|
WampaLord posted:I feel like a lot of people took Spec Ops super personally and it kind of broke them. The WP scene in particular gets so much hate in comments and posts I've read because you can't do anything to stop it. Yeah, I don't tend to get so immersed in games that I take offense to people criticizing my character, personally, so I just assumed Walker was his own character much like any other Third-person character with a defined name and voice. The only thing about Spec Ops that bothers me is them not going through with the option to just leave once your mission is over. I used to think that there's no way some freak of a gamer exists that would spend 60 bucks on a game, get that ending two hours in and then put it down forever but then I read someone's anecdote about how their friend played Stanley Parable listening to the voice to the letter and then put it down. Probably forever if he hadn't been given the advice of 'Try a different thing besides what you're instructed' edit: John Murdoch posted:Uh, funny thing about that. People aren't bringing outside expectations in when they talk about not having a choice in the WP scene. See, I never got that because: It's a video game. There are steps that must be taken in order for the story to progress and there are limitations in every game that you can't get around. You can't do a violence-free playthrough of Metal Gear Revengeance. You can't do a Cassanova playthrough of Pokemon. There's no being the big drat hero who fixes all the problems in Dark Souls. It's Castlevania, here's a boss. You must beat it to continue. There's no alternate path where you persuade it to come join you instead. Walker amasses yet another sin in order to continue onward otherwise the enemies never end. Kill all the enemies in this room so Bayonetta can open the door and you can move on to the rest of the level. And personally, I think it's good when things beat people over the head about who's the good guy and who's the bad guy. Otherwise you end up with people thinking Archie Bunker was the most rad dude. RareAcumen fucked around with this message at 13:59 on Jul 27, 2017 |
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 13:50
|
|
"
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 17:32 |
|
|
RareAcumen posted:And personally, I think it's good when things beat people over the head about who's the good guy and who's the bad guy. Otherwise you end up with people thinking Archie Bunker was the most rad dude. Yeah, this was my thinking about the complaints of lack of subtlety: if you're going for a general audience, you often NEED to be as hamfisted as possible, since otherwise a lot of people will just continue uncritically accepting whatever actions the protag takes as OK because he's the Good Guy, since p. much all games condition you to do that. If most people really critically looked at their actions in a game through a lens of morality, shooters would probably not be as popular as they are. But generally people like to turn off their critical parts and just have fun with the cool action, so you have to beat them over the head with the point to get them to maybe turn 'em back on for a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
Linear Zoetrope posted:I've always wondered, does reminding people to do that have any tangible effect on video/channel activity (actual subscribes, likes etc) assuming the content is worthwhile, or is it just some bit of Youtube lore that spread that you should do that? Whoo boy, this is complicated, but the short answer is "sort of yes all of those." Ending a video with a strong call to action is always a good call, but the willingness of the audience to respond depends heavily on a lot of things. For a good example I'm trying to do a better job of ending videos with a strong comment call to action, meaning asking a direct question and telling people to talk about that specific thing in the comments (I lifted this shamelessly from Idea Channel after Mike and I were discussing how it impacts the quality of their comments) and the difference between videos where I do end that way and ones where I don't is stark, as in it will double or triple the number of comments for a given number of views, and the comments themselves are likely to be more respectful, higher quality, on topic, and just all around better. In that case the difference between a good question and no question is pretty stark. Using a question to drive engagement is kind of universally good, but is particularly good for essayists and other EDU channels because, well, you're trying to get people to engage. It's a good chance to get people to feel smart (everyone loves a little flattery), and it's a chance for them to try and apply the ideas right away, so it's not only good YouTube it's also good praxis. The like/share/subscribe call to action works, sort of, but only if it fits your tone. The main problem actually is that it has become so normalized, so pervasive, that "don't forget to like, share, and subscribe" isn't a strong call to action anymore. Hell, it's barely a call to action, it's just a formalized farewell. Like, if I tell you to "have a good day" you're not going to internalize that as a call to action, that, yeah, you should reevaluate your plans to make sure you have a good day. It's just words that we say that mean "goodbye." So the challenge there is presenting it in a way that it actually is a call to action and not just  . Here's an added hitch: a 'subscribe' call to action is only valuable if a substantial number of viewers are not subscribers. I mean, it seems obvious, but if most of your viewers are already subscribers or logged-out functional subscribers, then what are you asking them to do?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
