Despite trying to keep plot details as vague as possible, it is difficult to discuss the stellar narrative without touching on a few key moments. If you haven’t played Spec Ops: The Line, I recommend playing it. What makes it a must-play experience is its story. The graphics aren’t fantastic, the gunplay is fairly standard, and the cover-based mechanics do not make it stand out among the vast array of shooters. It’s a critically acclaimed game, despite lackluster sales, and it’s not because of stellar gameplay. Spec Ops: The Line hit shelves in 2012, three years after Modern Warfare 2. If Modern Warfare 2 had involved you in the horrors of warfare before that point, this moment may not have been as shocking and might have even been more powerful.Īs an example of the controversial done correctly, I offer to you Spec Ops: The Line. This is due to a lack of player agency in the narrative of the game. Previously, I had discussed what made the infamous No Russian mission from Modern Warfare 2 distasteful, inappropriate, and controversial. This is a continuation of the argument made in part one, so you might be a little confused if you haven’t read it. This is part two in a series of articles so, if you haven’t, make sure to read part one here. More specifically, are extreme acts of violence unacceptable in video games, or are there circumstances that exist where they are acceptable, able to avoid controversy? As a consequence, do video games need to be censored, being too controversial, because of their immersive nature? In other words, is there a difference between shooting someone in a game and watching someone shoot a person in a film? What often can be acceptable in a film can prove controversial in a video game. ![]() The immersive nature of video games calls into question if the artistic capabilities of the platform are different than that of films and books.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |