The whole video is worth watching, but this section in particular makes a better case than I’ve seen in other analyses: that the game condemns player involvement not by simply chastising the player for choosing to continue playing itself (as I’ve seen other analyses argue), but rather for carelessly and uncritically engaging with the power fantasy that games like this cater to.

  • sculd@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Honestly feel like Spec Ops should have added an option to just leave the desert at the beginning of the game.

    Giving the player a choice will make the “twist” much more powerful because the player could have chosen the other way.

    • TwilightVulpine@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Same. When I played, at a couple points I tried to go all the way back to the beginning, when it seemed like the initial mission Walker was assigned was in some way fulfilled or inviable. When the game had absolutely no response to that, it kinda detracted from my appreciation for the message of the game. For all that it has to say about hero fantasies and the player engaging in it, it doesn’t have any alternative to that. It needs the player to commit the sins that it wants to denounce.

      • sculd@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        There are a few points I feel is pretty forced. Okay there is an hostage situation happening right now so I get it. They wanted to help.

        But after they found out the hostage is dead and there are rogue elements, they should just turn back and report the findings to their superior so that they can decide whether to send reinforcements or not.

        The Spec Op protagonists aren’t good soldiers. They ignored direct orders from their superior multiple times!