Story Critism-What was the point of all that?

[LT. Dan's Legs]

The desire by the writers to have a "See! Sometimes your best intentions still do not work out!" ending made the entire story seem pointless.

Congratulations, Asobo. Amicia now displays early psychopathic tendencies, and everything she did and all those people she killed was for nothing. At least in Spec Ops: The Line we could have Martin Walker shoot himself. Contrast both endings, one game wants you to take responsibility while Requiem's cognitive dissident writer forgets that a human being would have been crushed by that level of guilt.

Seriously, Amicia brings her infected brother to multiple populated locations and acts surprised when everyone dies from the Macula. Forget Captian Walker from Spec Ops, this chick has gotten more people killed then him. Oddly, the game does not make you question her actions. I can criticise The Last of Us Part 2, but that game at least tried to make you feel remorse.

What the heck were they thinking, and how did this game get nominated for so many rewards? Why would I ever replay the game save for taking some screenshots of the pretty backgrounds?


I conclude with a quote from an exchange at the ending of Spec Ops: The line.
"None of this would have happened if you had just stopped. And on you marched, and for what? ...Savior? You are no savior. Your talents lie elsewhere."-Conrad

[kristijan.123]

I would actually disagree with your criticism, here is why.

First, your entire criticism is based upon your opinion-basad comparison of two games that are in every way different from one another (Spec Ops, is entirelly diferent kind of story, different narrative, it is also set in completelly different timeline).

Yes, the general message can be interpreted as: "See! Sometimes your best intentions still do not work out!", regardless, that fact still doesn't mean you should give up in the first place, it is true for RL as much as this narrative.

Secound, Amicia's mental state can be attributed to PTSD, which is completelly understandable, given what she has been throgh during the events of the two games (all that in about two years overall), that combined with the fact that everyone (except a tinny few individuals) that she (or they - Amicia and Hugo) meet in their travels, wants to outright kill or capture them, and also combined with her sheer willpower to save her brother whatever the cost (again understandable for a simple mentioned fact), all that makes her who she is in this game.

Now, Amicia doesn't bring Hugo to populated places for no reason, she tries to find the means to save him, The Macula does the rest (the extermination part), anyway fact is the plague would have spread regardless of their location (the bite was already present in Red City long before Amicia and Hugo even arrive, as for the Island, the slavers were feeding rats also long before their arrival, The plague would have happened anyway.

[LT. Dan's Legs]

If they took Hugo De Rune to that cabin in the final chapter earlier in the game, those deaths would not have been on Amicia. Even she admits (paraphrasing) "He was fine for the months we were alone on the road."
I get that the drama of the situation clouded her judgement, but isolation would certainly have kept Hugo alive, at least for a while longer. In retrospect, Beatrice's idea of isolating him with the Order would likely have also helped the boy. He would have been under their care; it probably would not have been like Basilius' fate, for his family would have been close by, and they would have an idea of what their failings with the previous carrier were.

Also, my main point stands (regardless of opinion). Why doesn't Amicia demonstrate responsibility for her failures? For all who have died, it is hard to believe that she can carry on. Sure you could argue that she is dealing with a lot of internal trauma by the ending, I expected it to be more realistic. Regardless of a strong will, that amount of death she incurred without a silver lining (Hugo living) should completely break her.

A small plot point I wanted to bring up was that she also gets her mother killed. I was appalled at the moment she separated her terminally ill brother from their mom. Not only is this an awful thing to do to an ailing parent (let us not forget that Beatrice is still traumatised from her torture in Innocence), but the fact that Beatrice is willing to put her grief aside to find the two on La Cuna showed me she was willing to put her beliefs aside for her family. And even though she wanted to make peace with both her children, she gets killed for it. This further traumatises Hugo to the brink of passing the final threshold.

Amicia tried her luck at helping her brother, but she failed. I would have written the story differently, so that maybe Sophia or Lucas chew her out for inadvertently making things worse for not just Hugo, but for her family. I wanted to see her face accountability for her actions. That was part of why I disliked the direction of this story.

[LT. Dan's Legs]

By the way, your final sentence where you correctly state, "The plague would have happened anyway", proves my point.

What was the point of the story then?

