That is what I have been wondering about. On one way the gameplay kinda added on the point the devs were trying to make, but on other hand if they made amazing shooter, would the game lose anything? No it wouldnt, it would just have great gameplay as well.


So they just hid behind "we made it on purpose" when in fact it is their norm?
Retro City Rampage was interesting example that devolving certain aspects of a game can work. But...as I said I loved playing Spec Ops the Line, but I most likely wouldnt play it again, simply due to the fact that the best part about the game is story...and I only need to hear that once.

It would lose something. It's probably the only game that I can name off the top of my head that has absolutely no ludonarrative dissonance.

If the shooting was more fun it would lose that. It would be like all the other games whose story says "war is bad, mmkay", while the gameplay says "war is awesome!".

Hm...interesting point. Still, the gameplay being how it is, I still rnake it among the best games I have ever played and definitely do not regret the purchase.

I do not think that if gameplay would be entirely different that I would feel different from how I did when I finished it though.

simple answer: yes - in many ways!

Of course you can make bad things and be praised for it.
Even moral ones. So people learn from your example not to do it.
And since moral codes or in the OP's case gaming standards change over the years what has been considered bad now might good someday or vice versa.

I don't think it's the same thing. I haven't played Retro City Rampage (not my cup of tea) but from what I've seen making this game as retro as possible was the core assumption of its developers. So this statement was actually a priori while it's hard to believe that it was the case with Spec Ops the Line. Ok, I haven't play it neither (once again - not my cup of tea) but judging from what I see and what I've heard I would say that they tried to make spectacular AAA title. Apparently they failed so they tried to find an excuse. Perhaps I'm wrong here but I still don't believe them ;)

The gameplay is... monotonous and uninspired. Enter room, get cover, kill 20 enemies -> cutscene. Jump down to the next room, get cover, kill 20 enemies -> cutscene. Leave building, get cover on an open field, kill 20 enemies -> cutscene. Enter the next building, get cover... ... ... ... and so on... The design is really bad and the mechanics aren't anything special. But the story really makes up for it.

@topic
I don't think you should design a game to be bad on purpose. If people don't like the gameplay, they'll stop playing. I only played through Spec Ops because I knew it was a short game and because a lot of people said it's worth to do it. This shouldn't be the objective of a developer. I would want people to play my game because they like it, not because other people told them it's worth to endure it. Better level design and better mechanics wouldn't have hurt the experience.

I agree to a degree - everyone has a different perception of where the line stands between right and wrong whether it's religious, social or lawful values. So is wrong based on the majority view or in the name of freedom, each individuals values?

Perhaps deeper than required so in a nutshell, yes it's wrong if somebody, by their own morals, purposely produced a naff game in the interests of profit. However, to contradict that, these days the internet makes it so much easier to choose by reviews or forums which provide all the information required to make an informed choice. So, the consumer has only him/her self to blame if they buy a complete dud.

It can be repetitive, clunky, glitchy, uninspired, you name it. But if it was purposefully made that way, and achieves the designer's idea, you can't really call it bad, can you?

Doing something justifiable is not a bad thing. It can include doing things that many do not feel comfortable with as well as things that sound awful when out of context.

As for delivering messages, it would depend on how it is done. If it involves oversimplifications, exaggerations, and highly selective info; then it is bad.

As for this game, I would have to play it to understand it but I would prefer that developers try to treat gameplay as the most important aspect of a game. After all, that is what makes a video game a game instead of a movie.

So much talk over a game that can be cleared in under 4 hours without skipping anything :)

Bastards, this thread actually pushed me to do a 4th playthrough.

Then they shouldn't have made a shooter to begin with, there are plenty of genre that would have allowed them to deliver their message without compromising the gameplay.

Personally a game with bad gameplay doesn't tell "whatever the game is about is bad" it simply tells "this game is bad".

Apart from the moral dilemma that you can be a bad example and thus doing something bad for the sake of good I remember something the "Extra Credits" guy said.
Paraphrased he meant something like this:

The game you play is the best possible outcome that was developed under that specific timeframe and publisher.

Meaning, no game is inherintely bad, there just isn't enough time to fix all the bugs and polish everything that sucks.


Concerning Spec Ops, you use the "manpower" to polish the shooting-up experience but have to sacrifice the story-line. I guess nobody wanted that...
It's like adding multiplayer to the Mass Effect series...
Oh, wait a minute...

I'd have to say it depends on the reason and how it plays out. If it was done for the sake of laziness than I call bs on it.

One interesting example I can think of for a game made bad on purpose is this game here at number 6 listed on this cracked list http://www.cracked.com/article_19816_6-japanese-video-games-that-will-make-your-head-explode.html

A guy designed a horrible game on purpose to turn people away from video games. It is insulting, tedious. But it is his vision for a game. *shrugs* I don't have to waste my time on a bad game.