Carl Johnson (CJ) vs Jason Bourne

So in essence you are calling me a troll rather than answering a serious question that I asked. Good job buddy. Try again when you actually want to debate something. You know, I think I'm actually going to flag you for that one. That's very insulting. I asked a serious question and you respond with calling me a troll.

I haven't played GTA: San Andres in a while, so my memory is a little hazy, but didn't CJ take on armies of gangs and eventually the American Army head on in multiple occasions and come out victorious pretty much every time? (In the story line, not counting free roam game mechanics).

I'll go with Carl taking the majority over Bourne.

@monsterstomp: I can accept the fact that CJ's feats are canon, in the sense of plot, but the context of his feats are never explained

How many military levelling feats do these hood rats do without it coming back to bite them in the ass? Everyone in the GTA universe is protected by game mechanics.

Being honest here, you're fighting a losing battle. Invalidating something because it's ambiguous is a logical fallacy. We have enough context on these feats to not only validate their existence, but to also use them as proof that CJ is better than Bourne. Why? Because it's what the creators of GTA intended for CJ to do, and it's what CJ did. You experience these feats by playing as CJ in a video game. Because of this, there are gameplay mechanics involved. However, just because the act of experiencing the feats is non-canon in terms of player-controlled actions and gameplay mechanics like health bars, it doesn't mean that in terms of canon - what happened - the feats don't exist or aren't as impressive as they are presented to be. It's about separating facts from the means in which you experience the facts.

The facts are that CJ has stormed military bases, and killed trained soldiers and mercenaries by the dozen, numerous times. Twist it however you want to, that is what happened.

Saying characters are protected by gameplay mechanics is also a logical fallacy, and it's also not the correct term to use for your complaint. What you said about there being no repercussions for these missions eludes to plot, or PIS, protecting CJ, not gameplay mechanics like health bars and so on. And that's just silly. This is fiction we're talking about. Not only is fiction meant to be outlandish, but because the nature of any work of fiction is completely and utterly dictated by the creator, you really get no official say in what is valid and what isn't. To you, certainly, nothing CJ has accomplished can be valid. But to the creators, and by proxy anyone who agrees with the creators, CJ's feats are canon, and that is that. So it doesn't matter if there were no in-universe repercussions for CJ soloing a military base. The fact is that he did it.

@i_like_swords:

Being honest here, you're fighting a losing battle. Invalidating something because it's ambiguous is a logical fallacy.

Not really invalidating it. I'm more or less questioning it. I'm all for a player doing what is needed to progress through the game, but when there are inconsistencies due to game mechanics (which isn't allowed when debating game characters), I'm going to pull up on it.

We have enough context on these feats to not only validate their existence, but to also use them as proof that CJ is better than Bourne. Why? Because it's what the creators of GTA intended for CJ to do, and it's what CJ did.

The missions exist because its contained within the plot of the game. CJ canonically completed the missions, but the context within the majority of those feats aren't known. Without context (if we just took it at face value), running and gunning through a military base is as impressive as, say, Alex Mason and Woods running and gunning through a Vietnam jungle terrain (Victor Charlie). Throw in context, which CJ's feats lack, and you have Mason slugging two guys, pulling open a jammed door underwater, hijacking a dingy and soloing a few other soldiers from behind a human-shield, so on and so forth.

This is the basis of what I've been trying to discuss. Its easy to throw out claims like: "The facts are that CJ has stormed military bases, and killed trained soldiers and mercenaries by the dozen, numerous times.". But its a hollow feat. Its impressive, but from a statement point of view. There's no description. There's nothing in that statement that evidently puts him above Bourne.

Saying characters are protected by gameplay mechanics is also a logical fallacy, and it's also not the correct term to use for your complaint. What you said about there being no repercussions for these missions eludes to plot, or PIS, protecting CJ, not gameplay mechanics like health bars and so on. And that's just silly. This is fiction we're talking about. Not only is fiction meant to be outlandish, but because the nature of any work of fiction is completely and utterly dictated by the creator, you really get no official say in what is valid and what isn't. To you, certainly, nothing CJ has accomplished can be valid. But to the creators, and by proxy anyone who agrees with the creators, CJ's feats are canon, and that is that. So it doesn't matter if there were no in-universe repercussions for CJ soloing a military base. The fact is that he did it.

