Thread:Lucky107/@comment-4059927-20171227100613/@comment-26358727-20180102152204

I don't know, I've looked into a couple of the games in the past and I really don't care much for the modern crime aspect, if that makes any sense. I mean, recently played Mafia III and I was very hesitant about the game because of the title's legacy: this particular title is set in the 1960s. I like my Mafia tales to be set in the late 1940s or earlier, but I took the chance. Ultimately, I am glad I did because my sister's super into everything about the Vietnam era and it was set right in the heart of the political upheaval, so it was a super intense learning experience that way, but the gameplay was repetitive and the entire time I had no desire to build my own criminal empire. The only saving grace was the ability to choose what you do at the end, haha!

I think the stereotyping in Bully is annoying if you went into it for a super serious and intense experience, but the entire game takes on a juvenile narrative. It's really interesting, if you think about it, because the narrator is a fifteen year old boy in high school with a bit of a troubled background and we really do see the world within the game from that very narrow perspective. It's a really cool way to tell the story, and for me it was a little bit frustrating because I usually am in it for something "more", but I really came around to it. It reminded me so much of my middle school years; that place felt completely surreal and yet Bully captured it perfectly.

As much as I wish we saw more of Gary's work behind the scenes throughout the game, when connecting his absence to my point above, he was actually as present within the narrative as he needed to be. We're experiencing the story through the eyes of Jimmy Hopkins, even if it's a third-person video game, and all Gary needed to do was point Jimmy in the right direction. Jimmy's background, as you said, plays into the creation of a very short-sighted and self-gratuitous character. Most of his decisions throughout the game are made without any devine intervention because they're his own. Every time we saw Gary appear in the narrative was because Jimmy was straying too far from the path that Gary had set out for him, like a mouse in a maze, and he was providing a helpful little push. Like, don't egg Mr. Hattrick's house with Tad because Derby Harrington is the one that Gary wants. Or throw in the wrench of Johnny's time at Happy Volts because there was a relatively peaceful resolution between Johnny and Lola, which kept Johnny and Jimmy in cahoots.

One of the most interesting things about Gary, though, I think, is his Halloween costume. I don't think that was intended as a 'joke' because it wasn't particularly funny, especially for a T-rated game about high school students. Hitler published a book about his ideology in 1925 and became Chancellor in 1933, not even ten years later. He admitted to an entire country how he felt and he was propelled into power all the same. Both individuals were smart, very smart, but they had that superficial charm and charmisa thrown into the mix. The chaos that Hitler stepped in to correct, which ultimately won him the favour of the people, was given to him by the devastation of World War I. Gary's chaos was completely manufactured, by placing Jimmy at the pinnacle of the trouble. He artificially 'built' Jimmy up throughout the course of the game and then tore him down, all from behind the scenes because Jimmy was the scapegoat. Jimmy was the perceived (the paranoia-concocted) 'problem'.

So, to answer your question, I would say that Gary is very smart - smarter than the average boy his age - while everyone else, including the staff, were duped by the manufactured circumstances. They believed him to be crazy because that's what he wanted them to believe; his act successfully masked the sheer magnitude of crazy they were dealing with. Don't you think, though, that Pete's ability to recognize and worry over Gary's actions speaks in volumes about Pete, as well? That is the type of untapped potential I crave from the world of fanfiction.

As for Jimmy, I don't know that I felt most of his decisions throughout the game showed a particular interest in other people. If that were the case, I don't think it would have taken him the entire game to recognize Pete's significance. I think looking for the good in people is a skill that he develops throughout the game, which really comes into play with both his recognition of Pete and of the unjust treatment of Zoe. To cite the same example with Lola, just prior to the rumble Jimmy confesses that he doesn't really know if he does care about her and later reiterates the same sentiment after he fights with Johnny: he has little to no interest in Lola, but in ruling the greasers - including Johnny - with an iron fist.

That seems to be the driving force behind most of Jimmy's actions throughout the game - and it reads like a simple, base instinct. What I find so amazing about the idea of that is that, while Jimmy is a physically strong and very intense character, there's a permanent vulnerability there that one wouldn't see from the outside because he's completely dependent on the guidance of others. In the right hands, such as his alliance with Pete, he can be encouraged to do the right thing and bring peace to the school, while in the wrong hands that vulnerability can be exploited to turn him into little more than a weapon, such as in Gary's case. And for the entirety of the game, Jimmy seems completely oblivious to his own nature.

Essay aside, I could add nothing more to the statement of Red Dead Redemption's status as a tipping point for storytelling. It set a high bar and has forced every subsequent game, with the promise of an epic narrative, to delve deep into the human psyche and acquaint themselves with the true vastness of the moral grey area.

If I remember correctly, John states in conversation that Dutch took him in when he was only a boy. He left the orphanage and was taken under Dutch's wing. Unlike some of his cohorts, however, John was also taught to read and write by Dutch—in the 19th century, the difference between literate and illiterate was the world. The vestiges of their relationship that we glimpse in the final chapters of the game suggest, to me, that Dutch was not only a father-figure, but was also grooming John as his protégé. While I feel John had a pretty solid grasp over what was right and what was wrong by the end of the story, their history was hinted to have run a lot deeper than one botched robbery could ever undo and Dutch's last words were a very real truth about John's fate, one I think he had been willfully blind to up until that exact moment.

Again, the entire storyline is a vast and spacious moral grey area, but for better or for worse, in the end, Dutch was right. Nobody escapes their nature: he can fight it or he can accept it, but a man's actions will define him.

That being said, I am super excited for the whole Dutch van der Linde gang in Red Dead Redemption 2; I want to see the man who became the monster that we saw in Red Dead Redemption - and I don't think it will be possible without the inclusion of John Marston, Bill Williamson and Javier Escuella.