I was wondering what everyone thought what the "story" or message was that the developers are trying to tell us through this game.

There's a few different political allegories. There's aspects that mirror the immigration debate in the US, there's elements of capitalism vs. communism, and there's elements of statism vs. anarchy, with each overlapping throughout the narrative.

I don't think they're trying to push a particular side, either. I think they want to illustrate moral grays and relativism within these debates.

Uhhh.... what?

Killing people is fun and parkour is awesome?


This isnt a spiritural adventure its a video game.

Google allegory, you might learn something.

lol your missing the point of his question. look at killzone the helghast are clearly based off the nazi's. i believe wat he was asking is exactly was the 2nd post answered. most characters in most games come from someone in history or modern day.

An open-minded and sympathetic view of WWII perhaps? What ever it is I am just happy the story and plot of the game is "the next COD".

Helghast are awesome and misunderstood!

LEAVE THEM ALONE! JUST LEAVE THEM ALONE!!

:P

Its true. The ISA are the real bad guys in all of that. Helghan just have a bad PR.

I can't see the communism thing. Socialism I can understand what with the Resistance wanting fairer distribution, but not communism. Well, not the way communism has played out in the real word, anyway.
I figure the real message or moral is that there's two sides to every story, and everyone sees things differently through their individual points of view.

well he said they're on the brink of Civil War so that's what im leaning towards like a higher teched and let's be honest more fair civil war, last civil war was just kinda sad, seriously 1 cannon people they had 1 little cannon Res bein south,

ugh. I dunno about that.

It's about the failure of percieved ideals, Utopia cannot be manufactured, it has to evolve






:snoring:

it's about a bunch of game designers that were sick of crappy games like cod and halo and decided to make a game that doesn't actually svck.

Well, they did say that they designed the game so that people could ignore the story if they wanted to. I suppose that's good.

Amen to that!!! Woooh Preach it paster. :goodjob:

Tbh, I couldn't care less what the hidden message is or on what historical fact it is based.

Gaming is about fun for me, not the social message behind it.

One side thinks that rationing whats left of its resources will sustain if not delay the inevitable and the other is sick of being the work force behind keeping the island going and being treated like dirt. Imo its about the differences in societies classes be it upperclass or lower class, everyone thinks they're doing the right thing but in actual fact noone is doing it correctly... Regardless of who may "win" they're more or less stuffed either way

Some people do play games for more than just a reason to have fun, some of us actually like to understand the story and by playing as a part of it it makes the game better. It's the same for people that read books, you get drawn into it and if you can imagine or feel like you are apart of it it becomes more entertaining

I'd just like to point out that there has been talk about the resistance wanting to leave the Ark, believing that there is still other people somewhere. So it's not entirely and only about the resources. The resources are the reason but leaving the Ark is the solution, for the Resistance.
I personally like the thought that Resistance views the Ark as almost like a prison.
I remember the "why aren't they trying to find the land and let us go" is one of the key plot points, mysteries. According to some interviews.

The conflict begs questions about property norms and entitlement. How many times here have you seen someone make the argument "the resistance deserve as much in not more because they do all the hard work," etc etc.

So this sort of ethical divide- who do the resources belong to, rightfully? The person that owns the property from whence they came (capitalism), or the people who put the work in to produce them, coupled with who needs them more (communism)? Does ownership of property entitle you to any and everything that is produced on that property thereafter, or, are people entitled to what they produce themselves, regardless of title?

Keep in mind that state communism doesn't and never has functioned like the real hardcoe Marxists that are still around today want it to. It's not real communism to them unless there is no state. It's not really a matter of egalitarian division of resources and the old sickle and hammer junk, it's all about worker-owned means of production now, with no hierarchies politically, socially or otherwise.

And yes, it is just as messed up and muddy as any other path of idealism. -_-

"Dont bother yourself with ideals, go out there, play the game and have fun!"

I can imagine Ed Stern saying that.

I'd say the underlying messages are:
1.Socialism vs Captialism: some agree with the resistance because of the whole resource shortage but dislike socialism, yet if everyone got equal resources, it would be socialism
2. Overpopulation can and maybe will be an actual problem.
3. Maybe people should help out others who are less fortunate in order to prevent a desperate war for survival

These are just opinions, not facts so :flamethrower: 's calm down.

That isn't socialism.

Everyone getting paid the same and everyone getting equal resources is almost interchangable....

It's communism. Socialism is more about socio-economic safety nets and basic access to the means of production rather than egalitarian distribution of resources.

o_0 I should really stop sleeping through government........my bad.