When to kill

[Brian Orcus]

There's something that's always bothered me about video games with player choice mechanics. More often than not, killing will be treated as the wrong option. Or the player will be treated as if we took the high road by not killing them. It's weird to this in games like Deus Ex in particular, which are great for displaying realistic human behavior.

Now I'm not saying that I want to slaughter all who oppose me with impunity. And I'm certainly not saying that I want to do away with non-lethal options. But I would like to see more realistic representations of the effects of killing people on society.

Let's take the Humanity Front radicals at the beginning of Human Revolution for example. We're talking about a group of people who are so self-righteous and obsessed with controlling what people do with their bodies that they're willing to kill for it. They've invaded a facility occupied by civilians, killed a few of them, taken the rest hostage, and placed a poisonous gas bomb in the building. And yet, for some reason I'm treated like some sort of monster for literally doing my job. They created a situation with violence and death, all I'm doing is making them the victims of the violence they decided to create. On top of that, killing them removes radical elements from their movement.

[Brian Orcus]

Exactly. Mass homicide is a bad thing most of the time. It's not like I'm advocating wiping out people because their inconvenient, or because they disagree with me, or even for some insane reason that only makes sense to wingers. I'm talking about killing people because they are directly responsible for ongoing harm, and killing them is the only way left to stop them. They are the ones who created a situation where innocent people are harmed. And they are the ones who sabotaged the system designed to resolve the situation without killing.

[Thimerasol]

I tend to ask questions first, shoot later, if only to prevent being locked out of further content, which WILL happen if you kill certain NPCs prematurely.

As far as other characters disapproving of your choices, that also sometimes happens in real life. I don't like the video game trope of everyone cheering your character on and saying, "Yay! You're a hero! You're awesome!"

Some of my favorite moments in games are when you move heaven and earth to do something nice for someone and they're a total ingrate. Real adult hours, that.

[Brian Orcus]

I'm not talking about indiscriminate killing. The game actually has an interaction with a police officer where you can persuade her to do her job and at least try to arrest a group of criminals extorting augmented people.

In that instance communication and the system work. I'm talking about moments where you don't have that option.

My complaint with social reaction has to do with moments in which it isn't realistic. If a company like Sarif Industries suffered an attack like the one at the beginning of human revolution only to have a hostage situation a few months later, the employs of that company would be out for blood. Literally. There'd probably be employees bringing weapons to work, and starting fights with anti-aug organizations.

Let's say you work at a company like Sarif. You've lost coworkers. You've lost friends. And everywhere you go you see people acting like you brought it on yourself. Maybe your child, the child of a coworker, or just some other child you care about is having trouble in school because people are harassing them for being augmented.

And then there's another attack. But this time it's different. This time your company sends them a message. And it's written in the blood of the last people who thought they could turn their opinion into action. You'd probably feel pretty damn good about it.

[Alun1]

certain parts of the game you get different outcomes by going the lethal route, in HR the purity first guy is less receptive to talking if you slaughter them, same for talos rucker in MD, doing so in both will lose some key info you may not get later.

also non-lethal playthroughs tend to require more skill than run&gun

[Brian Orcus]

Not everything is about skill and info. The ARC people are being framed for terrorism. It makes sense to spare them. But the Purity First terrorist are actively hurting people. And they aren't lying when they say they'll get out. Killing them might be the only way to save the lives of the people they will choose to kill. And they are dying because they chose to create a lethal situation.

[Alun1]

Originally posted by Brian Orcus:

But the Purity First terrorist are actively hurting people. And they aren't lying when they say they'll get out. Killing them might be the only way to save the lives of the people they will choose to kill. And they are dying because they chose to create a lethal situation.

they are only there because the head guy was duped into doing it. if you spoke with him then you would know this, he was suppose to takes hostages then be gunned down by police. pay attention to what he says next time.

and ARC technically isn't being framed, given the people who did the bombings are actually members of ARC

[Brian Orcus]

I did pay attention. I've done an entire passive playthrough on both games. I'm talking about what the effects would be in the real world. The PFs we see in the factory are (by definition) the ones who are dangerous and in the act of endangering people. The same cannot be said of the ARC we encounter on our way Rucker. One is actively harming people in a effort to enforce their will on others. The other are just minding their own business in the territory they were forced into.

You're right that both sides are being manipulated. You're also right that both of them have have committed violent actions. But there are two core differences.

1. As far as I'm concerned, ARC has the high ground up until the moment they begin actively trying to eradicate non-augmented people. I'm not saying that won't happen. In fact I'd bet money the Omar will spring from one of ARC's more radical factions. But in the time of these games PF are trying to stop augmentation and they use violence to do it.

