I will say it works great as--very specifically--a criticism of the Call of Duty and maybe Battlefield franchises.
At this point my issue is less with the game itself and more of how it's been glorified as the ultimate scathing deconstruction of everything that has ever made any FPS worth playing. Cuz like, it's not that.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
How slow my connection is right now: I'm using a text-based web browser just to see if it's any less painful than waiting for images to load
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
I will say it works great as--very specifically--a criticism of the Call of Duty and maybe Battlefield franchises.
At this point my issue is less with the game itself and more of how it's been glorified as the ultimate scathing deconstruction of everything that has ever made any FPS worth playing. Cuz like, it's not that.
You have a tendency to make statements like the latter very often, and it honestly kind of bugs me because it seems like you're just saying that They like it more than it deserves. Which strikes me as... almost petty, to be honest.
Maybe it's incorrect to assume that your reasons have remained unchanged, but even if you prefer games that are fun or enjoyable, a lot of concepts that gaming needs to explore cannot be explored in a "fun" way. And some narratives are more important than giving the player the agency they desire.
I will say it works great as--very specifically--a criticism of the Call of Duty and maybe Battlefield franchises.
At this point my issue is less with the game itself and more of how it's been glorified as the ultimate scathing deconstruction of everything that has ever made any FPS worth playing. Cuz like, it's not that.
You have a tendency to make statements like the latter very often, and it honestly kind of bugs me because it seems like you're just saying that They like it more than it deserves. Which strikes me as... almost petty, to be honest.
I make statements like that very often about a couple specific things.
If you think it's great, that's cool and I can't stop you even if I wanted to. I just don't.
Maybe it's incorrect to assume that your reasons have remained unchanged, but even if you prefer games that are fun or enjoyable, a lot of concepts that gaming needs to explore cannot be explored in a "fun" way. And some narratives are more important than giving the player the agency they desire.
I feel like a lot of critcisisms are better embodied as such, rather than written into a video game.
I have softened on SOTL over the years, but I still think it's very unsubtle, and not that good at what I feel it's trying to do.
To put it in numerals, I think most people consider SOTL to be like a 4 or 5 out of 5, where as I'd give it more of a 2. Good intentions only get you so far, imo.
School Theatre is going to be deconstuctionist. A little. It's a JRPG, or at least a visual novel with the same trappings. There's a lot of material to examine.
And like please don't take me for one of those people who thinks every game should be Pac-Man. I love Antichamber, Dear Esther, and Gone Home, among other things. SOTL is just not in that same category for me.
Why is unsubtlety an issue? Why is there an expectation that a point has to be read into? Why can't a work wear its morals on its sleeve? Especially a game that puts such an obvious amount of work into conveying said morals through all means possible?
Why is unsubtlety an issue? Why is there an expectation that a point has to be read into? Why can't a work wear its morals on its sleeve? Especially a game that puts such an obvious amount of work into conveying said morals through all means possible?
Unsubtlety is an issue because if you feel like you're being preached to you're less likely to pay attention to the moral in question.
That's actually one of the reasons that I don't like military shooters. They're extremely blunt both in narrative and gameplay, and tend to not leave the player any room to make decisions (and I'm not talking about switching sides or anything like that, I'm talking about like, having your viewpoint locked so you can't not look at an explosion).
And like please don't take me for one of those people who thinks every game should be Pac-Man. I love Antichamber, Dear Esther, and Gone Home, among other things. SOTL is just not in that same category for me.
I don't, but given the reasons you expressed in the past, if I'm going to be entirely blunt, I worry that you dislike the game mainly because it refuses to be compromising towards the player.
Is it fair? Maybe not, but why does it have to be fair?
And like please don't take me for one of those people who thinks every game should be Pac-Man. I love Antichamber, Dear Esther, and Gone Home, among other things. SOTL is just not in that same category for me.
I don't, but given the reasons you expressed in the past, if I'm going to be entirely blunt, I worry that you dislike the game mainly because it refuses to be compromising towards the player.
Is it fair? Maybe not, but why does it have to be fair?
Military FPSes are made for multiplayer these days anyways. The plot is just to satisfy people who want to play without getting yelled at by prepubescent loudmouths.
Why is unsubtlety an issue? Why is there an expectation that a point has to be read into? Why can't a work wear its morals on its sleeve? Especially a game that puts such an obvious amount of work into conveying said morals through all means possible?
