Limbo and the real world

[EllDawn]

IMPORTANT SIDE NOTE: dont turn this into a argument guys this is a good thread where everyone has something unique to contribute dont wreck it for me please please please

I don't think you need to worry about this becoming an argument. It would have been easy for it to become one earlier, and never did. It's not likely to happen any time soon.

 

[Loopy]

also i have more to say (mods are probably gonna have to give me a warning or something for double posting in this thread so much)

the whole DmC comformity/nonconformity amuses me greatly the game on the outside gives out the message of conformity however things are treated as good v evil which is silly because if it was give a non-conformist message we would get something from mundus to justify his rule other things apart from his humans are weak mini speech that can be argued as invalid since he had such poor reasoning and examples then there is dante himself he started as archetypal young adult DBAG then at the end he became the hero and was all like "i am humanitys protecter no this not cliche no i am not having a identity crisis portrayed in a cliche and thus conformist way" really i could go on about how after you scratch the surface the crystal loses it's radiance and eventually becomes just another rock (actually that's a pretty good metaphor ITS MINE NOW)
I get the point that the game was making, but they could have been more subtle and elaborated more.

Let's face it, by the end of the game, nearly all of the characters are morally ambiguous.
Vergil has shot Lilith and her child dead which some would see as terrible. However, Vergil justifies this by saying it was for the good of the world, and follows that up by saying that he wants to rule humans because rule by greater beings is all they have ever known.

Mundus keeps humans enslaved with debt and illusions. He also reasons that humanity, if left unchecked, would kill each other and behave like wild animals. So he thinks he is helping them while also profiting by collecting their souls.
I also thought the part with him actually caring about his child was interesting. Sure, I don't think he loved it like a father; more like he cared about his legacy and heir, but still, it was interesting for a villain like Mundus to have that kind of facet to his character; espcially after he killed Dante and Vergil's parents, it was a kind of fitting justice that his own child and mother of his child were killed.

About Dante and his character. I guess that has been done a lot. Young guy, not bothering with anything except having a good time. Then he sees what's really going on and wants to take a stand. However, he also finds out that he's not human and never will be, but he becomes human emotionally through his journey in the game- ending in an existential crisis when his demon side takes over and he nearly kills Vergil.

Got to admit though, I wish Dante had started the fight with Vergil for a different reason. It seems like Vergil dismissing Kat's help was the trigger for Dante fighting.

Also, I love how Dante, Vergil and Kat are looking out on the wrecked city and the three are saying how they have saved humanity.....yeah....you really saved people, didn't you:troll: The city is destroyed, lots of people dead because of Mundus becoming a rampaging monster....that's not saving the world.

yet scratch further and the crystal shines once more (meh not that great) we get really complex themes about was it right to kill lilith? to me i think it was and it was neccesarry (see previous post about death before you kill me a monster) but lets move on

the eye of dante is conformity thing it is for iphone only the trendy gadgect to have and for facebook and twitter only the twitter social media sites
Yep. Be against the crowd by looking for the illusions in society while using an iphone, the most popular phone on the planet.:troll: Kinda ironic.

i dont have much to say right now thankfully just remember that just because i dont like nero you have to hate him to my sig is my not other peoples way of thinking i disagree on nero but i try to do so respectfully but who am i to judge? who is anybody ton judge declaring something right or something wrong makes you fall into conformity even when you are not biased in the slightest

my age makes weird to say what i have said but if i put of till later it will never get it done and this is something thats matters
Might as well get it out there. Age doesn't matter.
also i would like to know who here came because somone else was doing it but know im not going to accurate answers this is a subject where no sometimes means yes and yes sometimes means no and it is impossible to tell when,resulting in more headaches (to me this one of the most complex things that can be discussed and i certainly have a lot to say)

 

[LysseC]

the whole DmC comformity/nonconformity amuses me greatly the game on the outside gives out the message of conformity however things are treated as good v evil which is silly because if it was give a non-conformist message we would get something from mundus to justify his rule other things apart from his humans are weak mini speech that can be argued as invalid since he had such poor reasoning and examples then there is dante himself he started as archetypal young adult DBAG then at the end he became the hero and was all like "i am humanitys protecter no this not cliche no i am not having a identity crisis portrayed in a cliche and thus conformist way" really i could go on about how after you scratch the surface the crystal loses it's radiance and eventually becomes just another rock (actually that's a pretty good metaphor ITS MINE NOW)

I agree with you on this part, but with some more considerations to be made.