2. Where as PF do what they do because people are making choices they disprove of, ARC are responding to tangible injustices committed against the augmented. It's true that bigots in real life often use bigotry directed against them as an excuse for their own hate crimes. But we aren't talking about college kids rioting on their campus because rules are applied consistently. They aren't pointing at random non-augmented people in the street and saying "He pure, beat his ass." Their basic human rights are actually being infringed. They are actually being denied health care. They are being marginalized. And they are actually being targeted by bigoted police. They are acting in self defense.

[Alun1]

you can't use self-defence as an excuse for terrorist action. even in todays society if you commit terrorism you cross a line. it is no longer self defence and an act of murder

[Diomedes]

Originally posted by Brian Orcus:

There's something that's always bothered me about video games with player choice mechanics. More often than not, killing will be treated as the wrong option. Or the player will be treated as if we took the high road by not killing them. It's weird to this in games like Deus Ex in particular, which are great for displaying realistic human behavior.

Now I'm not saying that I want to slaughter all who oppose me with impunity. And I'm certainly not saying that I want to do away with non-lethal options. But I would like to see more realistic representations of the effects of killing people on society.

Let's take the Humanity Front radicals at the beginning of Human Revolution for example. We're talking about a group of people who are so self-righteous and obsessed with controlling what people do with their bodies that they're willing to kill for it. They've invaded a facility occupied by civilians, killed a few of them, taken the rest hostage, and placed a poisonous gas bomb in the building. And yet, for some reason I'm treated like some sort of monster for literally doing my job. They created a situation with violence and death, all I'm doing is making them the victims of the violence they decided to create. On top of that, killing them removes radical elements from their movement.

Are you though? The only time I hear any dismay is by Prichard, who is a prick and will mock you for what ever choice you choose to begin with.. Outside of that I can not think of a time where you are morally reprimanded or dismissed cause that scene.. My last two playthroughs of both games I was a mixed bag where I spared certain people while whole sale slaughtered other groups that I felt was reasonable given the group and situation.
Honestly I felt the experience was most enjoyable that way, and I don't really remember any time where the game punished you story wise for that action.. And when they did it usually was a character asking you why you did X, and you explained that they gave you no choice or other such things.

[Brian Orcus]

Originally posted by Alun1:

you can't use self-defence as an excuse for terrorist action. even in todays society if you commit terrorism you cross a line. it is no longer self defence and an act of murder

Some times self defense is called terrorism. The government is doing things to them that will get them killed. In order to live they have to stop the. The governments and society has also removed all peaceful options of changing the situation. I'll tell you what I tell right wingers: You can not expect people to stoically accept death and suffering out of respect for society's laws. Humans are animals, and humans do what they have to to keep themselves alive.

[Alun1]

Originally posted by Brian Orcus:

Originally posted by Alun1:

you can't use self-defence as an excuse for terrorist action. even in todays society if you commit terrorism you cross a line. it is no longer self defence and an act of murder

Some times self defense is called terrorism. The government is doing things to them that will get them killed. In order to live they have to stop the. The governments and society has also removed all peaceful options of changing the situation. I'll tell you what I tell right wingers: You can not expect people to stoically accept death and suffering out of respect for society's laws. Humans are animals, and humans do what they have to to keep themselves alive.

i'm trying to not make this political, i am not right wing. an act of terrorism is still crossing a line where the moral highground is no longer yours.

[Brian Orcus]

Unfortunately terrorism is a political thing. And some times it's justified. I can give you several examples from any political stance you like. If a sniper begins murdering counselors at a gay conversion camp, they are committing terrorism, but they are also saving children from torture. If a group of feminist fire machine guns and grenades into a crowd of people because they're stoning a young girl to death, they are terrorist, but they're making the world a better place. If a group of feminist who have been making false accusations are abducted, tortured, and [forced sex] for it, that is terrorism, but there is nothing that can be done to false accusers that can make someone worse than them. If someone drives a fuel truck into the Davidson County District Attorney criminal division office in Nashville Tennessee and burns the building to the ground killing everyone who works there, that is an act of terrorism, but it will save the lives of countless innocent people who would've been tried illegally for crimes they didn't commit and -in some cases- crimes they weren't even accused of. If an English man throws a pipe bomb into his local Sharia court, he's committing terrorism, but also protecting his neighborhood. And don't even get me started on China.

[Alun1]

Originally posted by Brian Orcus:

If an English man throws a pipe bomb into his local Sharia court

ok massive rant aside, because that's all that was. the quote above wouldn't even happen as there are no sharia courts in the UK, anywhere.

do yourself a favor, turn off fox news.

[Brian Orcus]

I dont actually watch Fox News. For the same reason I dont watch CNN actually.

[Alun1]

Originally posted by Brian Orcus:

I dont actually watch Fox News. For the same reason I dont watch CNN actually.

you still believe the rubbish they spew out tho