What is acceptable overall for discussing Video Game Feats. Battle Forum Poll.

I feel 3 for sure, but 4 as well. Its cinematic and shows limits whether in game or not. 5 is very iffy and supplemental material at best. What do others think?

@sirfizzwhizz: I say everything, because what the player days usually pushes the story forward. In fact, some fighting games have it where your opponent(s) react to what style of fighting you're using, particularly if you had punched or kicked them or used a specific weapon.

Gameplay feats are not canon

Otherwise Lore Dragonborn would have a deapool level healing factor and infinite magicka, and early assassins creed characters could take on 20+ people at once

What constitutes as "Game play mechanics." ? Is 2-4 gameplay mechanics? If pushing the action button integral to the game story or cinematic, is it gameplay mechanic? I dont see how.

There have been multiple threads of this type honestly.

Always one, generally two, often four, but probably not always.

@lubub55: @mee09: @deathhero61: @nickzambato: @animelegend68: @beaconofstrength: for some shout outs.

This is just going to devolve into people aging Skyrim Lore vs in game evidence all over again.

1 through 3 are fine, he'll no on 4, and depends on the game for 5 but probably.

The issue is when they fight people outside their universe.

Or when cinematics completely contradict gameplay.

Ex. In the game Dirge of Ceberus, in the actual game Vincent is more like a normal soldier in his capabilities with some magical enhancements, but in cuts cents he is jumping off buildings and showing reflexes and agility never in the game as well as much more impressive gunplay.

Or

In game "A" the hero has armor that greatly reduces damage he takes, but in the game it is more medieval and just swords and bows, so what about if he gets shot with a modern firearm?

OT though:

One. Not two. 3 without "everything above". Definitely four. Never five.

Cutscenes, animated QTEs (especially when required) are all absolutely fair game. Pure gameplay mechanics are only OK if backed by actual databooks/lore (MGS2 Tengu/HF blade bullet blockings, etc), otherwise should be ignored entirely.

Maybe trailers, but lots of times trailers feature things that aren't in the game, so it's blurry as hell.

First time we've agreed on anything.

I'd say 2 for sure. 3 maybe and I think 4 should be fine too.

2 is simply quick time events. They are still part of the cutscene and are canon to how the story progresses(You are assumed to succeed)

3 is trickier especially given the examples. Because XRay moves should honestly kill people and you have street levelers surviving some of the over the top Injustice super moves.

4 I don't see the issue with using cinematic trailers, none of that is gameplay anyway. Though whether they are canon is the question.

Cutscenes, QTE's and Lore. That's how I see it. Trailers, are, to a degree acceptable as well.

To be fair, Ezio and Altair have canon feats of taking on multiple combatants at once. Ezio took on somewhere around 20 and only lost since he got distracted when he was at his oldest when he was an assassin. He was ripping his way through them otherwise. He also has feats (that are canon) of taking on at least 7+ sons of romulus at once and not getting tagged once. With Altair, well, he never got tagged at all during the events of AC. If you do, then the player (as Desmond) loses synchronicity with how Altair lived his life. This would include Altair cutting his way through hordes of soldiers in order to reach Robert De Sable. It's game mechanics in a way, but it tells us what the canon of that game is.

So yes, it's perfectly acceptable that some AC protagonists can take on hordes of enemies at once. They have the feats to support it

We are going to trust the use of polls after what happened in the last few BotW's they were used in?

=P

How does two not apply but three does?

We agree on a few things before, it is rare, like Solar Eclipse rare lol.

Indeed.

Only when its Batman in the polls :)

Surviving X-Rays is more in line with option 5. Also, no one in Injustice is street level, they are all enhanced with that plot pill.

I think 3 is fine, but it shouldn't be used for scaling unless the character has canonically beaten the person they are using the cinematic on.