CJ was protected by plot then. Regardless, my point still stands.

@monsterstomp: Not really invalidating it. I'm more or less questioning it. I'm all for a player doing what is needed to progress through the game, but when there are inconsistencies due to game mechanics (which isn't allowed when debating game characters), I'm going to pull up on it.

What inconsistencies?

The missions exist because its contained within the plot of the game. CJ canonically completed the missions, but the context within the majority of those feats aren't known.

You're acting as if the missions are some obscure myth from a third hand source. We've got enough context to understand what CJ would have done roughly. You have locations you need to head to in the missions, and enemies in your way. You have mission descriptions. You have character dialogue. And you also have common sense. You're coming as close as you can to disregarding the feat entirely just because it's represented through gameplay mechanics, which is silly because there are a multitude of ways to accurately deduce how CJ performed the feats. It might be easier if you tell me which feat specifically you're upset with.

Without context (if we just took it at face value), running and gunning through a military base is as impressive as, say, Alex Mason and Woods running and gunning through a Vietnam jungle terrain (Victor Charlie). Throw in context, which CJ's feats lack, and you have Mason slugging two guys, pulling open a jammed door underwater, hijacking a dingy and soloing a few other soldiers from behind a human-shield, so on and so forth.

In other words, due to the feats lacking explicit context, you're willing to speculate that CJ completed the feats in as unimpressive a fashion as possible by making a fallacious cross-universe comparison, but are unwilling to view the feat in an impressive light.. for no apparent reason. Pretty unreasonable, to me. Instead of pushing the feat down as much as possible via your own speculation etc, why don't you just take an objective look at the feats and deduce how exactly you think CJ carried them out? As it is you're just using a blanket argument which really just boils down to the fact you're unwilling to accept anything short of a cinematic presentation.

This is the basis of what I've been trying to discuss. Its easy to throw out claims like: "The facts are that CJ has stormed military bases, and killed trained soldiers and mercenaries by the dozen, numerous times.". But its a hollow feat. Its impressive, but from a statement point of view. There's no description. There's nothing in that statement that evidently puts him above Bourne.

It's not really hollow when you throw common sense into the picture. Facts about the feat include that CJ killed them with guns, that he didn't get shot, that he faced overwhelming numbers and prevailed, and so on. No matter what way you cut it, it's highly impressive and denotes a sh*t load of skill on CJ's part. I mean, how else do you think someone storms a military base? What context do you believe is missing that would help aid your argument that the feats aren't as impressive as Nick thinks they are? Did CJ catch them all on their toilet break or something?

CJ was protected by plot then. Regardless, my point still stands.

It really doesn't. Arguing that it's illogical for a fictional character to not receive realistic repercussions for their actions, both fails to aid your attempt at scrutinizing the feat itself, and is just a poor argument to begin with. I mean, it's fiction. Look hard enough and you'll find plot holes in just about anything. Writers don't tend to get hung up on that kind of thing because stories are meant to be entertaining, not overly complicated to the point people are falling asleep over the little details.

What you should also keep in mind is that your train of logic applies to characters like Ezio as well. Even more so due to greater variety of dynamics that can come into play during missions such as stealth, an interactive environment, and a very free-form approach to entering every situation due to an open world. CJ isn't as restricted due to the fact a lot of his missions involve an A to B structure, i.e, fight through this location, kill these enemies, get here, kill more enemies, grab the laptop, escape. Ezio having novels helps, to be fair, but I'm just saying, being overly critical can hurt you from thread to thread.

@i_like_swords:

What inconsistencies?

My mistake. Inconsistencies due to plot* (as we agreed it wasn't game mechanics).

"Black Project" for example. The goal of the mission was to steal a Jetpack and Carl succeeded. That is the ONLY canon part about the feat if Nickz didn't leave anything out. How he went on about it remains unknown. Ya'll are arguing that he killed every soldier in the base, yet there are no later repercussions. That is an inconsistency. It doesn't add up and its as simple as that. Objectively, a work-around to this inconsistency is that Carl snuck into the base and stole the Jetpack. Obviously speculation, but you see my point. We don't know the "how". All we know is that he was successful.

