Having us kill civilians in Oriath Square is tasteless.

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

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

"

"

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."

"

"

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.

"

"

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.

"

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.

"

007Bistromath wrote:

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

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

For at least half of the classes, yes, absolutely and obviously. "That would just make life complicated" is not a moral compunction. The PC doesn't kill people in towns mostly because they serve a purpose, and secondarily out of solidarity with fellow exiles.

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

frightened citizens

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

frightened citizens

"

Fruz wrote:

"

007Bistromath wrote:

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

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

For at least half of the classes, yes, absolutely and obviously. "That would just make life complicated" is not a moral compunction. The PC doesn't kill people in towns mostly because they serve a purpose, and secondarily out of solidarity with fellow exiles.

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

frightened citizens

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

frightened citizens

FRIGHTENED CITIZENS



I did not bother checking the rest,too much bad faith at the very beginning, likely more following up (seriously).

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

Spoiler

"

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.

"

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. ;)

"

Boem wrote:

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

Spoiler

"

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.

"

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. ;)

You need to look up the difference between a citizen and a civilian, because i assume your confusion derives from this conflation of definitions in relation to the narrative.

A civilian is protected by what most nation currently describe to within the "rules of war" a citizen is not.(not that current morality has any correlation to the in-game narative but i assume your correlating it to that to tag them as "tasteless" murders)

Peace,

-Boem-

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

Yes Boem, I understand the difference between the meanings of the words "citizen" and "civilian." One does not exclude the other.

Do you honestly not know what a civilian is, or are you just pretending not to for some reason?

"

Boem wrote:

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

Yes Boem, I understand the difference between the meanings of the words "citizen" and "civilian." One does not exclude the other.

Do you honestly not know what a civilian is, or are you just pretending not to for some reason?

In the rules of war they can actually exclude one another.

For example a soldier fighting is a citizen of a country but he is not a civilian.

"

Which is why i thought perhaps you werent differentiating between those two and atributing "innocence" to them, when both citizen and frightened don't mark that atribute.

Peace,

-Boem-