Three can be done under their own power (i.e Injustice Supers/Ultimates/Whatevers). Two is highly dependent, but personally, not applicable most of the time. If you do one cutscene in three seconds and I do the same one in 10, we don't know the true speed at which it can be done. Sometimes clicking the button means exerting more strength, so we don't know how much was actually used and the gauge becomes inaccurate.

@sirfizzwhizz: I don't think there is 1 size fits all rule.

That said, I say everything up to 5.

5 should be case by case, and within reason. Obviously normal humans don't have a health bar and aren't meant to tank bullets. Also, the cinnematic narrative should always take precedent over game mechanics.--------> Also, even if the gameplay contradicts the cinematic, I think if gameplay feats make the battle more fair, it should be usable.

4 should be subject to the rules of the OP.

3 should be considered possible, but cannot be used for scaling unless the character has canonically defeated the opponent they are using the cinematic on.

Everything should count, since it pushes the story forward

Depends of the game. I'd say something like Bioshock Infinite should be allowed gameplay feats.

Somewhere between 4 and 5.

Everything should count IMO.

I feel 1-3 are all legit uses of feats. If trailers are in-line with other feats then I guess they can count. Gameplay mechanics can be used if there's something in the game supporting them like the game's manual, the actual narrative, dialogue, etc. In the case of MGS2, Snake flat out tells the player that Raiden can deflect bullets with his sword, so clearly that isn't just a game mechanic. Kojima tells us via dialogue that Raiden can do that.

Master Chief flipping tanks isn't a reliable feat however since it is contradicted by other showings, only ever occurs in gameplay, and nothing in Halo canon supports Spartans having that strength. Spartans do have the strength to flip Warthogs, though.

Cinematics and some if not most gameplay feats should be allowed, but mechanics are mostly a no no.

@supremegeneration: I dont undsrstand your example. We may not know how long it took to cross the missiles, what we do know is you have no choice story wise but to hit one button and jump missile to missile, meaning Raiden did just that.

1 and 2 are definite as long you actually need to press the buttons for QTE and it doesn't give you re-tries or simply continue regardless. 3 is iffy. Some super moves don't feel canon to me, especially if they involve teleportation a character shouldn't have. 4 is case by case and debatable, usually I would leave that up to the OP. 5 is a big no.

Depends on the game, really. So comfortably, I'll go with 2.

Pretty much agree with this. Shouldn't eb argument for these feats, afterwards it gets iffy.

5 is case by case, anyone who says otherwise really should not be engaging in any debate with video game characters. Frankly I think people who say nothing that occurs in gameplay should ever be considered canon don't actually know what they're talking about.

Gameplay mechanics are very often (I would go so far as to say most of the time) representative of a character's abilities. Genji has an ability to deflect enemy bullets in in Overwatch. People say he's not a bullet timer because he didn't do it in a cutscene. As though him having that ability does not mean he has the ability to deflect bullets.

The only times gameplay shouldn't be taken seriously is when it is either dependent on player skill or when a gameplay mechanic serves to compensate for the player not being as skilled as the character (for instance a CoD soldier or Nathan Drake being able to tank bullets bc for it to align with canon the player would be required to never get hit by enemies).

@sirfizzwhizz:

One issue is also for in rpg type games where cinematics have to be kept generic due to not being based on actual character builds or abilities.

Ex.

In Mass Effect you could be any of the base archetypes so all cutsenes are just generic Shepard with no ability use due to not knowing his gear, abilities bought, or even base options.

Also it is worth noting that 4 is case-by-case as well. Sometimes trailers/videos released alongside a game are meant to tie into the game's canon like the TF2 "Meet the..." videos. Trailers on the other hand are just previews of the game, if something happens in a trailer that isn't actually in the game it probably shouldn't be considered canon unless otherwise specified.

3, no more no less

Three, and four.

However, gameplay mechanics might be acceptable if they're grounded in things that exist outside of them. Say for example how Alex Mercer can throw around tanks, and destroy them in gameplay. That really wouldn't fall under things like HP/MP, or status effects. It's just lifting, and throwing things.

