Weekend Confirmed Episode 55

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/298241/news/wii-2-has-all-new-hd-controller-out-2012-sources/

So what do we all think about the Wii 2 rumours?

I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo release their next console next year. At first I thought it was idiotic to announce it a couple of months after the 3DS launch, but the more I think about it the more it makes sense to announce it at this E3 and not next, simply because if it is more powerful than the 360 and PS3, and it has strong third party support, that would go a long way to convincing the 'gamer' crowd to take this next console seriously, and i think the 360 and PS3 may lose some steam this holiday because of it, forcing MS and Sony to reconsider their 10 year console lifecycle.

Do i want another Nintendo console? To be honest, i don't know. The idea of all the great Nintendo franchises looking spectacular in HD, as well as all the great third party software on top of that on the one console, is very attractive. However I'm content with my 360 at the moment and I'm not sure I'd jump into the "next-gen" without knowing what MS and Sony are going to do.

Does anyone here think that some developers are missing the value in cooperative multiplayer? I for one would have loved to see a cooperative side story in Bioshock 2 a la Portal 2 or Splinter Cell Conviction, as opposed to a competitive multiplayer suite.

I think this applies especially to those single player 'story' experiences. Publishers may push for a competitive MP mode because apparently you can't release a game without one otherwise it's commercial suicide, but a cooperative experience in the game's universe that ties into the story can deliver the best of both worlds. I'm not telling developers to start throwing coop in Alan Wake or Heavy Rain; but there are certainly games out there that could benefit from a cooperative mode more so than a competitive mode.

Garnett.

I coincedently started The Wicther 1 week before you did and was chuffed that I could get some thoughts on your progess but it's been a few weeks since your've bought it up.

I really hope you haven't put it down becuase I'm on the very last one or two quests (45hrs). Being a person that hasn't played anything but FPS and RTS since Boulders Gate I have to admit that I'm so surprised at how good this game is.

I guess you get the best experience's for games of tyhis ilk after they spend 2 years patching after release...

Anyway, report!

Speaking on the topic of gunless game mechanics, each and every time it comes up, always leads me back to the movie Children of Men. There's an amazing scene toward the end where Clive Owen's character is running through a warzone being pursued by one faction who's at the same time battling with another opposing force, he's frantically running, bullets whizzing over head, armored vehicles mowing down anyone they see, all the while he is hiding behind broken walls barely large enough to cover him when laying down or even a demolished bus. It's crazy intense. Anyhow, I feel that this would make for a great game mechanic being in a battlefield and being a third party who has no need to actually kill, rather staying alive is the key. Get the right atmosphere and level design and I think this could make for an astonishingly immersive game, any thoughts?

Garnett has talked about the pricing of games on the 3DS and how that gamers expect mobile games to match the price of games on the iPhone, but where does that put the NGP? The NGP is exactly the handheld device I have been waiting for, a mobile full console experience. As entertaining as Angry Birds or Bejeweled is, it doesn't compare to a GTA, a Mass Effect, or a Call of Duty game. Why not spend your mobile gaming time playing a great game rather than a good game? Would I rather play on my 100" projector at home rather on 5" OLED, sure, but I have a limited amount of gaming time and a mobile system fits into those moments of free time during the day. In fact I would prefer to play Fallout 3 or Skyrim on a mobile device given the amount of time these games demand from you. Or maybe play it on both the PS3 and the NGP at the same time. And why should we expect it to cost less than $60 like its home console brethren? If GTA 5 comes out and is available simultaneously on the PS3, Xbox 360 and the NGP and is identical to others with the exception of the screen size, why should there be a price difference? If I finally get a mobile device with the control scheme I want and I end up getting 99 cent iPhone ports because you lot don't want to spend allot on mobile games, I will be mightily put out. However given that the bestselling games on the PSP were "real" games (GTA, Socom, God of War) I don't think that I am alone.

One more thanks for the putting out a great show. I am running the Boston Marathon on Monday and Weekend Confirmed was a big part of my training. I brought you guys along on every one of my long runs. Often the “reward” of a new episode got me out of the door. Thanks for keeping me entertained over all the miles.

If you’re interested, I am hoping to break 3 hours. Who says nerds can’t be athletic?

First of all I would like to say great show as always and very interesting discussion.

