Honest thoughts on pic related?

gets really silly towards the end with the huge miniboss with your dead buddy's face on it, and shit like having the option to go postal on the guys sent to rescue you.

Worth at least one or two play-throughs.
Can I /thread my own post? Yeah I'm thinking I can. /thread.

Attached: 1565624969098.png (1001x637, 387K)

It's my favourite 7/10 game

Going postal on the people sent the rescue you is the best ending and the one that makes the most sense

Attached: 2015-02-28_00011.jpg (1600x900, 324K)

I liked it. Decent cover based TPS with a neat story.

KILL 'EM ALL. LET GOD SORT EM OUT.

Attached: 1564532485422.gif (659x609, 1.64M)

>the people sent the rescue you
english is difficult, innit?

Honestly loved it for the narrative alone, as much as I hear people spill their autism about it. Soundtrack is amazing too. Did a real good job at unnerving me.

Imagine being so pathetic that you call out typos on an anonymous anime image board

>typos on an anonymous anime image board
Are you on your period?
Because, I don't see it at the end of your sentence.

Elder God tier atmosphere, OST and character writing. Serviceable gameplay on the lower difficulties with only a small amount of replay value.

It has faults, but it's easily one of the best games of the decade and the western equivalent of OG Nier.

>implying the gameplay gets better at higher difficulty
Being punished for using your already minimal squad commands and one shot AA12s sucked ass

lad i will fuckin do ya one if you dont shut it mate

I liked it until it changed everything about the gameplay and fucked me.

I have a very bad feeling it might be just Dreamweb spliced with whatever, then framed as original work.

you dont want gameplay?

>changed everything about the gameplay
?
when? i played this well over a year ago but i only remember towards the end that more enemies with stronger guns coming in but no significant changes.

Attached: 1558967616250.png (648x595, 33K)

Yea Forums sucks its cock and reeee's against everyone who calls out its lazy writing and shit gameplay.

Attached: 417103[1].jpg (970x701, 368K)

Yea Forums generally dislikes this game though, judging from the threads over the years

>Muh you are not supposed to self-insert
>Unless we want you to of course

>Shooting an innocent just because you were told to doesnt make you a bad person

Is this what room temp iq is?

>stop playing this game that we made and sold for money

Attached: 65272483_908192382880341_5970881247835444743_n.jpg (480x480, 31K)

yeah this was really fucking kino
I wish more games would do this

>i was just following orders!

I want to fuck Erin

Why would you want to self insert into a voiced third person protag with a clear personality that's also a war criminal though

>When there is no alternative programmed into the game so in order to progress you have to shoot the person.
>Muh you can also not play the game

Talking about room temp iq...

The meta narrative is annoying and not super well thought out but It’s still a really unique experience I love warts and all

6/10 shooter with edgy shit to cover up it's generic gameplay.

nice strawman

But it's the game telling you to do it. There's no other way to advance short of turning it off and saying "No, I won't kill that cluster of pixels!".

That's not the point. The point is that the writers are inconsistenly moralistic and vague about who the messages are pointed at and the game devs fail to properly merit the moralistic choices by not offering a real choice or deliberatly omitting information (as with the white phosperus attack).

It's a good story that makes brainlets seethe because they think it is criticizing them instead of Walker.

>play hardest difficulty
>game is overall meh, but I'm having fun
>find desert eagle
>nice keeping this
>find sniper, the h&k one
>running low on both but it's ok, I can manage if I find more ammo soon, and judging by how the game has worked up until now I'm pretty much set
>suddenly new enemy
>changes the game from decent TPS where bodyshots and headshots matter to fantasy RPG with "giant crab weekpoints"
>ok, well I have two slow firing weapons with less than 10 rounds each, I'm surrounded by more enemies than this new bullshit that can kill you in 2 seconds, and there is no extra ammo or dropped weapons
>I am completely stuck because I wanted to have fun in the game and play with the weapons I wanted and didn't count on the game going from Black Hawk Down to Terminator
It's too bad, I had fun but I didn't want to lower my difficulty to beat one guy, so fuck it.

Nope it is a fact. There are no choices in the game and it is justified by fallacious reasoning such as muh opt out option.

>It's a by the numbers brown military tps from the time when the market was oversaturated with those kinds of games. The only
noteworthy thing it did was tell a story that people still talk about.

Wow it's almost like that's the entire point of the game you actual fucking moron

The alternative is to stop playing retard. It's literally right there in your face

Attached: steamworkshop_webupload_previewfile_115096345_preview.jpg (1920x1080, 402K)

bretty gud if you're not a retard who self inserts

Ahem:

Yeah muh opt out option

In other words, lazy writing. Oh and it contradicts the muh not self-insert argument.

Good but hamfisted.
I wish that in the white phosphorous scene that it was less obvious you were killing civilians.

I think that was because of rocky dev cycle, I read somewhere that there was supposed to be an option to take the army head on with a whole different story if you did.

i honestly cant remember that.
i played on normal difficulty though because im a faggot

The only way this game could have had a point is when it would have given you a choice, but it did not.

Not to mention the fact that total war is shit and civies die in total war. Of course the devs were German and they are the most annoying pacifict bunch here in Europe.

Yeah and that endless enemy spawn fucks most of the narrative. Not to mention they could have easily walked around those two skyscrapers.

What's your point? The developers never claimed (afaik) that you are supposed to self-insert into Walker.

You, as the player, are just along for the ride. An observer that happens to have a modicum of control of Walker outside of narrative moments. The game is all about Walkers gradual descent into madness that wouldn't even make sense if the player had any agency over the narrative.

literally who

>i played on normal difficulty though because im a faggot
Well then I am too, Spec Ops is one of the few games I just decided "fuck it" and started on the hardest difficulty immediately.
And considering I had a lot of fun until I GUESS I WASN'T, I say it was worth it... sort of.

You make this argument everytime, but the game inconsistently steers the narrative towards self insert and then to Walker. Things like the line
>Do you feel like a hero yet?
are pointed directly at the player.

What I find ironic it that the protagonist's name is Martin Walker, which is foreshadowing the fact that he walks.

Can you prove that those loading screen messages are directed at the player and are not Walker's inner monologue?

