JayEchoRay

I see the title - and first thing I think

"Oblivion, now with 16 times the upscalers" in Todd's voices

I know this is subjective, but I had embraced the narrative and got into the character's head as he slowly lost patience with everything

My decisions were at :

"The hanging was screw you, I am not playing by your rules"

and

at the crowd scene, things leading up to it made me just as frustrated at the characters, that I also was getting sick of things, and gunned them down because I got tired of it all and I inhibited the character - that was a point that I felt just as tired as the characters and thought everyone can die, no one here is worth the effort,

Them doing the cop outs does make the scenes weaker, I agree, - the hanging I feel was early enough before things went off the deep end, but the crowd scene, for me, was memorable because I made a mistake in the heat of emotion, when I let myself be engrossed in the role-playing as the soldiers physically, mentally and emotionally break down, it was what stuck with me especially when you reach the end and you realize how you've been played for a fool the whole time.

Would it have been better if it was tighter and they fully commited to that descent into madness, yes. Did they have to go so heavy with the messaging, not really.

The no russian mission, I felt initially shocked the first time, but once the police arrive my illusion was broken. You can just walk through the whole civilian section and do nothing and be blamed for the attack anyway - it had more impact if you were killing people but it also has initial shock value but it is all an illusion like the choices in Spec Ops.

There was a bit of a disconnect with how was it, 5 men in only body armour made a fool out of russian equivalent of swat - they were performing riot police procedure on men armed with machine guns and grenade launchers - no different than spec ops in the last stretch of the game where you are killing juggernauts and armoured vehicles, the airport guards I can understand - but the special police were funneling into killzones - and maybe that was the idea for the context for war but it was like the North Hollywood Shootout, only both sides were carrying equivalent weaponry and only one side was really using it

I know Makarov was connected with politicians and the whole thing could have been decided to be green lit as a false flag to have a pretext.

I think it forms part of bigger meta narrative, and the end of the day you still go through with the white phosphur attack as the game is forcing the choice on you to proceed as the only way to solve the problem - which is what the character believed in

Its message is,to me, "are you having fun" playing a game of murder -it forced, albeit clumsily, the reality of war when you feel you have no other option - a choice you are forced to make like pulling the trigger of a gun. You can leave the game and not do it or you pull the trigger.

You are still killing after that point soon after, with character quick to stat blaming others and you are still going on for the ride by playing- to finish the game, to get to Komrad- it comes off pretentious i admit, but the wp was acting as a turning point and was using a blunt force narrative to make you start asking questions about the character' sanity

Could it have been done better - sure, but the thing is you, the player, still went through with it and pressed the button instead of putting the game down and refusing - it is trying to sell the point of view of the player's character you are playing decided that it was the "only way" and by continuing to play the game you have accepted the condition forced upon you and continued to be complicit in the events that unfold because you wanted to see the story through.

"No Russian is shock value, but there really isn't much player consequence as it doesn't matter what you do so long as you keep up, you could even skip it"

If you wanted to avoid the nastiness of what you were doing you could in No russian, specs ops decided to comfront the player with deciding for the player to either accept the nastiness or don't and if you want to see the story to completion you better get your hands proper dirty and not half ass it.

Again, conveying that is not easy and what they did could have been conveyed better. You are seeing things from the perspective of a dude with severe ptsd and you have been murdering people up to that point on fragile pretense

I think this is where the nuance is and where the things can go off the rails. Your example is that you want to more easily be connected with people that you enjoy engaging with but find it hard to find - which you did attempt to find a work around for, which I do commend.

I think because of the volume of scale of the internet it has been fine-tuned and engineered towards benefiting the major players more as they have taken convenience features and frankenstein'd it into a tool of "increased engagement".

It is like a market square and everyone is shouting out their wares at the same time and the major players (and others) have done their research on how to be the "loudest and most attention-grabbing hawker at the square"

Here the algorithm approach is useful to help "silence the sea of voices" and find "hawkers" that sell "products" that are of interest to you. It does require some discipline on the users part to curate their "hawkers", but overall the experience is improved as one deals with "products" that is aligned with one's interests.

