The Easton and Taggard arcs are very good! *spoilers*


Golden Girl

 

Posted

To offset my Karma somewhat, I like to take the opportunity to praise the game, and specifically the game's writing, whenever I can. As such, I REALLY need to praise the writing and story behind the arcs of Graham Easton and Laura Taggart. I don't know who wrote these, but my hat's off to this person's effort, because both of these are... Actually quite good. Honestly, after the unmitigated disaster that was the SSA1, I wasn't sure the game could ever recover, but I keep running into really good stories. And those aren't even the ironic type of good, where it's a bad story badly written but I can kind of give it a pass since I like the idea. No, these are genuinely good AND they appear to have been proof-read. Amazing!

Now, I played both of those with Morten, my Dark/Dark Scrapper, so her personality has slightly coloured the way I ran these missions. See, Morten is a type of good-natured succubus demon who spends most of her time in bars, wooing both men and women and searching for an actual true emotion to replace the fakeness of her own illusions. She needs to feed on the life essence of others, but will not feed off the innocent, reserving this only for those who'd bring harm to others. She is largely motivated by fun and cute people to work with and isn't the kind of person who'd kill indiscriminately unless her "victims" are actively trying to ruin the lives of others. Keep that in mind.

Graham Easton:
This was a... Weird story arc. Easton reminds me of a character in one of my own Architect arcs, as does the way the mission progresses. The man is an idiot who can't tell his head from his ***, so most of what he says is quite inconsequential, leading most of the initiative in the arc to fall on the hero. Hey, you people who insisted that this game can't have a story arc without putting the player in the direct service of an NPC? Yeah, here's how you do it. This mission is awesome for just that reason, and I couldn't be happier to be able to just shut an incompetent contact up and do the competent thing. It's a great way to put over our characters, and I LOVE it!

As to the end decision of "kill" or "don't kill," that was actually a pretty interesting choice. On the one hand, the man I was given the choice to kill is a bigshot in the Tsoo, and they're villains. Besides, he's been trying to kill Morten since the arc started. I mean, he deserves to die, right? So they why did I choose to spare the guy? Well, partially a failure of RP, in that I let my own personality make the choice for the character, but it makes sense in-character, as well. I figured Morten was just about to put her hand through his chest and pull his soul out when he goes "You shamed me, now go ahead and kill me!" and her response would be "You just had to go and say that. Now you took all the fun out of it! I'm going home!" Besides, he technically kind of owns the urn his men have been trying to steal the whole mission. I chose to not have Morten snark at Easton at the end because... Well, he does legally own the thing, even if he's a jerk about it.

Overall, this was a really fun arc. The "story" isn't all that, but the way it's written really pulls it together, plus putting the hero in an active position is refreshing and quite pleasant. The moral issues it brings up are also interesting and unlikely to have an easy answer for everybody. Essentially, it's the light-hearted cute little brother to what comes next:

Laura Lockheart:
If you haven't run this arc, stop reading and run it now, because I'm about to spoil the hell out of it for you. And this REALLY is an arc that's worth playing.

I didn't have a very good reason for Morten to run the Easton arc, to be honest. It was just sort of there so I went for it. I DID, however, have a reason to run the Taggart arc, in that... Well, Laura's kind of cute, and Morten is a sucker for that. Reason enough to fight Nazi and Fascists over at the same time! And I have to say that the way Leon, the irritating hero who's also opposing the Column, is written quite well. He's a right *******, but at least he's doing the right thing... Right? When Morten first met him, she snarked the hell out of the guy, because she's not exactly a polite and reserve person. Higher morals? Phht! Please, that guy deserves the ribbing. See, most of my other heroes might try to keep a cool head and not be reduced to childish bickering, but not Morten. She's out there to have fun, and if you're a jerk, she's pretty much going to say that to your face.

For as fun as the Leon interaction is, though, the base attack and Laura's eventual fate are NOT fun at all. That was actually quite a heavy scene to run across, really not something I expected... Even though with the Doc Aeon style of writing, people dying should have been the norm. But I do feel that this was pulled off successfully, though. Unlike a lot of the other pointless deaths that serve no purpose in the story but to let the writer beat his chest about being "edgy," this really does help set the tone of the final mission and lead into a pretty heavy decision. It was, to my eyes, a sympathetic character's death done right. The character wasn't humiliated, it wasn't gratuitous or pointless and it wasn't one of a dozen deaths.