[Dunha]

qdqw

[kristijan.123]

Originally posted by TomOfTheWarband:

If they took Hugo De Rune to that cabin in the final chapter earlier in the game, those deaths would not have been on Amicia. Even she admits (paraphrasing) "He was fine for the months we were alone on the road."
I get that the drama of the situation clouded her judgement, but isolation would certainly have kept Hugo alive, at least for a while longer. In retrospect, Beatrice's idea of isolating him with the Order would likely have also helped the boy. He would have been under their care; it probably would not have been like Basilius' fate, for his family would have been close by, and they would have an idea of what their failings with the previous carrier were.

Also, my main point stands (regardless of opinion). Why doesn't Amicia demonstrate responsibility for her failures? For all who have died, it is hard to believe that she can carry on. Sure you could argue that she is dealing with a lot of internal trauma by the ending, I expected it to be more realistic. Regardless of a strong will, that amount of death she incurred without a silver lining (Hugo living) should completely break her.

A small plot point I wanted to bring up was that she also gets her mother killed. I was appalled at the moment she separated her terminally ill brother from their mom. Not only is this an awful thing to do to an ailing parent (let us not forget that Beatrice is still traumatised from her torture in Innocence), but the fact that Beatrice is willing to put her grief aside to find the two on La Cuna showed me she was willing to put her beliefs aside for her family. And even though she wanted to make peace with both her children, she gets killed for it. This further traumatises Hugo to the brink of passing the final threshold.

Amicia tried her luck at helping her brother, but she failed. I would have written the story differently, so that maybe Sophia or Lucas chew her out for inadvertently making things worse for not just Hugo, but for her family. I wanted to see her face accountability for her actions. That was part of why I disliked the direction of this story.

It is left to us, to speculate the " what if ..." scenarios, and that is I belive the main problem with the narrative, everyone can just guess "what would happen if something happened", there are many story points that are not fully explored, that is, many things not said or explained, the writters can basically twist the story however they want, for a possible third game, and it will work because, there are holes they can fill with the next part.

with that out of the way, I belive that although isolation would help him (at least for a little while), it won't last, why, because they already tried, before events of Innocence, Hugo was in fact isolated for five years, before inqusition stormed their castle, and the whole thing began, They were also living in somewhat isolated way in between two games, and guess what, The Treshold still happened, why?, because Hugo was threatened, and worried, and afraid, the point is, no matter how they isolate him, someone will, at some point destroy the whole thing, and they can't keep him away from the world out there, forever.

The Order really had no interest in curing Hugo, as much as they had no real interest in curing Basilius, Vaudin made it perfectlly clear when He tortured Hugo to the point where his condition ultimatelly led to destruction of the Red City, along with everyone in there (That has nothing to do with Amicia, to make a point about my previous comment).
The Order would experiment on Hugo, and eventually cause him to pass the final treshold, just like they did with Basilius earlier, and ultimatelly single handedly caused the Justinian Plague, It is questionable whether or not the Order would allow Hugo to spend time with his familly, as remember, they didn't allow the same for Basilius.

Also Amicia doesn't directlly cause Beatrice's death, yes, you can say that if she never went to La Cuna, and if she never separated Hugo and Beatrice, Beatrice would not need to go there and be sacrificed to some bird-god, all true, but Amicia has no idea about that, and at the moment she makes that decision, she makes it for the fact that there might be a cure, yet she doesn't know that either, but from her perspective, you can say that she has basically two options:
1. let Beatrice take them to the Order, and give up on Hugo, no matter what they do to him (spoiler: that choice would have ended badlly, as they learn latter)
2. listen to Hugo and at least try to do something about it, that is the option she chooses, in hope, not in the way to cause destruction and death.

Beatrice died because Emilie wanted Hugo for herself, because she thought Hugo to be an Avatar of their god, or whatever, and Beatrice was in her way.

Originally posted by TomOfTheWarband:

By the way, your final sentence where you correctly state, "The plague would have happened anyway", proves my point.

What was the point of the story then?

The sentence proves the point that no matter what Amicia does, and no matter where she goes, with or without Hugo, the plague would happen, because although the Macula can make it worse, the plague acts independentlly from it.
The point of the story is about acceptance really, to accept the fate that befell them, and stop faighting it, and couse more problems, so, yes, I guess you are right, that Amicia's agenda to help and cure Hugo, only harms the rest of the world, she doesn't realize it untill the verry end, when Hugo explains that to Her, but let me ask you this: If you were in her place, what would you do?