Unsubtlety is an issue because if you feel like you're being preached to you're less likely to pay attention.
Preaching and demonstrating are different things. Hell, you can get away with preaching even if you've properly demonstrated the point already.
SOTL chooses to show the consequences of actions done in the name of "heroism," and then never, ever lets the player forget that this is the reason things have gone wrong. That doesn't have to be subtle. It would lose its impact- or at least its uniqueness- if it was.
And like please don't take me for one of those people who thinks every game should be Pac-Man. I love Antichamber, Dear Esther, and Gone Home, among other things. SOTL is just not in that same category for me.
I don't, but given the reasons you expressed in the past, if I'm going to be entirely blunt, I worry that you dislike the game mainly because it refuses to be compromising towards the player.
Is it fair? Maybe not, but why does it have to be fair?
What?
Last time this topic was brought up, one of your stated issues was the way the game didn't allow the player to avoid certain morally repugnant actions.
Why is unsubtlety an issue? Why is there an expectation that a point has to be read into? Why can't a work wear its morals on its sleeve? Especially a game that puts such an obvious amount of work into conveying said morals through all means possible?
Unsubtlety is an issue because if you feel like you're being preached to you're less likely to pay attention.
Preaching and demonstrating are different things. Hell, you can get away with preaching even if you've properly demonstrated the point already.
SOTL chooses to show the consequences of actions done in the name of "heroism," and then never, ever lets the player forget that this is the reason things have gone wrong. That doesn't have to be subtle. It would lose its impact- or at least its uniqueness- if it was.
You're assuming that I've bought into the conceit already, but I haven't.
The thing is, if you're going to criticize dumb, lunkheaded military shooters, you can't just make another dumb, lunkheaded military shooter. Games are mechanical things, and the mechanics of a game have a message all their own. You can beat me over the head all you like, but if you put me in the pilot seat of a man holding a gun and say "shoot these people", my options are 1) do that, and progress the game and 2) turn the game off and just not play it.
The argument has been made to me that that's the point, and I don't doubt that that's the point, but if your thing is that you're trying to make people realize how horrible these games are, you can't make one of those games and be like "whelp. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED." You didn't actually help anyone.
No Call of Duty loving racist college guy who says "bro" and "faggot" a lot played Spec Ops The Line, if he did, he isn't still talking about it two years after its release and thinking it's a great game. The game's core problem is that it's preaching to the choir, which is condescending, and then also saying to that choir "no, you are not a choir, in fact, you're not even Christian", which is even more condescending.
I understand that the game is intended to be a deconstruction, but what is the motive behind that? Is the motive behind that to make people open their eyes and realize that CoD and its clones are built on a harmful and faulty premise? That's the narrative that's been pushed, but I have a hard time believing it. Far be it from me to question developer motives, but I think that the SOTL devteam may have been misguided in their efforts at best.
I think that if you have a problem with military FPSes the smart thing to do is criticize them, and then to make video games that provide an alternative to them. Something that is fun for the same reasons but not harmful.
Again, you're building up assumptions and assuming condescension and pretentiousness where none was.
For one thing, using the methods of the thing you're criticizing to highlight its flaws isn't just SOTL's goal, it's one of the foundations of satire itself. The game directly plays upon cognitive dissonance. It's filled with mechanics that can only exist within the construct of the game and sets it on a setting far, far too dark for those mechanics, because the shooter mechanics codified by the likes of Gears of War weren't meant to simulate actual combat; first and foremost they were meant to be fun. So the game thrusts you into a very, very unfun situation and creates discomfort through giving it mechanics that were originally intended to be fun.
The idea that it's only "preaching to the choir" seems kind of backwards to me, too. When a thing makes a point, people who agree with the point flock to it. It's the nature of using media to serve a message. Moreover, in what way does this negate the point being made? Of COURSE people who didn't agree with the point didn't like the game. That's just how the world works.
But SOTL isn't just "faux-heroism is bad." It presents reasons and examples of why and how the hero complex is a harmful thing, constantly and without pulling any punches. Is the game's spiral out of control realistic? No, but it properly demonstrates what it was intending to say, in a way that absolutely COULD convince someone who wasn't expecting that particular moral and instead wanted to play a game that agreed about Modern Warfare being shitty. Or make nominally antiwar or antiviolence people more resolute in their beliefs by showing the effects of things like white phosphorous, and how "it being your only option" isn't an excuse. It's not just sermons, saying what is and isn't bad; it gives the player the proper context to help understand the messages it presents.