I really liked those loading screen messages
>If Lugo were still alive, he would likely suffer from PTSD. So, really, he's the lucky one.
>Squad commands are unavailable when you're alone. No one can help you now.
>This is all your fault.

Attached: 1529085716813.jpg (1280x720, 55K)

Can you prove the opposite?

I like it.
As a game it's mediocre at the very best, but the story is pretty good, clearly a lot of effort went into it.
The music, art direction, voice acting, environments is all top notch.

And the story is pretty good. It has some flaws (the reveal of Walkers hallucinations is unecessary and ass-pully, the whole white phosphorus scene has a lot of seams and could have been handled a LITTLE better etc...) but still - the core idea is solid, and the execution is really stylish.

Shame the game overestimated it's own audience, which results in the endless fucking drama and asshurt that we have to deal with up till today.

Yes, but I'll prove it later.

Nah but you should not self insert.
Kek

Kek sure mate

So, since we have now established the game's store is hacky bs, what game is actually good in communicating morality? Bioshock? Metro 2033?

No, but since neither position can be concretely proven, it is folly to try and claim that either position is objectively correct. It is vague and perhaps intentionally so.

>hey do X
*does X*
>woah bro this is so dark man why did you do it man i cant believe you did it omg
also the gameplay sucks

what?

>what game is actually good in communicating morality
A knuckle & cheese sandwich, bitch!
HOY-YAW!!!

>It is vague and perhaps intentionally so.
that is because it is shit writing. The game sacrifices the grey nature of morality in favor of deontological moralism (as Germans usually do). It also chooses the wrong medium for the game. It would have been good as a movie, not as a game, because people play games for mindless fun. No adult glorifies war outside of video games BECAUSE they played CoD. Which was one of the points the devs were trying to make

Sarcasm.

huh?

You sound like an inmate

Look, dude, I don't care about youre fancy college education.
It made me feel. And that's all that matters.

I'm sorry you take the short bus mate

YOU RETARDS.
IT'S FUCKING UP TO THE PLAYER TO LOOK AT IT EITHER WAY AS THEY SEE FIT. SELF INSERT OR AS A CHARACTER.
Jesus Christ, cant you cunts just find a middle ground?

...?

Well then you are easily manipulated user. Don't join any groups with people being nice and promising you hapiness. Those are usually cults and that is a big no no.

Tried to do something neat, didn't succeed. I wish the game was less scripted.The finest moment I had in Spec Ops was accidentally gunning down some random civilian woman who picked the wrong time to break for cover.

it should have just told the story without trying to put in fake player choices. It falls apart with that shit.
Other than that the shooting is solid and by the numbers. Not much to say about it.

That is still lazy writing user. Then it can't commit and you can't go make a story about moralism and the horrors of war without committing. Especially when the devs said that they wanted to point out to general CoD and BF players "what war is really like".

>Well then you are easily manipulated user
Then how do I know your not trying manipulate me now?

Big words; little brain

>Being vague with the fourth wall when it comes to a mentally unstable character who is losing his grip on reality is shit writing
I would argue it is the exact opposite. It's taking advantage of the unique property of the medium (player agency) and toying with it.

The message the game tried to sell isn't "War games are bad" either, it's simply "war makes men mad", just like was the case with Heart of Darkness/Apocalypse Now.

Those are some big words kid. Maybe you should make sure that you use them right next time. For someone missing the point of the game so god damn hard, you sure want to LOOK smart.

Shallow, but mostly enjoyable gameplay.
Story is decent, but it's wasted potential because majority of it is delivered through cutscene.
Makes contrarians seethe, so that a huge plus in my books.

Attached: 1561050799977.gif (330x274, 2.95M)

This
the setting almost felt surreal at some points , well it was intentional but yeah

the gameplay was enjoyable but the story kept interrupting and was naggy.

How is the central POINT of the whole story: Exposition of the players own agency towards the narrative, a shit writing, you mongoloid.
You are literally complaining that it's bad writing because it says precisely what it want to say and something far more fucking shallow.
Jesus. Are you the "deontological morals" retard?

>Mocks someones English
>Not only starts a sentence with 'because", but puts a comma right next to it.

The way I just used the comma is the correct way you blithering shithead. If you're going to be a grammar nazi at least maintain an IQ higher than a first grader.

My cognitive abilities are exceptionally creditable at concepts relating to philosophy (especially morality.)
Nincompoop.

this, it's a medium deconstruction of the genre with another message as well. literally Neon Genesis Evangelion

Okay mates, what I wrote wasn't that hard to understand. Gid gud.

I shall explain to you in simple words:

>Game presents principle X with viewpoint X (Deontologism, actions must be good for the result to be good)
>Game does not give room for principle Y and viewpoint X and Y because it has not programmed choices for it (teleologism, the result must be good for the action to be good)
>Justifies this with its deliberatly vague writing therefore is unable to commit to its strong principle X.

Got it?

Justifies it with

It was nice but has no replay value because of its themes and the ending

Because it gives you no real choice dipshit

You are a nippleism

>no real choice
Ah, but I can not play the game with IS a real choice, you cock.

>The message the game tried to sell isn't "War games are bad" either, it's simply "war makes men mad", just like was the case with Heart of Darkness/Apocalypse Now.

I'd beg to differ. The devs have explicitly said that the game was to bring attention to the whole (new) gamer crowd that glorified war because of over the top shooters like CoD.

furthermore, war does not make men mad since we know Walker already had mental problems (and we dont know how long he had them, maybe even before his career in the military), his buddies are stressed but sound and the evacuation force had most things in hand before Walker showed up.

You could say it can also be a warning for keeping PTSD soldiers out of action, but that would be another point.

No it is isn't. Like not playing football is also not a realistic choice in the game. It is a lazy opt out you troglodyte.

>another point.
I stop reading there.

Attached: 1560369662928.gif (320x240, 1.99M)

Yes it is, god how can you be so stupid?!

pretty good. the gameplay is generic trash but the setpieces are nice. i have a hard time immersing myself in sad games. i prefer sad moments in not sad games (webm related). when a game has a depressing feel from start to finish, it doesnt hit me as hard.

