Just to clarify this for you, and others like you who think this was intelligent:
A bad game is a bad game.
Regardless of how much you are trying to perform a parody, a subversion or a critique of established concepts.
Far Cry 3 had a similar problem, but in the inverse. The gameplay there was done well, but the story which was trying to be subversive and controversial, made for a game that was abysmal to play through from start to finish, because it was largely pointless and stupid.
A bad game is a bad game.
The goal is to make a good game, and still effectively hit the mark with regard to whatever it is you're trying to critique. Metal Gear Solid 2 is one such game. Excellent mechanically, with a very deep and intricate story.
A bad game however, is just a bad game.
There are no excuses.
Spec Ops The Line gets full credit for trying to perform Heart of Darkness and comment on the stupidity of games by subverting forced player choices within the narrative.
But a bad game is a bad game.
Oh Evrae, with your text so poetically displayed
Allow this humble poet to reply in kind
There's nothing
bad about the way that Spec Ops played
Hyperbole is the cancer of the mind
True, it falters compared to Vanquish's majesty
And is lesser than Max Payne, GOTY for all years
But average is average, not terrible, bad or travesty
And Spec Ops plays no worse than Uncharted or Gears
In truth, the squad mechanics could have been deeper
But lo! The smallest details are still sublime
The way even voices change twixt calm and creeper
Or character models change with passage of time
The animations are smooth, and develop with the story
The AI is competent, weapons snappy to hold
The graphics reflect as the narrative get more gory
The art direction coloured with purple, green and gold
So lest you think all game require gameplay innovation
Think you of Morrowind, combat broken to the core
Think of The Last Of Us, the must have game for Playstation
Average gameplay, being re-released for PS number Four.