All you had to do was just stop

I liked the game and the idea behind it, but this.
The white phosphorous shit and the "why did u do it" aspect is useless since there was no choices to make.

Still, a cool TPS with a original story

I didn't even feel bad so fuck it

You are all brainlets.

Yes, Walker represents the player, and no, you are not given a choice. That is the whole point. If you had a choice to be "noble" and find a way around at great personal cost or w/e, not only would it completely sabotage Walker's arc, but it would also undermine the entire message of that scene, which is that war games routinely frame military intervention as the only viable course of action and that this goes unquestioned by the narrative. The cognitive dissonance you're feeling is deliberate. By making you aware of the choice-that-wasn't it draws the parallel to all the other times the same thing happens in other games.

>dude it's supposed to be shit
is this pasta?

>you don't have a choice
Fucking christ you absolute retards refuse to get it don't you? You know the only time the game acknowledges the player is in the opening credits?
Your account name is credited as "Special Guest", you are not a participant in the narrative you are simply an observer too it. You troglodytes cannot understand the simple concept that is it Walker making his own decisions to move forward, the only choices you make as a player is ''moral'' choices for Walker. Walker chooses to disregard his mission objectives at the very start of the game, within 5 minutes of gameplay, everything else you do in the game a consequence of *his* decision making.

What do you decide as a player?
- Shooting the first american solder you meet.
- Saving the surrounded civs or sneaking by to get to CIA faster
- The two hung guys
- Shooting the water truck man
- Shooting the civs who killed Lugo or not
- Deciding what ending Walker gets.

That last point being important as you are placing judgement on Walker in a sense for his actions, as you've observed everything he has done which includes:

- Disregard his original orders to find refugees
- Begin combatting with the 33rd
- HE DECIDES TO USE THE WHITE PHOSPHORUS AND BLAME THE 33RD
- He chooses to help CIA water man and doom the few left in the city
- Hunting and killing the radio DJ
- And importantly, he was the one to decide to chase down Konrad.

>Durrr why didn't Joel leave Eli with the fireflies I didn't have the choice durr
Yes because Joel made that choice and that's the point of TLOU's ending is that Joel made an inherently selfies choice, dont bother debating about if sacrificing Eli would of actually cured anything, it doesn't matter. Walker is the same, he is the one to keep pushing forward, he is the one calling the shots, you're just a passive viewer, and the fact that drooling retards still can't accept the simple fact that you are not Walker, and that Walker makes decisions on his own is stupid.

Attached: cools.png (1280x720, 2.06M)

Post yfw you never played the game so you're morally superior to every player AND the game devs

Attached: 11834871234728.jpg (686x937, 190K)

(cont)
All the idiots that continue to whine "Oh I could tell it was civilians during the white phosphorus scene it was obvious!"
Yes, yes it was obvious because *you* looked, you considered your actions and/or the situation, Walker did not.

If the White phosphorus scene was a cutscene, unlike the player he would not of hesitated for a single second to use the phosphorus on the crowd.

During the scene you see Walker's reflection not yours.

Attached: 1548849811902.png (528x297, 231K)

WAR BAD

>mfw I just play shooters to see guns go shooty bang bang and look at reload animations so any biting "commentary" the devs and retards defending them had flies out the window

>b-but you're playing pretend soldier !
Yes, I also play pretend chef when I play Cook, Serve, Delicious!, pretend pilot when I play Ridge Racer, pretend mayor when I play Sim City and so on. Truly the only brainlets here are people who think this game had anything to offer besides shallow, cover based shooting gameplay.

Attached: smug catto.jpg (340x527, 20K)

>would not of
lmao

Based rageposter

Its actually a bland TPS with a ripped off story

I did, I stopped and played a game that wasn't shitty.

you can literally do that.
if you turn back after the first encounter happens you get a different "ending" which is basically a game over.

You do realize any poignant message about choice, agency and consequences gets lost when they just strap you on and force you to watch a trainwreck, right?
When a clear disconnect between player and walker happens, you just watch a fucked up man fuck up even more.

I don't think that's right.

>poignant message about choice, agency and consequences
it isnt a game like that at all. the point is the game railroads you through the worst possible scenarios, as opposed to generic militaryshooters at the time that constantly remind the player that they are the hero, part of the good guys, and that the enemies are super evil terrorists that deserve it. the game even parodies itself with that "youre still a good person" loading screen text. it makes you go through all those atrocities and war crimes yet players keep playing because they expect a good conclusion to the game. some kind of divine intervention to all the madness that will clear them of all sins when they finally konrad. and this never happens so players get super butthurt for being "tricked".

>You do realize any poignant message about choice, agency and consequences gets lost when they just strap you on and force you to watch a trainwreck, right?
To the contrary, in fact, it is entirely on this level that the equivalence works. Walker is the one who has a choice in the game, but he refuses to recognise this because he is determined to continue, no matter what. The player has the same choice outside the game. Walker's insistence on doing "whatever it takes" is reflected in the player's willingness to go along with it.

