ITT: Games that self insert fags absolutely hate

Nier did this much better years before, why is the west so behind?

>only one way to progress the game
>yeah whatever let's go
>"omg look what you did, gamer!"
Wow I feel so responsible.

Attached: 1549085288564.png (419x398, 191K)

I just remembered I was doing a replay of this but I didnt finish it. Some parts of the game feel like a real fucking chore. It's pretty good though

Attached: 20190308173036_1.jpg (2560x1440, 637K)

>haha just turn off the game bro, like walk away from the screen haha
Spec ops fags need to hang

Only 2 years before, from the looks of it.

>told to do bad thing
>does bad thing
WOOW, HOW AM I RESPONSIBLE?

Attached: 653241241.gif (320x227, 2.51M)

great story, gameplay was overly repetitive with little to no novelty

>Reading the bible
>Jesus gets crucified
>"WTF man it's all your fault that Jesus got killed because you turned the page to where it happened, you basically murdered the son of god!"
It's a retarded argument that doesn't hold water. Choosing to stop playing the game doesn't change how the scripted narrative plays out. If you aren't given the actual choice to change the outcome of events then it's meaningless and the game comes off as retarded for getting condescending about it afterwards.

Spec Ops could have been a really compelling satire/commentary on how video games glorify and reward horrifying acts of violence and war, but they fucked it up by trying to do this dumb little twist. If it actually was possible (but extremely difficult and not obvious) to not kill the civilians then it actually might have been clever, but you literally don't have the option. Choosing not to finish a linear story doesn't change what happens in the story.

t. lizard brains incapable of analyzing or reflecting on a work

>told to do bad thing
>tries a different route but there isn't
>does bad thing
ftfy

It's a linear game where you have no impact on the story. Are you responsible for the actions of a character in a book because you choose to keep reading it?

so this is the power of Yea Forums

Attached: intellectual-property-memes.jpg (1024x576, 60K)

That's the fucking point. If the gameplay was good and engaging it would be as a good commentary in modern military shooters

>Video game has a story that proceeds without my direct input
What the FUCK bros!?? How is this possible.

Hey have you ever thought about all the people video game protagonists kill, why don't they have PTSD!? That's bonkers!

Attached: 1519203401423.jpg (409x437, 23K)

I didn't feel bad at all, it forced me to kill americans and non-whites, how is that a bad thing?

>ITT: People missing the entire point.
The player is supposed to draw a parallel between themselves and Walker, not actually self insert as him.
You're both treating it as an action movie / video game with him as the protagonist.
For you, the player, that's fine because it actually is a game.
But for walker in-universe it's some seriously fucked up shit.

I'm playing a character. The game will not allow me to progress further unless I press a button to make the character do a specific thing. The game then tries to break the fourth wall and judge you for it. Much wow.

i only felt bad when i saw how overrated this game is

halo 2

It was fucking hilarious. I was laughing my ass off at the white phos. scene because of how fucking stupid it was, the fact that the game thought i was feeling guilty or gave a shit about faceless civilians didn't help either. This is THE ROOM of videogames. unintentionally the funniest game of the generation.

Attached: 1FB47301-CF67-4193-BF51-FE32BCC11FE8.jpg (390x264, 37K)

The game never blames you for killing them it just try to make you feel like shit.
Most of the game is about Walker anyway so people like or
clearly didn't play the game if its their main critic of the story.

>i swear i tried a different route first, officer

games are an interactive medium faggot, you're in control of your actions.

Games can be interactive but most really aren't. Spec ops for example gives you only the one choice, same as reading a book or watching a flick, play or don't.

DO YOU NIGGERS HAVE ANY LITERACY SKILLS?
HAVE YA'LL EVER READ A FUCKING BOOK?

Attached: 1552941952550.jpg (1000x800, 162K)

All the self insert fags outing themselves so clearly.

Wow, great bait OP, you are still faggot though

It tries to make you feel like shit for implying that you were part of it.

Do people actually think this

Specs ops has severals little choices actually.

there's no point in reasoning with them, if they don't actually understand how to think about what they're engaged in then they're incapable of rational thought in the first place

Attached: 1556336247895.jpg (627x470, 35K)

The point is that people self inserted as Walker and then got butthurt, instead of just doing what was intended and thinking "Dis nigga done lost his fucking mind!"

I never understood why this game triggers Yea Forums so much, linear games with set protags don't get them pissed usually, is it just because the MC fucks up?

I get what they are trying to do, but in reality it comes off as stupid and comical because you literally do not have a choice. "Dude just turn off the game lmao" does not fucking count. Yes, you can physically turn off the game and stop playing. This does not save Walker or prevent the civilians from being phosphorus'd. It still fucking happens, you just didn't get that far in the story. Without the choice the guilt trip is just annoying and ridiculous.

>getting emotionally invested in a fucking video game
>rational thinking
THIS IS WHAT SPEC OPS FAGS ACTUALLY BELIEVE

Attached: 1544719638384.webm (1076x1078, 829K)

How were you not part of it though. You can think tgis is heavyhanded, but those are just a few messages in loading screens, if that's your only argument against the game then fuck off.

>you literally do not have a choice.
Because that's the story of the protag, not about you self insert cuck

>self insertfags SEETHING

Attached: specopstheline_counttofive.jpg (1680x945, 289K)

>if the game is your only criticism against the game then fuck off
epic

Attached: 1528079262296.png (444x470, 126K)

It's weebs used to self inserting in RPGs that are triggered by it, because it made them feel guilty when you were just supposed to be shocked and realise Walker is insane. You're not supposed to self insert.

This is unironically correct. Most of the criticism I heard goes along the lines of But the game doesn't judge YOU, the game judges the character Walker. You only feel judged if you cannot disconnect yourself from fictional actions in a fictional story told with fictional characters.

