Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Shirkelton
Apr 6, 2009

I'm not loyal to anything, General... except the dream.

Irish Joe posted:

That's a ridiculous argument, though. Its like saying the Saw movies are less violent on VHS than blu-ray because they're in a lower resolution.

Those two things aren't remotely comparable. The difference in fidelity between live footage of a person and live footage of a slightly less crisp person is nowhere near comparable to the difference in fidelity between games from decades ago and games now.

Irish Joe posted:

The violence and brutality of an act isn't diminished by picture quality.

The impact of it is, however.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

sharts
Jul 3, 2008

a̸ ̕s̡cŗeam͟i͠ng͞ ͘sk͏u̢l̨l i̡s y͝o͡ųr o͡n͟l͞y ͢comp̛ani̡o͞n͝

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Irish Joe posted:

That's a ridiculous argument, though. Its like saying the Saw movies are less violent on VHS than blu-ray because they're in a lower resolution. We all know that isn't the case. The violence and brutality of an act isn't diminished by picture quality. The same applies to video games. Regardless of how many polygons Lara has, you're still seeing a virtual representation of a human being brutally killed/murdered.

What?

You're seriously arguing that this:


and this:


Are indistinguishable? I'm not even cherry-picking here, I went for one of the goriest and most uncomfortable "old-school" games I could think of.

I mean I will argue that beyond a certain point, yes, it's still pretty uncomfortable but there is diminishing going on through weaker visuals.

That said: You can have a game with no violence and still have incredibly uncomfortable deaths:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYyZfME5XYY

It really depends on how you play it. Heart of Darkness is rated E for everyone but the tone and atmosphere (and the age of the protagonist) really do a lot to make the death scenes pretty uncomfortable to encounter.

ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Feb 27, 2013

Spinning Robo
Apr 17, 2007
There is also a difference between the way the game lingers on deaths in this game. Older tomb raiders were violent, sure, but quick. This game reeeeeally seems to like making you watch for 10 seconds as she tries to pull a spike out of her head.

Control Volume
Dec 31, 2008

I wonder if this game is fun to play

ImpAtom
May 24, 2007

Control Volume posted:

I wonder if this game is fun to play

Reviews suggest yes. v:shobon:v

Control Volume
Dec 31, 2008

Well that is good, that the gameplay is good, in my opinion.

Mazed
Oct 23, 2010

:blizz:


I dunno about you guys, but when the inevitable Final Fantasy 7 remake comes along, I can't wait to see Sephiroth graphically disembowel Aeris, leaving her twitching and gurgling on the floor as Cloud, covered in her spilled blood and entrails, thousand-yard stares at the gory spectacle. I mean, that's pretty much what happened, right, but they just couldn't show it because of 1997 technology? Right?

But,

Control Volume posted:

I wonder if this game is fun to play

You know, it actually kind of looks like it is. :v: For some of us at least, that's the reason the torture porn feels so forced, out of place, and gratuitous -- because it does otherwise look pretty fun.

Based on what they're saying so far, the only major detraction in pure gameplay terms seems to be the existence of QTEs, which feel like they're only going to break immersion. The actual idea behind this, that being an action/adventure with a real sense of tension and foreboding atmosphere to really give the "journey into the unknown" theme a real kick, is a really good one. It's got a vibe similar to the Souls games, or maybe Metroid games, and that is a good thing.

bloodysabbath
May 1, 2004

OH NO!

Irish Joe posted:

That's a ridiculous argument, though. Its like saying the Saw movies are less violent on VHS than blu-ray because they're in a lower resolution. We all know that isn't the case. The violence and brutality of an act isn't diminished by picture quality. The same applies to video games. Regardless of how many polygons Lara has, you're still seeing a virtual representation of a human being brutally killed/murdered.

Since you brought up Saw, another thing is that shows and movies and books and comics and songs and literally everything else have been using violence as they see fit for years and years. Saw became the most successful horror franchise in history, and you do not see a fraction of the handwringing over the violence done to humans by other humans in The Walking Dead, a.k.a., cable's top show, that you do over video games.

For me, that's what makes every new "conversation" about violent/controversial video game "x" tiresome and pointless: When we respond to violence in video games differently/more intesely than we do to violence in other mediums, when we act as if video game developers have some sort of unique moral obligation to tone down their product that we don't place on any given stupid direct to DVD movie you can rent from Redbox, we are just playing into this stupid notion that games have not yet "earned" their legitimacy, or whatever.

In the world of third person shooters, there is room for Indiana Jones (Uncharted), and there is room for I Spit on Your Grave (Tomb Raider - though I don't think there is anything close to the atrocity in that film, or Kotaku would have already written a 30 page thesis about it), and there is room for Man on Fire (Max Payne 3), and there is room for a crazy mashup of Dawn of the Dead with The Road (The Last of Us). I totally respect the right of individuals to pass on material that doesn't appeal to them for any reason, from violence to theme to a texture flickering the wrong way, but none of these works have any obligation to justify their creative directions to people who think there is some sort of special standard of proof on video games.

quote:

I dunno about you guys, but when the inevitable Final Fantasy 7 remake comes along, I can't wait to see Sephiroth graphically disembowel Aeris, leaving her twitching and gurgling on the floor as Cloud, covered in her spilled blood and entrails, thousand-yard stares at the gory spectacle. I mean, that's pretty much what happened, right, but they just couldn't show it because of 1997 technology? Right?

You honestly do not see why a developer might choose to employ a different tone with an updated Tomb Raider game than a Final Fantasy remake? Star Wars has a different tone than Star Trek, which has a different tone than Event Horizon. It's almost as if the people making these games have minds of their own and can decide what to put in the software they ship!

bloodysabbath fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Feb 27, 2013

Mordaedil
Oct 25, 2007

Oh wow, cool. Good job.
So?
Grimey Drawer

Control Volume posted:

Well that is good, that the gameplay is good, in my opinion.

Just a thought from this, we're far past the point where gameplay is the only defining factor for ones enjoyment of a game.

Presentation and themes are important and this game carries some pretty significant split themes.

Lara's death scenes wouldn't be out of the question for a slasher fiction game, which we have surprisingly few (many?) of, but it doesn't seem to be the right genre for such a focus on them. It might be time to really put down the claim that "it's just a game" and think about if this is really fine, having the categories bleed over or letting the industry treat our gaming icons this way.

I've always dismissed it in the past, mostly because I didn't think we'd ever get to this point.

Chillmatic
Jul 25, 2003

always seeking to survive and flourish

miguelito posted:

Only it's not some plate-wearing meathead/seasoned murderer/combat-hardened adventurer getting graphically skewered here, but a scared little girl, which I hope you'll agree is quite a different visual.

Sorry, but I don't equate "scared little girl" with a grown woman who's able to kill the poo poo out of a bunch of dudes and survive a bunch of awful poo poo. I'd more equate scared little girl with the 9 year old girl in Silent Hill 2 or something.

It's pretty telling that you only see her that way, despite other promo material showing her as very capable and able to handle herself. (even if she's not shouting for joy at every kill)

Shirkelton
Apr 6, 2009

I'm not loyal to anything, General... except the dream.

bloodysabbath posted:

You honestly do not see why a developer might choose to employ a different tone with an updated Tomb Raider game than a Final Fantasy remake? Star Wars has a different tone than Star Trek, which has a different tone than Event Horizon. It's almost as if the people making these games have minds of their own and can decide what to put in the software they ship!

People are allowed to criticize those choices, or even flat out express distate for them. That's sort of what that much-abused notion of 'legitimacy' you referenced comes with.

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

bloodysabbath posted:

Since you brought up Saw, another thing is that shows and movies and books and comics and songs and literally everything else have been using violence as they see fit for years and years. Saw became the most successful horror franchise in history, and you do not see a fraction of the handwringing over the violence done to humans by other humans in The Walking Dead, a.k.a., cable's top show, that you do over video games.

For me, that's what makes every new "conversation" about violent/controversial video game "x" tiresome and pointless: When we respond to violence in video games differently/more intesely than we do to violence in other mediums, when we act as if video game developers have some sort of unique moral obligation to tone down their product that we don't place on any given stupid direct to DVD movie you can rent from Redbox, we are just playing into this stupid notion that games have not yet "earned" their legitimacy, or whatever.

In the world of third person shooters, there is room for Indiana Jones (Uncharted), and there is room for I Spit on Your Grave (Tomb Raider - though I don't think there is anything close to the atrocity in that film, or Kotaku would have already written a 30 page thesis about it), and there is room for Man on Fire (Max Payne 3), and there is room for a crazy mashup of Dawn of the Dead with The Road (The Last of Us). I totally respect the right of individuals to pass on material that doesn't appeal to them for any reason, from violence to theme to a texture flickering the wrong way, but none of these works have any obligation to justify their creative directions to people who think there is some sort of special standard of proof on video games.

edit: Actually I don't really want to go there, but I agree with Dan Didio.

HenessyHero
Mar 4, 2008

"I thought we had something, Shepard. Something real."
:qq:

DrNutt posted:

Are you trolling, or are you just being willfully obtuse about this? Like, can you not see why a ten polygon primitive model of Lara ragdolling at the bottom of a cliff in a game from 1997 is somehow a little different than a near photorealistic person being graphically impaled on a spike?

Can you not see that there's some consistency in design when a modest video game engine from 17 years ago does its best to simulate especially brutal death scenes to when a more robust engine attempts the same with more impressive visual results?

It's a bit like the reverse of comparing slasher films that have a large generational gap. What was considered obscenely realistic special effects for gore in the 70s, suitable only for audiences over 18, becomes the joke reel special effects of the '00s. What constitutes excessive on-screen violence for its time is quite relative to what can be delivered and it's also just a tiny bit subjective depending on cultural factors. Quite honestly, depending on what sort of input is most effective on the individual, Lara's blood curdling scream and the bone crunch SFX for neck breakage from the original can seem more brutal than just more modest SFX but more impressive visuals.

DOCTOR ZIMBARDO
May 8, 2006
Hoping this sells well, strong sales from a snuff game means I might get to play Super Mario: Kitten Heel Stomp (featuring a cross-dressing Italian kill small animals by jumping on them with his stiletto heel), which was always my dream.

Hakkesshu
Nov 4, 2009


Mazed posted:

I dunno about you guys, but when the inevitable Final Fantasy 7 remake comes along, I can't wait to see Sephiroth graphically disembowel Aeris, leaving her twitching and gurgling on the floor as Cloud, covered in her spilled blood and entrails, thousand-yard stares at the gory spectacle. I mean, that's pretty much what happened, right, but they just couldn't show it because of 1997 technology? Right?

This, but unironically :getin:

Mortified_Cow
Jun 1, 2008

Hmmm...

ImpAtom posted:

That said: You can have a game with no violence and still have incredibly uncomfortable deaths:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYyZfME5XYY

It really depends on how you play it. Heart of Darkness is rated E for everyone but the tone and atmosphere (and the age of the protagonist) really do a lot to make the death scenes pretty uncomfortable to encounter.

How the hell did that game get an E rating. Some of those deaths are rough to watch or more so, hear. I mean, the kid gets ripped in half, dismembered and has what I'd assume to be his neck broken by a rock worm followed by his body going limp. How is that for everyone.

Anyway. I agree that the death scenes seem to be a bit much. Or rather unnecessary. I don't think watching Lara suffer and slowly die really adds to the overall game. Compare them, as some here have, to the death scenes in Dead Space where they can (sometimes) add to the horror of that horror game. I guess it's a matter of context. Would the Uncharted games have benefited from gruesome death scenes, I don't think so. Still looking forward to the game though.

Spinning Robo
Apr 17, 2007

Chillmatic posted:

Sorry, but I don't equate "scared little girl" with a grown woman who's able to kill the poo poo out of a bunch of dudes and survive a bunch of awful poo poo. I'd more equate scared little girl with the 9 year old girl in Silent Hill 2 or something.

Isn't a sizable portion of the game spent with her desperately hiding from bad guys until she reluctantly makes her first kill due to possible sexual assault?

Irish Joe
Jul 23, 2007

by Lowtax

bloodysabbath posted:

In the world of third person shooters, there is room for Indiana Jones (Uncharted), and there is room for I Spit on Your Grave (Tomb Raider - though I don't think there is anything close to the atrocity in that film, or Kotaku would have already written a 30 page thesis about it),

That's a good point. The previews show death traps and Lara bouncing back from injuries, which is more a staple of the Indiana Jones/Adventure movie genre than the body horror genre. Indiana Jones had people being impaled on spikes, immolated in steel cages, cut in half, crushed by a giant boulders and literally melted. Nothing we've seen from the previews so far is beyond those scenarios in terms of violence/brutality. The only difference is that Lara is a girl and we're not accustomed to seeing ladies take a beating when it doesn't have a rape/sexual assault context.

Mortified_Cow
Jun 1, 2008

Hmmm...

Spinning Robo posted:

Isn't a sizable portion of the game spent with her desperately hiding from bad guys until she reluctantly makes her first kill due to possible sexual assault?

I don't know if this really is a spoiler, but just to be safe...

From one of the gameplay videos they put out, I believe her first kill is only an hour or two into the game

Chillmatic
Jul 25, 2003

always seeking to survive and flourish

Spinning Robo posted:

Isn't a sizable portion of the game spent with her desperately hiding from bad guys until she reluctantly makes her first kill due to possible sexual assault?

No, only like an hour or so, if even that.

And besides, I have literally no idea how someone can call a 19 year old woman with broken ribs, guns and a bow and arrow and covered in the blood of her enemies a "scared little girl." Like I said earlier, that's incredibly telling of how one views women in general.

Shirkelton
Apr 6, 2009

I'm not loyal to anything, General... except the dream.

Spinning Robo posted:

Isn't a sizable portion of the game spent with her desperately hiding from bad guys until she reluctantly makes her first kill due to possible sexual assault?

By all accounts, no. Her first kill happens early in the game and after that point she's a consistent killing machine.

Chillmatic posted:

And besides, I have literally no idea how someone can call a 19 year old woman with broken ribs, guns and a bow and arrow and covered in the blood of her enemies a "scared little girl." Like I said earlier, that's incredibly telling of how one views women in general.

Because the game's marketing was all focused around that aspect and how she was designed so you'd 'want to protect her', etc. etc. This is the image they've put forward of their protagonist.

Bland
Aug 31, 2008


Winner Of The TRP I dont actually remember the contest im pretty high right now here's your venkys tag


Chillmatic posted:

No, only like an hour or so, if even that.

And besides, I have literally no idea how someone can call a 19 year old woman with broken ribs, guns and a bow and arrow and covered in the blood of her enemies a "scared little girl." Like I said earlier, that's incredibly telling of how one views women in general.

I'd say it's more telling of how the game has been marketed

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Chillmatic posted:

No, only like an hour or so, if even that.

And besides, I have literally no idea how someone can call a 19 year old woman with broken ribs, guns and a bow and arrow and covered in the blood of her enemies a "scared little girl." Like I said earlier, that's incredibly telling of how one views women in general.

"You guys that are uncomfortable watching a young woman die via incredibly graphic ways are the true misogynists." :smug:

Chillmatic
Jul 25, 2003

always seeking to survive and flourish

DrNutt posted:

"You guys that are uncomfortable watching a young woman die via incredibly graphic ways are the true misogynists." :smug:

I dare you to call a woman who looks like Lara Croft and who has just shotgunned off the face of some mook a "scared little girl." Seriously.

If you find yourself not wanting to call her that, well gosh I wonder why!


And to you guys saying "that's the way the game's been marketed" I don't know what to tell you. I think it's more an issue of that's what's made the biggest impact on you. Most of what I've seen has Laura falling through airplanes, skydiving, shootin' dudes in the face, cuttin' dudes throats, pulling metal spikes out of her own abdomen, falling some more, shootin' more dudes, and so on.

What part of that says "scared little girl" to any of you?

edit: and for the record, I'm as uncomfortable watching the graphic death stuff of her as I am when watching any hero that I care about suffer. That is to say, quite a bit. But none of that has to do with the fact that she's a woman. She's a tough badass hero and it's always hard to watch when our heroes suffer.

Chillmatic fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Feb 27, 2013

coyo7e
Aug 23, 2007

by zen death robot

Mazed posted:

If the ending to this game is Lara gunning her way through a horde of nazi zombies, Crystal Dynamics will have created the most brilliant satire imaginable.
No, they're castaways and shipwrecked survivors who were brainwashed. BIG difference!

Shirkelton
Apr 6, 2009

I'm not loyal to anything, General... except the dream.

Chillmatic posted:

What part of that says "scared little girl" to any of you?

I didn't use the phrase. I don't think 'well, clearly, you're the one with the real problems!' is a particurarly stirring rebuttal to any of the criticisms of the material presented so far, but that is absolutely how they marketed her, to a not-insignificant extent. That's not my reading of the marketing because I haven't followed all of it. That was their stated intent, for the player to want to protect her. That implies a level of victimization and non-agency, which is what people are referencing with phrasing like that.

Chillmatic
Jul 25, 2003

always seeking to survive and flourish

Dan Didio posted:

That was their stated intent, for the player to want to protect her. That implies a level of victimization and non-agency, which is what people are referencing with phrasing like that.

Hey man I agree that that was an incredibly stupid thing for them to say, and I'm pretty sure the devs backtracked pretty quickly with that, for good reason. Everything I've seen since then has been the diametrical opposite of "yet another helpless female in gaming/literature".

coyo7e
Aug 23, 2007

by zen death robot

Chillmatic posted:

Hey man I agree that that was an incredibly stupid thing for them to say, and I'm pretty sure the devs backtracked pretty quickly with that, for good reason. Everything I've seen since then has been the diametrical opposite of "yet another helpless female in gaming/literature".
Would've been easier to just have her find a stray dog on the island, if they wanted some emotional impact.

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Chillmatic posted:

I dare you to call a woman who looks like Lara Croft and who has just shotgunned off the face of some mook a "scared little girl." Seriously.

If you find yourself not wanting to call her that, well gosh I wonder why!


And to you guys saying "that's the way the game's been marketed" I don't know what to tell you. I think it's more an issue of that's what's made the biggest impact on you. Most of what I've seen has Laura falling through airplanes, skydiving, shootin' dudes in the face, cuttin' dudes throats, pulling metal spikes out of her own abdomen, falling some more, shootin' more dudes, and so on.

What part of that says "scared little girl" to any of you?

I'm not the one who called her a "scared little girl," but the gameplay is at odds with the story and I'm glad you pointed it out!

coyo7e
Aug 23, 2007

by zen death robot

DrNutt posted:

I'm not the one who called her a "scared little girl," but the gameplay is at odds with the story and I'm glad you pointed it out!
I'm lost, which is the scared little girl part then, the story or the gameplay? The story is pretty much Far Cry 3 without the tattoos and sexing up a tribal priestess, from what I've seen.

Mazed
Oct 23, 2010

:blizz:


Kotaku is poo poo, and I apologize for linking it, but this is relevant. This is how the game was marketed early on.

quote:

In the past, Lara Croft didn't need protecting. She was a fearless daredevil, a crack shot in short shorts with enough attitude to scare off a pack of bloodthirsty gorillas.

But in the upcoming Tomb Raider reboot, things will be different. She hasn't become that woman yet. And executive producer Ron Rosenberg says you'll want to keep her safe. "When people play Lara, they don't really project themselves into the character," Rosenberg told me at E3 last week when I asked if it was difficult to develop for a female protagonist. "They're more like 'I want to protect her.' There's this sort of dynamic of 'I'm going to this adventure with her and trying to protect her.'"

So is she still the hero? I asked Rosenberg if we should expect to look at Lara a little bit differently than we have in the past.

"She's definitely the hero but you're kind of like her helper," he said. "When you see her have to face these challenges, you start to root for her in a way that you might not root for a male character." The new Lara Croft isn't just less battle-hardened; she's less voluptuous. Gone are her ridiculous proportions and skimpy clothing. This Lara feels more human, more real. That's intentional, Rosenberg says. "The ability to see her as a human is even more enticing to me than the more sexualized version of yesteryear," he said. "She literally goes from zero to hero... we're sort of building her up and just when she gets confident, we break her down again."

In the new Tomb Raider, Lara Croft will suffer. Her best friend will be kidnapped. She'll get taken prisoner by island scavengers. And then, Rosenberg says, those scavengers will try to rape her. "She is literally turned into a cornered animal," Rosenberg said. "It's a huge step in her evolution: she's forced to either fight back or die."

:shepface:

mrs. nicholas sarkozy
Jan 1, 2006

~let me see ya bounce that bounce that~

Crappy Jack posted:

Mostly I'm just bummed because I was all excited to have a Tomb Raider that I could play with the missus that would have a tough, nonsexualized Lara, and then it's all full of weird torture porn moments and stabbing people in the head with pickaxes and stuff and watching your avatar die a slow and painful death as she's stabbed in the head and desperately flails around. I just wanna run around a cool island and explore tombs and poo poo, man.

This is pretty much how I feel, too. I was looking for a AAA game with a cool female heroine now that Mass Effect is over and thought Tomb Raider might work, but the torture porn stuff really grosses me out. That gif almost turns me off the game entirely. Yeah I might be oversensitive, but I wish there was maybe an option to tone down the ultraviolent stuff :(.

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

coyo7e posted:

I'm lost, which is the scared little girl part then, the story or the gameplay? The story is pretty much Far Cry 3 without the tattoos and sexing up a tribal priestess, from what I've seen.

Well, it's supposed to be her 'origin story,' so gets all weepy when she has to kill a dude or an animal or whatever, but when you're actually playing the game you'll be rewarded for sick executions and brutal headshots or w/e complete with experience pop-ups telling you what a badass killer you are.

edit: As an aside, this is what I disliked about Uncharted. It was the best Indiana Jones movie since The Last Crusade, but Nathan Drake kills literally thousands of dudes across three adventures. It's inhuman. These games have the opportunity to sprinkle limited enemy encounters throughout an adventure experience, with puzzles and exploration at the heart of the gameplay, but they're more content to give us Gears of War with a jungle skin.

Professor Beetus fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Feb 27, 2013

Samurai Sanders
Nov 4, 2003

Pillbug
In that video back on the first page, she used an arrow as a melee weapon (probably just inside a special counterattack animation but whatever). Something inside of me yelled "SOLD!" but then I remembered that I have almost no extra money (the only reason I could buy Metal Gear Rising was because I had a gift card left over from Christmas) and if I get this game it may be the only full priced game I can get for months, and I want the new Dynasty Warriors too...

Also, what the first review I read said clashed with this "base camp" thing. It said the game is linear location-wise, but how could that be if there's some central place that you can come back to?

edit: the Steam version is cheaper, but I never know how well PC games will run on my laptop. I wish it had a demo or benchmark or something. Also, the Steam page doesn't claim it has controller support but surely it does?

Samurai Sanders fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Feb 27, 2013

Shirkelton
Apr 6, 2009

I'm not loyal to anything, General... except the dream.

DrNutt posted:

Well, it's supposed to be her 'origin story,' so gets all weepy when she has to kill a dude or an animal or whatever, but when you're actually playing the game you'll be rewarded for sick executions and brutal headshots or w/e complete with experience pop-ups telling you what a badass killer you are.

The game also apparently doesn't reflect or make Lara's progression as a survivor and killer evident. Apparently as soon as you are tutorialized, you are perfectly competent and there's no ingrained reflection of her becoming more accustomed. That's a real shame if true, because that angle sounded really interesting. Also, apparently by the halfway mark you've killed over a hundred guys and again, the killing affecting her is only reflected early on and then never again.

Which again, is a shame. Seems like they didn't really commit to making the game they said they were.

Douche Wolf 89
Dec 9, 2010

🍉🐺8️⃣9️⃣
I refused to buy Dead Island because of a single coder being a misogynistic rear end in a top hat and even I'm finding this thread insufferable.

Great Rumbler
Jan 30, 2013

For I am a dog, you see.

ImpAtom posted:

That said: You can have a game with no violence and still have incredibly uncomfortable deaths:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYyZfME5XYY

It really depends on how you play it. Heart of Darkness is rated E for everyone but the tone and atmosphere (and the age of the protagonist) really do a lot to make the death scenes pretty uncomfortable to encounter.

Now that video brings back some memories. Heart of Darkness was the first PS1 game I owned back at the tail end of 1998.

RentCavalier
Jul 10, 2008

by T. Finninho

Samurai Sanders posted:

In that video back on the first page, she used an arrow as a melee weapon (probably just inside a special counterattack animation but whatever). Something inside of me yelled "SOLD!" but then I remembered that I have almost no extra money (the only reason I could buy Metal Gear Rising was because I had a gift card left over from Christmas) and if I get this game it may be the only full priced game I can get for months, and I want the new Dynasty Warriors too...

Also, what the first review I read said clashed with this "base camp" thing. It said the game is linear location-wise, but how could that be if there's some central place that you can come back to?

edit: the Steam version is cheaper, but I never know how well PC games will run on my laptop. I wish it had a demo or benchmark or something. Also, the Steam page doesn't claim it has controller support but surely it does?

It kind of looked like the areas are effectively linear, but within the individual stages along the path, you can branch off and explore for bonus poo poo.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Chillmatic
Jul 25, 2003

always seeking to survive and flourish

Dan Didio posted:

The game also apparently doesn't reflect or make Lara's progression as a survivor and killer evident. Apparently as soon as you are tutorialized, you are perfectly competent and there's no ingrained reflection of her becoming more accustomed. That's a real shame if true, because that angle sounded really interesting. Also, apparently by the halfway mark you've killed over a hundred guys and again, the killing affecting her is only reflected early on and then never again.

Which again, is a shame. Seems like they didn't really commit to making the game they said they were.

I hear what you're saying, and for what it's worth I agree. I don't know if any of y'all played far cry 3 but literally the exact same thing happens. You kill a dude, and you're all like "oh gently caress, oh poo poo oh poo poo i don't think i can do this" and then 15 minutes later you're hangliding across the island dropping c4 on dudes that managed to survive the headshots and tiger attack you'd unleashed on them 10 minutes prior.

  • Locked thread