Support NeoGAF

[Remachinate]

I don't know, there are a lot of times in the game where if you make one mistake you will die quickly particularly on higher difficulties. You really have to be strategic and outwit your opponents because in general they are equally skilled. It is a real stretch to say that that is dissonance.

But dying and restarting is a gameplay conceit. Canonically, the only time in the story Joel is less than invincible is

Spoiler

when he lands on that beam, which has its own narrative issues.

 

[N2NOther]

The complaints about Tomb Raider are exaggerated at best. The game does a good job of setting up the transition Lara goes through if you're paying attention. People make it seem like she kills one dude, freaks out and then goes Rambo. This is not the case at all.

I wrote a piece about for my site for this interested.

An excerpt:

In Grand Theft Auto IV, Niko Bellic is presented as a former criminal with a violent past who has come to America to start a new life sans killing and crime. Yet nearly every single mission has him committing a crime and killing people, all the while shouting aggressive obscenities at his opponents only to moments later, continue saying how he doesn’t want to kill anyone.

This is not the case in Tomb Raider. We are presented with a young Lara, inexperienced in both killing and raiding tombs. Over the course the narrative, Lara evolves into an aggressive, skilled survivor who will do whatever it takes to protect the people she cares about and herself. The gameplay feeds directly into this evolution by locking away more aggressive kills behind tiered progression. As the story and game unfolds, the game offers players these new skill sets directly in step with Lara’s narrative arc.

The an old adage in film is “Show, don’t tell." A good visual storyteller tells us exactly what we need to know for the story they are telling. The audience can fill in the gaps. When we first meet Indiana Jones, he pulls out his whip and snaps a gun out of a would-be attacker’s hand. We never needed to know how and when he learned to use a whip, we now know that he does and we can move on. Another aspect the game handles deftly, and perhaps a bit too subtly, is Lara’s prowess with a firearm. It seems that there is a misconception that because Lara has never killed before, it must mean that she’s never fired a gun. Jokes and asides have been made about how Lara is an expert shot despite the fact that she’s never killed anyone.

http://gamerhorizon.com/tomb-raider-and-the-myth-of-disconnect/

 

[hawk2025]

Game developers should stop trying to craft emotional pathos heavy stories with protagonists that single handedly kill dozens or hundreds of people. It's commando reciting Shakespeare. Ebert was right.

Disagreed.

TLoU did It fantastically well. Have you played it?

 

[jayu26]

Which is the definition of narrative dissonance .

I think you don't understand what that means. Narrative dissonance come from things you are doing in the world that is in stark contrast to the character arc.

I think you are confusing lack of clever (a very clever actually) AI with narrative dissonance. Narrative-ly you are trying to be stealthy, hence your companion AI does not get spotted.

 

[hawk2025]

But dying and restarting is a gameplay conceit. Canonically, the only time in the story Joel is less than invincible is

Spoiler

when he lands on that beam, which has its own narrative issues.

Completely untrue. Being deeply hurt and having to craft and apply healing materials is cooked into the gameplay.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. By your logic, "canonically" the AI partner was never seen, and thus is not an issue either.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

Says common sense. Joel is no superman who's received operative-level training, and Ellie is a fourteen year-old girl who's only recently had to participate in these kinds of confrontations. Put them up against a coordinated band of men who've had to deal with the same challenges of the post-infection world, and it's difficult to see them emerging victorious every time.

I'll admit that Ellie and Joel's... effectiveness...

Spoiler

(particularly Ellie)

in combat is pretty unbelievable, but since their success is determined by my actions and inputs as the player I'm okay with it. There are many scenarios where they can fail and die (trust me, I died a lot!), they just don't push the narrative forward. That works fine for me, especially because of how well TLoU defines and justifies the context and motivations for the killings.

I do think it would be cool if the game had somehow focused even less on combat, but as it stands I'm fine with what we got (it was a ton of fun, for one thing) and I had no issues with it negatively impacting my view of the narrative. I can understand your perspective, though.

 

[spandexmonkey]

If you think that Joel's character should somehow be massively affected by his body count throughout the game, you may have missed his entire backstory in between when the apocalypse begins and when the game starts.