I think this is mostly a difference in personality, the messages obviously worked given the positive receptions it gots. I feel the same about Undertale, the plot is just annoying since I don't give a shit about the characters.

Because it has shit gameplay and a shit story, but people think its deep.

Is this bait.

>no choice to do anything besides bad thing
>you're such a bad person user

That's bullshit. The game clearly intends for the player to reflect on the actions of Walker as if they were the player's own. The whole point of the game is to try and make you realize how fucked up war-based video games actually are and it does that by treating the player as if they are responsible for what Walker does in the story. Enough with this "hurr it's just the story of a deranged madman" bullshit.

>but people think its deep.
But nobody is arguing that, they are mad about being blamed

It literally says "Do you feel like a hero yet?" in the loading screen. Convince me how that's meant to be about Walker.

Or, you treat it like any other character in any other form of media and don't self insert as the character you're playing as.

Then, it's just fucked up and his descent into madness becomes pretty kino.

>Yea Forums getting contrarian about something
Wow, and the sun rose this morning

I'm sure it doesn't deserve the tongue bath it got from critics but nothing really does. At least it was different.

If it didn't kill the trend of CoD4-runoff, Fortnite certainly has. Now it's all upbeat, cartoony Overwatchy games that are getting overexposed.

>But the game doesn't judge YOU, the game judges the character Walker
Through loading screens? Through developer interviews? If so, that's farther-reaching fourth-wall-breakage than god damn MGS.

>I don't feel any emotion when watching a movie, reading a book or playing a video game
>no I don't have any friend, how did you guess?

>You only feel judged if
Why do you faggots think that you have to buy into something whole cloth and sink your whole goddamn identity into something?
You're supposed to have emotions while enjoying a piece of art or entertainment. You're supposed to feel something. Then you get up, take a piss and make yourself a sandwich and get back to your real life.
It's not 100% either or.

Books are all marxist propaganda trash.

>as if they were the player's own.
Wrong
>he whole point of the game is to try and make you realize how fucked up war-based video games actually are
No, it's a story about Walker, you are damage controlling trying to make the game about you when there are so many evidences in the game about it leading to Walker being insane throughout the game

Literal autism.

i blame the niggers

>Wrong
Wrong

that makes you the weird one

>Books
How about stop being a fucking commie
Day of the rope

It is just the story of a deranged madman, though. Your squad is the best thing about the story, because they contextualise his actions so well it makes you want to take a step back. War is hell, but Walker is also insane. You experience it, but you're not responsible.

>Wrong
Correct, actually. Very early on, Spec Ops was designed as a shooter with a branching story. The player actually had a choice, and the "twist" was that the game wouldn't shy from dropping the consequences on the player's head. That was the schtick in early press releases.

Of course, then budget cuts happened, deadlines happened, and what we got was pretty much the "evil" route of the game with the story edited last minute on a napkin by the lead writer who was also, at the time, pissed off at the management. The result is what you see today.

But it's just a video game, at the end of the day even if you massacred everything insight it's still just a video game and all fictional. Do you also get upset when you shoot prostitutes in GTA? How about when you played MW2 and shot the airport? The moment you put the controller down it doesn't matter anymore. It's just story telling.

You only feel bad about this is you can't disconnect fiction from reality.

Oh, so it's actually you who didn't get it.

You legitimately might be mentally challenged if you think Spec Ops is nothing more than a story of a crazy soldier told through the medium of a game. The game is trying to tell you something whether or not you're perceptive enough to realize it.

you can stop samefagging now and fuck off

the thing about Walker is that he doesn't do anything your average Call of Duty protag wouldn't do, and he does it all while claiming to be the good guy as he guns down american soldiers and civilians, destroy supplies of water and materials condemning people to die on his way to arrest the bad guy just to realise (spoiler) that the big baddy wasn't even here to begin with
the game tells you that to justify to yourself such actions you need to be on a level of self righteousness that is equal to insanity
the players isn't the bad guy here but Walker is and since the players is used to game protags who do this on a daily basis without further questionning from themselves or the game you can feel discomfort when Spec Op does call out Walker. You're not the bad guy but you've been the bad guy's cheerleader and the game tells you that you're on the side of a maniac
wich is why the only ending is the one were walker shoot himself because guilt would consume anyone at this point

This, would have been more impactful if it was a choice

But I like it and I'm an incorrigible self-insert fag.

the game DOES force you to do things. Also, the "turn off the screen and walk away!" is the most childish thing i've ever heard, exactly like something you'd hear on Yea Forums, but it's coming from a dev! how ridiculous, thats like turning off your tv at the end of king kong before he hits the ground and thinking he's alive because you have your fingers in your ears going, "la la la la!" the story of spec ops is complete whether you decide to follow it or not.

>he does it all while claiming to be the good guy as he guns down american soldiers and civilians, destroy supplies of water and materials condemning people to die on his way to arrest the bad guy just to realise (spoiler) that the big baddy wasn't even here to begin with
That's pretty much the plot of Modern Warfare 2, though.

it should have been a movie then

>this thread

Attached: 1550787637228.jpg (311x265, 23K)

Do you feel like a hero yet? :^)))

Yes :D

any ntr game
imagine self inserting in a porn game

The Death note of Vidya, still has fags SEETHING years later, people claim it to be just a shitty shooter then why does it gain this many post this fast? Any other shit shooter would have archived by now

It's both about you and Wesker. It doesn't even judge you.

It has a dedicated cult following of pretentious cunts who took the lead writer's boasting and preach it like some kind of gospel. This annoys a lot of folks who have played the game and found nothing but a generic third person modern military shooter that was poorly made and wrapped in a hoity-toity narrative that falls flat on its face with its own themes.

