Support NeoGAF

[Of All Trades]

RE: Of All Trades

I don't think Yoko Taro "caved in" in any respect on his vision, he simply elected to pare away all uneccessary exposition so as not to make the story more confusing than necessary. Very admirable in my opinion. Ultimately as a story element Kaine's hermaphroditism is merely serves the central motif of "what you see, may be deceptive".

I'm saying that her status was extremely poorly indicated, and IMO requires a massive and unreasonable leap by the player to assume that a character in the game described in Other terms isn't simply infected by the (somewhat abandoned in the 2nd half of A and almost entirely by the end of B) concept virus.

I know appeals to middle ground aren't a lot of fun but there's a huge range between being given almost no information/being required to read dev interviews to figure out what the intention was and Kojima-esque exposition-dumps. And given how largely uninteresting, pointless and repetitive most of the side quests are I'm not sure I'd call the decision to leave out a single line of massively character-defining dialogue as admirable.

Her "otherness" is dealt with separately from her possession in the long text section at the start of scenario B in a fairly subtle and sympathetic way, so I can't say I agree with your argument that her dress style is just another piece of Japanese sexism, its just another example of the game playfully subverting familiar genre tropes and expectations. She's hardly a character that acts in the least bit soft or sexy at any point in the story.

Except the game was released in an environment where Japanese games (or games somewhat emulating Japanese games) are somewhat frequently released with characters who aren't really soft or sexy or have any real traits to speak of are depicted in ridiculous costumes, and again, Neir had costume DLC for Kaine to make her even more ridiculous. Which would (possibly) be fine if the game actually put much effort into trope subversion but by barely doing so in-game the end result is that the subversion fails.

Anyway, the point is that Neir, while unfortunately not getting all the attention it deserves, is not being ignored out of cultural imperialism. It didn't get attention largely because it had little advertising, the marketing (in a way much like spec ops) highlighted the negative (yet another shooter, pervert fantasy game), and it requires a massive time sink to get the final in-game content. I also don't think it's nearly as subversive as it's heavier supporters claim, again largely due to the time sink.

 

[zaxon]

Out of interest, for people who like what this game was doing, when it says that people who like CoD are terrible people, do you think they are talking about you or someone else?

The questions and moral struggles the game raises were all internal for me, and that's been the case in pretty much every review/critique of the game I've seen.

The point of the game is not that players of dudebro shooters are fundamentally rotten people, it is that the passivity with which we accept this form of entertainment is troublesome and worth questioning.

 

[Boerseun]

Sorry to harp on about this, but although I quite enjoyed that video and roundly agreed with the sentiments it raises most of the larger issues it mentions should be self-evident to anyone with any sort of social conscience or understanding of history.

Militarism is not good. For anyone but the evil fucks who make vast profits from the sale of arms and spoils of war. Its an industry of death.

War-porn shooters are obviously operating in some deeply suspect moral areas especially when they deal with contemporary situations and locales. Its making light disposable entertainment out of inhuman atrocities, and whichever side of the political divide your conscience places you, you simply cannot discount the fact that its celebrating human sacrifice. Not to abuse the meme, but this really, really, is serious business.

Beyond that obvious socio-political dimension, what the game is doing is, as I mentioned in my previous post, pretty much exactly the same things that Nier did two years ago.

The framework that game worked in was the classical hero's journey mythology of the JRPG genre, whereas The Line works within the tropes of the military shooter. Cultural and presentational issues aside, the aspects of the human condition being addressed are the same.

Nier's fantastical milieu grants it license to go even deeper down the rabbit-hole and play even further with the "face of the enemy" motif that is absolutely central to the point these games are making.

What concerns me, and why this post is absolutely not about criticism of SO:TL as a work in itself, is that the way this title is being highlighted whereas Nier was roundly ignored, seems like yet another case of cultural imperialism at work.

You want to elevate discourse, you need to be able to look past superficial aspects of presentation to what these "texts" are actually saying.

Drop the Nier-related bits from your post and I tend to agree with you. The bolded stuff in particular is very, very good.

 

[Riposte]

I suspect this will get a a lot of attention because of what it is rather than because of its contents, much in the same way a feminist using tv tropes to talk about videogames got a lot of attention.