In general, you are perfectly right in saying that, although DmC wants to deliver a message like "Think with your own head", on the other hand, in practice, it gives you a fixed message about those complex issues: "Dante is right".
The style of the narration makes it evident whose side the creators are taking, Dante's, and conveys the message that Vergil is no better than Mundus. This is a fixed message, with no room to debate: Vergil position is demonized, since he is not given enough space to explain his reasons (and he may have plenty of them).

This emphasis on the positive role of Dante, moreover, suggests us to read Phineas' question "Once Mundus falls, who is going to take his place?" in a specific direction: we are prompted to think that he is warning Dante that once Mundus is defeated, someone else would take his place, AND THAT THIS WOULD BE BAD (thus Dante has to stop Vergil etc etc). This last part is not explicitly declared, so why do we all interpret it in this way?
I think this is because Phineas is presented by NT as the moral guide, the one who says what is Right. And since it is clearly suggested by the narrative that what Dante does is in the end right, we have to read Phineas' line as praising what Dante does.


But what if the narrative was not so explicitly in favor of Dante's decision? What if Vergil was given more space to defend his position, in a way that doesn't demonize him (note that this demonization, the fact that his statements in defense of his positions are posed in a way that is clearly to be read as the most negative possible, of Vergil is necessary to show that Dante is right)? What if he explained his reasons in a way that makes you think that he and Dante may both be right?
In such a case, I think, Phineas's words could be read differently, could be read as such: "After Mundus is defeated, beware that humans may need help, may need a guide in rebuiliding their society, may need someone to defend them from other perils (another demon king, for example). Who is gonna take on this necessary role?"

(A similar discussion, moreover, can be undertaken, as you suggested, about Lilith's murder, and also about Kat's rescue. The "You would risk the future of mankind for a girl" line is not one to be taken lightly. It can rgive birth to a very complex discussion about the necessity, in politics, to face certain sacrifices. Important thinkers like Max Weber and Machiavelli, whose thought should not, again, be demonized or simplified and easily dismissed, say that a political leader has to face such sacrifices, and accept that he will have to come to compromises that are not as morally pure as we would like them to be.)

In the end, we would have to decide for ourselves which side we want to take: we would have to think with our own head, which is exactly the message that DmC tried to convey from the very beginning.


However, although I would have really liked such a take on the story, on the other hand we must consider that maybe raising complex issues such as those is not the primary purpose of a Devil May Cry game, since the franchise is gameplay oriented and asks for a quite linear storyline.

 

[LysseC]

Let's face it, by the end of the game, nearly all of the characters are morally ambiguous.

I think Dante is not, though. Or at least, he is not presented as such. (Neither is Vergil, who is presented as bad in contrast to good Dante.)
The only one who may be explicitly presented as morally ambiguous could be Mundus, for his "I brought structure and prosperity" line.
Yes, Dante starts as the typical "Do I look like I give a f*ck" guy, but this is a quite usual trick to put a character in an even better light once he decides to take a stand and fight for the good.

Also, I love how Dante, Vergil and Kat are looking out on the wrecked city and the three are saying how they have saved humanity.....yeah....you really saved people, didn't you:troll: The city is destroyed, lots of people dead because of Mundus becoming a rampaging monster....that's not saving the world.

This should be the aspect on which they should have insisted to show how Dante is morally ambiguous. The fact that he is causing casualties while fighting demons. There is, I think, too little emphasis on this fact
Take Mission 4. Dante causes wreckage in that church, probably killing some civilians, but where is the emphasis put? In the fact that cruel Bob Barbas says he is a terrorist. Not in the fact that people DID INDEED DIE. Oh, and by the way, why did he end up fighting there? Because he is not being careful enough not to get caught (he got dragged into Limbo because he catches the camera's attention): if he had been, there wouldn't have been a fight in the church at all.
This is even worse than the casualties of the fight against Mundus (or those resulting from the shockwave in the rescue mission): at least in this two cases, they were fighting "for the greater good".
But this is not emphasized at all.

(That thread you made about Dante being a terrorist was quite enlightening in this regard)

So the problem is, they ARE ambiguous characters, but are not SHOWN as such (with possibly the exception of Mundus).


(I double posted too, sorry for that, but I read Loopy's post only after I posted mine...)

 

[EllDawn]

Also, I love how Dante, Vergil and Kat are looking out on the wrecked city and the three are saying how they have saved humanity.....yeah....you really saved people, didn't you:troll: The city is destroyed, lots of people dead because of Mundus becoming a rampaging monster....that's not saving the world.