But that's wrong, every thread on Yea Forums end up as a fight between the people who liked the game and rampant shitposters.

You're right that there is nothing interesting about the game itself. The point of contention is the people crying about its impact and greatness.

no, it ends up as a fight between people who swallowed the aggressively dishonest and up it's own ass metanarrative, and people who see bullshit for what it is. rarely is it ever about the actual gameplay

Well yeah because everyone agree that the gameplay is fine at best, boring at worst. People like the game for its plot and very nice looking setting. Also great OST.

The "metanarrative" you're seething about is litteraly just a handful of loading screen's hint. Is this enough to ruin the whole game for you? Why? Did they ring true?

So instead of letting it die you repeatedly engage in repetitive discussion, RENT FREE

>the only reason anyone could hate this extremely deep fourth wall breaking revolution of
video game narration is that it was just TOO DEEP and HARD HITTING

Attached: subv.jpg (1024x576, 114K)

I'm sorry dude but the metanarrative is just a small part of the game. So its sounds like that you either:
1) didn't play it
2)got your panty in a twist because of some short sentences

Look retard, the game isn't trying to actually imply you're responsible for the deaths of innocent people. It's not asking you to literally believe that you are Walker. The objective of the game isn't to make you feel oh so guilty and sad about what you've "done". The point is that it's trying to make you think about what the game is actually having you do.

It is trying to make you think "Wow, this is pretty fucked up that the game is making me violently kill people in horrible ways just to progress" and then you are supposed to think "Wait a minute, that's every fucking war game". And then you think about how video games routinely make you do shit that would be horrifying in real life and not only treat it is a normal but reward and glorify it. This is why Spec Ops constantly prods you with shit like "do you feel like a hero", or having your defeated enemies cry out in agony and horror, or giving you an "Execute" ability even though it offers no gameplay benefit whatsoever and your opponent is already disabled. It's all to make you realize that this shit is fucked up and disgusting on a human level but video games have you do it constantly.

The part where it stumbles is where it tries to go a little to deep on the player guilt trip and tries to make you feel like you're actually personally responsible for the deaths of characters in the scripted story. You don't get the choice so you are obviously not responsible and the attempt at emotional manipulation is pathetic and just makes you annoyed at the game instead of having the intended effect.

It's the only fairly unique part of the game. Everything else is so painfully generic it doesn't get any focus even from the dedicated fans.

I played it alright. It was a mildly entertaining shooty bang bang game that ended with a self-aggrandising twist that retards can't shut up about. Like, I get the point and all but when you deal with deep themes there's always the looming risk of taking yourself too seriously or fumble as its pretence clashes with what it actually is. A fucking video game where you shoot people. Wow.

I get kinda worried everytime I see people shitting on this game for doing what it did, because while I understand and comprehend what it was doing, I keep going back and forth between if I liked it or not as a concept, which worries me because I keep thinking of using a similar idea mixed with how Oneshot did it to make a game

should I just try anyways and hope it works out or just trash the idea fully

>what the game is actually having you do
Here's the difference, retard. In games like Modern Warfare 2, you actually have the CHOICE to give under pressure and perform atrocious deeds. And the best part of it is, it's not thrown in your face that you do have a choice, so the decision is, in fact, all in your hands and up to your own critical thinking. It's your responsibility to stop and think about what you're doing.

Spec Ops railroads you into performing war atrocities with NO ALTERNATIVE other than turning the game off. Then it tries to make it seem like you crumbled under pressure or even charged into those scenarios unquestioningly like the silly consumer sheep you are, you big damn "hero," you.

The former scenario is subtle and clever. The latter is merely ham-fisted.

That's literally what I just said.

sounds like german history in a nutshell

Are there any other games where everything slowly gets fucked up beyond all repair like this? I can only think of optional bad ends or games where the situation is as bad at the beginning as it is at the end. Maybe a couple of Metal Gear games fit but they're also more humorous in tone.

>In games like Modern Warfare 2, you actually have the CHOICE
did I missed the secret choice in that airport were everybody is allright and I didn't go full columbine with Makarov and his mates on those poor russians ?

Why was the multiplayer such a shitshow?

loading screen hints? those were almost nothing in the game, you barely see them, and not what i'm focusing on. no, the game wasn't ruined for me, i enjoyed it, the gunplay was fun, but everyone who likes OR dislikes the game agrees its mediocre, so i'm in the minority there

No. Like Spec Ops, Modern Warfare 2 is absolutely linear. There's no branching storyline. But you do have the choice of whether or not you shoot the civilians at the airport. The proceeding events still play out as usual, but your own perception of the story may (and should) shift if you stop and think about your own actions. Because you did, in fact, have a choice, and you likely didn't make it.

Nier: Automata

That actually means nothing at the end of the day.

No, it's the only shit discused here because you fuckers keep bringing it up every time a thread is made.

Ah yes MC was insane, what a self-aggrandising twist. That's not even what make the endings good btw.

because they were so busy stumbling over themselves to make the SP their epic rebuttal to all the "shitty CoDs" of the gaming world that they didn't even want multi. in fact the lead retard said the mechanics were "raped to make it happen"

I've never understood the whole feeling bad about games thing. Maybe I'm too autistic to be immersed, but game journos writing shit about ethics and player choice feel completely alien to me.

>But you do have the choice of whether or not you shoot the civilians at the airport. The proceeding events still play out as usual, but your own perception of the story may (and should) shift if you stop and think about your own actions. Because you did, in fact, have a choice, and you likely didn't make it
>yeah a choice where you watch people die vs shoot people yourself

spec ops would have been kino with a NG+ that reveals there was way to avoid doing the bad stuff all along

Attached: 56528936_1528618020605644_1513354404172922880_n.jpg (720x767, 54K)

No. It isn't. You tried to make it sound like Spec Ops tries to be a commentary on shooter mechanics, whereas it's simply just a generic shooter. It doesn't do anything differently. It doesn't differentiate itself. It's not a commentary, it's a rehearsal.