Puppy Time posted:Yeah, this was my thinking about the complaints of lack of subtlety: if you're going for a general audience, you often NEED to be as hamfisted as possible, since otherwise a lot of people will just continue uncritically accepting whatever actions the protag takes as OK because he's the Good Guy, since p. much all games condition you to do that. And it even extends beyond the general audience at times too! Like how John Oliver pointed out that former judge Antonin Scalia cited fictional action-drama 24 as evidence that torture could be justified. I get not wanting things to be heavy handed but then again, maybe there's a balance to be struck between heavy handed or just making people feel like they're being talked down to. Also I was shocked at how many people liked The Last of Us, despite there being a character directly calling themself and the protagonist lovely people yet Spec Ops brought about this rage among gamers. Also lets not forget the outbreak of whiny neo-nazis when the Wolfenstein NWO sequel's trailer dropped.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Yeah for some reason with TLoU a bunch of people did not get all of the hints that Joel was not a good person. They basically spelled it out for you at certain points.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
FoldableHuman posted:Whoo boy, this is complicated, but the short answer is "sort of yes all of those." Your active participation in the comments section seems like it drives engagement, but probably with those who are already most engaged. I'm kind of reminded of the fad a decade ago for alternate reality games as advertising for movies and tv that drove the most dedicated fans wild with the sense that they were communicating with the DHARMA Initiative, but which fizzled out because that audience wasn't interested in the cars and home brands the sponsors were hoping to sell, and nobody else noticed the ARGs. I guess youtube is mostly obsessive super fans, though? And you're only ultimately selling your own work?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Yeah for some reason with TLoU a bunch of people did not get all of the hints that Joel was not a good person. They basically spelled it out for you at certain points. "We're not good people, Joel, and we haven't been for a long loving time."
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Yeah for some reason with TLoU a bunch of people did not get all of the hints that Joel was not a good person. They basically spelled it out for you at certain points. RareAcumen posted:Also I was shocked at how many people liked The Last of Us, despite there being a character directly calling themself and the protagonist lovely people yet Spec Ops brought about this rage among gamers. Most people seemed to get it, the difference was just that Joel was actually an alright character, while I played Spec Ops and can rarely remember the protagonists name there without someone else saying it first. TLoU you knew you were playing a character, it's a story about Joel and Ellie, Spec Ops gives you a name and whatever but it's hard to remember much more than "Desert army man" in his case, I remember the hamfisted load screen messages more than I do him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
I've talked to a lot of people that like The Last of Us in general but rant that you weren't given a choice on whether or not to let Ellie make her sacrifice or cut a bloody swath through the Fireflies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
Joel did the right thing, the Fireflies have proven that they're completely incompetent at everything, he has no reason to trust that they would be able to develop and distribute a vaccine. Also, they're dumb enough to jump right to cutting out Ellie's brain instead of doing a biopsy or taking a blood sample or literally ANYTHING else first. Yes, kill the ONE immune person before you've run literally every test possible on her, you loving morons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
