Critical Miss: Top Five Games of 2012 #5

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Critical Miss: Top Five Games of 2012 #5

Five days. Five of 2012's best games.

Read Full Article

It would be more effective if there was an actual choice. Rather than being forced too.

Aw, would you look at those puppy dog eyes. I don`t have it in myself to say anything bad to a face like that, even if she did just shoot someone in the face. But in all seriousness, i really enjoyed Spec Ops: The Line, as well. Haven`t played quite anything like it before. Tho actually, Im not sure if "enjoyed" is the correct word. But i liked it.

Blunderboy:
It would be more effective if there was an actual choice. Rather than being forced too.

Eh, that's debatable. In a lot of games with choice the 'choice' just becomes a programmed response based on what play through you're doing at that time. If your playing as an asshole, you make all the asshole decisions without a second thought as to context, or what you would honestly do faced with this situation, or what you think your character would do based on their background and what they appear to believe in. It's arguable that had people been given a choice it actually would have made them think less about what they were doing.

The game forcing you to do these things may also be making a point in and of itself. You're a soldier after all. Soldiers don't get choice, they follow orders. Over the course of history many individuals have tried to wash their hands of the suffering they caused by claiming that they only ever did what their superiors ordered them to do, and that they didn't have a choice, and indeed, all Walker ever did in Spec Ops was follow at least what he interpreted to be his orders, but the game doesn't except that as an excuse. The game is subverting its own mechanics to make a point about the dangers of willingly giving up your own power to choose for yourself what's right and wrong.

During the whole game I kept thinking "this isn't what I would do" Forcing a player to do something isn't innovative or unique.

If the game convinced me as the player to make the choices, that would have been something.

As it is it was a OK game with an OK story line and OK game play.

That comic perfectly encapsulates my main problem with the game.

It forces you to do something and won't let you progress until you do, then spends the rest of the game trying to make you feel guilty about it.

I love what it was trying to do, but the implementation left much to be desired.

Blunderboy:
It would be more effective if there was an actual choice. Rather than being forced too.

See, the entire point of Spec Ops is that you don't get to argue "Oh, I had to this to progress in the game, not my fault". You did have a choice. You chose to play Spec Ops. Should the seams of its scriptedness be covered up better? Probably. But there's nothing wrong with the underlying idea of how it chooses to address complicity.

Blunderboy:
It would be more effective if there was an actual choice. Rather than being forced too.

That's what I was thinking, it annoys me in RPG's where is forces you to walk into an enemies trap and then calls you stupid for something you couldn't avoid, this just seems like a different level of that.

Fallout Vegas did it well where they actually called the player out on it, You saw signs from Ulysses saying 'You can turn back whenever you want' etc and then you got to a point where you had to do something horrible. Then Ulysses would say you hadn't changed alluding to the character and players forgotten past. It made bitter fun of the players reckless curiosity without calling the actual player an asshole. That to me was much more intelligent.

NinjaDeathSlap:
Over the course of history many individuals have tried to wash their hands of the suffering they caused by claiming that they only ever did what their superiors ordered them to do, and that they didn't have a choice, and indeed, all Walker ever did in Spec Ops was follow at least what he interpreted to be his orders, but the game doesn't except that as an excuse.

Not to mention that the game never forces you to play it at all. Whats stopping you from turning it off and saying: "Nope, I'm not doing this. If that's the only way to do it Id rather not do it at all."? Same goes for the people who say "I was just following orders." Sure, in some cases disobeying orders would have led to execution, but in many cases there still was quite a bit of choice involved.

Mojo:

NinjaDeathSlap:
Over the course of history many individuals have tried to wash their hands of the suffering they caused by claiming that they only ever did what their superiors ordered them to do, and that they didn't have a choice, and indeed, all Walker ever did in Spec Ops was follow at least what he interpreted to be his orders, but the game doesn't except that as an excuse.

Not to mention that the game never forces you to play it at all. Whats stopping you from turning it off and saying: "Nope, I'm not doing this. If that's the only way to do it Id rather not do it at all."? Same goes for the people who say "I was just following orders." Sure, in some cases disobeying orders would have led to execution, but in many cases there still was quite a bit of choice involved.

Because you just paid 50 for the game....What are you going to do play half of it. I see what they were trying to say but its kind of clumsy.

Grey Carter:
Critical Miss: Top Five Games of 2012 #5

Five days. Five of 2012's best games.

