Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Why do people consider "Deconstruction" a disturbing mission?

65 replies to this topic
Am Shaegar
  • Am Shaegar

    Chartered Accountant

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2017
  • None

#61

Posted 3 days ago Edited by Am Shaegar, 3 days ago.

How? Please explain..

 

Casa's corpse was put through the meat grinder by Toni, while the Body Harvest missions' objective is to simply steal the harvester with no gory violence, unless the player himself decides to kill those people on the farm.

You can complete the mission with 0 killings

Run along the outside borders of the survivalist farm until you get to the back where the harvester is. When it gets close to you, climb over the wall and jack it. Then it's a simple matter of avoiding the people on foot (try to break through a fence to drive outside the borders of the farm), and dodging the pickup trucks until you arrive safely at The Truth's place. Fortunately, the harvester is pretty tough, and can take a lot of punishment. So don't worry about the survivalists ramming you and shooting at you, and concentrate on your driving.

SpicyDragon
  • SpicyDragon

    Not a furry

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2017
  • United-Kingdom

#62

Posted 3 days ago

You bury a man alive. Whilst he drowns in his own piss and sh*t. Everytime you drive past doherty you drive past a starved sh*t-covered corpse buried under cement.


j7n
  • j7n

    Buster

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2013
  • None

#63

Posted 3 days ago

I find that the 0 killing method amounts to bypassing part of the mission, taking advantage of a technical anomaly (increased health of the vehicle, much like lack of police or impossible damage immunities elsewhere), not taking one of less violent scripted routes, such as purchasing the harvester from the farmers or getting another from somewhere else. It makes no sense that the very object the player wants to obtain can get rammed and delivered damaged. The game confronts the player with the survivalists, which he has to run over, or kill with a gun to protect the mission objective (as I do by obtaining the sniper rifle).

The methods described in that thread amount to extreme tedium, and abusing the game script or physics. Explode a car onto a person, and it doesn't count as a kill. It's an "alternate" way of exploring the game code, outside of the story.

An example of an almost valid scripted path would be where the game tells you that you need a camera in Architectural Espionage, and suggested one option of obtaining one. But unfortunately even then it says we "need" to take if from the tourists.

I must agree that the mission is disturbing. Although in my first and even second playthough, I was so focused on the task that I didn't see dying people, but just markers and timers (in most missions). Later I thought it was strange that the killings weren't investigated by police, and different construction workers sent by the owner.

Am Shaegar
  • Am Shaegar

    Chartered Accountant

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2017
  • None

#64

Posted 2 days ago

.. which he has to run over, or kill with a gun to protect the mission objective (as I do by obtaining the sniper rifle).

There's no question of "bypassing part of the mission" because the cutscenes in the beginning don't say anything about killing those survivalists, or running them over. It only cautions the player that they will not take kindly to any strangers. Your goal is to enter the farm and steal the harvester. That's all.
Regarding taking advantage of any technical anamoly - that's the nature of video game in allowing the player to take advantage of any opportunity to make the "mission" more interesting than following a set path. This is not real life we're talking about where everything in the mission has to MAKE SENSE. You can't purchase the harvester since CJ is in the need of money himself. Though I understand the logic behind adding such "optional" choices but the game in question is GTA, not a full fledged RPG where certain optional choices can be scripted for "criminals" :lol: like a simple act of purchasing the harvester. GTA is a different game that has to include some act of crime (stealing - for instance), unless the mission objective is entirely about interacting with certain characters.

Bit, how one prefers to accomplish these "crimes" (or objectives) should be left to the players themselves. There are times when the deaths of innocent people are unavoidable, but for a significant number of missions, the player can use a strategy that ties with the protagonist's character.
That minimist kill approach is a strong proof of that.
What you are saying applies mainly to the HD Era missions which are so tightly scripted with predetermined paths that you cannot bypass, nor use any strategy to avoid any unnecessary killings.
I see people confessing around the forums about how they avoid killing people outside the story because it doesn't fit Niko's character, or they just can't imagine murdering or running people over as Niko, etc.
So, why is it so difficult to roleplay CJ in the ACTUAL mission with a minimalist approach, if its possible to avoid any killings?

The methods described in that thread amount to extreme tedium, and abusing the game script or physics. Explode a car onto a person, and it doesn't count as a kill. It's an "alternate" way of exploring the game code, outside of the story.

That's not really part of this topic. We can debate about the pros/cons of the minimalist killing approaches separately.
Those tedious ones aren't necessarily required to follow. It's a "minimalist" strategy guide, not a ZERO killings guide. Some missions are very easy to avoid the killings entirely (for instance, body harvest), while some are not so simple, straightforward, which are just "extra" choices for the players, if they enjoy playing with different methods.
As far as CJ's personality goes - CJ still has no problem with killing members of other gangs, and willfully slaughter any that get in his way of reclaiming Grove Street Families turf or try to sabotage his businesses, though in return, the gangsters are trying to kill CJ also.
I tend to kill anyone with guns the moment they try to shoot at CJ, and I don't find anything wrong in shooting others in self defense.
By your logic, those survivalists shouldn't start shooting CJ for simply stealing a harvester. They can lodge a complaint with the police (because you know they exist in the game, right :p), instead of passing racist remarks at CJ, trying to gang up and take him down like he's a terrorist attempting to blow up the whole farm.
Your logic of "optional" choices can't be biased, and forced upon only on CJ. It should take into account the survivavilts, too.

TheSangheili
  • TheSangheili

    Honorable Warrior

  • Members
  • Joined: A week ago
  • None

#65

Posted 2 days ago Edited by TheSangheili, 2 days ago.

This mission wasn't as bad as Body Harvest, which is in my opinion is a bit more disturbing.

 

Killing the farmers was not your objective, but they had it coming anyway.


TheSangheili
  • TheSangheili

    Honorable Warrior

  • Members
  • Joined: A week ago
  • None

#66

Posted 2 days ago

Excuse me? Carl didn't intend to kill those workers, at all. That's not the mission objective. CJ was forced to use guns in self defense because those workers immediately start shooting at him.
Show me any example of a construction site where the workers carry guns?

 

I agree, construction worker is another word for mafia. I think they attacked CJ because his ancestors came from Dubai.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users