Attached: wHyM7s.webm (720x404, 1.19M)

Good, that is the end of my post genius.

Attached: thumb_beboldi-i-am-one-of-simple-mind-silence-thyself-fool-2391964.png (200x493, 90K)

A story like Apocalypse Now can be used to highlight the realities of war to someone who has not actually lived through such an experience. Does that mean that Apocalypse Now is explicitly a story purpose-written to BTFO civilian normies? Of course it doesn't.

The claim that Spec Ops is to "show gamers what war is like" does not mean that was the driving purpose behind the narrative, just that the narrative features the realities of war, and thus can be educational to someone unfamiliar with them.

Not playing a game is not a choice in the game user. Just accept it. Like being an atheist is not a religion and being bald is not a hair style. Are you actually retarded?

Dude, I know what deontological morals are, what I'm saying is that you are using it wrong, both actually missing what makes it different from other moral models, and more to the point, completely missing the fucking central points of the story.
Basically, you are saying the word because you want to look smart, while in reality, you are borderline retarded.

You see: waving around the word "deontologic" is nonsensical because in terms of the diegetic actions of Walker (see, that is how you use big words correctly), they would be reprehensible under EVERY moral model in the world.

That is because Walker - get this - abandons his duty and goes on a reckless rampage purely in persuit of his personal glory. At the very begging of the game. All of the shit that follows all stems from that very moment.

This is not forcing deontologic morals on anyone: this is simply telling a story that is bound to end poorly in every moral system, because it's a story of something that is universally bad.

Now the game continues to explore different moral problems, namely actions of Konrad, which are actually morally complex and very much difficult to answer. It goes at great lenghts establishing that some situations are morally almost impossible to solve or judge. Which means that the game explores multimple moral issues, and by absolutely NO MEANS presents one single moral model. And the problem goes further on when we consider the way the game asks (and encourages the player to ask) questions related to morality extending outside of the diegetic space: the morality of players attitude towards the game itself. In these cases, the game absolutely does not provide any answers, purely nudges the player to actually answer those for himself.

Do you not feel fucking ashamed by this point? Did you seriously fucking think you are smart with that shit?

To remain game-related:
>What a grand, intoxicating stupidity!

>White phosphorous scene doesn't make any sense because you have absolutely zero choice in the matter
>The scene where the civilian crowd is pushing towards you and you can choose to shoot into them or above them as a warning shot actually gives you a choice
>Actually has weight since the option to not willing take civilian life is there, even if it's not obvious
>WP scene could have you shoot just kinda close to the group of people but it detonates them anyway; it doesn't matter if you actually aim for them or try to avoid them or not
>Civvie crowd scene is entirely on you

why the fuck is the white phosphorous scene the focal point of the game?

You're not making any sense, you're just big idiot

How does the WP scene make no sense? You having choice is irrelevant in regards to the scene.

>Because it gives you no real choice dipshit
I'm starting to realize that some of you are literally too dumb to be reasoned with.
Well, I guess we will always need more unskilled labor...

Sure but Spec-ops is not a movie, but a game with an agent furthering the story, namely the player.

>just that the narrative features the realities of war, and thus can be educational to someone unfamiliar with them.

This might be true, but if the developer is the main driver behind the project and it dictates the rules of the narrative being formed, then the claim is not really legitimate. Add the lack of choices and you have a self-indulging, non-committed piece of moralism that mostly gets carried by fallacious reasons (also given after the fact by the writers).

If the devs had taken their time, maybe it could have come out better

It's fantastic how insanely seething the game makes you people because it denies that hero fantasy to you.
It really is amazing. And it shows that the game's point is far, far more relevant than even they have probably dreamd it to be.

>press the button
>i can clearly see pressing the button is a dumb idea
>PRESS THE BUTTON
>i'll press every button but this last one that will clearly fry civilians
>YOU HAVE TO PRESS EVERY BUTTON
>alright
>HOW DARE YOU

Very few people went into spec ops the line expecting to "Feel like a hero". Their message literally only works on people with no idea about the game in the first place.

I liked it, not sure what to make of the story. Not sure how to interpret it. Multiplayer is dead and what I have it is not that fun either. Buy it for the story.

It's entirely relevant to the game as a whole because it's constantly judging you for the decisions you make when being faced with moral quandaries. It's constantly berating you for what you did to innocent civilians, when the fact is that there was a barest illusion of choice

The scene with the civilian crowd, however, does give you an actual, real, meaningful choice in how you handle yourself in those situations, but it's barely a side note compared to the WP scene. You having a choice is irrelevant in regards to that scene because you DON'T have a choice, despite what the game tells you

I think that this wad done to hardware limatations of the time. Still not an excuse since they could have ended the level after you kill a certain amount of enemies.

I actually implied the opposite. The gameplay can be fun on lower difficulties. It's horrible on higher difficulties.

Spec Ops: The Line is what happens when someone gives you a retarded trolley problem, then tells you that the 'right' answer was to not give them an answer when they asked you in the first place

>A game with an agent furthering the story, namely the player

That's where the medium deconstruction comes into play. By removing player agency at key moments, the point that sometimes (especially in a warzone) you do not have the luxury of choice or you simply just fuck up is driven home harder than in a story where you are purely an observer, like in literature or film.

No, as someone who went into it with the the entire white phosphorus spoiled, and I can fucking assure you that no: it works all the same.
And no. I love how everyone now pretends how too cool for it you are, while simultaneously getting angry at it PRECISELY for the reasons the game mocks you for: Not being given that heroic fucking fantasy in the first place.

Again: have some fucking dignity, for fuck sake. You are literally frothing at mouth because the game does not pat you on the back enough.

If you don't press the button, the game spawns in a bunch of enemy snipers with 100% accuracy that can instakill you. That's not a fucking technical limitation, that's the devs forcing this you to do something then yelling at you for doing it

It’s good. There are so issues but it has a strong narrative overall.
Some say it’s anti-war but personally I don’t buy that. To me if feels more like the game is saying “War is going to happen, but it’s fucked up and you have no clue just how fucked it is.”
I do still feel like going in blind is the best way to play it.
I was surprised by how much I liked it and finding things I didn’t see before in my second playthrough.
I’d love to see the devs try this kind of storytelling again in a different setting.

