Sinnerman

[Niatka]

Regardless of the motivations regarding religion, philosophy and others, Sinnerman did not leave me indifferent. I keep my choices to myself but there is no question, for my part, of crucifying this man.
the game emphasizes the drifts of the media about what I call; {the pornography of misfortune}. all these tv channels offering programs concerning the misfortune of very real people. the peoples of the world watch, often love, listen and look at the misfortune around us. Sinnerman is the climax of this state of fact; and we are no longer far from it.

Imagine; a state agrees to show gladiatorial fights to the death, who will watch that? who will bet?
certainly not me, too rebellious and free in my mind for that. unfortunately, how many will watch, legions...

O, Sinnerman, where you gonna run to?

 

[maniak6767]

Regardless of the motivations regarding religion, philosophy and others, Sinnerman did not leave me indifferent. I keep my choices to myself but there is no question, for my part, of crucifying this man.
the game emphasizes the drifts of the media about what I call; {the pornography of misfortune}. all these tv channels offering programs concerning the misfortune of very real people. the peoples of the world watch, often love, listen and look at the misfortune around us. Sinnerman is the climax of this state of fact; and we are no longer far from it.

Imagine; a state agrees to show gladiatorial fights to the death, who will watch that? who will bet?
certainly not me, too rebellious and free in my mind for that. unfortunately, how many will watch, legions...

O, Sinnerman, where you gonna run to?

This quest didn't shock me. It was something i can imagine can happen even these days. Crucifxation 2000 years ago, was also "show", like every public execution.

Spoiler

About "pornography of misfortune", just today news from most popular polish website:
1.Katastrofa helikoptera. Dwie osoby nie żyją. (death of 2 people)
2.Definitywny koniec zimy? Odpowiedź z IMGW (end of winter)
3.Nie żyje Mieczysław Pieronek (death)
4.Rydzyk wygrał konkurs. W Toruniu zawrzało (controversy)
5.Duda w młodości. Zdjęcie hitem internetu
6."Absolutni debile". Ciężkie słowa Kowalskiego (politician insulting others)
7.Pogoda długoterminowa. Zaatakuje mróz (attack of winter, look #2)
8."FAZ": Kolejny wstrząs w polskim Kościele (controversy, pedophilia)
9.Włochy. Runął cmentarz. Trumny w morzu (catastrophic event)
10.27-latek chciał zgwałcić i zabić 12-latkę? (rape and murder of child)
11.Zbliża się zagrożenie. Są ostrzeżenia IMGW (incoming danger)
12.RPA. Zabiła żyrafę i pozowała z jej sercem (killing giraffe)
13."Podziemne wesele". Donosy od sąsiadów (illegal gathering, snitching)
14.Zabójstwo 17-latka. Podejrzany zabrał głos (murder)
15.Nie żyje dziennikarz Janusz Majka (death)
16.Dramat na drodze. Mężczyzna zmarł w kabinie (death)
17."Coś się wkradło". COVID coraz groźniejszy (virus, danger)
18.Nietypowe zjawisko pogodowe w Polsce

It's here, right now.

 

[DigitalDreams1011]

I was simply frustrated how there seemed no way I could prevent it, to talk sense into the guy. But, that may be realistic after all.

If he's willing to be nailed to some wood, then a talk about morality probably wouldn't be enough.

As for discussion on it's real world possibility, there's always been people that would and wouldn't be willing to partake. I'm sure for every person in the Roman Coliseum, there was another who preferred not watching animals and slaves be gutted on the sands.

 

[feckyer1ife]

I was simply frustrated how there seemed no way I could prevent it, to talk sense into the guy. But, that may be realistic after all.

Yeah its one of those illusion of choice quest, it pissed me off after i tried to play it multiple ways.

 

[Ayinde_Palmer]

Regardless of the motivations regarding religion, philosophy and others, Sinnerman did not leave me indifferent. I keep my choices to myself but there is no question, for my part, of crucifying this man.
the game emphasizes the drifts of the media about what I call; {the pornography of misfortune}. all these tv channels offering programs concerning the misfortune of very real people. the peoples of the world watch, often love, listen and look at the misfortune around us. Sinnerman is the climax of this state of fact; and we are no longer far from it.

Imagine; a state agrees to show gladiatorial fights to the death, who will watch that? who will bet?
certainly not me, too rebellious and free in my mind for that. unfortunately, how many will watch, legions...

O, Sinnerman, where you gonna run to?

Eh, on one side you have the corporatization monetization, but the other side is a guy who is sentenced to death, and hopes/believes he can teach/show people something spiritual and empathic by letting them experience his feelings when facing it. If his bd can have a positive effect on some people, is it worth it?

I think its a cloudy issue.

