Return of the Obra Dinn: Amazing mystery/detective game. However once you've played it, you basically can't play it again as you remember the solution already and the challenge of the game is trivialized.
Chants of Sennaar: Really great game about deciphering languages. However, once again, by playing the game once, you'll remember the languages and the game has no challenge any more.
Outer Wilds: Mystery adventure game. There is some replayability as there are perhaps areas that you can still explore, but largely once you figure out the mystery and complete the game, there's not much more to experience. Some people speedrun the game though.

All of the above games I value extremely highly even though I only played them ~8-10 hours.

Do you have any others?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I patient gamered Spec Ops and beat it a couple weeks ago. I found it to be rather mediocre. The combat sucks ass and the graphics don’t help.

Couple cool sequences but I felt it was massively overhyped.

[–] Silentiea@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I think it kinda falls into the same sort of category as citizen Kane. Important for what it did when it did it, but not really good by modern standards.

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

If I played this in 2012 at release I think I’d feel just the same. What do you find is important about this game? I’m curious as I see it mentioned all over the place, but I really don’t see what’s the big deal. Releasing a game where you shoot US soldiers, in the middle of hyper patriotism in the US, seems edgy for the time but that’s about it. The moral choices were few and only had impact in terms of a bit of flavor. No serious consequences.

I did enjoy the music and especially like the detail of the characters getting progressively dirtier as the game went on.

[–] Silentiea@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

I haven't played it, I've only experienced it through essays. I think it's because it took a look at war and such from a pretty different perspective than other shooters had before, and examined the messier psychological aspects of it in a way that incorporated traditional shooter gameplay as hadn't been done before?

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Focusing on the gameplay really misses the point. It was practically an interactive story, but they wanted it to be a shooter so you'd feel more responsible for the outcome rather than just watching things unfold. And while the "choices" in game made little difference, that pretty much reinforced the message that some situations are basically fukt and "pushing forward" doesn't make it any better.

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Gameplay is 90% of time spent in the game, which is why it colored my experience so much. Regardless; what do you feel the game does well? Specific examples, please.

I read a ton of positive comments before playing it, and avoided spoilers for years. Turns out there’s much to spoil, IMO. There’s the white phosphorus scene, but you can’t even choose to not do that. It was very disappointing when I sat there and it railroaded me into using WP when my squad mate was telling me not to. I don’t feel it was a pioneer in any way, and feels quite dated even against games many years it’s senior. Bioshock came out five years earlier and has deeper social commentary, more engaging gameplay, and much better graphics.

If you have specific examples I’d love to hear them. It’s entirely possible I’m just not getting it, but I feel this game seemed epic for some console gaming teenagers in 2012 and it’s mostly nostalgia. I don’t feel the game did anything that special.

[–] JayEchoRay@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Spoilers

:::

spoiler

My interpretation and granted it is probably a bit shaking as I havent played in a long time is:

I personally found spec ops interesting into the slow descent into darkness, how your team is professional in the beginning and over time they become savage, to the point of blood thristiness, their animations changes, their speech, mannerisms and their models get gradually worn down.

You do actions but over time you think wait - am I really doing the right thing, like if you decide to help the cia guy, you find out you've been played and just destroyed the water supply for a whole area that is in desparate need of it, this come back to haunt you later on when an angry mob catches up to one of your team. I still remember feeling vindictive of hearing my teammate scream in panic and fear as I was rushing to get to him

Then to get there and see him murdered and and an angry mob looking for blood, my first reaction was vengeance not orderly dispersal....

The character and the remaining team mate gunned down civilians mercilessly because I felt outrage at them killing one of my own.... and the crowd had just cause to be pissed as your rag tag band of misfits have been blowing up commiting warcrimes after to warcrimes justifiying it to some "greater cause"

As you play the game even the loading screen are questioning you if you are enjoying yourself and nothing is stopping you from continuing to play. It is quite in your face to say that what you are doing is wrong, but if you keep playing and by finishing the game you are justifying the main characters actions, you are complicit in the acts of violence as you the player are determined to see the game to the end just as he is

Their original mission was to just scout... and it somehow turned into this Dubai tour de violence because the main character believes that there was a radio call from someone he idolised

If I recall there is that scene at the end that shows all the bullshit, the hanged men, the voice on the radio your character thinks they see and hear is in their head - they have severe ptsd, and have "main character hero syndrome" and none of the game would have happened if they just followed orders

:::

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You’ve got a solid recollection of the events. I think my expectations were set too high from what I read online. It was decent, but I was expecting S tier.

I did really enjoy how “degraded” the characters got as they went through everything like you mention. Very nice little touch.

[–] JayEchoRay@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

spoiler

It was watching like a train wreck in slow motion, I ended up just going along for the ride to see how far this rabbit hole would go I really tried to be trigger disciplined in the beginning only firing after the point of a negotiation seemed impossible and before I knew it I caught up in this zoned out mentality - no decision is right, all that matter is the mission, just trying to survive and just devolved into killing on sight and in scenes that feel like it is out of some fever dream - still remember that "lights out" section as someone in some sort animalistic fight or flight zone blinking and someone just appears in front of you

I guess it stuck with me how the main character kept making excuses and blaming someone else for all the problems and by the end of it and you see that scene with the chair looking out at Dubai and see that "I caused this" and with that call backs to the the choices and saw how it all was just some "cope" it kind of stuck with me