EDIT: You can oppose militarism and still receive a lot of pleasure from "war-porn" escapism. We are attracted to violence and danger.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

I suspect this will get a a lot of attention because of what it is rather than because of its contents, much in the same way a feminist using tv tropes to talk about videogames got a lot of attention.

or a misanthrope using GAF to discuss game mechanics?

 

[Riposte]

or a misanthrope using GAF to discuss game mechanics?

I've failed to find your point.

 

[Parham]

Hopefully, Keogh doesn't do anything crazy with the formatting. I would prefer to convert this to AZW and read it on my Kindle.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

I've failed to find your point.

it's simple, sometimes people get a lot of attention on gaf because they take a dismissive and ultimately misanthropic attitude towards their fellow posters rather than the actual content of their posts, most of which could be roughly summarised as "everything other people enjoy is shit".

 

[Odrion]

Sure why not.

Could we get Chris Remo to write a book on Far Cry 2?

 

[Riposte]

it's simple, sometimes people get a lot of attention on gaf because they take a dismissive and ultimately misanthropic attitude towards their fellow posters rather than the actual content of their posts, most of which could be roughly summarised as "everything other people enjoy is shit".

I suppose you are accusing me of this?

 

[jim-jam bongs]

I suppose you are accusing me of this?

perhaps I am, but further discussion along those lines would hardly be constructive. just as your post I originally quoted does nothing to further the discussion which could be had in this thread.

 

[Eidan]

My litmus test for if a piece of entertainment (I usually apply this to movies, but here I'll apply to this game) is that it is A) enjoyable on the surface level, and that B) it has something deeper and interesting about it. A Micheal Bay movie might be cool explosions and giant robots that's neat to look at, but it offers little else, so it fails part B. I watched The Sky Crawlers, which has meaty sub-text and is a confounding bore to watch through, so it passes part B but fails part A. It's the ones that get both that find themselves on my shelves.

Spec Ops is purely part B. It's a critique of the industry, but that doesn't do the game I'm playing any favors. It doesn't do the gameplay any good, since it decides to critique dudebro military corridor shooters by being a military corridor shooter, just a sub-par one. Yes I know behind the scenes in development the story came after the decision to make it a military shooter, but that doesn't help the end product any. So it's gameplay isn't that good so it has to get by on it's story. Well the story gives the illusion of choice when there isn't, which is frustrating. Then game then goes on to basically say "Fuck you for playing this game". No fuck you game, I could have had better uses of my time (the more I think about this game and discuss this game the more I've come to despise it). The game is a neat critique, sure, but playing it is a boring, frustrating experience and the game berates you for doing so.

And if the game is arguing the only right choice is to not play the game, then judging by the sales numbers, most people made the right choice.

Edit: To more specifically answer the question poised to me, I want the game to tell both stories. But the game is only interested in using Walker's story as a vehicle for critique, even if it's to the detriment of Walker's story (no choices). But I'm not playing a critique, I'm playing Walker's story. Walker's story is the story I'm invested in during the minute-to-minute of gameplay, but the game only truly cares about the story as a critique. When I finish the game, I don't care how good the critique is because I'm so frustrated playing Walker's story.

Are you proposing that introducing "good" choice "bad" choice mechanics into the game would have made the story stronger?

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

There is "good" and "bad" choices in Spec Ops the Line... they just don't alter the fundamental ending

Spoiler

s

at all.

 

[Eidan]

As in the choices don't get in the way of the point trying to be made.

 

[ErikB]

Are you proposing that introducing "good" choice "bad" choice mechanics into the game would have made the story stronger?

Well, at the moment you are kinda stupid if you finish the game. Not sure that is ideal either.

 

[PBalfredo]

Are you proposing that introducing "good" choice "bad" choice mechanics into the game would have made the story stronger?

No.

There are games that are completely linear. And that's fine. There are games that are very open-ended and respond heavily to player choice. And that's fine too. What's not fine is games that pretend to be the latter, but in fact are the former. And those games are completely infuriating. Spec Ops is that game. If Spec Ops wanted to present the purely linear story of How Walker Fucked Everything Up And That's Horrible, fine. If Spec Ops wants to tell the story of how the player fucked everything up when presented with a false choice and it's all their fault, that is not fine.

