Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
DID U KNO… KILLING IS BAD???
Posts
bulmabriefs144
View playlists
CloseNo. Army games do nothing of the sort.
If you're playing video games of this type, you're effectively getting passively scouted by the military.
What I'm saying is having someone whack something with an axe and no blood, is not nonviolence. The first point about teaching consequences, is more or less what I just said. But this is better served by showing a pathline (sort of like Fable), only with more plausible consequences (less horns vs halo, more villagers wanting to hunt you down for killing their children). Army games? Nah, any such message goes out the window, because the players are there specifically to blow stuff up.
If you're playing video games of this type, you're effectively getting passively scouted by the military.
What I'm saying is having someone whack something with an axe and no blood, is not nonviolence. The first point about teaching consequences, is more or less what I just said. But this is better served by showing a pathline (sort of like Fable), only with more plausible consequences (less horns vs halo, more villagers wanting to hunt you down for killing their children). Army games? Nah, any such message goes out the window, because the players are there specifically to blow stuff up.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Well, blowing stuff up is good too I guess
Shinan
4314
So I finished Spec Ops yesterday and I just want to say that I thought that it was very effective at what it tried to do. I had read previously a fair amount about the meta-commentary it was though I had tried to stay away from very specific spoilers. So going in I was fully aware of most of the things going on. But I still managed to be surprised occasionally and as I said I still thought that the game was very effective especially towards the end.
Now there's one point that is insanely effective in my opinion and the effectiveness of it is all about not being pre-spoiled about this specific sequence. The "white phosphorus" is all about being railroaded on the plot wagon and is very heavy-handed but there's a point later where you are... Well I'll just put this in spoilers and be warned this is really spoilerific so if you are like me and ever wanted to play this game somewhat unspoiled and waited until it was cheap (-75% should bring it down to 5€ on Steam at the moment. I was a sucker and bought it for 7.50€) don't read this spoiler bit.
So there's this bit when one of your comrades has died and an angry mob of civilians is... well... mobbing you. There seems to be nothing you can do but kill some civilians to get through. This is what the game does excellently. On a couple of occasions previously in the game it has given you a choice. Do X or do Y. In one previous instance there was also the hidden option Z. In this case there seems to be no other option than to shoot the civilians to get through. Just like in the "white phosphorous", where there is no choice. The action is forced on the player.
But there is a different choice. It's an obvious choice in hindsight which is why it's best not to be spoiled aoubt it previously but in the heat of the moment the "training" you've been through is doing its thing. In essentially all similar video games you've ever played you have to shoot your way through. When all you have is a hammer all problems are a nail.
But you can (**megaspoilerbitchjustsaying**)just shoot up in the air to scatter the civilians. This is not a game mechanic that has been introduced previously. This is not a hamfisted moral choice where you pick renegade or paragon this is just a gameplay option that is so obvious yet in the moment it's very far from your mind. Even I who knew I didn't want to kill the civilians I tried really hard to figure out how to "beat the game" and the thought of shooting into the air didn't really occur to me. I tried doing nothing but that got me stoned (and thus killed) and it was by sheer luck that I managed that part without killing the civilians. Doing something that really shouldn't have worked (I lobbed a grenade over the people and apparently it didn't register hits in the back of the mob or something because they just scattered after the explosion)
So yeah sure the game's not massively deep or insightful. What it says are obvious things really. But the fact is that it kinda is the first game to say these things and although you can point and books and movies and maybe an indie game or two there's something to be said for the balls of making this game. I mean the first act is completely the "bro-shooter" all those other games are and there's a twist ending in this game that maybe shouldn't completely work but it makes sense in a weird way and although I won't replay it I've heard it makes sense when you play it through those eyes too.
I guess the article series on Twenty Sided (which is the blog I love to read) summed it up pretty nicely in the opening paragraph.
Hrm yeah this massive post is probably my thought about spec ops that I too had to share because now I too have played it and just like every other goon on the internet I too had to have an opinion about it that I just had to share because... well. It's the internet I suppose.
Now there's one point that is insanely effective in my opinion and the effectiveness of it is all about not being pre-spoiled about this specific sequence. The "white phosphorus" is all about being railroaded on the plot wagon and is very heavy-handed but there's a point later where you are... Well I'll just put this in spoilers and be warned this is really spoilerific so if you are like me and ever wanted to play this game somewhat unspoiled and waited until it was cheap (-75% should bring it down to 5€ on Steam at the moment. I was a sucker and bought it for 7.50€) don't read this spoiler bit.
So there's this bit when one of your comrades has died and an angry mob of civilians is... well... mobbing you. There seems to be nothing you can do but kill some civilians to get through. This is what the game does excellently. On a couple of occasions previously in the game it has given you a choice. Do X or do Y. In one previous instance there was also the hidden option Z. In this case there seems to be no other option than to shoot the civilians to get through. Just like in the "white phosphorous", where there is no choice. The action is forced on the player.
But there is a different choice. It's an obvious choice in hindsight which is why it's best not to be spoiled aoubt it previously but in the heat of the moment the "training" you've been through is doing its thing. In essentially all similar video games you've ever played you have to shoot your way through. When all you have is a hammer all problems are a nail.
But you can (**megaspoilerbitchjustsaying**)just shoot up in the air to scatter the civilians. This is not a game mechanic that has been introduced previously. This is not a hamfisted moral choice where you pick renegade or paragon this is just a gameplay option that is so obvious yet in the moment it's very far from your mind. Even I who knew I didn't want to kill the civilians I tried really hard to figure out how to "beat the game" and the thought of shooting into the air didn't really occur to me. I tried doing nothing but that got me stoned (and thus killed) and it was by sheer luck that I managed that part without killing the civilians. Doing something that really shouldn't have worked (I lobbed a grenade over the people and apparently it didn't register hits in the back of the mob or something because they just scattered after the explosion)
So yeah sure the game's not massively deep or insightful. What it says are obvious things really. But the fact is that it kinda is the first game to say these things and although you can point and books and movies and maybe an indie game or two there's something to be said for the balls of making this game. I mean the first act is completely the "bro-shooter" all those other games are and there's a twist ending in this game that maybe shouldn't completely work but it makes sense in a weird way and although I won't replay it I've heard it makes sense when you play it through those eyes too.
I guess the article series on Twenty Sided (which is the blog I love to read) summed it up pretty nicely in the opening paragraph.
Spec Ops asks the question: What would happen if your typical action-game badass lived in a world with consequences?.He mentions a difference between the white phosphorus scene and other similar scenes in other games is that once it's over you're not taken to a debriefing screen where your score goes down because you hit a civilian or two while doing the mission. Instead you are actually taking a walk through what you've done after you've done it.
Hrm yeah this massive post is probably my thought about spec ops that I too had to share because now I too have played it and just like every other goon on the internet I too had to have an opinion about it that I just had to share because... well. It's the internet I suppose.
