|
Adraeus posted:Look up "ludonarrative dissonance" so I don't have to repeat past posts or outline the differences between the gameplay and narrative with a table. Look, the problem here isn't that I don't understand what you are saying, the problem is that you are wrong. I know the difference between the gameplay and the narrative. The narrative, as presented, is that the Solarii are determined to murder Lara, Sam, and all the other survivors of the Endurance. Lara is frequently attacked and ambushed in the story of the game. On no occasion do the various members of the Solarii give any indication they are willing work with Lara to get off the island, except for a brief conversation in the Tomb of Himiko which leads to the Solarii firing the first shot. Lara goes on the offensive only when it becomes clear they are planning to murder her friend, and she must attempt to rescue her. At no point does the narrative suggest that Lara has a choice other than to kill every single Solarii attacking her. You haven't suggested any avenue for Lara to pursue that doesn't involve altering the actual events of the game. If the only way you can think of making it so that Lara has a choice about killing people is to change what happens in the story, then it follows that in the story as written, Lara has no choice but to kill people. A story where you have no choice but to kill people has no ludonarrative dissonance with gameplay in which your only choice is to kill people.
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 03:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 16:58 |
|
|
Adraeus posted:Their goals are the same though. They're both focused on self-preservation. Lara Croft and company want to live and get off the island. The Solarii want to live and get off the island. But they pursue their goals in very different ways. The Solarii are governed by rules and hierarchy; they are organized, overseen by a domineering lunatic. Ironically, they represent order, the status quo. The Endurance crew opposes Solarii society; they are equals, which was emphasized in the introduction, and this group represents chaos, the dissidents or free radicals. They only oppose the solarii in the fact that they don't want to die. As Reveilled asked what does Lara do that makes her worse than the Solarii? She does kill alot of Solarii (most of who are implied to have killed themselves), but other than that what does she do that makes her worse than her opposition?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 03:56
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:On no occasion do the various members of the Solarii give any indication they are willing work with Lara to get off the island, except for a brief conversation in the Tomb of Himiko which leads to the Solarii firing the first shot. [...] At no point does the narrative suggest that Lara has a choice other than to kill every single Solarii attacking her. Nikolai's journals indicate that the Solarii are not unified, that they have reservations about Mathias and his command, and that even Nikolai is remorseful about what he has done to survive. But none of this, which is part of the narrative, has any bearing on the gameplay. As has been pointed out by everyone including me, the Solarii shoot at Lara Croft as a matter of course. And I argue that they shouldn't and that there should be opportunities to resolve conflicts with less or without bloodshed because the narrative pushes the idea that the Solarii are malleable. (They're cult victims! Duh!) Nikolai's journal even states that Mathias specifically recruits initiates who are "none too smart" and kills everyone else. "Mathias has us look for physically strong men for the brotherhood... but none too smart. They must be willing to take orders and work. Any who question or resist are immediately killed." Reveilled posted:You haven't suggested any avenue for Lara to pursue that doesn't involve altering the actual events of the game. If you can't alter the actual events of the game as-is, then there can't be any other avenues, can there? deadicons posted:What does she do that makes her worse than her opposition? I believe I said that Lara Croft becomes a villain on an island where there are no heroes. That doesn't mean I said that she's worse than the Solarii. That means I said she's playing on the same field. She doesn't rise above what the Solarii do; she merely imitates them in pursuit of her faction's goals. She fights fire with fire, basically. Adraeus fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Mar 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 04:05
|
|
|
Adraeus posted:Nikolai's journals indicate that the Solarii are not unified, that they have reservations about Mathias and his command, and that even Nikolai is remorseful about what he has done to survive. But none of this, which is part of the narrative, has any bearing on the gameplay. As has been pointed out by everyone including me, the Solarii shoot at Lara Croft as a matter of course. And I argue that they shouldn't and that there should be opportunities to resolve conflicts with less or without bloodshed because the narrative pushes the idea that the Solarii are malleable. Nikolai's journals suggest this, but literally none of Lara's real interactions with the Solarii suggest this. All of them follow Matthias' command to kill her, not just in the gameplay sections where they are programmed to do so, but in the cutscenes also, which are the narrative portions where Lara interacts with the Solarii independent of the gameplay. Regardless of any division in the Solarii ranks, Lara at no point has an opportunity to capitalise on this as there is no point in the narrative where either her own imminent death or the death of a friend does not need to be dealt with immediately. quote:If you can't alter the actual events of the game as-is, then there can't be any other avenues, can there? Again, pick a point in the narrative, non-gameplay cutscenes of the game where Lara takes an action you would consider to be villainous and describe what, specifically, you consider to be villainous about the act, and what you think she should have done instead, without inserting additional non-existent elements like hardened survivors, or changing the whole plot around so that Matthias kidnaps Sam much later in the plot when there's no particular reason for him to wait. And since I think I need to reiterate the point, Lara ambushing people in gameplay sections is not a valid example, because if the fact that the Solarii attack her without any question in these sections can't be used as a point against them due to the gameplay/narrative distinction, neither can Lara's actions in those sections. So, cutscenes only, what villainous actions does Lara take, and what should she have done differently in those cutscenes? Reveilled fucked around with this message at 04:17 on Mar 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 04:15
|
|
|
You can't talk grown up to people about video games, especially on this forum. Your best bet is to give it up at this point. Most goons (and internet people in general) have a hard time understanding that you can like something and be critical of it at the same time. Also, game writing will never improve because you can't sell units if you don't sell power fantasies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 04:26
|
|
|
Fluffdaddy posted:You can't talk grown up to people about video games, especially on this forum. Your best bet is to give it up at this point. Most goons (and internet people in general) have a hard time understanding that you can like something and be critical of it at the same time. Being critical doesn't work when you can't actually back it up textually. Wanting the game to be something different is actually fairly distinct from complaining that the game is sending conflicting messages from gameplay and narrative. Tomb Raider does have issues with this. The first two hours of the game are at drastic conflict with the rest of the game in almost every way, up to and including having tutorials for mechanics which end up being entirely unimportant. However beyond that point it sends a fairly cohesive message. It is not a particularly deep or moral message, boiling down to "rapist murderers are bad and you shouldn't get raped or murdered" but it manages to avoid the severe disconnect by setting up a situation upon which the hero has no actual choice and is repeatedly shown to be attempting other options while the villains deny any chance at peaceful outcomes, and who are shown at every possible opportunity to be a direct threat to the player-character. I love peaceful outcomes in games and will play any game nonviolently if given the chance, so I wouldn't object to Tomb Raider offering that chance, but it is not the story that exists. Likewise, trying to go "she's as bad as the villains" doesn't work unless you ignore the overarching narrative. It's not ignoring subtext, it's ignoring text entirely. When you have a scene where the protagonist sits and tries to talk with the enemy until they shoot at her, it doesn't really work to claim that she's acting on the same level. You can argue that isn't the game they should have made but trying to argue that they were going for a morally ambiguous story is silly when the hero squad is made up of plucky-but-unlucky dogooders of every race and gender and the bad guys are rapist murders who, at best, are the victims of horrifying cult brainwashing, you're not exactly straddling the moral fence. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 05:07 on Mar 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
Fluffdaddy posted:You can't talk grown up to people about video games, especially on this forum. Your best bet is to give it up at this point. Most goons (and internet people in general) have a hard time understanding that you can like something and be critical of it at the same time. So who are you supporting in the above argument? Also take out the word game in your last sentence and you would probably be more correct.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
I've always found that argument about "power fantasies" to be particularly vacuous. What players want, is to see an effect based on their input. It's incredibly important- so much so that when you hear a talk from any designer at Valve, it's one of the top things they talk about in terms of gameplay design. It's not that we're only into power fantasies- if it was, then Minecraft wouldn't have sold like mad. Dark Souls wouldn't have sold like mad. The Walking Dead wouldn't have sold like mad. However, the easiest way to convey the player affecting the world around them is to make them the center of the story/action- both because it's easier to design this way, and from a technical perspective, it's a lot easier to do this than to just build a few dozen interlocking world and AI systems with umpteen million ways of interacting with one another that you could never bug test in a decade. Edit: And to echo earlier arguments, all he keeps doing is ignoring the overwhelming majority of ingame narrative just so he can justify the fact that he doesn't like that we kill so many dudes. Which pretty much everyone here agrees with him: Killing less dudes would have made a better game. We agreed on this a long time ago. But it doesn't create a narrative/gameplay dissonance, it just makes the narrative/gameplay we get as a result more bland and cliche(all the dudes are evil and try to kill you, kill the dudes before they kill you). quaunaut fucked around with this message at 04:51 on Mar 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 04:46
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:All of them follow Matthias' command to kill her, not just in the gameplay sections where they are programmed to do so, but in the cutscenes also, which are the narrative portions where Lara interacts with the Solarii independent of the gameplay. You know there's more to narratives than cutscenes, right? http://www.raphkoster.com/2012/01/20/narrative-is-not-a-game-mechanic/ http://www.jesperjuul.net/text/clash_between_game_and_narrative.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 04:52
|
|
|
quaunaut posted:I've always found that argument about "power fantasies" to be particularly vacuous. I agree with you, but I would consider those all power fantasies in a way. You get to be the special soul that becomes strong enough to kill the demons. You are one of the sole important survivors of the human race. You are the all controlling god of a large scale sandbox.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 04:53
|
|
|
quaunaut posted:I've always found that argument about "power fantasies" to be particularly vacuous. Eh.. this kind of rings hollow when most of the popular games out there have you pretty much winning massive wars on your own. Call of Duty, Gears of War, Tomb Raider, Far Cry 3. I just beat the game and I have to say that it is kind of bizarre. As ImpAtom said, they really try to play up the survivor aspect with the hunting and foraging for food and then that angle is pretty much dropped to make way for Uncharted type antics for the rest of the game. Also, while I don't agree with Adraeus completely, I do agree with him in that I don't think she nor Nathan Drake are people I particularly would like to hang out with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 05:14
|
|
|
Adraeus posted:The only way to prove this to you would be for you to play the game, use cover, and watch the Solarii until you get bored of them standing still or patrolling the same routes over and over — never searching where they haven't looked, never checking their blind spots, and never ever finding you unless you intervene. Or, I could play through the game again, take screenshots, and record videos. But I'm not going to do that because that's overkill and I shouldn't have to do that just to point out blatantly obvious Solarii behaviors. I listened in on them all the time. I'd wait until every conversation that was initiated was finished. I was backtracking and collecting artifacts and bumped into two guys just enjoying a game of chess and chatting about skipping out on their work (which is finding and killing me, though they never outright stated it). So I stayed hidden and walked around them, collected my gps cache and left. Anyone talking about killing me got an arrow to the head.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 05:17
|
|
|
I just started playing this and already I've realised that yes, Lara is going to be a complete badass in this game. The reason why? Her response to getting skewered through the torso by a foot-long piece of rebar is a fairly measured "oh no!". That's pretty hardcore by just about any measure.  Other than, I just played the game for two hours (according to Steam) on a GTX 680 using Ultimate settings (though no exclusive full screen or VSync) and it didn't crash once. Guess I should count myself lucky? v  v
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 05:18
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Eh.. this kind of rings hollow when most of the popular games out there have you pretty much winning massive wars on your own. Call of Duty, Gears of War, Tomb Raider, Far Cry 3. I still think it's more incidental than it is intentional. For Tomb Raider for example, I think a lot more of it came down to, "Having a combat system in a game at all means it better beg good; Otherwise, it just pisses people off." Then, once they put the energy into that, it becomes a fairly easy way to pad out content. I think most of it just comes down to, "realities of game creation", not power fantasies. Electromax posted:I agree with you, but I would consider those all power fantasies in a way. You get to be the special soul that becomes strong enough to kill the demons. You are one of the sole important survivors of the human race. You are the all controlling god of a large scale sandbox. If you're gonna run with this, literally everything ever is a power fantasy, unless someone makes a game about getting cuckolded.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 05:22
|
|
|
Also, why didn't the Oni just kill Lara instead of knocking her out?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 05:39
|
|
|
Nobody has to feel bad because the protagonist isn't the good guy and try to shut down the discussion. It's fun to play around with different interpretations of games isnt it? People are saying what the devs clearly intended was for Lara to be a sympahetic character but what they intended is irrelevant; let's look at what we have: Lara very swiftly becomes an S-tier, A'est of Apex predator without mercy or remorse (you can argue her inital navel gazing inner conflict is genuine, I believe it isn't) who racks up a death toll in the hundrededs and this is justified!? That's some heavy duty self-defense. I mean there's one particular sequence that sticks out for me; Lara is silently stalking through the woods at night, she has superior night vision to her prey who have to rely on flash lights which ironically let you pick them off one by one with your weapon of choice. This is some predator level poo poo, this isn't a fair fight or anything remotely like self defense. These shclubs never stood a drat chance. Half the time when you're attacking them they're screaming in fear, Lara is not acting in defense of self or others, she loves to kill people, they come in waves and she destroys them all. The funny thing of course is the juxtapostion between her vulnerable exhortations and her hyper violence. Like in one scene she's hanging upside down sort of daintily screaming 'oh no, get away from me' whilst pulling off sick headshots. I laughed quite a bit. JohnnyBigPotatoes fucked around with this message at 05:53 on Mar 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 05:48
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Also, why didn't the Oni just kill Lara instead of knocking her out? Wasn't she knocked out already and her vision fading while she sort of watched the mini massacre around her happen? I figure they were too dumb to notice she wasn't dead, just unconscious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 05:58
|
|
|
Adraeus posted:You know there's more to narratives than cutscenes, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 06:01
|
|
|
JohnnyBigPotatoes posted:Nobody has to feel bad because the protagonist isn't the good guy and try to shut down the discussion. It's fun to play around with different interpretations of games isnt it? Y'know, except if you pay attention to any of her animations, which feature plenty of flailing, tripping, and her messing up. I mean, what it sounds like you're advocating to me is, is for them to intentionally poo poo all over your controls for the sake of 'realism'. Also, the one scene she gets pulled upside down, all of her enemies are within 15 feet of her. That's the kind of range that anyone with any amount of moderate pistol shooting experience aims for the head. You only aim for the core body at 20-30 feet or more. She has obvious weapons experience- she's not just 'average 16 year old girl'- she's the daughter of an explorer who did this exact same stuff. It's not a matter of 'feeling bad' or not, it's a place where I just kinda get frustrated, because short of just having less combat overall(the one thing we keep advocating over and over and over), there really isn't another solution while keeping combat in the game, and not as a chore, or even more unrealistic by making enemies extra durable. One could say, "Just make better AI!", but anyone who has played FEAR will tell you, better AI doesn't mean individual dudes live any longer. They just surprise you more often.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 06:14
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Also, why didn't the Oni just kill Lara instead of knocking her out? A better question is Why did the main villain just leave her unconscious at the start of the game?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 06:15
|
|
|
There are so many escapism badass unstoppable protagonists in just about every game, I really don't see why Lara is getting picked on so much. Ezio falls 20 stories onto tiny piles of hay and nobody gets in his face about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 06:29
|
|
|
Fonzarelli posted:There are so many escapism badass unstoppable protagonists in just about every game, I really don't see why Lara is getting picked on so much. Ezio falls 20 stories onto tiny piles of hay and nobody gets in his face about it. Also, I don't quite understand why there is the wish for peaceful resolutions to such situations in an action game. Even highly sophisticated RPGs like Planescape: Torment, The Witcher or Fallout 1/2 don't let you talk your way out of every fight, regardless how high your charisma and diplomacy skill is. And somehow Lara Croft is held to a standard where she should do what the Vault Dweller, Namless One or the Witcher can't, despite being the protagonist of a game in a genre that is specifically made for action (she even shot dudes in the first game, even if it was only a handful) and additionally given pretty much the perfect paragon motivation (killing dudes who want to burn her friend, kill her other friends in other gruesome ways, killed some of her friends and want to kill her). Seems as ludicrous as asking why Rambo kills in First Blood, McClane in Die Hard instead of going out of his way to surrender or run away (which Lara can't even do unlike at least McClane). If Tomb Raider was a RPG one could credibly question it if there was only a "kill or get killed" approach to everything. But in an action game it seems pretty odd.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 07:18
|
|
|
I think the developers intended the narrative to link action pieces to puzzles and borrowed bits and pieces from movies and other games that sounded cool.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 07:27
|
|
|
Well, that's all the achievements and whatnot done. Really not interested in the multiplayer. Man that was over too quickly. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 07:35
|
|
|
Capn Beeb posted:Well, that's all the achievements and whatnot done. Really not interested in the multiplayer. Here's to hoping for the next one they dump multiplayer entirely, and give us extra long tombs. I want 20-30m tombs, and still 7 of them! And less fighting in the core of the game! And not another QTE that isn't directly part of a combat system!
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 07:37
|
|
|
This may be a tired question at this point, but I haven't been following the game so I'm not sure how it has turned out: Does the game adequately step away from that kind of creepy sheen that was going on with the original promotional material that went out of its way to point out how hurt she was getting and facing threats of rape and various other vaguely snuff-film-esque focuses?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 07:46
|
|
|
Winky posted:This may be a tired question at this point, but I haven't been following the game so I'm not sure how it has turned out: Does the game adequately step away from that kind of creepy sheen that was going on with the original promotional material that went out of its way to point out how hurt she was getting and facing threats of rape and various other vaguely snuff-film-esque focuses? The promo stuff on this game was pretty drat far from the truth. I don't know what they were thinking, but they certainly didn't hype any of the aspects that make the game good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 07:55
|
|
|
Winky posted:This may be a tired question at this point, but I haven't been following the game so I'm not sure how it has turned out: Does the game adequately step away from that kind of creepy sheen that was going on with the original promotional material that went out of its way to point out how hurt she was getting and facing threats of rape and various other vaguely snuff-film-esque focuses? All the content you saw in the promotional stuff is in there, but it's a very different game than those trailers would suggest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 07:56
|
|
|
quaunaut posted:Here's to hoping for the next one they dump multiplayer entirely, and give us extra long tombs. I want 20-30m tombs, and still 7 of them! And less fighting in the core of the game! And not another QTE that isn't directly part of a combat system! Yeah, that'd be nice. I'd also like it if the tombs didn't depend purely on physics puzzles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 08:07
|
|
|
Adraeus posted:You know there's more to narratives than cutscenes, right? Yes. But this discussion isn't actually about ludonarrative dissonance regardless of your attempts to steer it in that direction. The discussion is about whether Lara is a villain or not. To establish that, you need to show that Lara's actions in the game are villainous. Lara takes actions in this game in gameplay and cutscenes. If you are alleging there is a dissonance between the gameplay and the narrative, then let us dispense with the subset of Lara's actions that are not taken a purely narrative context while she is out of the player's control. This leaves the subset of actions where she takes actions in cutscenes. Regardless of any other feature of the narrative, in order to demonstrate that Lara is a villain, you need to show that she is taking villainous actions in this subset of events of the narrative, as they are the only portions of the narrative where Lara, the character (as opposed to the player or the writer) has control over what happens. I am assuming from the fact that you have not done this despite a request to do this in every single reply I've made to you that you cannot do this. So your assertion that Lara is a villain is completely baseless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 11:09
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:Yes. But this discussion isn't actually about ludonarrative dissonance regardless of your attempts to steer it in that direction. The discussion is about whether Lara is a villain or not. To establish that, you need to show that Lara's actions in the game are villainous. Lara takes actions in this game in gameplay and cutscenes. If you are alleging there is a dissonance between the gameplay and the narrative, then let us dispense with the subset of Lara's actions that are not taken a purely narrative context while she is out of the player's control. This leaves the subset of actions where she takes actions in cutscenes. Regardless of any other feature of the narrative, in order to demonstrate that Lara is a villain, you need to show that she is taking villainous actions in this subset of events of the narrative, as they are the only portions of the narrative where Lara, the character (as opposed to the player or the writer) has control over what happens. How would you describe pointing a pistol at a helicopter pilots head and threatening to kill him and by extension yourself and the other passenger if he doesn't do what you ask? Heroic? That was the first scene that came to mind, another is leaving an injured man to die for no apparent reason (The cutscene shows two(?) enemies approaching and this seems to convince Lara the odds aren't in her favour. What rot, she can quite capably deal with far more than 2 guys at once. Look, you're asking for proof that she acts 'villanious'. That isn't a useful term, what is useful in determining the ethics of Lara Crofts jungle adventure is that at the culmination hundreds of people are dead at her hands. Do you honestly believe she had to kill every single person in self-defense? She is a predator amongst prey. She isn't interested in seeking non-violent solutions to her problems. She ignores the many, many overheard conversations amongst the guards that outright tell her that a lot of these guys are just stuck in a situation out of their control. The game does a great job of putting you into the mindset of a bloodthirsty lunatic as when you see guards standing near natural explosive gas leaks you don't think 'here's my chance to slip away quietly' you immediately see the opportunity to blow them to smithereens and deliver Lara's summary justice. Anybody ignoring this is because it doesn't fit their predetermined idea of Lara as a 'hero' so mental gymnastics ensue and pretty unpleasent justifications for genocide come out. Also to criticise the game is not to denounce, I enjoyed the game, I think it's a lot of fun. The best Predator game I've ever played in fact.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 11:29