I guess, it all boils down to that question in the end.

[LT. Dan's Legs]

That is a fair point, I imagine I would go through a lot to protect the people I love. By the way, have you ever watched the Zero Punctuation review for Requiem? He criticises the plot in a similar way that I do, but with humour!

Please take a look at this 5 minute video, I will link it here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9Vmsn1OGHA&t=239s&ab_channel=TheEscapist

I suppose I am not the only one who disliked the direction Requiem took. I am currently writing a sequel with new characters (Melie from the first game is a supporting character), and am half way finished. I am already in talks with the game dev from the series about sharing my concept, here is hoping it gets picked up.

Thanks for explaining your ideas clearly to me, it is rare that people online take the time to articulate their thoughts as you did. Let me know what you thought about the Zero Punctuation video, I want to hear your interpretation of his opinion.

[kristijan.123]

Originally posted by TomOfTheWarband:

That is a fair point, I imagine I would go through a lot to protect the people I love. By the way, have you ever watched the Zero Punctuation review for Requiem? He criticises the plot in a similar way that I do, but with humour!

Please take a look at this 5 minute video, I will link it here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9Vmsn1OGHA&t=239s&ab_channel=TheEscapist


Thanks for explaining your ideas clearly to me, it is rare that people online take the time to articulate their thoughts as you did. Let me know what you thought about the Zero Punctuation video, I want to hear your interpretation of his opinion.

Well, I don't think much about Zero Punctuation's video, bassically what I already stated before, but His review is based upon assumption that Hugo has to die at the very beggining, and that leads to another question: Who of the game characters we meet and at what point will do it, without possiblly cause even more harm?

Lets go back to the beggining: Hugo had somewhat peacefull life with his familly (Beatrice, Robert and Amicia), He was in isolation because of unknown illnes that afects their bloodline, no one knew, what this illness is capable of, or what will happen in comming years.
Fast forward a year or two, it appears that Robert's and Beatrice's attempts to isolate Hugo had failed, (remember what I said earlier, someone at some point will come and destroy everything), and so Inqusition comes primarelly seeking Hugo, why, because the Grand Inquisitor Vitalis, wants that thing in his blood, so they certainlly don't want to kill Hugo, that would make Vitalis displeased, right?, Hugo needs to stay alive for him.

Robert gets executed by Nicholaus in front of Amicia, and afraid for her life as well as that of her brother, she grabs him and escorts him out of tha castlle, Beatrice awaits them outside, and helps them to escape the castlle grounds.

We can safelly assume that his own familly wouldn't do it, because that would be very bad thing from a parrent/sibling to do, for obvious reasons.
That is the problem in that guy's video review, He outright expects Amicia to pull the triger on her own brother at the very beginning, regardless of how wrong that sounds.

no one else, in the first game except for Lucas knows the condition Hugo is in, and thus doesn't for the most part know the familly enough to know that killing Hugo is the best course of action, even if that is true.
Lucas on the other hand, doesn't know much either, about Hugo that is, so He wants to help Hugo, and find a cure for him as well, as expected.

Let un now fast forward to the secound game, between two games, when things settled with Inquisition, Hugo was finally in peace, but in his isolation He again is threatened, we are in middle ages after all (in this game), so random attacks happend a lot.

In self defense, He summons the only weapon He can fight with - the rats, and this ultimatelly reactivates the Macula.

Latter, apperentlly because the elixir from the first game no longer works, they have to find someone that has more resources to treat Hugo, enter The Order.

The Order, as I said are the entity, that has no real benefit from curing Hugo, instead, they are more prone to experiment on him and accumulate more knowledge about The Macula, regardless of what consequences thet may have for the boy.
Even if it meant that He dies, even if they couse an apocalypse, they don't care, all they want is knowledge, as seen with Basilius.

Amicia knew the island was real, because there was that painting or something on the wall, when they find Vaudin, having that said, and the fact that The Order, has more knowledge of the Macula, than any other, there must be something about that island, she thinks, perhaps there is a way afterall.

Vaudin latter showed her the true intentions of the Order, when she had to run through a crumbling city, to reach Hugo, who was in so much pain that, He uncouciouslly destroyed a city with rats.

having that in mind, she picks that secound option I described earlier.

