Yeah but there are always the times where you see the best of people
Generally not something you see on the internet as much, but still!
I agree. Overall I consider myself an optimist about the human condition. But I reserve the right to hate the state of the world sometimes, if only because I have no intention of sustaining that anger beyond whatever desire for positive change it produces.
Rather than getting into this argument for the 50,000th time in the past two years, I will just let you to think that.
Think about what, exactly? You haven't even said anything.
ugh.
To put it in the simplest terms possible, I have had a number of acquantainces of mine "get into" Spec Ops periodically since the thing came out.
At first I was ambivalent at best, and eventually watched a walkthrough of it (this is what I do with every game I am potentially interested in but cannot afford) and I found it rather uninspired and hypocritical in its message.
That would be the end of it if I did not, constantly, hear about the thing since. Certain parts of the indie gaming community can't seem to shut up about it and it's incredibly grating, because it's not a good game. It's a preachy, uninformed indictment of an easily disliked genre that people like specifically because it is a preachy, uninformed indictment of an easily disliked genre.
The only reason anyone likes Spec Ops is because they dislike Call of Duty and its brethren, and while I certainly am no huge fan of the CoD series, it's really annoying to see something raised up on a pedestal when it's basically a very shallow, heavy-handed criticism.
Middens did the same thing better, but is less well known because Middens is actually a challenging game on both an intellectual and strategic level (and it's also a riff on JRPGs rather than FPSes, and no one wants to play a rip into those, because JRPGs are one of the genres that these same CoD-hating people tend to adore).
And that, Kexruct, is why I reacted the way I did.
I mean, where would he or she put the wedding ring?
Eep! I accidentally used a singular "they"!
D:
Singular "they" is perfectly grammatically acceptable, Aliroz.
No it is not.
It's wrong and nobody should use it.
The singular "they" as a gender-neutral pronoun has been used for centuries. Normally I would start pulling out Oxford citations, but I cannot do that right now, so you will have to trust me as a living fount of useless knowledge.
Rather than getting into this argument for the 50,000th time in the past two years, I will just let you to think that.
Think about what, exactly? You haven't even said anything.
ugh.
To put it in the simplest terms possible, I have had a number of acquantainces of mine "get into" Spec Ops periodically since the thing came out.
At first I was ambivalent at best, and eventually watched a walkthrough of it (this is what I do with every game I am potentially interested in but cannot afford) and I found it rather uninspired and hypocritical in its message.
That would be the end of it if I did not, constantly, hear about the thing since. The indie gaming community can't seem to shut up about it and it's incredibly grating, because it's not a good game. It's a preachy, uninformed indictment of an easily disliked genre that people like specifically because it is a preachy, uninformed indictment of an easily disliked genre.
The only reason anyone likes Spec Ops is because they dislike Call of Duty and its brethren, and while I certainly am no huge fan of the CoD series, it's really annoying to see something raised up on a pedestal when it's basically a very shallow, heavy-handed criticism.
Middens did the same thing better, but is less well known because Middens is actually a challenging game on both an intellectual and strategic level (and it's also a riff on JRPGs rather than FPSes, and no one wants to play a rip into those, because JRPGs are one of the genres that these same CoD-hating people tend to adore).
It delivers its message through its mechanics. It's a send up of bland copycat shooters, and it does so by presenting itself as one while deliberately playing up the cognitive dissonance that such a game causes.
Rather than getting into this argument for the 50,000th time in the past two years, I will just let you to think that.
Think about what, exactly? You haven't even said anything.
ugh.
To put it in the simplest terms possible, I have had a number of acquantainces of mine "get into" Spec Ops periodically since the thing came out.
At first I was ambivalent at best, and eventually watched a walkthrough of it (this is what I do with every game I am potentially interested in but cannot afford) and I found it rather uninspired and hypocritical in its message.
That would be the end of it if I did not, constantly, hear about the thing since. The indie gaming community can't seem to shut up about it and it's incredibly grating, because it's not a good game. It's a preachy, uninformed indictment of an easily disliked genre that people like specifically because it is a preachy, uninformed indictment of an easily disliked genre.
The only reason anyone likes Spec Ops is because they dislike Call of Duty and its brethren, and while I certainly am no huge fan of the CoD series, it's really annoying to see something raised up on a pedestal when it's basically a very shallow, heavy-handed criticism.
Middens did the same thing better, but is less well known because Middens is actually a challenging game on both an intellectual and strategic level (and it's also a riff on JRPGs rather than FPSes, and no one wants to play a rip into those, because JRPGs are one of the genres that these same CoD-hating people tend to adore).
It delivers its message through its mechanics. It's a send up of bland copycat shooters, and it does so by presenting itself as one while deliberately playing up the cognitive dissonance that such a game causes.
Do you know how many times I have heard almost that exact paragraph addressed to me?
I am capable of understanding the idea of satire (which is essentially what Spec Ops is, even if it's not comedic as most examples are), I am not in second grade. My point is that there are games that ridicule violence in video games far better than Spec Ops does, and that Spec Ops does not satire its target particularly well.
