i like the review, i like it if its a bit serious (but obvious last-fart was obvious)
diclaimer: my english is crap. i could order a beer or ask where the tlets are, but speakion about serious stuff, thoughts and this is very difficult. because of words and because of grammar-thinking in german and translating without a babelfish doesn't cut the mustard. although i hope its somewhat understandable..^^
i thought about the game as well-how can a game be critical about senseless killing if the main mechanic of game is to kill enemies? isn't it unimportant which color or whatever these enemies are? if a game is about the horrors of war and violence, why is violence THE way and mechanic of solving the game then?
i think the game would be more interesting, if you character could choose to avoid violence as he progresses.. (maybe fallout might be a example-you can try to sneak past enemies an try so solve problems without using 9mm or such stuff) i mean, he sees all of this and his own part of it, but does he ever try to use, well, non lethal weapons? hitting the enemy, using k.o gas (this is Dubai-they got an army and i think you might buy taser and such stuff(Non-deadly-weapons) there-or steal them because nobody cares while this kind of crisis occurs)
it seems that mr. Main-character never has a chance to not use violence.. But i think i have to play further...(Although i don't know/played the whole game, i think i can think about it, about the story, the setting etc)
a shooter "should" be fun, but if the game criticizes his own modus operandi but also wants the gamer to like it..its strange..
it reminds me of shadow of the colossus-the same-you have to kill these creatures for what? you don't know, you don't know the girl(as gamer-and you are playing, its your emotion..) and although you feeing pity and sadness, you kill these living creatures.
because the game wouldn't progress... if i think bout it-a game forces you often to act as the "game" wants you too. you are limited in your decisions, you can choose a or b, but not c.
you can shoot or not-if you shoot(a), the game progresses, if you don't(b), you´ll die and the game is over.. but there is no c .. An example of the opposite might be heavy rain
the game and the story progresses, there are more then 1 main character and there is more freedom but more chances to fail.)
that would be interesting.. an this point you have to act "wrong" you cant find a way to lessen the impacts of you acting.
e.g-use K.O gas in a closed environment, wait until enemies lay down and handcuff them. you might act right but maybe other enemies or maybe surviving Dubai citizen will find them and release them and you ll have to face them again or you might come to know that the enemies were freed and killed their rescuers...then you might feel responsible for this and start acting more straight and might mutilate or kill the next enemies.. then yourself had the illusion of changing and (and thats the point) you tried,were proven wrong (because this was an mistake)and this might be a reason for you to chance your in-game-behavior, but then you are really responsible because you have chosen to act like you did, e.g to kill (because if your not, then you might make a mistake, miss one of the enemies or other brainfarty actions.. and might pay for it later.. and you might face the question, which life weights more-the life of your enemies or someones or might face the question whether violence is 1. necessary and 2.justifiable..
argh, its really hard to me to translate such thoughts in english.. if i sound like a 3 year old-sry^^
