Jashin on 2/6/2021 at 17:50
Quote Posted by heywood
I don't expect a Far Cry game to say much. This isn't high literature, it's just a setting for an armed conflict. The easiest setup for an armed conflict is to create a stereotypical megalomaniac with an army of evil minions to fight your way through, and you win when you defeat the big boss. Do you want another one of those? In order to set up an armed conflict without resorting to that trope, you will need some political motive(s) to explain why you're fighting.
People play these games for the sandbox gameplay, not to ponder the morality of armed conflict. My point was that a revolution is a more straightforward plot than average for Far Cry. I'd rather have them riffing on a real world conflict than making up fanciful shit.
Ludo-narrative dissonance dude. Far Cry is supposed to be "kill your way to boss," the gameplay loop doesn't support anything complex.
You can't tell a story of "revolution" and "riff on a real world conflict" when you shoot people in the head every other minute, cus that's the loop.
The guy from Prototype kept rambling about being innocent of 1 story-murder while he gameplay-murdered hundreds. Yeah sure buddy.
This whole exercise of "political or not" is a marketing ploy. The real reason it's not political is because it's a ludicrously simplistic, cartoonish facsimile. It doesn't rise to the level for which serious consideration of "political or not" is warranted.
Starker on 4/6/2021 at 01:53
Far Cry 2 managed to say plenty just through its game mechanics, methinks.
faetal on 4/6/2021 at 08:36
Quote Posted by Jashin
This whole exercise of "political or not" is a marketing ploy.
That's my feeling.
"How do we get everyone to talk about our game?" - make it part of political debate, which rages and spreads.
"How do we avoid actually pissing off the players on either side of the political divide?" - don't actually make any real points.
"Why play the game?" - shooting bad guys, splodes, parachutes, ziplines, boats, cars etc.
heywood on 4/6/2021 at 13:53
How are they making it part of a political debate? It seems to me that they are intentionally trying to avoid making it part of a political debate.
I really don't understand what you guys are complaining about. This is a first person shooter, not a history book. The story is there to provide a setting for the gameplay, not to make a statement or teach a lesson. Why can't you make a video game in a conflict or war setting without making a political statement about it? What would you rather have as a setting?
froghawk on 4/6/2021 at 15:00
Quote Posted by faetal
That's my feeling.
"How do we get everyone to talk about our game?" - make it part of political debate, which rages and spreads.
"How do we avoid actually pissing off the players on either side of the political divide?" - don't actually make any real points.
"Why play the game?" - shooting bad guys, splodes, parachutes, ziplines, boats, cars etc.
This, period. It's all the rage right now across all media and it's driving me nuts. it's why, for example, Joker was a successful film.
Starker on 4/6/2021 at 15:38
Quote Posted by heywood
How are they making it part of a political debate?
By basing their game on real world conflicts that are still fresh in living memory. It wasn't that long ago that the US helped get Pinochet in power, for example, and US involvement in the Americas has a long and bloody history. I mean, they explicitly take Cuba for inspiration.
Quote Posted by heywood
Why can't you make a video game in a conflict or war setting without making a political statement about it?
You evidently can try, but isn't that in and of itself a political statement? Imagine making an action movie, without further comment or trying to take sides, where the US forces throw napalm at peasants in some fictional South-East Asian country.
Jashin on 4/6/2021 at 16:23
Quote Posted by heywood
How are they making it part of a political debate? It seems to me that they are intentionally trying to avoid making it part of a political debate.
I really don't understand what you guys are complaining about. This is a first person shooter, not a history book. The story is there to provide a setting for the gameplay, not to make a statement or teach a lesson. Why can't you make a video game in a conflict or war setting without making a political statement about it? What would you rather have as a setting?
You're completely right, and also completely missing the point.
By denying it's political they invited a political debate, associated their game to a serious subject, elevated the perception of its scope, etc.; whilst in reality the game is an interactive Rambo movie, as you said.
Starker on 5/6/2021 at 01:00
Rambo might perhaps not be the best example to draw comparisons with. It's not like Rambo was written as a Vietnam vet just to give the hero a grizzled history as he lays down pithy one-liners and mows down small town cops by the truckload, so that the audience can switch off their brain and enjoy the explosion-packed murderfest.
Jeshibu on 6/6/2021 at 21:45
Maybe the later Rambo sequels?
EvaUnit02 on 7/6/2021 at 03:50
Quote Posted by Jeshibu
Maybe the later Rambo sequels?
All of them. From First Blood Pt. 2 onwards the films were (
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Flanderization) Flanderised caricatures of First Blood. Went from being a commentary about Vietnam War veterans being treated like shit once they returned home to creating cartoonish BODYCOUNTS.
It's not necessarily bad thing. Rambo 2, Commando and Cobra were epitome of 1980s/1990s style over substance action films. Only joyless, pseudo-intellectuals, who sniff their own farts, seem to dislike such films.
[video=youtube;F_cS_kmSiRY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_cS_kmSiRY[/video]
[video=youtube;4Zu1YIukylw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Zu1YIukylw[/video]
