Ironically, Kotaku doesn't understand the concept of NPCs at all; or further proof that their staff doesn't really know much about games.

Video game opinion pieces are usually just exercises in working backwards from some (often flawed) conclusion by presenting weak arguments that "support" the conclusion. They were just as devoid of substance when these "journalists" were just corporate ball washers jockeying for PR jobs as they are now that they are the far left activists that replaced them.
 
You fucking dont fucking sound fucking upset at all dumbasses douchnozzles fucks. See I am perfectly calm.

Even if I wasnt calm, how is my argument flawed? People who use the term NPC's to describe actual people non ironically are just idiots.

I guess the ol' "Alt Right" is running out of politically inspired "insults" like Snowflake, SJW, Cuck and more of these useless "insults".
 
Last edited:
We have a word for games without players, we call them failures.
Considering their little indie entourage, I wouldn't be surprised if they would rather prefer to ignore that little nugget of truth and keep producing their pretentious games that nobody plays while demanding financial handouts for their oh so brilliant meta-commentary that nobody cares about.

...Fucking douchenozzles
...just idiots ..."Alt Right"
Asserting your intellectual superiority by throwing around insults... please stop embarrassing yourselves.
 
Last edited:
Hobbit from 1982 had good NPCs too but I'd be surprised if today's "pro" journalists ever heard about, let alone played the game

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit_(1982_video_game)

The game has a cast of non-player characters (NPCs) entirely independent of the player and bound to precisely the same game rules. They have loyalties, strengths, and personalities that affect their behaviour and cannot always be predicted. The character of Gandalf, for example, would roam freely around the game world (some fifty locations), picking up objects, getting into fights and being captured.

The volatility of the characters, coupled with the rich physics and impossible-to-predict fighting system, enabled the game to be played in many different ways, though this would also lead to problems (such as an important character being killed early on). There are numerous possible solutions and with hindsight, the game might be regarded as one of the first examples of emergent gameplay. This also resulted, however, in many bugs; for example, during development Megler found that the animal NPCs killed each other before the player arrived. The game's documentation warned that "Due to the immense size and complexity of this game it is impossible to guarantee that it will ever be completely error-free". Melbourne House issued a version 1.1 with some fixes, but with another bug that resulted in the game being unwinnable, forcing it to release version 1.2, and the company never fixed all bugs.
 
If I understand this correctly, then she is saying that the world in Red Dead Redemption 2 only reacts to the player and doesn't actually progress without an interaction from the player or when the player is at least in the rendering range. I get why she says that "the NPCs are putting on a show", if the world is frozen until you come along then they really are just putting on a show for the player. There are many games with worlds that change without player's notice or any form of interaction, even visual. I haven't played Red Dead Redemption 2 myself so I don't know if what she is saying is true however, but I can imagine it can feel a bit strange when the entire world is in stasis unless you come along.

Right,

It's essentially a stepping stone for game worlds (open worlds games in particular) to be inhabited by organic AI characters and background systems (weather, economy, seasons etc) that runs and alters itself regardless of the player. When you play a MMORPG, you get this experience. The game keeps going on, even if you are not participating. The day/night cycle and the economy continues.
But the NPCs are dead, stale and follow simple scripted behavior. The player cannot permanently kill the questgiver, burn down the capital city and enslave its populous. The NPCs are not created in a way that allows them to respond, duplicate, and do actions based on altering states. That is because games are still built with a static ethos in mind.
There is no forefront of gaming that has made as little progress as AI. AI is complicated because its not about making AI that is merely better than human players. In fact, more times than not, we want AI that performs and reacts like a human would. We all know the feeling of playing a racing game where the AI is fine tuned to be better than the player, but this behavior is immersion breaking and not fun. You want an AI that is as good as a really really good human player, with all the unpredictable spontaneity that it requires.


As technology and game design has progressed we have seen a massive backtrack in freedom in our games. What many Games journalists don't understand is that modern games are often more limited than in the past. Skyrim might be a much more polished and tight experience than Morrowind, but Morrowind was extremely open and allowed you to destroy your own playthrough if you killed the wrong NPC or specced your character in a bad way. MMORPGs like Ultima Online had features and gameplay systems that make games look like WoW, seem like fucking farmville.


We should be building games that puts emphasis on interaction in any way the player wants. When you really deconstruct games like GTA, Red Dead and Assassins Creed, they are fairly limited and made the same way. Despite various novelty context sensitive induced features that pop up in every installment, its more of the same. In this game you can control gang territory, in this one you send your assassins out on missions, in this one you can do heists, in this one you can have bounties on you, in this one you can attack forts. It's all the same gameplay loop with a few unique gameplay systems sprinkled in to break the tedium, but they have never addressed the AI.

RDR2 works for all intent and purposes like GTA 3 when it comes to AI. And buildings. You destroy the entire world, and kill everyone and regrow the world with different people, or make a war. The games have constant barriers that limit what you can do. The interaction in these sandbox open world games have tons of structures that inhibit player freedom. And in games like where you can do more like Just Cause or Fallout, it still just feels empty as there is a void of realistic NPCs (old people, animals, kids).
 
Another example was the old Revolution adventure (before Broken Sword et al - this was on Atari ST, Amiga, etc) Lure Of The Temptress. Every NPC had their own schedules, get up to whatever they might get up to and not necessarily depend on the player being there. This did of course cause predictable gameplay problems. No doubt the technical capacity exists to have NPCs act outside the cone of player influence, albeit you'd be using a lot of CPU and RAM to track that, but the benefit is minimal and the risk of buggering up gameplay is huge given the NPCs might fuck your mission up for you in some fashion.
 
Another example was the old Revolution adventure (before Broken Sword et al - this was on Atari ST, Amiga, etc) Lure Of The Temptress.
I loved that game!

If I'm not mistaken, I think the original Westwood Studios version of Bladerunner did the same thing. Which meant solving puzzles was a bit of a chore.
 
I loved that game!

If I'm not mistaken, I think the original Westwood Studios version of Bladerunner did the same thing. Which meant solving puzzles was a bit of a chore.
Bladerunner was amazing, not sure it necessarily did that, there was randomisation of who was a replicant of course, but I think the movement was a little less sophisticated than that, in that most events were fairly scripted but for instance there's a guy in the market who is either there or not but that seems fairly random.. can't quite remember the details but that pissed me off quite a bit as one would have to walk around the block to see if he randomly re-appeared (because waiting for him didn't have the desired effect).
 
Right,

It's essentially a stepping stone for game worlds (open worlds games in particular) to be inhabited by organic AI characters and background systems (weather, economy, seasons etc) that runs and alters itself regardless of the player. When you play a MMORPG, you get this experience. The game keeps going on, even if you are not participating. The day/night cycle and the economy continues.
But the NPCs are dead, stale and follow simple scripted behavior. The player cannot permanently kill the questgiver, burn down the capital city and enslave its populous. The NPCs are not created in a way that allows them to respond, duplicate, and do actions based on altering states. That is because games are still built with a static ethos in mind.
There is no forefront of gaming that has made as little progress as AI. AI is complicated because its not about making AI that is merely better than human players. In fact, more times than not, we want AI that performs and reacts like a human would. We all know the feeling of playing a racing game where the AI is fine tuned to be better than the player, but this behavior is immersion breaking and not fun. You want an AI that is as good as a really really good human player, with all the unpredictable spontaneity that it requires.


As technology and game design has progressed we have seen a massive backtrack in freedom in our games. What many Games journalists don't understand is that modern games are often more limited than in the past. Skyrim might be a much more polished and tight experience than Morrowind, but Morrowind was extremely open and allowed you to destroy your own playthrough if you killed the wrong NPC or specced your character in a bad way. MMORPGs like Ultima Online had features and gameplay systems that make games look like WoW, seem like fucking farmville.


We should be building games that puts emphasis on interaction in any way the player wants. When you really deconstruct games like GTA, Red Dead and Assassins Creed, they are fairly limited and made the same way. Despite various novelty context sensitive induced features that pop up in every installment, its more of the same. In this game you can control gang territory, in this one you send your assassins out on missions, in this one you can do heists, in this one you can have bounties on you, in this one you can attack forts. It's all the same gameplay loop with a few unique gameplay systems sprinkled in to break the tedium, but they have never addressed the AI.

RDR2 works for all intent and purposes like GTA 3 when it comes to AI. And buildings. You destroy the entire world, and kill everyone and regrow the world with different people, or make a war. The games have constant barriers that limit what you can do. The interaction in these sandbox open world games have tons of structures that inhibit player freedom. And in games like where you can do more like Just Cause or Fallout, it still just feels empty as there is a void of realistic NPCs (old people, animals, kids).
yes - I think more can be done to provide interesting spontaneous interactions; on the other hand when you know about how simplifying "simulation" of the world has to be it's not surprising when developers prefer an on rails experience because artificial intelligence cant convey much of the complexity that would make an on rails experience emergent from AI or physics. The dynamic scripts that the hosts follow in Westworld is an entirely hand wavy construction that doesn't pass muster when you look into what would actually have to be done to make it a reality
 
Can i just say that i find this entire topic deeply disturbing, due to callbacks to Black Mirror on Netflix episode where computer software feels trapped in its world, you want fully interactive worlds with NPC's that react like humans? and you then want to have fun killing countless of them as that is the major gameplay in games. Where does this line of thought stops?

