Since the dawn of civilization,flame has been the religious symbol of both raw,uncontrollable power and means of purification.So if your villans are supposed to be fanatics believing that killing someone is somehow cleanses this world,give them flamethrowers.
Since the dawn of civilization,flame has been the religious symbol of both raw,uncontrollable power and means of purification.So if your villans are supposed to be fanatics believing that killing someone is somehow cleanses this world,give them flamethrowers.
Yes, and it was still the sickest 'evidence' I've seen, even worse than the Lexington Avenue ECHO, with Ferro roasting the poor girl alive. I find distinct pleasure in gunning them down in the open world and DZ, and when they meet with another group and start fighting them, I give the other group help, even if they're Rikers.
Yes, and it was still the sickest 'evidence' I've seen, even worse than the Lexington Avenue ECHO, with Ferro roasting the poor girl alive. I find distinct pleasure in gunning them down in the open world and DZ, and when they meet with another group and start fighting them, I give the other group help, even if they're Rikers.
You DO know that the vast majority of Rikers prisoners are only guilty of petty crimes like theft and drug possession and that the game even lampoons this, right?
You DO know that the vast majority of Rikers prisoners are only guilty of petty crimes like theft and drug possession and that the game even lampoons this, right?
Yeah, until they join the murderous group roaming the streets, murdering people with impunity. The game mentions that the guys charged with petty crimes most likely went homes to find their families, you never see the rikers(The ones you actually fight not just the guys who where locked up there) say or do anything other than extortion or murder in game unless you're listening to audio files.
Yeah, until they join the murderous group roaming the streets, murdering people with impunity. The game mentions that the guys charged with petty crimes most likely went homes to find their families, you never see the rikers(The ones you actually fight not just the guys who where locked up there) say or do anything other than extortion or murder in game unless you're listening to audio files.
Says the players who kill said "murderous group" for jackets and hats.
I know what you're saying, but you're insane if you think anything in the game/story morally justifies anything you do. I also don't think you've actually played the game cause the ending pretty much outright vilifies the player.
MMaestro said: I also don't think you've actually played the game cause the ending pretty much outright vilifies the player.
Where did you get the impression? I'm curious cause I'd completed the main story (unless they decide to add more missions/side missions), got all the recordings, and I still haven't got the impression of vilifying the player. Do you mind to point out the recordings, echos, or anything related to your statement?
Where did you get the impression? I'm curious cause I'd completed the main story (unless they decide to add more missions/side missions), got all the recordings, and I still haven't got the impression of vilifying the player. Do you mind to point out the recordings, echos, or anything related to your statement?
The only thing that I remember that even remotely supports his claim is
When Aaron Keener implies that you may not be on the up and up at the ending saying that you "Act one way when observed and act completely differently when let off the leash when no one is watching. Which is at the end
MMaestro said:
Says the players who kill said "murderous group" for jackets and hats.
I know what you're saying, but you're insane if you think anything in the game/story morally justifies anything you do. I also don't think you've actually played the game cause the ending pretty much outright vilifies the player.
I kill the rikers cause they have a bad habit of literally beating innocent people on the street to death with their guns or randomly shooting innocents. (Which all factions do strange I was under the impression that the LMB at least thought they were in the right.) If you're going for the meta reason of "I want a new hat" I personally don't see the point I guess there are plenty of people who probably do only see them as loot containers but if you ask me that's a hilariously weak position to take because it has little bearing on how your actions work out in game.
The problem of course being that it kinda falls flat for being more of a vague implication rather than an actual condemnation with any proof behind it. The only time you can even fit the statement properly is when you're in the dark zone and to be entirely fair It feels like almost everyone becomes amoral dick head in the dark zone so if the player hops in there to murder others for giggles and profit their might be a point there.
Maybe I am wrong and the game actually does vilify the player, but unless your implying that the murderous gangs in the street are in fact normal people defending themselves and the people they've killed who clearly had no guns and were asking for mercy as you show up were somehow in the wrong, I fail to see how any actions you take outside the Darkzone can even be objectively worse than the one the Rikers or the Looters take literally every time you see them. In which case if it was the games intent to do as you say they kinda failed at it.
Though now that I think about it exactly what would I need to justify in general as far as the game goes with the exception of missions where you're on the offensive, all the mobs attack you first. On sight, no negotiation. I don't need to justify removing an immediate threat to my life. I don't recall any of the mobs surrendering only to be summarily executed. I mean yeah looting corpses is pretty bad but the combat itself you don't really need a reason to fire back at the guy who sees you and decides that your continued breathing is actively detrimental to them.
I don't really have a problem admitting that the character I'm playing is the bad guy if I can see the proof, but the game doesn't frame it that way from what I've seen and played. Hells If you got something other than the main antagonist's word that the player is an asshole I'd love to see it because I clearly missed it.
The only thing that I remember that even remotely supports his claim is
When Aaron Keener implies that you may not be on the up and up at the ending saying that you "Act one way when observed and act completely differently when let off the leash when no one is watching. Which is at the end
***other stuff which is rendered moot by your own admission***
You are ALWAYS off the leash. Thats the ENTIRE point of The Division. You're outright told in the introduction cutscene :
"We have no rules... We have no limits..."
