This War of Mine - The Ultimate Serious Game

[Machine Man 1992]

Dueteragonist team Ellie and Joel would be the obvious answer. But, that would be too easy; Joel is most protagonist-y of the characters, seeing as how you play as him and the entire story is told from his perspective.

Wrong! It's the player. This is a quirk of games, the true protagonist is and will always be the player, even with games like The Last of Us, who is in denial over this consept. But, think about how the game treats its mistaken protagonist: Having, you know, character arcs. Spec Ops basically does the same, but with the player as the intended protagonist, which means the player need their own arc.

Ho, ho! Very clever Mr. Goliath.

Main issue with giving a player an "arc" is that most people don't play games to be developed; we play games for fun.

One of the problems I had with Spec Ops is that the game tried to tell me how to feel. To paraphrase Alex Mercer, "I don't play to feel." If Spec Ops was trying to be shocking with it's violence, then it fell several (hundred) meters too short.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

What they need to do is pair up with Yager (Spec Ops: The Line). That would be such an awesome partnership.

Because we really need another pretentious, player hating, derivative whole-plot-of-Heart-o'-Darkness referencing game out there.

Yager was more concerned with lecturing the player than delivering an entertaining experience. What these War of Mine people need to do is stay far, far away from them.

(sorry to call your post out, Spec-Ops is one of my personal bugbears)

Actually, I'm sure Yager was only trying to lecture specific players.

 

[Goliath100]

we play games for fun.

My experience with that argument is that people only use it when it is convenient. And you are putting limitations on the medium. If "fun" is all games can be, I'll welcome back Jack Thompsen.

One of the problems I had with Spec Ops is that the game tried to tell me how to feel.

Really? How come than that of endings we have; self destruction, acceptance, rejection and failure of rejection (+early realisation)? Rejection is a valid end to the arc.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

we play games for fun.

My experience with that argument is that people only use it when it is convenient. And you are putting limitations on the medium. If "fun" is all games can be, I'll welcome back Jack Thompsen.

One of the problems I had with Spec Ops is that the game tried to tell me how to feel.

Really? How come than that of endings we have; self destruction, acceptance, rejection and failure of rejection (+early realisation)? Rejection is a valid end to the arc.

The endings I had no problem with, the rest of the story I rejected as hogwash.

Or maybe I just found the whole game rather tiring.

I was actually baffled at the White Phosphorus scene, because the characters were flipping the fuck out, and I felt nothing. I didn't know these people, why should I care? What made them so much more valuable than the dozens, no, hundreds of American soldiers I just finished murdering?

The whole game was just silly, and weirdly inconsistent with how it treated gameplay and story.

 

[Goliath100]

The whole game was ... weirdly inconsistent with how it treated gameplay and story.

In what way, I may ask?

 

[Machine Man 1992]

The whole game was ... weirdly inconsistent with how it treated gameplay and story.

In what way, I may ask?

Well, the gameplay was bog standard Gears of War third person shooting. When you shoot people in the face, their heads explode in a red mist (leaving a clean stump like what you get from messing with the body sliders in Garry's mod) with a slo-mo flourish. Downed enemies can be executed in hilariously over the top fashion. Walker screams at the top of his lungs throughout most of the game in a way that becomes silly with repetition.

My point is, in a game that tries to be Very Serious and Important, it doesn't do a lot in game to be Very Serious and Important (I found it rather pedestrian and dull, but that's besides the point). If the game wanted to be a commentary on the nature of war and what is evil, then having us get into gunfights every few minutes wasn't the answer.

Know what I'm saying?

Ludonarrative discobiscuits.

 

[Goliath100]

snip

I'm noticing that people that dislike Spec Ops seems to miss the point: It's not about "nature of war" or "what is evil", it's about challenging the Status Que. Thematically, it's more about faith than anything to do with war.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYgQHgxc3hI&list=UULcrvh5KKB15iBwHXqxBcpw

 

[Machine Man 1992]

snip

I'm noticing that people that dislike Spec Ops seems to miss the point: It's not about "nature of war" or "what is evil", it's about challenging the Status Que. Thematically, it's more about faith than anything to do with war.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYgQHgxc3hI&list=UULcrvh5KKB15iBwHXqxBcpw

Perhaps those people who hated the game were just sick of the constant fellatio the game commentator community were performing on it.

Even still, I found Spec Ops to be a poor TPS with a story that had done before and better in Far Cry 2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX808yR7Qh0