>That is because Walker - get this - abandons his duty and goes on a reckless rampage purely in persuit of his personal glory. At the very begging of the game. All of the shit that follows all stems from that very moment.

This is just wrong. He goes mad overtime due to his PTSD. In the beginning there are opportunities to reach out, but since the game does not give the choices, it doesn't matter anyway.

>this is simply telling a story that is bound to end poorly in every moral system, because it's a story of something that is universally bad.

It is deontological, because it states that because the actions are wrong (aka using white phoperus) the outcome is wrong (they can survive and push on against overwhelming forces). Since the game does not give you choice and ommits information there is no way around it nor can you know that you are killing civillians and/or allied millitary personell. Though, it still shames you on the principle of the action. So you can fuck right off cocksucker

Also, there are no "universally bad" actions in "every moral model in the world", moron.

>Do you not feel fucking ashamed by this point? Did you seriously fucking think you are smart with that shit?

Damn who hurt you user?

>you are frothing at the mouth
So anybody who doesn't think the game is very effective is simply "Angry that it didn't give them what they were looking for" even though the vast majority of the people that bought the game were looking for a downbeat story and an unheroic protagonist. Genius.

A subpar TPS with mediocre story.

People saying it's anti-war are just retards misinterpretating it. It's more about Walker's hero complex.

But it is the lack of consideration that makes this point void. You see, they would not have engaged. No operator is going to engage an overwhelming force when they can easily go around the two sky scrapers. It is the lack of this choices justified by what seem like easy cop-outs that make it shit.

Your explanation sounds like someone justifying a modern art piece.

You are missing the point mate, I never went in there thinking like a hero. I am just giving my opinion about it's non-sensical moralism

>But it is the lack of consideration that makes this point void. You see, they would not have engaged. No operator is going to engage an overwhelming force when they can easily go around the two sky scrapers

Did you forget that their squad leader aka the man calling the shots was a basket case?

This is Yea Forums after all

>The only noteworthy thing it did was tell a story that people still talk about

Nobody remembers the actual story, the game is just notorious for trying to shame the player for playing it.

Yes that is why I said in this post that it would be better suited to be a criticism of sending soldiers into war with trauma or the apparatus not paying proper attention to the mental wellbeing of its operators. But its narrative does not do that AND it does not make sense with the agency of the player, when it want to make a point to said player.

Do I get money back? I paid to be entertained.

>no refunds, be ashamed instead.

It has been some time since I last played the game, but wasn't there a sandstorm sweeping through the city as well, and going between the skyscrapers was pretty much the only option left for them?

>This is just wrong. He goes mad overtime due to his PTSD.
No.
He ignores his orders to establish contact and then immediately retreat because he wants to have his heroic moment, especially in front of his personal hero, Konrad.
THAT is the real breaking point. The PTSD is basically a red fucking herring. PTSD does not make him persue the insurgents deeper into the city.
Poor personal judgement and discipline do. Did you even play the fucking game?

>It is deontological, because it states that because the actions are wrong (aka using white phoperus) the outcome is wron
What the fuck: you literally DO NOT KNOW what the word Deontological means! This is amazing. How deep hole are you planning to fucking dig here dude? The gig is already up, you already were exposed for using the word wrong, now you are going to just draw more attention to it?

What is wrong with you?

Also: no. Walker's action is wrong because he is commited to his blind dream of heroism. It's just acting in denial. He already screwed up - shooting at the insurgents without knowing the full extend of the situation - now he is overcompensating for that by blindly commiting to "rescue" the civilians and bring Konrad to justice.

And the game DOES NOT SHAME YOU either, you fucking mongoloid. At best it makes fun of you.

>Also, there are no "universally bad" actions in "every moral model in the world", moron.
That is very much wrong, and if you had any education in actual ethics, you'd fucking know that.

Again: how fucking deep of a hole you are commited to dig up for yourself.

>Damn who hurt you user?
Really? You are trying it because I did it and it worked? A "NO U"?

You don't need to provide agency to the player if the point you are making is literally "sometimes you do not have the luxury of agency". In fact, you COULDN'T make that point if you provided the player with agency.

When Walker and his buddies arrive at the skyscrapers the strom is still far away and the sky blue. There was more than enough time to go around. Hell they could have disguised themselves and sneaked past. They are operators after-all

Hating Spec Ops because it "forced" you to kill the civilians is like getting mad at FF because it "forces" you to watch Aeris die. The game is telling a story which is facilitated through gameplay. You don't get to make a choice, the story is already written, you just get to experience it.

Attached: 1568934313441.png (265x348, 85K)

Actually most people did enjoy the game for what it is worth. Only people like you, screeching and bitching about how the game did not give you your heroic fantasy (while desperately trying to convince us that you TOTALLY DID NOT EXPECT ONE) have the problem.
You are a minority, albeit insanely obnoxious and loud one.

Who the fuck are you trying to convince here. Your complaint is literally "How DARE does the game not give me a good option!".
Who the fuck do you think you'll convince with "But I totally do not need the game to give me good option" here?
You are LITERALLY denying your own fucking complaint then.

You are the deontology guy. You do not get to give opinions on anyone. Go back to your room and think about what you have done.

Stop self inserting

This is only an issue if you, for some reason, self insert into Walker. The game practically even tells you not to do this by listing the player as a fucking guest in the intro. I don't know why you fucking morons keep arguing over this, you aren't Walker, he is his own character and makes his own decisions. If you want to play Mass Effect, go do that.

Except there's multiple other points in the game where it gives you ACTUAL CHOICE on whether or not you want to kill civilians, but the one time you don't have a choice is the one that it harps on for the rest of the game

I don't want a "Good" option, I want the game to not pretend to give options. It's fucking galling how poorly the big narrative reveals are railroaded.
>screeching and bitching
You seem to think I am far more worked up about this than I am, presumably because you have worked yourself into a froth defending your kind of shitty game.

boring

That's because that one big fuckup is necessary for Walker's descent into madness. The WP scene is a character building scene for Walker, nothing more.