But even then, why would a work have to justify its existence based on being able to utterly invert a person's system of beliefs? Why can't it just exist on its own, making its own point to the best of its ability and expressing its own aesthetic conceits?
You can't just make an alternative to military shooters because the issues with military shooters need to be addressed, not swept under the rug. And you can't address them if you aren't willing to confront them. I don't give a damn what Master Chief thinks of the War on Terror, but if a game were to be set within a conflict at least analogous to it, then the point would be a lot more compelling.
Seriously, though, I want you to consider that your issue might be just that it's a game that forces the player to confront the issues with why they play games in the first place. Because I honestly have a hard time seeing any through-line to your criticisms other than that.
Seriously, though, I want you to consider that your issue might be just that it's a game that forces the player to confront the issues with why they play games in the first place. Because I honestly have a hard time seeing any through-line to your criticisms other than that.
Trust me, you're not the first.
I don't like assumptions being made about my character because I thought a video game was not that spectacular, so this is where our conversation ends.
In turn though, I would like you to consider how much you actually care about the impact military FPSes and similar games may be having on society.
That's the same principle behind graphic notation. Composers throwing away the conventions of their predecessors, the clef and staves and quavers and crochets (Britain, I'm just saying, our names for notes make much more sense) that their new music wouldn't be tainted.
Comments
it's supposed to be used to create smokescreens IIRC buuuuuuut
At this point my issue is less with the game itself and more of how it's been glorified as the ultimate scathing deconstruction of everything that has ever made any FPS worth playing. Cuz like, it's not that.
Mean Aliroz: Crah meh a rivva.
Actual Aliroz: Yeah, it's lame, and I feel your pain. You get used to slow connections after a while, though, and it doesn't feel so bad.
"yep, heard that one before"
lowest it's been in a while
you catholic girls start much too late
sooner or later it comes down to fate
i wanna be the one
I hate Billy Joel songs
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
If you think it's great, that's cool and I can't stop you even if I wanted to. I just don't.
I have softened on SOTL over the years, but I still think it's very unsubtle, and not that good at what I feel it's trying to do.
To put it in numerals, I think most people consider SOTL to be like a 4 or 5 out of 5, where as I'd give it more of a 2. Good intentions only get you so far, imo.
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
That's actually one of the reasons that I don't like military shooters. They're extremely blunt both in narrative and gameplay, and tend to not leave the player any room to make decisions (and I'm not talking about switching sides or anything like that, I'm talking about like, having your viewpoint locked so you can't not look at an explosion).
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
The thing is, if you're going to criticize dumb, lunkheaded military shooters, you can't just make another dumb, lunkheaded military shooter. Games are mechanical things, and the mechanics of a game have a message all their own. You can beat me over the head all you like, but if you put me in the pilot seat of a man holding a gun and say "shoot these people", my options are 1) do that, and progress the game and 2) turn the game off and just not play it.
The argument has been made to me that that's the point, and I don't doubt that that's the point, but if your thing is that you're trying to make people realize how horrible these games are, you can't make one of those games and be like "whelp. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED." You didn't actually help anyone.
No Call of Duty loving racist college guy who says "bro" and "faggot" a lot played Spec Ops The Line, if he did, he isn't still talking about it two years after its release and thinking it's a great game. The game's core problem is that it's preaching to the choir, which is condescending, and then also saying to that choir "no, you are not a choir, in fact, you're not even Christian", which is even more condescending.
I understand that the game is intended to be a deconstruction, but what is the motive behind that? Is the motive behind that to make people open their eyes and realize that CoD and its clones are built on a harmful and faulty premise? That's the narrative that's been pushed, but I have a hard time believing it. Far be it from me to question developer motives, but I think that the SOTL devteam may have been misguided in their efforts at best.
I think that if you have a problem with military FPSes the smart thing to do is criticize them, and then to make video games that provide an alternative to them. Something that is fun for the same reasons but not harmful.
running around stomping bad guys
I don't like assumptions being made about my character because I thought a video game was not that spectacular, so this is where our conversation ends.
In turn though, I would like you to consider how much you actually care about the impact military FPSes and similar games may be having on society.
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
I wish I could draw better than I do now.