Assidragon on 11/5/2013 at 07:46

---

I assume the others you rescued and who are staying with her would fill her in. Especially Oliver, given he's half-stoned all the time and didn't seem to be scarred as badly as the others.

And well, would you tell Liza anything when every single time you meet her she launches into a tirade how you suck and are nothing but a bloody murderer, and you should just stop doing so anyway. Which also means not rescuing your remaining friends, but I guess that's a-ok, right? :sweat: Remember she does this right after you rescue her and are about to go to find the others. I really wished jason would just tell her something along the lines of "Well, if earlier I did what you want, then you'd be still enjoying Vaas' company". At any rate, after her reaction, I certainly wouldn't blame Jason not detailing things to her; she'd just fly off the handles even worse.

Assidragon on 11/5/2013 at 12:04

---

Hum, hum. To do a carefree murderspree, or to not?

Conscience is a funny topic in FPS games. The usual premise is that you will be gunning down everything that moves, usually by the dozen. There's no getting around that, and pointing out is not very productive. The real question is how the game handles all those deaths. The writing of the player and his enemies. Let's do a fun comparison.

When I first played Deus Ex, I played it like a typical FPS, and I felt pretty horrible for killing them NSF guys later on. While DC's mission was rather sensible, the "terrorrists" actually had rather good motives for doing what they do, ones I could relate to. Mind you, they got a very quick role reversal, but even if you could opt to stay with UNATCO, I would still feel bad about harming them.

In Metro2033, you can witness nazis and communists execute people just for the lulz. It's rather chilling. And the game still manages to show you that in the end they are just people themselves, and even if they are an ugly bunch there are decent parts here and there still. Sure, they are still evil, but get just enough characterization to make you feel down for shooting them, if you go that way. (Except for that comissar. Screw that guy.)

Now, let's take a look at Far Cry 3. The motivation of the bad guys are... pillage, maim'n murder. They have absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Hell, the characters that do get more spotlight (Vaas, Buck, Hoyt) are gradually more and more twisted and deserving of punishment. So, where is the incentive not to murderize them with extreme prejudice? There is no moral dissonance here. Sure, you kill the pirates by the dozen, but I feel worse for having to kill poor dogs in self defence than those idiots.


If the devs of FC3 wanted me to feel conflicted about Jason slowly descending into a tribal killing machine, then having a token idiot yell at you doesn't cut it. Not when the rest of the game seems going in the opposite direction. As it is, Liza's character has a strong dissonance with the rest of the game. "You shouldn't kill those people" vs "they are eating babies and setting puppies on fire, you may wanna do something about it". Instead of making me agree with her concern, she just comes off as really grating. I mean, if there were at least somewhat reasonable pirates; if there was a group there with a goal greater than "we shoot tourists in the head lol"; if there was anything to make me slightly sympathize with my enemies; she would suddenly sound a lot less stupid, and would have grounds for her concerrn. But that is not the case. It's almost as if she was written by another writer who didn't get the memo "we are only going for black and white moralities here", and tried to shoe-horn in some commentary which IMHO doesn't belong.


Anyway, I'm just rambling. :joke: I'm enjoying the sandbox gameplay, and her presence in the game is so minimal it doesn't really detract.