Read Full Article

This comic actually read more like sarcasm to me. An attempt to send-up the worshipful attitude everyone is taking towards Spec Ops: The Line by pointing out that players conditioned to follow orders from video games are not necessarily bad people for doing so. We've just become used to that being the way things work; sure we can refuse, turn off the game and go outside to play with puppies in the sunshine, but then we're depriving ourselves of the content we paid for. We just do what the game tells us to do without thinking, because that's all we've ever done - shoot this, go here, collect that, brutally murder all those indigenous tribespeople. It doesn't make us bad people, because we're aware that it's just a virtual environment and that none of what we do has any genuine consequence.

I haven't actually played SpopsLine, though I did slog through the demo. I appreciate that it probably is as interesting as people are saying and that the message is an important one, but from reading the criticism and the essays and the other guff floating around the net it seems as if the game is being a trifle unfair in blaming the player. Of course we unthinkingly follow what you tell us to do, game - you're a game! Monopoly doesn't end by criticisng the players' slavish adherence to unrestrained capitalism, because anyone playing it is just following the rules laid down by the game itself.

Zhukov:
That comic perfectly encapsulates my main problem with the game.

It forces you to do something and won't let you progress until you do, then spends the rest of the game trying to make you feel guilty about it.

I love what it was trying to do, but the implementation left much to be desired.

I think it's more aimed at people who play first-person, modern-military shooters more often than us here. We lack the fascination with using the latest hardware to wipe out poorly equipped and disorganised militias.

If your usual game is Call of Duty or Battlefield, you're quite likely to go through shooters just gunning down whoever registers as an enemy on your radar. If, however, like most of us here, you play a variety of games featuring moral choices and civilian NPCs who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, then yeah...this game will probably not have the same lesson to teach you. We already KNOW what this game has to show, but then, we're not the target audience of the Spec Ops label.

Moonlight Butterfly:

Mojo:

NinjaDeathSlap:
Over the course of history many individuals have tried to wash their hands of the suffering they caused by claiming that they only ever did what their superiors ordered them to do, and that they didn't have a choice, and indeed, all Walker ever did in Spec Ops was follow at least what he interpreted to be his orders, but the game doesn't except that as an excuse.

Not to mention that the game never forces you to play it at all. Whats stopping you from turning it off and saying: "Nope, I'm not doing this. If that's the only way to do it Id rather not do it at all."? Same goes for the people who say "I was just following orders." Sure, in some cases disobeying orders would have led to execution, but in many cases there still was quite a bit of choice involved.

Because you just paid 50 for the game....What are you going to do play half of it.

Instead of writing my whole rant, I could have just written this. Sigh. You have out-eloquented me once again.

Yes, there's a choice not to play, but if you've just spunked your cash on something you want your damn moneys worth.

DeadpanLunatic:

Blunderboy:
It would be more effective if there was an actual choice. Rather than being forced too.

See, the entire point of Spec Ops is that you don't get to argue "Oh, I had to this to progress in the game, not my fault". You did have a choice. You chose to play Spec Ops.

Actually I didn't. But after hearing all the hype I read up on it. I'm not convinced.

Thyunda:

Zhukov:
That comic perfectly encapsulates my main problem with the game.

It forces you to do something and won't let you progress until you do, then spends the rest of the game trying to make you feel guilty about it.

I love what it was trying to do, but the implementation left much to be desired.

I think it's more aimed at people who play first-person, modern-military shooters more often than us here. We lack the fascination with using the latest hardware to wipe out poorly equipped and disorganised militias.

If your usual game is Call of Duty or Battlefield, you're quite likely to go through shooters just gunning down whoever registers as an enemy on your radar. If, however, like most of us here, you play a variety of games featuring moral choices and civilian NPCs who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, then yeah...this game will probably not have the same lesson to teach you. We already KNOW what this game has to show, but then, we're not the target audience of the Spec Ops label.

That's actually a pretty good point.

When playing most shooters I usually already feel like a bad person... y'know, in a detached, eye-rolling kind of way.

"Oh look, more brown people with turbans and AK47s on which to enact my 9/11 revenge fantasies, what fun! Ohh, now I get to wipe out dozens of essentially helpless foes from the safety of a gunship while the game gently massages my balls and whispers assurance that, no really, I am a total badass."

So when a game tries to turn around and say, "You're a bad person", my reaction is, "Yeah, no shit. Glad you've caught up there, hotshot."

...

And yes, I'm aware that this post makes me sound like a bit of a douche.

