Nainstalovat Steam
přihlásit se
|
jazyk
简体中文 (Zjednodušená čínština)
繁體中文 (Tradiční čínština)
日本語 (Japonština)
한국어 (Korejština)
ไทย (Thajština)
български (Bulharština)
Dansk (Dánština)
Deutsch (Němčina)
English (Angličtina)
Español-España (Evropská španělština)
Español-Latinoamérica (Latin. španělština)
Ελληνικά (Řečtina)
Français (Francouzština)
Italiano (Italština)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonéština)
Magyar (Maďarština)
Nederlands (Nizozemština)
Norsk (Norština)
Polski (Polština)
Português (Evropská portugalština)
Português-Brasil (Brazilská portugalština)
Română (Rumunština)
Русский (Ruština)
Suomi (Finština)
Svenska (Švédština)
Türkçe (Turečtina)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamština)
Українська (Ukrajinština)
Nahlásit problém s překladem
Pravidla a pokyny k diskuzím
Nahlásit tento příspěvek
It's just a game, it's written pretty badly in the more graphic parts and hardly at all in others. Don't take it too seriously, if anything keep in mind everything else that would come into play if this game could hold as much weight as reality. It's a game for tactical children of all ages, not a war diary.
Well, my original question was whether the game is deliberate satire towards the subject matter. It's clearly not the typical xenophobic jingoism masquerading as justice that you see in most modern military shooters. The game's narrative is fully aware of just how despicable its protagonists are and always eager to rub the player's face in it. I rally can't imagine even the most myopic people missing that hint, considering how thick the game lays it on. It's clearly intentional, but I don't know what the intention was.
Maybe the ending will answer my question. I have a couple of zones left to explore before I take on El Sueno. However, I still feel that any potential satire would have worked better if the player character were handled a little more evenly, or even robbed of a voice entirely. I understand the notion of "forcing" (quotes because nobody can force you to play a game) the player to commit attrocities, I just wish the player characters didn't say so many stupid things.
The mission comes first. They're not there to build nations, cure cancer and save puppies. They're there to end the cartel.
Or, as La Légion puts it: La mission est sacrée, tu l’exécutes jusqu’au bout et si besoin, en opérations, au péril de ta vie.
The mission is sacred, you carry it out until the end and, if necessary in the field, at the risk of your life.
I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE SOUND OF FREEEEEEEEEEDOM.
RATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATA
Do you think that soldiers should not acknowledge orders? Or do you think that soldiers should be more verbose? Do you think the concept of orders is bad in general?
So what you are saying is that "shocking levels of violence" are A-OK as long as the lunatics responsible claim to be doing it to "build their own nation"? Because I can think of a couple of almost universally condemned terrorist organistations who make that exact claim to justify their atrocities.
Yes, turns out that collaborateurs are not generally well liked. It is a bit odd that it took you 70 years to notice.
For balance,
Yeah, there should be a (severe) pentalty for killing what's could be argued to technically be a sovereign nation's legitimate military force.
If Americans thought that torture was bad then Gitmo wouldn't still be open now would it?
https://youtu.be/U1mlCPMYtPk
I'm more talking about attitude. The soldiers' dialogue is sometimes self-aware, sometimes not. They recognise the damage they're doing to Bolivia and the pathos of their actions, but only sometimes. In one mission they're musing about how what they're doing is essentially destroying one narco cartel to make room for another, knowing full well that Katari are no better than Santa Blanca. In another mission, they're celebrating leaving an innocent man to die a slow death of torture and "hoo-rah" on the way out. They're inconsistet, is what I'm saying.
I'm talking about storytelling. Unless you're perceiving the game through a frightening level of bias, it should be pretty clear to see how each side is being represented by the narrative of the game itself. The entire game opens with El Sueno's monologue (I presume taken from the end of the game) where he admits to all of the horrible things he's done but maintains that they were all for a good cause. His lieutenants are depicted in much the same way, doing "what's necessary" to bring their own nation to greatness. That's not my interpretation of events, either. That's stated clearly in the game's own narrative, especially if you track down Ricky Sandoval's various tapes.
By contrast, the American forces - that being YOU - are given no such justification. The game starts you out with a a vague justification of "the war on drugs" and "terrorists" but almost never offers the same level of characterisation as it does for the cartel. In fact, the narrative keeps getting more damning of the Americans the farther the story progresses, especially as the player moves into more difficult zones. You move on from fighting murderers and torturers to shooting up schools, destroying infrastructure and murdering people for increasingly flimsy justifications, and the soldiers' conduct keeps getting worse.
Now, it could just be that's how my own campaign turned out, but I did content in roughly the order it's "intended" to be run in, going from 1 skull to 2 skulls, then 3, then 4 and only doing the 5-skill provinces last. While the game doesn't enforce a timeline, that's the closest I could think of to an "intended" order of boss fights, and the narrative it tells is difficult to interpret any other way. Again - the narrative that the game itself presents us with is not subtle in its characterisation. The Santa Blanca bosses get more and more sympathetic the closer you get to the end, while the US soldiers get less and less sympathetic.