Post automatically merged: Feb 23, 2021

I was simply frustrated how there seemed no way I could prevent it, to talk sense into the guy. But, that may be realistic after all.

If he's willing to be nailed to some wood, then a talk about morality probably wouldn't be enough.

As for discussion on it's real world possibility, there's always been people that would and wouldn't be willing to partake. I'm sure for every person in the Roman Coliseum, there was another who preferred not watching animals and slaves be gutted on the sands.

is it better for him to die in an execution chair?

 

[CS554]

Eh, on one side you have the corporatization monetization, but the other side is a guy who is sentenced to death, and hopes/believes he can teach/show people something spiritual and empathic by letting them experience his feelings when facing it. If his bd can have a positive effect on some people, is it worth it?

I think its a cloudy issue.

It is indeed and one of the genius aspects of this quest is that we can't be sure of things like if Sinnerman truly believes and it helps him to accept reality of himself or did he made himself believe, because in the end, he couldn't face that reality?

What comes to possible positive aspect, that only works if society is geared that way. But we may also look it differently, if for the most part it's that society by large doesn't care but way it's played gives them access to content that would otherwise be a snuff video in context that is socially acceptable.

It really is brilliant writing in terms that it can be viewed in multiple ways. Masses excepting their entertainment, religious mob outside studio, video producer, security guard, victims mother, nobody actually gives a damn about man himself. Or from the point of Sinnerman, or from the point of producer, highly functional sociopath with good impulse control. Writing about serial killers is one way, what was done here is far more difficult but it really hits home in dynamics and how all that matches real life theories.

 

[maniak6767]

Yeah its one of those illusion of choice quest, it pissed me off after i tried to play it multiple ways.

How this quest is illusion of choice?
You can kill Joshua at start.
You can give up to continue this quest few times.
You can influence outcome of BD.
Joshua is dead man walking (just like V), if not BD, it's electric chair for him.
On other hand they give you a lot of oportunities to build your character: are you believer, or not, do you think Joshua is right, what about whole situation - will you take bribe from corpo, will you screw them and Joshua and sabotage BD.

Some dialoges in game or even situations (like handgun near Yorinobu - devil ending), are there just to build your character. It's roleplaying game after all.

 

[ralfetas]

Fun fact, i never manage to make this mission, i discover this mission on youtube, in my 2 plays, the guy goes, get shot, and i go finish the job killing the cop, cannot kill people inside the car (the original target), when i run away Wakako call me and is gig closed, all done...

 

[feckyer1ife]

How this quest is illusion of choice?
You can kill Joshua at start.
You can give up to continue this quest few times.
You can influence outcome of BD.
Joshua is dead man walking (just like V), if not BD, it's electric chair for him.
On other hand they give you a lot of oportunities to build your character: are you believer, or not, do you think Joshua is right, what about whole situation - will you take bribe from corpo, will you screw them and Joshua and sabotage BD.

Some dialoges in game or even situations (like handgun near Yorinobu - devil ending), are there just to build your character. It's roleplaying game after all.

I get that. its either kill up front, bribe or ride it out. But there needs to be the fourth option of talking him out of it. A lot of the conversation eludes to that being a possibility, but you can't go that route. Its the same quest style from a lot of Witcher quests. I agree that the convo's with him are great, specially when it gets closer to his death

 

[Grindders]

How this quest is illusion of choice?
You can kill Joshua at start.

You can kill him only at the beginning of the quest. You can't kill him after the car ride, the game forbids you to draw your weapon. You can't kill him in Zuleiha's house, see her reaction to the event, get new dialogues, and get the full completion of the quest.
You can either complete the quest or kill him and lose quest content.

You can give up to continue this quest few times.

I tried not to talk to him in the car and Rachel still said that V was a bad influence on Joshua.
I took Rachel's money and went to the cafe anyway. No new dialogues, no new development of the quest.
If you turned down a bribe and went with Joshua to the cafe, it doesn't matter what you say, Rachel still won't be happy. So why give a choice of dialogue if the characters reactions are the same?
So your choice again - to do a linear quest or lose part of the content without getting anything in return.

You can influence outcome of BD.

All of this leads to the difference in one short phone call. No real consequences.

By that logic, you can do no story missions and V will stay alive forever. And then you can call it a secret ending.

 

[maniak6767]

You can kill him only at the beginning of the quest. You can't kill him after the car ride, the game forbids you to draw your weapon. You can't kill him in Zuleiha's house, see her reaction to the event, get new dialogues, and get the full completion of the quest.
You can either complete the quest or kill him and lose quest content.

I tried not to talk to him in the car and Rachel still said that V was a bad influence on Joshua.
I took Rachel's money and went to the cafe anyway. No new dialogues, no new development of the quest.
So your choice again - to do a linear quest or lose part of the content without getting anything in return.

All of this leads to the difference in one short phone call. No real consequences.