I would also like to thank Garnett as an African American gamer for talking about the 800 pound elephant in room: how race is portrayed. I can't believe that every missed on Trane from Marc Ekco's Getting Up who is another great Black Male lead character.

To add my two cents on the discussion of how women and man are portrayed in video games. Andrea is right the gaming community may not be mature enough to handle such a subject matter. Who it falls to you all the journalist and us the fans to push for a better representation of all races, genders, and religious beliefs in games. Now the issue of how woman are portrayed is a bit more than the basic "14 yr old male Fantasy" One of the wrinkles in this subject is that a female(lets take Bayonetta exp.) that she is overtly sexually for the purpose of drawing a male audience. Right there is the issue not just in video games but across the board that we view female assertiveness sexuality etc as being about the man and not the woman.

I do think that as reader comics books that you all did sell comics short, first one has to take in to consideration who is drawing the comic. Ed Benes is going to draw X comic heroine differently from Greg Horn who will draw her differently than Stjepan Šejić. What is more consent is the character themselves three examples come to mind.

Susan Storm-Richards married to Reed Richards, mother of Valaria and Franklin Richards who are both about 11 or 12 at this point.

Jessica Jones - Cage, married to Luke Cage(Black Male Leader of the New Avengers) mother of Danielle Cage who I believe is a year old.

Sara Pazzani single mother, NYPD police detective and one of the wielders of the Witchblade who have all been women.

Now these are all fictional characters in fictional universes so its not super realistic but I do think they are 3 good examples of the three characters trying to juggle the aspects of their lives. Much like a women today would juggle, being a wife, a mother and her career. Videos games have to yet at this point make head way but there is some. Characters like Lightning and Fang from FF 13, Elena Fisher and Chloe from Uncharted , Aya Brea Parasite Eve, Aegis Final Fantasy Tactics, Beatrix Alexandria Final Fantasy 9.

I had Dragon Age Origins, played it for 2 hours. Yeah it was fun and all (looked like crap though), but then i popped in Demon's Souls and never came back to DA. Hopefully DA2 is more enjoyable visually and gameplay wise in case i win. lol

The discussion regarding alternative gameplay made me think of LA Noire a lot.

If the game works as intended, then the mechanics of searching for clues and interrogating people will be as important to the experience and moment-to-moment fun as shooting.

Likewise for Deux Ex and the upcoming Human Revolution, where you can choose to gun down hordes of enemies, and deal with the consequences, or opt to sneak, hack or talk your way into and out of trouble.

Honestly though, I think until somebody manages to make a game where speaking and navigating through a conversation to get what you want or out of trouble is the core gameplay mechanic, I think we'll be stuck jumping back and forth between sneaking and killing.

There are books and movies that 99% dialog and 1% action, but maintain the entertainment and tension. Games need to make that 99% possible.

Weekend Confirmed 28 (October 1, 2010), 33 minutes in, on playing the just-released Dead Rising 2:

Leahy: "Well, I don't know what new route you're talkin' about; it's just Dead Rising, with photography replaced with weapon..."

Cannata: "He's BLONDE! HE'S BLOOOOONDE!!!!"

Today: Dead Rising 2: Off the Record announced, starring Frank West. http://www.shacknews.com/article/68087/dead-rising-2-off-record

Anyone dying for a Mass Effect live action film needs to drop everything and go buy the show Farscape! That show WAS Mass Effect with a better sense of humor plus truly engrossing and revolutionary storytelling.

It might be on Netflix still, but you could probably get the DVDs cheap also.

Garnett.

I really respect your opinion.

You are totally wrong about Dead Space.

Probably the best Survival Horror game of this generation, and one of the best survival horror games ever.

You can boil the game down to mechanics and scare tactics if you want, but the game does a better job of establishing a creepy and completely cohesive (if not completely UNBREAKABLE) atmosphere.

Combine that atmosphere with creepy creature design, interesting low-grav environments and fun and intense limb-dismemberment combat, and you have a game that's as fun as it is scary.

When you take gameplay mechanics and atmosphere together, what survival horror game is better? Resident Evil with it's broken tank controls? Silent Hill with it's increasingly insane and not-scary atmosphere/monsters? Dead Space is king of the genre right now.

But keep on going with the great podcast. Agree or disagree, I love your work. :)

I'm kinda salty you guys called Jay-Z a pop artist.

Amnesia: The Dark Descent is an amazing horror game. Very psychological and very creepy with a pretty good story and very nifty puzzles. Plus, I think it's only $15 or something like that.

Jeff, It sounds like it's a really tough sell to get Garnett to play some boardgames. I think you need to step it up and take the fight to him. Bring a copy of 7 wonders into the studio or something!

A couple of point I'd like to make towards female characters in video games

As far as female leads go i think that the best game that has had one and even treated the fact, is the original No One Lives Forever back in 2000. I think the writing in that game some of the best from back in the day. It was set in the 60's and was used as environment of social change for some of the themes (as well as the Spy thing obviously). Cate Archer had to deal with fact she was a woman in this era, as well as other adversities in her life.
Yes she is a good looking character, but in the game Cate Archer has to actually deal with the fact she is seen to be nothing more than a good looking woman. Some of the other characters treat her as such and nothing more, such as one of her own bosses, so she (you) have to prove yourself to. This also created great (and often humorous) dialog between the characters in the game, even to the point when, as a dude, i felt "yeah take that you sexist twerp" when she made a sarcastic comment back to someone. Also the main antagonist reveal at the end was great as she was similar but handled her adversities differently. Its not the (only) reason to play this game, but it was cool this stuff was there, in my opinion. A great game for one made in 2000.
Interestingly, the sequel, while a good game, didn't really tackle these things the same. It may have been "to much" over two games, but interestingly they changed the facial features of Cate to a more universal attractive look, as not everyone thought her attractive in the first game.

Which brings me to my second point which is if you are not worried about money and interest, but making the most possible money and interest in the short term, then things aren't going to change and you aren't going to make something that will. If a game maker is not willing to make something that in terms of characters, themes etc, wont cater to all or even most people, then chances are that it wont do anything significant in these areas. Obviously indie and mobile seems like better fit for something like this to happen, while big studio/publisher titles that have done this (e.g. see NOLF above) haven't seen the rewards they like to see. But even with indie and mobile getting more populous and competitive, I worry about it ever happening there, as journalists, publishers and business people are validating the existence and success of these for consumers by measure of popularity (e.g. charts), thus starting the cycle of expectation. Basically in order to change the characters (e.g. female), themes etc in games, someone needs the prepare/plan for modest and measured audience expectation/reaction and, ironically, grow some balls.

I don't know if anybody else on the planet actually played the [awesome] game Darkwatch, but does this movie remind you of it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stAfEDSosXc

About the dissonance in games, I don't think its just limited to killing (while it is ridiculous) but to the characters other abilities. To use Uncharted as an example again, what average guy can jump 20 feet in a single bound? I would love to see a game where the developers found out what a normal person could do and use that, make the levels for stuff that can be done by normal people but still cool. As far as enemies are concerned, do what Bioshock did with fewer more difficult enemies or Prince of Persia(2008) where each enemy is a mini boss, your a man not a god, to beat a dude to pulp with your fists should be hard! By also adding an endurance bar that drains during physical exertion so you would be tired, get hungry thirsty and take realistic damage would also help (i.e. 40 gun shot wounds should kill a man).
Then if you want to provide that over powered experience for gamers, after so long of being a normal powered person, have your character get their powers which would showcase just how powerful in comparison to a normal person you really are, for instance if it were a Captain America game you would play as weak Steve rogers for some fights, training for the super soldier program, ect... then you get the X formula and boom! Super soldier and now you feel the extra power.

It's too bad Andrea's impressions of BG&E were hijacked into discussing strong female leads. I would've much rather heard impressions from someone who hasn't played it before, and especially how it compares to more recent game design, than tread that worn topic yet again.

Hey Garnett, I know you probably don't watch that much hockey, but I get the sense that Jeff, Jeff and Xav are up to speed.

The NHL playoffs have just started, so it might be fun for you guys to pick your favorites to win each series in the first round, or do some kind of playoff pool, the same way you did Football picks for a few weeks.

Just throwing it out there cause, you know, coolest sport on Earth and all that. ;)

The character debate is strange.

On one hand, is it really surprising the people buy into the stereotypical masculine action character in action games? As a gamer who likes action games, I don't really give it a second thought about what main character I'm playing. When I'm playing Nathan Drake or female Commander Shepherd, or a Cole, if the character is interesting enough for me to want to play them, I don't start thinking "why are these characters always so similar?"