You can't just sing a song someone else sang the same way a thousand times before and call it a parody or pastiche. You can't just make a generic third person shooter and call it a commentary. Even satire has its own signal characteristics that qualify it as a meta narrative.

Today I learned that some people can only enjoy video games if they imagine themselves as the main character

Attached: 1509312988903.gif (488x154, 345K)

When you really think about it, like an intellectual who loves and truly gets Spec Ops would, isn't the NG+ really to not play the game again? The only winning move, you could say.

Great counter arguments

What about the loading screens

>a scenario wherein the player has to kill civilians in order to progress the plot
>a scenario wherein the player may feel like he has to kill civilians to progress the plot, but in fact doesn't have to despite all the appearances, making it a moral quandary
Guess which game is which.

t. based user with no empathy

bitch

>"Hey, what's wrong with Bob? He isn't murdering everyone like we do. You think he is a cop?"

>Stop Playing Video Games: The Video Game

>I didn't play the mission
They know you're a plant from the start. Idiot.

>game forces you
It never forces you.

You could stop playing you know?

Wrong, I am an empathetic person, but just can't get worked up about people who don't exist.

A spiritual successor that has a bunch of meta devices to get you through the game with a different outcome would've been great.

Like instead of fighting through civilian filled area you can wait till the nightime IRL and then it would be night in the game and you get less bystanders, or making screenshots of certain things in the game would allow your player charcter to change his decision in a cutscene and change the outcome somewhat.

How does that make sense?

Then you'd be fucking suspicious that they are not getting suspicious.

it does force you. theres no way to avoid killing the civvies with willy petes, believe me i tried. whether you stop playing or not, those civilians die.

I played the game, but never bought it or supported the devs. Did I get the secret ending where Walker turns back and walks away, or didn't I?

Attached: read a book.jpg (432x418, 36K)

The game was preachy pretentious garbage but one of the loading nag screens stuck with me.
>blah blah blah but this isn't real so why should you care?
Exactly, why should I? It's a video game, made for entertainment, nobody was hurt, what are they bitching about? The writers really shot themselves in the dick with this one.

I didn't self-insert, but I thought it was bad. The gameplay was clunky and boring

Do I get a refund for the hours of entertainment I paid for but were not granted?

And all of that because you had an actual choice in how to act in that mission. It's wonderful, isn't it?

Meanwhile in Spec Ops, nothing like that fucking happens because there's literally no way to progress the game otherwise.

But the events do not alter if i stop playing. It's not like it's real time like the boss fight with "The End" in MGS3.
If you came back after a month, reloaded your save and the MC fucked off, then this arguement would be just

The gameplay was supposed to be clunky and boring you fucking idiot

>game forces you to murder people then judges you for murdering people
>forces (you)
>judges (you)
Well, here's (your) probem. Game is not about (you). It never was.

Theres nothing to reflect on because this video game and it's message has no repercussions on anyones life

>the game is supposed to be bad
whoa

No it's not, it's idiotic. The mission is on rails like they all are, except it doesn't even give a fuck about what you do.

There is no choice and no way to win, just like in Spec Ops.

It IS a commentary beyond a shadow of a doubt, just not a well executed one. If you can't see it then that is your fault, the game couldn't have made it any more obvious even if it actually had "this is social commentary" on the front cover.

Like I said it falls flat because it doesn't offer you a real choice but then tries to guilt trip you anyway, which completely undermines the point it's trying to make. Nevertheless, the point IS there, plain as day. Denying it is like thinking Animal Farm is just a wacky story about talking pigs and isn't trying to say anything about the dangers of Communist ideology.

>i-it's supposed to be bad
Fuck off

are you intending that as a positive, as in, the game is better/good partly because it was supposed to be clunky and boring?

>Very early on, Spec Ops was designed as a shooter with a branching story. The player actually had a choice, and the "twist" was that the game wouldn't shy from dropping the consequences on the player's head. That was the schtick in early press releases.
This is all a lie.

Au contraire. There is a choice but no way to win. But to make the choice is up to you, as are all the reflections afterwards. Compare that to Spec Ops, where reflections have to be drip-fed straight to you through monologues and loading screens because you had no agency or investment in the story.

I understood. But there was no investment, sacrfice or solid payoff. So why should I care?

the game assumes self-insertion, loading screen address the player

This is literally a gay narritive you thought up. Why the fuck would a weeb even pick this game up?
Game was basic and that's why you're triggered by the critisism

Yeah that's part of the themes, yes.

People shitting on this game are shitposter bandwagoning, who are mad because of a handful of meta loading tips. Play the game for yourself and see if this is worth the seething.

Why put that in the loading screen then?

If "not shooting anyone" and dying is a choice, then it's a choice all shooters provide and nothing interesting or revolutionary.

What happens if you just kill the other dudes? Let me guess: you can't.

Then you'd be lacking in a form of empathy.

The ability to do so is probably the single reason entertainment exists; otherwise nobody would give a fuck if a character died, ever, what kind of life they lived, if their friends died, why they do things, etc.

It must be weird to follow a character's story and then they die in a tragic way and not care at all.

>inb4 everything is poorly written

>just turn off the game bro
Now, if the soldiers didn't respawn indefinitely or you could stop the white phospherous whenever you wanted, you'd have a choice. But when you're forced down a linear path with only 1 "choice", you don't have one

lol right
What about the super cool explosions-friendly choppper chase, or the sand mechanics? Sure sounds like a generic shooter to me

Actual literal faggots ITT.

