lol at all the socialist, Marxist, communist SJWS going "BUY THIS FROM BIG BILLION DOLLAR CORPORATION." As always, commies are hypocritical, authoritarian faggots who deserve to be lined up and shot. Live free or die, cunts.
Kill la Kill is edgy huh?
Also obligatory :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiMHTK15Pik
No, but Akame Ga Kill is. It is also inferior the the manga. Which I suggest everyone read, as it is leagues better.
Watching people mock the hell out of this crappy emotional manipulation shit is great.
Also, all the NPCs have names and their friends whil cry when you kill them.
Seriously.
View attachment 1276967View attachment 1276971View attachment 1276968View attachment 1276969View attachment 1276970
I have no joke, walked up to enemies wounded helplessly on the ground and shot them in the head execution style.
For them to go "Fuck you, YOU KILLED BILLIE."
Well, uh, don't shoot at me when I've mowed down 50 of you? Maybe you should surrender?
Honestly, it'd make me laugh and want to put an arrow in the guy's eye. Its all because people don't play videogames.
What players DO find uncomfortable is shooting NPCs that run away from you or are unarmed or not in any way, shape or form involved with hurting your character or part of the evil plot. That's why Spec: Ops the Line was so brutal in doing this. This is why people were shocked by 'No Russian' in CoD. That's why it hurt to kill your infected soldiers in MGSV, who hadn't done anything wrong, but risked killing everyone else. And that was personal, because some of those guys I had fun doing missions with. And I personally had to execute them because there was no cure and they'd either infect everyone or die in agony.
That's how you get to the player. But this game is too stupid to do that or understand that. An enemy trying to kill me where I can't avoid them or can't make peace with them is not going to make me care. Especially if they're armed. You shoot at me, you die. Of course he has friends. Make them drop to their knees crying and the second they pick up a gun I'll shoot them without a second thought.
If you force me to kill crying, unarmed civilians, I will delete your game, call you a cunt, and never play it again. It kinda disappointed me in Spec Ops: The Line you
HAD to do the White Phosporous. It'd have been nicer if it were a choice, but there are other choices where you can choose, so it evens out.
This is just sad, and a complete misunderstanding of gaming, and gamers in general. We love to fuck with NPCs that try to kill us. It is VERY difficult to make people who play games kill innocent people deliberately in serious titles. In Saint's Row and GTA, you're kind of expected to fuck around a ton since its this over the top feeling. But in a serious game like this, I don't have any qualms about murdering some guy shooting at me then having his friend cry over him while he shoots at me. Is this supposed to make me care?
Generally, developers don't put players in very uncomftorable scenarios where they have to kill innocent people. Because its not what we want to do. Even for example you're forced to kill a child soldier hopped up on coke and drugs who you can't negotiate with, who will kill you if you don't kill him. Most people would have trouble doing that.
Which is why developers DON'T FUCKING DO THAT. They understand it so much.
MGS3 did that first.
Actually come to think of it, I think this scene does what Druckmann's trying to do only so much better. MGS3 keeps track of everyone you ever killed throughout the game, and the game remembers how you killed them. For example, if you blow someone up, they'll comment about their flesh burning. The fight with the Sorrow and its difficulty is entirely dependent on how many people you've killed so far. The game never makes you try to feel bad or get you to feel guilty, but seeing the number of people you've killed so far does provoke an emotional reaction, like holy shit I've killed a lot of people. It's actually a lot more natural because it's dependent on your choices, and the game's showing you how those choices ended other people's lives.
I always did MGS games with 0 kills and I was like, 'Why am I walking through a scary river?'. Note: They also counted people you threw off ledges. When I did a Big Boss game going ape-shit, it took me like 10 goddamn minutes.
Just got to the dog bit. A college lesson from creative writing/storytelling 101 that has always stayed with me:
NEVER have the main character kill the dog. The only acceptable time is for euthanasia purposes when the dog is hurt doing something heroic to save the MC. Always have the dog either help you directly or as a reward for assisting it somewhere down the line. Never play with the readers like that, it will likely backfire horribly.
This is sadistic as fuck writing and is practically dripping with juvenile edge.
Holy shit man.
Its really the opposite: If your villain isn't evil enough to the audience, have them kill or abuse innocent animals. Most people are closer to the animals than their families. Its a framing device to make you fucking loathe this villain through something very simple. Like John Wick. "Hey he killed 50 people!" "But they killed his dog." "...he killed 50 people" "Dude, his dog was stomped to death bro". Guy Ritchie said this when he was making Snatch, that the scene of the main antagonist abusing dogs and having a fighting dog ring was to make you hate him more, and even people on the set were uncomfortable (he isn't shown hitting a dog, he's shown beating it through a cage with a POV shot from the dog, so you don't even see him do it.
And of course it holds true for the protagonist as well.
Animals typically represent innocence, especially dogs. They don't know why they're being hurt. A person who rescues or helps animals is viewed in a kinder, saintly light. While people who abuse them are viewed as downright evil. Its an awesome, simple writing trick that isn't excessive, doesn't need to constantly be done, and that one scene is enough to make your audience hate him as much as they can.
Its a brilliant little psychological device that pretty much won't fail you. Its much less heavy handed than a villain hurting kids, which is too obvious generally speaking. Hurting animals is metaphorically abuse of innocence, which is then translated into the viewers mind as abuse of family members, innocent family members, such as children. So you get the abuse of innocence across without having to resort to obvious tactics. Its one of the best literary tropes that really doesn't fail, even in bad media. It is a very handy tool to translate evil without resorting to mustache twirling.
Also, going with your anecdote: Never have your protagonist kill animals or hurt a child. Those are basically 2 hard and fast rules of writing any protagonist. Go against them at your own peril. (And when I talk about harming a child, just outright hurting them. Not giving a teenager a slap when he or she is losing it to get them to snap out of it. That's a different kind of character.)
