NSFW Best Thread Ever [No SJW-related posts allowed]

Not a good analogy dude...

 

More like "Smoking will give you a limp dick" on the back of cigarette cartons.

(do they have those outside of BRBR? I dunno)

The MW series have them too. MW2 has that infamous level where you spend the entire mission going trying to rescue the pilot of a downed chopper, and just as they're escaping a butthurt tyrant presses the awesome button and everyone dies horribly. In MW1, even your superhero protagonist buddies get casually picked off one by one by the villain at the end (zomg spoilers). The games go out of their way to show common soldiers getting owned one way or the other, I have no idea how anyone would play them and think they glorify war. Spec Ops just goes the extra mile by showing you the burnt bodies up close and going "I TOLD YOU BRO, I TOLD YOU ABOUT THE PHOSPOROUS", which the tards interpret as this clever subversion where the game demonstrates that war is a (gasp!) BAD THING.

 

Fucking hell. Do you people differentiate between "Your own guys getting killed is bad" and "Anyone getting killed is bad" at all? This "irony" melts my fucking mind. It's not ironic. It's a common power fantasy item.

It's not some sandniggers you just iced because of a shit decision. It's your BUDDIES that BAD GUY has murdered in cold blood, underlining the BIG EVIL stereotype. He's not human after this, it's only right that you kill him. The most common way of depicting the enemy in the Western tradition - dehumanizing them. A butthurt tyrant presses the button, not the good guy. It's the terrorist that killed everyone, not you, not the player, not what you represent as the player in the game. Where's irony? Where's controversy?

BTW, still haven't played The Line, but seriously, comparing player's actions leading to deaths of civilians, and consequences of that compared to bad guys doing bad things? At least compare it to MW2 "No Russian" thing then, that is equatable, although the player never truly suffers the consequence if I got the outline right.

 

I'm...not sure what to make of that post. What's that about irony? Are you disagreeing with me, or...?

Yeah, in SpecOps the player is the one responsible for the murderizing. Whoop, that's what you do in every war game. I guess that was extra bad this time because of the phosporusuidahsuidabisdhba

Yeah, in No Russian you also kill a shit ton of people, just like you do in the rest of the game. BUT WAIT THEY ARE UNARMED NOW I REALIZE WAR MEANS A LOT OF PEOPLE GET KILLED ADAFAS FJA RFAJS I

In any case, I was talking about the guy's claim that Spec Ops is the "anti-CoD" in that it show us that WAR IS BAD. There's nothing in CoD that makes war sound cool (apart from fragging sum n00bs on multiplayer), so I'm guessing the writer of that piece put some alcohol into his Mtn Dew. (Pwr Dew?)

The player character (at the time) dies like a bitch and shows up on TV as a mass murderer; plus the US gets blamed for it, which is what the bad guy wanted.

-

 

Or beer companies making ads telling you to drink responsibly.

 

Okay, so you aren't differentiating it then.

Let's put it this way. You're watching an 80ies action flick. Conan, maybe, or Commando. You know, one of those films where the hero butchers an army of bad guys. That's pretty cool, right? And maybe the hero has a buddy, or a bunch of buddies, who tag along for the adventure, and they're killed off in a tragic dramatic way that makes it look like they matter. That's not cool, right? This is normal. This is the CoD-level drama. Your protagonist's buddies - they matter. Maybe they died in slow motion, or a tragic tune played. They're your buddy. They matter, dammit! Shed a tear. Kill those towelheads that are running at you, those godless savages that killed your buddies. Again, a completely normal entertainment industry (and not only) rhethoric.

Now, reverse the scene. You and your buddy are the godless savages. The people you killed, they died in slow motion, to a tragic tune. Does COD do this? Does it do it as you avenge your buddies, or as a loading screen spouts another banality to give a teenager a cool quote to share with his buddies over a bottle of beer? Which part of COD makes war look like it's uncool? What part of generic fantasy, where protagonist's parents are brutally killed in front of him, are anti-violence? It is simply not. By the same line of thinking, Unreal Tournament opens with an anti-violence message and is an anti-violent game. You're the immortal hero, above morality, bringing justice or whatever the hell to the world.

Now, hailing The Line as the best thing ever since sliced bread is, again, wrong, but keep in mind that there are more blatant "anti-war" message games out there that got as much love as The Line (Bastion, and that platformer that was about NUCULAR BOMBS after all, whatever the name is). Anti-war messages are quite well-loved in our cultures - just as is our love for war on the other hand. Once I have more time on my hands, I'll actually check it out and see what all the noise is about, but basically that's how it is at the starting level.

And again - deaths of buddies and people on player's faction and player killing THE EVIL ENEMY is extremely different from the player taking the active role of actually being THE EVIL ENEMY he'd normally fight in a game. It's not like "omg i kild a hoss", no.


That's a "narrative" approach, however. If you approach everything purely from gameplay approach, then it's pretty identical. Except people are fapping/raging about The Line for the story aspect and not for the gameplay. Quite sad, really. I'd like to see a game that has gameplay as controversial and quite fapped at as this.

 

Agree with Angthoron, there's a massive difference between killing random people for lulz and having the consequences punched in your face. That "No Russian" level was no different than a GTA game... "yeah, I just blew up half of my own town with a tank, lulz". You just shoot nameless people that have no names or consequence... I didn't play "The Line", but from what I saw in videos they try to push the consequences in your face. Yoiu didn't kill random people, you killes families, civilians. And it wasn't a evil plan by the evil nazis, it's was you, your fucking decision.

In the end, I still thing it's more of journalist hype than anything else deep or impressive... even though they are civilizans and you see them portrayed as victims, the player still don't care. They have no connection to them, they are still just random NPCs. For true impact, you should kill your own tem, your own family & friends, someone that the player cared for. Or show them the civilians, make the player pass through the city as an ally, recieve a gift from a child and see her hugs it's mother, just to send him to slay all them later in the game, even making the mother grab an weapon and attack him in tears. THAT would have been hard, dark, would have a deep impact.

As it is, is no different than blowing up that town in Fallout 3. No one cares, some will even lol at it.

 

We love anti-war rhetoric. It sells well every time. Hard to pull off without seeming preachy, but it'll always stand out, so if you're half-competent, you can make a bit of noise around your title with it. The Line is no different there.

And yes, in the end, the disconnect is still too much. You see cutscenes, or you may choose a "renegade/paragon" option, but it's still a part of a heavily scripted game. You can't do something brutal outside the scope of the game and then get terrified by the consequences. There were moments in Fallout games that could be way darker. I'd like to see a game that wouldn't lead you by the leash to be either a good guy or a bad guy on the terms that it offers, but obviously that's too much work for modern studios, too much investment, too much time, only to end up as a likely niche product.

So, in the end, for many it fails to deliver an impact because no matter what, even if you know better, you end up shooting those phosphorus rounds to kill the civilians. You didn't make that choice, the game made it for you.

 

SpecOcks: The Line and Dear Esther have one thing in common: they are two pretentious pieces of shit, one with terrible gameplay and the other with no gameplay at all.

 

Which is better and why? Discuss!

 

It took me two weeks to get through the 5 hour campaign of Spec Ops since I couldn't bear the popamole for more than 30 minutes at a time. So I'm inclined to say that no gameplay is better.

 

I guess I'll concede the point for Agnthoron as he argues it better than me. I see how you're right from a narrative perspective, but I see people being shocked over killing (virtual) people only when they're told to, being perfectly fine with it otherwise.

--

Anyway, is juvenile humour still the best humour? It sure is.

Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler

 

Indeed, felipepepe of the mines.

The Codex version is that we only got to know Fallout 3 (The whore) until we finally met her younger sibling, at which point we abandoned her foul ways completely.

 

least the other i can watch on youtube and...oh wait.

 

What is going on here bro? o_O

Also, yeah, your mileage with shock at killing collections of polygons may vary.

 

I don't know about you guys but when I think about too much sex in RPGs the first thing that comes to mind is the Witcher.

 

You can't score with Dr. Chakwas and the Mom characters.

 

Bethtards vs. Biotards, which is better and why:
Romance Sub Plots.. next Bethesda games needs this.

 

Jesus Christ, that's some brand recognition.

 

First, the title didn't sell particularly well and was rather somewhat of a disappointment for 2K Games among other titles like Borderlands 2, X-Com: EU, Civilization V Add-On etc. and there wasn't much "journalist hype" around it, it was rated rather badly around most publications: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/spec-ops-the-line
It also wasn't marketed on "anti-war rhetoric", most people thought it was just another Call of Duty/Medal of Honor/Battlefield 3 Campaign/Homefront/etc. It got popular only after people started playing it and recognized that it's actually a good game, different from all the other crap out there.
I don't remember any "Renegade/Paragon" options in it, and most choices you have aren't even hinted at, but embedded directly in the gameplay, there's no "dialogue options" at all.

And yeah, that particular phosphorous scene wasn't as thought through as it could have been and seemed kinda misplaced since you had no other option and could see it from 3 miles away. Would've likely been even better if there was actually a different choice, it wasn't as choreographed and the player decided to use it of his own will instead, but the entire 2nd part of the game is based on that particular scene.

 

The third pic is actually unrelated to the other two, but now I see they work perfectly together.

 

But look how interesting, it's a AAA+ popamole shooter like thousand others, but it has a "low" reviwer score and a higher user score. The others, like CoD: BLOPS 2 have high reviwer scores and abyssal user scores.

It became a "cult" game, not due big portals, but the little guys in blogs, forums and youtube videos talking about it.

 

And to think the first Spec Ops game (Rangers Lead the Way) was a really nice shooter.

 

It doesn't get interesting until a couple of hours in, so it's no surprise that the reviewers failed to notice that it was anything more than popamole shooter no. 238

 

Is the Witcher sex mandatory? Because if not, you can simply decide to not bang any chicks or bang different chicks on different playthroughs.