Blunderboy:
It would be more effective if there was an actual choice. Rather than being forced too.

The problem with Spec-Ops and it's infamous Wiley Pete scenario is that it effectively railroads you into commiting the atrocity. There's no in-game way of getting around it, providing a solution, or simply retreating. You can perform the atrocity and survive, or turn off the game.

At the end of the day, am I supposed to feel bad for something a soldier did for survival? Because I don't.

Zhukov:
That comic perfectly encapsulates my main problem with the game.

It forces you to do something and won't let you progress until you do, then spends the rest of the game trying to make you feel guilty about it.

I love what it was trying to do, but the implementation left much to be desired.

Yeah, I thought that about the game for a couple of bits, especially in the White Phosphorous bit. But in hindsight I felt it worked quite well. Not giving you a choice in that particular area worked because it giving the choice of shooting the White Phosphorous or not would kind of ruin the misdirection of that moment that is the impetus for a lot of the story thereon. Personally, I thought that moment in particular really made me appreciate the game the most since in that moment I was switched to some UAV Mode and being a guy that has played Call of Duty games I immediately thought "Oh, new toys". And well you may know the rest. But I even enjoyed the few moments where it gives you a choice (the civilian crowd, the people strung up). Anyway, the game did accomplish the goal of making me feel guilty, and apparently some others as well. I am curious, however, as to what you think it could of done to make the game better? Because the whole "It forces you to do something and won't let you progress until you do" sounds only like a linear game to me. Which it is. Now, the making you feel guilty part can be hit or miss, I understand that (especially if you are trying to deconstruct the game the whole time while playing it, trying to find out why people like it).

Yours is not to question why, yours is but to do or die.
Unless you stop playing.

Zhukov:

Thyunda:

Zhukov:
That comic perfectly encapsulates my main problem with the game.

It forces you to do something and won't let you progress until you do, then spends the rest of the game trying to make you feel guilty about it.

I love what it was trying to do, but the implementation left much to be desired.

I think it's more aimed at people who play first-person, modern-military shooters more often than us here. We lack the fascination with using the latest hardware to wipe out poorly equipped and disorganised militias.

If your usual game is Call of Duty or Battlefield, you're quite likely to go through shooters just gunning down whoever registers as an enemy on your radar. If, however, like most of us here, you play a variety of games featuring moral choices and civilian NPCs who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, then yeah...this game will probably not have the same lesson to teach you. We already KNOW what this game has to show, but then, we're not the target audience of the Spec Ops label.

That's actually a pretty good point.

When playing most shooters I usually already feel like a bad person... y'know, in a detached, eye-rolling kind of way.

"Oh look, more brown people with turbans and AK47s on which to enact my 9/11 revenge fantasies, what fun! Ohh, now I get to wipe out dozens of essentially helpless foes from the safety of a gunship while the game gently massages my balls and whispers assurance that, no really, I am a total badass."

So when a game tries to turn around and say, "You're a bad person", my reaction is, "Yeah, no shit. Glad you've caught up there, hotshot."

...

And yes, I'm aware that this post me sound like a bit of a douche.

No I get it, the game sets you up as an overpowered practically invulnerable monster and you see right through it. Personally my chief motivation while playing shooters has been survival, because they can still kill you. But then the only modern day shooter I played was COD:MW2.

Moonlight Butterfly:

Because you just paid 50 for the game....What are you going to do play half of it. I see what they were trying to say but its kind of clumsy.

Well its current price tag is 20$ on steam (5 on a sale) and even if you got it day one for 50$ then you still are not forced to play it if you don't like it. If you buy a game day one and don't wait for any reviews or seeing what the general attitude towards the game is then its you own fault. The last game I got day one was Guild Wars 2. I played one character to level 40 and haven't touched it since then. I cant complain I got ripped off though, since I could have easily waited a few weeks for reviews or my friends opinions. (I know playing to lvl 40 in GW2 is a bit different then half of Spec Ops, but I hope you get my point) I agree that is was quite clumsily done and I too would have appreciated more choice in some occasions.

SonicWaffle:

Yes, there's a choice not to play, but if you've just spunked your cash on something you want your damn moneys worth.

Isn't that a matter of opinion? I say I didn't get my moneys worth out of, lets say a 4 map expansion for BF3, but you could say that you did because you like the maps and they were worth 15$ to you. Imo you can only really say you didn't get your moneys worth if the game isn't functioning as intended (bugs etc...) But maybe that's just me, oh well...

