Distance Learning Office, Briercrest College, Caronport, SK
Taking a Short Break, 12:48PM
Weather = Sunny (for a change)
I have noticed that there is a wild inconsistency in some popular video games about the death of NPCs (Non-Play Characters), and it bothers me a little bit. When I played Red Dead Redemption I had to kill hundreds of bandits, banditos, rebels, soldiers, Indians, and policemen but at the end of the game one of the characters close to you dies and it's all emotional. Then you enter an impossible shoot out and kill as many of those invad'n government bastards as you can before they fill you full of lead. Then there's a huge emotional scene where your family buries you and the screen focuses in on your tombstone while a mournful Western plays in the background. My thought in all of this was "what about the other 100 some human beings that died trying to kill this one man? It would take a small army to carry off and bury all the corpses from that battle!"
The NPCs that died just kinda fade out of reality, they aren't important. All that we are supposed to care about is the main character and his personal connections, everyone else is simply that, everyone else, "them" and "them" is a clear division between "us" and "them." I thought this "us" and "them" distinction was fascinating, especially since part of the lesson in Red Dead was that often times "them" have motivations and reasons similar to our own and that it is society, not so much personal difference, that separates one from another. Sure the villains do terrible things, but so do you, (I'm serious, the character in Red Dead is forced to do some terrible things, even though he doesn't want to or even mean to) and so do the higher powers of government.
You the player get swept up in the emotion of "them" attacking "us" and when "them" gets "you" it is a sad moment, but also one duly deserved and one that you always knew was coming. It is heart wrenching to know that John's wife is now widowed, that your son will grow up without a father, and that everything you fought to protect, land, freedom, your family, can be taken from you at will.
But what about all those poor NPCs strewn throughout the Wild West? Did any of them have families? Most were young men, maybe they had fiances or a wife or children? As the player you kill them all without a second thought, but when it comes to the varmint scum NPC you're really after you want to give him a second chance and choose not to shoot the real villain in all this. What a strange double standard we have.
Then there's Assassin's Creed II and II.5. Ezio Auditore, the greatest Assassin in history will murder hundreds of soldiers who are just doing their duty to protect the peace (albeit some of them are corrupt) and tirelessly hunt down everyone involved in the murder of his parents, but he will not kill the one man who is the source of all the evil he has been trying to undo. It's as if no-name NPCs are open for slaughter but that there is something wrong with treating extremely evil super villains the same way. Once again, what about all those poor NPC families! Also, what about that sense of justice that is worth kill for? As an Assassin he should assassinate the source of evil at the head so that the unwitting soldiers at the bottom of the chain are no longer unknowingly serving evil forces.
So I am a bit confused. Why is it alright to kill mostly honest people doing their duty as well as corrupt middlemen and dignitaries, but not alright to kill the guy that is the reason why you need to kill everyone that you have been trying to kill for the entire game!?
In Red Dead, Marsdon should have killed the government agent when the two of them were alone after they murdered Dutch.
In Assassin's Creed II Ezio should have finished off Rodrigo Borgia before leaving to enter the vault.
In Assassin's Creed Brotherhood Ezio should have killed Ceasare Borgia and THEN drop him off the tower. He's not dead you know, Ceasare's mad rantings in the End Game and in the loading screen after he falls tells you that he not only doesn't die, but that he will be the main villain in Assassin's Creed 3.
But yes, food for thought I suppose. What is up with this double standard, and what does it say about our culture?
No comments:
Post a Comment