On a number of occasions, the player is told straight-up "You're as bad as the Cartel!" in no uncertain terms. The soldiers themselves agree in conversations among each other, offering only shaky justifications if any at all. On a number of occasions, they default to "that's beyond my pay grade" when a good answer literally doesn't exist. And yet when, when Marcus Jansen makes the same argument - "I just make drugs, I'm not responsible for their effect on people," Karen Bowman yells at him that he IS responsible.
Again - play the game. Arguing with me about it doesn't change what's already in it.
1) if you ♥♥♥♥ with us, we will kill you
2) if we kill you, gallows humor will always ensue (see the jokes in GRW)
3) after we kill you, we will use you as propaganda for the next ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ we hunt! (see osama bin laden and company)
we dont give a flying ♥♥♥♥ what the world thinks of what we do, we do what we need to do, when we need to do it under the definitions handed us by arm chair politicians who dont know the first ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ thing about how to get any job done as none of them have held a real job in 20+yrs(with the exception of the honorable Senator Thom Cotton).
you ♥♥♥♥ with us... we hunt you down... plain and simple... we installed Sadam Hussein in the 70s to counter the Iranian poltical counter culture that led to the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, Saddam went rogue, used chemical weapons against the Kurds numerous times in the 80s with little countering by the US govt due to our need for him to keep the heat on Iran(kinda like how we stood behind Mubarak in Egypt and Assad in Syria to stabilize things (using their own methods, clearly not humane... but efffective). in the 90s, we pushed Iraq out of Kuwait and laid down a set of demands that clearly Saddam had no intentions of complying to and after we elected a president with balls following the womanizeind sleezebag that Bill Clinton was, we took Saddam to task for his dealings.
we put him in power, we took his ass out! thats what we do! as this is not a forum for all things political... i'll simply offer a hearty ♥♥♥♥ you and be on my way!
No veteran who ever saw action would dribble ♥♥♥♥ in the wannabe Billy Badass way you have. So much of what you've said in that post is just completely wrong I'm not even going to waste my time correcting you. Your post is an example of the type of satirical Billy Badass stuff OP was originally talking about.
Keep your ♥♥♥♥ you and carry on your way.
America number 1, muslims = terrorists, drug is bad,.......
Funny thing is that the CIA is the biggest drug dealer since a long time know. Opium in vietnam and afghanistan, cocaine in south america... Just research it!
Oh, I'm aware. Between all the movies the US military will lend vehicles and personal to "but only if" and all the movies written in collaboration with Chinese censors to gain easy access to their market, Hollywood is full of propaganda. I don't want to go into gaming because that's likely to offend people and start a flame war I'd rather avoid, but suffice it to say that I agree - gaming too is filled with blatant propaganda if you have an even moderately critical eye.
When I first stared Wildlands, I actually worried it was exactly that kind of jingoistic pro-US propaganda, the whole "US superman come to save your country by shooting a lot of brown people who must have done something to deserve it." There was a point where I REALLY resented the game, when I wasn't sure if the narrative was being told straight or if it was being subversive. Realising now that the veneer of jingoism is actually satirical in nature and just as critical of the player heroes as it is of the NPC villains, I'm actually much better disposed towards it.
Wildlands still makes me uncomfortable in a lot of places, but knowing that's the point actually takes the sting out of it. I usually avoid games which chide the player without giving them a choice so I haven't played a lot of games like this, but I actually really like this one. Whoever did the major worldbuilding for Wildlands did a really good job. Really, there are only a few specific pieces of dialogue which stand out as being tone-deaf (the racketeering, the "I love my job!" after having just murdered 50 people, etc.), with most of the rest of it JUUUST teetering on the edge of self-awareness.
This is definitely not what I was expecting from a modern military shooter, and I'm very pleasantly surprised.
*edit*
Perfect example of what I'm talking about. We need to get to General Baro, but we don't know where he is. We find out his daughter is working as a civil servant and Bowman immediately insists we kidnap her to get to the general - a pretty villainous act. The characters themselves realise this, commenting things to the effect of "She's a CIVILIAN, Bowman!" and "We stepped into a political mess." and "Politicians don't care if they have someone to pin it on - us." and "ROE don't matter. We're playing by the Cartel's rules now. Anything goes as long as we get what we want." I'm paraphrasing slightly, but THIS is the writing I was talking about.
The Ghosts, inculding the player character, are fully aware that what they're doing is amoral, illegal and probably doing more harm than good, but they're still following through with it. I just wish they were consistent in their self-awareness, not condemn one civilian to death by cartel with a smile on their faces one mission then balk at kidnapping another civilian later in the same zone.