Attached: walker-ani.gif (300x100, 63K)

Attached: 1388640093387.jpg (892x1348, 291K)

>Walker's insistence on doing "whatever it takes" is reflected in the player's willingness to go along with it
But since you do not actually incluence story or gameplay, your 'willingness' as a player never comes into play.
You are just a spectator to the events, you do not enable them any more than someone watching a movie and not hitting pause

>But since you do not actually incluence story or gameplay, your 'willingness' as a player never comes into play.
Yes, it does, that is in fact the point it is making. By framing it so that the only course of action allowed by the game is neither actually the "only choice" nor results in a positive outcome, the game is challenging you to question how video games generally frame moral dilemmas by refusing to give you a choice. You are an active participant, more than a spectator, as the game makes clear numerous times, not least by your inclusion in the opening credits. If you don't understand how playing a game is active but watching a movie is passive, how are you even qualified to analyse video games at all?

>it isnt a game like that at all. the point is the game railroads you through the worst possible scenarios, as opposed to generic militaryshooters at the time that constantly remind the player that they are the hero

Call of Duty Modern Warfare 1 and 2 were the most generic military shooters and in them the player either dies a horrific pointless death or massacres a bunch of innocent civilians as a CIA spook.

What generic FPS games was Spec Ops taking down? Certainly not the generic FPSes of its time. Maybe the FPSes of the PS1 era, we can say Spec Ops owned.

Attached: a9a.gif (379x387, 71K)

That game was much more fun than it had the right to be. And I don't even like cover shooters.

CoD frames its killings as necessary evils at worst when it is done in the name of the good cause of American imperialism, and the deaths of its protagonists are tragic betrayals or heroic sacrifices.

this
also the AA-12 was so fucking satisfying to shoot.

>"Dude the only winning move is not to buy my game, bro'
gotcha

Instead ask yourself why are you willing to do anything the game asks of you just so the game tells you you did a good job? Spec Ops refuses to tell you that you did a good job and by extension it suggests that maybe those other games shouldn't have been telling you that either. It's not making a point about itself, but about every game in its genre. It's not about "winning" you simplistic gamer.

>dude bro it's like a commentary on games and gamers. we live in a society
>the gameplay is actually boring formulaic dogshit on purpose
Spec Ops fanboys are insufferable

I stopped playing because the gameplay was dull, does that mean I won?

If the bad stuff that walker had done was just part of "the bad options" then it wouldn't anything significant except for something to avoid. And yes, it is supposed to be shit, this is one of the few games that can be legitimately called art, which isn't supposed to always make you feel super happy inside you man-child.

Spec Ops is such a fucking beautiful game that I still play from time to time. Gameplay is actually kinda fun and the story still fucks me up even knowing everything about it. The absolute highest bar for video game storytelling, and Spec Ops was made ironically as a 'fuck you' to other military shooters at the time.

Attached: cia punished.jpg (569x802, 60K)

The death of the American protagonist in MW1 (and thousands more American troops with him) is portrayed as a pointless waste.

ITT: GAME HURT MY FEELINGS IM TOO SMART FOR THIS.

Attached: 1552867705814.jpg (400x400, 10K)

I have to say it effected me enough that I didn't want to replay it.
I get a bit of the same feeling right now playing Sekiro, knowing that the troops I'm killing are "good guys" fighting for a good cause, and only Sekiro's honor and the demands of plot keeps him going.
But I feel a lot less emotional connection to Sengoku samurai than I feel to modern day American soldiers.

Please, it happens in the midst of a heroic rescue. The "tragedy" is that the "bad guy" would dare to use such a drastic weapon, not that the American troops were there in the first place. They were just doing their jobs!

Spec Ops was the game to say no, you can't blame it on the bad guy, you're the bad guy.

>it is supposed to be shit
lol ok

that game is fuckin trash, just a generic cover shooter with some shitty story that retards keep praising

the difference is that in mw in the end good guys win.

ironically enough those 33rd guys were evacuating the refugees when walker called the wp strike on them. its as if walker was the one calling the nuke in first modern warfare.

I didn't, because I enjoyed killing Muricans and Saudis.

I agree wholeheartedly, but Spec Ops still fell short of my expectations when it failed to incorporate gameplay into the meta-narrative.
Ironic generic third-person shooters are still generic third-person shooters.

Dismiss everything that doesn't make you feel good. Only play games that make you feel instantly happy, forget them in a few hours, never question yourself. You don't need to feel things, to grow, they just hate you and want you to feel sad, come play a japanese game instead because they have pretty graphics and anime tits. That's right user, you're perfect and don't have any reason to ever reflect on yourself.

Attached: bravenewworld.jpg (948x1447, 59K)

>Instead ask yourself why are you willing to do anything the game asks of you just so the game tells you you did a good job?
this is projection and I think your sentence is constructed wrong.
>Ask yourself why are you willing to do anything the game tells you. Is it just so the game can tell you did a good job?
is what you asked? Because games are for most part played as active entertainment, real time puzzle solving. In order to progress further into the game, you must solve the obstacles the game puts forth. Most games, just like puzzles, have an end state, and getting to that end state is relieving feeling.
The "paint" of the game is, for all intents and purposes, completely irrelevant to the mechanical aspects of it, and is interchangeable.
So is the game shaming people for enjoying games that glorify war, or people making war glorifying games?
And the argument being that you as player choose to play this gruesome game just in order to entertain yourself?
>"Oh wow, this game is asking me to kill those innocent civilians. I can't condone such action, I better quit the game and never play it again"
Is that what you are supposed to do to not be the butt of the joke, to be the one taken for the "fool" here? Or do you become part of the "artistic" message the moment you purchase the game, because how could you buy a war game to entertain yourself?
Whats the saying, not being able to separate fact from fiction is a sign of autism, or how did it go?

People don't have problem with the game saying that Walker is a "bad guy", or that you played a "bad guy", or that game says "You are the bad guy". Many games have done it long before. People take issue with being part of some half-assed social commentary, and the most insulting part is that it doesn't even use "gameplay" to bring the message home.

>You know the only time the game acknowledges the player is in the opening credits?
Feel like a hero yet?

Well the whole point was that it was a criticism of third person shooters. Tropes like "going against orders to save the day" and "shooting solves everything." Walker failed because he was trying to be the call of duty/gears of war hero, only to find that the real world doesn't work like that. His eagerness to save the day got him played and his men killed.

I thought you talked about Far Cry 5...

>Whats the saying, not being able to separate fact from fiction is a sign of autism, or how did it go?
so youre completely ignoring the fact that these military shooters go for increasingly more realistic visuals to create deeper player immersion. losing the sense of reality and "zoning out" is an integral part of the player satisfaction these games are popular for. no one would play a simple headclicker if it failed to immerse them.

>this projection
>actually getting emotional over a video game
lmao cry harder. I watch movies or read books if I want a decent story. enjoy your painfully mediocre TPS

the game is chockfull of these details, its a shame these retards can't aprecciate it because they feel personally assaulted by the game

Attached: 860a16bc4fcafa3d76e6cf6.jpg (610x804, 326K)

Name some western games that aren't shit.

this poster is underage

>these details
you mean character development? that's essential in this type of story, am I seriously supposed to be impressed at basic shit like this?

This. Retards think that they need to self insert in every game they play, they can't detach themselves from the character and enjoy the story for what it is.

if that's true, why don't I have a problem with SOMA, a game where the main character is super irrational and gets himself into frustrating positions where I have no say?

>so youre completely ignoring the fact that these military shooters go for increasingly more realistic visuals to create deeper player immersion
First we need to figure out what you mean by immersion. Do you mean immersion into the world and story, or being immersed into the gameplay and the moment, because this is an important distinction.
> losing the sense of reality
No, not unless you are talking about someone with PTSD playing VR games, a person should not lose the sense of reality when playing stuff like PR. "Losing sense of reality" is a very strong term and essentially in your context means the exactly the same as "zoning out", unless you actually believe people lose their bearings when playing "realistic" looking games.
and "zoning out" is an integral part of the player satisfaction
Alright, but that is not inherit to realistic graphics, rather how accepting the player is of the world.
As an example, I will claim that games such as Morrowind and Gothic 2 are much more immersive than most modern warshooters
>these games are popular for
Games aren't popular because you "lose sense of reality and zone out" as you seem to be implying with your sentence.
Games, for post part, are popular because they are engaging and stimulating. FPS and War games are most often competitive, tests persons reflexes as well as puts their tactical thinking and teamwork to the test. In other words it gets adrenaline pumping, just like physical activity does.
That is why Ace of Spaces was so engaging to lots of people
>no one would play a simple headclicker if it failed to immerse this
immerse what exactly?

Go back to you basement.

No one cares about what you have a problem with or not.

Attached: 9891.png (381x108, 5K)

agreed

buy a game, get punished for playing it, not for lack of skill like a souls game, but just for playing it since you had no choice but to continue, then faggots like OP and drooling game bloggers claim we are all bad for not just turning off the game instead of finishing the thing you paid to play throguht the end.
>your ebil for watching something you had no choice in.

Attached: brainlettttt[1].jpg (800x450, 44K)

>this is projection and I think your sentence is constructed wrong.
Well, you're wrong about both of those things. Find a new buzzword and l2read.
What I asked is what I asked. I am not asking you if you need the game to pat you on the back. I know you need the game to pat you on the back. The problem that Spec Ops points out is that video games can excuse anything with a pat on the back.

Awareness of what the game is doing does not require you to take it personally and refuse to play on. You can recognise it and adopt a critical stance. The point then is to export that same critical stance to other war shooters.
>Whats the saying, not being able to separate fact from fiction is a sign of autism, or how did it go?
I dunno, that may be a saying on Yea Forums, but then Yea Forums attributes anything to autism. How is that relevant here, anyway? Why do you think that's what we're talking about?

>and the most insulting part is that it doesn't even use "gameplay" to bring the message home.
I hate to say this but it really is 2deep4u

I think to solve that you should tell us why you had a problem with Spec Ops

Joke's on you, I never finished the game because of the janky handling

How are you being punished? By the game denouncing war crimes?

But I never wanted to stop. Not until there are shitskins and amerimutts left to kill. In the end, I am a hero.

>I watch movies and read books
We all know that by movies you mean Marvel, and by books you mean you don't read.

Spec Ops: The Line for starters.

>why did I self-insert as a character in one game but not the other
To be contrarian I would guess.

shit game

just turn your game off bro

I personally feel like it's bashed over your head rather than told in a proper way. That doesn't mean it's shit, that just means I personally didn't like it. Making me a strawman that needs to self insert as everything is childish and easy.
>No one cares
You obviously do.

I had fun killing everyone tho.

Always loved the small details of Spec Ops.

>Throw grenade
>Enemy soldier jumps on top of it to cover his buddies

>Throw sticky and it sticks to enemy.
>Enemy does a suicide charge

>We all know that by movies you mean Marvel, and by books you mean you don't read.
you can't even insult me properly so you just make a strawman. how embarrassing

Attached: 1326054559808.jpg (1280x995, 288K)

Attached: 1558388578346.jpg (2203x1814, 542K)

The very notion that anyone thinks Spec-Ops is "deep" or "thought-provoking" really condemns the videogame community.

>mfw I've never played a video game ever
>mfw no face, just like no vidya

Yeah, it's so cutting edge and artistic to make a shitty gow clone. Just went over my simple little head. What auteurs, and what an intellectual giant you must be to like that.

>it's art
It's literally just Heart of Darkness plagiarized into vidya form

>loses trigger discipline
>now also resorts to doing inhuman grunts that Adams interprets as "kill the target"

I'm not trying to strawman you I just like talking about spec ops. I do agree it's prone to being heavy handed, but the game is in your face from the moment after WP is shot at the crowd.

Honestly, this is off the cuff so I'm not married to the idea, but I could compared it to Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me, in regards to just how both medias drag their leads and the audience through violent and awful events while being outright aggressive to the viewer.

Attached: 1558932589600.jpg (1018x1146, 150K)

the fact that they're expecting us to think character development is impressive is extra embarrassing
>dude he has worse trigger discipline at the end of the game!!1

the fact that people are STILL buttblasted about this game 7 years later shows that the narrative was interesting enough to piss people off

Attached: 6dBt2Oj.jpg (251x242, 15K)

>caring about spooks
lmao

Attached: b064413e9e2fc822ace13b6dfb58987c.jpg (302x263, 13K)

>hurr durr if I say strawman I win
>not even a strawman, or an argument
That's embarrassing. But for the sake of positive discord, what enlightened taste in film and literature do you have?

Tis a good book tho.

It's a game, none of what was displayed by it was real, none of it matters. Your attempts at moral bludgeoning fall flat but I imagine your liberal tutors are all extremely proud.

That is a strawman.
>Tis
Kill yourself.

Walker stands for the player whether you self-insert or not.

who the fuck are you quoting? I'm calling you out on strawmanning like a lazy faggot
>u don't like muh bideo game that means u like marvel!!!!
piss off

>Feel like a hero yet?
Is what Konrad asks Walker in the end

Attached: 1557726599768.png (506x789, 123K)

No, that's just TECHNOLOGY

>Shitskin "Civilians"

Do not exist, kill them all. He did nothing wrong.

That's fair, you're not the type of spec ops fan that I have a problem with. It's the retards that insist you're some kind of retard just because you didn't like the storytelling in a videogame

When will people learn that Spec Ops isn't about violence, but rather about how the context behind violence can be easily lost when you don't question whether or not that violence is actually justified?

If Walker had just followed his orders, everything would have worked out fine. Instead he had to try and attempt something way beyond his capabilities just to make him feel better about himself. Never once did he actually question what all his violence would actually accomplish.

If there's any commentary on game violence that can be taken from Spec Ops, it's about how games like to handwave justifications for violence, because any violence probably had repercussions most vidya protagonists don't see.

It's also what the game asks the player

>giving the player model a slightly different stance at the end of the game is considered TECHNOLOGY
sets the bar a little low, don't you think?

The story works when it's solely treated as a Walker character study. It completely crumbles when you try and make it meta.

you now realize the third person camera symbolizes player observation and walker is an fps kiddie trying to be a hero.

More like the metanarrative works when you look at it as a critique of CoD clones. It's not aged well due to CoD-likes no longer being the big industry trend anymore though.

I always thought the story works well if you at it as a satire of US foreign policy.

>If there's any commentary on game violence that can be taken from Spec Ops, it's about how games like to handwave justifications for violence, because any violence probably had repercussions most vidya protagonists don't see.
Or rather, because the repercussions are framed as unequivocally good, or at worst, a necessary evil. By framing violence (especially in a military context) as free from collateral damage, or collateral damage as justified, it creates a narrative that is pro-interventionism and pro-imperialism. I think you can question whether this is because this narrative is so ingrained in American society, or an unintended side effect of game developers knowing their players will identify with the characters they are playing and don't want to be made to feel bad about the cool military stuff they do. It's probably a combination of both. But Spec Ops is uncompromising in this regard.

>Kill yourself
Don't cut yourself on that edge lad. Don't worry, you'll grow out of it.

Yet to hear to hear about the refined taste in books and film that user had. Not surprised nobody has anything to say.

wasting reasorces on non combatants. WP and water are better spent elsewhere

Water barrels draining at a different rate depending on where you shoot it counts. This is what TECHNOLOGY is all about. The clever little details devs thought to include.

this

Either the game was never referring to the player/doing meta shit at all and it was all supposed to be an observation of Walker, in which case it's a mediocre TPS with a slightly above average plot and writing hook.

Or it was actually meant to be some attempt at forcing scathing introspection on le brainless cowadooty chugging gamers (which as mentions is retarded because MW was already doing its own version of that) which is completely idiotic because it does it by yanking away player agency then admonishes for what is required to be done to keep playing. Unless you partake in the meme and TURN OFF LE GAME.

