Why does the game focus so much on insanity? (Spoilers)

#21eratas123Posted 1/6/2013 7:30:27 PM
Smashingpmkns posted...
From: Creeping_Dark | #011
cookie518 posted...
eratas123 posted...
AsbesdosMoth posted...
Spec Ops: The Line is a great example. I played the demo and I tossed it aside, thinking it another generic cover shooter. A friend lends it to me, telling me I'll like it, I don't believe him, but I try to play through it, and it turns out to be a true gem in terms of storytelling in video games.


Agreed. The best part is that there is foreshadowing of what's actually going on, you just have to pay attention and realize the flawed logic some of the scenes portray.


Story wise, it's a pretty good game, but I couldn't get over the fact that the gameplay was so generic, that it completely drowned out the insanity by the end. It was just wave after wave of near-infinitely spawning enemies. Sort of like this game's co-op.


I think that the game, by design, isn't meant to be fun. The generic gameplay is a huge part of the game's message. It just wouldn't work unless it mimicked the kind of games it was talking about. It has to feel like something you've played countless times before, except this time you're meant to feel uncomfortable, that it's becoming a chore as well. But still, just like Walker, we push on. Because something has to come out this, we can't leave it alone.

I really hope you don't truly believe what you just said.


The game does go out of its way to present shooting your way through problems as the wrong thing. As someone stated before, "There's no denying that Captain Walker is a badass. However, there's a very clear difference from being a badass to being the guy who's right".

The intro starts with you in the typical "America saves the day" plot and even pits you against generic Middle Eastern enemies to make you think it wouldn't be anything new. By the time you're fighting the rogue American soldier's and you start committing atrocity after atrocity, the game goes out of its way to paint you as a bastard for partaking in it and trudging forward despite the fact that it's just a downward spiral that just keeps getting longer.

Hell, that's why the game allows a shoot-out during the epilogue. If you still have the mindset of someone who just wants to shoot people, then there's nothing stopping you. It does lead to the worst ending of the game, however.

I bill it as similar to the Walking Dead episodic games; they're trying to tell a story that grips you, genre and gameplay be damned. That and, as Yahtzee and many others put it, it's meant to show how stupid some of the Modern Warfare series made people look by placing them what would really happen when you ran around disobeying orders and shooting people with nary a thought just because an objective marker tells you: Bad stuff happens.
#22Creeping_DarkPosted 1/6/2013 9:30:09 PM
Smashingpmkns posted...
From: Creeping_Dark | #011
cookie518 posted...
eratas123 posted...
AsbesdosMoth posted...
Spec Ops: The Line is a great example. I played the demo and I tossed it aside, thinking it another generic cover shooter. A friend lends it to me, telling me I'll like it, I don't believe him, but I try to play through it, and it turns out to be a true gem in terms of storytelling in video games.


Agreed. The best part is that there is foreshadowing of what's actually going on, you just have to pay attention and realize the flawed logic some of the scenes portray.


Story wise, it's a pretty good game, but I couldn't get over the fact that the gameplay was so generic, that it completely drowned out the insanity by the end. It was just wave after wave of near-infinitely spawning enemies. Sort of like this game's co-op.


I think that the game, by design, isn't meant to be fun. The generic gameplay is a huge part of the game's message. It just wouldn't work unless it mimicked the kind of games it was talking about. It has to feel like something you've played countless times before, except this time you're meant to feel uncomfortable, that it's becoming a chore as well. But still, just like Walker, we push on. Because something has to come out this, we can't leave it alone.

I really hope you don't truly believe what you just said.


And why not? This is why games aren't taken seriously. People with the same view as you are just consuming them as toys. Why can't games be something more - something that actually raises interesting questions?
---
ely <3
#23namewitheldPosted 1/6/2013 10:36:25 PM(edited)
Its just lazy writing. Typical in games.
#24StaticnovaPosted 1/7/2013 7:23:55 AM
AsbesdosMoth posted...
A few scripted drug trips, scripted dream sequences and weak literary allusions, quoting a great work doesn't put you on its level.

