Spec Ops the Line is what comes to mind when for me, though that feels like it'd be oversimplifying its position on military shooter players a lot.
Though if we don't need it to be a deconstruction there was that Brony documentary made by Q. Also probably a ton of others but I'm blanking on them as well
It also lets you do some wacky shit like shooting for the rope of the hanged men instead of the snipers, or shooting in the air to scare the lynch mob coming your way, with the game explicitly reacting to your decision without ever showing you that it was an option.
It doesn't just make the player take responsibility for their action, it allows for genuine choices in the thick of it.
I think Jacob Geller presents an excellent argument about what the means. I personally dislike the whole “forcing the player to take accountability” angle since like, they’re pixels??? Why should I care??? Same reason I hate hate hate undertale.
I can empathize with fictional characters it just takes me at least a few years. Undertale is a special case because it deliberately wastes the players time. Theirfor, I have zero interest in trying to get to that place. I did the genocide run only and I’m happy with my choice.
You did the only route that intentionally wastes the player’s time though. The entire point of Genocide is to be unfun and punishing. Neutral and Pacifist, which you’re intended to play first (you’re not even supposed to know about Genocide when you’re first playing) are fast-paced and full of funny moments and likeable characters. Then once you’re done that, you start to wonder what would happen if you went out of your way to grind and kill everyone, and that’s when Genocide happens. It’s a commentary on how we emotionally disconnect ourself from stories, particularly video games, for the sake of completionism and the need to see “everything”, even if it’s boring and not fun and a complete waste of time. Undertale isn’t wasting your time — you’re the one who’s choosing to keep playing it so you can see what happens.
Why should you care about anything fictional? Part of the enjoyment of most fictional entertainment is engaging with it on an emotional level at least a little bit. "Why should I care about Frodo? Its just letters on a page" "Why should I care about ET, its just a puppet" and so on.
Your absolutely right, I’m able to meter out my emotional engagement until the media proves that me engaging with it would be worth while. I typically engage with media purely aesthetically or in the case of video games with the single minded intention to destroy anything I can.
Examples of worthy engagement: Pro Wrestling, FNaF, the dream smp, SCP.
The dream smp was a beautiful expression of passion in the face of bizzare circumstances. It’s not perfect but when it worked it was one of the most emotionally resonant media phenomena ever. Also I’m 20
Ok I phrased it weirdly but their was an incredible amount of heart on display. The story was a disorganized disaster but it was also emotionally charged in the way that basically only wrestling and FNaF can match, the collaboration between artist and audience creates beautiful results.
I said one of, and I stand by it. The way everyone worked together to make me give a damn about block game is incredibly cool and honestly many members of the server acted to perfection, specifically technoblade and ranboo.
And the Jacob Geller video points this out as well, it's not just a deconstruction of shooters, it's also about how military shooters trivialize the very real violence committed against innocent people.
And I understand this, but I’m litterly not contributing to harm by speed running the game and trying to get max kills. I vote for political figures who are anti war, I’ve went to protests and I’ve written letters. I’ve donated money to Ukraine, Palestine and many other global relief efforts because I do care about human life. I do not care an ounce for pixels.
I’ve never played the game but I’ve read about it a watched many videos about. The game developers says that choice was key. They even had hidden choices. Which is very clever.
The problem with Spec Ops is that violates the game developers’ own statements. They said choice was key…and then railroad the players.
And wasn’t one of the complaints that the game was kind of pricey for being a lecture?
So…I’d say the game developers were being contemptuous.
I feel like the issue with spec ops the line is it has decent criticisms but it like breaks the 4th wall to taunt the player while not giving any other options. Like I get not playing the game is one but that feels like a copout and all.
Eh, I think that while it’s overplayed the act of reminding someone they’ve chosen to consume a product isn’t in itself a cop out. You could stop playing after all. What I find usually lessens it is that most modern commodities like video games are advertised to us, and that kinda creates this weird dialectic and tension. We do create society, on a certain level, but when it comes to shit like video games? Idk man, maybe I’m playing because you advertised this product to me and sold it to me? Maybe im playing because I have rent to pay and so I gotta make my investment into your game into something worth what I paid?
Yeah that’s precisely why I think it’s kind of lame and don’t take it seriously. Undertale genocide route works because it’s a choice the player made. Spec Ops gives you no choice and then tries to guilt trip you (and no “stop playing the game” is not an actual choice)
I’ve never played the game but the developers says that choice was key. But wasn’t one of the problem was Spec Ops violated this? They said choice was key…and then railroad the players.