Character deaths are a precision weapon, in a storytelling sense. You can very easily shoot yourself in the foot with them, but if you use them right, they can be very powerful, and this was powerful as opposed to aggravating. Simply put, it made me want to wring Leon's neck, as opposed to punch the writer in the teeth, and I can't really say that about many of the game's other character deaths. Good writing there, definitely.

Speaking of Leon, the decision was pretty easy. My own irritation with Aaron Thiery Jr. aside, this really is how Morten would operate. If you're a good and innocent person, then you have nothing to fear from her, other than maybe a date you won't remember much from the next morning. If you go ahead murdering people and causing disasters, though, you're fare game. And if you go ahead and kill people that she actually LIKE likes? Kiss your soul goodbye, because you are feeding the darkness. That's pretty much the path I sent her down, and I had her pick the most direct death threat options available. I'm sure the mission might have allowed me to talk the guy down and have a less bloody ending, but that's a decision I couldn't afford to make. Again - this is a person who doesn't do "morality." Solidarity, maybe, though even that's pushing it. She's more or less just a good-natured party girl demon of pure darkness whose heroism extends to wanting to help people she likes, more or less. So of COURSE she's dining on Leon's soul

---

I get that my personal experiences with those arcs are largely informed by the character I was playing, but at no point did it really feel like said character was being portrayed in an incompetent or morally ambiguous light. Not unless I chose the option to be, of course. I can't imagine what kind of character you'd have to play for this to completely not make sense... I'm sure there are at least a few, I just can't imagine there'd be many.

All in all, those two arcs were great. Yeah, you know those SSAs you guys were selling for, what, $5 an arc? Yeah, they weren't worth the money, but those two definitely are. I'm glad I played them!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcanaville View Post
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow View Post
Character deaths are a precision weapon, in a storytelling sense.
On its own, I really like Lockhart's arc, my only quibble with it is the timing of it. Since WWD blue is basically "good job breaking it hero" incarnate and this was added during that, to me, it became collateral damage of the blue WWD incompetence induced unsavable ally death spree.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogi View Post
On its own, I really like Lockhart's arc, my only quibble with it is the timing of it. Since WWD blue is basically "good job breaking it hero" incarnate and this was added during that, to me, it became collateral damage of the blue WWD incompetence induced unsavable ally death spree.
This I will agree with. The way that death is handled - none of this would have happened if you hadn't interfered - is actually pretty BAD, and it left a very bad taste in my mouth. I really would have felt vindicated if there were at least a chance to save Taggart and invert the forced tragedy. Morten would still have had PLENTY of reason to pull Leon's soul out through his ***, sure, but it wouldn't have pissed ME off so much.

However, it's a very well-written story, and that tends to turn my reactions to potential problems quite a bit more mellow. That's why a good story is good without having to be perfect - because we're predisposed to let its problems go and just enjoy the writing. It also helps that I try to pretend SSA1 never happened, both in-continuity and within the history of the studio. If you white that horror from your memory and approach this story arc as a standalone, it works a lot better.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcanaville View Post
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

 

Posted

I would have liked it more if I hadn't been playing a thermal who is pretty good at healing. As she was still talking, seems that I should have been able to fix it.


 

Posted

You know, for a story arc that you enjoyed so much, you'd think you'd get her name right more than once out of three tries.

Edit: Oh, sorry. Once out of FOUR tries, if you include the thread title.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by NekoNeko View Post
You know, for a story arc that you enjoyed so much, you'd think you'd get her name right more than once out of three tries.

Edit: Oh, sorry. Once out of FOUR tries, if you include the thread title.
I'm bad with names. I had to keep checking her name every time I typed it because I kept forgetting. Don't worry, though. As soon as I run the arc another dozen or so times, I'll have it down pat.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcanaville View Post
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow View Post
For as fun as the Leon interaction is, though, the base attack and Laura's eventual fate are NOT fun at all. That was actually quite a heavy scene to run across, really not something I expected... Even though with the Doc Aeon style of writing, people dying should have been the norm. But I do feel that this was pulled off successfully, though. Unlike a lot of the other pointless deaths that serve no purpose in the story but to let the writer beat his chest about being "edgy," this really does help set the tone of the final mission and lead into a pretty heavy decision. It was, to my eyes, a sympathetic character's death done right. The character wasn't humiliated, it wasn't gratuitous or pointless and it wasn't one of a dozen deaths.
It was also scripted tragedy, completely discarding the possibility of us getting there on time, or using our healing abilities, or instantly teleporting her to an ER, or a million other things that we could have tried but for the sake of the plot weren't allowed to. Murder mysteries are fine, but there's no mystery here, just cheap drama and a five minute quest for vengeance. I just can't stop saying it, it completely kills the buzz of returning the stolen urn from the Tsoo if we can't even prevent one hostage from being gunned down in front of us. That only one person dies makes little difference, there were only two people introduced, and one just happens to be the villain - which you yourself admitted to have killed as well. Laura Lockhart's arc is precisely the type of mission that makes me want to play another game - the type that ends with the victim in a bodybag and a condescending pat in the back...