Alternately, I would have enjoyed a meaningful choice in my game, even if it wasn't the "good" choice. I'm perfectly fine with "Damned if you do, damned if you don't choices". The way I would have tackled the white phosphorus situation if I was the game's developer would to allow the player to try to fight through the enemy forces. But that would have lead to the death of one of the squad mates. Then in the rest of the game, the remaining squadmate berates Walker for risking their lives because he needed the feeling of moral superiority by refusing to use the white phospherus, even if it would have assured the safety of the squad. Or some variation. As long as the game allows the player to make their own choices, even if it's a choice betweeen "bad" and "bad", instead of being berated for "choices" the game makes for you.

 

[Riposte]

perhaps I am, but further discussion along those lines would hardly be constructive. just as your post I originally quoted does nothing to further the discussion which could be had in this thread.

Would you feel better if I posted it in the "Game Journalism" thread? The fact someone wrote a book (!!!) on a single game (!!!) is immediately more exciting than someone talking about the themes of Spec Ops for a hundred or two pages (something that seems difficult to justify when you should be able to do that in an essay that is tenth the size, stuff like going through each "chapter" of the game comes off as excessive). It will be on Giant Bomb's "Worth Reading" for sure, where it be noted to be "interesting" despite its main differential qualities from other (free) write ups on Spec Op are length and format. I believe an unsubstantial take on this will be attractive to many because it brings about the image of "legitimacy".

I'm hardly a misanthrope, btw. That accusation has no real grounding in reality.

 

[Jackpot]

Do not listen to a single word ErikB is saying. He couldn't be more wrong.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

There is a loot of books written for single works of fiction. Some good, some bad, some excellent, some horrible... but is not particularly anormal

 

[ErikB]

Do not listen to a single word ErikB is saying. He couldn't be more wrong.

What? They made a game only stupid people who want to be told off by a hippy would finish. I don't think that is a good idea.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

No.

There are games that are completely linear. And that's fine. There are games that are very open-ended and respond heavily to player choice. And that's fine too. What's not fine is games that pretend to be the latter, but in fact are the former. And those games are completely infuriating. Spec Ops is that game. If Spec Ops wanted to present the purely linear story of How Walker Fucked Everything Up And That's Horrible, fine. If Spec Ops wants to tell the story of how the player fucked everything up when presented with a false choice and it's all their fault, that is not fine.

Alternately, I would have enjoyed a meaningful choice in my game, even if it wasn't the "good" choice. I'm perfectly fine with "Damned if you do, damned if you don't choices". The way I would have tackled the white phosphorus situation if I was the game's developer would to allow the player to try to fight through the enemy forces. But that would have lead to the death of one of the squad mates. Then in the rest of the game, the remaining squadmate berates Walker for risking their lives because he needed the feeling of moral superiority by refusing to use the white phospherus, even if it would have assured the safety of the squad. Or some variation. As long as the game allows the player to make their own choices, even if it's a choice betweeen "bad" and "bad", instead of being berated for "choices" the game makes for you.

though I tend to agree with this idea (it's one of the reasons the witcher series is so fantastic) choice in games can be especially powerful when it's nonexistent, because player agency is always so heavily lauded by critics and fans. in spec ops, and also BioShock, the absence of choice in key moments is necessary to establish a point about the illusion of choice in games, so I felt it worked well in context.

Would you feel better if I posted it in the "Game Journalism" thread? The fact someone wrote a book (!!!) on a single game (!!!) is immediately more exciting than someone talking about the themes of Spec Ops for a hundred or two pages (something that seems difficult to justify when you should be able to do that in an essay that is tenth the size, stuff like going through each "chapter" of the game comes off as excessive). It will be on Giant Bomb's "Worth Reading" for sure, where it be noted to be "interesting" despite its main differential qualities from other (free) write ups on Spec Op are length and format. I believe an unsubstantial take on this will be attractive to many because it brings about the image of "legitimacy".

I'm hardly a misanthrope, btw. That accusation has no real grounding in reality.

yada yada yada. yes we get it, this is all part of a liberal conspiracy to fill our vidyer games with clumsy attempts to achieve legitimacy for the medium, so let's all scoff at these pathetic psuedo-intellectuals.

 

[Izick]

From what I've gathered, it's a mediocre game with an interesting story.

 

[sp3000]

What? They made a game only stupid people who want to be told off by a hippy would finish. I don't think that is a good idea.

Says the guy who is obsessed with RE6

 

[jim-jam bongs]

From what I've gathered, it's a mediocre game with an interesting story.

most of the time this would be a bad thing, but the story and the telling of it really are spectacular.

