I Do Not Understand Hotline Miami 2

This was amazingly well written. Good job! Nice to see another perspective.

Mrein

Hi Jacob, long time listener first time commenter. I hope this isn't too much for a single patreon comment but I think you did miss a big point if your takeaway from the first game was that the player should feel bad about committing violence. IMO the central question of Hotline Miami is one of agency. Violence is the expression of Jacket's (and by extension the player's) agency, it's our primary method of interaction with the world. As a character Jacket is apathetic; a puppet to be controlled and compelled to commit atrocities. And yet, there IS a purpose to his actions, just one that Jacket never chose and doesn't seem to understand or even care about. This also explains why the actual events of the narrative are constantly being obscured from the player. The only choice he actively makes in the game is rescuing the girl, but of course this is futile and she is killed anyways ("why don't you finish what you started?"). In contrast to Jacket, Biker WANTS agency, he longs to take control of the story and even succeeds partially by changing the timeline and beating Jacket in their fight. When confronted with the final truth by the people behind the scenes, he's shown to be ultimately just as powerless as Jacket. All his anger and need for answers comes to nothing, a hollow catch phrase ("Born in the USA") because ultimately he is still just playing the game. Some players want answers like Biker, others are happy to simply play their role until the end like Jacket, but regardless, whatever answers the game might give you, the game is also framing the questions. So how can we be sure our actions are our own? What agency do we have in a system like this? This isn't a question the game itself can answer because it's being posed by the game TO the player. If you consider the series to be ultimately about agency within systems instead of just violence then HM2's callous disregard for the player's experience (from both a narrative and gameplay perspective) begins to make more sense. In the first game we are given two lenses through which to view this central question of why we do the things that we're told. In the sequel, this question is kaleidoscoped outward into many more perspectives, each reflecting a different aspect of it. The Fans are compelled to their actions by hollow imitation of their idol, Jacket. The Son acts to perpetuate a legacy, while also carrying resentment of it and a desire to surpass it. Jake acts out of his own xenophobic beliefs, latching onto 50 Blessings as a way to realize his goals. Martin does horrible things (maybe) after being given "permission" in the context of transgressive art. Pardo is perhaps the most complex perspective, because he appears as a paradox, but this is basically the central conflict of self-delusion. He claims a desire to destroy evil while blatantly perpetuating it. The question of how much he is driven by his stated goals or his actions is intentionally unclear. Evan is like the inverse of this, acting both thoughtfully and involuntarily at various points. Are his actions his true nature, or in opposition to it? What compels him to kill, or not kill? Well... The player does, through the systems set in place by Dennaton, of course, but the game doesn't answer this question in such a literal way. The ending hammers this theme home with an ultimate and decisive removal of all agency, taking everything that has happened, all the tragedies and triumphs and struggle, and wiping it clear. It's easy at first glance to think this is basically a middle finger to the player. Richard even says that that nobody's going to like it. But the moment itself is beautiful, almost transcendent. I find myself crying every time I play it, it absolutely floors me. To me this feels like pure catharsis. The cycle of violence and pain that spins out from each horrible event can only ever escalate and escalate until it grows beyond our comprehension. We are swept along by events that are put in place long before we personally are able to affect their outcome (if indeed we are ever able to do such a thing). IMO to read these games as critical of the player's actions seems like a fundamental misapprehension. Like the characters, players can only act in the framework they are given, and in the framework of ever-escalating violence, there is only one conclusion: Annihilation. Love your vids so I hope this doesn't come across as overly critical. And I'm glad that you mentioned Ovandal's vid because I too enjoyed that a lot. Keep up the good work <3

brilliant video!! super flattered by that tiny boomerang x cameo in the intro ;)

Listen- let's just say- let's say hypothetically, you were a man receiving calls on his answering machine. Wouldn't market forces preclude him from needing to seek other employment?

Jacob Geller

Very cool video. Was not expecting a Ben Shapiro cameo for the plot synopsis, though.

Oh hell yes

Drake

loved this!!