RareAcumen posted:See, I never got that because: It's a video game. There are steps that must be taken in order for the story to progress and there are limitations in every game that you can't get around. Your MGR example isn't the greatest since it technically has a non-violent option.  It's not that the game is linear, and it's never been about how the game is linear. The problem is that the developers clearly spent time and effort (badly) designing a false choice, ultimately force the player's hand, and then (directly or indirectly) admonish them for it. If we want to bring Foldable's latest video into it, refusing the WP is intended gameplay. But it's so flimsy and poorly done that they might as well have had the Foot of Cupid squash Walker and his squad when you try to go off-script. Very few other places in the game willingly offer this sort of explanation - nobody is constantly asking why they can't walk outside the playable area or climb over an obstacle - but here the developers actually do provide a justification, but totally fumble it. People keep repeating "the player isn't Walker" like a mantra, but the mechanics and construction of the scene are attempting to conflate the two. There are an endless number of ways the scene could've been done differently (starting from being entirely in-cutscene and moving on from there), but the developers went with the railroaded, scripted one we got. Of course the entire game is about Walker constantly making the wrong choice and things getting worse, but that part in specific is where the guiding hand of the developer is the most visible, and is also one of the few parts where the game tries it's damnedest to implicate the player. (The camera shots lingering on the charred remains of the victims also certainly aren't for Walker's 'benefit'...) You're given the illusion of choice, and then when you make the bad one, as the developers always ultimately intended, you get the rug pulled out from under you for it. It's a dirty trick, and it clearly takes a lot of people out of the game. It probably doesn't help that it generally works backwards - the player is most likely going to be tricked into killing those civilians, then attempt to go back and avoid it, only to discover how rigged it all was. I also don't buy that the game just has to be as obvious as possible, particularly at that point in the story. The game already ends by elaborating on exactly how much of a gently caress up Walker is, but nothing else he does receives nearly the level of bombast or attention as the WP scene (and not so coincidentally no other part conflates him and player as strongly, if at all) to the point where it starts to blot out the rest of the game, stealing impact away from the denouement and even making it far easier to forget the other misdeeds and mistakes he made before that point. Maybe I'm ignorant here, do other narratives regularly blurt out a half-cocked point, loud as can be, halfway through the story before moving on? (In b4 we argue whether a game should dump it's load as soon as possible because only 8.5% of people ever finish a game, even a 5-6 hour long shooter.) Maybe it would've made more sense for it take place around the climax, much in the same way that Bioshock executes its twist. Thus setting up an unbroken chain of introspection on how the player readily bought into Walker's justifications, stretching unbroken all the way throughout the game. Wouldn't that ultimately be more effective? But perhaps that would be seen as too similar. (I get that they were trying to make it a breaking point for Walker, but then it's also followed by the meandering, filler-y tonal mess that is the search for the Radioman, so...) In very short, I don't disagree with the scene's inclusion or its overall purpose. The execution, however, has problems and I think that's at the heart of peoples' negative reaction. And that execution is pretty unique, not really matching any of the comparative examples offered. A much closer comparison might be something like forcing the player to pull the trigger on The Boss in MGS3, but even that doesn't have a failure state in which ninjas pop out from the flowers and execute you for refusing, nor is the player conflated with Snake in quite the same way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b7TaLjdXMc&t=34s Lugo - "There's always a choice" Walker - "No, there's really not"
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Joel did the right thing, the Fireflies have proven that they're completely incompetent at everything, he has no reason to trust that they would be able to develop and distribute a vaccine. Not to mention other reports in game have shown that they pretty much failed to make a vaccine via murder surgery on other immune people. What makes them think "but this time we got it right." They're better off destroyed as they have shown to be incapable of surviving as an organization with how Marlene mentioned that most of her members died escorting her back to her base.