Attached: to-jump-or-not-to-jump_o_3971455.jpg (700x1036, 160K)

>What happens if you just kill the other dudes?
The mere fact that you're even considering this is an effect of that mission in MW2 giving you a choice. You wouldn't question a similar possibility in Spec Ops because the game gives you no agency in anything.

I'm not saying that No Russian is a perfect example of hidden choice with a multitude of branching paths and varying outcomes. It isn't. But it's exactly what Spec Ops fanboys make their game out to be, except it actually does the thing that Spec Ops doesn't.

This is almost more retarded than , but not quite.

Because people love calling out the retards who defend it like the second coming of christ

Again this is just a minor part of the story though. Why do you fags keep centering on the "guilt trip"? I never see you talk about other parts of the game.

>People shitting on this game are shitposter bandwagoning, who are mad because of a handful of meta loading tips. Play the game for yourself and see if this is worth the seething.

like i said, i liked the game. it just wasn't what people are saying it was. incredibly dishonest and arrogant

I hate the pretentious twats who always get their panties in a bundle over people not liking their 2deep4you trash and always blame it on supposed "self-insert" fags. I don't play video games to feel like a hero. I play video games to have fun and be entertained. Neither the gameplay nor the story were entertaining. The gameplay was tedious, boring, clunky garbage and the story was so ham-handed and pretentious you could sense the smugness of the writer a mile away. It did absolutely nothing new that games like MGS2 did years prior other than poorly commentate on military shootbangs that are ironically more fun to play than it.

Attached: 1499378466027.jpg (618x391, 52K)

In your eyes. Kinda ironic when you defend a game with a character that sees himself on the right side without reflection and extemreme bias ;)

But specs ops have tons of hidden choices what the fuck are you talking about. Did you even play the game?

>but they don't matter
Yeah theyfon't in MW2 either.

Yea Forums hates video games but gets unironically mad when one of them tells you to stop playing

Attached: 1465105480414.jpg (800x600, 199K)

*gasp* is Buckley actually... improving?!

You can chose to skip it. Thus not putting yourself in control of it.
You chose to dissconnect yourself from it. Only way to do that in Spec Ops is
>Lel dont play xD

That's... what I said, actually. It sings the same exact song (gameplay) that a thousand other shooters did before it, but then tries to append some kind of deeper message outside of it. The point may have been made by the authors, but it isn't grounded in the work itself. Video games are about gameplay; if the gameplay isn't any different from the thing it's trying to comment on, then it's not a commentary. The authors may claim otherwise all they want, but that's not how it works.

I'm considering it because it's literally the three options a guy like that would have. Participate to blend in, try to escape or kill them before they kill you.
Walking after them like a dumb dog is not a fourth option.

>Just pay 60$ to do nothing bro, you get the moral highground compared to those pesky gamers that way

This game could have worked if it was a free game instead of a paid one.

Lets be real, nobody paid 60 dollars for this game. And if they did, they got their fill from man shooting, not the story.

Game doesnt continue without you. Shit arguement

>It IS a commentary beyond a shadow of a doubt
Not that guy, but while I agree it's definitively a commentary, I wouldn't be so sure it's about the shooter genre. The story is a fairly straightforward, modernized adaptation of "A Heart of Darkness", made even more obvious by characters being named after book characters and the author. I think it's also fairly obvious that the devs tried to figure out how to use the video-game medium they were working with to do something that isn't a carbon copy of the already existant movie adaptations. The outcome is that weird mix of stressing player agency and making the Player think about it while still railroading the game along the plot they were working with. I think that's shizophrenia in the game's vision puts people off.

Why? To make you stop playing and becoming le bad guy?

Attached: 1544436729645.gif (500x281, 561K)

>ITT: Games that gameplayfags absolutely hate
fixed that for you

Story would still progress unlike other games

Is this bait.

Epic meme

Attached: woah...jpg (1481x783, 140K)

Not at all. You try and do this in Spec Ops and the game wont proceed. It will in that CoD mission

Yes, and those choices that can be made are all telegraphed just in case the player didn't get the point. You can either do this or you can do that. Shoot this guy or that guy. Scare the crowd, just shoot at them or in the air. Shoot this point or that one to get ending A or B. There's no "oh shit, I could have done WHAT?!" moments in Spec Ops as there were in No Russian. It bangs you over the head with its narrative and then expects you to feel guilty about it - rather than making the bad choice an effect of your own, unquestioning agency as the player.

Again, the quiet cleverness of No Russian lies in its subtlety. You have agency, but it's up to you to realise you have it and exercise it. The story won't change, but your impressions as an actor may because you've had agency in the story. In Spec Ops, you're just a passive observer who pushes an indicated button from time to time. There's no reflection to be had.

>I-it's talking about the character!!

>"Do bad thing!"
>ok
>"You did bad thing, you monster!"
>It was the only way to progress
>"Heh, you could also turn off the game, brainlet, heh"
>Uh no, I paid for the game, I will finish it
>"OH MY FUCKING GOD YOU JUST DON'T GET IT YOU DON'T GET THE GENIUS OF THE GAME"
lol

You're in a computer game, Walker!

I think the negative reception on Yea Forums is mostly because of the incredible positive receptions the game had for its "groundbreaking" story. As proof, people here only bring up the phosho scene and the handful of meta loading tips. I fon't think I've seen anyone talk about the radioman shitting on shooter video game either.

Peopme keep bringing the MW2 exemple but they don't realize spec ops already has severals scenes like this, including one at the very end wvere you're surrounded by an hostile mob.

Anyway I'ld be surprised if more than half the people shitting on this game actually played it.

This game would have worked better on modern consoles with social media intergration. It could send to your feeds shit like
>user just murdered hundreds of unarmed innocents in Spec Ops: The Line

Clearly it's the part people remember. There are numerous other ways that the game tries to make you think about the point it's making but they are subtler and typically go unnoticed like the previously mentioned execute button. Even Walker's constant repetition of "I had no choice" is meant to echo the mindset of a gamer. In any war game, you have no choice but to kill people to progress, but you simply accept that because you have no choice, it's fine and normal that you violently kill people and get rewarded for it, even though that's actually pretty messed up.

But that's also exactly why the message falls on its face. You have no choice, so why should you feel bad about it? The player isn't prompted to think about their choices because they didn't have one. The fundamental reason people shit on this aspect of Spec Ops isn't because it made them feel guilty, it's because it failed to make them feel guilty when it actually should have.

>As proof, people here only bring up the phosho scene
It's one of the biggest twists of the game, why wouldn't people bring it up?

>movie director FORCES you to watch a drama
>you feel negative emotions while watching said drama, like sadness
WOOOOOOOOW what a fucking piece of shit movie, why it make me feel bad

I played it. Thought it was alright and somthing different and moved on.
I cant stand the people who think it's the best story ever and keep bringing it up (like this thread) it just isnt worth the praise after all these years

>the choices are all telegraphed

Oh come the fuck on. Please tell me how it makes the choice clear to you.

>You have agency, but it's up to you to realise you have it and exercise it. The story won't change, but your impressions as an actor may because you've had agency in the story.

So just like spec ops multiples choices then

>Even Walker's constant repetition of "I had no choice" is meant to echo the mindset of a gamer. In any war game, you have no choice but to kill people to progress, but you simply accept that because you have no choice, it's fine and normal that you violently kill people and get rewarded for it
Yeah, except you actually, demonstrably, verifiably have no choice in Spec Ops. Now imagine you actually did, and yet still chose to mow down people by the hundreds because "that's what you do in video games, duh". And then you find out that, no, really, you didn't have to, it was all on you.

If Spec Ops had done that, it would have been a legitimate commentary. As it is, it's just another by-the-numbers modern military shooter. It may scream its desired themes at you, but it doesn't ever actually deliver them.

Fucking this. There is no consequence to these actions

>It is trying to make you think "Wow, this is pretty fucked up that the game is making me violently kill people in horrible ways just to progress" and then you are supposed to think "Wait a minute, that's every fucking war game". And then you think about how video games routinely make you do shit that would be horrifying in real life and not only treat it is a normal but reward and glorify it.

That is a weak point. Yes, fiction often explores things that you wouldn't or couldn't do in real life. Video games didn't invent this, violent movies, music, books, stories, poems and fairy tales existed long before them. "Woah my dude, did you know you can't legally run over people like in GTA, that's fucked up man" isn't some groundbreaking deep message

>forces
Stopped reading there

Wow great thread guys pure comedy haha i get it you guys hate video games lol epic irony sure glad youre all here haha

Attached: 1552832964133m.jpg (427x1024, 65K)

I haven't played the game, but isn't the point to make the main character responsible, not make the player feel responsible?

>retards literally thinking the game was judging THEM the PLAYER

Attached: 1549616565389.jpg (387x309, 19K)

You are Yea Forums too.

You can't even legally run over people in GTA. Ingame cops will go after you.

>Please tell me how it makes the choice clear to you.
The game stops and waits for you to do something (or has a timer in the background until the choice is made for you) so the scene can go forward and go back to regular gameplay. In MW2, the game doesn't stop and wait for you. The curtain rises, gameplay starts, and it's up to you to play your part in what manner comes to your mind first. Are you a simple player who just shoots at whatever is in the centre of the screen because that's how video games are played? Or are you a critically thinking person, capable of holding back before jumping in to go with the flow?

tl;dr: choices in Spec Ops are indicated and, in the absence of a better term, "gamey" and unsubtle. Choices in MW2, the extremely few there are, are there to be found by you on your own.

...

Because there's plenty of other syuff happening in the story? If that's the only thing people know about the game then clearly they didn't play it.

>I cant stand the people who think it's the best story ever and keep bringing it up (like this thread)

Please show me where people do this you bandwagoning retard.

>you have no choice so why should you feel bad about it

Because that's just how storytelling work? Some game clearly have tragic villains who will die no matter what. Do this mean that all those games fail bexause your only choices it to kill them? Do you never get sad or laught at a story when an event happen because you had no agency in it? That's a bad argument.

>Why should you care
>cares
wooooow

>In MW2, the game doesn't stop and wait for you. The curtain rises, gameplay starts, and it's up to you to play your part in what manner comes to your mind first.

You walk from checkpoint to checkpoint and the game will wait for you.

In Spec Ops you walk from checkpoint to checkpoint, the game will wait for you. Then you push a button.

Maybe all the faggots in this thread who lost their shit at people critisising the story.

Attached: 1544436340856.gif (228x211, 267K)

Based autistic child not inderstanding social cues. Game is JUDGING you, the PLAYER

I'm talking about the moments when you can make a choice. They aren't part of regular gameplay in Spec Ops. They're set pieces in between. In MW2, they're woven into the standard gameplay. There's no pause and "OK, now you stop and pick your route, Ramirez". You either realise you can do something and do it, or you don't and proceed oblivious. It's up to you.

The murder button. Notice how your explaination of MW2 didnt have the murder button

>DO YOU FEEL BAD FOR PLAYING A GAME YET?
It's funny because if this game came out today Yea Forums would claim it's SJW

It's a legit good story about a madman killing everyone but people get hangup on the metanarrative that was limited by their inability to make a completly different route.

How is this juding the player?