I don't think that, nor did I miss his backstory. Joel as a character was fine. My problem is there is no weight or consequence to killing another human in the game, they're just bandit_01, even though they establish early on that humanity is on the brink. During gameplay there is never any question of whether or not you should kill someone, even though the story suggests not everyone is a lunatic.
In most games this doesn't bother me, but TLoU works very hard to establish itself as having a serious tone (the writing was pretty effective at this). I felt that tone was repeatedly shattered by the gameplay encouraging me to be Rambo.

 

[Kinyou]

Last of Us did it pretty well. You still fight too many enemies (at least for my taste) but Joel is widely acknowledged as being more than just a normal guy. He's stronger and tougher than most of the people you'll meet.

 

[Takamura-San]

I don't think that, nor did I miss his backstory. Joel as a character was fine. My problem is there is no weight or consequence to killing another human in the game, they're just bandit_01, even though they establish early on that humanity is on the brink. During gameplay there is never any question of whether or not you should kill someone, even though the story suggests not everyone is a lunatic.
In most games this doesn't bother me, but TLoU works very hard to establish itself as having a serious tone (the writing was pretty effective at this). I felt that tone was repeatedly shattered by the gameplay encouraging me to be Rambo.

What should be the consequence of killing bandits on TLOU?

 

[Draft]

Disagreed.

TLoU did It fantastically well. Have you played it?

im not very interested in scripted gaming anymore tbh.

 

[pa22word]

Disagreed.

TLoU did It fantastically well. Have you played it?

It did it "okay". There are still problems like with plot shot and disproportionate body count.

Probably the only "realistic" shooter I've ever seen do it well was Spec Ops: The Line, and that game did it entirely to make a point about games like BioShock Infinite doing it wrong, so I really don't think that should count.

 

[spandexmonkey]

What!? Maybe you haven't finished the game but the game certainly acknowledges this and it is a powerful moment

Spoiler

David

. Also, I completely agree that the game "encourages" you to kill. Killing is hard, uses valuable resources, and draws attention to you, stealth and avoiding combat is a much better strategy.

I did beat the game and I didn't find the moment all that powerful,

Spoiler

particularly because I didn't like how they handled David. The whole chapter was right out of an 80s revenge action flick, completely at odds with the first half of the game, in my opinion.

 

[Somnid]

It's a problem simply because too many games focus on something plot-driven. This is exactly why story-telling in games tends to be bad, you are forced to do things you may not be interested in for the sake of a cohesive narrative but you still need leeway in order to not completely box in the player. It's a intractable problem and it's a good argument for not tying your game to a strong plot and instead let the medium work for you rather than against.

 

[hawk2025]

im not very interested in scripted gaming anymore tbh.

Then it's a bit silly to say devs should just stop trying, don't you think?

 

[need4speed]

Umm, that's a 100% gameplay-based mechanic. If your companions got spotted by the enemy while you were trying to be stealthy it would piss you off to no end considering their spotty pathfinding.

That's far more story breaking then all the killing in Infinite, I understand you needed to kill to survive, naughty dog was just lazy. They could have gone with the RE4 route and tell the girl to hide somewhere and proceed to kill the enemies.

 

[spandexmonkey]

It's a problem simply because too many games focus on something plot-driven. This is exactly why story-telling in games tends to be bad, you are forced to do things you may not be interested in for the sake of a cohesive narrative but you still need leeway in order to not completely box in the player. It's a intractable problem and it's a good argument for not tying your game to a strong plot and instead let the medium work for you rather than against.

I completely agree. TLoU's writing was so effective that it's gameplay concessions really stand out to me.

 

[antitrop]

I don't think that, nor did I miss his backstory. Joel as a character was fine. My problem is there is no weight or consequence to killing another human in the game, they're just bandit_01, even though they establish early on that humanity is on the brink. During gameplay there is never any question of whether or not you should kill someone, even though the story suggests not everyone is a lunatic.
In most games this doesn't bother me, but TLoU works very hard to establish itself as having a serious tone (the writing was pretty effective at this). I felt that tone was repeatedly shattered by the gameplay encouraging me to be Rambo.

Okay, I see what you're getting at.

I suppose I just took it that Joel doesn't really give a shit about the live's of these people, why should he? In the apocalyptic survival situations you only have time and energy to care about yourself and your direct loved ones.

Joel is a killer, always has been (in this new world), but Lara is an innocent teenage girl stuck on a scary island!

That's where I see the major difference.