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Joel did the right thing, the Fireflies have proven that they're completely incompetent at everything, he has no reason to trust that they would be able to develop and distribute a vaccine. This too, Joel's absolved of his actions at the end because in almost all certainty the fireflies were gonna continue failing anyway, if their entire track record was anything to go by. Well that and "Take him outside, if he tries anything shoot him" instead of just letting him see his not-daughter even one last time is a real good way to reap the whirlwind of a guy who's got nothing else left.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Joel is a good character, but a terrible person. I think not wanting to go through with what Joel wants at the end of the game is a natural reaction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Well he's probably dead now thanks to that Last of Us 2 teaser, or soon to be killed. It's not a game series I'm happy to see back, but then it's not a happy game at all. Maybe they'll make it fun to play this time instead of just interesting to watch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Joel did the right thing, the Fireflies have proven that they're completely incompetent at everything, he has no reason to trust that they would be able to develop and distribute a vaccine. The part about that that gets stuck in my craw is that the Fireflies aren't the last hope for science in the world. There's a whole chunk of planet that might've repelled the zombies better and had their medical infrastructure survive better. Just because you don't consent to the Fireflies doing their thing doesn't mean you can't say yes some point in the future when the stakes are 'We need to do a brain scan and we might need a few bags of blood too' instead of 'We're gonna have to split her head open like a watermelon to make this work but it's the only way' as they work your face over with the butt of a rifle like you're a dirty rug and vacuum cleaners haven't been invented yet. John Murdoch posted:Your MGR example isn't the greatest since it technically has a non-violent option. So it would've been fixed if they'd broken the fourth wall and asked how odd it was that their bullet wounds just started to fix themselves when they got out of direct fire? It's a necessary scene in order for the story to continue. Kratos has to kill the hydra, Majima's gotta beat Lao Gui to get to Dojima, the Sector 7 plate has to fall before you leave Midgar. This seems about as much a choice as using items while fighting a boss you're not supposed to beat and realizing 'Oh, I'm actually wasting my stuff doing this right now' quote:People keep repeating "the player isn't Walker" like a mantra, but the mechanics and construction of the scene are attempting to conflate the two. There are an endless number of ways the scene could've been done differently (starting from being entirely in-cutscene and moving on from there), but the developers went with the railroaded, scripted one we got. Of course the entire game is about Walker constantly making the wrong choice and things getting worse, but that part in specific is where the guiding hand of the developer is the most visible, and is also one of the few parts where the game tries it's damnedest to implicate the player. (The camera shots lingering on the charred remains of the victims also certainly aren't for Walker's 'benefit'...) You're given the illusion of choice, and then when you make the bad one, as the developers always ultimately intended, you get the rug pulled out from under you for it. It's a dirty trick, and it clearly takes a lot of people out of the game. It probably doesn't help that it generally works backwards - the player is most likely going to be tricked into killing those civilians, then attempt to go back and avoid it, only to discover how rigged it all was. And then they find out that yes, they did go through it correctly and hopefully continue onward? It's not like it's a huge investment of time and I would - assume at least- that 2012 third-person shooter Spec Ops: The Line would not be the first exposure to the gaming phenomenon that is a But Thou Must scenario. quote:I also don't buy that the game just has to be as obvious as possible, particularly at that point in the story. The game already ends by elaborating on exactly how much of a gently caress up Walker is, but nothing else he does receives nearly the level of bombast or attention as the WP scene (and not so coincidentally no other part conflates him and player as strongly, if at all) to the point where it starts to blot out the rest of the game, stealing impact away from the denouement and even making it far easier to forget the other misdeeds and mistakes he made before that point. Maybe I'm ignorant here, do other narratives regularly blurt out a half-cocked point, loud as can be, halfway through the story before moving on? (In b4 we argue whether a game should dump it's load as soon as possible because only 8.5% of people ever finish a game, even a 5-6 hour long shooter.) Maybe it would've made more sense for it take place around the climax, much in the same way that Bioshock executes its twist. Thus setting up an unbroken chain of introspection on how the player readily bought into Walker's justifications, stretching unbroken