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 remember playing the demo of the first one (and then the game) when I was a kid and absolutely loving it, so I can’t wait to get back into it after all these years.
I also had no idea From Software created the Armored Core series (or, I guess, didn’t remember) so it came as a shock to me after watching 6’s first trailer and seeing their logo there.
Calling this glitchless is a little misleading, unless you’re suggesting that carrying spells over from one run to the next was intended / normal functionality. This also requires a mod-constructed wand that isn’t possible to get in a non-modded game.
It’s still awesome from a theorycrafting standpoint, but there’s no one arguing that this is a legitimate speedrun.
It’s not a mod wand. Wands have a super rare chance of having more that 26 slots.
I think there is an effort to gather seeds and locations of 26+ slot wand spawns, in order to try and make calculators/finders.
I would agree that a run should be a run in isolation.
Gaming is a luxury. I hate paying more for games but the best part of the current market is there are so many avenues to gaming.
Due to the surplus of so many games available we have the ability to buy sparingly and avoid buying at launch. We can support the companies and titles that are truly worth our dollar.
Personally, I’ll only buy titles I feel I must play as they release as the feeling of waiting is painful. Often it depends on the backlog of games I already have. Although, I do have a switch 2 and have barely played it (I’m ashamed). I do plan on Metroid Prime 4 soon and possibly some other titles. Overall, I’m not the biggest fan of Nintendo’s business practices but I’ll buy their games that I enjoy.
Obviously, Nintendo isn’t evil nor are any of these gaming companies. They are selling their product and the folks keep buying. If I never played a Nintendo game in my life cause it was outside my budget I think I’d be more than fine.
I’m so tired of the whole discourse. Why is Nintendo “evil” while Sony and Microsoft have been doing the same stuff, and for longer? Don’t even argue, I don’t care anymore. I’m just tired.
I like Switch 2 and I will play games on it. It’s a lot cheaper than upgrading my PC. I don’t play online, and eshop has better prices than Steam in my country. Don’t yuck my yum, and I won’t yuck yours.
Back on Reddit, there were even complaints that EA's anticheat was conflicting with Riot's anticheat. Yep, now you potentially need two different installations of Windows to run each of your games. At this point, you would need to buy several SSDs and a SSD extension (or an external USB reader, since USB speeds nowadays are relatively fast enough to afford running those games from an external drive), then install each game (and operative system) in a different one, and swap between them before booting, just like a cartridge. Same would go, of course, for your actual main GNU/Linux drive that contains your actual personal data - that way, the anticheat can't even see your personal information, as it'd physically unplugged from your computer. And since Windows checks the license per motherboard, not per drive, you should be able to recycle the activation key between your Valorant "cartridge" and your Battlefield "cartridge". At this point, paying for a dedicated game console and the online pass starts becoming attractive...
...That, or just boycott multiplayer games altogether. If your group of friends doesn't mind, of course.
Didn’t this only happen if you tried to run both games at the same time, which realistically should never be happening? The only time this might trigger is if one anti-cheat misses or drops the command to close for whatever reason and keeps running while the game is closed and you go to play the other game instead.
Both anti-cheats could just whitelist each other, though. Anti-cheats already have software whitelists, there is no reason they can’t add each other. That automatically solves the problem without the consumer or developer needing to do anything other than update their software to the newest version.
I am sorry but Kyle Crane was a really bland character as well, I think in most of everyone thinks so as well. I don’t think I have every seen a opinion/review that actually praised the main character or story of the first game.
And mind you, Dying Light 1 is one of my favourite games of all time.
youtu.be
Ważne