I guess i am pulling out a what if worse scenario, but to me NPC's are fine due to them not behaving like humans. if they responded the same way a human's would it would be creepy and down right murdering in a entertainment product i don't want games to go this far.. for immersion.
 

Skyn3t

...still waiting to become self-aware
Kotaku? You mean that renowned website run by video game maniacs with passion and fire? How could you?

Don't even understand who would like to read this rubbish that they put out these days.
 
Last edited:
It's becuase of stupid shit like this that I haven't visited a "games journalism" site in probably 5 years. Twitch and reddit provide all the info I need to make informed purchasing decisions.
 
Last edited:
Can i just say that i find this entire topic deeply disturbing, due to callbacks to Black Mirror on Netflix episode where computer software feels trapped in its world, you want fully interactive worlds with NPC's that react like humans? and you then want to have fun killing countless of them as that is the major gameplay in games. Where does this line of thought stops?

I guess i am pulling out a what if worse scenario, but to me NPC's are fine due to them not behaving like humans. if they responded the same way a human's would it would be creepy and down right murdering in a entertainment product i don't want games to go this far.. for immersion.
As much as I like thinking philosophically about Black Mirror and other sci fi it can lead to what Dan Dennett calls bad "intuition pumps". We can imagine a simulated world where people have essential qualities of what we label people but projecting that back on the reality of our game worlds is misleading; even more so when genre conventions in story telling are a form of unreality. The way that characters act and react in genre fiction serve the narrative and tropes first which is why you should be unconcerned about killing a random henchman -- because killing is an entirely different experience in the frame of that story -- unless the storyteller decides it matters which in turn gives permission to engage in normal thinking about psychological complexity (not all characters are players in a story)
 
Last edited:
Can i just say that i find this entire topic deeply disturbing, due to callbacks to Black Mirror on Netflix episode where computer software feels trapped in its world, you want fully interactive worlds with NPC's that react like humans? and you then want to have fun killing countless of them as that is the major gameplay in games. Where does this line of thought stops?

I guess i am pulling out a what if worse scenario, but to me NPC's are fine due to them not behaving like humans. if they responded the same way a human's would it would be creepy and down right murdering in a entertainment product i don't want games to go this far.. for immersion.

I am talking more about making the world feel alive. If NPCs slept, ate, and lived and died like a human character would, the gravity of interaction would be much different. It would mean that you wouldn't just walk into a NPCs home, or just get have the guards spot you and forget that they chased you only to return to their predictable walking pattern. These interactions are dumb and game breaking. That is now how it would have been in the real world.

As good as games have become visually and audio-visually, the interaction with characters is still stuck in the past, and as a result we have a lot of pretty games, but not actual next-generation games. Molyneux pitched (hyped) Project Ego (later Fable) as having organic AI systems where the plants would grow into trees, where you could marry NPCs and completely change everything. Its not like this desire for deeper interaction inside the world has not been a long time coming. But it remains a difficult obstacle.
 
As much as I like thinking philosophically about Black Mirror and other sci fi it can lead to what Dan Dennett calls bad "intuition pumps". We can imagine a simulated world where people have essential qualities of what we label people but projecting that back on the reality of our game worlds is misleading; even more so when genre conventions in story telling are a form of unreality. The way that characters act and react in genre fiction serve the narrative and tropes first which is why you should be unconcerned about killing a random henchman -- because killing is an entirely different experience in the frame of that story -- unless the storyteller decides it matters which in turn gives permission to engage in normal thinking about psychological complexity (not all characters are players in a story)
So if I understand this correctly let’s say a NPC was killed, but was part of a fictional family, then the family would react like humans intelligently sending a chain reaction through all involved npc's, if that amount of engagement happened in a entertainment product would that be enough to consider that the fictional aspect of the entire promise is out of control?. Because rightfully, you could say that if i killed a NPC but their are no other reactions and consequences communicated to other self thinking npc’s then it wouldn't have consequences for any other self thinking individuals.

Then the whole thing comes down to why is killing wrong? is it because of the consequence of taking a other persons life which rightfully might be so, but isn't it just as much because its causing reactions to other people around that person. and influencing those people to the sudden change in their lifes due to a missed part that existed. - i apologize if this topic is going out of topic and i might be out on some rather deep water here. but i appreciate you took the time to reply with appealing argument to why i shouldn't worry about this to the degree i might be.
 