There was the occasional good moment, like when we see how overjoyed Jason is made by committing horrific acts of violence, that's pretty good, anyone who gets giddy over massacring people with a flamethrower isn't well.

One problem is that the line between reality and madness is so clearly defined, it's very obvious that you're entering a crazy sequence, mostly due to loading screens and big white flashes that indicate transitions. And the trips into madness are always so elaborate and so clearly Jason going insane that it's really nothing more than an interesting spook-house ride.

A game that does madness well doesn't point out so clearly that the character is going mad, it's just that weird stuff happens, small things you may not even notice, weird little abnormalities that confuse you and get in your head.

If you want to get in the player's head, you've got to get in undetected.


Good post, and I agree. It's a shame that a true appreciation and interest in the depths of design is so rare. So many people, gamers no less, seem to lack the analytical ability.

Though I will say that I wouldn't entirely dismiss the glaring nature of this game's handling of insanity. I think an argument could be made for the developer wanting the obvious transitions, especially seeing as we're playing an established character, not a blank-slate like in some other games. I feel that had the game focused more on the thoughts and morals of the player rather than the character, maybe then a more subtle approach would be best.
---
Awaiting: Bioshock: Infinite, The Last of Us, GoW:A, Amnesia: AMFP, Watch Dogs, NS: UNS 3
Playing: Borderlands 2
#25Maximillian37Posted 1/7/2013 9:17:48 AM
Far Cry and Eternal Darkness hybrid, anyone?
---
S3RL. /sadness
#26SmashingpmknsPosted 1/9/2013 12:16:17 AM
From: Creeping_Dark | #022
Smashingpmkns posted...
From: Creeping_Dark | #011
cookie518 posted...
eratas123 posted...


Agreed. The best part is that there is foreshadowing of what's actually going on, you just have to pay attention and realize the flawed logic some of the scenes portray.


Story wise, it's a pretty good game, but I couldn't get over the fact that the gameplay was so generic, that it completely drowned out the insanity by the end. It was just wave after wave of near-infinitely spawning enemies. Sort of like this game's co-op.


I think that the game, by design, isn't meant to be fun. The generic gameplay is a huge part of the game's message. It just wouldn't work unless it mimicked the kind of games it was talking about. It has to feel like something you've played countless times before, except this time you're meant to feel uncomfortable, that it's becoming a chore as well. But still, just like Walker, we push on. Because something has to come out this, we can't leave it alone.

I really hope you don't truly believe what you just said.


And why not? This is why games aren't taken seriously. People with the same view as you are just consuming them as toys. Why can't games be something more - something that actually raises interesting questions?

You are literally saying that the designers designed the game to not be fun. Do you realize how stupid that is? In reality, the gameplay just sucks.
---
http://i56.tinypic.com/erlcua.jpg
http://i56.tinypic.com/en18k.jpg
#27Creeping_DarkPosted 1/9/2013 1:59:18 AM
From: Smashingpmkns | #026
You are literally saying that the designers designed the game to not be fun. Do you realize how stupid that is? In reality, the gameplay just sucks.

The game is functional but it is intentionally generic in its core mechanics. You clearly missed the point of the game.
---
ely <3
#28WhitbanePosted 1/9/2013 6:11:54 AM
Creeping_Dark posted...
From: Smashingpmkns | #026
You are literally saying that the designers designed the game to not be fun. Do you realize how stupid that is? In reality, the gameplay just sucks.

The game is functional but it is intentionally generic in its core mechanics. You clearly missed the point of the game.


Exactly. It's supposed to feel like a grind, and you're supposed to feel bored. Walker and his men are suffering. They're exhausted, bruised, broken and a long way from home. They're killing the people they went there to save. It's not supposed to be "WHOO, THIS **** IS AWESOME" but, "Ah, crap, more people to kill. Why won't this end?"

Just like Walker, you're supposed to push to the end not because it's fun and exhilarating, but because of the faint hope that salvation can be reached and all the wrongs can be justified.