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:A better question is Why did the main villain just leave her unconscious at the start of the game? He probably didn't know how dangerous Lara was at that point. Grab Sam, leg it. Mostly convenience - however you interpret "convenience". 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 11:32
|
|
|
JohnnyBigPotatoes posted:How would you describe pointing a pistol at a helicopter pilots head and threatening to kill him and by extension yourself and the other passenger if he doesn't do what you ask? Heroic? Well you seem to be conveniently forgetting that the helicopter would be blown up and destroyed if it tried to leave the island (and indeed when the pilot did not fall for Lara's bluff, it was). At that point if your options are "force the pilot to land at gunpoint" or "spend three hours trying to convince the pilot that this island is somehow supernatural and will destroy the helicopter if it tries to fly away", which is the better option?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 11:46
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:This leaves the subset of actions where she takes actions in cutscenes. Regardless of any other feature of the narrative, in order to demonstrate that Lara is a villain, you need to show that she is taking villainous actions in this subset of events of the narrative, as they are the only portions of the narrative where Lara, the character (as opposed to the player or the writer) has control over what happens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 11:56
|
|
|
JohnnyBigPotatoes posted:How would you describe pointing a pistol at a helicopter pilots head and threatening to kill him and by extension yourself and the other passenger if he doesn't do what you ask? Heroic? Maybe you think villainous isn't a useful term, but I'd encourage you to take that up with Adraeus, who specifically referred to Lara as being a villain, which is what I'd arguing against. A villain is villainous. If Lara doesn't act villainous, she's not a villain. I enjoyed the game and I think virtually everyone who has been arguing against Adraeus has said they'd have liked the game more if it had been written in such a way that non-violent solutions were an option. But the events of the game as written give Lara no choice but to kill people, if she doesn't then she and her friends will be killed by the Solarii. There is no other choice for Lara, in the game or the narrative, so the suggestion that lara has a choice in the matter is ludicrous. The writer had a choice, and made a choice by writing the story in such a way that violence was the only option (and I like many others think that was the wrong choice) but Lara as a character doesn't have a choice. The events of the story which are largely out of her control mandate that the only way she can save herself and her friends are to kill a lot of people. That's a problem with the story itself, not with Lara as a character.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 12:00
|
|
|
I don't think the story is a big of a problem as the gameplay is. I can assume they had fewer enemies before, but that it felt so "good" to pull off the killing moves and stuff that they increased it to the point where it is at. Or that the story never wanted to coincide with the murder of hundreds of people, whatever. What happened to "nothing more to say on this matter"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 12:08
|
|
|
I just finished the game 10 minutes ago and loving loved every moment of it. I could be biased since Tomb Raider 1 was the first ever game I bought with my own money but god drat that was entertaining. I'm hoping to hell in the next one they reintroduce the mansion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 12:14
|
|
|
quaunaut posted:If you're gonna run with this, literally everything ever is a power fantasy, unless someone makes a game about getting cuckolded. Well, yeah. Games are escapism. Outside Tetris and, I dunno, Heavy Rain most games are around letting you be someone you can't be in real life and defeating your obstacles. Power fantasy is just a term, it doesn't mean it has to specifically be revenge or female empowerment or whatever. I just consider it a broad concept that puts someone without those abilities (the gamer) in a position to win with them. Not "literally everything" but most modern games. See also comic books, Harry Potter, Twilight, Dragonball, 24... Just my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 12:16
|
|
|
Electromax posted:Well, yeah. Games are escapism. Outside Tetris and, I dunno, Heavy Rain most games are around letting you be someone you can't be in real life and defeating your obstacles. Power fantasy is just a term, it doesn't mean it has to specifically be revenge or female empowerment or whatever. I just consider it a broad concept that puts someone without those abilities (the gamer) in a position to win with them. Not "literally everything" but most modern games. See also comic books, Harry Potter, Twilight, Dragonball, 24... Just my opinion.  Precious.If a term applies to everything, then it kinda loses its meaning and then it doesn't really work for an argument however.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 12:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 16:58 |
|
|
Electromax posted:Well, yeah. Games are escapism. Outside Tetris and, I dunno, Heavy Rain most games are around letting you be someone you can't be in real life and defeating your obstacles. Power fantasy is just a term, it doesn't mean it has to specifically be revenge or female empowerment or whatever. I just consider it a broad concept that puts someone without those abilities (the gamer) in a position to win with them. Not "literally everything" but most modern games. See also comic books, Harry Potter, Twilight, Dragonball, 24... Just my opinion. To echo Mordaedil's comment, I'll add that in Tetris, it's up to you to make sure the puzzle arena doesn't get overwhelmed! And for Heavy Rain, only you can solve the mystery of the origami killer! The reason we'd have to wait for a cuckold game(I can't wait~) is short of that, everything else is what YOU can do. At least with a cuckold game, the object is taking away power.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 12:54
|
|