Molyneux pitched (hyped) Project Ego (later Fable) as having organic AI systems where the plants would grow into trees, where you could marry NPCs and completely change everything.
All that stuff is still scripted though. All that changes is the number of variables that can influence an NPC.

The basic problem is that you still have to code those NPCs to say things. You can't just randomise their behaviour like a No Man's Sky world. You'd have to teach the little buggers language.

And language acquisition is one of the clearest examples of inherited human behaviour.
 
Nah, considering 'the last years' as you put it, the effect is jarring. I mean I was just in NYC this year as a tourist and tried to interact with police a number of times and my god are they apathetic, aggressive, macho arseholes. So presenting them as happy go lucky dudes in a videogame is jarring and inaccurate. Even in my country they're apathetic arseholes and are constantly getting caught dealing drugs, sexually assaulting women, and hospitalizing homeless people. It's definitely jarring, and seems like something out of a kindergarten book. "Go to the police, they're the good guys, they'll help you!" It's an overly simplified depiction, a cube mapped depiction rather than a raytraced depiction if you will (puddle joke). I also don't agree with your 'leave commentary out of entertainment media' argument. Entertainment media has the unique ability to act like a time-capsule for the societal climate at the time of its production and I feel that's valid, worthwhile and a very interesting method of studying public opinion at the time. People need to be more mature about products they like being criticized.

One problem: You are not living in the Spider-Man game!

You were in NYC? Great.
In the NYC from the fictional video game Spider-Man that's being terrorised by the Kingpin, Vulture and other villains? NO?
Those kind of arguments just don't make any sense.

If Spider-Man would ever show a claim linking it to real events Heather Alexandras article would be understandable. But developers have a good right to say "Our world is based on fiction". And thank god they do - I don't want a super hero game telling me about tragic real life events. I got newspapers, news and other ways to read about those.

You're right, entertainment media has the unique ability to act like a time-capsule. But it certainly isn't forced to use this ability if the developer thinks it would feel out of place in a game about Spider-Man.
 
One problem: You are not living in the Spider-Man game!

In the NYC from the fictional video game Spider-Man that's being terrorised by the Kingpin, Vulture and other villains? NO?
Those kind of arguments just don't make any sense.
Does the game feature the Statue of Liberty? The Twin Towers monument? Empire State Building? Other landmarks? N.Y. taxis? Spiderman very much exists alongside the real N.Y. Was there a 9/11 comic when 9/11 happened? Are you saying that was coincidence? Is that kind of commentary ok? And others not? I'm afraid it's your argument that doesn't make sense.

And thank god they do - I don't want a super hero game telling me about tragic real life events. I got newspapers, news and other ways to read about those.

You're right, entertainment media has the unique ability to act like a time-capsule. But it certainly isn't forced to use this ability if the developer thinks it would feel out of place in a game about Spider-Man.
Well, I would argue there is pressure to not do this anymore, because people throw full on fits if you put commentary based on moderate values into an entertainment product. I mean look at the very topic of this thread. There is no evidence whatsoever that a really dumb alt-right meme was the inspiration for this piece of writing (in fact logic dictates it can't, or she'd be praising the NPCs) AND STILL alt-righters are losing their shit over it. Rember Gone Home? Sweet, intimate, well written, atmospheric Gone Home? It just happened to have a gay couple in it and people were reeeeeeing about 'SJW agendas'.

And no, there is no media out there where having commentary would appear out of place. This is not a dumb swinging simulator. Commentary brings impact because of the artists' experiences and the weight they have. It doesn't have to be overbearing. Look at Incredibles II, as a recent example. Bob can lift train carriages, but the strongest he's ever been was when he admitted he needed help. It's a beautiful, empowering message that is so important for young men these days. Sure, Jack Jack vs Trash Panda was probably the best film scene of the year, but good creations need both levity and weight. The impact from social commentary beats any Michael Bay explosion.
 