 

[Riposte]

yada yada yada. yes we get it, this is all part of a liberal conspiracy to fill our vidyer games with clumsy attempts to achieve legitimacy for the medium, so let's all scoff at these pathetic psuedo-intellectuals.

Uh-huh. And I'm the rude one here.

 

[ErikB]

though I tend to agree with this idea (it's one of the reasons the witcher series is so fantastic) choice in games can be especially powerful when it's nonexistent, because player agency is always so heavily lauded by critics and fans. in spec ops, and also BioShock, the absence of choice in key moments is necessary to establish a point about the illusion of choice in games, so I felt it worked well in context.

I have a whole heap of games I've never finished though. One that doesn' want me to and will tell me off if I do isn't... I dunno. Just stop playing it. It is what it wants anyway.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Uh-huh. And I'm the rude one here.

oh we're both exceedingly obnoxious, that's why I enjoy these chats of ours so much

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

From what I've gathered, it's a mediocre game with an interesting story.

The gameplay is mediocre, but it works with the ideas presented by the game and the narrative (and some nice and subtle touches in the interaction part).

As a shooter is tedious boring and frustrating, as a video game (in the sense of a interactive medium) is good.

 

[Parham]

From what I've gathered, it's a mediocre game with an interesting story.

Depends on who you ask. The general consensus on GAF has been exactly that; however, I would be inclined to disagree. In my opinion, both the story and gameplay are equally bad. With that said, Spec Ops has been on sale a couple of times and it doesn't take very long to finish. I suggest trying the game out before forming an opinion on it.

 

[ErikB]

and doesn't take very long to finish.

Although if you finish it, you were not paying attention...

 

[D-e-f-]

This is awesome. And useful! Will buy!

 

[Eidan]

No.

There are games that are completely linear. And that's fine. There are games that are very open-ended and respond heavily to player choice. And that's fine too. What's not fine is games that pretend to be the latter, but in fact are the former. And those games are completely infuriating. Spec Ops is that game. If Spec Ops wanted to present the purely linear story of How Walker Fucked Everything Up And That's Horrible, fine. If Spec Ops wants to tell the story of how the player fucked everything up when presented with a false choice and it's all their fault, that is not fine.

Alternately, I would have enjoyed a meaningful choice in my game, even if it wasn't the "good" choice. I'm perfectly fine with "Damned if you do, damned if you don't choices". The way I would have tackled the white phosphorus situation if I was the game's developer would to allow the player to try to fight through the enemy forces. But that would have lead to the death of one of the squad mates. Then in the rest of the game, the remaining squadmate berates Walker for risking their lives because he needed the feeling of moral superiority by refusing to use the white phospherus, even if it would have assured the safety of the squad. Or some variation. As long as the game allows the player to make their own choices, even if it's a choice betweeen "bad" and "bad", instead of being berated for "choices" the game makes for you.

There's nothing wrong with your scenario necessarily, but I don't see how it strengthens the story at all. If anything it just muddles or obscures the themes that the game is to advance.

Besides, I don't understand this preoccupation with choice in scripted sequences, when the game goes out of its way to condemn ALL of the violence being committed, which can't be avoided. Which, again, is the point.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

oh we're both exceedingly obnoxious, that's why I enjoy these chats of ours so much

Tell me, do you go out of your way to post like a horse's ass, or is this just your natural state of being?

Reading this conversation has been a bizarre experience.

 

[Absoludacrous]

What? They made a game only stupid people who want to be told off by a hippy would finish. I don't think that is a good idea.

It's not about being "called stupid by a hippy." It's about having a game actually make you think for once about what you're actually doing. You're coming to conclusions about a message you've never actually seen, delivered in a way that's more subtle than anything you've posted in this thread.

Really the game is a commentary more on you, and people like you who have dismissed it as "hippy preaching" without playing it, than anyone who has actually finished the game.

 

[The Awesomest]

I have a whole heap of games I've never finished though. One that doesn' want me to and will tell me off if I do isn't... I dunno. Just stop playing it. It is what it wants anyway.

Although if you finish it, you were not paying attention...

To anyone who has played this:

Does the game ever tell you to stop playing it? Does it tell you off or berate you for playing it?

My impression from this thread is that it doesn't. It seems like it simply calls into question the mindset that one has entered in order to play games in its genre, namely the fantasy of the military hero shooting the bad guys and being heroic.

 

[ErikB]

Really the game is a commentary more on you, and people like you who have dismissed it as "hippy preaching" without playing it, than anyone who has actually finished the game.

Or is it a commentary on you, who thinks people deserve to be told off by a hippy for their choice of entertainment, who but continued JVST FOLLOWING ORDERS in the best Nazi tradition?

Didn't you realise you could stop playing?

 

[ViewtifulJC]

To anyone who has played this:

Does the game ever tell you to stop playing it? Does it tell you off or berate you for playing it?

"How many Americans have you killed today?"

They like that line

 

[abadguy]

The gameplay is mediocre, but it works with the ideas presented by the game and the narrative (and some nice and subtle touches in the interaction part).

As a shooter is tedious boring and frustrating, as a video game (in the sense of a interactive medium) is good.

This is why i have been hesitant in picking this up. I can appreciate a great story as well as a deconstruction of a genre as much as anyone, but at the same time this is a video game. The gameplay part should always be the top priority IMO, or whats the point? One could just save their money and watch it on Youtube for the story.

 

[PBalfredo]

There's nothing wrong necessarily with your scenario necessarily, but I don't see how it strengthens the story at all. If anything it just muddles or obscures the themes that the game is to advance.

Besides, I don't understand this preoccupation with choice in scripted sequences, when the game goes out of its way to condemn ALL of the violence being committed, which can't be avoided. Which, again, is the point.

It strengthens the story because when the game later goes on to say "Hey, remember that thing you did? That was totally fucked." it only resonates if it was something the player chose to do. When the game tries to guilt me for the thing it forced me to do, I just get indignant, which is not the emotion the story is trying to elicit from me.

 

[28 Posts Later]

If Spec Ops wanted to present the purely linear story of How Walker Fucked Everything Up And That's Horrible, fine. If Spec Ops wants to tell the story of how the player fucked everything up when presented with a false choice and it's all their fault, that is not fine.

Why? The themes of the game and the meta-commentary on the industry force the game to take that route. Of course you can argue it's putting art ahead of crafting an enjoyable experience, but there're a range of vapid third person shooter experiences with better mechanics if that's what you want. Spec Op's is a niche game that focuses on meta commentary in almost every aspect - from the game progression, the art, the menus and so on. The illusion of player choice and the games commentary on it is a core part of the games theme.

The way I would have tackled the white phosphorus situation if I was the game's developer...

But there're choices in the game that parrot exactly the kind of choices you're promoting...

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Tell me, do you go out of your way to post like a horse's ass, or is this just your natural state of being?

Reading this conversation has been a bizarre experience.

to be fair, I find it unlikely that a horse's posterior could match my magnificence. but I'm glad you enjoyed the conversation!

To anyone who has played this:

Does the game ever tell you to stop playing it? Does it tell you off or berate you for playing it?

My impression from this thread is that it doesn't. It seems like it simply calls into question the mindset that one has entered in order to play games in its genre, namely the fantasy of the military hero shooting the bad guys and being heroic.

no, it does something better. it actively tries to make you feel bad about continuing but leaves the choice up to you.

 

[Eidan]

It strengthens the story because when the game later goes on to say "Hey, remember that thing you did? That was totally fucked." it only resonates if it was something the player chose to do. When the game tries to guilt me for the thing it forced me to do, I just get indignant, which is not the emotion the story is trying to elicit from me.

It only weakens the points the game is trying to make about its contemporaries. About how we as players have no reservations about committing great acts of violence as long as it is part of an objective in "winning". Adding choice to the white phosphorous scenario only distances the game from titles like Call of Duty, because in those games a similar choice isn't presented, weakening the critique.

You seem to be concentrating on single events and criticizing the game for condemning your choice. But the choice being condemned isn't a single one. It's the collective whole. It's the choice of buying and playing the modern FPS.

 

[NEOPARADIGM]

What? They made a game only stupid people who want to be told off by a hippy would finish. I don't think that is a good idea.

Or is it a commentary on you, who thinks people deserve to be told off by a hippy for their choice of entertainment, who but continued JVST FOLLOWING ORDERS in the best Nazi tradition?

Didn't you realise you could stop playing?

What's with the hippy shit? Pro-war are we?

