Detroit: Become Human

^^^^

Heimdall

I don't know if I entirely agree. He missed the part where Connor Vs Marcus, and temporarily, Connor vs Kara, you are literally playing against yourself.

I know specifically in the Connor chasing Kara scene that my heart wasn't in it. So when my hubs encouraged me to "listen to Hank" and not hop the fence to continue the chase, I gave in.

Additionally, Connor Vs Marcus when Connor can turn deviant OR shoot Marcus. I mean, I wasn't asking if If it made sense for Connor to kill Marcus, I was asking myself if I was ready to end the Revolution with a bullet. (not knowing that apparently North can take over?) I, the player, couldn't shoot Marcus. So Connor didn't either.

I found the conflict of role play desires in this intensely difficult, and I've never experienced this conflict in any other game I've played.

I don't really get the rampant hate of this game on the interwebz. Is it the best game evar? no. So?

People keep pointing out that it's a choose your own adventure interactive MOVIE and not a "Real" Video Game. So "go make a movie, David Cage!" Except movies invariably can't be made longer than 2 hours - I would barely have known the three protaganists and it certainly wouldn't have been a "pick your own ending" deal, I've never seen a pick your own adventure movie ever. So even if he wanted that, he wouldn't get to make it. 

I made a deal with a roommate to play "Last of Us" if he played Detroit Become Human, and man, did he get the better end of the bargain. I knew before this, loosely, that Naughty Dog made interactive movies and would therefore not like their games.

What I as the player get to control:

-Move forward running.
-Move Forward Shooting (and the shooting is terrible, I gave up on it and prefer shivving people. More consistent. Except Mother fuckers said I can only use a bat 10 times before it disentegrates. )
-Press a button at scripted locations to either pick up, jump, or climb.

^^^^ Literally remove the above, and what you have is a movie.  The only available endings I see so far is "succeed" because the PC dying is not an accepted outcome.

What I as the player don't get to control:
-what comes out of my PC's mouth ever
-How I'll resolve a situation (and no, stealth vs running in shooting guns blazing is not a role play choice to me)
- Probably whether or not this old man bangs tess, likes his child ward, or kills anyone (I thought I was going to be given a choice about Robert. HA! my expectations were too high!)

So the shitty shooting mechanics makes Last Of Us a "real" video game (more like frustrating headache), but the QTEs of Detroit make it not a video game?

And regarding story: People like Underdog stories. And if the Cival War and Civil Rights movement weren't something people likes watching/hearing/reading stories about, there wouldn't be at least one movie per year about it for the last decade of my life. 

In all honesty I agree that criticizing David Cage's games for not having "traditional gameplay" and saying that they "arent real video games" because of it is stupid, personally I prefer more engaging gameplay than just quick time events however having a game with a branching narrative that the player can influence is still a valid format within the video game medium, besides lets face it, people have no problem calling Guitar Hero a game despite it being little more than a QTE fest with a slightly more purpose build controller so why should the label of video game apply to it and not Quantic Dream or Telltale's works?

No my problem with David Cage's games is the other stuff usually associated with David Cage games, the bad writing and the pretentiousness, the horrible plot twists and red herrings that are never explained and make no sense and make you question why they were put in the game in the first place other than to try and confuse the player into thinking there is something deeper to the game than there actually is, the shallow caricatures of human beings that make it pretty clear who you should be rooting for and who you are supposed to hate.

At this point I should point out that it is probably unfair for me to judge Detroit as I have not played it and that my criticism is mostly based of Heavy Rain and Cage's other games, but considering what I have seen of the game so far I don't really have much reason to believe that Detroit is any different and considering Yahtzee's review highlights pretty much what I have come to expect from Quantic Dream I am kind of inclined to take his word for it.


Hey if you are going to shit all over the Last of Us you are kind of preaching to the choir there and would say that Naughty Dog are probably more guilty of trying to imitate film. While I can't deny the skill of those at Naughty Dog when it comes to making gameplay look good and feel like an action sequence in a movie I guess that is also part of the problem, the tightly controlled narrative and the linear level design does not really allow for particularly engaging or deep gameplay moments. And lets be honest, for all those harping on about how great the story and characters were, they really weren't all that great, personally I did not feel Ellie was quite as cute and charming as the developers wanted her to be and did not feel particularly invested in the characters and found it pretty hard to give a shit when something happened to them. While the writing in Naughty Dog games is arguably better than Quantic Dreams (not that it really says much) it still isn't that brilliant and if the games were movies (which is probably the medium the stories in those games are better suited to) I am pretty sure they would be pretty forgettable.

Also what is so great about that fucking Giraffe scene? I keep hearing people go on about how the Giraffe scene is "so emotion" and "much wow" but nobody ever explains why that is? It is just a bunch of Giraffes that escaped from the zoo, maybe it is making a point about how life goes on even after the apocalypse but then of course it fucking does! I those mushrooms seem pretty picky about who they infect and it seems that they only really effect humans so it is not like any of the other animals are in any danger of going extinct.


I personally don't really have much problem with it however when a game or piece of media set in a fictional universe sets up one group that is sort of the oppressed group that is supposed to play an allegory for racism as if they are shining a light on things that are supposedly happening in this day and age I kind of roll my eyes a bit.

I personally thought it was Kara's story. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't like it was poorly written or anything. But just seeing her on the run all the time and barely get involved with the main plot made me feel disconected with her character.

Connor was my favorite character but I cared about what happened to Kara and Alice more. Android or not, I couldn't let anything bad happen to a little girl.

Here it is. (Not yet signed obviously) I was speechless when he called out my name as the winner.

I thought it was a really well done chapter. The parallel to concentration camps gave it a really eerie atmosphere.

Re: Kara & Hank's opinion of Markus

It's something that's bugged me. Their opinions of Markus never change regardless of what type of person/leader Markus has been.

Kara: In Night of the Soul she tells Markus to save their people. That's okay if Markus has been portrayed as peaceful. But that's something you say to a conquering hero type. Is that really appropriate to say to a Markus that's been violent and has killed countless people? Is the violent Markus really the type of person that Kara wants to represent her and Alice? The type of leader she wants Alice to see?

Hank: In Last Chance, Connor Hank suggests to Connor that they might be on the wrong side and in Battle For Detroit Hank tells Connor (If still android) that he's about to kill a man who wants to be free. Again, these comments sound fine coming from Hank if Markus has been peaceful and has shed little to no blood. But a violent Markus can possibly kill several innocent people (The guards and the fleeing employee at the tower) and dozens and dozens of his coworkers on the police force, including Chris (Black cop that Markus can kill in Capitol Park) who Hank seemed to get along with. Why is Hank still defending Markus in these two situations?

What the heck

Big clue at Zlatko's is the ANDROID BLOOD all over his hands as he drinks bourbon and has a nice chat with you

 Makes sense to me, if Hank views those actions as justifiable. You may not agree with the sentiment, but I can see a moral basis for making it. Traci is a sex slave trying to escape her captivity, if I were Hank I'd feel the same way (providing I had come to believe that Androids were people which he has ample evidence of at that point).  Markus's actions I'd have to see in context, but again, it's basically a slave revolt.

That's fair, I'm saying that it makes sense, not that everyone will agree with it. In Tracy's case, if I haven't forgotten (haven't played the game in a while) , Connor doesn't shoot her as she is attacking him, he shoots her as she is attempting to escape. That isn't self defense but him "fulfilling his mission". As far as Markus, while I'd still have sympathy with him otherwise, one major reason I played him as a pacifist is it just makes more political sense. You don't gain needed support from your oppressors by killing lots of them. That is why I dubbed my Markus  "RoboGandhi",  and what a beautiful RoboGandhi he was!

Yesh, I definitely recall defensively shooting one Traci. I think the second one was optional?