You're acting as if the missions are some obscure myth from a third hand source. We've got enough context to understand what CJ would have done roughly. You have locations you need to head to in the missions, and enemies in your way. You have mission descriptions. You have character dialogue. And you also have common sense. You're coming as close as you can to disregarding the feat entirely just because it's represented through gameplay mechanics, which is silly because there are a multitude of ways to accurately deduce how CJ performed the feats. It might be easier if you tell me which feat specifically you're upset with.

Primarily the "Black Project" mission. Which, after viewing the actual video, suggests that stealth is a viable option for the player anyway. With that said, how do we know for sure that Carl didn't canonically opt out for the stealth option? What about his canon weapon of choice? Like I said, all we know is that he was successful.

In other words, due to the feats lacking explicit context, you're willing to speculate that CJ completed the feats in as unimpressive a fashion as possible by making a fallacious cross-universe comparison, but are unwilling to view the feat in an impressive light.. for no apparent reason. Pretty unreasonable, to me. Instead of pushing the feat down as much as possible via your own speculation etc, why don't you just take an objective look at the feats and deduce how exactly you think CJ carried them out? As it is you're just using a blanket argument which really just boils down to the fact you're unwilling to accept anything short of a cinematic presentation.

I can see how you'd think that. But I'm only thinking objectively, which betrays your train of thought. I didn't say it was unimpressive, I just said the missions lack explicit context which broadens the spectrum of thought. In essence, its off-panel. Like a canon fight between Sub Zero and Scorpion. All we know is that Scorpion was successful, we don't know the context of the fight. Its impressive from a statement point of view, but how do we know whether or not it was a stomp or not? Truth is, we don't. Same logic applies here.

It's not really hollow when you throw common sense into the picture. Facts about the feat include that CJ killed them with guns, that he didn't get shot, that he faced overwhelming numbers and prevailed, and so on. No matter what way you cut it, it's highly impressive and denotes a sh*t load of skill on CJ's part. I mean, how else do you think someone storms a military base? What context do you believe is missing that would help aid your argument that the feats aren't as impressive as Nick thinks they are? Did CJ catch them all on their toilet break or something?

Are they facts or speculation on your part? The fact that I can question these claims for certainty, punches a major hole in the feat if it can't be argued.

I'm not going to pull up copious amounts of YouTube videos just to confirm all of the feats Nickz put forth, if he wants to debate me, I'm all game. But if I question something to confirm validity and it can't be, its just another hole in CJ's feats.

It really doesn't. Arguing that it's illogical for a fictional character to not receive realistic repercussions for their actions, both fails to aid your attempt at scrutinizing the feat itself, and is just a poor argument to begin with. I mean, it's fiction. Look hard enough and you'll find plot holes in just about anything. Writers don't tend to get hung up on that kind of thing because stories are meant to be entertaining, not overly complicated to the point people are falling asleep over the little details.

Sure, okay. But when an arguable feat is tied into the plot (such as the mission in question), the plot speaks volumes in terms of confirmation.

What you should also keep in mind is that your train of logic applies to characters like Ezio as well. Even more so due to greater variety of dynamics that can come into play during missions such as stealth, an interactive environment, and a very free-form approach to entering every situation due to an open world.

I realize it, and I stand by my point. I even argued this point in the Ezio vs. Arkham Batman CaV and got the majority votes (including yours and WarBlade539) if ya'll actually read the thing. I'm currently arguing this point in the Ezio vs. Edward CaV. Explicit context is so important when debating video game characters, its no joke. Difference with Assassin's Creed is that it has its limitations. Whatever achieves 100% synchronization is 100% canon to their memories. You won't catch me making assumptions, because I honestly don't know anything outside the limitations at hand.

CJ isn't as restricted due to the fact a lot of his missions involve an A to B structure, i.e, fight through this location, kill these enemies, get here, kill more enemies, grab the laptop, escape.

Probably. If someone throws in some solid feats that gives us some indication of how Carl handles himself, I'm all game. Nothing wrong with trying to be as accurate as possible.

Bump