Either way anyone who thinks of themself as a to intelligent auteur for liking this game and that people here just dont get it man should fuck off

>Spec Ops was the game to say no, you can't blame it on the bad guy, you're the bad guy.
This is what brainlets consider a mindblowing twist

Attached: tointel.jpg (250x202, 14K)

The point is "It's your fault for BUYING our game".
You knew it was a shooter, you knew it was about killing people, you want it to be fun and to kill without consequences - this is what a war look like.

It's inescapably meta though.

>trying to move the goalpost
>setting arbitrary quality standards that are yours to judge
doesn't matter what I say, you'll call it shit. keep on strawmanning, kid

>the only way to win the game is not playing it

Attached: 60092866_802438663475518_4904733595538554880_n.png (587x401, 357K)

>I hate to say this but it really is 2deep4u
massive fucking faggot

Attached: Why you are on 4chan.jpg (800x600, 51K)

>I am not asking you if you need the game to pat you on the back. I know you need the game to pat you on the back
Again, this is projection.
>Find a new buzzword
Okay, armchair psychology.
>The problem that Spec Ops points out is that video games can excuse anything with a pat on the back
"the problem" isn't a lack of some "pat on the back", but the author taking the player for a fool. I, nor many other people, have no problem if the game deals with heavier topics and places the player in the position of the bad guy. Encouraging dialogue is one thing, taking the role of some wise mentor is another
The general takeaway sentiment from Spec Ops, as we can see years later, wasn't
>wow maybe I should think about context
but
>what the fuck. Game calls me a bad guy for playing it
This isn't the fault of the player, but the author failing to get this message across. This is a general sentiment in art, that the meaning is in the eye of the observer and not the author, and snobs can claim all they want how "the general public missed the point!",
>Awareness of what the game is doing does not require you to take it personally and refuse to play on. You can recognise it and adopt a critical stance
Okay, that is exactly what most people do. this argument is not exclusive to any 1 particular media format
>The point then is to export that same critical stance to other war shooters
Which materializes as what, exactly? Demanding a different style of writing?

>I hate to say this but it really is 2deep4u
I hate to say it, but if you believe that pinnacle of critique in video games is making a linear shooter with a story that can be as easily translated to film or book, that you should head over to Yea Forums and Yea Forums and be 2deep4me there.
>l2read
And you should learn how to you use commas.
I don't want to disect your english, but
>Instead ask yourself why are you willing to do anything the game asks of you just so the game tells you you did a good job
is a clumsy sentence

You caught me, I don't hate to say it at all.

He hasn't recieve orders. It's like you are was sended to death.

>This is what brainlets consider a mindblowing twist
maybe because the game was marketed towards brainlets. no one is disputing whether the game is good or not but whether the game served its purpose or not.

>youre supposed to be walker
>but you dont have a choice because its walkers story
If walker represented the player then all they accomplished was railroading the player as hard as they did walker.
Either Walker doesnt represent the player and there’s no choice, or he does and there is a choice.

Removing agency from the player then acting like its so awful you made this decision is like strapping a dead mans switch to a civilian and then blaming the civilian when the bomb goes off

considering the game outright mocks the player, I don't blame them

>writing this blog because people like a game
Cool dude, have an upvote

>still no films/books
>still using an incorrect definition of a strawman
>now using an incorrect definition of moving the goalposts
While you're making stuff up, could you reply again and tell me how this post is a logical fallacy?

Is it really? When I played the game with no outside exposure, it felt like Walker's journey through and through with criticisms about military culture and traditional notions of heroism. I didn't really feel it spoke to me in the slighest, and when I read about the devs comments and all the metanarrative wankery after my playthrough I still was unable to see it.

You still haven't listed any stories.

see is walker the one reading during loading screens?

WALKER CAN'T SEE THE LOADING SCREENS

the largest post in this thread is someone fellating this game because they truly think the writing is clever

>have an upvote
do you honestly think that liking this game is the non-reddit position

"yeah I am a bad person and I like killing people in video games. so what"
just takes 5 seconds of self reflection to defuse this ingame text yet here we are after 7 years and people still throw shitfits over literal nonsense.

why the fuck do I have to name films and books? why did this become the topic in a thread about spec ops? I know why, it's because you can't handle anyone thinking your fav game is shit so you desperately have to insult them
my favorite movie is gay niggers from outer space and I read erotic fanfiction about star trek, happy?

Most games don't put character development into the fucking animations. Most games don't put "character development" into the changing of the map as you walk through it.

Attached: sadism.jpg (400x324, 26K)

Wrong again, Speckie. Walker's team isn't conducting a "military intervention." They're operating well outside their orders and ROEs. They're fucking rogue.

>with a original story
wut lol, it's Heart of Darkness but in Dubai.

>Okay, armchair psychology.
You're being a little vague but I surmise you've resorted to calling me an armchair psychologist in lieu of saying I'm projecting, which I suppose is more accurate, yes. But the game is not really about psychology at all. The game does not need to guess your motivation. The fact that you continue is enough to draw an equivalence between you and Walker. But you miss the point if you think it has nothing else to say than "you are the bad guy for playing". Rather, it's demonstrating how you are always playing the bad guy in military shooters, but other military shooters don't acknowledge it. You blame Spec Ops for being completely honest with you. But the real problem is of course with the other games. Your anger is misdirected.