They never really said they saved humanity, only that they freed them. Sure they put them in more danger, but at least they were able to see what was going on and could decide for themselves.

 

[Loopy]

They never really said they saved humanity, only that they freed them. Sure they put them in more danger, but at least they were able to see what was going on and could decide for themselves.

I meant more in a sense that they saved them from demon rule, but at what cost? Maybe I should have said 'freed them' instead.

I think Dante is not, though. Or at least, he is not presented as such. (Neither is Vergil, who is presented as bad in contrast to good Dante.)
With Vergil I was thinking more in a sense of he honestly thinks he is helping humans, but at the same time, he maes sacrifices (like Kat) which are questionable. He only agrees to rescue her because Dante wants to, and Vergil can't risk losing Dante because Dante does all of the dirty work for him while he hides.
The only one who may be explicitly presented as morally ambiguous could be Mundus, for his "I brought structure and prosperity" line.
Yes, Dante starts as the typical "Do I look like I give a f*ck" guy, but this is a quite usual trick to put a character in an even better light once he decides to take a stand and fight for the good.

This should be the aspect on which they should have insisted to show how Dante is morally ambiguous. The fact that he is causing casualties while fighting demons. There is, I think, too little emphasis on this fact Exactly. We know it must happen, but it is not shown. Then again, I don't like a game that takes player's hands and guides them for every step. I like some things to be left to be worked out by yourself.
Take Mission 4. Dante causes wreckage in that church, probably killing some civilians, but where is the emphasis put? In the fact that cruel Bob Barbas says he is a terrorist. Not in the fact that people DID INDEED DIE. Oh, and by the way, why did he end up fighting there? Because he is not being careful enough not to get caught (he got dragged into Limbo because he catches the camera's attention): if he had been, there wouldn't have been a fight in the church at all.
This is even worse than the casualties of the fight against Mundus (or those resulting from the shockwave in the rescue mission): at least in this two cases, they were fighting "for the greater good".
But this is not emphasized at all.
Also the night club mission. Dante's running around Limbo killing demons, but in the human world it is a crowded club. He could have been cutting up humans by mistake. There's an article about that on the Raptor News site, about how Dante walks into a club and kills loads of people there.

(That thread you made about Dante being a terrorist was quite enlightening in this regard)

So the problem is, they ARE ambiguous characters, but are not SHOWN as such (with possibly the exception of Mundus).


(I double posted too, sorry for that, but I read Loopy's post only after I posted mine...)

 

[Xeroxis]

I think I would probably be seeing a lot of babies being punted around by their frustrated mothers.

 

[Loopy]

I think I would probably be seeing a lot of babies being punted around by their frustrated mothers.

That happens anyway. Father and mothers killing or really hurting their babies and toddlers because they either can't cope, didn't want the child or are sadists.

I doesn't help that media create this image of happy babies who nevery cry, when the reality is babies cry a lot; sometimes for no reason; and it does get frustrating...I guess this is when the adults start getting angry and shake the baby out of frustration and kill it.

If people were told the reality of having a baby, what it does to a womans' body, how much money, sleep, emotion and time it takes up for both parents, then I would hope people who anly really wanted babies would have them because they would be prepared for this.

These days people have them by accident, to trap a man or woman, for welfare money or think of a baby like an accessory. More people should put serious thought into what it takes to have a baby and raise it from toddler to child to teenager and then adult. It's a life long responsibility, and it's children who suffer when it all goes wrong.

 

[Xeroxis]

That happens anyway. Father and mothers killing or really hurting their babies and toddlers because they either can't cope, didn't want the child or are sadists.

I doesn't help that media create this image of happy babies who nevery cry, when the reality is babies cry a lot; sometimes for no reason; and it does get frustrating...I guess this is when the adults start getting angry and shake the baby out of frustration and kill it.

If people were told the reality of having a baby, what it does to a womans' body, how much money, sleep, emotion and time it takes up for both parents, then I would hope people who anly really wanted babies would have them because they would be prepared for this.

These days people have them by accident, to trap a man or woman, for welfare money or think of a baby like an accessory. More people should put serious thought into what it takes to have a baby and raise it from toddler to child to teenager and then adult. It's a life long responsibility, and it's children who suffer when it all goes wrong.

