this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2025
120 points (92.3% liked)
Games
35018 readers
1005 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here and here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't really disagree with you about the nature of the story, and I don't have anything against the overall narrative. I just personally think the story could have been told with fewer bloodbaths and outright massacres and still be compelling. In fact, for me every innocent you kill would feel more impactful morally and narratively if there were fewer of them.
But maybe I'm out of touch with the attention span of the modern mind.
There's nothing wrong with having different preferences. It doesn't have to be because someone has a worse or better attention span.
I personally do think the number of enemies that had to be killed should have been decreased. For me, it was mostly because it became comical sometimes that more guys kept coming out of the woodwork. After the fiftieth O'Driscoll you kill, you start to wonder if it's a gang or a country's military.
I'm sorry. The attention span comment wasn't directed at you personally, it was reflecting on your point that people would find it too slow and boring with fewer kills. It wasn't meant as a jab at all.
I think it sounds like we're mostly in agreement. And yeah, the O'Driscolls spawning in and popping up like whack-a-moles is another great example!