Here We can say that no member of the order wants to kill Hogo, but rather use him to gain more knowledge of The Macula.

When they finally reach the island, They meet Victor and Emilie (the Count, and The Countess), who are basically fanatical worshippers of a bird-god named Child of Embers, and they think Hugo is that, anyway, they don't want to kill him but use him to clense the world of non-belivers.

The soldiers, just listen to the orders of above characters, they don't hold much sense in a way what is right and what is wrong.

This returns us to my comment earler in this conversation, everyone they meet, wants to kill Amicia and capture Hugo, for whatever reason they individually have. And Amicia who btw promised Beatrice at the beginning to keep Hugo safe, won't allow that to happen, not as long as she lives, and even if the world has to pay, for the world inficted the wounds she carries (both mental and physical ones), that is at least what she thinks, again she suffered a lot in the time the two games span accross.

Now to conclude my answer to the question I asked at the beginning of this analisys: No one can kill Hugo without setting the events into motion, unless it would have been someone from his own close familly (Robert/Beatrice/Amicia), all three swore to protect him, for obvious reasons, now it has to be someone from the outside, someone needs to attack the castle, and kill him right?, Well the inquisition did, and what happened?, Amicia and Hugo run off in fear for their own lives which leads to a treshold, and the whole thing starts, Later people actually tried to kill them, which caused even more devastation, that they did in self defense., The short answer to that question would be: Not possible, unless you want to create an even more psychopatic Character that kills his own 5y old brother, without at least trying to find another way.

[ImperatorLazarvsAvgvstvs]

Don't make too fuss about it; this guy Kristijan is a basic example of a prime gatekeeper, who constantly lurks and appears throughout the thread to jump in whenever someone criticizes or cites negative opinions of the story. 'Been like that for months.

[kristijan.123]

Originally posted by ImperatorLazarvsAvgvstvs:

Don't make too fuss about it; this guy Kristijan is a basic example of a prime gatekeeper, who constantly lurks and appears throughout the thread to jump in whenever someone criticizes or cites negative opinions of the story. 'Been like that for months.

Your "prime gatekeeper" accusation made me laugh, honestlly.

Exactlly, been like that for months, why, because I too have opinions, and I am merely discussing with others, like you or anyone else on this forum.

I will admit that, when I see the coment/critic/opinion that is based upon things that are not related to this game, or based upon something that doesn't make sense, yes I tend to write a counter-coment explaining why I think the criticism doesn't neceserally stand given the situation.

Now you are all entitled to have your own opinions, and so am I, and you are wellcome to share it, keep it, whatever you want, I hold the same right.
In the end, I don't wan't to argue, about opinions, everyone has it's own.

This conversation in particular was the one I described above, the OP compared this game to a game that is entirelly different from this one (narrative/story-wise and gameplay-wise), kinda like comparing apples to oranges, and his opinion was entirelly based upon that comparison, I am not saying that it's bad, it's just not right, in my first post I simply pointed that out.
I have also agreed with OP at some point in the conversation, but also put a simple question to prove my point that the opinion might not neceserally be right, even though we both agree.

Now I will be honest, I liked the story, I am not saying that it's flawless (my observation stated earlier, about the story being incomplete, if you will, and that it has things not really explained in the game, which makes it possible to speculate "what if...". my observation proves that point). So my opinions are mostlly positive, also the way I see things logically doesn't neceserally stand either, if you really followed my posts, to make such accusations, than you know this already, just see the Game Ending Theory I wrote a few months back.
The game can still be better, and the story too.

[LT. Dan's Legs]

I still stand by my point that there are noteworthy similarities between Spec Ops: The Line and this game, regardless of their setting.

Both characters go through a harrowing journey where they are hunted by others, and their actions both directly and indirectly lead to the death of their friends/allies. In both situations, Amicia and Walker commit extraordinarily questionable actions and murder people. Both games end with the player asking themselves the merit of the characters' journey, and what either accomplished.

Aside from the setting, a difference between Walker and Amicia (aside from both being different genders) is the following; Walker is an extension of the player's ego, a commentary on the extent players can engage in violence in order to feel like a hero. In Amicia's case, we understand her desire to protect her brother, but the amount of lives she takes and the fact that she fails anyway leads me to consider how she could mentally survive that excursion.