Yeah. That is true. I was thinking on a mass scale though, like thousands of people flooding the streets in a heart-wrenching bloody mass of broken babies and crazed middle-aged stay-at-home moms and disgruntled office dads. Theres also an orphanage across the street catapulting children down into the filth too. Thats kinda my image

 

[Loopy]

Yeah. That is true. I was thinking on a mass scale though, like thousands of people flooding the streets in a heart-wrenching bloody mass of broken babies and crazed middle-aged stay-at-home moms and disgruntled office dads. Theres also an orphanage across the street catapulting children down into the filth too. Thats kinda my image

That would be terrible.
Makes me wonder though that if laws were not in place...would more mothers and fathers kill their children? I hear they still do it in China, especially if it is a girl. I also heard Spartans used to abandon their children in the wilderness. If it survived, it was worth raising. In this day and age, that sort of action would be thought of as monstrous, but back then it was normal.

Also makes me think, life is like a pyramid scheme. People need to keep having babies, who will grow up to be the next generation of tax payers, who will pay for the retirement of the previous tax payers.

It's quite sad when people say 'I had this child so it will grow up and be a responsible tax payer'. So you had the child as a retirement investment?
Or to 'give the child everything I never had as a child'. So the child is supposed to be a replica of you who you can live your failed life though?

It's not like they want these children because they love children. They have children out of duty to the state who need these children to pay taxes for them when they are old.

If people truly cared, they wouldn't have children at all. From birth, children have no say, they are sent to school, univeristy, and then expected to get a job, marry and have more children to pay their retirment, and then die.

I've seen on this forum that some people's worst times were at school. Bullies, teasing, terrible teachers...school is like an indoctrination camp where they tell you what to think, how to perform for tests, and if you are different in any way, then it will be hell.

 

[LysseC]

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/crime/article3772104.ece

I just read this news and was shocked a bit. I am sincerely sad for the victim of this attack.
But, do you think this is what Dante could have been seen by passers-by if he attacked a demon disguised as a soldier(I have all respect for the victim, and DO NOT THINK he is a demon, surely)?

 

[Loopy]

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/crime/article3772104.ece

I just read this news and was shocked a bit. I am sincerely sad for the victim of this attack.
But, do you think this is what Dante could have been seen by passers-by if he attacked a demon disguised as a soldier(I have all respect for the victim, and DO NOT THINK he is a demon, surely)?

Wow....that's terrible. Once again a few religious crazy people making the whole lot look bad.

It seems like Dante could have been seen as that considering the police are demons in disguise. The Raptor news article is proof of that. It describes how people said Dante just wet crazy attacking what looked to them like other party goers.

 

[MigsRZXAStylish]

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/crime/article3772104.ece

I just read this news and was shocked a bit. I am sincerely sad for the victim of this attack.
But, do you think this is what Dante could have been seen by passers-by if he attacked a demon disguised as a soldier(I have all respect for the victim, and DO NOT THINK he is a demon, surely)?

That is terrible! Rest easy, soldier!

 

[Ronin]

http://www.cbn.com/tv/1509282970001

www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2013/March/Americans-Warned-Homeschoolers-Stripped-of-Rights/

www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2013/May/Security-Concerns-for-Statue-of-Liberty-Reopening/

 

[seraphmaycry]

Can you believe this! Muslims poppin' up everywhere like a disease!

http://www.cbn.com/tv/1509282970001

www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2013/March/Americans-Warned-Homeschoolers-Stripped-of-Rights/

www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2013/May/Security-Concerns-for-Statue-of-Liberty-Reopening/

I wish Christians pop everywhere. Only a miracle can be shown.

'k thats just mean i made the same mistake myself so im not going to /ignore you just yet (though i do recommend you tidy your manners before someone does it for you)

 

[Ronin]

'k thats just mean i made the same mistake myself so im not going to /ignore you just yet (though i do recommend you tidy your manners before someone does it for you)

Okay I'm sorry for what I said.

But you're seeing what's going on right? Are demons at work?

 

[Loopy]

Okay I'm sorry for what I said.

But you're seeing what's going on right? Are demons at work?

What it is...it's crazy fanaticals making it terrible for everyone. Problem is, now all followers of Islam are being painted with the same brush.
Women wearing the hijab being shouted at in public...also heard of one lady having hers pulled off. One man was held by a gang and forced to eat pork, but that's totally against their religion. It's the people who have done nothing wrong who are becoming targets because of fanaticals.
The ones who do terrible crimes are not being deported, and that is what is making people angry. Like gangs of men attacking girls and these murders recently. Thy're the ones who should be punished.