This argument holds 0 water, the game refers to you personally in the load screens.

>Do you want to shoot this guy or let him burn to death?
>Do you want to shoot this person, this other person, or walk away?
>Do you want to shoot the crowd, or scatter them with a warning shot?
>Do you want to peacefully cooperate with the soldiers who are picking you up, or start shooting them
>REEE STOP INSERTING YOU'RE NOT THE ONE MAKING CHOICES HERE

You both need to actually go play the fucking game again; you've clearly forgotten how it actually handles most of the narrative choices

It's unfortunate that you, the player, are in control then isn't it? You rob the player's control for things only the player character does, this is basic shit. Maybe have the game automatically fire the last charge.

Because, as the game was trying to fucking bring to attention, a lot of people can't NOT self insert, even when clearly the character they insert into is... deeply suspect.

The game sadly proves it a little TOO effectively. Turns out, the same people lack any sense of self-awareness and tend to be incredibly insecure and delusional, and will fucking hate the game for bringing this subject up for years and years on, engaging in increasingly elaborate mental gymnastics just to make themselves feel better about themselves.
Hence: these threads.

>Poor personal judgement and discipline do
Which are caused by??? Exactly

His PTSD puts him in an escalation of commitment.

>DO NOT KNOW what the word Deontological means!
>deontology, noun: ethics, especially that branch dealing with duty, moral obligation, and right action.

Wew dude are you going to drop the angry teacher / detective persona now. Makes you look like a hyperbolic narcissist.

>Also: no. Walker's action is wrong because he is commited to his blind dream of heroism. It's just acting in denial. He already screwed up - shooting at the insurgents without knowing the full extend of the situation - now he is overcompensating for that by blindly commiting to "rescue" the civilians and bring Konrad to justice.

>literal assumptions

>And the game DOES NOT SHAME YOU either, you fucking mongoloid.
>If Lugo were still alive, he would likely suffer from PTSD. So, really, he's the lucky one.
>Squad commands are unavailable when you're alone. No one can help you now.
>This is all your fault.
>Do you feel like a hero yet
>Game gives no choices in WP attack, but does show graphic images of dead children
Lel

>That is very much wrong, and if you had any education in actual ethics, you'd fucking know that.

Cultural difference alone make this a ridiculously generalised and wrong statement.

>A "NO U"?

Well you coming in frothing at the mouth like I insulted your mother is not healthy behavior

Attached: 1568302802229.gif (207x207, 1.37M)

Does it now? Can you perhaps prove that is the case?

Have you played the game?

>I don't want a "Good" option, I want the game to not pretend to give options.
Then hooray, because the game does not! There no problem.

Yet here you are, screeching in... how many threads? Be honest. How many times did you try to delude yourself into the problem being being THE GAME and not just you being fucking insecure as hell?

Which brings us back to

>Self insert only when we want to

fuck off

The game does give options though. Many times, the game gives options. But the largest setpiece, the big narrative focus shift, has the most sloppily railroaded shit in the entire game.

>How many times did you try to delude yourself into the problem being being THE GAME and not just you being fucking insecure as hell?

You sound like an /adv/ roastie who calls everyone an incell

You are fully aware that none of the """choices""" int he game actually change anything outside of the fucking epilogue, right? The game even shows how the choices meant shit because Walker is going insane. Holy fuck you are stupid.

A player is in control in every single narrative driven videogame, yet there are things they cannot change in the narrative. Why is the WP scene treated any differently than literally any scene where you are forced to fuck up because the story demands it?

The usual reason given is that the game berates the player for it, but that's shaky at best since it is unclear if that is the case or if it's simply Walker's declining sanity seeping into the game, like is most definitely the case with the scene where Walker suddenly becomes aware of the process of loading a saved game. The game intentionally teases the fourth wall.

Interesting that this shit game brings out so many fanatics defending its shit story line? What do they want to achieve exactly?

>Go back to your room and think about what you have done.
No arguments I see? You know that you can admit when you are wrong user? There is no shame in it

No it doesn't. It gives tips on how to play the game then starts shit talking walker for the games events as the game unfolds, it never refers to the player directly. The last loading screen is even about walker having a mental breakdown.

>>Self insert only when we want to
Well you're not supposed to, so when you od it don't get mad at the game for you being retarded. if you self inserted then got offended it isn't the games fault, it's yours. Do you cry like a bitch whenever a protagonist in a movie does something you disagree with then the movie shits on him for it?

I usually frown on games that do that, you know. Hell, I'm even hard on many games that make the protagonist cutscene-stupid to move the story forward whether or not the player is blamed.

Show me a single loading screen message that could be understood to be explicitly aimed at the player and not Walker himself. Excluding actual gameplay tips of course, though those tend to be around earlier on, before the onset of Walker's madness, which in itself should be telling.

>Which are caused by??? Exactly
His desire to be a hero.
I already said that. Do you even know what PTSD is, or is it the Deontology all over again?

Because no: nothing in the game indicates PTSD driving him. You are literally entirely basing your interpretation on a completely throw-away piece of text that you did not even understand because you literally did not know what those words actually mean.

>Makes you look like a hyperbolic narcissist.
Beats being a lying cunt so insecure that he actually pretends to know what Deontology means, or PTSD, or to know anything about the game.

>Lel
Lel indeed. Though given that you literally fucked up every single bigger word you tried to use, I should not be surprised that such a tiny nuance as "difference between player and character" is going to be COMPLETELY lost on you.

>got it off steam when it was free
>played it for a little over an hour
>uninstalled it
>haven't played it since

Attached: ss (2019-09-21 at 02.07.45).jpg (736x93, 21K)

>7 years later and faggots like this are still ass blasted about this game because they decided they had to self insert

Ever been in a HunterxHunter thread on Yea Forums? It's like that.

I fucking love it and I wish more games took risks like this one did

Who is the "You" in loading screens, do you think? You know, the one that has been referred to since the start of the game? Was it always walker or do you just get to decide that the subject shifts because it strengthens your argument?

Yes.