(I don't mean to insult you guys or anything, sorry if it comes across like that. Its just my opinion on the matter.)

Mojo:

Moonlight Butterfly:

Because you just paid 50 for the game....What are you going to do play half of it. I see what they were trying to say but its kind of clumsy.

Well its current price tag is 20$ on steam (5 on a sale) and even if you got it day one for 50$ then you still forced to play it if you don't like it. If you buy a game day one and don't wait for any reviews or seeing what the general attitude towards the game is then its you own fault. The last game I got day one was Guild Wars 2. I played one character to level 40 and haven't touched it since then. I cant complain I got ripped off though, since I could have easily waited a few weeks for reviews or my friends opinions. (I know playing to lvl 40 in GW2 is a bit different then half of Spec Ops, but I hope you get my point) I agree that is was quite clumsily done and I too would have appreciated more choice in some occasions.

Dude I don't even have the game I was just making the point that it's a bit far fetched to just expect people to turn the game off.

On another note, does the society in Starship Troopers worship the army? Because when I read the book and watched the movie, they both featured numerous civilians who discouraged the main character from joining, or disparaged his choice from another branch, like the navy, or from the outside.

I mean, maybe they had some harsh punishment for criminals, but so does Singapore, and we don't call them fascist, at least when we use the word correctly.

Yay! I'm glad it's getting a bit more recognition. Was my joint-top GOTY (alongside The Walking Dead) despite the valid criticisms that have levelled at it.

Mojo:

SonicWaffle:

Yes, there's a choice not to play, but if you've just spunked your cash on something you want your damn moneys worth.

Isn't that a matter of opinion?

No opinion matters but mine. I am great. I am good. I am all. I am your god now, feeble mortal!

...ahem. Sorry about that. Just slips out sometimes.

Mojo:
I say I didn't get my moneys worth out of, lets say a 4 map expansion for BF3, but you could say that you did because you like the maps and they were worth 15$ to you. Imo you can only really say you didn't get your moneys worth if the game isn't functioning as intended (bugs etc...) But maybe that's just me, oh well...

If I've paid money for an experience, I'm not going to be happy about not actually getting that experience. If the game itself is not actively bad (or as you mention, so buggy as to be unplayable) then I'm probably going to keep playing it even if it does make me uncomfortable. For example, Immortal Technique's first album had a song about a boy's gang initiation in which he and a group of other gangsters kidnap a woman off the street by throwing a bag over her head and then raping her. Afterwards, they tell him to kill her and remove the bag, and it turns out to have been the boy's mother. He kills himself out of shame and disgust. That song made me incredibly uncomfortable in its subject matter, but that didn't mean I wasn't going to listen to the rest of the album (especially given that the song about rape wasn't attempting to glorify or triviliase it, instead condemning such brutal and horrendous actions), to take it out of the CD player and never touch it again. I paid for it, so I want the full experience that I paid for.

There's a difference between getting your moneys worth and thinking that a product was actually worth the money.

Mojo:
(I don't mean to insult you guys or anything, sorry if it comes across like that. Its just my opinion on the matter.)

I forgive you. I am a benevolent god.

ccdohl:
On another note, does the society in Starship Troopers worship the army? Because when I read the book and watched the movie, they both featured numerous civilians who discouraged the main character from joining, or disparaged his choice from another branch, like the navy, or from the outside.

I mean, maybe they had some harsh punishment for criminals, but so does Singapore, and we don't call them fascist, at least when we use the word correctly.

The only people with the right to vote were those who served in the military. It was the basis of their democracy. So yeah, I'd call that a form of worship, making veterans the only people whose voices matter.

Moonlight Butterfly:

Dude I don't even have the game I was just making the point that it's a bit far fetched to just expect people to turn the game off.

Ah, but that is the point. The game tells you: "Go kill those people!" and you think, oh well, I guess I gotta do it since the game told me to and I don't see any other options. Of course its far fetched to turn the game off, hardly anyone is gonna do that and will then continue and murder innocent people. Only because the game doesn't tell you there are other options doesn't mean that there aren't any. The whole game is about Walker only seeing the one option of killing Konrad no matter the cost. Even though he could have just walked away. (pun not intended) I can see I'm getting on your nerves, Ill stop now. :D

SonicWaffle:
-- snip --

There's a difference between getting your moneys worth and thinking that a product was actually worth the money.