>I hate to say it, but if you believe that pinnacle of critique in video games is making a linear shooter with a story that can be as easily translated to film or book
It can't, though. Yes, of course Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse now preceded it, but Spec Ops is a great video game re-imagining of both of those stories precisely because what it does with player involvement is unique to the medium. Your inability to see this is what makes it 2deep4u.

>spec ops the line is 7 years old

Attached: happening.gif (200x189, 799K)

I've played it when it's first released. Didn't get what's so great about it. Played it again yesterday. Still don't get what's so great about it.

it's also uncompromising about being a shitty gow clone

>being better than shit makes it good
not how it works

Based Frogposter.

I think that games have a habit of portraying all violence as a net positive in the long run. For example, I remember in Ninja Gaiden Black that Ryu is basically given carte blanche to murder everyone in Tairon because causing chaos makes the Dragon Blade easier to track. In gameplay terms, this is just a hand waved excuse to ensure that the player doesn't second guess all the senseless killing, despite that fact that it's revealed later that the chaos makes enemies more powerful.

Lots of games do this because they want killing to feel good and rewarding. All Spec Ops does is turn this on it's head by not attempting to justify the violence. It's a thought piece more than anything else. Spec Ops isn't criticising you for killing, it's criticising you for not thinking about WHY you're killing.

k

>because what it does with player involvement is unique to the medium
please elaborate on this
because the pinnacle of its player involvement is the ending which may as well be Deus Ex HR's.
Otherwise you're stuck with phosphorous and meta shit

Attached: spec ops.jpg (1056x398, 97K)

It's an invisible choice and that is also what the narrative puts forth. It is completely consistent. People who blame the game for giving them no choice are exactly like Walker blaming Cpt. Konrad. No one held a gun to your head. You say "there is no choice" but that obscures the fundamental condition - "if you wish to continue the game". The fact that people call out for a choice here because the game has them commit a war crime reflects how other games demand the player do morally questionable things without thinking about it because it continues the game, often framed in a positive way so as to soothe any lingering moral qualms. Spec Ops intends to shake you out of this mindset, but unfortunately, you're unable to extrapolate its lessons to the medium as a whole.

Spec Ops' criticisms of military culture and traditional notions of heroism are inextricably linked to the usually more positive portrayals of military culture and heroism in the genre. It is a deliberate response to those.

C'mon now, The Ninja Gaiden thing is because your uncle is evil and wants the blade for himself. That's why he tells Ryu to murder everything: it's foreshadowing he's actually a sociopath.

>but that obscures the fundamental condition - "if you wish to continue the game"
fucking lmao
unironic "its 2 deep 4 u, turn off the game"

Psychopaths should refrain fro literary criticism.

And the second largest is someone doing the opposite.
>upvote
r*ddit is full of a bunch of circle-jerking basement dwellers who post garbage disguised as an intellectual post for gratification. This guy has done the same.

>missing the point
It started with a boast that games aren't art and that good story is only in books and movies. Rather than post a couple to prove that games don't have story and assert your great taste in media , you doubled down on your "durr strawman" posts.
>gives a meme answer
Shocker.

But they're doing what has to be done. There's no time for due process, dammit! Only the man on the ground can know what the situation is truly like!

>meaning is in the eye of the observer
always has been bullshit. this invalidates objectivity which in turn, if extrapolated invalidates empiricism and that is pants on head retarded

oh no those poor virtual muslims
why won't anyone think of the virtual muslims?!

>garbage disguised as an intellectual
so spec ops

>just turn of the game bro
I did, don't worry

say what you want, but i cant remember the ending of most games i've finished recently and i can still remember all of spec-ops endings clearly

Attached: 1357884995663.jpg (499x281, 29K)

I've never agreed with a frogposter before now.

>Spec Ops' criticisms of military culture
More like Hollywood version of Military culture. In the real military Walker would have gotten his ass court marshalled for not following orders.

this lol I mean come on how many players honestly said "I understand the point of this now... the only winning move is not to play. I choose not to play." *unplugs computer*

See >(You)

>It started with a boast that games aren't art
where? please quote me. I said what I prefer when I want a good STORY, which isn't what games excel at. I think spec ops the line is a lazy plagiarized story and I'd rather read or watch something decent. you don't have to desperately samefag just because that made you upset

well take the darkness for example. its a pretty edgy game full of senseless killing. if that game had a loading screen tip that said "youre a bad person" wouldnt you agree? the thing that spec ops the line does is that it has a seemingly good and heroic protagonist doing fucked up shit so youre less inclined to agree that what is being done in the game is "evil".

>implying that's not what happened to Walker if he chose to go home

Anyway, the entire setting is surreal and unrealistic. There's no way the governments of the world would actually leave Dubai for dead and the level design is unrealistic and surreal (probably intentionally).

>this game sucks
>"lol u mad??"
irony

This is what MGSV should have been

Well put.

wow its interesting because there's arguments about it on Yea Forums, that means its good right
the u mad method of hoping you dont have shit taste

i feel an hero

I never played the game to begin with because it looked like shit. The devs should kneel down and pay tribute to my giant morality penis by giving it hourly tongue baths.

The entire game requires the player's involvement. This isn't really anything unique to Spec Ops, it's a defining feature of video games. But what Spec Ops does is acknowledge this fact to a much greater degree than most video games by holding the player responsible. In a way it's a demonstration of Sartre's radical freedom.
>We are left alone, without excuse. This is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free.

