A Pervasive Narrative?

Community General Discussion
1

In all of the time that I’ve been playing this game, and scanning over the forums, I have seen the declarations of how cheap, game-breaking, etc. things like armor abilities, loadouts, etc. are.

I know that this has gone in circles, but there is still one missing piece that isn’t noted.

When a set of ideas becomes pervasive to the point that it defines something, it will often become a narrative.

In other words, there is a distinct, sequential structure that goes from start to finish, and is easily identified in any way that one wishes.

In this context, this narrative combines with the overarching narratives of many gamers wanting things to be easy, designers feeding into that, etc.

And like many other narratives, it is one that sticks no matter what, even if it doesn’t necessarily match the facts.

Out of all of this, I see here and there, the notion that not using armor abilities, tactical packages, and perks is somehow more refined, noble, and even ‘honorable.’

While it sounds quite appealing and noble, I have my doubts.

Is one really a better player if one strips down their ability to play to the point that one risks being defenseless against these gameplay constructs?

Is there any value in allowing someone’s flawless use of PV to guarantee them an advantage, or giving a masterful Jet Pack user an assured kill?

If you take it to its logical conclusion, especially the way the game has been designed, then wouldn’t one essentially guarantee failure, all for the sake of some sort of “honor”?

2

That’s the thing about honour, it is disadvantaging yourself so as to appear to be the better person.

For example, when Imperial forces from differing countries in the early Industrial Era when colonising a country sometimes used blankets infected with smallpox to destroy native populations, dishonourable, but effective.

Modern Governments and armies will try to use more traditional methods of fighting which may lead to more deaths for soldiers, but are the more honourable ways of doing so.

It is a rather extreme example, to be certain, and I apologize if anyone takes offence, but I could not think of a differing way to put it.

3

An excellent analogy. Very accurate.

And your examples about warfare in past conflicts is also very true, and not remotely offensive, since you make the context of your statements crystal clear.

To see if it had any merit, I tried to actually embody such an “honorable” play style last night, and went to see how it turned out.

Long story short, it is completely unproductive, and does nothing to make one a better player.

Furthermore, it is dishonorable unto itself, since one is essentially deliberately playing badly for the sake of some sort of fake moral high ground.

From my tests, I can confidently say that the notion of playing “honorably” is a sham.

It contributes nothing of value to the game.

What is more honorable, playing the game like everybody else and doings ones best, or handicapping oneself for the sake of some fake sense of validation, just because someones’ feathers were rustled over some puny game constructs?