I dunno how you could miss it in Spec Ops, that game is extremely blatant with messaging. I recently patient gamered it and was rather unimpressed. Bioshock still holds up though.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 15 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

IMO it was a mistake to patient gamer Spec Ops. The whole point was that it was a pushback against the rhetoric of the US military and simultaneously a critique of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare (and knockoffs thereof), which had just exploded in popularity. By not playing it when the things it was critiquing were in the zeitgeist, you don't really get the same experience. Plus, the marketing for the game deliberately hid the fact that it was intended as a critique; it was marketed as yet another modern military shooter.

[–] criss_cross@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I think you can patient gamer it but it only works if you're heavily familiar with that time.

I was really into COD4 and grew up during the Bush administration so I knew exactly what Spec Ops was critiquing. If you don't have that experience though I agree it does not land.

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

What I didn’t like was the blunt messaging. I was expecting something a little deeper or more subtle than what I got. As a game, the clunky movement/cover system, simple enemy AI, and guns that just didn’t feel great hampered the experience. It’s very linear and there are forced choices (eg white phosphorus) that give you control but no choice but to be evil. The graphics are lackluster compared to its contemporaries, but I did enjoy the soundtrack at times. I really got into it with a few of those songs. Unfortunately that only happened a few times during the weekend I beat it in. It was okay, but I was expecting a lot more based on what people said about it.

[–] Aqarius@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

Appropriately for the thread, the WP scene had a choice: walk away. It kept telling Walker to walk away. The player could have shut the game off.

That's the pivot point: if you're just playing a game about Walker, then having a choice doesn't matter, you're just being told a story about a lunatic. But, if Walker is a stand-in for you, and you're playing the game "because you wanted to be something you're not - a hero", then not only is playing on a choice, choosing to play war porn in the first place is a choice.

[–] legion@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I was expecting something a little deeper or more subtle than what I got.

That's the problem when these things gain reputations. The reputation builds it up to be more than the piece of art can deliver.

Now imagine playing it when it was new and you weren't "expecting" anything but a military shooter. It would still be just as blunt, but it landed back then far more effectively than when you go in knowing the reputation the game has built in the many years that followed.

[–] criss_cross@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yeah that's fair.

IMO a lot of the subtlety comes from the imagery and symbols around you as you progress through the game. The vibrant tree that you pass that burns up when you look back, etc.

As far as gameplay goes it is very linear. The only "choice" is to stop playing. If I remember correctly the development behind Spec Ops was very rushed so they didn't have time to so any of those branching paths.

I appreciate it like I would a visual novel more than I do an interactive game.

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 months ago

a lot of the subtlety comes from the imagery and symbols around you as you progress through the game

One of the things I did appreciate about the game was seeing how grimy and worn down everyone got as the game progressed. That was an excellent small detail.