Quote Originally Posted by Errorname View Post
Spec Ops is a pretty vicious critique of a specific genre of highly linear military shooters, so I don't think they could have really given the player actual choices and kept the genre pastiche intact.
The big problem with Spec Ops is that it goes out of its way to specifically call out the player as reprehensible for enjoying the sort of game it is, while not offering the player any alternative to participating in war crimes. The only way to not be the person the game says is morally repugnant is to not play the game at all, or I suppose to hate every moment of playing it. Either way it's not exactly a recipe for a commercial success, and we shouldn't be surprised gamers stayed away from it in droves.

Anyone who actually played the darn thing is probably going to be upset at being repeatedly and explicitly insulted by the last two hours of the game. A better satire would have allowed the player to disobey the narrative. Far Cry 4 did this, allowing the player to consciously avoid violence and reach a bloodless and rational ending, if one that's devoid of any gameplay. And was deeply memorable for it. If Spec Ops had had an ending where the player refuses to use the white phosphorus for 15 minutes and gets an ending where the protagonist decides to cut his losses and pull out of Dubai, or maybe agrees to a truce? It wouldn't be a better game, but I'd be able to take its criticism more seriously.