The games still are FUN, developers are still able to make these characters INTERESTING. It is true that these games are marketed at a certain segment (males 18-39), and its probably true that a lot of these males like the types of main characters that are in the games today. Are we going to say that the only reason these stereotypical gamer characters in these games that sell millions is because they are the only ones available OR maybe the audience that buys the most games like these characters.

Developers sometimes try to infuse some character diversity through side characters and such, and really, I feel that's enough for most people.

You guys play a lot a lot A LOT of games. You grow tired more quickly of the typical characters just because your game volume is so much larger. Sure I'd like some more diversity in my main video character protagonist. Sure i'd like a gay male character that is a blatant stereotype that saves the world or goes through interesting experiences. Sure I'd like a strong female without size DDD breasts and that doesn't wear skin tight pleather. But the main audience doesn't seem to be demanding such characters. Developers can try to infuse these characters but they also have to think about marketing and sales. Maybe you'll get a neat indie title that can do these things, but I wouldn't really expect a 50 million dollar game to do this until the demographic grows bored of the current crop of video game protagonist.

I'm with Jeff when it comes to the Halo vs. Resistance comparison.

In Resistance, the combat is about the weapons, period. The enjoyment in that game, is using these weird, insane weapons to kill things and fighting through scenes in ways you couldn't do in any other game.

In Halo, the weapons are a piece of the puzzle. They are the tools that you use to take on the enemy AI, which is dynamic and reacts to your tactics and actions on the fly. There are the vehicles that you can factor into the combat. There are the environments, that have to be used to your advantage. There is the shoot/grenade/melee system that allows players to quickly and thoughtfully shift the range of battle and spread of the enemies, on and on and on.

Halo is a combat sandbox. Resistance is a weapons test course.

I thought it was interesting how Jeff seemed to take the position of defending cliches this epsiode: first with the alien invasion video game, second with the "watch your allies get murdered behind a giant glass window" trope.
I think looking at the alien invasion cliche in particular, it seems developers are forced to fall back on this premise so often, because all games these days rely solely on shooting as a mechanics, and are thus about producing massive body counts.
When developers break away from the cliche like with Uncharted, the experience feels really refreshing, but of course it opens it up to that criticism about Nathan Drake being a mass murderer---because he's killing humans instead of aliens.
So I think cloaked in that discussion is a double standard that developers like Naughty Dog have to face. Because they put creative effort into their game's lore, story, and characters, their gameplay design is held to a higher standard than games like Resistance, Gears of War, or even Halo.
You guys ask, why can Nathan Drake kill all these people without being psychologically damaged? But NO ONE asks, what is the motivation of the Locusts in Gears of War? Why are they targeting Earth, where did they come from, etc.etc.

Based off Jeff's whole talk about action games having too much murdering, I do recommend ya to check out the recently released Gemini Rue.

A pretty stellar adventure game in which you play as an ex assassin / PI in this Blade runner setting. There definitely are a few tense moments in which you have to do some quick thinking to prevent armed assailants from filling you up with lead.

And it's probably the only adventure game that has a 'kick' command that solves a fair bit of puzzles ;)

It is a pretty awesome "action" adventure game.

And also, regarding spoilers in more detail, why is it assumed that the first hour is a throwaway?

When people say
"The main character's brother dies"
"SPOILERS"
"It's ok, it happens in the first hour"

Who cares? Why was that event even put in the game if it wasn't supposed to emotionally engage you or be a surprise?

Why have we, as an audience, accepted that the first level or two of a game is going to be the same one we saw 4 times at trade shows, read previews on, and played a demo of? I realized a while ago, that I can't shake the feeling that I'm going through the motions when I've seen the level before. One of the reasons why I've decided to eschew videos and previews completely.

Anyone else notice how every time a women guest stars on a usually male only gaming podcast the discussion usually goes into 'women in gaming' at some point?

Sure all the 'she's a girl' stabs are part of the elementary humor of this show, but I'd like a time when female gamers are treated as just gamers.

Regarding why every male character is the ideal one, I think you can't ignore the logistic benefits. Assuming it takes the same resources to make an ultra manly hero and a different looking one with the same graphical fidelity, the opportunity in games is great. I'm sure if you could clone the biggest action star in movies and he worked for the same exact pay as any other actor, you'd see movie studios doing what game studios do.