The other problem is immigration. Yes, followers of Islam are moving into other countries, but there has always been hostility and anger towards immigrants of any kind, regardless of religion or race.
Americans did not like the Irish at one point and treated them badly. Americans brought Africans over as slaves and treated them terribly. Then in UK, there is anti Polish sentiments in some places.

So the real demons are government who are too soft on the fanaticals, and people who use religion as an excuse to be violent animals.

 

[LysseC]

Just some days ago I was talking with this person, and she was lamenting that immigrants in Italy just come here and commit crimes, that they are not as civilized as us.
I got really angry and answered, well, when we Italians were migrated to the US, we brought mafia there, and now people know us for that (and pizza). So we are surely not to talk.
As you say, Loopy, the "good" majority of normal people is seen negatively because of a violent minority.

 

[Loopy]

Just some days ago I was talking with this person, and she was lamenting that immigrants in Italy just come here and commit crimes, that they are not as civilized as us.
I got really angry and answered, well, when we Italians were migrated to the US, we brought mafia there, and now people know us for that (and pizza). So we are surely not to talk.
As you say, Loopy, the "good" majority of normal people is seen negatively because of a violent minority.

I think the other problem is that when immigrants do bad things, it is in the news a lot, so many people will hear about it. However, when people live their lives normally, or do something helpful, it is not in the news.
Also because there is not much mixing between immigrants and the native people of the country, the only information native people have about immigrant people is on the news. So, they will only know the bad image that the news shows.

Besides immigrant families who live in the country...after a few generations, they become more like the culture of the country they live in.
I have friends who are followers of Islam and Sikhs. Thy're all 2nd or 3rd generation living in UK. They have their own culture, but they also like aspects of UK culture too, so they do both.
But I was suprised to find out that if my Sikh friends were back in their grandparents country, they would not be allowed to be friends because of a caste sytem. So, they are happy to live in UK because they can be friends here.

Religion doesn't get in the way either. We all talk together, even if we are from different religious backgrounds. It's interesting to see what differences are, and what we have in common. We were surprised to find a lot of connections between the three religions. It's kinda cool.

It really makes me mad though when people call them rude names in the street or wonder why I am friends with them because I am white. Who cares about colour of skin if people are friends.

 

[Mandy Cheung]

I think it is an universal issue for people tend to essentialize, over-generalize and then alienate people from different background and try to simplify the causes for the problems they are facing, so that they can get relieved.

I am from Hong Kong, in previous years, people tend to say the immigrants from mainland China are "lazy" and just want to enjoy the welfare, which is comparatively better than their hometown(a common argument used in other countries). While the demographics shows the immigrants are doing majority of the works with low paid and long working hours.

Recently, the drastic increase of rich tourists from China has boosted the business of retail industry for tourism, which lead to the unreasonable increase of rent and value of land, and caused the old stores with local histories went bankrupt, and the small stores which serve the local residents are forced to move far away, replaced by the chain stores, especially in the places with most convenient traffic, we don't feel the area belong to the local residents anymore. Facing the deteriorating environment, some of the people label the mainland Chinese as "locust", I could sometimes see when some of my friends express what they think about the news of China, they simply refer the term locust to the Chinese (well, besides the rich people, the income gap is huge actually). The mentality behide is a bit similar to racism, but while we are not different races, it is complicated. Some people wrote articles trying to clarify the concepts and the fallacy of strawman, but they got being labelled as "communists" or "fundamental lefties". While considering the colonial history, the different involved interest groups propaganda is on going when we are currently arguing to have universal suffrage, people(and the govts) are sensitive, every drop of water could get 10000 lights shed on, it is very hard for people to be rational. Even for some issues you can debunk the wrong assumptions and hypothesis by facts and statistics, they are not in the mood to talk into it.

I can understand that every country or place has its own difficult and complicated issues to tackle with, but need to face many troubles, lots of soundbites from different interest groups trying to dominate your mind, which make people hard to be rational, and while things can be complicated, it's also hard to explain things with all rounded perspective and find a golden solution. Every media firm(and the government) has its own hidden advocacy, at least, we can't fall in the traps from the media when it is creating fear by over-generalizing. I am not saying being cynic is the best way to go, but the bias does not help in discovering the root of problems. I know much people view the world with the lens of "struggle of powers", to some extent it's true, but when you divide entities by nation, culture, religions, etc, there are unique individuals within that boundary, not everyone of them act, hold the same beliefs and align the same interests as the "representatives/government" of that entity. Sometimes, we need to see things as children with the innocent heart, free from bias and be curious to understand others. (end of post, I need to sleep now)