Let's say we had a choice to not use the white phosphorous (Spec Ops: The Line spoilers)

[Spector29]

True, I could have turned the game off, but that's a waste of my time and money.

So you're saying the value of a shooter is in how long you spend enjoying the savage, unjustifiable murder of random strangers and how well the story resolves itself to make you out as the hero in the end?

Well if we're going as far as to consider every NPC's life of equal value to the player character, and by extension the player, who's the bigger monster? The player facilitating the stories of not only these NPC's lives, but also their deaths? Or the Programmers flagging them as mandatory obstacles?

If I never bought the game, that particular instance of countless lives would never ever get to experience an ounce of life. If I play the game, the programmers force me to end their lives to progress. I have to kill them if I want the most NPCs possible to experience life, even.

And I don't have to be the hero, I have to be entertained.

 

[TrulyBritish]

I kinda admit that the whole "you could've just turned the game off" argument doesn't really hold water when I think about it. Still there are two ways that I can' view it that makes me like the game.

1. Just as Walker's story

2. A deconstruction of modern military shooters in general and why people would ever want to play them.

Also, if I could've made the choice, I would've been sadistic. I would've made it possible for Walker and company to overpower the Damned 33rd, but Lugo and Adams both die in the assault, and the civilians are ungrateful towards Walker.

Then people would still probably complain that they don't have a choice to do the game completely perfectly.

How come people didn't get up in arms over the walking dead then?

Maybe because they are never really blamed for what happens in the Walking Dead? (Certainly nowhere near as much as in Spec Ops). As such there's no real need for a backlash. Spec Ops really hits home (In my opinion) because it spends so much of it's time very unsubtly accusing you of being a monster (unjustly or not).
Now I really have no issue with the WP scene as I'm not confident it could have been done in anyway to give people the choice without losing the point of the scene, and I loved the game (if that's the right word), but I have my issues with Spec Ops none the less. I found it far too blunt to do it's message as best it could with it's "Do you feel like a hero yet?" moments during the loading screens just annoying rather than thought provoking. Yes game, I've got the idea I'm an inhuman monster, can you let me get on with the story now?
Plus I was always put off by how mediocre the gameplay was, especially as it was trying to "teach" the people who play CoD and the like. I've lent the game to three friends (all avid MMS players) since I've gotten it and two stopped playing it because the gameplay wasn't as enjoyable as other games and they weren't interested in the story by that point, thus meaning the people it might have been most interesting to see play it mostly didn't. Heck, I only played the game because I'm not all that interested in gameplay as long as it works well and I'd heard such good things about the story.

 

[Nielas]

I was a bit annoyed at the time, but really, Walker didn't really have any other option if he wanted to proceed. It was either drop the bombs, abandon the mission and leave Dubai, or take on a few hundred guys with TANKS and DIE.

Actually by leaving Dubai, Walker would be COMPLETING his mission. His mission was not to find Konrad or even to find out what happened. His mission was simply to see if there were still survivors in Dubai and then walk out to inform his superiors of this.

Personally, the point where I wanted to leave Dubai was when the captured soldier killed his CIA interrogator and rappelled down. At that point the reconnaissance mission was completed and the rescue mission was a bust so I would have personally followed orders and high tailed it out of Dubai. At that point I became divorced from Walker since his choices no longer matched the choices I would personally make so I was now an observer of the narrative rather than a participant. As such the phosphorus scene did not affect me much since it was not my choice and I was simply reliving Walker's choices.

 

[mad825]

Famous critics such as Ebert have said they've walked out of film screenings before, for one reason or another. There's nothing wrong with prematurely ending your viewing of a piece of art if you don't agree with it. And yet gamers seem to have this mindset, alone amongst media audiences, which goes "I paid for this, so I will endure every last minute of it, and if I don't enjoy it then it's entirely the developer's fault! It almost makes me want to use the 'e' word, but I know that'll just cause arguments.

Em, alot of people have that mentality, not just gamers. I suppose it just to combat the "you need to experience it before having an opinion on it" mentality.

Mined you, I always find it funny people standing-up for shit.

 

[Spitfire]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that either of those games actively question your actions at the end, or challenge you as a player for what you did.

Neither does Spec Ops.

Spec Ops is a game that gives you a limited degree of choice, but makes all the important choices for you, which means that, in its conclusion, the game doesn't reflect the actions of the player, but the actions of the protagonist.
What you're implying is that the player's decision to keep playing represents consent for the actions taken by the protagonist. It doesn't, and to claim otherwise is being presumptuous of the player's motivation.

I'm going to take it from that either:

A. You didn't play the game.
or
B. You didn't see the ending.

Or maybe I just don't think the game is as meta as you're making it out to be.

Crazy, huh?

 

[GloatingSwine]

Let's say we had a choice to not use the white phosphorous (Spec Ops: The Line spoilers)

You do. You can turn the game off.

At any point.

Part of what Spec Ops is doing is addressing why you chose not to do that.

Do you understand this?

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Actually by leaving Dubai, Walker would be COMPLETING his mission. His mission was not to find Konrad or even to find out what happened. His mission was simply to see if there were still survivors in Dubai and then walk out to inform his superiors of this.

Remind me, what was Walker's mission again?

Oh know that his ACTUAL mission was to get into the city, see if there were survivors, and then get out to let people know if another rescue should be attempted or not.

But at this point in the game, Walker is convinced that his mission is to find out what the hell is going on in Dubai and stop the damned 33rd from executing civilians (like the scene in the mall implied would happen).

That's what I was saying. I wasn't talking about the mission he was given at the start of the game, but rather the mission as he saw it that that point in time.

 

[Spitfire]

Or maybe I just don't think the game is as meta as you're making it out to be.

Crazy, huh?