Although the guest was great, I have some bones to pick with her.
I think from here on out, the "It's just a game" argument should be invalid. Whenever there's a specific discussion on a game, I cringe when hear "Well, it comes down to...is it fun?". No, it really doesn't come down to that.

Schindler's List is not a fun movie. It's not humorous, it's not uplifting and it's not upbeat. In fact, it's likely to make you pretty depressed right after seeing it. But that said, it's still an experience worth having for some of us. A game doesn't have to be fun, or an escape, or relieve stress to be a worthwhile experience. Have any of you played the flash game Every Day is the Same Dream? It's repetitive, it makes you uncomfortable, and it's not really fun. But it's an amazing interactive experience, which could only be told interactively.

And regarding Mass Effect 2, being a listener of a couple of podcasts, I'm used to being derided for not buying games immediately, especially by the press, where a game is from the stone age within weeks. But realize that, yeah, there are some of us who are going to wait until the Mass Effect 2 Complete with DLC edition comes out. And some of us will even wait for it to get down to $30. Some of us have done that with Oblivion, Fallout and Dragon Age, as well as others. And we save a lot of money.

Come on.... "silih-cone" sisters?

"silih-cone" valley?

Just wanted to say I agree with Jeff about the difference between "that was hard, I can't wait to do it again" and "that was hard, I never want to do it again".

I think in general, it's the games that provide good learning environments that I keep coming back to, even if they are really hard. This includes things like giving you useful feedback, not making you feel anxious (I'm not a survival horror fan), having consistent rules, encouraging experimentation and rewarding you for getting better.

My most recent example of this is Vanquish, but I get the same feeling from good RPGs and strategy games.

Wait! Do you guys seriously want anime suggestions in this comments section? REALLY? 'Cause I could explode on this thing.

But if anyone else wants to do this thing I'll let them start.

Anyone?

Since I can't post at GAF, I'll say this here:

Garnett, Jeff, ignore the trolls! Don't lose your cool over some haters on GAF.

Megatons are going off over there, and not in the good way. Don't let yourselves get goaded into your own personal Dyack moment.

Love the show guys! I don't know if this is possible, but I could see a regular cast with Xav and Andrea in the 3/4 chairs working fantastically.

Whenever guys complain about 'immature' games, I always have to bring up this example: Metal Gear Solid 1. It tackles the problem of giving Snake "something else to do" other than killing people, through stealth gameplay. It has multiple depictions of women that are not chauvinist: Meryle, Mei Ling, Naomi. It also has many creative sequences that are based on overcoming obstacles instead of fighting.

You have to use Nakita missiles to depower and electrified hallway. You have to find a hallow sounding knock against walls to locate Revolver Ocelot, and then blow up the wall with C4. You use chaff grenades to disable security cameras. You have to take a security card to different environments to change its temperature. You have to find Meryle by examining how the soldiers WALK. I mean, that is absolutely genius game design.

People often condemn Kojima for trying to make games like movies, but he's not just a proficient director, but a fantastic designer of gameplay concepts (when he applies himself).

The game that doesn't use a 5 hour shooting gallery to entertain its audience already exists. Its not because the industry is "immature," like we haven't found our Citizen Kane. It's because gamers are willfully stupid ass holes who hate being engaged in a cerebral manner.

I noticed Garnet talked about the tranquilizer gun with derision, but how can you so often skirt over one of the biggest franchises in the industry's history and not acknowledge its accomplishments?

Reading neogaf and some comments here, it seems that some people want everyone to like everything they do, which seems weird.

I like to have my views on a game I enjoyed challenged. If everyone agreed with my opinions it would be very boring talking about things with other people.

Which brings me to the Dead Space discussion. I think a lot of the backlash to the Dead Space discussion is the seemingly inability for any of the cast to articulate what is was they were trying to say. Which is something I was complaining about on last weeks comments.

Maybe what I want from podcasts is not what Garnett wants his (goddamn) show to be, which is more GFW radio or Idle Thumbs.

On Adrea's complaint about not being able to just "spray bullets" while playing Dead Space, is part of the design of the game. The game is constantly trying to scare you with the enemies, but at the same time wants you to slow down and take your time too shoot the specific areas. There at odds with each other but that's one of the things that sets it apart from other games and what creates the stress while playing it.

it seems to me pretty obvious that the lack of a female primary female protagonist in games is that there (aside from the unfortunately named studio referred to in the podcast) are no females that I know of in lead roles at development studios. It will most likely take a female in a primary game design position for such a game to emerge. As the medium ages more women will get interested in games beyond the level most (high stress on the word most) currently are, and at some point we will see in games development ,as we have seen in games press, an increase of women in game development and then in games in general.