By that logic, you can do no story missions and V will stay alive forever. And then you can call it a secret ending.

And you can't kill Hanako, you can't kill Yorinobu, you can't kill Panam and dozens of other characters. Reason, there's story to tell. It's this kind of game , you know. Story, quests, and roleplaying.

 

[Grindders]

And you can't kill Hanako, you can't kill Yorinobu, you can't kill Panam and dozens of other characters.

Why are you comparing the main characters to a side-quest character that the player is required to kill by the plot of that quest?

 

[_Fender_]

I very liked that story and it was one of a few which left me wondering - should I do something differently? And I like that a fact that V cant change the outcome. Some people may call it poor design, but this is more about being spectator, not so much of creator of events just like in real life some things just happen and we cant do much about it. You can take money or leave without them if you want, or be a companion in someones final moments.

 

[maniak6767]

Why are you comparing the main characters to a side-quest character that the player is required to kill by the plot of that quest?

Yes, because from point of view of V, what's difference? Why he/she can't kill Hanako at Embers? Where is freedom of player? Is limited by story. I would say giving some option to escape with Joshua would be not that bad, but anitclimatic. For me there should be option to call Wakakao and ask for cash, because you killed Joshua by crucification, so where is my money, I've done job, nobody said how to do it (playing evil V)? But it just me. In my opinion, devs of this game are not really eagle to give oportunity to go full psycho, that's why you can't kill children, and after killing some civilians, you will be flatlined by MaxTac. That's why you can't kill Joshua if V decided to follow him.
Even in famous New Vegas there's was Yes Man option, when you decided to kill all other main characters you could use him as option to finish story of NV. But you can't kill Yes Man, because he will respawn and I'm not sure is this really that clever solution...Games are games, they are limited.

 

[Grindders]

Yes, because from point of view of V, what's difference?

Ok, why can V kill Joshua at the beginning of the quest, but can't kill him after the car ride? V can even say in the car - I'm still following the contract to kill you. But the player is not allowed to do that.

I'm not saying the quest is bad. I'm saying it's linear. You can't influence anything. All of the characters' reactions to V don't even depend on what you say in the dialogues. You either watch Joshua's linear story or you don't watch it.

 

[CS554]

Ok, why can V kill Joshua at the beginning of the quest, but can't kill him after the car ride? V can even say in the car - I'm still following the contract to kill you. But the player is not allowed to do that.

Choice in this job, it is really about that. If you are going to go along to begin with or not. To kill Sinnerman by blowing up their car or something, or if you get in then you are in. I usually don't like things handled this manner but in this story it works for me.

 

[Grindders]

if you get in then you are in.

Then why is it possible for a player to say "I'm still on contract to kill you" when you're already riding with Joshua in the car?

 

[CS554]

Then why is it possible for a player to say "I'm still on contract to kill you" when you're already riding with Joshua in the car?

But V can do that, what is perhaps bugged is what maniak6767 wrote. There's no reward money from fixer after if player kills Sinnerman by nailing him to cross. That leads to question if that's due client being dead, so while contract technically exists does it actually if there's no one left to pay the bill?

 

[maniak6767]

Ok, why can V kill Joshua at the beginning of the quest, but can't kill him after the car ride? V can even say in the car - I'm still following the contract to kill you. But the player is not allowed to do that.

I'm not saying the quest is bad. I'm saying it's linear. You can't influence anything. All of the characters' reactions to V don't even depend on what you say in the dialogues. You either watch Joshua's linear story or you don't watch it.

It's not linear, because of V, your character, while following Joshua. V is not tabula rasa character, he/she is much more like Geralt than for example Dragonborn from Skyrim (but let's be honest Skyrim is very limited with choices if we talk about quests, so I'm not sure it's good example). You have choices in this quest, but no matter what Joshua will die, it doesn't make quest linear lol.

Then why is it possible for a player to say "I'm still on contract to kill you" when you're already riding with Joshua in the car?

Because he knows you're hired to kill him, he tells you that, it's obvious from beginning, he is crazy, if you didn't notice.

Post automatically merged: Feb 23, 2021

But V can do that, what is perhaps bugged is what @maniak6767 wrote. There's no reward money from fixer after if player kills Sinnerman by nailing him to cross. That leads to question if that's due client being dead, so while contract technically exists does it actually if there's no one left to pay the bill?

It was paid upfront by Bill Jablonsky. Wakako just took money

Spoiler

bitch

and never called. She will pay even after Bill is ded (he will always die), so I don't think its problem that client is dead.

 

[CS554]

It was paid upfront by Bill Jablonsky. Wakako just took money

Spoiler

bitch

and never called. She will pay even after Bill will die (he will always die), so I don't think its problem that client died.

This actually looks like oversight to me, worth a ticket.