Thankfully, the writing of Dark Astoria, Nightward and Pandora's Box appears to be heading in a different direction.

Quote:
Character deaths are a precision weapon, in a storytelling sense. You can very easily shoot yourself in the foot with them, but if you use them right, they can be very powerful, and this was powerful as opposed to aggravating. Simply put, it made me want to wring Leon's neck, as opposed to punch the writer in the teeth, and I can't really say that about many of the game's other character deaths. Good writing there, definitely.
I guess people's brains really are wired differently. I'm a guardian, not an avenger, my motivation for being a hero stops when I botch an attempt to save someone's life. Old fashion payback does nothing for me, and unless the villain is planning on going after someone *else* dear to me, I could care less about what he does in the future. Let the police handle it or something.


 

Posted

Didn't play the 5th Column arc. Couldn't get over how god awful Leon's costume was.

Seriously, whoever they let design NPC costumes needs to stop.


 

Posted

Yeah, I think the merit vendor costumes are mostly terrible. Someone probably hit the random button in the costume editor to create those!


 

Posted

I murder Leon every single time. I let Thierry live, but Leon gets the pointy end. That's how much I hate Leon.

I called it though. Seriously, first mission, I actually said out loud, "It's him. I'm going to have to fight him."

Then for the rest of the arc anytime something happened I was going, "It's him, it's him, it's him, it's him, I know it's him, it's him...."


Chairman of the Charity of Pain; accepting donations of blood and guts.

Prophet of the Creamy Truth; "If it's empty, fill it with cream."

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zemblanity View Post
It was also scripted tragedy, completely discarding the possibility of us getting there on time, or using our healing abilities, or instantly teleporting her to an ER, or a million other things that we could have tried but for the sake of the plot weren't allowed to.
Consider it from the other direction - how many missions are there that allow us to arrive just in time even if we spend two hours buying enhancements and levelling up? Those are no less scripted in our favour, so if the game takes the tragic approach once in a while, I can't really fault it for that. Again, I have to bring up Sefu Tendaji and his death mid-way through the Horrors of War arc. It was tragic, it was unpleasant, but at the end of the day, it served the broader plot and it was a positive thing for the overall feel of the story.

Now, mind you, I do feel that that particular arc would have been better had Laura not died. In fact, I don't feel anything was gained from killing her, aside from satiating the writer's glut for pointless tragedy. I don't dispute that at all. What I'm saying is the arc is otherwise written well enough to the point where I can forgive that and not let it ruin the story for me. Hell, any one of the character deaths that occurred in SSA1 I could have overlooked and still had fun with the arc if it were JUST that one death, but when you pile the faux drama on with deaths every three missions, that's just gratuitous.

I'm reminded of a comment Yahtzee had about the new Tomb Raider game where Lara gets stabbed, beaten up, almost ***** and thrown around like a ragdoll, pointing out that this doesn't make her any less sexualised, just sexualised in a different and even more disturbing fashion. Same deal here - putting in character death after character death in an attempt to make a story feel more mature just makes it seem that much more childish with how it revels in the angsty drama. It's shock without finesse, it's a big gun with no aim, it's a writer officially trying way too hard without any good idea of how to direct all of this "power" and it just ends up a right mess on the floor.

There's nothing about Laura Lockheart's death that I actually enjoy or approve of. Unlike Sefu, her death had no meaning and didn't build into the final solution. It's just there to be a pointless tragedy, and I know a thing or two about writing stories like that. What I'm saying, however, is that I consider the rest of the story to hold itself pretty strongly to the point where I can look past that one plot point and enjoy it for what it is. And it's not even just Laura. Saving her while losing everyone else in that facility still sucks hard, and I really can see why people would hate it. I don't like it, myself, but I'm just short of hating it.