This isn't very different from other mediums of entertainment. Books only in the last two-hundred years saw literature on a popular level aimed at women. The same goes for movies as film has been around for over one-hundred, and it is only recently (within the last few decades) that women began to take a strong role in decisive aspects of film production and there were movies made specifically with women in mind first and formost.

I'm not saying ONLY WOMEN can write for women but if we are honest with out selves it makes more sense that a woman will be able to write, direct, or create a product of entertainment in such a way that another woman will be able to empathize with the characters, story, etc. than a man can.

The question we need to be asking ourselves really is. When will the major game companies feel there is enough women buying games where they want to either/or put out a game specifically aimed at women, or produce a game that a woman can get behind and feel represented without alienating the normal male market.

The thing about the backlash against Uncharted 2 is that it's a 180 degree turn from what everybody thought when it was first announced. When the first news of it having a stealth aspect to the gameplay came to light with the Game Informer cover feature, everybody freaked out at the thought that Uncharted would turn into a stealth game and not be a shooter any more. That was a completely knee jerk reaction that didn't actually materialize, but now everybody seems to actually want that now since they think the game as is it ludicrous. You guys need to be consistent rather than changing your mind about what you want all of the time.

Thanks Jeff Cannata for making me look like an ass on the train! I couldn't keep myself from laughing during several parts of the podcast. What makes this awkward is that I was listening to it as usual on a crowded train on my way to work in Japan. I got a lot of odd looks :)

Anyway on the topic of games doing things differently, I think it would be great if a game was more like a movie and less like an exercise in bodycount (as fun as that is at times). The movie Inception for example might be a really cool game to play if done properly. There would still be a lot of action but there would also be challenges to find people, things, or avoid being noticed. The movie was OK but the game could be really interesting because we get to star in it.

Pure bodycount movies are pretty rare and not that successful generally. I remember seeing one in the theatre years back called The Killer. At the time I enjoyed it because it was so over the top but I can't say I want to see another movie like it. It satisfied an urge, but now I seek different things. I think games should be the same. I can't imagine Hollywood putting out bunch of movies pretty much the same as The Killer and expecting success ...though it seems to work in the gaming world because we don't ask for anything more.

Who knows, you might even get more women lining up for games if there aren't so many about "that guy" blowing crap up.

So glad the Pwninator (ie Andrea) is back.

Regarding the comparison of Dead Space to Doom:
Is there anything bad about the fact that Dead Space might have been inspired by Doom? I never got to play any of the Doom titles because it was before my time (back then it was only Nintendo systems for me). Yet many of my "older" friends always tell me that Doom is among their favorite titles of all time.

So if I get to know a little bit of this awesome Doom-vibe by playing a "3rd-person Doom" = Dead Space, that's a good thing, isn't it?

fellas, I got a question about the contradiction ya girl Andrea made,

She is in favor of a videogame world where there is less "tits and ass", but feels that we don't need to steer away from the violent, unbelievable body count shooter games.

I am confused on her vision.

These fps action games are all about being super silly / over the top. We know the characters will have double d's and 14inch dicks on our characters (hopefully not on the SAME character....) because it is meant to be the 80's action shoot em ups. To have a compelling heroine that is believable and strong in one of these titles would be just like having you control Elena Fisher or Chloe in the Uncharted games. Yes, you have an empowering woman (or at least a different approach), but the message of 'female empowerment' would be muddled amongst the piles of bodies.

To make a strong female lead (or male) that goes against the grain of a normal protagonist, you should try to put them in a game where violence is not emphasized. If SukerPunch had a Clarice Starling (silence of lambs) esq character, it would not matter because she was still is a contradiction (like we said about Drake and Bond).

Throw them in a game heavy rain esq game where decisions and character development is crucial, and when killing is necessary, it is emotional and awe-inspiring.

PS Batman does not count. Yes, he doesn't kill them, but they are still motionless on the ground, and has the same effect as a enemy being dead in any other game (same could be said for Bully) . The only difference between the two is the game saying they are not dead, but they virtually are.