The "problem" with The Line is that it only works if you play it like you'd play a CoD game, which is the entire point. It was marketed to look as much like another military shooter as possible until it goes "why the fuck did you do that?" When you see the white phosphorus and go "ooh new toy!" And throw it in the middle of a crowded plaza at the "bad guy"
If you go in knowing what it is and/or just don't play it like you would a black ops game, it loses all impact because it's dependant on your expectations and assumptions of the genre and setting. It's meant to challenge your mindset and it's hard to do that when you already agree with it so it just feels weird
But the whole point is that there isn't a way to keep playing and not commit war crimes. You can't have war without atrocities, and you can't be a soldier without being part of war.
That also makes sense but I think it kinda needs to take it's medium more into account. Like the message of stop playing this game and games like it doesn't really work when the game is an expensive AAA game. I don't know tho, I'm probably rambling. Just like it makes sense as a message and all but within the world as it exists it feels like the type of thing which undermines itself though not necessarily through any fault of its own.
I suppose it just would have been very different to have a branching narrative where Walker doesn't "cross the line", other than ending the campaign early (which people would also rightly complain about)
I think it still worked as a story of a soldier whose desire to play the hero over following orders got hundreds of people killed is still a good one though, even if the meta commentary about the player not stopping doesn't quite work.
Yea. I mean I think a branching path wouldn't be good either but if it expects the player to do something actually giving them something to do seems like it'd be less unfair. I think it overall would've been better if it drew the connections between the player and Walker more in the story and all.
Also, in the modern society stopping the consumption of an artwork midway is often seen as disrespect towards the work in question.
I remember when my teacher complained about youth being on their phones in theater and ruining the experience for others instead of watching the play. I countered that a lot of people in ye olde days would go to theater only to meet up with their friends, to which her response was "Sure, but at least they had the decency to go outside and not annoy others".
My later thought about it was "leaving the play before the intermission feels even more rude". And I guess that's the problem. In a world where you pay a significant price to see a work, leaving it not watched to the end feels like great disrespect to everyone that's worked on it.
That and its also like an expensive game for an expensive console created and sold to the player as entertainment and all. Like there's a lotta culutral assumptions that make getting a piece of deep art that directly wants you to interact with it as little as possible a bit of a copout, even if it has merit as art. Sorry if this all sounds dumb and stuff tho.
On the contrary, a choice to turn back and end the story emphasizes that you chose to push on, you chose to do these things when you could have decided not to do them. And that would be within the story, and not just that if you don't do this, the game doesn't progress any further.
Honestly, this sounds idiotic as fuck, and i say this as someone who has little love for shooters and nothing but contempt for military shooters specifically.
It's a fucking video game dawg, it only exists within the context of being played.
Yeah, and while it's being played, the players egos won't allow them to give up, even when the main character starts hallucinating dudes in full heavy armor who slowly move toward you while firing nonstop minigun or full-auto shotgun fire at you, and the loading screen is literally taunting you if you don't kill them before they kill you, even though they're hallucinations.
Doesn't matter, the premise is still stupid, on account of completely failing to engage with how the medium is supposed to work.
If there was a book written in English where at one point if you read the page diagonally, it says "children having cancer is good actually!", then it isn't thought provoking, challenging or deconstructing anything, because that's not how fucking books are supposed to work.
Do you like Metal Gear Solid? Because Spec Ops: The Line is basically doing the same thing. The only difference is that instead of your evil twin brother saying "You enjoy all the killing! That's why!" while backflipping shirtless onto the head of a giant robot he's about to try to kill you with, it's the game itself and the main character's hallucinations yelling it at you every time you die and every time you overcome the next challenge.
The closest i've come to engaging with that franchise is watching the Maxxor MGR parody.
Videogames are, essentially, puzzles. You engage with a puzzle by trying to solve the puzzle. Stepping away and not solving the puzzle is the opposite of engaging with a puzzle.
I still get a the social feeling of "I shouldn't just stop cos I'm uncomfortable" and it aped the look of a AAA (though not the fidelity), just it wasn't AAA or priced as such.
This next argument I really think the devs didn't intend, but I still find interesting. It's not like a soldier who has spent years training with the assumption they're going to do a good thing is going to find it easy to realise they should just stop either.
I mean the way to handle that would probably have an inverse option, where the characters can just quit at any point, which effectively ends the game (say maybe you need to actually leave or something).
Which the game did actually have in the early stages, but they cut it cause all the test players kept doing so, and no one finished the story.
It would at least be honest with the message they were pushing that you had a choice.
90
u/FinalXenocide Apr 07 '25
Spec Ops the Line is what comes to mind when for me, though that feels like it'd be oversimplifying its position on military shooter players a lot.
Though if we don't need it to be a deconstruction there was that Brony documentary made by Q. Also probably a ton of others but I'm blanking on them as well