Ahh. I'm glad you've actually played it. I know its not typical Christian style fiction, but it hits home on a number of different levels because of the immense darkness surrounding the world. (I really enjoyed the Book of Eli, especially because of the postapocalyptic setting.)
I didn't grow up as a Christian, I was an athiest until I was 21, which was two years ago. I've been following basically every free roam game of note that there has been for the past 11 years.
"
It's not really so much the violence in those games, it's more of the choices you decide to make. It's psychology, really. If the first time you play through these 'open world role playing games' that you find yourself out to destroy most everyone to begin with, align yourself with evil factions, and make immoral choices by hurting innocent NPC's then it truly does show where your heart and mind is. "
I have trod the dark path, and I did it in more than a few games. But as time went on, even before I had found the Lord, I was not inclined to take and plunder, steal and murder, and bring ill to those around the player character character.
And the reason why I usually played as a generally "good guy" sort of charcter in the few years before I found the Lord is exactly about what you talked about in regards to the extreme power potential of player characters in those games.
At first, when I realized the potential of a good aligned character, I went to the extreme, and went as pacifistic as I could, with concentrating on diplomacy, and bringing change through intrigue, stealthy espionage, and if taking life was unavoidable (like if I had a specific target that was quite evil), I would stealthily wind my way through the lair of such a person/thing/etc, and dispatch him/her/it quickly and quietly, so I didn't have to take the lives of his/her/its minions.
That went on for quite a few experiences in games like Oblivion, etc. Then I came to Fallout 3. I realized that the conceptual rendering of evil in that game was actually even more black and white than Elder Scrolls games.
I would bring myself into immersion (i've done it since I was a child in order to understand the what/why/hows of deep games. This is not to be confused with delusion) in a different style ever since then.
Colder, more driven, an interventionist. I wouldn't let fate (I only believe that fate truly exists in video games to make it clear
) determine the outcome of the lives around me. I just acted, and my less passionate state of mind I adopted for games of that nature from then on in allowed me to more skillfully deal with any threats with renewed intensity of purpose, and cooly assess any fork in the road situation.
My style of play continued to develop faster than it ever had before. I used to be a person who would play a character that became consumed with prejudices about who was worthy to help, and who provoked me to anger now longer mattered in my "big picture thinking" (not real anger, but just an immersion factor). I used to be only satisfied at being the most outrageous, needlessly complicated, and over the top style of combatant. In otherwords, I let the potential power of a character be dedicated to flair, not substance of purpose.
Instead, once I started learning more about these games and the styles that can be imparted by the player him/herself, I became an impartial, analytical, remorseless force to be reckoned with (in a game point of view of course.) My approach to combat shifted 180 degrees. I was so preoccupied with form before that I would concentrate too much on one enemy in a group or type of enemy I wanted to deal with first. Just to make it look good to me.
Now in games, I can see the outcome and act on it with lighting reflexes. Its a simple process for me now. The means available to me don't matter, because I've become more well rounded as a player. Guns, swords, bows, magic, explosives, etc., are all just tools now to me, not romanticised embodiments of vengeance.
I find it better to deal this way. I act knowing that dehumanization is the worst thing that can happen to the mind while playing a game like those that are around these days. I do not enjoy killing if that is what the game entails (In fact, I have always liked many more civilian style games that deal with playing a merchant, or creating things like cities, etc)
I know that games like Gears of War and Call of Duty, and Halo depersonalize the violence, they make it easier to endure seeing (ironic really, if you've ever played any of the Gears games, you'll know what I mean by that).
I find that free roaming adventure games bring home that the enemies one encounters aren't faceless. They have stories, whether it is personal to them, or about the group they are from, or where they are from.
Anyways, enough of those observations...
"
I'm not a pacifist, but I am willing to spare the lives of those who beg to live."
Yes, I agree. Who are we to be that judge, even in a video game? I do however, weigh the consequences of such things. Salt Upon Wounds, although fearful for his life, was not only the leader of the raider tribe called the White Legs (Who, by themselves cannot survive on their own without raiding and stealing, they have no hunting, gathering, foraging, or diplomatic skills as a culture. As such, they are extremely dangerous regardless of who has what they want, they'd take the clothes, items of importance and food/water from any and all if given the chance, and then either kill them or leave them to die with no supplies). Salt Upon Wounds above all else wanted his tribe to be absorbed into Caesar's Legion, which is why they were plauging Zion Canyon. That was Caesar's deal with Salt Upon Wounds: the White Legs had to eradicate the tribals of Zion Canyon AND kill Joshua Graham to be accept into Caesar's nation. Caesar doesn't accept subjects who aren't brutal enough to be loyal to him.
Sure, the White Legs may have been destroyed at the time of his pleading, and they were no longer a threat. I'll entertain that idea, for sure. But because Salt Upon Wounds wanted to join the Legion, Graham thought that enough reason to kill him, because the Legion took away everything that he had, including his soul for quite some time.
"
Even though Joshua may have Christ in his heart, vengeance drives him, and as a result, he is like a dim light shining in darkness. Now that I look back, the decision to go with Joshua's plan wasn't wise, as Jacob was right. Is land really worth fighting and dying over? That's not to say Jacobs plan couldn't have backfired, and many Dead Horses could have been killed while trying to flee the canyon, and it leaves much to think about. Which plan do you think would have been the wisest? "
I have played through that expansion campaign a few times, and picked both options over a long period of time. I won't ruin the ending for you in regards to Jacob's plan. But I will say that I didn't expect the ramifacations of the retreat from Zion to be so far reaching, for every group involved.
It wasn't the Dead Horses I was worried about, they are a tribe that has dealt with intertribe conflict before, and they were so in tune with that part of the human condition that when Joshua Graham returned to them many years later (after serving in the Legion and after he became The Burned Man), they revered him even. They were actually scared of him at first because of his obvious skill with firearms in battle, and his grand strategy and tactics knowledge. But they saw he did in fact have a good heart, so he became the Dead Horses war chief (After New Caanan was destroyed he began to live with them permanently, not just as a missionary like he was in his youth)
Jacob, by comparison spent mostly all of his time as a missonary with The Sorrows, who did not know war. I believe he said "They can hunt and kill a full grown Yao Guai with ease, but they cannot imagine killing a person. They haven't had to deal with conflict for generations.". Thats why Jacob wanted them to leave, not so much for the land (Which Joshua held in high regard), but for the souls of the Sorrows. They were "almost pure and innocent", I recall Jacob saying about them. He was convinced that if the Sorrows became involved in war that it would destroy their society, and they would never recover.
In closing, to be honest, I can't tell which was the right action. They both had their pros and cons. I guess I can boil it down this way: Joshua knew he was trying to preserve Zion's future. Jacob knew he was trying to preserve the people of Zion in the present.
Heh, I never thought of it, but when I was just thinking back about all the things I remember Graham talking about, and the way he approached conflict even, it reminds me a lot of my current play style with games like Fallout. Lol, even further than that, I guess that may be one of the reasons that Joshua's m1911a1, known as "A Light Shining In the Darkness" is my favourite weapon in that game. Once I found it, I never had to use anything else, at all. Still to this day I basically only use that in FO:NV.