Then there are scripted events that happen regardless of player input, things in the background, and things that happen as sort of animations and mini cut-scenes. Which happens as part of the story, or the area you're in. Anything that's part of the environment.

I argue Mass Effect myself, Liara threads mostly, and there is plenty of feats in Comics, movie, and such of abilities being used to gauge how well they work for Shepherd who was considered the best at everything.

Very interesting and debatable topic. Here's my thoughts:

1. Always. If something is integral to the story (a pure cut scene) then it is always applicable to what the character can do.
2. Always. These are simply cut scenes that are meant to engage the player. I see no reason that these aren't applicable.
3. No. The example you gave with Injustice Superman doesn't cover the range of ludicrous feats we see in fighting game special moves. While IJ Supes can definitely pull off his special, do you really think Green Arrow can do this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mjzge4wXkgw Probably not. Fighting games like injustice are meant to be over the top.
4. Yes. As far as I'm concerned, these are cannon to the game. Especially in the cases you provided.
5. To an extent. For instance, FPS characters healing from gunfire is non-cannon. However, certain actions the characters can perform, such as the examples you provided, are valid as long as they aren't contradicted by the lore.

I would consider games mechanics in things like Dark Souls and Bloodborne mostly valid. However, things like Fallout and Skyrim aren't at all.

5

Gameplay is canon but there are few exceptions in fighting games like Tekken or MK (only the move-set is canon) and health bar isn't canon.

I say 5, depending on the situation. Customizable characters would most likely have to be restricted since they very on the player.

Meanwhile, Mario's regular ability to break blocks is a gameplay mechanic rather than something seen in a cinematic scene, ergo why we also take gameplay into account.

Gameplay feats should only be allowed if they fall in line or at least close to all the other meantioned areas of feats.

1 and 2. I do not think that X-rays and Fatalities are canon unless they happen in the story mode.

I'd say 2, 3, and conditionally 4. If the trailer has the same scene in a Game, then yes. If it doesn't, then we know it can't have happened. Especially when a lot of the time it is to show the graphics of a system.

Also, another thing that bugs me.

Twitter replies being taken as feats when the primary canon of the games contradicts what is shown and portrayed. Guidebooks are fine, but don't make extra conjencture.

But Twitter replies from people who aren't even working on a particular series anymore? No.

Depends a lot on the game honestly. For a series like Halo all of the trailer cinematics are canon, but that's obviously not the case for everything. But at minimum it should be 2 for pretty much everything.

Well said.

Trailers, cinematics and quick time events can all be considered feats in my opinion, gameplay mechanics can't.

Some games have gameplay mechanics that break the game, making supposedly difficult fights ridiculously easy. The characters after the fight will talk about how they barely won or how tough the fight was, so even if you roflstomped through it the canon is that it was a tough fight. so saying the character is so powerful he one shot an elder god because you exploited gameplay mechanics is not a valid feat in my eyes, especially given statements of characters.

take dragon age origins for example. the deep roads are filled with darkspawn and the legion of the dead is stalemating them in a war of attrition. when a grey warden goes through the calling he goes into the deep roads and fights till they overwhelm him. they've been doing this for hundreds of years and yet the darkspawn still exist.

yet because of gameplay mechanics even on the highest difficulty its quite easy to solo your way through the deep roads and never be in any real danger.

So, no, I don't think you can consider gameplay as actual feats for most games except in the case of when the story makes reference to it.

Gameplay mechanics are often confused with gameplay feats. Feats are what the character does. Mechanics are more what the game does.

Cinematic feats definitely. Trailers also in most cases.

Gameplay is the only iffy one.

TRUE

That's kinda stupid, MK characters has been proven to be able to perform their fatalities and X-rays in story mode over and over again heck this even applies for their move-sets. So do most fighting games tbh.