The ONLY reason why you/other people don't 'literally beat innocent people on the street to death with their guns or randomly shooting innocents' is because the game won't let you... except in the Dark Zone. But no one is 'innocent' in there so its OK, amirite?
You are ALWAYS off the leash. Thats the ENTIRE point of The Division. You're outright told in the introduction cutscene :
"We have no rules... We have no limits..."
The ONLY reason why you/other people don't 'literally beat innocent people on the street to death with their guns or randomly shooting innocents' is because the game won't let you... except in the Dark Zone. But no one is 'innocent' in there so its OK, amirite?
Not really, but even then the option to be a jackass sociopath does not automatically make a person one.
'I can't shoot civilians cause the game won't let me' does not bring the pc's morality into question if that's the case there are no decent people because the only reason people don't go on a murdering rampage is because there are rules and consequences and/or the game won't let them.
Also yes I'm rather aware that Division agents don't really have to answer to anyone, when I was bringing up the leash thing I was Specifically mentioning something the Story's main antagonist says directly to you.
I was under the impression we were debating the Agents position in the story and whether or not people like the Rikers who are explicitly stated and seen to be killing people are largely composed of the people who are only convicted of petty crimes. If this is not the case what exactly are we even arguing about? Wasn't the argument about an in universe depiction? If we are talking about the players on the other side of the screen I don't really disagree with you I've run into too many rogues in the Dark zone to think that everyone out there is playing a morally upstanding paladin. So could we clarify this before we move on?
Not really, but even then the option to be a jackass sociopath does not automatically make a person one.
'I can't shoot civilians cause the game won't let me' does not bring the pc's morality into question if that's the case there are no decent people because the only reason people don't go on a murdering rampage is because there are rules and consequences and/or the game won't let them.
Also yes I'm rather aware that Division agents don't really have to answer to anyone, when I was bringing up the leash thing I was Specifically mentioning something the Story's main antagonist says directly to you.
I was under the impression we were debating the Agents position in the story and whether or not people like the Rikers who are explicitly stated and seen to be killing people are largely composed of the people who are only convicted of petty crimes. If this is not the case what exactly are we even arguing about? Wasn't the argument about an in universe depiction? If we are talking about the players on the other side of the screen I don't really disagree with you I've run into too many rogues in the Dark zone to think that everyone out there is playing a morally upstanding paladin. So could we clarify this before we move on?
Choosing not to be a jackass sociopath doesn't mean you're not off the leash.
By that logic, strangling a baby because the "rules and consequences" require you do so absolves you because it never brings the player character's morality into question. You simply do so in order to progress the game/story and move on telling yourself that 'I would NEVER have done that if I had a choice!' And thats fair for the player, but thats not what the player character would think. The player character would never think 'I would NEVER have done that if some video gamer didn't press the X button and forced me to strangle that baby!'
So was I, but so what? Whether its a faceless voice in the beginning of the game telling you that you have no leash or a forgettable NPC at the end of the game telling you that you have no leash; it doesn't change the fact that its true.
I don't think theres a debate for either question. I think the debate is whether you choose to believe what the game (poorly) tells you about the player character(s) and the Rikers group. Or whether you choose to believe the player character(s) are the paragon of law and order while the Rikers are evil made manifest in a world gone mad. The former means you're role playing as a 'jackass sociopath' because there is no "Press O to direct civilian to aid"-option. The latter means you're a knight in shining armor here to save the good people of New York City from nonredeemable monsters in human form.
By that logic, strangling a baby because the "rules and consequences" require you do so absolves you because it never brings the player character's morality into question. You simply do so in order to progress the game/story and move on telling yourself that 'I would NEVER have done that if I had a choice!' And thats fair for the player, but thats not what the player character would think. The player character would never think 'I would NEVER have done that if some video gamer didn't press the X button and forced me to strangle that baby!'
Let's not dive down this path, only madness lies beyond here.
MMaestro said:
So was I, but so what? Whether its a faceless voice in the beginning of the game telling you that you have no leash or a forgettable NPC at the end of the game telling you that you have no leash; it doesn't change the fact that its true.
True enough,
MMaestro said:
I don't think theres a debate for either question. I think the debate is whether you choose to believe what the game (poorly) tells you about the player character(s) and the Rikers group. Or whether you choose to believe the player character(s) are the paragon of law and order while the Rikers are evil made manifest in a world gone mad. The former means you're role playing as a 'jackass sociopath' because there is no "Press O to direct civilian to aid"-option. The latter means you're a knight in shining armor here to save the good people of New York City from nonredeemable monsters in human form.
I personally would prefer a middle of the road option, but unfortunately I'm kinda stuck with the Rikers as a antagonistic mob, rather than three dimensional people, which for me leaves me leaning towards the latter. Probably because I'm a bit optimistic in general. Being a jackass just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Inukazan said: I personally would prefer a middle of the road option, but unfortunately I'm kinda stuck with the Rikers as a antagonistic mob, rather than three dimensional people, which for me leaves me leaning towards the latter. Probably because I'm a bit optimistic in general. Being a jackass just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
I'd prefer a middle of the road option too, but then you wouldn't get those jackets and hats would you?