Attached: 7WQSuGggbSArWCNvVA3h6ffrKsivVBhPMrnYzpb25kc.jpg (1481x783, 180K)

>No arguments I see? You know that you can admit when you are wrong user?
Dude. Have you fucking read what you wrote? Or what I wrote?
How you missed the moral ambiguity of Konrad and his actions?
How you literally said that "Deonotological morals state that if an action is bad the result is bad", and somehow tried to illustrate it with the white phosphorus scene?

How you did not pick up on Walker willingly abandoning his duty?

How you can't tell difference between character and player?

I mean, by this speed you'll be in China in NO TIME!

Kek most of your arguments rely on intimidation sounding like a screeing aspie with NPD, but that works fuck-all on a Vietnamese basket weaving forum.

There are literal flashbacks in the game that point towards the PTSD and it is a know fact that anxiety caused by PTSD can lead to escalations of commitment. In Walker's case saving the civies.

>You are literally entirely basing your interpretation on a completely throw-away piece of text that you did not even understand because you literally did not know what those words actually mean.

Says the person who just assumes motivations that are never mentioned in the game at all, kek.

>Beats being a lying cunt so insecure that he actually pretends to know what Deontology means, or PTSD, or to know anything about the game.

Yawn, next you will call me an incell.

Anway back to the game. The point still stands, after all your ramblings, that it does not offer choice, does not commit to its moralistic point and tries to pass it off as genius writing when it's shit.

It is okay to admit you are wrong sweetie

Unironic deconstruction of the modern FPS genre
youtu.be/5_6LvKWy5vo

>Was it always walker or do you just get to decide that the subject shifts because it strengthens your argument?

That is what the contrarians defending this shit game think at least

It could be Walker questioning his own actions, a form of internal monologue. And the subject could very well change with the mental state of Walker, just like he himself changes during the breadth of the story.

The point is that it is impossible to determine who is being addressed in the loading screen messages, short of getting a direct answer from the developers, which makes using them as ammunition for arguments useless.

Pretentious as fuck.
>oooh you're a bad person for playing the game you paid for!!
Fuck off.

>To kill for yourself is murder. To kill for your government is heroic. To kill for entertainment is harmless.
>Nah you should not self-insert mate

So is Walker just having a break with reality here and believing he's in a video game?

Conjecture, occam's razor dictates that the easiest solution is usually the right one.

The story and ending are projected so far in advance and the protags illogical thought processes undermine it's decent, color by numbers story. But the whole game is done in such a heavy handed ham-fisted manner. Not to mention the actual game is a clunker. Nothing inherently broken, just bland uninspired and it doesn't do anything exceptionally well. Just serviceable.

Well, that's it. The extent to which defenders of spec ops the line defenders will go to has now reached breaking the fourth wall in order to uphold the legitimacy of the storyline.

Overrated trash.

>Kek most of your arguments rely on intimidation sounding like a screeing aspie with NPD
Do I have to remind you that YOU are the one who actually tried to put random "Deontological morals" in his post to make him self look smarter than he is?

I mean: that is fucking rich. Talk about the pot screeching NIGGER!, NIGGER! at a passing asian chick.

>and it is a know fact that anxiety caused by PTSD can lead to escalations of commitment
But the decision to go after the american soldiers is the fucking key point you mongolid. Are we reaching the point where you can't even follow the conversation anymore?

By the point he reaches the white phosphorus, sure he is mental: he killed half a dozen of innocent people because of his arrogance and hubris: if he did not have mental health issues before, he'd sure as fuck be as delusional as you are at that point:
But it all boils down to the fucking decision to abandon his orders in the first place.

And NONE of this is in any way related to Kant's ethics anyway.

>Says the person who just assumes motivations that are never mentioned in the game at all, kek.
Actually, Walkers motivations are pretty clearly spelled out, you mong. Not my problem that you can't follow basic storyline.

>Yawn, next you will call me an incell.
Nah. I will call you a pathetic insecure twat though. I just don't like this modern internet speak and I prefer to call things simply as they are.

>The point still stands, after all your ramblings, that it does not offer choice, does not commit to its moralistic point
You mean the point that does not exist, that you made up, I explained how exactly it is wrong, and now you are pretending like that it never happend?

You have the audacity to call something shit? I mean fucking look at what you posted here, dude?
Really? Self awareness isn't a thing in your universe, I guess?

That quite literally happens at one point in the game where Walker suddenly realizes that you loaded a save and is bewildered at the same things happening again. The game constantly flirts with the fourth wall because it's an effective method of communicating Walker's deteriorating sanity to the player.

Talking about english on a japanese owned website?

You have to go back

That's actually the opposite of Walker believing he's in a video game. That's expressing video game mechanics' effects on someone who is in reality.

Gamewhat now?

You are talking to people who can't differenciate between themselves and a character. Do you really expect them to understand the distinction between diegetic and non-diegetic content?

Actually I'm arguing that the game obviously DOES want you to self insert.

>Do I have to remind you that YOU are the one who actually tried to put random "Deontological morals" in his post to make him self look smarter than he is?

Nah that was all your assumption. You have an inclination for assuming motivations and getting offended at anonymous internet posts out of the blue (that is sad user, really).

>But the decision to go after the american soldiers is the fucking key point you mongolid.

Now I am wondering if you played the game. In the beginning they find a fresh 33rd corps murdered by the a couple people who look like insurgents and that taunt Walker when he asks (!) who they are and what their motivations are. Hell it is even know that the 33rd deserted.

The point that I made about the WP scene is about that the game rubs it in your face while offering now choice. You made it all about the characters motivations that you made up.

>Actually, Walkers motivations are pretty clearly spelled out, you mong. Not my problem that you can't follow basic storyline.
>No argument detected

>Nah. I will call you a pathetic insecure twat though. I just don't like this modern internet speak and I prefer to call things simply as they are.

Good for you mate

>You mean the point that does not exist, that you made up, I explained how exactly it is wrong, and now you are pretending like that it never happend?

I explained it in various points ITT

>You have the audacity to call something shit?

Top kek, you really are someone suffering from NPD. Get help user.

It’s one of my all time favorites. Spent a whole weekend playing it from start to finish. I look back on that weekend fondly.

He might not believe he is in a videogame, but he sure as hell is questioning reality, which is what that loading screen message was about as well.