 

[Sky Chief]

I don't think that, nor did I miss his backstory. Joel as a character was fine. My problem is there is no weight or consequence to killing another human in the game, they're just bandit_01, even though they establish early on that humanity is on the brink. During gameplay there is never any question of whether or not you should kill someone, even though the story suggests not everyone is a lunatic.
In most games this doesn't bother me, but TLoU works very hard to establish itself as having a serious tone (the writing was pretty effective at this). I felt that tone was repeatedly shattered by the gameplay encouraging me to be Rambo.

I totally disagree, when you kill someone in the game Ellie doesn't say "Good job! High five!" or anything like that. She responds to your murder saying, "Shit Joel!" or something else that makes you realize just how brutal you are. Also I thought that

Spoiler

David

certainly showed you that there were consequences to your actions and made you aware that you were a bit of a psycho.

 

[N2NOther]

One... I hate this term.


Two... TLoU uses every single last piece of gameplay and violence in its story. It's all part of the visual storytelling, both subtle and graphic.

Not on Normal difficulty it doesn't. They establish that supplies are limited, more specifically, bullets are limited, and yet I left so many bullets behind because my backpack could only carry like 16 bullets for my handgun? I spent just as much time not picking up bullets because the gameplay forced arbitrary limitations on me as I did killing people.

It wasn't until Survivor mode that the world they built and established matched the gameplay.

 

[Takamura-San]

That's far more story breaking then all the killing in Infinite, I understand you needed to kill to survive, naughty dog was just lazy. They could have gone with the RE4 route and tell the girl to hide somewhere and proceed to kill the enemies.

Who's to say that they didn't test that option and it didn't play way to the environment?

The we would have a situation that a place not only has waist height cover but this convenient trash can for ellie to hide.

 

[hawk2025]

That's far more story breaking then all the killing in Infinite, I understand you needed to kill to survive, naughty dog was just lazy. They could have gone with the RE4 route and tell the girl to hide somewhere and proceed to kill the enemies.

Surely you see how attempting to program the AI to be active and helpful during battle is less "lazy" then telling it to hide somewhere?

 

[Chuck Norris]

Says common sense. Joel is no superman who's received operative-level training, and Ellie is a fourteen year-old girl who's only recently had to participate in these kinds of confrontations. Put them up against a coordinated band of men who've had to deal with the same challenges of the post-infection world, and it's difficult to see them emerging victorious every time.

Hence why every combat encounter in the game is successfully designed to make you feel as if you are surviving by the skin of your teeth

 

[Akuun]

I've never heard of this term until I got to this thread, but I'd say Bioshock Infinite does a pretty decent job of blending gameplay and story.

Tomb Raider totally does not. The game regularly goes between gameplay sequences of single-handedly slaughtering 30 guys with cold precision to shitty shaky-cam scenes of Lara cowering while making hurt/scared noises. It shoves so many of these "Lara is hurt/scared" scenes down your throat that it gets tiring really, really fast.

 

[Salmonbottle]

I don't think games should strive for realism. They need to become more comfortable with abstraction.

JRPGs have some of the most celebrated stories in gaming and they're ridiculously abstract. Turn-based combat. Cutscenes are often static portraits accompanied by text boxes. Intentionally slaughtering countless animals to grind up your magic powers for the next boss battle.

No one complains about that stuff, though. It's presented in an abstract, non-literal way.

When videogames try to make the entire thing a real-time interactive cutscene, they're going to run into problems like ludonarrative dissonance.

Not everything needs to be a realistic sim. Games can just be games.

 

[Conciliator]

Last of Us does do pretty well with this but there is still an absurdity to the sheer number of dudes you kill. This is ultimately the core problem with this kind of stuff and I don't know how it can be fixed while maintaining the basic gameplay structures that we've grown accustomed to. How do you have a self-serious action game without the dissonance?

The thing about tomb raider is that the story is so dumb anyway it just kind of gets away with it.

Infinite is bad about it though, that was definitely in my head for most of my Infinite play time.

 

[Remachinate]

Completely untrue. Being deeply hurt and having to craft and apply healing materials is cooked into the gameplay.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. By your logic, "canonically" the AI partner was never seen, and thus is not an issue either.

I'm not sure if you can call it deeply hurt, if you're wrapping a bullet wound in a rag soaked in alcohol and still operating at the same effectiveness.

No, canonically, your AI partners were consistently in the sight lines of enemies but ignored, either because they had the power of invisibility or the enemies all had a psychological blind spot.