This is without getting into the hypocrisy of charging money for a product like this.
If you want to play a thoughtful game with a similar message that is actually worth playing, get Middens.
I may not be a gamer myself, but Mojave makes an excellent point here. I can appreciate the intent of making a satirical game, but after a certain point, a parody can go from amusing to painful in its accuracy. Furthermore, charging money for such a satire in game form—that is, something that consciously fails to live up to its purpose to make a point—is highly dubious.
Most of the points brought up in Kexy's second video seem pretty similar to the way that Off is set up.
Recognizing the player as a separate being from the PC, for example. Juxtaposing the typical gameplay with fantastic elements (i.e. the healing potions and ethers of most JRPGs being replaced by various types of demon meat).
I'd like to see Extra Credits take a whack at Off. See what they come up with.
Not that it doesn't have some problems of its own, namely, the interface is rather clunky and I feel that the deliberate obfuscation of certain game elements is a little on-the-nose, but all in all, it makes its case better than Spec Ops does.
Most of the points brought up in Kexy's second video seem pretty similar to the way that Off is set up.
Recognizing the player as a separate being from the PC, for example. Juxtaposing the typical gameplay with fantastic elements (i.e. the healing potions and ethers of most JRPGs being replaced by various types of demon meat).
I'd like to see Extra Credits take a whack at Off. See what they come up with.
Middens is more similar, and again, much better a game.
Most of the points brought up in Kexy's second video seem pretty similar to the way that Off is set up.
Recognizing the player as a separate being from the PC, for example. Juxtaposing the typical gameplay with fantastic elements (i.e. the healing potions and ethers of most JRPGs being replaced by various types of demon meat).
also i wanted to say that the visuals in that spec ops game looked pretty rad, with the rappelling and all the people strung up on lamp posts and whatnot.
I mean, where would he or she put the wedding ring?
Eep! I accidentally used a singular "they"!
D:
Singular "they" is perfectly grammatically acceptable, Aliroz.
No it is not.
It's wrong and nobody should use it.
The singular "they" as a gender-neutral pronoun has been used for centuries. Normally I would start pulling out Oxford citations, but I cannot do that right now, so you will have to trust me as a living fount of useless knowledge.
Okay, then. That changes nothing except that it means that I am wrong in my conviction.
And since when have I let being wrong get in my way?
also i wanted to say that the visuals in that spec ops game looked pretty rad, with the rappelling and all the people strung up on lamp posts and whatnot.
the visuals in Spec Ops are not terribly different from the visuals in any other military FPS.
that said, the art design is one of the game's stronger points.
charging money for such a satire in game form—that is, something that consciously fails to live up to its purpose to make a point—is highly dubious.
How so?
When a game is built to fail as a game, one can only gain enjoyment from it on a meta level—as a satirical artefact—particularly when it is so dangerously on the nose. This is entirely unlike an artistic parody, wherein the only thing asked of the audience is time. A game requires time and effort alike; providing such a scant reward for that strikes me as unfair. To design a (weak) parody game is often simply to design a bad game, albeit an intentionally bad one, and while I think one should be free to spend one's money how one chooses, it feels like a disingenuous manoeuvre to sell such a thing as a legitimate product.
I should also point out that Spec Ops is a rather ridiculous $30. There are a lot of things you could buy for $30, and I would not recommend that as a potential purchase.
charging money for such a satire in game form—that is, something that consciously fails to live up to its purpose to make a point—is highly dubious.
How so?
When a game is built to fail as a game, one can only gain enjoyment from it on a meta level—as a satirical artefact—particularly when it is so dangerously on the nose. This is entirely unlike an artistic parody, wherein the only thing asked of the audience is time. A game requires time and effort alike; providing such a scant reward for that strikes me as unfair. To design a (weak) parody game is often simply to design a bad game, albeit an intentionally bad one, and while I think one should be free to spend one's money how one chooses, it feels like a disingenuous manoeuvre to sell such a thing as a legitimate product.
Well, by now anyone who would be buying the game would know something of it's nature.
Also you seem to be suggesting that enjoyment can only be derived from game through victory, which seems rather suspect to me.
It doesn't seem built to fail as a game, rather it seems to be built to result in failure for the character. Which is entirely unrelated to enjoyment of the experience.
The only reason anyone likes Spec Ops is because they dislike Call of Duty and its brethren, and while I certainly am no huge fan of the CoD series, it's really annoying to see something raised up on a pedestal when it's basically a very shallow, heavy-handed criticism.
Well I liked Spec Ops and I also enjoyed Modern Warfare 2, World at War, and Black Ops, and I think that Spec Ops was pretty oh who cares about my opinion.
Honestly Off's fandom-at-large is annoying to some extent but as far as Tumblr fad fandoms go, they're one of the most tolerable.
The only reason I never finished Off is because I just felt that the tedious mechanics got in the way of the story. Middens has the same problem, honestly (though the specific mechanics are different).
