this post was submitted on 27 May 2024
160 points (85.4% liked)
Games
32242 readers
1126 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Spec Ops actually did have choices where you could be good (or at least less bad), but ironically people missed them because they didn't think being good would work.
For example, at one point you're being harassed by an angry mob of locals. A lot of players simply shot them because a lifetime of experience with shooters told them that no other input would be recognized. But in actuality, if you fired warning shots at the ground or over their heads the civilians would flee without incident.
I didnt know that. After the forced willie pete bit, I thought all the other bits were forced too. Specs op unintentionally set a rule "if theres a choice, youll be forced to take the evil one" which made the entire thing feel obnoxious.
I think you're actually engaging with it a bit shallowly. You are the one who invented the rule and a different framing is exploring how, if games seem to put us in situations where we must do horrible things to advance even a couple of times, we take that as a rule instead of risking losing to find other ways.
Which is a fairly glaring indictment of the whole military shooter genre which is all about "hard men and hard choices" that completely dehumanise the factions you're in opposition to.
A lot of gamers thought it was forced. Its just bad communication with the player.
Military shooter games glorify war and shallowly reward horrible behaviour. Spec ops does it differently.
Majority of people: do horrible thing
Some people: experimental and find heroic thing is rewarded.
Discussion possible, why did the majority do that? could we talk about horrible and uncreative design patterns in the genre of military shooters? How media portrayals of war train us not to look for peaceful solutions? Whether this feeds into how we view American imperial wars?
you: no spec ops bad video game because I didn't do the good option.
People did experiment, in the first scene with the wp. That experiment told them that the game would force you to make evil decisions to continue playing. I saw that narratively there was a good option, but the game told me that that option wasnt available in the WP scene.
you get that this wouldn't work as a critique if it was obvious you could make different choices right? Then it wouldn't make the player complicit. If you're not complicit it's just a game saying "military shooters could be different" which is a nothing statement.
Like how games with a "get the information (evil)" and "get the information (good)" button aren't offering real moral choices. Or how deus ex would lose all impact if the "here's a gun, go kill these people" starting mission tempting you with a rocket launcher popped up a "you might change sides in the future" warning.
By involving you, leading you just like any other military shooter for a bit then cutting you loose is what creates the critique. You compare notes after playing and someone points out something and you go "huh, why didn't I try that?". It's not condemning you for not trying that, it's asking you if you're happy with a genre which trains you to never to try it.
If the player doesnt know the choice exists, and has reason to think the choice doesnt exist, then the choice is kinda moot, isnt it? In any case, my original point was a lot of complaints were really about bad writing.