I'll admit that Ellie and Joel's... effectiveness...

Spoiler

(particularly Ellie)

in combat is pretty unbelievable, but since their success is determined by my actions and inputs as the player I'm okay with it. There are many scenarios where they can fail and die (trust me, I died a lot!), they just don't push the narrative forward. That works fine for me, especially because of how well TLoU defines and justifies the context and motivations for the killings.

I do think it would be cool if the game had somehow focused even less on combat, but as it stands I'm fine with what we got (it was a ton of fun, for one thing) and I had no issues with it negatively impacting my view of the narrative. I can understand your perspective, though.

It's fine to be able to enjoy a game despite the presence of ludonarrative dissonance; different people have different tolerances for it. But I'm just identifying instances where it happens, not making a value judgement on how it affects the quality of the game.

 

[Zen]

can't recall the game ever encouraging you to Rambo.

 

[Chuck Norris]

I don't think that, nor did I miss his backstory. Joel as a character was fine. My problem is there is no weight or consequence to killing another human in the game, they're just bandit_01, even though they establish early on that humanity is on the brink. During gameplay there is never any question of whether or not you should kill someone, even though the story suggests not everyone is a lunatic.
In most games this doesn't bother me, but TLoU works very hard to establish itself as having a serious tone (the writing was pretty effective at this). I felt that tone was repeatedly shattered by the gameplay encouraging me to be Rambo.

But that is not the case at all, the entire winter section of the game is based around addressing the notion of faceless bandits. And they put a masterful spin on it

Spoiler

by depicting Joel and Ellie as insane murderers from the perspective of the other survivors in David's village.

The gameplay and story are about doing everything possible to survive. I have no idea where you got from the narrative that its about choosing who lives and who dies. It's a mean, harsh fight for life at every turn in this game and the themes consistently reinforce how harsh the reality of that world is at every stage.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

It's fine to be able to enjoy a game despite the presence of ludonarrative dissonance; different people have different tolerances for it. But I'm just identifying instances where it happens, not making a value judgement on how it affects the quality of the game.

Sure, but it's worth discussing the degree of the dissonance, because quite frankly it's present to some degree in every game with a story ever created. I think the example you're referring to in TLoU is quite minor on the grand spectrum.

 

[CzarTim]

I think you don't understand what that means. Narrative dissonance come from things you are doing in the world that is in stark contrast to the character arc.

I think you are confusing lack of clever (a very clever actually) AI with narrative dissonance. Narrative-ly you are trying to be stealthy, hence your companion AI does not get spotted.

I get what you're saying, that makes since. I do think anytime gameplay contrasts with the story there is a dissonance there. If ludonarrative dissonance isn't the right term, that's fine.

 

[IvorB]

This actually really bothers me to be honest. If developers idea of "story" in games is having some gameplay going which is intermittently interrupted by bouts of "story" delivered in cut scenes that bear little relation to the gameplay then just don't bother. If the game is about shooting people then the story needs to be about shooting people. If the gamplay is slaying mythical monsters then that's what your story needs to be.

This bothers me on a macro level but also on a micro level as well where characters behave in ways that are totally different to how they behave when you control them. A big one was Mass Effect where biotic characters frequently did amazing things like flying etc with their biotics in cut scenes but in gameplay they just have the standard set of four powers or whatever.

It just takes a bit of thought and care in execution but considering the state of story-telling in gaming in general it's hardly surprising this issue is not high on the agenda. At least some developers seem to get it.

 

[electricpirate]

BSI was an interesting example of Ludonarrative dissonance. On one hand, throughout the game Booker is a goddamn monster, even as he laments his violence. It all seems out of place, but the violence still looks to be counter to his character.

At the end though, it all is revealed (Major ending spoilers)

Spoiler

Booker is a monster, He's Comstock, and he's responsible for this violence. Everything he does results in the horrible death of thousands. Suddenly alll that violence makes sense, even if Booker superficially laments it, it is hiim.

My issue with it though, is that BSI waits to resolve the ludonarrative dissonance until the end. Games like Spec ops hammer it on you throughout the game, but BSI just has a few moments where Elizabeth comments on how horrible their mass murder spree is.

 

[Remachinate]

I think you don't understand what that means. Narrative dissonance come from things you are doing in the world that is in stark contrast to the character arc.