Mojave Music said:I should also point out that Spec Ops is a rather ridiculous $30. There are a lot of things you could buy for $30, and I would not recommend that as a potential purchase.
"What? They want me to pay for this game that likely had a five-figure budget? What a rip off."
Well, it's like that Angry birds, solitaire, anything-by-popcap-games games that just takes up time.
I'd rather drop a rock into a jug and then take the rock out of the jug; and then repeat what I just did. That's a lot of fun in its utter physical, tactile, simplicity. A joy not only to sight, but to the sense of touch (much more than a flat screen, rocks have texture). But that's just me, to each his/her own.
I should also point out that Spec Ops is a rather ridiculous $30. There are a lot of things you could buy for $30, and I would not recommend that as a potential purchase. "What? They want me to pay for this game that likely had a five-figure budget? What a rip off."
Yeah you can just completely ignore the criticism, that's cool too.
edit: why the fuck does the quote system puke every time I quote certain, specific people.
Comments
Imagine several hundred people in the same tree. that'd just be silly, where would they sleep.
It's actually rather simple.
something very frustrating about FL Studio is that it will occasionally stop working and never tell you why.
not againAssassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
even if i have to wade through shitty memes to do so
It's wrong and nobody should use it.
ugh.
To put it in the simplest terms possible, I have had a number of acquantainces of mine "get into" Spec Ops periodically since the thing came out.
At first I was ambivalent at best, and eventually watched a walkthrough of it (this is what I do with every game I am potentially interested in but cannot afford) and I found it rather uninspired and hypocritical in its message.
That would be the end of it if I did not, constantly, hear about the thing since. Certain parts of the indie gaming community can't seem to shut up about it and it's incredibly grating, because it's not a good game. It's a preachy, uninformed indictment of an easily disliked genre that people like specifically because it is a preachy, uninformed indictment of an easily disliked genre.
The only reason anyone likes Spec Ops is because they dislike Call of Duty and its brethren, and while I certainly am no huge fan of the CoD series, it's really annoying to see something raised up on a pedestal when it's basically a very shallow, heavy-handed criticism.
Middens did the same thing better, but is less well known because Middens is actually a challenging game on both an intellectual and strategic level (and it's also a riff on JRPGs rather than FPSes, and no one wants to play a rip into those, because JRPGs are one of the genres that these same CoD-hating people tend to adore).
And that, Kexruct, is why I reacted the way I did.
Do you know how many times I have heard almost that exact paragraph addressed to me?
I am capable of understanding the idea of satire (which is essentially what Spec Ops is, even if it's not comedic as most examples are), I am not in second grade. My point is that there are games that ridicule violence in video games far better than Spec Ops does, and that Spec Ops does not satire its target particularly well.
This is without getting into the hypocrisy of charging money for a product like this.
If you want to play a thoughtful game with a similar message that is actually worth playing, get Middens.
i still wouldn't play it though.
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Recognizing the player as a separate being from the PC, for example. Juxtaposing the typical gameplay with fantastic elements (i.e. the healing potions and ethers of most JRPGs being replaced by various types of demon meat).
I'd like to see Extra Credits take a whack at Off. See what they come up with.
In fact I will actually link you to Middens' download page. Because it is better than Spec Ops in more or less every way.
Not that it doesn't have some problems of its own, namely, the interface is rather clunky and I feel that the deliberate obfuscation of certain game elements is a little on-the-nose, but all in all, it makes its case better than Spec Ops does.
Middens is more similar, and again, much better a game.Nanomachines!
And since when have I let being wrong get in my way?
the visuals in Spec Ops are not terribly different from the visuals in any other military FPS.
that said, the art design is one of the game's stronger points.
Well, I just said so there!
No one is saying that.
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
I wonder what got the Tumblr crowd into Off, specifically? I mean, besides Batter/Zacherie (which doesn't make a lick of sense).
I'd make some offhand comment about something in Off appealing to the bereft Homestucks, but I really can't think of anything.
Also you seem to be suggesting that enjoyment can only be derived from game through victory, which seems rather suspect to me.
It doesn't seem built to fail as a game, rather it seems to be built to result in failure for the character. Which is entirely unrelated to enjoyment of the experience.
Just go play Nier.
Honestly Off's fandom-at-large is annoying to some extent but as far as Tumblr fad fandoms go, they're one of the most tolerable.
The only reason I never finished Off is because I just felt that the tedious mechanics got in the way of the story. Middens has the same problem, honestly (though the specific mechanics are different).
"What? They want me to pay for this game that likely had a five-figure budget? What a rip off."
I'd rather drop a rock into a jug and then take the rock out of the jug; and then repeat what I just did. That's a lot of fun in its utter physical, tactile, simplicity. A joy not only to sight, but to the sense of touch (much more than a flat screen, rocks have texture). But that's just me, to each his/her own.
Yeah you can just completely ignore the criticism, that's cool too.
edit: why the fuck does the quote system puke every time I quote certain, specific people.