 

[ErikB]

no, it does something better. it actively tries to make you feel bad about continuing but leaves the choice up to you.

So like I say, only stupid people will have finished the game...

 

[squidyj]

But the player actually has no agency. Everything is predetermined.

Look at the part of the game were you do The Horrible Thing. There is overwhelming sense beforehand that no good will come out of doing The Horrible Thing. Your squadmates even say so and when the main guys says "We have no choice", one squadmate responds saying "There's always a choice". But in actuality there isn't. No matter how much the player tries to fight through without doing The Horrible Thing, they are stuck in a dead end with no other way to progress, fighting infinitely spawning enemies with perfect aim. Exasperated, the player says "Alright game, have it your way" and does The Horrible Thing which, surprise surprise, goes horribly horribly wrong.

Then for the rest of the game, the game blames the player for doing The Horrible Thing he was forced to do. And by blame, I don't just mean the game frequently presents the player with the tragic consequences and rubs it in the player's face at every opportunity (which it does). I mean in the loading screens, the hint text will literally say "This is all your fault".

Fuck you game. No it isn't. Forced me to do this and there isn't any way not to short of hacking the game, because that's the story you want to tell. But it has no resonance in a game because the player never chose to do The Horrible Thing. The player is forced to do it.

Although it came out first, The Stanley Parable works as a really good satire of what Spec Ops is trying to do. In The Stanley Parable

Spoiler

the Narrator is trying to tell the story of Stanley who realizes he's a character in a game set on a predetermined path, but manages to break free of the game. But that story itself is a predetermined path in a game which Stanley is slave to. If at any point Stanley doesn't go to where the Narrator wants him to go, the story breaks down and the Narrator tries to get him back on course with coercion, threats, trickery and just plan locking him in a room. I feel that Spec Ops is the Narrator who feels really proud of themselves telling such a "subversive" game story, but can only do that by locking down the player's path and eliminating any real choices.

This is the problem I have with the stanley parable, it presupposes that the narrative approach is somehow fundamentally inferior without actually making any demonstration as such. It's probably the most arrogant game, or at least the game with the most arrogant and pretentious reading that a lot of players take away from it. Then those players go on to use it to fuel their arguments when they've completely failed to demonstrate their base concept which is that games that have this sort of written narrative are somehow failures or weak games.

Choice doesn't need to exist in a video-game narrative in order for it to be compelling. It's existence and use CAN be effective but it is not a yardstick for most any level of creative achievement.

Tell me, do you go out of your way to post like a horse's ass, or is this just your natural state of being?

Reading this conversation has been a bizarre experience.

Dude, it's jim-jam bongs, of course he does.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

This is why i have been hesitant in picking this up. I can appreciate a great story as well as a deconstruction of a genre as much as anyone, but at the same time this is a video game. The gameplay part should always be the top priority IMO, or whats the point? One could just save their money and watch it on Youtube for the story.

Because being boring, tedious and frustrating actually works in favor of the game thematic. Not everyone plays video games for the gameplay alone, at least not me.

Also, the attitude of "going to see it in you tube" kind of dismiss the importance of actually buying or supporting this kind of games.

 

[Riposte]

What's with the hippy shit? Pro-war are we?

Is that Nietzsche in your avatar?

 

[ViewtifulJC]

Dude, it's jim-jam bongs, of course he does.

I'm not familiar with that user, I wasn't aware he was a well-known GAF Jackass™. This is a whole new world opening up for me.

 

[Absoludacrous]

Or is it a commentary on you, who thinks people deserve to be told off by a hippy for their choice of entertainment, who but continued JVST FOLLOWING ORDERS in the best Nazi tradition?

Didn't you realise you could stop playing?

Of course, but it's not about walking away from the credits feeling shame, it's about walking away and actually internalizing what the game is saying. It's a really interesting way to look at this genre of games. The only way I can even see getting defensive about its message is if it hits so close to home for you that you can't accept anything that might challenge the mindless way you play games. Especially if you've never played it.

I mean anyone is free to agree or disagree with the game's message and how it delivers it. But if you're going to argue against it, you should at least know the hows and whys.

 

[The Awesomest]

So like I say, only stupid people will have finished the game...

Is there something wrong with wanting to feel bad? For me it's a matter of being impressed. "A video game? Making me feel bad about playing it? Intriguing! Fascinating! I must continue, to see where this leads."