Last edited:

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
Well, I would argue there is pressure to not do this anymore, because people throw full on fits if you put commentary based on moderate values into an entertainment product. I mean look at the very topic of this thread. There is no evidence whatsoever that a really dumb alt-right meme was the inspiration for this piece of writing (in fact logic dictates it can't, or she'd be praising the NPCs) AND STILL alt-righters are losing their shit over it. Rember Gone Home? Sweet, intimate, well written, atmospheric Gone Home? It just happened to have a gay couple in it and people were reeeeeeing about 'SJW agendas'.
Lol, what? NPC is an "alt-right" meme? You can't be serious. And no, "alt-righters" are not losing their shit over the article. People from the left, center, and right are discussing how poorly written it is. Also the issue with Gone Home wasn't because of the "gay couple". The issue with Gone Home was the mediocre story, high price, and lack of replay value. It was a decent experience for 4-5 dollars, but not the 20 it retailed for. Nor did it deserve the high scores it got (which was because of how "progressive" it was, which it wasn't as many games did what Gone Home did, but better years prior). Does this make me "alt-right" because I disagreed with reviewers? No, of course not. Ultimately, all you have done is post poor strawman arguments, but what would I expect from someone who posted nearly 70 posts in nearly 24 hours? Clearly you aren't here for quality discussion.
 
Last edited:
It's becuase of stupid shit like this that I haven't visited a "games journalism" site in probably 5 years. Twitch and reddit provide all the info I need to make informed purchasing decisions.
It isn't a stupid article, it really is not. She makes a valid point. By forcing NPC to interact with the player you can make the appearance of an organic world, but the moment you notice that all this stuff only happens when you are around the whole illusion falls apart. The world only exists when you are in the rendering range. Very little, if anything, happens without either your input or your presence. I haven't played the game so I can't speak from experience but this is what she is trying to say in the article. That is why I enjoy games that have some kind of time limit. It means that if you don't accomplish what you are supposed to then the world/city/whatever gets destroyed/killed and it is because of your inaction or wrong set or actions. Games like GTA are static, nothing ever really happens in the game. You kill a million cops and another million spawns right away. You kill a million people and after walking 2 blocks everything is back to normal. I am not trying to say that GTA sucks or something, just trying to make a point.
 
Last edited:
It isn't a stupid article, it really is not. She makes a valid point. By forcing NPC to interact with the player you can make the appearance of an organic world, but the moment you notice that all this stuff only happens when you are around the whole illusion falls apart. The world only exists when you are in the rendering range. Very little, if anything, happens without either your input or your presence. I haven't played the game so I can't speak from experience but this is what she is trying to say in the article. That is why I enjoy games that have some kind of time limit. It means that if you don't accomplish what you are supposed to then the world/city/whatever gets destroyed/killed and it is because of your inaction or wrong set or actions. Games like GTA are static, nothing ever really happens in the game. You kill a million cops and another million spawns right away. You kill a million people and after walking 2 blocks everything is back to normal. I am not trying to say that GTA sucks or something, just trying to make a point.
I agree with you that RDR2's world is "static" as compared to some other game worlds but my biggest gripe with the article was how poorly constructed and written it was. I shouldn't come away from an article wondering exactly what the article was trying to say and I do not consider myself to be dumb. I had to think about what the author was trying to say and she simply failed in properly conveying her assertions is all. There was too much guesswork involved by her intended audience and there was too much distraction with her very obvious anti-masculinity stance.


Can i just say that i find this entire topic deeply disturbing, due to callbacks to Black Mirror on Netflix episode where computer software feels trapped in its world, you want fully interactive worlds with NPC's that react like humans? and you then want to have fun killing countless of them as that is the major gameplay in games. Where does this line of thought stops?

I guess i am pulling out a what if worse scenario, but to me NPC's are fine due to them not behaving like humans. if they responded the same way a human's would it would be creepy and down right murdering in a entertainment product i don't want games to go this far.. for immersion.
I'm already starting to feel that NPCs in video games may be getting a bit too realistic. I'll describe a home robbery scene in RDR2 that I encountered below but will have it in spoiler tags:

With one of the home robbery - I guess call it a 'side mission' but it isn't really a "side mission" per se - anyway - in one of the home robberies when I snuck up close to the house I could hear a father and his son having an argument. I proceeded to sneak into the house and continue listening while I was in the hallway. The argument basically ended up consisting of the teenage/young adult son telling his father that his father needed to stop drinking so much, their life is falling apart, they don't even have any food in the kitchen, and that his father's drinking problems are why the son's mother left. The father struck his son telling him he didn't understand and then they noticed me. The father pulls out a gun and threatens me - telling me to leave, the son asking me why I was there. I hesitated for a moment and then shot and killed the father. The son then just starts crying and pleading with me, asking me why did I kill his daddy. I proceeded to start looting the house, ended up smacking around the son a little bit to get him to stop crying (as it was really bothering me emotionally in real life as this whole thing was making me really feel awkward and a little sick). I ended up finding the son hiding under his bed in his room. He kept sobbing, asking me why I was there, why did I have to kill his father. When I inspected one of the two collectible cards on his desk the son said to me "No! Please let me keep those! My momma gave them to me. It's all I have left from her!" I took the card and then started inspecting the second card to which the son says "Please... let me keep even just one of those cards."

