• naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

    • Kaboom@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      A lot of gamers thought it was forced. Its just bad communication with the player.

      • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

        • Kaboom@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.