The whole video is worth watching, but this section in particular makes a better case than I’ve seen in other analyses: that the game condemns player involvement not by simply chastising the player for choosing to continue playing itself (as I’ve seen other analyses argue), but rather for carelessly and uncritically engaging with the power fantasy that games like this cater to.
This game is fascinating to me because of the range of reactions I’ve seen from players. Those who like it love it so much they call it a masterpiece, while those who don’t like it really hate it.
It’s also one of the only games I can think of which message (or at least what I personally interpret its message to be) gets less and less impactful the more people praise it. I feel like it only works if you go in blind and only expect a standard shooter, and really suffers from its reputation as a consequence. Expecting a fun shooter and getting this whole thing was a unique experience to me, while a friend of mine that played it expecting to find the experience he read about was super disappointed and hated it.
I think it does what it sets out to do really well. The only thing I view as a shortcoming is that it left me with very little desire to replay it, though I’ve heard that there are lots of different branching story options at different points, mostly based on if your character chooses not to do something that the game implies you’re supposed to do.
It’s not a “fun” game, but it’s engaging and short enough that I think anyone could get through it without getting bored, and I think the metacommentary that you experience from playing it is worth it.
Going in blind is the best. Unfortunately, it’s probably pretty difficult to do, since spoilers are extremely rampant. I don’t even know how I managed to do it. But it really is magical if you go in blind.
Considering it again, if the goal was to get the player to reflect critically about the sort of game they are participating of, then maybe laying on so thick on how the player, and solely the player, is at fault for pushing it to the end, is if anything counterproductive to that. Players of war shooters seeking a heroic fantasy don't exist in isolation, they exist in a culture that glorifies war and violence, with many parties that profit over it and/or want to incentive it.
To borrow the metaphor, "Walker" really did follow "Konrad's" orders, every step of the way. The author may be absent but the constraints of the story and gameplay are already set, the player can't truly break free without disengaging, and they can't evaluate critically without being engaged.
But the confrontation with Konrad, considering his and Walker's state, really suggests that they believe the issue is all in the players' agency and mindset, rather than the lack of a broader understanding. It claims that the player is at fault for "wanting to be a hero", no comment as to why they believe this is what a hero ought to be like, and what led them to believe that.
then maybe laying on so thick on how the player, and solely the player, is at fault for pushing it to the end, is if anything counterproductive to that.
This is the argument I’ve seen many other creators make that I’ve never bought into. No one’s going to stop playing a game they purchased just because the game is accusing you of being responsible for the actions of the characters within it.
The argument that this creator is making, I think, is an assumption that if you are playing this game, then it’s intrinsically because you’re entertained by war shooters. Now that only really applies through a certain time period. Eleven years on from it’s original release, the only people playing it for the past few years are likely doing so because of its reputation as a meta-critical narrative. But it was released into an environment saturated with similar games based on real locations and real conflict involving real people. And I don’t think the intent was to target the player exclusively or even specifically for criticism, but rather that environment as a whole. Why was the industry uncritically making games glorifying violence inspired by real events (and Games as Literature does point out that the catalyst for this genre–MW4–was more cynical about its violence than the later games it inspired), and why were we enjoying them? And the response doesn’t need to be, and really shouldn’t be, “I should feel bad about this.” The argument is that the response the developers seemed to be aiming for is something like “Am I being mindful about the way my enjoyment of this entertainment reflects or maybe even shapes my view of and interaction with the real world,” if that applies to you. In other words: Do you feel like a hero?
With this interpretation, I disagree that the developers believed the issue “is all in the players’ agency and mindset.” You’re not being scolded for playing through this war shooter, you’re being urged to reflect on why people play through these kinds of war shooters, especially when the violence (as is common for the genre) becomes increasingly militaristic and (arguably) carelessly nationalistic. I concede there’s an argument to be made it’s too heavy-handed with that message or too accusatory in the wrong direction, but that’s just a risk for this type of art and is ultimately a subjective response.
SPOILERS, since there are people who haven't played it yet in this thread.
It seems relevant to consider that Konrad, which is the creator stand-in, is ultimately dead, and Walker, the player, is hallucinating an argument with him, where Walker must admit that he was responsible for everything that transpired. The ultimate conclusion of the game is the developer is basically saying "you did all this yourself, I'm not even here". While the shock of internalizing all that transpired and the player's role in it might shock some people into looking at these games beyond just the action and thrills, what it doesn't do is to guide them to question the premises, framing and conclusions of a game like this. The truth is that the players only have done that which the developers have enabled them to do, and this is especially important to consider when it comes to games that do try to make the player feel heroic for war crimes and historical revisionism. The creators are alive and present,
I definitely can't equate "Do you feel like a hero?" with being mindful about entertainment, especially not in its harsher version "You are here because you wanted to be something you are not". Unlike the video, I don't think we can gloss over that in the same scene the player is told "None of this would have happened if you just stopped". Applied broadly, it seems like what the studio suggests, is that people stop engaging with war shooters entirely. That indulging in this military fantasy at all is inherently reprehensible. That, like Walker, seeking someone to blame for the moral failings of such a story is an excuse to protect your own ego.
But usually, there are people who are responsible for the moral failings of military propaganda.
Earlier in this video, Games as Literature does tie the “none of this would have happened if you’d just stopped” theme (i.e., the “hero” is the cause of the problems or at least a driving force for their exacerbation) as inherited from its direct inspirations: the Heart of Darkness novel and Apocalypse Now. So in the broader scope, the game is still addressing the original works’ anti-imperialist and anti-war themes while also adding the gaming industry meta-criticism.
But you make a good case that Yager added that extra layer clumsily by failing to direct its own additions with appropriate precision. Honestly, when I played this game a few years after its release, I interpreted it much the same way that you have here. But as I was watching this video I felt the pieces fit really well and just thought it was a really interesting perspective.
The general anti-war and anti-imperialist themes as well as the deconstruction of the military action hero that simply charges guns blazing are definitely well done. While I don't think their metafictional message is quite as refined and well directed, it was sure impactful regardless.
I just .... stopped playing it halfway through. It's what the game seemed to want, so that's what I gave it. It didn't hurt that the mechanics were bad and it wasn't actually any fun to play.
There's just so much manipulation inherent in the game that its commentary feels cheap for me. It's like setting out a box of knives for your kids to play with and then scolding them when they do. Hey, asshole, you set up the box and put it out there. What did you expect?
It would be so much more meaningful if the player actually had choices within the game. As it was, I decided to go play something fun.
At least an option to disengage within the fiction would be appreciated. I'm not too keen on this idea that closing the game works as a conclusion. A closed book doesn't have a different story. It's not like Walker will leave his path if you are not playing it. Without a different resolution, even the guilt that they try to lay on the player can't stick as well.
Same. When I played, at a couple points I tried to go all the way back to the beginning, when it seemed like the initial mission Walker was assigned was in some way fulfilled or inviable. When the game had absolutely no response to that, it kinda detracted from my appreciation for the message of the game. For all that it has to say about hero fantasies and the player engaging in it, it doesn't have any alternative to that. It needs the player to commit the sins that it wants to denounce.
There are a few points I feel is pretty forced. Okay there is an hostage situation happening right now so I get it. They wanted to help.
But after they found out the hostage is dead and there are rogue elements, they should just turn back and report the findings to their superior so that they can decide whether to send reinforcements or not.
The Spec Op protagonists aren’t good soldiers. They ignored direct orders from their superior multiple times!
Add comment