I think you are confusing lack of clever (a very clever actually) AI with narrative dissonance. Narrative-ly you are trying to be stealthy, hence your companion AI does not get spotted.

I get what you're saying, that makes since. I do think anytime gameplay contrasts with the story there is a dissonance there. If ludonarrative dissonance isn't the right term, that's fine.

Ludonarrative dissonance involves much more than just character motivations, it has to do with an internally consistent world, which is necessary for a meaningful narrative. And I think having some characters requiring cover while others don't certainly falls in that category. It was the right gameplay choice, but that doesn't mean there isn't dissonance.

Sure, but it's worth discussing the degree of the dissonance, because quite frankly it's present to some degree in every game with a story ever created. I think the example you're referring to in TLoU is quite minor on the grand spectrum.

I don't think it's any less significant than any other game with a high body count. Can you give me an idea of games a lot higher on the spectrum in your mind?

 

[-griffy-]

Which is the definition of narrative dissonance .

That's not narrative dissonance. The characters themselves are actively trying to avoid being spotted, they make efforts to hide and stay behind cover. The narrative of those scenes is to avoid being spotted and for the most part it works out fine and believably, it's just that sometimes the systems don't work perfectly and your companion hasn't gotten behind cover before an enemy is in sight of them. It's a technical problem more than anything. At the end of the day, the characters are trying to remain hidden and the gameplay mechanic they put in place is that the enemies can't see your companions if the player character is hidden, to maintain that narrative.

Narrative dissonance in this case would be if in the cutscene or dialog the characters say "Shit, there's some guys up ahead, let's sneak around them," and then immediately when the cutscene ends Ellie jumps up and starts shooting at them, starting an action sequence instead of a stealth sequence. The narrative doesn't match the gameplay in that case and you would have dissonance.

 

[Nikodemos]

Regarding Bioshock Infinite, the guy doing Errant Signal clips discusses this in the first ~5 minutes of his (tad long-winded) game review.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ2cSKBFBDQ

 

[Sub_Level]

The only AAA story driven game to not suffer from this at all is Mgs2, because the narrative of that game is literally you playing it.

 

[pa22word]

I think you don't understand what that means. Narrative dissonance come from things you are doing in the world that is in stark contrast to the character arc.

I think you are confusing lack of clever (a very clever actually) AI with narrative dissonance. Narrative-ly you are trying to be stealthy, hence your companion AI does not get spotted.

Uh, no.

Ludonarrative dissonance by its very definition refers to any disconnect between the story presented and the game as it's being played. So yes, the AI not being agro'd when Ellie runs face first into them introduces a disconnect as the game's narrative presents them as intelligent human beings who are very capable of realizing when something runs into them.

The underlying issue here is though this type of dissonance will always occur when game's mechanics and systems are entirely in service of the story. The only way to fix this is to either design a game whoms system's are completely and utterly in service of the narrative (The Walking Dead, Silent Hill 2, etc), or stop designing games that are in service of the narrative and instead design narratives that are in service of the mechanics (stuff like Splinter Cell, Max Payne 1-2, etc).

 

[Andrew Korenchkin]

If anything, I'd say TLoU is currently one of the BEST examples on how to believably blend story and gameplay.

Yeah, I believe The Last of Us is the first title that overcomes the frequent issues with Dissonance in games.

Also, if any body feels that humans aren't capable of killing a large amount of people, here you go for real life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_Häyhä

 

[Charrettizard]

I'm gonna suggest you all read this.

What is this link exactly? Well, this is the blog post where the term ludonarrative dissonance was first coined by game developer, and current Valve employee (though not when he coined it), Clint Hocking.

Why should you read it? So you can better understand what the term means and what it means for the games you play.

 

[Aureon]

NotATarget companions are a prime example of this.

I think the one of the most egregious scene of dissonance is in FFX:

Spoiler

Attack on Bevelle, just taken down a freaking dragon, get gun pointed at chest, surrender. But i took thousands of those bullets in combat!

Still: One of the first rules of the medium is that story-related constrains should ALWAYS work around the necessities of the gameplay, and NOT the other way round.

If the plot requires the gameplay to be un-fun, change the plot or ignore it. Gameplay is everything.

 

[PK Gaming]

I feel like Bioshock Infinite is actually one of the worst offenders actually. The amount of enemies the game throws at you is crazy, and i'm pretty sure a human can't possibly eat that much food (it should have been potions...)

