I’m just tired of the trope of the person looking for vengeance getting right up to the point of killing the object of their revenge and then stopping because “it will make me just as bad as you.” No it won’t! The movie has made it very clear that he’s an evil son of a bitch! Kill the fucker!
Plus the hero killed like thirty goddamn people along the way to the big bad guy. Some of those guys had families too, asshole! You’re already a monster!
And if you let him live, he’s just going to keep killing other people eventually. All you win is a moral high ground for barely 5 minutes after the credits roll. Monsters are really good at convincing themselves that they’re not monsters!
Especially when they’ve slaughtered so many underlings to get there. Like I have no issue with people killing other people. Finn gets clowned on because people shriek “HE WAS A STORMTROOPER AND GOT UNPLUGGED AND NOW HES JUST KILLING THEM WHAT THAT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE”. I mean… they’re shooting at him. Literally kill or be killed. That’s war and that’s what happens when you’re fighting for EVERYONE. Unfortunately people will die.
But that shit?! Fuck off. You don’t get to spend however long wading through a river of blood only to suddenly stop because you have no issue with your pants being soaked but your shirt being stained is too much. Fuck all the way off.
I mean usually these stories are pretty contrived. They’re set up in a way where anyone who dies along the way is kill or be killed, but the final villain conveniently gets a chance to cry for mercy.
Or you have Booker Dewitt who’s like “oh I was a Pinkerton and I killed natives I hate myself” while killing everyone on the screen in increasingly comical ways and drowning himself before drowning himself.
I loved the last episode of The Last of Us. I loved that he wasn’t about to make that sacrifice, even if it was for the fate of humanity. I loved that he was willing to kill everyone in the building to save his daughter, or whatever you’d call her. It was such an amazing direction to take, because nobody ever takes that direction.
Well others have called it shit, pointless and stupid. So let’s not be too hasty, I might just have a dumb take on it. But I really felt like they did it well and told a good story.
The point of TLOU2 was showing that vengeance only creates an endless cycle of vengeance (in my interpretation of it, it’s been a few years since I played so my memory is a bit rusty).
Massive spoilers ahead (TLOU2 is getting an HBO show, so even if you don’t play the games you might not want to spoil it if you like the show).
Edit: I tried to mark this as a spoiler with markdown, but it’s not working on Boost. Unsure if it’s working within Lemmy site or if it’s just a Boost issue.
spoiler
Joel kills Abby’s dad to save Ellie (whether he actually needed to kill the doctor is up for debate). Abby finally catches up to Joel and kills him for payback, Ellie goes to hunt down Abby but discovers along the way that Joel had lied to her and the reason why Abby killed him. :::
Anyway, it’s at this point where Ellie realizes that a) she’s fucking tired, b) all of this pain could’ve been avoided had no one killed anyone, c) Joel wouldn’t have wanted Ellie to throw her happiness away in order to avenge him, and c) she just wants to go live a peaceful life with Dina. So she decides to break out of the cycle and go chill on her farm with Dina.
There are a lot more nuances, but that’s the general gist. What saves TLOU2 from being just another trope that’s discussed in this thread, is how it forces the player to experience both characters’ POV. I absolutely hated Abby when the game switches you over to her playthrough, especially since you start over pretty much (in terms of gear, abilities, etc). But by the end, I really empathized with her struggle and agreed that she was justified in killing Joel. It sucks, I loved Joel, but he fucked up pretty badly and paid the price for his actions.
Sometimes the “good guys” don’t have a happy ending–even when Ellie returns to Dina, she massively suffers from PTSD and won’t ever be the same–and that’s okay in some stories. So I get why that game angered so many fans, but in my opinion it told a more realistic story and is better for it.
Break out of the cycle after unnecessarily severely beating down someone who was literally just being brutally tortured moments ago. I feel the realization would have had more impact pre-beating, that part was just unnecessary and I hate being forced into actions like that in a way that makes it feel like you have a choice but you don’t, just give me a cut scene if I don’t.
You know…thank you for spoiling that.
Because knowing just the first shocker of TLOU2 made me think “This is pretty nonsense.” And I didn’t bother with it after learning that.
But knowing about the theme of recurring violence and how it was directly in response to previous events makes a lot more sense, and I don’t feel as harshly about it!
I still recommend playing the game. Even if you ignore the story, it’s a superior game to the first in terms of better mechanics, better level design, better combat, pretty much better everything from a gameplay standpoint. In my opinion, if it weren’t for Joel being killed, the game would’ve had universal acclaim from those that loved the first game. The fact that there’s a trans side character also pissed off the conservative demographic, too.
In terms of the story, I think it has tremendous character growth by the end of the game. Ellie finally begins dealing with the mountain of baggage she’s had since even before meeting Joel, along with slowly confronting and coming to terms with the complex and conflicted relationship she had with him. Sure, she’s hunting Abby down to kill her for vengeance, but what occurs along the way is a whole rollercoaster of character development and existential crises. Abby also has a similar arc, albeit for different reasons.
Sorry for the long rant, I just think TLOU2 got a way worse wrap than it deserved by much of the gaming community.