WELCOME TO DUBAI

That's an incredibly weak justification. "The character is questioning reality therefore anything in game that appears to be referring to the player could actually be referring to him, no matter how contrived." I'll call Occam's Razor on this and say you're grasping at straws.

>You have an inclination for assuming motivations
Dude, seeing some use a word that clearly has no meaning or relation to the context of the message and assuming that person is a pathetic looser trying to look smarter than he is is not exactly a crazy leap of judgement.
Seeing the same person straight up COMPLETELY MISINTERPRET the meaning of the term is a literal proof of that.

You are not going to live that down. That is a fuckup that will stay.

>Now I am wondering if you played the game. In the beginning they find a fresh 33rd corps
Irrelevant. Walker's orders are completely clear. His desire to be a hero in front of the Damned he admires does not excuse him jumping to conclusions and straight up defying orders.

>The point that I made about the WP scene is about that the game rubs it in your face while offering now choice.
So under all that amazingly pretentious shit, it all boils down to the same argument every insecure retard has:
BOOO, THE GAME DID NOT LET ME BE A HERO, AND BOOO, THE GAME DID NOT REASSURE ME ENOUGH THAT I'M A GOOD GUY, BOOO!

How.
Fucking.
Pathetic.

The game does not rub anything in your face. It makes fun of you. For very good reason: you just ended up proving it's point: most gamers are braindead, insecure children who refuse to pay attention to what is happening, and will fall apart if they don't get their daily dose of "you are amazing" milk.

Hey buddy, I know that I basically condemned everyone here to die a horrible death by destroying all of the water trucks, but it was all to save our country. Now would you be a dear and shoot me in the head so that I don’t have to be burned alive?

Attached: 3223C549-A999-4520-81DC-7314A1CC2886.jpg (1280x720, 66K)

>Going postal on the people sent the rescue you is the best ending and the one that makes the most sense
That entirely depends on how you chose to relate yourself to the game and it's story.

For me, it sure as hell did make the most sense. And it's beautiful (and stands as a direct proof of how wrong everyone whinning about the game "yelling at them" is) that the game acknowledges this attitude and gives you direct props for taking it.

Anyone who bitches about the game, Welcome to Dubai is quite literally the proof that you are wrong, and a pussy.

Occam's Razor is not an argument, just a supposition. It is true that most often the simplest answer is true, but it cannot and should not be taken as gospel and applied to everything in lieu of actual supporting evidence.

I don't know what he was on about, nobody would care anyway.
>an american unit went rogue
Oh no, punish them. And then the "International community" was pacified.

>The gameplay is generic and boring on purpose
Literally stopped playing after the second level an haven't picked it up since. I hear the story is good but that will never justify how mind numbingly dull the gameplay is.

My argument has supporting evidence, it just isn't absolutely damning evidence because there's wiggle room in the unspecific "You". Since as far as I can remember there is no line that uses "You, the player character, that are playing this video game as Walker, who this text is not referring to in any manner and this text is also not a diagetic hallucination" there's always going to be wiggle room, but that doesn't mean your interpretation isn't stretched at best.

I kept playing waiting for that mega kino moment that everyone always talks about.
It happened, it passed, nothing changed, finished because may as well. Still pretty boring.

Got it for free but I'd pay tops 4 euros for it

Stretched or not, as long as there is wiggle room, you cannot make concrete claims regarding the subject at hand.

Unironically would have been better as a movie

>You are not going to live that down. That is a fuckup that will stay.
Ooh shit son, now I am completely btfo'ed.
Christ... It is telling how much a person suffering from NPD projects upon others.

Anyway, I explained why I used that word and it was also never the point.

>His desire to be a hero in front of the Damned he admires does not excuse him jumping to conclusions and straight up defying orders.
>jumping to conclusions

Oh this is rich coming from you kek

If you look at the game's early chapters it is quite carefully explained why they pushed on; being under constant attack of insurgents that also killed US infantry.

>BOOO, THE GAME DID NOT LET ME BE A HERO, AND BOOO, THE GAME DID NOT REASSURE ME ENOUGH THAT I'M A GOOD GUY, BOOO!

Aaaand another assumption. I also never said this. I said that the game has lazy writing when it forces the player to do an act and then criticise the player for it. The whole disussion is then if one should self insert or not. In the videogame medium and considering the loading screen texts, it is very arbitrary. The narrative overall does not commit, but still forces moralism on the player (explictly stated by the devs too).

>you just ended up proving it's point: most gamers are braindead, insecure children who refuse to pay attention to what is happening, and will fall apart if they don't get their daily dose of "you are amazing" milk.

I am dead serious about you seeking help though, this is some real narcissism.

It was funny because I loved killing random worthless civilians.

Well that fucks all alpha science courses.

youtube.com/watch?v=RIFQzMgYS0I

Attached: 1550079746838.jpg (2100x1500, 944K)

You can make fairly concrete claims, and at this point I think we can both say you've lost the argument as you retreat down unlikely possibilities.

Decent third person shooter gameplay and a hell of a lot more mature themes and references than most "2deep" vidya.
It's not fantastic and I don't think anybody honestly argues that, but it sure does attract a contrarian vocal group of people who act like everybody fellates it at all times and they're the true intellectuals who see through it.

That's the worst thing to do sadly.
All I knew about it was first trailer I hardly remembered and the setting of cut off dubai that I loved.

The scientific method is all about substantiating claims through the discovery of supporting evidence, though. Just assuming that something is true because it is the easiest explanation for a given thing would be very unscientific indeed.

But Apocalypse Now already exists user

But you are explicitly disregarding evidence because of the existence of wiggle room.

Yes but in the context of this thread it is not what he said. He presented evidence and then, when presented with the other, unsupported scenario, applied Occam's Razor.

How is my claim any more unlikely than the claim that the loading screen messages address the player, given the context of a mentally deranged main character whose mental state has tangible effects on both the gameplay experience and the narrative?

