|
If it's between those two... let's go through the Magenta door. I picked Cyan the first time through and looking back I regret it, not because the contents are good or bad, but because (incidental spoilers I will not touch on). We'll see everything eventually anyway.
|
#
¿
May 29, 2013 12:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 16:03 |
|
|
Pierzak posted:You can't just say that and stop there. I'll bring it up when it becomes relevant and no longer a spoiler. Fall fucked around with this message at 13:21 on May 29, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 29, 2013 13:00
|
|
|
lotus circle posted:Did you even read the first post? Because if you did you'll know this isn't allowed either in regards to the spoiler policy. I did. I guess I shouldn't even have mentioned it, but rest assured this has nothing to do with what is or isn't coming up next or "wink wink nudge nudge oh this door is particularly awesome!" because they're all good. Or anything to do with any character or the hex code of the door or the material of the floor or anything you could guess without having played the game. Newbies, don't try to guess. Trust me, I hate those kinds of spoilers too. Alberenza posted:I'd say definitely go for a Luna run on your first play through. The story simply gels better that way if you ask me. (Although I'll admit my first playthrough I picked Tenny) Listen to this guy. Fall fucked around with this message at 15:26 on May 29, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 29, 2013 13:12
|
|
|
Skunkrocker posted:I'd also like to point out, if you recall, that explosions only occur to two people, and those two were also assholes. So violent murder is justified if the victims are subjectively labelled assholes?  Not that I don't agree with you about the dead people in 999 being assholes. It's just interesting how blasé people in general become about such things once villainy is established. Add in (also subjective) fundamental attribution error, and suddenly due process becomes no longer as important, vigilantism casual. (For the record I'm not immune from falling into this mindset, nor do I believe treatment of video games can be equated with real life.)
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2013 12:09
|
|
|
El Generico posted:Oh man, I am so pumped for what I assume is coming up soon, which is a ridiculous, unbelievable psuedo-scientific rant about magic ice or telekinetic fields or something. A long, crazy one, with full voice acting. Full voice acting is easily the best addition to VLR. Zero III dubbed in English is so much better than the Japanese, I wish the EU version had it. Pierzak posted:I think it's less about ethics and due process than about getting away with it. Lots of people probably have "assholes" they'd love to kill with impunity. Some people might kill if they could get away with it, yeah, but that wasn't the point of my observation. In this example June and Santa were vigilantes who directly manipulated others (i.e. Ace) to cause certain people to die gruesome deaths. I read Skunkrocker's post as a defense of the bombs because 1) only two people died, and 2) those people were "assholes", which meant those people could be written off/their killings were justified. (by all means, Skunkrocker, correct me if I'm wrong!) To clarify, I wanted to invite people to think about how the way facts are framed can bias one's perceptions. Leaving it there would feel half-baked of me, so I'll try to explain. I've had a long day so apologies in advance if my thoughts sound unclear. (A note: I define bias as distinct from Having An Opinion which Skunkrocker hasn't yet expressed. The question I actually asked was deliberately provocative and somewhat sarcastic - I'm sure Skunkrocker is a great guy - but my point stands.) Framing makes such a difference. On one hand, of course killing Ace's gang was justified! These people kidnapped 18 children and put their lives in mortal danger. Santa's sister actually died (at first). On the other hand: what if the only information you got was from a newspaper? 'Teen siblings carry out decade-long revenge plot to murder 2 people and kidnap 7 others', the headline might proclaim. Without the sentimental backstory the article would surely lack, lest people see these people as human beings, even awful ones (and going by actions, they are) it's completely senseless. It's selfish and wasteful: these kids are (presumably) millionaire stockbrokers, so why couldn't they move on? Why not start a charity with the same money and work towards something more meaningful? Once certain labels are attached: 'murder', 'kidnapping', 'assault', maybe even 'psychopath'... we have Bad People (because of the aforementioned X Y and Z). Where's the truth? There is none. Well ok then, what's my opinion after having considered what hasn't been said? ... People usually stop at the judgment stage. Case in point: you didn't explain further beyond your initial assessment. (Not that I mind too much: I get that we can't always or don't feel like taking the time.) In some cases, like the 999 example, this leads to bias and even hypocrisy. Think about it. If not, I'll explain it shortly. Now, I'm not defending real life murderers and kidnappers and what-have-you. They should absolutely be condemned, once convicted in a fair trial. Wrong actions are wrong actions no matter how "justified" the motive. For example I understood June's motive but still despised her after playing 999 because of her utter lack of remorse and her escape of accountability by vanishing. I know, I know, that's a lot of words to say "guys! guys! Grey morals are A Thing in video games!". But if both sides aren't presented at once, and they usually aren't, the truth needs to be assessed, even briefly. I said earlier that I don't believe treatment of video games can be equated with real life. This remains true: I don't think, for example, Skunkrocker or any normal person would think hypothetical murder was OK just because the victim might have punched them in the face 10 years earlier. But critical thinking is universal and can be applied to both contexts. Now I know good video games can cause deep emotional engagement. I love 999 and consider June a well-written character. But to assume something is excusable or "good" because you've empathised with how it's been framed emotionally, and at the same time dismiss its real life equivalents as "bad" and alien because you haven't empathised with how it's been framed objectively-- there's a certain hypocrisy in that. So yes, it's about ethics. Fall fucked around with this message at 15:47 on May 30, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 30, 2013 15:32
|
|
|
Pierzak posted:OK, I think I see what you're trying to say. We may be OK with killing assholes when the protagonist does it because "we will know who's an rear end in a top hat and we'll do no wrong to ourselves that way" even if it's blatantly untrue. But when it's someone else, it starts getting disturbingly similar to what oppressive regimes do, the "We're getting rid of these and these asshold for the good of all, next we're killing you and no one bats an eyelid because officially you're evil" way. Yeah, kind of. Protagonists are traditionally "good guys" (although antiheroes have existed historically for a long time and are growing more popular) and that perception can create some interesting logical disconnects in a player that are hard to find and harder to explain. I don't want to get too political here but broaden that field of vision to our media today, especially international news written by domestic journalists and domestic news written by international journalists, and you'll find a lot of the same. But this is getting outside the scope of the thread and I'm not sure people would be too interested in more meta talk, nor am I one of the many more highly qualified to discuss these things! I might revise this post tomorrow if there's free time. So do I  hyphz posted:Thing is, I think June actually knew this. From her POV, she needs to close the time loop, so she knows that if no-one else runs the Nonary Game then she's going to have to, and those people must die. She also knows that the world at large will never have any knowledge of her death, because it never happened. Oh, I agree. With all of your post. (Closed time loops do kind of suck but if it makes sense in-universe, it's good enough for me ) Nobody wants to die though. 999's plot sets June in a special case: commit the very crimes she wants vengeance for by kidnapping and killing villains (adults, not children! I imagine was her justification) and traumatise several others, saving only herself, or... accept her death in the incinerator. In the end it's her selfishness that drives her-- or, framed another way, her despair and fear of death. She's only a child, you or I might say. Nobody should die so young. ...Choosing the more selfish route is both a very terrible and very human thing to do, and I guess that's why even though I dislike her as a person, she's amazing as a character.
Fall fucked around with this message at 16:22 on May 30, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 30, 2013 16:10
|
|
|
The scenes in 999 are also shorter than those we've seen so far. I'd take 999's "autoskip" over those loving beeping dot animations any day 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 08:40
|
|
|
Snake doesn't die ingame. He pounds and pounds on the coffin lid for days until he suffocates to death because everyone else is dead. Meanwhile in the Axe ending timeline his sister walks right past that coffin, dripping with the blood of three people, only to die in the incinerator because she can't figure out what the q door actually is. Snake dies anyway. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 10:27
|
|
|
"I'm so glad you're safe. What's that smell? Clover... you're bleeding! What happened?! Who did this to you? I swear to you, Clover, they'll pay for what they did."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 10:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 16:03 |
|
|
This is so obvious in hindsight it's amazing. Look at the pipes!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2013 12:01
|
|