I know this is just a game and I know that these are not real people and that this was scripted but I just couldn't. Even a digital re-enactment of this was more than I could bear so I immediately left the house and ended up just reloading from a saved game and can't bring myself to going back to that house and actually going through with the robbery.

There are times in the game where Arthur is forced to act like an asshole such as during a particular set of main story missions:
Strauss sending you to collect money from the very ill man and how Arthur acts like such an asshole to him and his family.

I'm still not sure how to react to stuff like this in video games. When watching a movie, you're a passive observer, always watching someone else do these horrible things but in a video game where you have control over your actions it is *you* virtually committing hose heinous acts (as in the first spoiler) or they are forced upon you by the game (as in the second spoiler example) and it takes video games to a strange place. And yes I know this kind of stuff has been done in games for a while and RDR2 is certainly not the first. But it was almost shocking to me that these types of events existed in a game where basically you're allowed to live out a carefree existence as an outlaw who really has no actual consequences for his bad actions.

I'm just not sure how to feel about this interjection of actual realistic repercussions into a form of entertainment that to me mostly serves as a form of escapism from the sorts of awful and vile things that can happen in real life. Can I not just enjoy my carefree Wild West hero male power fantasy myth in isolation from the "real world"? Not every movie needs to have commentary on the frailty and meaninglessness of human existence and not every video game needs to be ground so much in reality that we come away from playing a video game feeling depressed. Sure, I'm all about some movies and video games being philosophically deep or meaningful - but I don't think every form of media (music, literature, films, or video games) has to be equally deep and impactful; some of it can and should just be mindless dumb escapism. Thankfully much of RDR2 isn't utterly serious and I am actually enjoying the more serious aspects of it, but I do question what video gaming would be like if every game was so "realistic" that we couldn't enjoy anything anymore.

Is everything required to have deeper meaning or current social commentary nowadays?
 
Last edited:
So if I understand this correctly let’s say a NPC was killed, but was part of a fictional family, then the family would react like humans intelligently sending a chain reaction through all involved npc's, if that amount of engagement happened in a entertainment product would that be enough to consider that the fictional aspect of the entire promise is out of control?. Because rightfully, you could say that if i killed a NPC but their are no other reactions and consequences communicated to other self thinking npc’s then it wouldn't have consequences for any other self thinking individuals.

Then the whole thing comes down to why is killing wrong? is it because of the consequence of taking a other persons life which rightfully might be so, but isn't it just as much because its causing reactions to other people around that person. and influencing those people to the sudden change in their lifes due to a missed part that existed. - i apologize if this topic is going out of topic and i might be out on some rather deep water here. but i appreciate you took the time to reply with appealing argument to why i shouldn't worry about this to the degree i might be.

I would think of it more like "what is the narrative and gameplay serving?" fight or flight is engaging psychology that we as mammals prepare for and enjoy through play. Some genre like action engage the instinct for physical play by making it less consequential i.e. it's fun to shoot faceless dudes with a thin backstory because it's drained of some of the meaning and reactions of what it's representing. This is then reflected in characters coming at you like they have no instinct for self preservation because it's a form of play acting. If they reacted like you would see actual people dying it would be deeply disturbing but then you wouldn't have characters acting like maniacs if you double back on the other unrealistic parts of the world.

There's always something drained from media relative to reality to make it exciting so it's possible to have less serious elements coexisting with something more serious e.g. you could have playful fighting where death doesn't matter and yet still represent relational consequences of actions when it's relevant. Characters are also not necessarily to be taken as fully realized even when it takes a more serious turn. Storytelling deals in prototypes that compress something general that the author wants to convey into the actions of individuals who are larger than life which is why it's a little bit silly to say a character is a mass murderer for facilitating the player engaging in a lot of play fighting or what you might call "morality porn" (meting out justice or being transgressive)

There's a question then of where RDR fits into this scheme. It's simultaneously a "post western western" but it's also not because not everything is always serving that end. It's open to criticism then for sacrificing some of the effect from subverting tropes by trying to have it both ways. Westworld is a meditation on this if followed to an extreme with a small enough distance between the simulacra and an actual person to wonder whether it's enouraging psychopathic behavior. Luckily genre fiction lives in a toy world where that's not true most of the time - sometimes to its detriment if there isn't a sufficient degree of complexity in our thinking about the period, historical or fictional
 