>still no great films or books named
Name one of each and you win.

bros...
is war...
bad?

Attached: th?id=OIP.84WP8F7Jty8DPrkkJ18NUAHaFj.jpg (474x355, 9K)

That's not the point. The point is merely to recognise that this is what video games do. They all offer an invisible choice, and they all obscure this fact.

>More like Hollywood version of Military culture.
No, the vidya version.

quote me saying games can't be art and you win

>quote me saying games can't be art and you win
>games can't be art
You said it! You said it!

>Having PTSD from frying some sandniggers

yeah no

>invisible
dude people make that choice constantly, they stop playing games they don't like or don't care about
to pretend this is some amazing revelation is incredibly mastubatory
nobody gives a shit about virtual civilians in a game like this, and so the attempts of the game to "hold the player responsible" like says and admonish the player for not making this choice due to their guilt of doing 'atrocities' is silly.

"Don't play this game" is novel I guess but hardly amazing

hehe

>what is an implication
I'm sorry, you clearly would be unable to name a film or book with a gun to your head. Have a final, well-earned, courtesy (You).

>But the game is not really about psychology at all
Both times you as a fact stated that "I play games because I want headpats", which is an assumption about me which is false, and then you go on how you can tell about my personality through my choices made with the game, which is the "psychology" part, not that the game having "psychology" as a theme.
>The fact that you continue is enough to draw an equivalence between you and Walker
There is no equivalence between someone doing a puzzle(The player) and someone moving through a warzone(The character) other than that both actions are progress towards an end goal. Puzzles(Or games, or books, or films) are bought with the intention of "solving" them, and can only be solved in the way intended by the maker, unless you "cheat". To equate playing a game with character making moral decisions is ludicrous, especially when the game does not reflect this process of decision making.
>Rather, it's demonstrating how you are always playing the bad guy in military shooters, but other military shooters don't acknowledge it
stuff like PR or BF do not make you either a bad guy or a good guy, just an army guy. If anything, if we are talking about story aspects of army shooters, than World at War depicted Soviet Invasion westwards quite gruesomely.
>Their Land, Their blood
is shown as a nihilistic statement and the player is completely free to interpret the Bagradation as Just cause or not
>You blame Spec Ops for being completely honest with you
Again, no. Its the author lecturing me that I take issue with, not the message
>It can't, though[...]with player involvement is unique to the medium
Theoretically unique to the medium, but Spec Ops the line does not utilize the potential of medium, nor does it do anything interesting with the unique aspects of the medium.
If I were to watch playthrough of the game, or if were to read the script of the game, the general message would still be the same as having played the game

>Killing innocent people is bad

Agreed, 100%
Fuck, it's a good job this is a video game instead of anyone actually killing people.

It is absolute basement level writing quality and you retards are drooling over it like it's a literary masterpiece, when in actuality it's just masturbationary drivel from the devs.

>dude people make that choice constantly, they stop playing games they don't like or don't care about
Even that obscures the choice, the why of it.

oh, you can't do it. I expected as much from a retard like you

...

>always has been bullshit. this invalidates objectivity which in turn

Not at all. An author can easily objectively fail to get a point across.

Spec Ops doesn't criticise killing. The 33rd killed many people, including their own, yet they were seen as somewhat justified by trying to uphold some kind of social order. Walker's problem is that he killed people because he was on an ego trip.

>Both times you as a fact stated that "I play games because I want headpats", which is an assumption about me which is false
You simply lack awareness.
>then you go on how you can tell about my personality through my choices made with the game
Not really, I'm only talking about how games work.
>There is no equivalence between someone doing a puzzle(The player) and someone moving through a warzone(The character) other than that both actions are progress towards an end goal.
The equivalence is drawn on a narrative level. You are attempting to separate the "game" from its narrative, but Spec Ops holds that the two are inextricably linked. To progress the game is to progress its story.
>stuff like PR or BF do not make you either a bad guy or a good guy, just an army guy.
That's framing, and it is that framing that Spec Ops is questioning.
>Its the author lecturing me that I take issue with, not the message
And yet if it had told you the familiar lie then you wouldn't have minded.
>Spec Ops the line does not utilize the potential of medium
No, you still fail to understand. This ties into the equation of game and narrative I mentioned above. There is no story in Spec Ops that does not explicitly require the player's contribution, and the game is highly aware of this. Even as you watch a playthrough you must acknowledge the fact of the invisible player (or sometimes visible in the corner) who is directing the action on screen just as much as Walker is in a diegetic sense.

Objectivity is at least some what provable.
Art, and by extension taste, is not.
You can base your taste on what is perceived as objective facts, but opinions can never be truly objective

Holy shit, Yea Forums is still seething over this game. This is hilarious.

oy vey, no my son fight for your country, be a hero

?

I know, it's so funny watching retards desperately trying to convince people it's a masterpiece

The only people who vehemently hate Spec Ops are dumb fuck self inserters who think the game is trying to shit on them. It's not a masterpiece, but it's a pretty good game.

this thread is fucking pathetic
fucking retarded zoomers kill yourselves and stop ruining videogames

anyone hating a video game is a loser, but so is anyone desperately defending it and not just moving on. you tried pulling the "u mad" card but was so easily led into getting upset yourself

>you tried pulling the "u mad" card
What the hell are you talking about? Can you not read? I never did this.