Except no, because during the ending, the game directly asks Walker (and by fairly heavy implication, the player too), what they thought they were doing. Go on, take a look. You want from about the 2:10 mark.

Spoiler: Massive, massive spoilers

I don't know how you could see that and not notice how heavily this scene calls the player to account for their actions in the game.

Because they're not the player's actions, they're Walker's, and the only way the player can feel accountable for that, is if the player actually agreed with Walker's actions throughout the game.

You say that the game's ending breaks the fourth wall, and addresses to the player directly, but that's your subjective point of view, and it's not going to hold true for everyone who plays this game.

 

[Spitfire]

Because they're not the player's actions, they're Walker's, and the only way the player can feel accountable for that, is if the player actually agreed with Walker's actions throughout the game.

You say that the game's ending breaks the fourth wall, and addresses to the player directly, but that's your subjective point of view, and it's not going to hold true for everyone who plays this game.

Lol wut? So a line such as:

Spoiler

None of this would've happened if you'd just stopped

isn't aimed at the player? Uh-huh.

Well if it is only my opinion that they're aimed at the player, then it's only your opinion that they're aimed at the character, Sonny Jim.

Dude.

Your interpretation of the game's ending doesn't work if the player doesn't feel responsible for the things that Walker has done.

I've pointed this out twice already, but somehow you keep ignoring it.

 

[Spitfire]

Dude.

Your interpretation of the game's ending doesn't work if the player doesn't feel responsible for the things that Walker has done.

I've pointed this out twice already, but somehow you keep ignoring it.

So the player has no responsibility for Walker's actions despite literally making him take every step forward and firing every shot? Uh-huh.

Playing the game doesn't mean that you agree with the protagonist's decisions. The player doesn't decide to use the white phosphorous, and burn a bunch of civilians alive. That's already been predetermined by the game. The only question is whether or not you, the player, agree with that decision yourself. If not, then how is the game going to make you feel guilty about it?

Yeah, I'm done here.

Have fun.

T'was nice chatting with ya.

 

[HannesPascal]

Can someone explain to me why the 33rd had a mortar with them on a evacuation mission did they consider bombing the sandstorm, also why do you put a mortar directed at your own base it kind of seems suicidal? Also how the hell did Lugo become a soldier when all he does in a firefight is running up in the middle of the fight standing outside of cover and yelling that we're under heavy fire?

 

[JellySlimerMan]

Seriously, I just don't get why so many people harp on about the game not giving you a choice at this bit, when choosing something else would just ruin the game's story."

Ah yes, the classic defense that even crappy horror movies use: "Well, if the retarded teenages protagonists dont enter the OBVIOUS dangerous spooky house, then there wont be a movie!"

Guess what genius? this is an interactive medium, audience is supposed to have a say in it. And if the author REALLY wanted to enforce the idea that there isn't a choice or that "people make excuses to avoid responsibility" kind of message, then you know what ELSE they could have wrote? having an scene where the protagonist tries to protect the civilians until he realizes that, now that the soldiers are dead and the food supply is toast (along with the info that the soldiers may have about a secure area to transport civilians and gather food), the civilians would die of hunger or be mercy killed by the protagonist. THEN, he will blame the antagonist for FORCING him to kill these people as an act of mercy or blame him for even creating the war in this place, that will eventually lead to this people die.

See? you still got a motivation for the protagonist for making shit up, when the fault was from the protagonist and his squad. How? well, if this is a rescue mission, then how come that they only send 3 people with weapons and not even a medic or a translator? if the protagonist was stupid enough to get to this place without even thinking about this GLARING problem, then of course he is going to blame everything on that idiot. And bonus points for having this event BEFORE the audience gets a chance to start shaping the story.

Anticipate the audience reaction and accommodate the story to STILL serve your message.

 

[JellySlimerMan]

Dude.

Your interpretation of the game's ending doesn't work if the player doesn't feel responsible for the things that Walker has done.

I've pointed this out twice already, but somehow you keep ignoring it.

So the player has no responsibility for Walker's actions despite literally making him take every step forward and firing every shot? Uh-huh.

Playing the game doesn't mean that you agree with the protagonist's decisions. The player doesn't decide to use the white phosphorous, and burn a bunch of civilians alive. That's already been predetermined by the game. The only question is whether or not you, the player, agree with that decision yourself. If not, then how is the game going to make you feel guilty about it?

Not to mention, even if you adjust your aim to kill ONLY the soldiers with the WP, the thing STILL expands to reach and kill the civilians as well.


When you make COD:Black Ops have better writting, to the point that it DESERVES the "Best Ending of All Videogames" on the Guinness Record, then you should probably rethink your profession.

 

[JellySlimerMan]

Lol wut? So a line such as:

Spoiler

None of this would've happened if you'd just stopped

isn't aimed at the player? Uh-huh.

Well if it is only my opinion that they're aimed at the player, then it's only your opinion that they're aimed at the character, Sonny Jim.

It is obviously aimed at the player, because the protagonist doesn't look like he wanted to be a hero. As Conrad said after that: "....but on and on you march. And for what? so you can feel like something that you are not. A hero"

But there is a problem: The writing assumes that the player is playing to be a Hero and not because, you know, it wants to see the full story, or because people already told the players about the twist and wanted to see it themselves. What happens if i don't enjoy the moral dichotomy of "good vs evil" and by extension the killing in the name of "the good guys"? what happens if i NEVER played a game like COD that does just that and have no base or expectations to subvert and be lectured about it? Hell, the game goes out of its way to think that we are in here for the killing. In the very first scene, when we could try to incapacitate a possible source of intel in the form of the first soldier we shoot, we end up killing that person after a button press when we get close to it. The audience the game wants to insult is so niche and small that there is no way that a normal person would get the message. It aims at oblivious idiots that shoot whatever they get ordered to.