Refresh Comments
Anonymous comments allowed.
3 comments displayed.
#10
-
anon (01/03/2016) [-]
Spec Ops: The Line and Farcry 3 probably hold my number one spots for being a game that tried to convey a psychological aspect too hard and in doing so messed up.
Spec Ops is trying to make you feel horrible, yet in that situation you are forced into fighting and killing the 33rd. Right off the bat these are ex-American soldiers and if you feel any sort of issue in trying to kill them then it's very well enough to attempt to make contact and talk to these people. But magically that option isn't available to you, yet during WW1 soldiers in opposite trenches were able to say "hey let's not kill each other on Christmas". In the end your character turns out to be the big bad and because the game didn't give you any real choice you really had no other option. It's a rail morality system where the "choices" given have less impact than letting that one guy get his face burned in Black Ops 2.
BTW I would give more credence to Black Ops 2 when it came to moral choices than Spec Ops. After all in Black Ops 2 you didn't know that you could shoot the captain in the leg, nothing prompted you for it, but it was an option versus shooting him in the head.
Metro 2033, same thing. Moral prompts are inherently built into the game, you don't know that saving the Red Line soldiers from execution is a moral choice but it is a choice you can make. Saving them draws the attention of the Reich troopers but saves their lives and letting them get executed allows you to sneak by. It's a true choice system there.
Does it play well as a game, yes it does play well. Does it convey any true statement about morality? No, it tries but it fails because in the end you didn't make any choices and the studio just wanted to make you feel bad.
Games that don't put an idea of a "message" or an "ideal" before their characters and setting tend to develop better bonds with characters in my own experience.
Spec Ops is trying to make you feel horrible, yet in that situation you are forced into fighting and killing the 33rd. Right off the bat these are ex-American soldiers and if you feel any sort of issue in trying to kill them then it's very well enough to attempt to make contact and talk to these people. But magically that option isn't available to you, yet during WW1 soldiers in opposite trenches were able to say "hey let's not kill each other on Christmas". In the end your character turns out to be the big bad and because the game didn't give you any real choice you really had no other option. It's a rail morality system where the "choices" given have less impact than letting that one guy get his face burned in Black Ops 2.
BTW I would give more credence to Black Ops 2 when it came to moral choices than Spec Ops. After all in Black Ops 2 you didn't know that you could shoot the captain in the leg, nothing prompted you for it, but it was an option versus shooting him in the head.
Metro 2033, same thing. Moral prompts are inherently built into the game, you don't know that saving the Red Line soldiers from execution is a moral choice but it is a choice you can make. Saving them draws the attention of the Reich troopers but saves their lives and letting them get executed allows you to sneak by. It's a true choice system there.
Does it play well as a game, yes it does play well. Does it convey any true statement about morality? No, it tries but it fails because in the end you didn't make any choices and the studio just wanted to make you feel bad.
Games that don't put an idea of a "message" or an "ideal" before their characters and setting tend to develop better bonds with characters in my own experience.
#20 to #10
-
comicironic (01/03/2016) [-]
What are the eight scariest words in the English language?
"We're Delta Force, and we're here to save you!"
As >>#11 said, your choice is always walking away.
Walker commits as many leaps of judgement as his enemies, such as when he assumes the 33rd are moving civilians to kill them, or when he assumes that the insurgents are automatically bad for killing American soldiers. He's stuck in his worldview, and he blocks out everything against it, even to the point of imagining Konrad, but the action the player takes is continuing when communication isn't possible. Sure, you can't talk, but you don't have to shoot, either.
"We're Delta Force, and we're here to save you!"
As >>#11 said, your choice is always walking away.
Walker commits as many leaps of judgement as his enemies, such as when he assumes the 33rd are moving civilians to kill them, or when he assumes that the insurgents are automatically bad for killing American soldiers. He's stuck in his worldview, and he blocks out everything against it, even to the point of imagining Konrad, but the action the player takes is continuing when communication isn't possible. Sure, you can't talk, but you don't have to shoot, either.
#11 to #10
-
matralith [OP](01/03/2016) [-] You did have a choice in the sense that, as the game repeatedly told you, you didn't walk away. You chose to keep playing, just like Walker chose to keep advancing.
But that is kind of the point of the game. You could have chosen to walk away at any time. And maybe different choices could have saved everyone, or maybe something else could have been done to make the world a happy place. But "you" were there, and "you" made those choices. Walker felt he had no choice because he was just reacting to the voices in his head. That Walker could only choose from the options in front of him. You felt you had no choice because you were just playing a game. That you could only choose from the options in front of you.
It sounds like you are more annoyed that there wasn't a happy ending. You feel that without the ability to succeed, you can't be blamed for the failure. You wanted to "be the hero" who snuck around and avoided hurting anyone. And that is one of the things I love about the game: You could never succeed if you were the hero. Instead, you tried to be the hero, and just made things worse.
From the moment "you" chose to be the hero, Dubai was damned. And YOU chose to be the hero by playing the game. Because nobody plays games like this to NOT be the hero.
But that is kind of the point of the game. You could have chosen to walk away at any time. And maybe different choices could have saved everyone, or maybe something else could have been done to make the world a happy place. But "you" were there, and "you" made those choices. Walker felt he had no choice because he was just reacting to the voices in his head. That Walker could only choose from the options in front of him. You felt you had no choice because you were just playing a game. That you could only choose from the options in front of you.
It sounds like you are more annoyed that there wasn't a happy ending. You feel that without the ability to succeed, you can't be blamed for the failure. You wanted to "be the hero" who snuck around and avoided hurting anyone. And that is one of the things I love about the game: You could never succeed if you were the hero. Instead, you tried to be the hero, and just made things worse.
From the moment "you" chose to be the hero, Dubai was damned. And YOU chose to be the hero by playing the game. Because nobody plays games like this to NOT be the hero.