Does the game feature the Statue of Liberty? The Twin Towers monument? Empire State Building? Other landmarks? N.Y. taxis? Spiderman very much exists alongside the real N.Y. Was there a 9/11 comic when 9/11 happened? Are you saying that was coincidence? Is that kind of commentary ok? And others not? I'm afraid it's your argument that doesn't make sense.
Okay, so you think simulating the real NYC with streets, cars, and places of interest automatically forces the gaming developers to include real life political topics?
You realise that Spider-Man's realistic NYC does include web swinging heroes and superhuman villains?
Simulating the look of a city in a game doesn't mean creating a 1:1 copy of our everyday life.

And you're right, there was a 9/11 comic. There are many comics commenting on actual real life events.
BUT just because some entertainment companies and/or authors decided to include those in their story doesn't force EVERYONE to do that?
Wouldn't you agree forcing everyone to incorporate some kind of "political message" in their game/movie/book would be a bad move?
 
Last edited:
Okay, so you think simulating the real NYC with streets, cars, and places of interest automatically forces the gaming developers to include real life political topics?
You realise that Spider-Man's realistic NYC does include web swinging heroes and superhuman villains?
Simulating the look of a city in a game doesn't mean creating a 1:1 copy of our everyday life.

And you're right, there was a 9/11 comic. There are many comics commenting on actual real life events.
BUT just because some entertainment companies and/or authors decided to include those in their story doesn't force EVERYONE to do that?
Wouldn't you agree forcing everyone to incorporate some kind of "political message" in their game/movie/book would be a bad move?
It is also an alternate universe, but people seem to want to ignore that part because it shits on their narrative.
 
AND STILL alt-righters are losing their shit over it. Rember Gone Home? Sweet, intimate, well written, atmospheric Gone Home? It just happened to have a gay couple in it and people were reeeeeeing about 'SJW agendas'.

Damn those people for not liking something that I liked, must be all those darn homophobic alt-right Russian bot Nazi neck-beard basement dwellers. Hurr, durr. Seriously man, get a grip.
 
Judging by the low grade quality of the article mentioned in the OP, it's quite understandable if publishers don't want to deal with that kind of crap.
Conjecture.

Yeah, how dare they, how frikkin' dare they, represent the police as they should be
Says who?

I think its hilarious if only because it triggers these self proclaimed sjws so much
Gaddam slit my whole finger open on this edge.

"Self proclaimed SJW"

"Clinton"

"NPC's TRIGGERED"

Get a fucking grip. The internet isnt 4chan. The world isnt America.

Fucking douchenozzles
Just quoting this because it needs to be posted again.

I'm not upset. I just think it's fuckin' retarded.
A-ring-a-ding-ding
 
Last edited:
Gamer’s will rise up against games ‘journalists’ just like they did a few years ago.

Its more and more clear that these people do not represent the majority of gamers, in fact they actively disdain gamers.
If anything, Gamergate just proved that the people behind Gamergate don't represent the majority of gamers either.

I don't like people like Heather Alexandra, Patricia Hernandez and the like either, but get a grip. Gaming is a mainstream hobby now. It's done by millions of people with differing backgrounds. The people who fancy themselves "hardcore gamers" (read: the kind of people who get upset by Kotaku articles and think Gamergate was legit) are a vast minority.

Take this kind of stuff for what it is- ridiculous fluff pieces meant to drive clicks for people who otherwise can't contribute anything of worth to the world. But for the love of god, can we stop with the idea that this kind of thing is an 'attack' on a hobby? It's almost more cringeworthy than the article.

RDR2 is one of the defining games of this generation. It's going to be remembered fondly for years to come. I can guarantee you Rockstar doesn't care about Heather Alexandra's opinions on NPCs. There's no need for anyone else to get their knickers in a knot.
 
*Sorry for DP, 5 minute rule*

Yeah, in particular, he seems pretty special.

Most gaming journalism these days is trash/shitty hot takes. Youtube and Twitch have really killed off a lot of their use.
Haven't read a written word article on games in years. Why do that when I can watch some gameplay, get some loose impressions and make my purchasing decisions that way? Gaming YouTubers doing god's work. I'm convinced the only people who actually read kotaku any more are alt-righters looking to pick every piece they post apart and call it 'poorly written' haha.

Lol, what? NPC is an "alt-right" meme? You can't be serious.
Hey. Hey guys. Check this dude out and how he's trying to claim it's not an alt-right meme. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL gaddamn man the alt-right are just inherently dishonest, they have long forgotten how to tell the truth.