There's a noticeably divide between gameplay & story.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

I don't think it's any less significant than any other game with a high body count. Can you give me an idea of games a lot higher on the spectrum in your mind?

Well first off, even "high body count" is a little misleading because body count varies tremendously from game to game. TLoU has way less enemies than any FPS I've played or even a game like Uncharted 2, for instance. The games that I consider high on the spectrum regarding that particular type of dissonance are the ones that don't ever really address the killings (or do it poorly), such as the Uncharted games and Tomb Raider. Joel and Ellie's actions are contextualized very well within the world of TLoU.

In terms of the more specific dissonance you're referring to (which I see as sort of a smaller part of the previously mentioned one) at least we can imagine that Joel and Ellie are intelligent enough to systematically eliminate a decent number of opponents even with the odds against them. Since "ramboing" into an encounter will often lead to a quick death, particularly on higher difficulties, Joel and Ellie's survival against the odds seems more believable to me.

 

[Coconut]

If anything, I'd say TLoU is currently one of the BEST examples on how to believably blend story and gameplay.

You know people are saying this but what do you mean. Give examples of this in the game please.

 

[Remachinate]

I'm gonna suggest you all read this.

What is this link exactly? Well, this is the blog post where the term ludonarrative dissonance was first coined by game developer, and current Valve employee (though not when he coined it), Clint Hocking.

Why should you read it? So you can better understand what the term means.

Thanks junior, but Clint only coins the term to discuss his discomfort with BioShock in particular, and admits he only half-understands his point. It's the beginning of the conversation on the term, not the end of it.

 

[Lunar15]

I nominate MGS2 as being really awesome at actually playing with the fact that you were playing a video game. I know not everyone is in to that l, though, so ill also go with spec ops for perfecfly saying what it wanted to say through the concept of a game.

 

[Screaming Meat]

In Grand Theft Auto IV, Niko Bellic is presented as a former criminal with a violent past who has come to America to start a new life sans killing and crime. Yet nearly every single mission has him committing a crime and killing people, all the while shouting aggressive obscenities at his opponents only to moments later, continue saying how he doesn’t want to kill anyone.

To paraphrase someone on these very boards:

"Says one thing, does another. Sounds like everyone I know."

 

[Snowden's Secret]

Err, if the world they were killing those people in were what we know today, I'd agree, but the game sets up a world that has gone to hell over the span of 20 years. It's a different world where you have to kill to survive and the character was set up as someone who is willing to do it.

Haven't played it, so maybe that's the point, but humans in a world that has gone to hell are still humans.

 

[Ingueferroque]

That kind of thing doesn't really bother me. You're going to shoot/kill a lot of people in action games, so deal with it. Plus I thought BioShock Infinite and The Last of Us handled this issue with finesse, considering the respective plots and gameplay structures.

It doesn't have to be that way though. It really doesn't.

 

[-griffy-]

Haven't played it, so maybe that's the point, but humans in a world that has gone to hell are still humans.

And in this world, there are humans who call themselves "hunters" who every day only go out to find "tourists," people who are just passing through trying to survive, and these hunters kill the tourists so they can get their supplies and make themselves stronger and survive longer. They set up traps, ambushes, pretend to need help and when you are vulnerable they kill you, take your shoes, your weapons, your food for themselves. It's literally a kill or be killed world.

It's also never really "waves" of humans. You'll encounter 3-5 enemies in an area, often times you can simply sneak past them without killing anyone. Sometimes when you kill that group 3 more guys will come into the area. It's completely different from any other action game where literal waves of enemies will keep coming at you. You probably kill as many people in the entirety of Last of Us as some single COD levels.

 

[Andrew Korenchkin]

I feel like Bioshock Infinite is actually one of the worst offenders actually. The amount of enemies the game throws at you is crazy, and i'm pretty sure a human can't possibly eat that much food (it should have been potions...)

There's a noticeably divide between gameplay & story.

Well, Ken himself has said he feels that he doesn't have an answer to Infinite and the issues with dissonance in gaming in general, which is refreshing because a developer like him is willing to admit his own game has that shortcoming as much as any other game. Check out the talk with Amy and Ken, and they discuss this at length. Hell, how many people does Commander Shepard Kill? Grand Theft Auto is another offender, as was Tomb Raider. Or Far Cry 3, which is extremely jarring and weird with his narrative. The only game I feel that doesn't suffer from this is System Shock 2.