ITT: Simple games that Sup Forums still doesn't get

ITT: Simple games that Sup Forums still doesn't get

I'll start with an easy one

>do a bad thing because it's the only way to progress
>wooooooow you're a such an asshole
>you should fucking kill yourself dude
>why didn't you just stop playing you monster
>no refunds:)

YOU COULD HAVE JUST THROWN AWAY YOUR MONEY AND STOPPED PLAYING

Please be a parody of the retards who actually think like this

That's the whole point, sometimes we don't have any options in life other than doing the bad thing.

Please be a parody of the retards who actually think like this.

>literally a 'no..u' argument

Holy shit

Oh god yoyre actuslly that retarded.

Yes you did a bad thing. " the ebil game made me do it!!11!1!!11" is not an excuse.

I dunno man, the people who praises the game actually says that. I pirated the game, halfway through it's a pretty bad game novel inspired or not. Shit was like clunky Gears of War clone with yellow brown painted all over it.

You aren't presenting any relevant arguments either beyond 2deep4u.:^)

Somebody didn't understand the point of the game then, that somebody is you.

It's fine mechanically. Not the greatest game ever made but the gameplay is good enough especially when you balance it with the narrative.

What would be a relevant argument? I responded by saying that "the game made me do it" is not an excuse. You did it.

You literally had no other choice but to stop playing. There was no other action to take. Unless you wanted to quit and never play the game again, you WERE forced to do it and then sit back as the came chastised you for not pressing ALT-F4 and deleting it from your library.

>The point of the game is to be worthless trash

Wow 10/10 game please take more money

Nope, the point of the game was to tell you a story that clearly you didn't get.

Go back to your overwatch kid, sometimes games just aren't meant for the likes of you.

That's the point. You didn't take the option to stop. You made the decision that getting to the end of the game justified the atrocities and the game is criticising you for being like that.

You realise you're not meant to be so offended by it right? It's trying to give you something to think about regarding violence and humanity.

Certain this is a false flag

>tell you a story that clearly you didn't get.
Ah, it's "Walker's story and not yours" argument again. Enlighten us, how can he see the loading screens?

>when somebody says something you disagree with it MUST be bait/false flag

How is it even possible to function as an adult with this kind of mentality? How do you cope when your manager asks you to do something or says something you disagree with? Do you yell bait to his face and run out of the room? It's amazing really.

No when somebody is being so cartoonishly an asshole and filling all the strawman stereotypes it's probably bait or a false flag. I don't disagree I'm the fucking OP. You're just posting in a way that makes defending this game assholeish and it's so stereotypical I wouldn't be surprised if it was a false flag

I understand the plot. It's about as much of a waste of time as Funny Games was for you watching a horror movie.

It was a non-option. It was either actually play the game you paid for, or get scammed essentially. Gee, what a choice.

It takes a strong man to deny what's right in front of him.

>didn't understand the point of the game
Why don't you shut the fuck up and go make or DEmake SpecOps the line with less clunky shit gameplay and i'll buy it for the story ? huh ? huh ? huh ? huh ?

I'll write a book. It'll cost 50 usd. On the first page will be this sentence "Something bad will happen in this book if you read past this sentence". Your option is either a) throw away the book or b) read the rest of the book which is 300 pages of how much of a cunt you are for reading past the warning.

50 dollars is quite a bit for some of us to spend on luxury. If the game wanted to have a moral point then it should have offered a refund to anyone that stopped playing.

It's meant to challenge you to think more critically about hyper violence in media and morality. It doesn't expect anyone to stop playing obviously and that's the point.

The plot isn't what's "to get" about this game, it's pretty straightforward.

What are they trying to say? I agree completely, it isn't real so I shouldn't care, but then why are they writing it? Are they saying I should actually care about the sad polygons?

Books aren't video games but also lol @ thinking books haven't done similar things.

What was the point of that movie? It was talked about as "Wow, this SUBVERSIVE movie is a GUT PUNCH, the twists will CHANGE YOUR WORLD".

Then I see it, and it is two dudes breaking into a home, torturing the family, and then leaving. O-ok?

They're saying maybe you should think critically about the media you consume and the messages they send.

It's sanctimonious.

That's not at all comparable. You played the game. You gunned down legions of your fellow man. You chose to use the white phosphorous. You did bad things and then the game told you that you did bad things.

Again, why are you so offended by a story having a little bit of depth?

