>>14790085
>>14789684
One of the most egregious examples of "player agency vs character devolpment" would be the [Bethesda Game]. You can put whatever you want here, from Elder Scrolls or Fallout and it fits anyway.
Those are games where your character takes a back seat and he isn't so much an actual character in that world but rather a manifestation of the player. He has no story, no likes or dislikes, friends or enemies, weaknesses and strengths. He is whatever the player feels like to be, which is why you can be the head of several Guilds, join several different organizations, have everyone at your back and call, etc. You compare the [Bethesda Game] to most other RPGs and you see a distinct lack of… Your own character.
Compare it with Geneforge for instance, where your character is given motivations, becomes a part of the plot, has a personality, gains friends and enemies, etc. You still retain your player agency to grow in whatever way you want and make your decisions that affect the story in whatever way you feel like is best, but your character still exists as an extension of you, only in greater depths that [Bethesda Game] character.
Now take a look at most JRPGs. Not discussing their quality, but player agency from them is fairly gone in favour of whatever narrative the devs want to tell you in their story. Every bit of character growth is a cutscene where every character does their own thing by their own will. The player mostly enjoys the combat and stat growth, which is why this tends to irk some people that wish for more player agency or not all for those that are happy with a story being told to them and acting as motivation for their bumbling about when they are playing.
However, none of these games ever make your MC to be someone you can't sympathyse at all with, unless it's part of it's growth to change into a better person. Despite removing player agency, it's still your character that you'll see from start to finish, and sticking around that long with someone you can't like at all would make for an horrible game.
Now for The Line, the issue is that you're given player agency on purpose so you can make all the bad decisions that get Walker to turn into a monster. But because they happen on your command, not during a cutscene, than you play your part in them and thus are blamed for them as well, you can't get around this bit. Psychologically, it's the player pulling the trigger.
However, again, this would be perfectly fine as long as you were given a chance to actually change your fate. To be the hero you wanted to be. Something like using binoculars that nobody ever cares to use to spot the civilians and thus belay the order, for instance.
The game didn't had to cop-out and give you a (Press X to do Bad Thing, Press Y to do Good Thing). Just keep the Evil Thing to be the most simple and straightforward action to take and the Good Thing to be something really hard to pull off, can get you killed forcing you to replay it or requires thinking outside the box or looking around carefully and noticing details.
The problem with Spec Ops the Line isn't the story itself. It was a pretty great mindfuck for every CoD faggot. The problem is that the Devs intentionaly ignored the strengths of the medium they were using and didn't respect it or used it to it's full potential.
If Spec Ops was a book or a movie, none of this criticism would apply.