Having us kill civilians in Oriath Square is tasteless.

That could mean that in the chaos, oriath soldiers would not actually be good peacekeepers, or there just couod be other tweaks, it could be anything really.

GGG programs their AI, it might be trivial to have them not attack the citizens afawk (or it might not), there could be special mods on them, or there could just not be citizens to begin with, there could be "ennemy" citizens with oriath soldiers casting a spell on them to protect them while they reach a safe place (which would emphasis the fact that there is no right or wrong really), there could be .... a lot of different things, that could likely be realistically implemented (without costing much).

I don't think that GGG cares, so all of it is unrealistic to expect imho, but solutions .... there could be many.

"

That could mean that in the chaos, oriath soldiers would not actually be good peacekeepers, or there just couod be other tweaks, it could be anything really.

I suppose it's possible to conclude that our own characters on average are not good peacekeepers (and many other parts of the story including the new endgame support this so I think it's a fair assessment).

I guess you also could just read the OP again huh

Do I need to, to respond specifically to something in a post that wasn't the OP?

"

Fruz wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

I also think your being obtuse if you want to pretend the oriath scene doesn't fall within the story board part that is, lets say "unlikely to be modified in the foreseeable future", which might as well read as finished.(which was the point earlier)

Like i can sympathise with the "art is never finished" argument, but only from a rendering perspective because thats an actual trap and reality for artist.
But from a conceptual point of view, it really isn't the case.(or it shouldn't be the case for a professional, which i assume GGG hires)

I'm fairly confident this scene was constructed intently and with a certain amount of precision to reflect a story board element.

I am not expecting it to change, I simply want to point out some of the fallacious crap being thrown at the OP as it is a valid complaint, and "but it's art" or "art is something that you have to finish" (which is BS) or "you are direspecting the artist here" (utter BS, writing this without being ashamed of it is a bit mind blowing to me) definitely fall into this category.


Sure, it was likely not done conpletely unthought and without a story board, details, etc .... people worked on this for sure.
That said, given the amount of amateurish things that GGG have been doing, I have no troubles thinking that many things at GGG are being done rushed, with not enough care.
What this piece of content rush ? that's hard to say, but I do think that the people who decided to have those fleeing citizens in their current state could have thought more about it.

Again, I don't mind it much, but thinking about it ... yeah, it's a bit odd, it could be done better.

The OP wrote "i dont like to play a villain"

Which is an arbitrary complaint, which becomes even more redicilulous because the game is "path of exile" which has a story board centered around nothing but anti-hero arche-types.
So it's whole premise is to muddle in the moral grey zone, else they would have created a hero-arche-type story like marvel or DC oriented games.

He can make the complaint, but he cant expect it to be taken seriously.

Similar to how i don't take a child seriously when they tell me whats good for me.

As far as the "art" portion goes, either the arguments around art are valid or the entire premise of the thread doesn't mater.
Because if we cant use the story board as a relevant argument to justify the scene then neither can the OP utilize it as justification for why he "feels" like a vilain within that scene.(in the absence of the story board, everybody can be aligned with anything in that scene, obviously)

It's not like i don't understand the OP's complaint, its just that i can call it childish given the context of the game like many people pointed out already, if this alone "disturbed" you but nothing else of the scenes you played then there is most likely something wrong with you and not with everybody else who says "yes its a tasteless scene, by design, but so are countless others"

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Boem wrote:

As far as the "art" portion goes, either the arguments around art are valid or the entire premise of the thread doesn't mater.
Because if we cant use the story board as a relevant argument to justify the scene then neither can the OP utilize it as justification for why he "feels" like a vilain within that scene.(in the absence of the story board, everybody can be aligned with anything in that scene, obviously)

You don't need to mention the word "art" at all, if you can justify the how/why (the story board, for ecample) etc... you know, build a proper argumentation, as I already mentioned :

"

Fruz wrote:

just "it's art so it's fine" leads to knowhere (it implies that art is not something thought and constructed, and cannot be discussed which is aberrant really)

PS : Do you know that this "I don't like to play a villain" you ate refering to isn't the entirety of the first post, is something that you could completely ignore and the point you still stand ?

I support the initial post. Good point. I support the idea of protecting them from the monsters. Merry Xmas.

"

Fruz wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

As far as the "art" portion goes, either the arguments around art are valid or the entire premise of the thread doesn't mater.
Because if we cant use the story board as a relevant argument to justify the scene then neither can the OP utilize it as justification for why he "feels" like a vilain within that scene.(in the absence of the story board, everybody can be aligned with anything in that scene, obviously)

You don't need to mention the word "art" at all, if you can justify the how/why (the story board, for ecample) etc... you know, build a proper argumentation, as I already mentioned :

"

Fruz wrote:

just "it's art so it's fine" leads to knowhere (it implies that art is not something thought and constructed, and cannot be discussed which is aberrant really)

PS : Do you know that this "I don't like to play a villain" you ate refering to isn't the entirety of the first post, is something that you could completely ignore and the point you still stand ?

Your not making a nuanced distinction.

Art can be discussed and it can be critiqued, but that doesn't imply the critique is valid.(i already mentioned this before, if the critique is "it's tasteless" and this is in fact the aim then it is not a valid critique)

Art doesn't need to comform to any one persons subjective interpretation as evident in this thread.

People have made argumentations in this thread only to be shrugged and ignored because they don't align with the OP's position on the mater.

Somebody made the argument for example that "innocent" people regularly end up the victim in a revolution, which is in fact a reality.
Others made the argument that they were the previous slave-holders and oppresive majority prior to the rebellion so that calling them "innocent" is a far mental stretch.

The list goes on, browse the thread if you like a list of "arguments".

The free expression of artistic work, can in fact be utilized as an argument in this case, because it will never satisfy 100% of its viewers.
Which in itself imply's some people will take offense or distaste to the work which shouldn't hold any artist back in creating it.

Your argument would make somewhat sense if "ART" was the only counter argument being presented and not just one of many.

Peace,

-Boem-

edit : im going to assume you agree with everything else in my other post, since your partially quoting?

"

Boem wrote:

Somebody made the argument for example that "innocent" people regularly end up the victim in a revolution, which is in fact a reality.
Others made the argument that they were the previous slave-holders and oppresive majority prior to the rebellion so that calling them "innocent" is a far mental stretch.

This does not really justify putting the player in the role of the aggressor or the accomplice of it though, which was also pointed out.
War means innocent people die ? sure, but that isn't the issue.

Calling them innocent might be considered a 'mental stretch', but it's what GGG calls them, and there isn't even enough elements to know precisely who they are.

"

Boem wrote:

The free expression of artistic work, can in fact be utilized as an argument in this case, because it will never satisfy 100% of its viewers.
Which in itself imply's some people will take offense or distaste to the work which shouldn't hold any artist back in creating it.

This thread isn't "I don't like it so get rid of it", it's more like "because of x, y and z, I think that this should be done better. It also has this effect on myself and likely other persons (which is arguably an incentive for it to be changed)"


PS : I did not think necessary to answer to everything, but I do agree with many things you've said.

"

Boem wrote:

Your not making a nuanced distinction.

You have characterized 90% of the counter-arguments in this thread, including your own.

Here are the ones I've seen the most:

"

B-but they aren't innocent! They're former slaveholders!"

Whether or not they are sinners or not is not at issue. They are non-combatants. Civilians. The game itself describes them as "frightened citizens."

(Nuance.)

Has your character demonstrated throughout the game up to that point that s/he would be fine with killing "frightened citizens?"

"

If you take offense at this but not at the other shit in this game, then there is something seriously wrong with you. Bad stuff happens to innocents all the time in PoE.

An appeal to emotion, coupled with an ad hominem.

Also ignores the difference between you the character doing bad things and other people in the world doing bad things.

(Not nuance. This is fucking obvious.)

"

Just don't kill them then.

Ignores the lack of true agency, due to this genre's (and especially PoE's) game mechanics.

Also, they are flagged as hostiles; an affordance which in this game means, in literally every other area before and after that point, "This is an enemy. You are supposed to kill it."

(Nuance.)

"

It's an artistic vision; it's supposed to make you uncomfortable.

Among other commonly ignored points I acknowledged in the OP, this is absolutely a legitimate thing for a game to do, when done well. When done poorly, it is tasteless, yes. You say that an accusation of "tasteless" makes any critique of art ultimately invalid, but you do not justify that claim. (Probably because it is an asinine premise.)

There are a number of games out there which have done this well (and certainly a hell of a lot better than PoE); I don't think I have to list them, because almost all of us agree that they exist.

"

OP's arguments are childish.

More ad hominem, and I do believe this is your personal favorite fallacy to use, Boem. I've seen it in multiple threads.

It's also how I know when you have become emotionally invested. ;) (Usually to a fault, since your arguments typically become more chaotic after this point, as if you are desperate to "win" or something.)

"

Art will never satisfy everyone. That's the point of art!

And it's not supposed to. But that does not mean any given work of art has no function to fulfill. If the apparent function is not fulfilled well, then that is a perfect grounds for any criticism of the art in question. In this case, it is a criticism of a form of art which evolves and changes over time by design due to the nature of software-as-service, making it especially relevant.

To say otherwise is to suggest that the Feedback and Suggestions forum has no place for criticism of anything other than gameplay mechanics, design bugs, and typos. And this is quite obviously untrue.

"

They're. Not. Real. People.

This argument suggests that fictional narratives are immune to criticism because fiction consists of... fictional characters? No shit? Seriously, some people on these forums are downright brilliant.

(Not nuance. Also fucking obvious.)

"

Of all the problems in this game, you criticize THIS?

Ignores the OP (the very first sentence, no less). It also suggests that criticism should never be levied when more urgent criticism exists, which just doesn't hold up to common sense, since relative urgency itself is so highly subjective.

(Nuance.)

You see, I DO appreciate the value of nuance, which is why I ignored most of those, umm, unnuanced posts. (Also because, like I said earlier, I have neither the time nor desire to respond to every shit post.)

It is the game's job to demonstrate convincingly that it is perfectly in character for the protagonist to run around killing "frightened citizens." Does it do so or not? The criticism described in the OP quite explicitly says that the game does not, and yet most of the arguments don't even touch that question; they just dance around it and avoid it.

See, you can list a whole avalanche of reasons you disagree with a position, but they are ultimately nothing more than a smokescreen if they individually do not hold up.

If it seems like I'm not particularly active in this thread, that is why. I'm not interested in repeatedly responding to the same bad arguments over and over. It's not likely that any new and valid arguments will be brought up. (If they are, I may respond.)

Also, the thread has already accomplished its explicit goal of making thoughtful people think, and its unintentional goal of annoying people who, quite frankly, probably deserve to be annoyed.

Will it lead to change? Probably not--this is GGG, after all, who are willing to sit on a known issue for years before fixing it. And there are also much more pressing issues for them to deal with now, such as fixing the currency and map tabs. ;)