It's meant to get you you think critically about hyper violence in gaming and more generally about morality and free will. It's challenging the notion of "just following orders" that is used to justify atrocities in war and the effect hyper violence has on a man.

How so?

In 99% of all games you kill enemy combatants or criminals. The games where you kill civilians are very few and far between. How is it wrong to kill enemy combatants?

No, he gunned down legions of enemy combatants. Those are not 'fellow men'.

Then the game forced you do burn up some civilians and then the game started crying about it.

It's a watered down Gears of War

the only thing I didn't get is this
>kill allahu ahkbar breeding stations and their soon to be bomb strapped meat bags
>kill the traitors that are helping said bomb meat bag operation to grow
>"YOU ARE EVIL"
no I'm not I improved the world one bullet at a time
I did actually feel as a hero

This. Set the game in WW1 if you want to make a message about 'killing your fellow man'. These fucking muslims are destroying my country as we speak and I'm supposed to feel sorry for them? I wish Walker would show up here and clean up.

Yeah, isn't that convenient, how you're always completely justified in killing everyone in your way? It reminds me of that Medal of Honor they did in Afghanistan. So what happens in this game is you take a helicopter ride to a village and light them up, and they fire back at you, and then you kill them all because they're terrorists, ooh-rah. But when you think about it, everyone and their mum has an AK-47 in Afghanistan, and what the fuck would you do if someone came to your village and started shooting people? But the game frames the player as being completely justified.

So here Spec Ops has a scene where you have to kill innocents to continue. It's pretty contrived, but the fact that it is highlights how contrived video games are in general in order to present the narrative that you have no choice and sometimes you have to do the right thing for the wrong reasons and civilian casualties are inevitable and all that. They even have a character say "there's always a choice" in that very scene. The fact that you think "but why can't I just..." is the point.

Incidentally this neatly demonstrates the difference between left-wing media criticism and right-wing media criticism, which has come up again recently due to some remarks from the White House with regards to video games. Video games don't make people go out and want to shoot civilians. But, like any other media, they can shape a narrative in which it can be justified.

>No, he gunned down legions of enemy combatants. Those are not 'fellow men'.
You'd make an excellent soldier.

Enemies are still your fellow man. If you think that an authority figure designating them as the other automatically justifies their slaughter then you're a bit fucked up man.

The game did not physically force you. You did it man. The game then says "now think about what you've done". Again you don't need to be so offended

Lots of atrocities begin with the perpetrators having a just cause. No one who does anything thinks they're the villain and will usually feel the hero. It's about where that line is crossed that's important and usually when you start slaughtering innocents that's a good indication.

They weren't actually enemy combatants. Goddamn, did you even play the fucking game?

Is this supposed to be an insult, you devoted liberal?

OI WOT IF WE JUST COPY HEART OF DARKNESS
FOOKIN MENTAL

So in your logic how should I play quake 1 and 2 and quake 3 also how should I play tetris ? Because forcing the blocks down will destroy the ones along side and my objective is to rake high score.

Do you feel like a hero, now, Sup Forums?

Not him but politics aside, SpecOps is a shitty game. Story or not, god damn grateful it flopped, hard. I was bored with gears of war and hoping for some good game and then this game is praised because for story not for gameplay. Might as well ask david cage produce it.

>slaughtering innocents
you are dense aren't you?
there were no innocents in that game
only muslims

I'm always completely justified in killing anyone that brings a gun to a warzone and starts shooting at me, yes. And yes, that is very convenient or else I'd be dead.

In the example: Yes, the soldiers are completely justified in shooting civilians who shoot at them with AK47's. How is this even an argument?

The rest is bullshit, the player had as much choice as a viewer of a movie at that point. Allow for options to NOT kill civvies and then chastice those who do, or don't chastise anyone.

Quitting the game you paid for is NOT a legitimate option.

No, I wouldn't. I was a conscript for a year and it sucked so fucking hard. Being a soldier is, sadly, not all about shooting muslims. It is about lying in a wet cold forest for two weeks, with lack of sleep, and digging holes.

Then don't set the game is the Middle east. Muslims are NOT my fellow man. Set the game in WW1 and I'd get it a bit more, even though the point doesn't work if you force the player to do the bad thing.

but they just failed to deconstruct call of duty, and the game also flopped because of that

They were unarmed people just minding their business? Oh sorry, I remember them actually shooting at me but I must be mistaken.

Protip: you're the bad guy in this game

It's called 'The Suck' for a reason.
>day at the range in civvy life
>good time with friends, practice marksmanship, get lunch and beers afterwards
>day at the range in the marines
>makes everything awful

You're a monster for killing the Strogg. You don't know their culture, you just showed up guns blasting. Naturally they were scared when you crashed through their roof. You should have reported to the nearest Strogg officer and presented your case.

The video game medium was the best way to tell this story though. Readers can separate themselves from the atrocities but with this game they had to commit them themselves. Why do you think people get so worked up about THE GAME MADE ME DO IT? This was a legitimate retelling of a story because it's the best way to tell it.

>I'm justified in shooting civilians who shoot at them
They're defending their home from you, the invader and much more technologically advanced foe.

>Player had as much choice as a viewer of a movie.
>Quitting is not an option
The WHOLE point is that nobody is going to stop playing. The game wants you to critically think about thst fact. Thst we are so desensitized to hyper violence that it's not even something that causes us pause for concern. It doesn't want you to go kill yourself it just wants you to leave playing it with a new appreciation for hyper violence in media and what it says.

The massive amounts of butthurt show that they succeeded.

>Muslims are NOT my fellow man
>Le brown people are not people meme

>butthurt
who the fuck was butthurt? the game was just a mediocre 3rd person shooter that had plot twist, that's it

I loved that game

>meme

>THE GAME FORCED ME TO DO IT
>I'M NOT A MONSTER I JUST WANT MY $50 WORTH OF SLAUGHTER AND DESTRUCTION

I never said that though, if the game wants me to do it then I just do it

It's an interesting twist but the whole 3DEEP5U argument is so fucking dumb. The game gives you a cheevo for each "ending", and had a fucking multiplayer mode. It's not as if they did some fucked up shit like showing you footage of civilians killed by American soldiers based on your kill count in the game to make you feel guilty about something you previously reveled in, this was always meant to be a standard rooty tooth pointy shooty and someone had the idea to subvert player expectations for the story.

The Sorrow encounter in MGS3 accomplishes everything The Line tried to do, and it did it without being a 5 hour slog.

>Who the fuck was butthurt?
And I answered

the plot to this game is actually kinda funny
>local sandstorm ruins everything
>konrad's men blame him for the weather
>everyone goes cuhrayzee
i almost expected the final boss to be imhotep

but you never said who was butthurt

The people who are saying what I greentexted. Are you even looking st the thread?

>The sorrow did everything this was trying to do
That's actually 100% true. The difference to justify the line though is the context of when it was released and the prevalence of hyper violent modern shooters were you mowed down technologically inferior foes but "DEY DA BAD GUYZ" was mumbled during the intro cutscene to justify it

>Thst we are so desensitized to hyper violence that it's not even something that causes us pause for concern
Jack Thompson, is that you? Do we need to explain to you that video game violence is not the same as real violence again?

You give MGS3 way too much credit

Now I didn't like this game as much as the comic, but in a way it feels like the Watchmen of video games. It's like an examination of how an FPS super soldier would actually be

when the developer tells you a valid course of action is to turn off the game and stop playing you know it's total shit. i felt nothing playing this game except anger. it was trying so hard to make me feel a certain way i didn't care. i got upset that they thought they could emotionally manipulate me in this way

Violence in media is still violence. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with enjoying it. Just thst we should never let it become meaningless.

>No, he gunned down legions of enemy combatants. Those are not 'fellow men'.

Litterly the exact thought process used to justify war crimes.

>sandstorm wipes out a good portion of the soldiers before the game starts
>when you get to "that part" the game spawns unlimited soldiers

I don't understand WHY you're forced into the white phosphorus event when you can actually kill all the soldiers, it's just that they keep infinitely respawning them. Meanwhile five minutes later you can make a choice to kill random civvies, shoot the soldiers trying to get you to kill the civvies, or one other option. Why would they lock you into that when you can clearly see that the people are all huddled together terrified and unarmed when you offer choices everywhere else? It took me completely out of the game, especially when they started pushing the "Oh, you're pure evil you asshole" bit when I was trying to do anything else to avoid bombing the very obvious unarmed civilians.

>Just thst we should never let it become meaningless.
Why not? What's wrong with a little bit of that good ol' ultraviolence every now and again? The problem with something like Call of Duty isn't that it's desensitizing kids to violence, it's that it's exposing them to shit games. Violence in video games will always be meaningless

It's still allowed to set rules of what needs to happen that doesn't undermine the point. It's not some sort of cuckoldry shame game to make you feel like shit and nothing else but meant to make a point about the wider context of gaming at the time.

The 2 angry faggots defending this shit game literally don't understand how agency works. The game kills you if you try to not use the bombs and even if you try not to bomb the civilians you still die. People found that to be in poor taste and your opinion doesn't matter.

and then imhotep's final form is a giant version of Walker who starts slapping buildings down with his dick

Fuck now i hate myself. Where can i get a place where i can railgun myself while i huh huh huh huh huh ?

Good movie taste, user.

If it was fuckin free or a mod of another game, I could see the hype. I remember playing a flash game where a dude is tied on a post, and you can shoot all around him or shoot him. The minute you shoot him, nothing dramatic happens except hes dead. Reload the game after shutting it off? He's still dead. That shitty flash game said everything this game could, should and would have been and that shit was on Newgrounds.

Full price for a 6-16 hour lecture in how you're the bad guy for doing things you can't not do. I remember listening to this dude talk to his scripted ally about how he's not a bad guy and that he's not a part of the "rebel group" and how he's two days away from retirement and some shit. Know what happens when he sees you? Starts shooting. No option for a knockout or a tranq dart takedown. No option to go around. No option to convince him that it's a futile attempt to shoot you because you're the MC for a fuckin video game and you have plot armor. People that "get" this game treat it like its on the narrative level of some Telltale game or someshit, and it just isn't. It's a shallow shooter with 3 endings that don't wash the Cleveland Steamer of an impression this game leaves you. Maybe if this game had a "give pepsi" option, I wouldn't fuckin hate it as much.

>What's wrong with a little bit of ultraviolence
Nothing, that's literally my point. When it's every single game then people get lazy with the context. Remember the sort of shit that was coming out back then.

Let me explain it another way. In Doom the enemies are literal demons from hell coming to take control of our world. They are numerous, powerful and coming for your honky ass. The hyper violence is justified.

Half Life 1 and 2 is a similar concept. You are a single person against a legion of violent invaders. The context for the violence justifies you.

Call of duty/bf/medal of honour circa 2010 were about you controlling members of the world's most advanced armies slaughtering en masse fuckers with sticks and peashooters. It was lazy and made the violence meaningless.

You know there were periods in human history where children watched beheadings for entertainment, right?

The moment a civilian picks up a gun and shoots at an invader, he is a legitimate target. How is this controversial to you?

If they wanted to make that point then the game should have been FREE. You are god damn right I am playing a game I paid 50 usd for from start to finish, even if the game suddenly turns into a baby rape simulator.

yup, Mass Effect 3 was a disaster alright

You still don't get that you are the bad guy.

I'm a Swede and fuck muslims. They are NOT my fellow man, I'd glady shoot a few if I got legal immunity before doing it.

Spec ops the line spoonfeeds anti american interventionism.
A narrative i completely agree with on every level.

So why is the game so fucking shit, i cannot play through it?
Its a dumbed down, linear, CoD mixed with gears of war, but less impressive in all regards yet it was hailed by critics, whose politics i mostly allaign with, how come every videogame journalist have downsyndrome on steroids?

>The moment a civilian picks up a gun and shoots at an invader, he is a legitimate target.
Wat. Being an "invader" already makes you a target.

>Sup Forums is one person

Wew

Define a few? Just the men or are women and children free game?

You forgot to add 'virtual' before slaughter and destruction.

If anyone is a monster it is the devs. They created these virtual characters and forced them to fight against countless players and die countless times.

It's fine to shoot polygons on a screen.

No it isn't, it is fake violence.

every single time this game gets talked about there are people so butthurt about having to do something bad to proceed with the game

why can't you realize it's just a game and you don't have to take it personally that it railroaded you into doing that because that was just what the game is, not your personal decision specifically. No one is calling you out for being bad for doing what is mandatory in a linear story.

Show me one warcrime where a crime was committed by killing people who were shooting at you.

I am not talking about the killing civvies bit, naturally that is wrong, but it wasn't on the player at all like the game pretends it was.

I just saw this game as being the story of a highly deluded man who finally breaks under pressure and does stupid, insane shit. All loading screen bullshit aside, I don't know why people get so asshurt about it. Then again, I got it on sale for $5 so I guess I got my money's worth. It was relatively fun in a mindless sense, ok set pieces and shit.

That feeling when fucking Undertale has a more coherent narrative on massacres and violence than this postmodern CoD clone