. And serves as parallel to dina. i dont see it as ludonarrative dissonance except maybe the upgrade system which i can let go for gameplay reasons...
Watch Dogs 2 failed so because of this badly. The game could have been a masterpiece the level of a Rockstar game imo.
They even had a reputation system in WD1. A few custscenes and a bad ending should have been an option if you have low honor in WD2.
'low honor' you do realize that this is WATCH_DOGS 2 & not Red Dead Redemption (1 &) 2...
i can tell you've been too indoctrinated by the consensus & this video against Watch Dogs 2 (as well as other subject matters within the video game medium) for its apparent 'lUdNonArRaTiVe DIsSoNanCe'.
also, you can't determine what's 'Bad/Evil' in its absolute form of truth you superficial Drone.
Very nice video, i wish you the best, hopefully you set something up soon, keep up and be strong =)
How could you NOT mention Far Cry 3?
0:23
Autistic? Artistic? Both fit
Great video!!
Some of the transitions between parts were a bit hard to read and went by hella fast
Thanks and noted I'll work on this in the next video
Good video but how do you make a video about not killing and not talking about Metal Gear Solid, Death Stranding, Metro and a lot more examples.
Good vid yeah i feel as though its just well we gotta make the player entertained which is valid but an actual reflection of our actions is something that needs to be handled well but in story and gameplay
I thin you should have talked about Hotline Miami 1 like this game has probably the best take on violence in games ever
10:13 Dude! You just broke my ears!
I think your videos would do great with some music playing in the background.
i saw this comment a few hours ago and i just want to tell you that you are the reason there's gonna be music in this upcoming video.
I feel like Cyberpunk is a good for this. You're a mercenary that was born and raised in one of the hardest cities to live in. So killing people nonchalantly is easy
watch dogs 2 mentioned
Even if most of these characters are heroic and the lives they're taking are those of absolutely vile people, taking a life is still a heavy toll that changes a person. Whether that person is good or bad doesn't matter, killing changes you, and it's ridiculous that protagonists are often so nonchalant about it. That's why I personally prioritize nonlethal takedowns whenenever possible, that alligns better with my personal philosophy that no matter how horrible someone is, I am not an executioner.
TL;DR, Far Cry 3 nailed it.
I went out of my way to kill everyone in TLOU2, and ellie was still my favorite character, shes just too relatable
I love Bioshock but it is pretty funny how this extremely morally grey world in lore is broken down in gameplay as "Murder child: Yes/No?" Like oh man what a complexinng ethical dilemma. Do I just let them go free or do I absolutely eviscerate them for slightly more energy.
I like to think Joel is just choking people out in the first last of us when you stealth though but we all know thats just wishful thinking. I recently played though MGS5 for the first time and tried to be as non lethal as possible, though i'm not sure if that would be considered cannon.
ironically i’m replaying uncharted 2 right now 😂
Ironically or coincidentally?
@@ByAzura coincidentally, appreciate u bro lol
Good video
Honestly i never really took any issue with killing in uncharted when the people you kill are mostly
-murderous pirates
-serbian war criminals (maybe the worst out of them all due to being somewhat based on real life)
-mercenaries
-strange british cult members(?)
all of whom will shoot you on sight
rdr2 would fit perfectly in this video
RDR2 handles in game killing better than people give it credit for. Arthur and his friends are written as delusional and hypocritical about their actions. Arthur has a lot of conversations with Charles' earlier in the game where he seemingly forgets he's a criminal and Charles has to remind him. It's only until the midpoint does he start talking about himself in a realistic way and it's always negative even if you play as a squeaky clean high honor Arthur.
Not true. Arthur never forgets and is one of the few who is not delusional. When Charles is angry at people for killing randomly Arthur's first reaction is something like ''As if we can talk''.
Ok so I don’t agree at all about infamous. you can still be lethal in second son against regular enemies when you’re good karma, in canon good Delsin is fine with killing DUP, he just doesn’t kill surrendering enemies, but if he has to yeah he’ll kill them, it’s all up to how you play it. I never found good karma harder than evil, if anything good karma is arguably easier cause you get an ability that heals you every time you subdue an opponent.
You show he lazarovic scene but you dont show how it ends... Lazarovic tells nathan to ens him as he's already a killer but nathan whom already has weakened lazarovic to the point where he cant fuck up the world lets him live (whilst letting his consequences kill him) walking away showing that he kills when he needs to and that lazarovic kills because he's heartless. Nathan did enough and left to help the peoeple he loved, cloe and elena
I think when it comes to Ellie the ludo narrative dissidence doesn’t apply strictly because I see her as the villain of the story. Don’t get me wrong I love Ellie she’s an awesome character and her decent into villainy was sad but fun to watch and play. I truly believe Abby is the hero of the story; but what she did to Joel was messed up.
How you gonna include Killing/Violence without including both Hotline Miami games 👿
Nathan Drake would be the villain of an Indiana Jones movie
Far Cry 3 has a pretty interesting take on killing
How could you not mention metal gear rising raiden character development and story revolves around him killing
Fallout would've been interesting to review with this
How are u not gonna mention far cry 3😭
You should look at a plague tale requiem
I knew exactly how many men I deleted in Uncharted 2 and it was all intentional.
Man I gotta buy last us 2 for my ps5 kinda miss it
How could you not mention Manhunt (2003)
I’ve been saying the uncharted issue forever!! Cause I hate how when it comes to killing the main bad guy they don’t it could be someone so evil and they can’t bc they don’t do it in cold blood…. Like ?!?! He could of easily killed rafe but didn’t he’s already mowed down 1000s of people
Good idea