all the way throughout the game. Wouldn't that ultimately be more effective? But perhaps that would be seen as too similar. (I get that they were trying to make it a breaking point for Walker, but then it's also followed by the meandering, filler-y tonal mess that is the search for the Radioman, so...) I'm not saying that the game needed to be obvious about it I'm saying that it helps so you don't have people cheering for John Galt and Darkseid or whoever the gently caress. Maybe the scene could've been moved towards the end, sure. But I'm not sure what better way to signal 'use the new toy that wasn't around before now to proceed' than constantly replenishing enemy forces and your dwindling ammo supplies. quote:In very short, I don't disagree with the scene's inclusion or its overall purpose. The execution, however, has problems and I think that's at the heart of peoples' negative reaction. And that execution is pretty unique, not really matching any of the comparative examples offered. A much closer comparison might be something like forcing the player to pull the trigger on The Boss in MGS3, but even that doesn't have a failure state in which ninjas pop out from the flowers and execute you for refusing, nor is the player conflated with Snake in quite the same way. That's fine, it's not like Spec Ops: The Line was the Dark Souls of third-person shooters or anything. WampaLord posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b7TaLjdXMc&t=34s Dying Soldier: "Why? [...] We were helping." Aw man, yet another comedy of errors that could've been avoided if people had just talked! This is iZombie all over again. Man, with how involved Spec Ops: The Line talk gets, we're all just lucky Drakengard wasn't as popular.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
business hammocks posted:Your active participation in the comments section seems like it drives engagement, but probably with those who are already most engaged. Yes, but Youtube also uses "engagement" as a metric for them to put your video on recommended lists, for notifying subscribers and generally putting your video out there. So engagement does keep the dedicated fans watching but also gets other peoples' eyeballs to your video.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
RareAcumen posted:Man, with how involved Spec Ops: The Line talk gets, we're all just lucky Drakengard wasn't as popular. I do kinda appreciate Drakengard for it's approach on the matter. That game makes drat sure you understand that the main character is exactly as bloodthirsty and broken a person as you would expect someone that kills thousands to be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
It bothers me how little poo poo the Turks get for literally squashing an entire neighbourhood.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
i am tim! posted:I do kinda appreciate Drakengard for it's approach on the matter. That game makes drat sure you understand that the main character is exactly as bloodthirsty and broken a person as you would expect someone that kills thousands to be. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-J4f6OrxzsU
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Inspector Gesicht posted:It bothers me how little poo poo the Turks get for literally squashing an entire neighbourhood. "Just following orders." It's a defense a lot of people sympathize with. The game shows us the Turks are normal people who have loyalty to each other, like to go on vacation and get smashed, etc.. Compare with the actual Shinra Executives who are only ever seen backstabbing each other or plotting murder. (except Hojo who went and got a suntan for some reason???) NikkolasKing fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Jul 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
RareAcumen posted:So it would've been fixed if they'd broken the fourth wall and asked how odd it was that their bullet wounds just started to fix themselves when they got out of direct fire? It's a necessary scene in order for the story to continue. Kratos has to kill the hydra, Majima's gotta beat Lao Gui to get to Dojima, the Sector 7 plate has to fall before you leave Midgar. This seems about as much a choice as using items while fighting a boss you're not supposed to beat and realizing 'Oh, I'm actually wasting my stuff doing this right now' If the bolded bit is meant to describe the failure state in the WP scene, then it's wildly inaccurate. If that's actually how it worked, we probably wouldn't be having this argument. That said, I give up. I've exhausted every way I can think to try and get across the distinction I'm making. At least not without going off the deep end with an entire tangential thesis on the nature of the player-designer relationship. It's baffling how people keep saying "well it's weird nobody had such a big problem with <other game with controversial elements>" and then when I say maybe it has to do with the specific way it was executed in SpecOps people go "nah, those people were just interpreting it wrong". 
