In the end of the day, the story rocks but kind of sucks too. *spoilers*

#1Rev0luti0nN0wPosted 3/14/2013 2:38:59 PM
I mean seriously, the CIA is worried that the middle east will declare a war on us that we cannot win because 33rd company declared martial law?

What about the politicians that left dubai? And the middle east hates us anyway.

And a way we cannot win? We have nukes, drones, etc, and we can't beat a bunch of people living in the 10th century with ak47s?
#2NotQuiteAFreakPosted 3/14/2013 5:57:29 PM
The 33rd didn't just declare martial law. And perhaps not, as where will you get the oil to fly those nukes drones from?
---
Not changing sig till we get a sequel to Freedom Fighters.
Started 13/4/2010
#3xninjagrrlPosted 3/15/2013 2:41:36 AM
I just write it off as Walker being an unreliable narrator and whos to say any of this game was based in reality, except for the initial helicopter sequence.
---
Pros: The pills were there.
Cons: So was the tank.
#4Creeping_DarkPosted 3/15/2013 3:04:01 AM
From: xninjagrrl | #003
I just write it off as Walker being an unreliable narrator and whos to say any of this game was based in reality, except for the initial helicopter sequence.

My personal interpretation is that Walker is literally a video game character in a video game world if that makes any sense. Kind of like a ****ed up version of Wreck-it-Ralph, except no-one knows that they're actually living in an entirely artificial world. It's a game world like any other: a convenient post-apocalyptic setting for all the slaughter to take place in. The only difference is that layers have peeled off, and underneath we start to see - and Walker starts to see - the impossible and sometimes horrific mechanisms required to sustain the illusion demanded by the violent shooter.
#5d1sPosted 3/15/2013 6:30:11 AM
Creeping_Dark posted...
From: xninjagrrl | #003
I just write it off as Walker being an unreliable narrator and whos to say any of this game was based in reality, except for the initial helicopter sequence.

My personal interpretation is that Walker is literally a video game character in a video game world if that makes any sense. Kind of like a ****ed up version of Wreck-it-Ralph, except no-one knows that they're actually living in an entirely artificial world. It's a game world like any other: a convenient post-apocalyptic setting for all the slaughter to take place in. The only difference is that layers have peeled off, and underneath we start to see - and Walker starts to see - the impossible and sometimes horrific mechanisms required to sustain the illusion demanded by the violent shooter.


Too much fourth wall breaking for me. I played the game as though I were watching a movie. Within the context of the universe, all these characters are real. When I watch a Jet Li movie, I project myself onto Jet Li. I enjoyed The Line even more because of the moral choice system, but specifically, the way they implemented it. It wasn't a:
- freeze frame (which takes me out of the moment and allows me to sober up, shattering your suspension of disbelief kind of thing)
- give player a button prompt
- have player sit back and watch cutscene

It all felt very natural and never broke the flow of the game. The entire time playing I felt as though I were watching an interactive movie. I placed myself in walker's shoes and tried to imagine "were you faced with these choices, in this situation, how do you think you would react? Not "how do you think Walker should react right now," but how do you think that you would react were you Walker?"

When it came to saving Ghould or saving the civilians, I chose to go with Adams and save the civilians. My rationale was "Ghould is being tortured, but he signed up for this. The civilians did not. We're here to save the civilians."

It wasn't until much later that the last part struck me like a hammer and I found myself asking: "Wait a minute...were we here to save the civilians? No...I don't think we were. We were here to find out about Konrad's transmission, and what happened to the 33rd. Our objective was never to save the civilians. So why did I suddenly feel "I have to save these people?" Was it because it's the right thing to do? Or was it because I wanted to be a hero? How do you weigh the life of one (Ghould) against the lives of many (The civilians) and say "Your life is expendable compared to theirs?"

I never looked at it as a "violence in video games, making excuses, we're accountable for the games we play" kind of thing. I'm not dismissing that. It's obviously there. But my experience was "Were I Walker, what would I do?" I left the guy to die (Riggs?) when he asked me to kill him. Not because I wanted him to die slowly, but because I thought "I won't kill you because I'm not a killer." Odd, I know. It wasn't until he began to burn that I thought "Oh ****! I can't leave him like that!" And I shot him to put him out of his misery, as opposed to shooting him out of some sense of vengeance. Then I stopped to ask myself "Why did you feel okay with shooting him to put him out of his misery where he was burning, but couldn't bring yourself to do it when he was simply trapped under the truck with 2 broken legs? You would have been okay with leaving him to starve to death because "you're not a killer," but you weren't okay with listening to him scream as he burned?"

I keep recommending this game to my friends. I really want to know what their experiences are like.
---
http://tinyurl.com/83hpvh7
Currently playing: No one gives a ****.
#6Creeping_DarkPosted 3/15/2013 9:21:04 AM
^ That's one of the great things about the game. The developers left enough ambiguity that the game can be interpreted in numerous ways and we can all get something different out of the game.
#7ReDDevil2112Posted 3/15/2013 12:51:50 PM
From: Rev0luti0nN0w | #001
What about the politicians that left dubai?

What about them?

And the middle east hates us anyway.

Yes, all the more reason not to provoke them.

And a way we cannot win? We have nukes, drones, etc, and we can't beat a bunch of people living in the 10th century with ak47s?

Umm, what? First of all, "people living in the 10th century with AK47s"? What people are you referring to? Because the UAE is extremely wealthy, from what I understand. Does Dubai look like a 10th century city? The architecture there is some of the most modern on the planet. Second, we're already having a tough time in the middle east, and we arent even fighting an actual army. If we're having trouble now, what do you think it'll be like when we have a fully funded military force to deal with?
---
They're a herd of people eating monsters! We can't let them have their way!!
#8Rev0luti0nN0w(Topic Creator)Posted 3/19/2013 2:02:54 PM
We are having problems locating and killing a bunch of cave dwellers (Al Quida). That kinda makes things an issue. Esp. when they hide behind children and villagers.

You are insane if you think that trying to root out a certain faction is 'us having a hard time in the middle east'.
#9malgold88Posted 4/1/2013 5:10:06 PM
"We have nukes," You really want to start a nuclear war?

"drones, etc, and we can't beat a bunch of people living in the 10th century with ak47s?" Well with the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq, no.