Fair enough. I get your point of wanting to get everything possible out of something you paid for and quitting would interfere with that. The game probably never expects you to quit but it wants you to at least consider that you have the option to do so and don't HAVE TO kill innocent people only because that is the only choice the game gives you.

SonicWaffle:
I forgive you. I am a benevolent god.

All hail SonicWaffle, king and benevolent leader of all Waffles!

SonicWaffle:

We've just become used to that being the way things work; sure we can refuse, turn off the game and go outside to play with puppies in the sunshine, but then we're depriving ourselves of the content we paid for. We just do what the game tells us to do without thinking, because that's all we've ever done - shoot this, go here, collect that, brutally murder all those indigenous tribespeople. Of course we unthinkingly follow what you tell us to do, game - you're a game!

And isn't that willful and eager obedience just ever so slightly problematic considering our new fascination with the 'realistic' portrayal of modern war? Brendan Keogh makes an interesting point concerning the game when he classifies it as post-Bioshock: Bioshock tried to show that you never made a choice in a game but were only following the path others had in mind, Spec Ops argues that you are still complicit, because of the choices outside of the medium. You are committed to finish the game now you bought it, but really why buy something like this or any modern military brown shooter in the first place? To say that these safe, othering and dehumanizing games simply exist and we might as well play them neglects the power we as consumers hold over the market.

Haha, true but it works.
It makes you feel as if the idea was yours then lets you wollow in grief over what you've done.

SonicWaffle:
Snip

Before talking about it play the game.
I may sound like a dick saying it but it's something you have to experience and see for yourself to understand completely.
The main reason I found the joke in this comic to be hilarious because it's what the game basically does but it does it so well through the writing and mechanics. I think that was what Grey was trying to convey aswell, I mean he did put it in his top 5.

MANIFESTER:

Zhukov:
[snip]

I am curious, however, as to what you think it could of done to make the game better?

That's a good question.

I suppose the obvious answer would be to provide some choice then only try and guilt trip the player for the nasty things they choose to do. However, that would kind of... miss the point I suppose? What do you do if someone plays the game as a complete saint? Have Konrad shake their hand and give them a pat on the back at the end? It would derail the whole character arc.

I guess for this kind of thing to work you have to make the plater want to commit atrocities. I don't know how to do that, but I do know that Spec Ops didn't manage it (In the scene with the angry mob I just fired into the air to scare them off. Given what Walker and Co had done earlier I thought that, in the absence of any law enforcement, the locals were well within their rights to do a bit of lynching).

Perhaps you could give the player the option to simply have Walker turn around and walk away at any point. After all, I spent a lot of the game wondering why he didn't report back to his superiors at some point since I'm pretty damn sure his original orders didn't cover fighting rogue US soldiers. That way it would be the player's own curiosity driving them on. Of course, then you have the problem that if the player chooses to have Walker quit the scene they'll never see the cool ending and will essentially be screwing themselves out of content.

So I guess my answer to your question is... I have no bloody idea.

Mojo:

Moonlight Butterfly:

Dude I don't even have the game I was just making the point that it's a bit far fetched to just expect people to turn the game off.

Ah, but that is the point. The game tells you: "Go kill those people!" and you think, oh well, I guess I gotta do it since the game told me to and I don't see any other options. Of course its far fetched to turn the game off, hardly anyone is gonna do that and will then continue and murder innocent people. Only because the game doesn't tell you there are other options doesn't mean that there aren't any. The whole game is about Walker only seeing the one option of killing Konrad no matter the cost. Even though he could have just walked away. (pun not intended) I can see I'm getting on your nerves, Ill stop now. :D

You aren't annoying me at all. I just don't see why you think it's normal that someone wouldn't want to play the game they just paid for. No one is going to pay for a game and then just switch it off half way through.

SonicWaffle:

ccdohl:
On another note, does the society in Starship Troopers worship the army? Because when I read the book and watched the movie, they both featured numerous civilians who discouraged the main character from joining, or disparaged his choice from another branch, like the navy, or from the outside.

I mean, maybe they had some harsh punishment for criminals, but so does Singapore, and we don't call them fascist, at least when we use the word correctly.

The only people with the right to vote were those who served in the military. It was the basis of their democracy. So yeah, I'd call that a form of worship, making veterans the only people whose voices matter.

That's what you'd call worship? It's a bit like saying that the United States worships non-felons over the age of 18, but okay.

DeadpanLunatic:

SonicWaffle:
We've just become used to that being the way things work; sure we can refuse, turn off the game and go outside to play with puppies in the sunshine, but then we're depriving ourselves of the content we paid for. We just do what the game tells us to do without thinking, because that's all we've ever done - shoot this, go here, collect that, brutally murder all those indigenous tribespeople. Of course we unthinkingly follow what you tell us to do, game - you're a game!

And isn't that willful and eager obedience just ever so slightly problematic considering our new fascination with the 'realistic' portrayal of modern war?

Personally, I don't think it is problematic. It's a game. We are aware it's a game. If you actually put a gun in my hand and said "shoot that guy!" I'd tell you to go fuck yourself, because I'm aware of the distinction between games and reality.

If we didn't follow the instructions that video games give us, we'd never play them at all. We'd just stand there, as our avatar, ignoring the map marker/giant flashing arrow/annoying fairy companion telling us to go somewhere and do something. I don't see there being anything sinister about that, even if the action we're being told to carry out is something we'd never do outside of the game, as long as we're aware that it isn't real even if it represents a real (or potentially real) event.

DeadpanLunatic:
Brendan Keogh makes an interesting point concerning the game when he classifies it as post-Bioshock: Bioshock tried to show that you never made a choice in a game but were only following the path others had in mind, Spec Ops argues that you are still complicit, because of the choices outside of the medium. You are committed to finish the game now you bought it, but really why buy something like this or any modern military brown shooter in the first place?

Because to some people, these games are fun. That's all it comes down to. Certainly we're complicit in the industry trends, but these games have become an industry trend because people enjoy them. It doesn't always have to be deeper than that. It goes back to the idea that we're aware of it as a game - running around with a shotgun is the sort of thing that's fun so long as we know it isn't real and nobody is getting hurt.

Does playing Arkham Asylum mean the player is supporting vigilantism? I think it just means having fun with a game while also getting to be Batman, because fuck yeah Batman. Playing Minecraft isn't showing your support for the construction industry. Playing a Modern Military Shooter (or, to use Yahtzee's absolutely hoorendous term which several idiots have been parroting everywhere, "spunkgargleweewee") is similarly not automatically a show of support for the actions of the modern military or subtle approval of violence and racism.

DeadpanLunatic:
To say that these safe, othering and dehumanizing games simply exist and we might as well play them neglects the power we as consumers hold over the market.

Consumers do hold power over the market. This type of game (or at least, the type of game Spec Ops is presenting itself to be) is very popular. Taking the two facts together, what does that tell you? To me, it says that first-person shooters are fun, and that in the most part they're not too bothered if they're shooting terrorists or aliens or demons as long as the game is an enjoyable experience.

Moonlight Butterfly:

You aren't annoying me at all. I just don't see why you think it's normal that someone wouldn't want to play the game they just paid for. No one is going to pay for a game and then just switch it off half way through.

Of course you want to play a game you just paid money for, nothing wrong with that. But as "DeadpanLunatic" pointed out a few posts above (and I tried to in my posts) is that Spec Ops is about blind obedience. You paid money for the game and the game told you to do something, better do it since you don't have a choice, right? But you DO have a choice. Spec Ops doesn't expect you to quit, but I wants you to think about the choices you made and consider if you maybe did have other options even if they weren't made clear in a ingame dialog or menu.

What makes The Line brilliant isn't the way it - quite boldly, for a game - suggests that the American military might not be the force for universal good it's often made out to be, and that our collective obsession with violence, both real and imagined, might not be healthy.

A German dev making a negative statement about the US military really isn't being very bold. The game is a lot of things, but I'll never get how people can seriously call it daring. The "you think you're a hero but objectively you're actually doing pretty shitty things" angle is also extremely basic for German - and pretty much all other - anti-war material.

Shinsei-J:

SonicWaffle:
Snip

Before talking about it play the game.
I may sound like a dick saying it but it's something you have to experience and see for yourself to understand completely.
The main reason I found the joke in this comic to be hilarious because it's what the game basically does but it does it so well through the writing and mechanics. I think that was what Grey was trying to convey aswell, I mean he did put it in his top 5.

Thing is, I think I've left it too late. Everyone has been talking about this game, for months now, and it's been impossible to avoid spoilers. I've got an understanding of the plot, the character arc, the message the game is trying to convey - given that the actual gameplay is generally described as mediocre-to-bad, I don't think I could force myself to sit through it just to find out things I already know.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here