>Yea Forums is still seething
how is that not saying "u mad" to everyone you disagree with?

>le radical centrist

Spec ops the line is a true thinking man's experience.

It's weird how people can't grasp the game is about Walker's descent into madness whilst ALSO breaking the fourth wall about killing pixels.

The "do you feel like a hero yet?" part is to make you reflect about Walker's actions in the game THROUGH your inputs. It's to make you reflect on what you've been doing for the past hours playing the game.

But that's not because the game thinks you, the player, is a terrible person. The game starts breaking the fourth wall when walker starts becoming insane. When you die and get a "flashback" and not just a loading screen. It's to drive home the point of what's happening to Walter. Everything is going mad

Attached: 1541923200147.jpg (534x534, 201K)

>Yea Forums is only people that I disagree with
You really are fucking stupid, aren't you?

>don't give the player any choice in what to do
>player just watches as main character commits atrocities
>developer: "omg u monsters"

i dunno where they were going with this

Why am I supposed to feel bad about killing dirt people anyway?

>not outright hating something or defending it like a loyal dog is being a centrist
stop learning about the world through memes
oh, so you mean the entirely of Yea Forums is mad about the game? his did you reach that conclusion, and where is your proof?

It's the typical "everyone in this thread is in idiot, but not me, I disagree with everyone which makes me smart" post

Holy fucking shit, how terrible is your reading comprehension?

this. I fucking hate how walker saying "didnt we do this already?" during the helicopter prologue revisit spawned the retarded purgatory theory. walker isnt in hell he is going insane. he is paranoid and doesnt know whats real or not anymore. all the tips addressing the player is part of the overarching madness that ensues.

yeah, I know
>no argument
as expected

it's a bogstandard tps

>You simply lack awareness
Again. "I know you better than you know yourself"
>I'm only talking about how games work
The assumption, of how the game works.
>You are attempting to separate the "game" from its narrative, but Spec Ops holds that the two are inextricably linked. To progress the game is to progress its story
A player is solely responsible for the progression of the game, where as the creator is the one who determines the progression of the story and is the one who ties it to gameplay. The player buys the game with the intention of solving it. The narrative of the game in question is irrelevant to this purpose. The narrative sets the rules, and then lectures player on how could they so blindly follow these rules, where the only other option, was not to play in the first place. Doing a "big think" while playing is not an alternative to playing the game from mechanical standpoint
>There is no story in Spec Ops that does not explicitly require the player's contribution, and the game is highly aware of this
"The game is aware of the fact that the player is not required to contribute"
So its a film, then? a Theme park ride?
>who is directing the action on screen just as much as Walker is in a diegetic sense
As the player can not influence the choices of the character, then the role of player is no different than that of a film projector. Just as a player can fail and has to restart at a checkpoint, the film projector can fail and require film to be rewound. It is a completely linear narrative that does not utilize the strengths of the medium at all.
>How can you so willingly accept this and keep playing?
>How can you so willingly accept this and keep watching?
>How can you so willingly accept this and keep reading?
Someone who read a choose-your-own-adventure book has more accountability to the narrative than all the people who played Spec Ops

I unironically get so triggered when autistic people screech about this kind of stuff in games and movies. It has nothing to do with how it is written, they can just not comprehend how plot structure works nor can they wrap their peeny brains around the significance of narrative direction. Thank you for getting it, user. If you reply to this post or the one I am replying to with greentext attempting to undermine what we are saying, following that greentext with something ironic like “based” or “oh ok” or “retard”, know you are actually autistic.

I need to clarify
>The narrative of the game in question is irrelevant to this purpose.
The narrative aspect that determines the setting and characters, or, the stage and actors.
>The narrative sets the rules
The actual how, when and why progression of the story and its elements

unfortunately, this message is undercut by the fact that the game is, in fact, a game
the meta narrative breaks down when you can tell fact from fiction
at least this was all clearly part of what they meant for the game to be
instead of the asspull by the far cry 3 developers who were butthurt that people didn't like the "stay on the island" ending

they lost contact to their command when they walked through the sandstorm in the beginning. walker assumed command of his unit and restructured their mission.

>"It's your fault for BUYING our game".

>BUYING

implying

Attached: 1525489171340.png (1128x2156, 34K)

This game is a piece of shit and the people who defend are retarded. The game tried to shame me for playing it. It doesn't fucking work.

Imagine if a movie ended by calling you a shithead for watching a movie.

>in a positive outcome, the game is challenging you to question how video games generally frame moral dilemmas by refusing to give you a choice.
No it doesn't Video games CAN do that. Spec Ops cannot, because they're retarded.

>Check out what other "highly thought stimulating" games they have made
youtube.com/watch?v=uTcVMlwpTPo
So do we chalk this under hypocrisy or what?

Shit game, trash devs, disgusting "story"
Lmao just stop playing the $60 game you bought. Yes yes you only have to play it for 30 minutes then you should never play this game again goyim. Pretentious shit game

>It's supposed to be bad on purpose
You dumb faggot, one day you're gonna find a book or game or movie that activates your almonds and is also good from a technical standpoint and you're going to feel like such a dumbass

KILL IS FUCKING CONFIRMED

I bet you thought you'd get a ton of le angry replies.