>The game stops and waits for you to do something

You can litteraly just walk aways when the game "stop". It doesn't even apply to the crowd scene because they pelt you. You don't even explain how the game make the hidden choices clear to you.

Will the level end if i just stand there and do nothing?

Still missing the point. It's not pointing out "whoa dude you can do bad things in video games" it's that video games normalize and reward psychopathic behaviour to the point where we are not just desensitized to it but actively revel in it. Other mediums do this too to some extent but it's particularly egregious in video games where murder is casually treated as something that is pleasing and to be celebrated. In other mediums its more done for shock value.

>Because that's just how storytelling work? Some game clearly have tragic villains who will die no matter what. Do this mean that all those games fail bexause your only choices it to kill them? Do you never get sad or laught at a story when an event happen because you had no agency in it? That's a bad argument.
It's because Spec Ops in particular wants you to examine your OWN thoughts, your OWN attitudes, in addition to those of a fictional character. I can feel sad about the story of a tragic character, but this is not necessarily trying to make me reflect on my own views. That's what Spec Ops tries and fails to do. The individual story of Walker is still a reasonably well told one if you totally separate it from the commentary aspects.

No, because No Russian isn't a perfect example, as I said, and doesn't account for a lot of actions. It still accounts for more than Spec Ops and plays to a similar theme.

Oops end is meant for Ah yes MW2 regular gameplay is about killing defenceless people truly not a setpiece.

You have to kill innocents or the game will not progress.

You have to get to the checkpoint to get killed or the game will not progress.

>cant tell difference between fiction and reality and is unable to reflect about anything so instead he gets mad at the game
why dont you go play fortnite or some other instant gratification phone game?

How do you think it's not? Are you autistic? It's a passive agressive remark about how "you dont care" about the US military and their moral standing because you shot all these unarmmed people ingame. It's certainly not aimed towards the MC because it is in a loading screen that only you, the player, sees.

>ITT: people who don’t get the game because they think walker is alive

No, you can walk through without murdering anyone though. Unlike spec ops morale set pieces

Any retard can get the game, it's just a poorly executed piece of shit.

You dont have to shoot them.
Oh look, it's this retarded and debunked arguement again

>I love Shit Ops because I feel like I did something meaningful by feeling bad for playing a game
lol

Yeah but are there multiple choices during the white phosphorus scene? Don’t be a fucking retard.

>killing people in war bad
Not only I, but the even the character Walker did nothing wrong

Attached: 1525801024362.png (644x800, 15K)

It is the very same as Spec Ops. It's not having an active choice vs. not having a passive choice.
It's like the trolley problem without the lever. Except one time with yourself on the rails and another time with someone else.

>You dont have to shoot them.
First was meant to describe Spec Ops

Based retard getting offended when a game tells him that war and killing have consequences
Do you also feel irrational anger when watching war movies where they accidentally or not kill civilians and bomb cities? Do you feel like you're personally attacked by this?
Does it also trigger you when you are chased by the police after mowing down a crowd of people on gta? Do you feel like the game is trying to force its ideologies down your throat?

I can't put this any clearer. The commentary on player agency that both Spec Ops and No Russian employ falls flat if the player feels no agency. Spec Ops has choices that are clearly indicated and presented to the player for their conscious and deliberate perusal. No Russian has a hidden choice. It relies entirely on the player and their attempted agency, which most players (whom Spec Ops first tries to criticise, then caters to) wouldn't even realise they had.

And that's what the commentary is on: players being conditioned by video games to shoot whatever is on screen and never ask questions, because "it's all a video game and this is what you do in video games".

I'm not saying No Russian is a perfect or even that well-executed scenario. But it plays to the exact, same message that Spec Ops tries to execute but fails, and delivers its point through actual gameplay where the player is in full control.

You could shut the game off, murderer

>watch a war film
>civilians die
>credits roll up and tell me, the watcher, that they died because I watched the film and I should feel bad
Yeah, I can kind of see why people would find this in poor taste.

>Killing is bad
No shit retard
If you needed a game to explicitly tell you so you are a shiteating mongoloid

And if you're being judged falsely or in a tongue-in-cheek manner, are you going to sperg out and start shouting that you are innocent and are falsely accused or will you just shrug and say "If that's what you think"? Talk about being autismal.

>play a game
>civilians die
>credits roll and tell me, the player, for every civilian I killed in the game, they will kill equivalent number of sandniggers in the same country

>’you feel like a hero yet’ In the fucking loading screen
>hurr this isn’t for you, it’s fo Walker!
Are you retarded?

they should have made a route where you don't go guns blazing and do proper recon. Like that part early in the game where they were trying to talk down those people in Farsi, was there any reason for you to shoot at them? At all went downhill from there.

Did say i was offended you dense nigger. Only thing that's offended me is how fucking dumb you are.
Original post here
Is trying to claim the game isnt judging you. When the loading screen proves it is.
Nothing was said about being "offended"

>they're lying

Attached: lemon2.jpg (600x840, 288K)

This was the first game I bought when I got my first real job
Awesome to see smooth brains STILL get angry at it for not being Mass Effect.

Attached: Terr.jpg (750x671, 66K)

why? do you faggots actually force yourselves to play games? I play games for fun and enjoy killing people brutally in them. pacifism is a lie in real life too

>I'm literally a seething retarded rpg weeb
t. you

Cringe

Christ you cunts are dumb. The orginal arguement was about IF the game is judging you. Not IF anyone was offended by being judged. Is this response because you zoomer faggots take everything so personally? Just because someone judges you, doesnt mean you need to take offense, snowflake

wow, do you feel proud for killing women and children?