I want to fuck white Korra

But it's true, you fucking retard. The loading screens are walkers subconscious.

youtube.com/watch?v=-5a4aCveGQg

>but it sure does attract a contrarian vocal group of people who act like everybody fellates it at all times and they're the true intellectuals who see through it.
Does it though? I see the opposite, like, look at this guy

There are people on both ends I suppose, but I see way more of the "NO, NO, YOU ACTUALLY CAN'T ENJOY THIS AS MUCH AS YOU SEEM TO" personally.

Because your claim entirely hinges on the loose justification of general reality disassociation to justify what is, by all accounts, a non-diagetic message.

>Ooh shit son, now I am completely btfo'ed.
You were actually actually btfo'ed since my first post making fun of you using the word wrong.

>Oh this is rich coming from you kek
The game actually explicitly states Walkers fascination with Konrad since Konrad carried Walker out of a battle on his shoulders, AND that Walker volunteered for the job upon learning Konrad is the one in charge of the city.

Those are absolutely clearly stated base facts of the narrative. By FAR more clearly established as the PTSD, by the way.

>Anyway, I explained why I used that word and it was also never the point.
No. The fact that you don't like that the action does not give you a chance and then does not pat you on the back has nothing to do with Kantian ethics, OR what you seem to think Deontological ethics are either.

>If you look at the game's early chapters it is quite carefully explained why they pushed on
You did not notice how they say about FIFTEEN TIMES that WE "HAVE TO SAVE THOSE POOR SOLDIERS"?!

I mean they YELL IT, WRITE IT ON THE SCREEN REPEATEDLY:
THE FUCK?

This is amazing! This is absolutely fucking amazing! We went from Kant to you denying the most fucking clearly established reality facts in the game?!

>I also never said this. I said that the game has lazy writing when it forces the player to do an act and then criticise the player for it.
This... does not even need a comment. I'm just going to point out and leave it hanging.

>I am dead serious about you seeking help though, this is some real narcissism.
... and this as well.

>By all accounts

That is to say, by your interpretation.

It's an incredibly blatant interpretation and you yourself have accepted that YOUR interpretation is contrived at best. We've done a circle.

How the fuck is it contrived when the game shows, at multiple points, how Walker's mental state has a direct effect on in-game events and the narrative? For what reason is it "blatant" that this theme does not carry over into the loading screens?

There is no point in arguing with you. You ignore arguments and just go of on your own tangent, constantly come with hyperbolic narcisstic statements, assume a whole lot of shit and dont adress the actual point that I was trying to make. I am calling sunk cost fallacy on this one (I brought this "big terminology" in just for you, sweetheart. Isn't that amazing? It's just amazing, right? kek).

Listing mate, you can read my earlier post on why I think the game's story is shit, but if you want to engage in circular reasoning, good for you.

>This is amazing! This is absolutely fucking amazing!

Protip: if you do this in real life, you will get punched in the face. That is why you should seek help. NPD ain't a joke user.

Listen mate I have been arguing with probably the same guy and he has been going in circles. There is no talking with him

the point of a game is gameplay retard, watch a book

Because you are just waving your fingers at this point because the game deals with disassociation with reality, which can apply to literally everything in any media. You are taking a blatant message addressed directly to the player with the only interpretative wiggle room being "You", a "You" which, by the way, must be in the context of an entity playing a video game or other form of fictional media, A BELIEF NEVER ONCE EXPRESSED BY THE PLAYER CHARACTER, and applying it to that very player character. That is the move of someone who just wants to win an internet argument.

I did read your posts, I literally torn your points to shreds in the very first post I made.
You did not adress a single one of my arguments actually. You literally proved every single point I've made.
You still did not even apologize for using the term Descartian ethics wrong on every single occassion.

Also, you even managed to use the term sunken cost fallacy wrong, which... I think is incredibly fitting.

Protip:
Don't try to lecture others on how they need help in your position. You first need to not humiliate yourself on every single post.

Don't act like a retard: and people will stop treating you like one. It's that simple. You are garbage because you act like one.

Have fun with embarrasing yourself on countless more occassions.

>I did read your posts, I literally torn your points to shreds in the very first post I made.
>You did not adress a single one of my arguments actually. You literally proved every single point I've made.
>You still did not even apologize for using the term Descartian ethics wrong on every single occassion.
>Also, you even managed to use the term sunken cost fallacy wrong, which... I think is incredibly fitting.

Kek you are absolutely delusional.

>Don't try to lecture others on how they need help in your position.
>Proceeds to show signs of actual mental illness, in this case NPD.

Hahaha I love you user

Pretentious bullshit.

Cute girls doing horrible things!

Attached: 9YBg9uO.jpg (1500x1000, 414K)

It's a game that treats you as a war criminal for killing pixels and lines of code. Gameplay itself was bleh

If you talk to yourself in your head, with your internal voice, do you refer to yourself as you (as in "Don't you even think about it")? If you do, how can you claim there is no logical basis for the assumption that the loading screen messages could be internal monologue?

Because, as previously mentioned, the circumstances around the entity described as "You" do not fit walker in the case we are discussing.

The most pretentious game of all time.

>I'm so clever for trying to outsmart a game I already spoiled for myself.
The point of the WP scene is to try and trick you. I guarantee if you've seen a screenshot of the aftermath or anything like that you'll immediately know where it's going which undermines the scene.

YIIKES exists.

The actual combat's kind of dry, but I genuinely enjoyed it in terms of story and atmosphere.

>>Proceeds to show signs of actual mental illness, in this case NPD.
This would be a little more easy to take seriously if you did not manage to prove that you don't know what "PTSD" is earlier.
It frankly baffles me that you insist on using more and more terms after you have provably used every single one of them wrong earlier.

Just something you may want to think about next time: Actually double, or more like TRIPPLE check the meaning of just about every single technical or medical term you use.

music was good desu

The idea is the game is making you do the thing its giving you shit for doing.

Even more so user I think you suffer from neurotic shock. Usually a by-product of schizophrenia. You know, it gets created by lead consumption. But that would not matter since you are only throwing ad hominems around.

PS: about the text above, I deliberatly used the wrong terms and made all this up, but when you read it you were ready to reply right? To tell me how wrong I was in the most hyperbolic way possible? Yeah, that is NPD mate.

Now user, I love you a lot. Do you want to suck my cock? Just focus on the rims.