There are legitimate criticisms for that game, but whenever anyone brings up “ReVENge baD” as the criticism it just makes me angry. It’s like they already made up their minds about all of the characters and were just too stubborn to change their minds during the story.
That’s not exactly what it’s trying to say… It’s a detante of a subtler version of the aphorism “An eye for an eye leaves the world blind.” Regardless of if the person deserves it or not, “If I kill you in cold blood while I have you at my mercy, it will change me for the worse.”
Once the wretch is powerless and begging you for their survival, would you really just end them? You’re the one that has to live with that.
Once the wretch is powerless and begging you for their survival, would you really just end them?
Yes, if the “wretch” is responsible for a huge amount of murder. And, as Stamets says, also if the hero has killed a bunch of people to get there anyway.
If the hero lets the guy who is going to destroy the world with his special neutronium bomb live because it will change him for the worse if he kills him, I think that’s a ridiculous resolution for a movie.
Usually the situation isn’t so black and white. It’s not Jack Bauer killing a terrorist that will otherwise go on to blow up a maternity ward. The villain is defeated and they probably already have to deal with the normal societal punishment for what they did wrong, or otherwise live in some equivalent purgatory.
Come on. We’re talking about a movie, not reality. Kill the bad guy. I mean I like Batman, but the Joker escapes from Arkham every single time he gets put in there. Just kill the guy already.
Is there any indication they’ve actually changed? Usually not. They just don’t like that consequences are happening to them, personally, and so they’re crying about it. Most of the time they had no problem killing innocent people or sending their own goons to die trying to stop the hero from getting to them, the tears and emotional manipulation are just the last ditch effort.
And if you spare them they’ll probably do it all over again.
If we’re thinking of the same country, it’d be like the bad guy using a bystander as a human shield and the person seeking revenge just goes ahead and stabs them both; not exactly what we’d expect from the “good guy”.
I’m just tired of the trope of the person looking for vengeance getting right up to the point of killing the object of their revenge and then stopping because “it will make me just as bad as you.” No it won’t! The movie has made it very clear that he’s an evil son of a bitch! Kill the fucker!
Plus the hero killed like thirty goddamn people along the way to the big bad guy. Some of those guys had families too, asshole! You’re already a monster!
And if you let him live, he’s just going to keep killing other people eventually. All you win is a moral high ground for barely 5 minutes after the credits roll. Monsters are really good at convincing themselves that they’re not monsters!
Especially when they’ve slaughtered so many underlings to get there. Like I have no issue with people killing other people. Finn gets clowned on because people shriek “HE WAS A STORMTROOPER AND GOT UNPLUGGED AND NOW HES JUST KILLING THEM WHAT THAT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE”. I mean… they’re shooting at him. Literally kill or be killed. That’s war and that’s what happens when you’re fighting for EVERYONE. Unfortunately people will die.
But that shit?! Fuck off. You don’t get to spend however long wading through a river of blood only to suddenly stop because you have no issue with your pants being soaked but your shirt being stained is too much. Fuck all the way off.
I mean usually these stories are pretty contrived. They’re set up in a way where anyone who dies along the way is kill or be killed, but the final villain conveniently gets a chance to cry for mercy.
I think that’s mainly done to show the bad guy is actually a coward.
Something something too pathetic to kill blah blah
Does this mean that Inigo is a better person that Westley is?
Westley’s a good guy, but Inigo is a good guy and the ultimate wingman. Bonus points.
Depends on your view on revenge in general
Or you have Booker Dewitt who’s like “oh I was a Pinkerton and I killed natives I hate myself” while killing everyone on the screen in increasingly comical ways and drowning himself before drowning himself.
I think it was well done in The Last of Us 2
Warning: massive spoilers below
I loved the last episode of The Last of Us. I loved that he wasn’t about to make that sacrifice, even if it was for the fate of humanity. I loved that he was willing to kill everyone in the building to save his daughter, or whatever you’d call her. It was such an amazing direction to take, because nobody ever takes that direction.
Well the game did but yeah
I’m not a gamer, but I’ll take your word for it.
Well others have called it shit, pointless and stupid. So let’s not be too hasty, I might just have a dumb take on it. But I really felt like they did it well and told a good story.
The point of TLOU2 was showing that vengeance only creates an endless cycle of vengeance (in my interpretation of it, it’s been a few years since I played so my memory is a bit rusty).
Massive spoilers ahead (TLOU2 is getting an HBO show, so even if you don’t play the games you might not want to spoil it if you like the show).
Edit: I tried to mark this as a spoiler with markdown, but it’s not working on Boost. Unsure if it’s working within Lemmy site or if it’s just a Boost issue.
spoiler
Joel kills Abby’s dad to save Ellie (whether he actually needed to kill the doctor is up for debate). Abby finally catches up to Joel and kills him for payback, Ellie goes to hunt down Abby but discovers along the way that Joel had lied to her and the reason why Abby killed him. :::
Anyway, it’s at this point where Ellie realizes that a) she’s fucking tired, b) all of this pain could’ve been avoided had no one killed anyone, c) Joel wouldn’t have wanted Ellie to throw her happiness away in order to avenge him, and c) she just wants to go live a peaceful life with Dina. So she decides to break out of the cycle and go chill on her farm with Dina.