I feel, in general, however that the intent has been twisted into something that has become a slippery slope that slides down towards "how can I get eyes on my thing and keep people coming back" for as long as possible. One's attention gets bombarded with as many ideas as possible and, from this, one's scope starts to bloat and becomes muddy as one processes too many different ideas and viewpoints in a short time frame and as a result one spends less time forming a individual opinion. I believe this does contribute to shorter attention spans as we attempt to "offload" our thinking onto something else as we try to make sense of all the information we take in.

The easiest thing I can think of is TikTok and how quickly the short video format was incorporated into the big platforms.

It is a human shortcoming I feel that gets taken advantage of (and I feel like it is being cultivated) and as humans we do have a side to us that tries to optimise the shit out of a things - often to our detriment.

I was served the channel by the algorithm and was concerned with the length so I attempted to share in a neutral manner unsure on reception.

I found it interesting and wanted to share the opinion

Yeah, there is a lot of evolving information, yet for now one can still have some measure of control over the content one can engage with

Yes, that is a good idea around what I am thinking in regards to the "magic addictive formula"

They have a system in play that optimises the play experience in a way that is rewarding to "addictive habits" and attempts to "encourage" a habit that leans towards an addiction.

Thank you, it seems the scope of the thought was a lot more open-ended than I imagined.

Was thinking in the line of the how the big game companies seem to try to hook people onto their game experiences and when one hits it big, how they attempt to moderate that experience around trying to keep it at a level that is akin to selling cigarettes.

It is like they are trying to find that "magic addictive formula" and try to be the sole provider of that experience to keep a person coming back to them.

That sounds depressing, it is like they commoditised cheat codes. Sad to see it fall into the trappings that the game makes fun of. I can almost imagine what the GTA 6 version might become if they decide to intergrate that level of "hooks" into its shiny game environment.

I think that was the 2K launcher, if I recall, I remember they were doing something with their games (was playing XCOM 2 at the time) and promptly made use of a workaround

Didn't like the extra steps just to get into a game - like they were reminding you that you only pay for the license to play the game and the property is theirs to do with as they please. I mean, it is, but still doesn't help feeling like I am being constantly reminded.

That is probably one of the more famous examples, yeah. They pivoted resources from the single player experience once they saw how much money they were making with their shark cards (I believe it was called). Developed an ecosystem that encouraged spending money to enjoy the game (but not forced) and I guess it was an equivalent experience of getting players to "micro-dose" with a payment to bypass elements of grind to get the best stuff and have an overall smoother experience.

Yeah, they are more apt comparisons where the target market is built upon consistent small (or large) payments that are in a business' best interests - like in-game currencies (chips in gambling sense) are used to obfuscate the value of what a player is spending money on (which falls into one of the many psychological tricks you mentioned)

Streaming platforms and movies are similar - yes but for them it is a one time recurring cost for the service or in a movie's case it is a pay per experience.

With game pass, for example, you can play games like streaming, but it won't be the full experience for some games (i.e the dlc and additional content) - and to be fair, it does usually come at a discount but there in lies additional costs per experience

It is like the equivalent of paying for a streaming service and then it asks and double dips, saying "hey, we see you really liked that show - want to pay us 5 more bucks to enjoy more of it" or a movie and where they ask you to spend more to see the extra deleted scenes

Games are in an area where one can both pay per experience and pay for the service and it is understandable in some cases why that can be - however there are games now that are intended for pay for experience (single player for example) that have additional costs attached to them to draw more "easy" money (this can be the case of developing something worse on purpose to offer a simpler way out of it) or you have games that are nearly the same every year (with them chopping and changing features to make it seem "fresh and new") and then leverage on a FOMO (mobile games are far worse in this regard) to "encourage" one to spend more on the original purchase.

The effort to manipulate and try to make more with less, feels more erroneous in the gaming sphere

They are trying to get people to become "addicted" to an experience and they wish to target either those that can afford it (and for them - power to them) and/or those that cannot but are unable to control their desire for more (worst case scenario - they hook a proverbial "junkie")