And no, "alt-righters" are not losing their shit over the article.
I'm literally watching it happen on this page.


People from the left, center, and right are discussing how poorly written it is.
Hahahahaaaha dude no one else cares, it's some random piece on a gaming website.

Also the issue with Gone Home wasn't because of the "gay couple". The issue with Gone Home was the mediocre story, high price, and lack of replay value.
I can't even be bothered to google a picture of a dog-whistle, honestly.

It was a decent experience for 4-5 dollars, but not the 20 it retailed for. Nor did it deserve the high scores it got
*Personal opinion

(which was because of how "progressive" it was
*Baseless claim

Okay, so you think simulating the real NYC with streets, cars, and places of interest automatically forces the gaming developers to include real life political topics?
Who said force? You said that word three times in that post but no one suggested anything of the sort prior to that, certainly not me. Why are you re-framing? Because you have an agenda? Insomniac created a realistic enough backdrop, but went with a very unrealistic depiction of one particular component of that backdrop... a component that just so happens to be ending a lot of PoC lives for no reason and does not behave in-game like its real life depiction. So yes, it's jarring. Imagine if the taxis floated or the water looked like jelly? People would complain, hell, they'd even want that shit patched! There'd be articles on it everywhere, even on the dreaded Kotaku. Hell, people whined about puddles. So when you come across police in the city and they are written like the literary version of a kindergartener's stick figure drawing in an otherwise well written game, it raises an eyebrow for sure.I know you feel differently. I just don't care.

+1, @Zewp , completely agreed. This holy war that exists only in their heads is just ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Who said force? You said that word three times in that post but no one suggested anything of the sort prior to that, certainly not me. Why are you re-framing? Because you have an agenda? Insomniac created a realistic enough backdrop, but went with a very unrealistic depiction of one particular component of that backdrop... a component that just so happens to be ending a lot of PoC lives for no reason and does not behave in-game like its real life depiction. So yes, it's jarring. Imagine if the taxis floated or the water looked like jelly? People would complain, hell, they'd even want that shit patched! There'd be articles on it everywhere, even on the dreaded Kotaku. Hell, people whined about puddles. So when you come across police in the city and they are written like the literary version of a kindergartener's stick figure drawing in an otherwise well written game, it raises an eyebrow for sure.I know you feel differently. I just don't care.
Why are you doing this? Why are you playing the "Because you have an agenda?" card? This makes any discussion with you pointless - you're just going to act like I'm narrow-minded and therefore always wrong.

And you're missing one thing: The landscape and the political problems of a city are two very different aspects.
If "Spider-Man" would have included any other real life political topics (for example school shootings, terrorism) and deal with them during the storyline, I would totally get your problem. In that case the portrayal of the police would be pretty problematic.

But if you play the game, you can clearly see Insomniac didn't want to include ANY of this. They just wanted to create a simulation that looks like NYC, but feels like a NYC from another universe, filled with superhero and supervillain problems.

And please answer this question seriously: Do you think "Well, they put in the Statue of Liberty, so they have to put in police violence as well!" is a valid argument?
 
Why are you doing this? Why are you playing the "Because you have an agenda?" card? This makes any discussion with you pointless
People with agendas make discussion pointless. I'm not discussing with you. I'm telling you.

Oh great, another Rejectera member has decided to join up and set us straight.
I don't have an email that is accepted by resetera so I don't see how I could have an account there, but middle school name calling is always hilarious.
 
Oh great, another Rejectera member has decided to join up and set us straight.
Even though I don't agree with it he is entitled to his opinion but yes I do think he is being overly antagonistic and condescending so everyone attacks him so he can post on Reset how we only like free speech when it suits us.

If this isn't a character this poster is playing and they are actually this insufferable in real life I feel sorry for their immediate family and friends.

Comes across as one of those people that butts in and correct people on how their opinion is objectively wrong any chance they get.
 
People with agendas make discussion pointless. I'm not discussing with you. I'm telling you.
It's not an agenda. It's called an opinion. Please learn to respect others'.

If this isn't a character this poster is playing and they are actually this insufferable in real life I feel sorry for their immediate family and friends.
Well, I try to discuss with my family and friends and do not have to TELL them anything. So we're pretty happy, thank you very much for your concern.
 
Speaking of insufferable people... is this your response to everyone who tells people things?

Teacher: "I'm telling you to take out your books"

LOL FASCIST

Police: "I'm telling you not to go near that girl again"

LOL FASCIST

Your mom: "I'm telling you to get out of my house already"

LOL FASCIST