I don't know, maybe I'm just a sucker for a story arc that seems to be written by someone who actually speaks English and a story arc that passed through a proof-read or two, but I didn't walk away from this one pissed off like I did from every single one in SSA1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by khorak_EU View Post
I called it though. Seriously, first mission, I actually said out loud, "It's him. I'm going to have to fight him."
I knew I would have to fight him in the same way you can end up fighting Icedrone, but I'm not sure how you can call him being a traitor when there's no reason to suspect a plot exists for a traitor to even be relevant. And when they started talking about an informant, my first reaction was "It's Requiem!" I mean, didn't the guy tell the 5th Column to stay low because he had a plan? Didn't he sell out Wolfgang Ubelmann because he doesn't like the Council? The 5th Column was his baby, yet Requiem is still officially in the Council, so I really thought he'd be feeding the Column information to help them take out the Council.

Of course, from the very first thing said in the "traitor" mission, it was pretty obvious that wouldn't be Requiem, if for no reason other than he wouldn't hide his identity or try to keep a "balance." After THAT, yeah - it was pretty obvious this was Leon. But after that, there really wasn't any time to go after him, since the base was being attacked and that took precedence.

I knew I'd have to fight Leon from the word go, just because you don't write a combat-capable NPC as a complete raving ******* and not have a plan to let the player kick his teeth in eventually. That's just how that goes. But I always thought it would be more a case of rivalry or misunderstanding or just plain jerkassery where a hero would fight a hero. I didn't expect him to turn out to be a proper villain.

But here's the good part - when you go back through the story and look for clues to it, yes, that Leon is evil becomes actually quite obvious. His jerkish behaviour about how backup would "just complicate things" takes on a whole new meaning. He wasn't bratty because of his personal pride, he was actually worried I'd see him erase the 5th Column database if I caught him in the act. Trust me - subtle foreshadowing does not exist in this game, or at the very least hasn't existed in any mission written since 2004. Just that alone makes the arc worth playing because that's good writing, plain and simple. And I LOVE good writing. That alone makes this arc worth playing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcanaville View Post
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow View Post
I knew I would have to fight him in the same way you can end up fighting Icedrone, but I'm not sure how you can call him being a traitor when there's no reason to suspect a plot exists for a traitor to even be relevant. And when they started talking about an informant, my first reaction was "It's Requiem!" I mean, didn't the guy tell the 5th Column to stay low because he had a plan? Didn't he sell out Wolfgang Ubelmann because he doesn't like the Council? The 5th Column was his baby, yet Requiem is still officially in the Council, so I really thought he'd be feeding the Column information to help them take out the Council.
No I had him marked as 'bad guy' immediately. It's easy enough to know you're going to have to fight him because he's clearly just plain belligerent, but it was otherwise easy to tag him as ultimately being your bad guy because the setup is too easy to see right through. His lie is transparent and in conjunction with his attempts to keep you away from what he's doing, it becomes very obvious. Every scrap of information you get after your first conversation just reinforces that he's the bad guy. By the time you're trying to talk to mysterious informants you're being smashed in the face with an anvil with "It's Leo" carved into it.

It was so obvious that I was becoming more concerned that I was actually being set up for a bait and switch, and was surprised the whole thing was played straight. Then I beat him to death.


Chairman of the Charity of Pain; accepting donations of blood and guts.

Prophet of the Creamy Truth; "If it's empty, fill it with cream."

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by khorak_EU View Post
he's clearly just plain belligerent
Quote:
Then I beat him to death.
Guess that makes 2 then


@Golden Girl

City of Heroes comics and artwork

 

Posted

Quote:
No I had him marked as 'bad guy' immediately.
Likewise. Played these arcs on test, h8 them, won't bother with them on live.


Current Blog Post: "Why I am an Atheist..."
"And I say now these kittens, they do not get trained/As we did in the days when Victoria reigned!" -- T. S. Eliot, "Gus, the Theatre Cat"

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by khorak_EU View Post
It was so obvious that I was becoming more concerned that I was actually being set up for a bait and switch, and was surprised the whole thing was played straight. Then I beat him to death.
Well, you're smarter than I am, then. I didn't figure that out until I was on the console speaking with the traitor. I had him pegged as an *** similar to Icedrone, because while you can fight him, you can also end up cooperating with Icedrone once you show him he's an idiot and should be doing more to help.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcanaville View Post
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.