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
RareAcumen posted:And personally, I think it's good when things beat people over the head about who's the good guy and who's the bad guy. Otherwise you end up with people thinking Archie Bunker was the most rad dude. all in the family did beat people over the head, it was a network sitcom
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Did anyone bring up the "just turn off the game" defense yet
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
It doesn't matter if someone is concussed from the message, they will still interpret whatever they want from the story. That's just kind of inevitable. Look at all the people who missed the point in Verhoeven's Starship Troopers. (I was rooting for the Bugs since this all started when their home was invaded by Space Mormons. But apparently I'm also wrong.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
In my opinion people should read Joseph Conrad instead of playing the exploitative, virtual-reality war crime nightmare-fantasy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:In my opinion people should read Joseph Conrad instead of playing the exploitative, virtual-reality war crime nightmare-fantasy. the one time I'll agree with BotL, it feels dirty, but right much like the cruelty of man
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
Also Under Western Eyes and Secret Agent are better introductions than Heart of Darkness, on account of not being racist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
I was gonna say, Heart of Darkness is something that has been mined so many times for reinterpretation but the original is, like, VERY racist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
And Under Western Eyes is really cool.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Secret Agent is easily my favorite but Under Western Eyes is also excellent. It's a shame that Heart of Darkness is his most iconic when it's his weakest political work by far
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
John Murdoch posted:That said, I give up. I've exhausted every way I can think to try and get across the distinction I'm making. At least not without going off the deep end with an entire tangential thesis on the nature of the player-designer relationship. I think you described it best as railroading. The designers want the story to go in a certain direction, so the player is forced into doing something or acting in a way that might not agree with or doesn't make sense. I know people have said that you aren't supposed to be Walker; he's isn't meant to be a avatar for the player like Shepard in Mass Effect. However, it's infuriating because undermines the player's agency. If you ignore your squad-mate's objection and use the WP, you end up inadvertently killing civilians you didn't know were there. If you don't, then the troops move in and you die. Either way, you can't "win".
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Well I just had an unpleasant experience. I was watching some video reviews for Dunkirk when this video called "Dunkirk is racist and sexist" came up by a channel called No Bullshit. I clicked it, hoping I'd get at least an entertaining cringe video from some heated moron on the internet. Instead, I got a video about a guy complaining about the "liberal media" and the Essjews getting mad at the lack of diversity in the film, and how they're ruining hollywood. And then he had another video where he came out in favor of Trump's transgender in the military ban. So gently caress that guy. I find the complaints about Dunkirk's lack of diversity dumb (because hey, there are black french soldiers in the goddamn movie), but what bugged me the most was how he took rightfully mocked reviews and articles and turned them into a rant against everything he disagrees with. I'm saying all this because I hope sempai Hbomb notices me and makes a video about horrible people again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ContraPoints/status/890659941454827520 Ya Contra! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
People with names like that are almost always some form of right wing douche trying to play a "I'M JUS TELLIN THE TRUTH" angle to puke out their stupid persecution complexes/cheerleading for regressive bullshit. N i c e
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
on one hand, he's lucky he can do a 2-month hiatus, but on the other hand I'd be burnt the gently caress out too if I did this nonstop for almost a decade http://kotaku.com/angry-joes-fans-cant-deal-with-him-taking-a-vacation-fr-1797316129 I actually like Joe Vargas so I feel bad his fans completely poo poo all over him for daring to want to take a breather. You really can't win with Youtube/streaming/etc and unless you keep the hustle going 24/7 you completely get left behind.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
Jimbot posted:Doesn't really work in a game in which you paid for. You don't call the player some monster for doing what was required to advance the game. You can't have your cake and eat it too in that situation. The idea is solid and I'm sure in the hands of better designers, it could work. But Spec Ops always came off as hamfisted to me and loses a lot because of it. the video game isn't loving attacking you personally lmao it's making you experience a story about a character using the interactivity of the medium and the expectations inherit to the genre in order to draw the player into the the character's perspective and make you feel complicit in their actions and invoke an emotional response. it's not actually saying you specifically should be put on trial for violating the geneva conventions Augus fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Jul 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
Augus posted:the video game isn't loving attacking you personally lmao Sir, this is a McDonald's drive-thru.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 17:32 |
|
|
Jimbot posted:Sir, this is a McDonald's drive-thru.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 01:44
|
|