There are a lot more nuances, but that’s the general gist. What saves TLOU2 from being just another trope that’s discussed in this thread, is how it forces the player to experience both characters’ POV. I absolutely hated Abby when the game switches you over to her playthrough, especially since you start over pretty much (in terms of gear, abilities, etc). But by the end, I really empathized with her struggle and agreed that she was justified in killing Joel. It sucks, I loved Joel, but he fucked up pretty badly and paid the price for his actions.
Sometimes the “good guys” don’t have a happy ending–even when Ellie returns to Dina, she massively suffers from PTSD and won’t ever be the same–and that’s okay in some stories. So I get why that game angered so many fans, but in my opinion it told a more realistic story and is better for it.
Break out of the cycle after unnecessarily severely beating down someone who was literally just being brutally tortured moments ago. I feel the realization would have had more impact pre-beating, that part was just unnecessary and I hate being forced into actions like that in a way that makes it feel like you have a choice but you don’t, just give me a cut scene if I don’t.
I don’t necessarily fully disagree with you, but I also don’t remember all of the nuances leading up to the final showdown.
You know…thank you for spoiling that. Because knowing just the first shocker of TLOU2 made me think “This is pretty nonsense.” And I didn’t bother with it after learning that.
But knowing about the theme of recurring violence and how it was directly in response to previous events makes a lot more sense, and I don’t feel as harshly about it!
I still recommend playing the game. Even if you ignore the story, it’s a superior game to the first in terms of better mechanics, better level design, better combat, pretty much better everything from a gameplay standpoint. In my opinion, if it weren’t for Joel being killed, the game would’ve had universal acclaim from those that loved the first game. The fact that there’s a trans side character also pissed off the conservative demographic, too.
In terms of the story, I think it has tremendous character growth by the end of the game. Ellie finally begins dealing with the mountain of baggage she’s had since even before meeting Joel, along with slowly confronting and coming to terms with the complex and conflicted relationship she had with him. Sure, she’s hunting Abby down to kill her for vengeance, but what occurs along the way is a whole rollercoaster of character development and existential crises. Abby also has a similar arc, albeit for different reasons.
Sorry for the long rant, I just think TLOU2 got a way worse wrap than it deserved by much of the gaming community.
There are legitimate criticisms for that game, but whenever anyone brings up “ReVENge baD” as the criticism it just makes me angry. It’s like they already made up their minds about all of the characters and were just too stubborn to change their minds during the story.
That’s not exactly what it’s trying to say… It’s a detante of a subtler version of the aphorism “An eye for an eye leaves the world blind.” Regardless of if the person deserves it or not, “If I kill you in cold blood while I have you at my mercy, it will change me for the worse.”
Once the wretch is powerless and begging you for their survival, would you really just end them? You’re the one that has to live with that.
Yes, if the “wretch” is responsible for a huge amount of murder. And, as Stamets says, also if the hero has killed a bunch of people to get there anyway.
If the hero lets the guy who is going to destroy the world with his special neutronium bomb live because it will change him for the worse if he kills him, I think that’s a ridiculous resolution for a movie.
Usually the situation isn’t so black and white. It’s not Jack Bauer killing a terrorist that will otherwise go on to blow up a maternity ward. The villain is defeated and they probably already have to deal with the normal societal punishment for what they did wrong, or otherwise live in some equivalent purgatory.
Come on. We’re talking about a movie, not reality. Kill the bad guy. I mean I like Batman, but the Joker escapes from Arkham every single time he gets put in there. Just kill the guy already.
Maybe the movie was trying to tell you something…
That if the hero doesn’t kill a psychopathic criminal, he keeps coming back to kill more people?
Maybe it’s trying to say something about preponderance, killing for just belief, and human fallibility.
Maybe it’s a movie with lots of punches and kicks.
Is there any indication they’ve actually changed? Usually not. They just don’t like that consequences are happening to them, personally, and so they’re crying about it. Most of the time they had no problem killing innocent people or sending their own goons to die trying to stop the hero from getting to them, the tears and emotional manipulation are just the last ditch effort.
And if you spare them they’ll probably do it all over again.
Think of all the lives Batman would have saved if he just killed the Joker on first contact.
Batman at least has a code. He doesn’t kill the minions or the Joker. He isn’t judge, jury, and executioner of Gotham.
deleted by creator
Well there’s one country in the world currently taking this approach and… it’s being met with mixed feedback.
I agree though, kill the bad guy and don’t waste time talking to them about it first.
If we’re thinking of the same country, it’d be like the bad guy using a bystander as a human shield and the person seeking revenge just goes ahead and stabs them both; not exactly what we’d expect from the “good guy”.
“Shoot the hostage” - Speed
Interactive TV, Jack! WaVe oF the FuTuRe!
Dennis hopper invented camming
That explains A LOT about camming
I wouldn’t expect it to happen in the real world, but we’re talking movies here.