Yes why would I think that the line 'do you feel like a hero yet?' would apply to the protagonist who disobeyed orders and got in far over his head because he was way too gung-ho about being a big all-american hero? The game is clearly shit-talking me personally.

if anything I could practically feel the game seething at the presence of the call of duty series, though

t. no arguments

Oh look, the westwrnigger is back. Are you just triggered that MGS is more popular and people will reference it over this shit for it's anti war message?

>Just because someone judges you, doesnt mean you need to take offense, snowflake
Thanks for reiterating my point right back at me, I guess? This is what everyone takes offense to in this entire thread. Being judged, perhaps unjustly or falsely for enjoying a videogame over one man's descent into madness and decay.

>mgs
>anti-war

You have been missreading like crazy bud.

Whatever you say, Walker.

Kek I rest my case westernigger

It's aimed at people trying to rationalize what happened by "hu it's just a game bro". It doesn't say you're a piece of shit for enjoying shooting game. In fact the game allow you to go full edge at the end by killing the rescue party and embrace the senseless violence as an evil badass.

This... doesn't counter my argument?

The crowd scene cleary wasn't a clear choices as many people felt tricked when they discovered they could elsewhere. The game also make you panick through gameplay with the crow throwing stones at you.
The sniper scene present you with an obvious choices but there's a bunch of other choices that are hidden to the player becausethe gamedoesn'tstop. Youcanstill.choose where to shoot or to walk away.
Same thing for when you're given the choice you're given the choice to kill or not the wounded soldier.
You can also shoot one of the bad guy you hold at gunpoint during his speeche but the game never tell you that but that's the only scene where you're stopped.

>being conditioned by video games to shoot whatever is on screen and never ask questions, because "it's all a video game and this is what you do in video games".

Litteraly all those scenes allow you to break the order or choices you're given.

The loading screen "tips" could be understood to be Walker's inner monologue. Even the couple of them that talk about him in second person could just be him disassociating himself with his actions.

So what is the game trying to criticize exactly?

If you're talking about the sandnigger at the beggining they shoot at you whatever you do.

Kek retard learns he fucked uo

>muh chinese developer said it's anti war so it is

There are no murderers in war.

No fucking shit, idiot.

KEK the fucking irony

I'm talking to one

>KEK
opinion discarded

Its been awhile, but i remember trying a new save straight away after ending and trying to do somthing passive instead of killing and it wouldnt let me. Think it was something about hanging people?

>last word

>tfw you shot that civilian that comes running at you from behind a corner in the first firefight of the game

Attached: suruapu.jpg (657x527, 34K)

Back to discord

I feel like spec ops could have been brilliant instead of retarded if it gave you the option in the game to not murder.

>all the thin-skinned faglords that can't owe up to being responsible for their hurt feelies in a game

special shoutout to this faggot. you're twitter-sjw tier of fucking retarded, literally arguing in favor of drooling, skinner box brainlets who want no challenge and no consequences in anything they do.

Attached: 34234124121.jpg (640x710, 81K)

Attached: FAB28433-3B89-4486-BFE9-3542F31580B4.jpg (1280x768, 662K)

SEETHING

Its not the only one and it is clearly trying to get the player to thunk. And yeah, the game is basically the Haze of military shooters.

stealing this idea, thanks bro

They were going to give you an option to not use the Willy Pete, but they ran out of dev time.

memes are a shit-tier coping mechanism. go suck your mom's dick.

>you can’t do shit in spec ops
>there are a lot of little choices in spec ops
None of which that actually shifts the story in a meaningful way but only your perception of how things played out. That’s why I brought up the white phosphorus thing, you still can’t change that. Don’t kid yourself about shooting the ground or the sky so the civvies won’t hate you as much.

try not taking video games so seriously
have sex

I don't think there is a player alive that didn't. The encounter is designed for you to be focused on the fight and then suddenly they throw in an unarmed civilian that comes AT you. Of course you're going to shoot in the heat of the moment. Still a neat little moment, though.

Yes fucking shit, RETARD.

>be civilian in a war zone
>hear shots
>charge head first into them
No remorse

>no challenge and no consequences in anything they do
So, they want Spec Ops?

Undertale did it better

That’s because Undertale gave you a choice, and didn’t leave you in control of a guy with PTSD from the beginning.

It's a fucking video game, of course there are no consequences.

retarded analogy who never read the bible please refer to taking a cyanide pill 1-3 times a day, thank you

Playing a schizo is fine, but then the game tries to guilt trip the player for something the character does, which is assfuck retarded.

>tfw enjoyed every moment of it

Attached: 1555678421909.jpg (477x724, 553K)

this. It could've been good but it was just wasted potential

>no choice but to kill people
>youre bad for choosing to kill people
why does Yea Forums think this game is good amd why are they so butthurt when someone says it isnt

I didn't.
But that's because I'm a faggot who tries to minimize collateral damage in any shooter/action games so I kinda have a habit of "watching my fire" in games like this.

I don't subscribe to the alt-right ideology of reading books. You know who wrote a book? Hitler did and he was a bad guy!

Attached: DVip9q9WkAETqnp[1].jpg (1091x1200, 170K)

The game is designed to do that up until the white phosphorus scene. From that point on you are supposed to feel disconnected from Walker. It's supposed to feel like the experience that many soldiers felt when they did awful things. "It felt like someone else was doing it".

Well there is two endings depending if you shoot the soldiers in that last scene or not.

>spend 60 bucks on game
>play game
>"so you actually played the game? wow..."
thought provoking

>But you do have the choice of whether or not you shoot the civilians at the airport.
So your options are you either shoot the civilians or do nothing as the other terrorists shoot them.
That isn't really much of a choice at all and that doesn't take into account that you have to shoot the Russian police no matter what.

>Fahrenheit 451
>Aldous Huxley
>alt-right
what