Super Murderous Bros. – about games and violence

"Uncharted's Nathan Drake being a "psychopath" was a discussion that got somewhat out of hand in the video game community. It was a suggestion that spread with meme-like efficiency, and people with limited insight cited his murderous ways as the reason for the moniker. But that's not the whole truth. Nathan Drake was called a psychopath because he joked as he snapped people's necks, not because he killed enemies in a video game. The game chose to engage with killing enemies on a storytelling level, and he displayed the true qualities of a psychopath - a complete lack of empathy and remorse."

[nrvalleytime]

Violence as a game mechanic is particularly frustrating when you look at a game like, say, Spec Ops: The Line. Investing time in actions is a point that many games don't seem to comprehend; sadly, getting from point A to point B seems to justify all actions. Just a very interesting idea.

[SimonM7]

I think it's always a little tricky and sensitive when the narrative tries to usurp the *reason that you're playing*. I think the meta commentary on the player doing whatever it's told worked wonderfully with the "would you kindly" device in Bioshock, but more often than not I feel that there's a dissonance and a dishonesty to stringing a player along and then slapping his/her fingers for doing *video game stuff*.

You're not shooting enemies in a video game out of malice, and when that becomes the accusation at the end, it's just a little bit awkward. It's like someone is inviting you to dinner, and afterwards is all like "HERE YOU ARE, EATING, WHILE PEOPLE ARE STARVING!!"

I agree that Spec Ops is an interesting idea, it's just not wholly successful in execution, in my opinion. I like that player motivation is an element that developers are trying to figure out, though, and there are a few moments in The Last of Us where player agency lends the result more impact, without sacrificing deliberate story beats on the altar of player choice.