Walker can take responsibility for his actions, as you can choose to shoot yourself for killing innocent people at the end ("Your orders caused the deaths of fourty-seven people, Walker. Who is going to pay for that crime?"-Conrad). I believe that a lot of the criticism you read regarding Amicia in Reqiuem (aside from her silly haircut in the final chapter, conversation for another thread), revolves around her not being meaningfully scorned for her failures.

Yes, she tried to save Hugo. But the human cost of all the people she ended up killing directly (the soldiers, and slavers) and indirectly (her mother, the people of La Cuna and the other cities) should realistically burden her by the game's end, especially since there was no silver lining (Hugo surviving). I was disappointing to see her not face a satisfying punishment for her failure the way Walker did, and that is where I source most of my comparison. Sure she had to take out Hugo, which hurt her a lot. That scene did not hit as well when compared to the condemnation your receive from Conrad at the end of "The Line".

I still stick with my premise, Spec Ops The Line delivered a more satisfying condemnation to a character who was trying to do a good thing.

[kristijan.123]

Originally posted by TomOfTheWarband:

I still stand by my point that there are noteworthy similarities between Spec Ops: The Line and this game, regardless of their setting.

Both characters go through a harrowing journey where they are hunted by others, and their actions both directly and indirectly lead to the death of their friends/allies. In both situations, Amicia and Walker commit extraordinarily questionable actions and murder people. Both games end with the player asking themselves the merit of the characters' journey, and what either accomplished.

Aside from the setting, a difference between Walker and Amicia (aside from both being different genders) is the following; Walker is an extension of the player's ego, a commentary on the extent players can engage in violence in order to feel like a hero. In Amicia's case, we understand her desire to protect her brother, but the amount of lives she takes and the fact that she fails anyway leads me to consider how she could mentally survive that excursion.

Walker can take responsibility for his actions, as you can choose to shoot yourself for killing innocent people at the end ("Your orders caused the deaths of fourty-seven people, Walker. Who is going to pay for that crime?"-Conrad). I believe that a lot of the criticism you read regarding Amicia in Reqiuem (aside from her silly haircut in the final chapter, conversation for another thread), revolves around her not being meaningfully scorned for her failures.

Yes, she tried to save Hugo. But the human cost of all the people she ended up killing directly (the soldiers, and slavers) and indirectly (her mother, the people of La Cuna and the other cities) should realistically burden her by the game's end, especially since there was no silver lining (Hugo surviving). I was disappointing to see her not face a satisfying punishment for her failure the way Walker did, and that is where I source most of my comparison. Sure she had to take out Hugo, which hurt her a lot. That scene did not hit as well when compared to the condemnation your receive from Conrad at the end of "The Line".

I still stick with my premise, Spec Ops The Line delivered a more satisfying condemnation to a character who was trying to do a good thing.

Ok, again I am not arguing that your premise is bad, I still belive the two games are too different because the situations protaginists find themselves in is also very different from one another.

I will say that I also find it strange to see that Amicia is not more troubled regarding everything she saw, and did, however, I do disagree that what happened to her mother, is directlly or indirrectlly her fault, she wanted to find cure for Hugo, the only thing she trusted is the dream, backed up by actual real image of the place in Vaudin's lab, she didn't trust the order, as arguably that would make the situation (and the dead count) even worse. Beatrice was killed by Emilie, simply because Emilie wanted Hugo for herself, that is it, Amicia had nothing to do with it, except the part that she wanted to help Hugo, also she had no idea what is on that island, or what will happen.
The destruction of the Red City is entirelly on Vaudin, Amicia had nothing to do with that part at all.
The city of Marseille was destroyed after Hugo passed the final treshold, and was lost, thanks to Count Victor, again Amicia had nothing to do with that either, unless you argue that geting shot by an arrow was her fault as well.
As for the people of La Cuna that can be said that it is partially her fault, these rats didn't come out untill they opened Basilius' tomb, which she strictlly insisted upon.
That is the majority of the rats, however some rats were present on the island long before they even arrive, thanks to the slavers, who fed them, so it was only a matter of time before things escalate.

The soldiers/mercenaries/slavers, all follow orders from their superiors: Victor/The Beast/Arnaud/Milo, and the orders are simply, kill Amicia, and capture Hugo.
Amicia kills them because she has to, in self defense, apart form a few scenes where she just looses controll and starts killing everyone, due to PTSD case.