I can. Common sense should tell you that I mean criticisms of a sensitive nature since that is what my comment is addressing. I said ''that goes for...'' and you have demonstrated above that you know the ''that'' in question refers to my sensitivity statement. So why then would I say that my point on sensitivity goes for everyone who had any criticism, regardless of the nature of it, for the mission? It makes no sense to say that goes for people who have unrelated criticisms, like yours.
I wouldn't. I didn't. So there was nothing there, and you still drew your conclusion. Your fault.
Common sense tells me that when you said "That goes for all the people who criticised this part of the game." that you meant "That goes for all the people who criticised this part of the game." There really isn't a whole lot of wiggle-room in that, is there? lol
If you were cherry-picking your intended "targets" you should have said so. It isn't my fault that you unintentionally lumped all people criticizing this mission for ANY REASON into the same group without even considering criticisms like mine, which are logistical and not emotional. Dude, just admit you didn't mean it the way you phrased it and move on! lol come on, man! You and I have had MANY arguments, but I don't think you are this unreasonable. Do you really want to dig your heels in on this one, when you said PRECISELY what I quoted and a plain text reading, without any mind-reading, yields only one possible interpretation?
Jeeze, dude, do you really think you are the first person in the history of message forums to fire off a post that was worded in a way you didn't actually mean? Will your universe really unravel if you admit that you phrased that poorly, and stop trying to make it seem like I made some interpretation mistake when those were your exact words?
Jeeze, dude, its okay to be wrong, particularly when you meant something different than what you fired off in a post. lol
Another thing. For any critics of the OP:
Here, let's analyze the first post in this thread, obviously created by FilthyLittleGod. Let's see if he is being irrational, unreasonable, or "too sensitive" for a GTA player.
Well, I just had to brutally torture a guy as Trevor.
This is just a factual statement, nothing more.
And I'm not sure how I feel about it.
This is honest. It is also NOT in any way critical of the game, the writing, the mission, or Rockstar for creating the mission or content.
I was surprised that I was not given a choice to refuse torturing or another option or means to get the information.
This is completely valid, as he was merely being honest about the fact that he was surprised. Notice, again, that he did NOT say that this made the mission or the game bad or wrong. He just expressed surprise that something this brutal was forced on the player and you had to torture Mr. K in order to move the story forward.
A lot of people were surprised by this, me included. Again, though, surprise is not criticism.
I felt powerless.
Understandable as you don't have the power to decide not to torture Mr. K, right? But, there again, feeling powerless is NOT criticizing the game. It is expressing a feeling.
I didn't WANT to torture him.
I would think that most people didn't want to torture him. I think this is part of what Dan Houser was trying to accomplish with this mission. He wanted people to think about the fact that torturing one guy in an abandoned warehouse is really no worse than all the murder and mayhem many of us have been causing in GTA games for over 16 years now. But putting a torture in everyone's faces forces us to face a reality that I honestly believe most people playing GTA have overlooked for over a decade.
It is a great videogame object lesson, to be honest. I didn't want to torture him either. Because slaughtering people and even mass murder from afar, in a vehicle, running on the streets, or shooting rockets at them from helicopters is an easy thing to become so desensitized to that the player can simply forget that they are butchering people in a brutal way, which is arguably a lot worse than torturing one guy in a warehouse but does not have the same impact because you don't see it right in front of your face.
Its a great object lesson for a GTA player, to be honest, even if I think the mission was poorly designed and just as poorly implemented and written.
It was weird.
From the standpoint of what players have come to expect from GTA games, it was initially weird. Definitely takes some getting used to. But, again, saying it was weird, is not criticising it or Rockstar.
It reminded me of the ending of Last Of Us when you are in that hospital room finally saving Ellie and you HAVE to kill the three medical technicians in the room.
That was a weird experience.
I never played the last of us, but I can get the gist of what FilthyLittleGod is saying here. He is noting that both endings were weird experiences. Again, he isn't criticizing, just trying to engage in a discussion.
I'm not going to lie, I'm kind of shaken up!
Since this is precisely what Dan Houser was going for, I would say mission accomplished. The OP reacted precisely as he was supposed to, and came to this forum to discuss the matter, which is also what he was supposed to do. Though, not necessarily this forum, there are many places people could discuss this scene and its impact on the player.
How did you guys feel about this part of the game?
See? All he is doing is trying to discuss this in..........wait for it.....................a discussion forum.