Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1

    Spec Ops: The Line - an Operant Condtioning Chamber

    Spec Ops: The Line may be a game to break new ground in the use of Skinner box (operant conditioning chamber) techniques to manipulate users into believing, saying and doing things they otherwise would not. It is a remarkable execution. Numerous reviewers seem to have really fallen for it. A couple examples to drive it home:

  2. #2
    Kuchera's taken the bait. He doesn't grasp the blatant manipulation to get him to make that interpretation. Martin can see the walls of the box. When the execution is especially crude, as in the mortar bit, it becomes obvious enough that Martin calls it out but does not note its relationship to the game at large. Underneath the superficially 'adult' story is the reality that the game is lecturing to the player as an adult would to a child or as a pathological narcissist would to just about anyone. It's the sheer cynicism of that which provokes Space Ramblings' ire.

  3. #3
    I think the reason critics fell for it was because they were perfectly set by the nature of their position as professional reviewers to be hooked by it. The game is (according to some, I've not played it) a poor execution on the mechanical level. The controls are poorly implemented and the game takes 'real is brown' to a ludicrous extreme. Watching footage of it on Youtube I see it's worse than the first Gears of War at its most inconveniently monochromatic. However, it's not outright bad enough to invoke Wolpaw's Law. So they finish it. As reviewers they're obliged - and they end up falling right into the trap. I don't wish to belabor the obvious but it's necessary to say it as I've seen it left unsaid where I've read on the game - there is no such thing as moral responsibility in the absence of agency. If one has no choice to do or not do a thing one is not responsible for what one does or what results from it. One would do just as well to start judging meteors or tectonic plates. By denying the player agency at key points in order to ensure that the player will do as they wish, the developers have robbed themselves of the possibility of moral critique. One cannot force someone to do a thing and then, at the same time, maintain the pretense of moral criticism by smugly lecturing them about the evil of the deeds forced upon them. It's a clever and morally dubious trick to pull on critics, who generally don't pay for the games they play. It's downright insulting to do it to someone who paid sixty hard-earned dollars for it.

  4. #4
    If this represents the future of how games tell stories and relate to the player I'm deeply troubled. I won't play it. I won't play it and I won't give them my money. I don't have much of it to give and they seem dead set to do everything they can to not earn it. They've succeeded.

  5. #5
    I don’t really agree with that point at all. Game only forced me to do one thing, near the end it forced me to leave my friend to die while I wanted to stay and die with him killing as many bastards as possible, but other than that game represented my choices with 100% accuracy. I never wanted any other ones, no matter if I had to chose between two or was presented with one, it was just right every time.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts