Bravo! Spoken like a true philosopher!
How dare plebeians even think about having some fun every now and then, preferring vidoegames to other means? They should just work their back off 24/7, no pauses until they broke.
Luxury entertainment... if I quit with that, would you kindly quit with such bullshit? Of course not. It seems it is the past-time you "noble" have chosen.

This place has become a dump.

I would also like XCOM2 to arrive on GOG. :)

If the GOG version has no implemented multiplayer, GOG just removes those achievements entirely. (e.g. Bioshock 2 Original's multiplayer achievements). X-com has like 2 multiplayer achievements so removing them doesn't matter at all.
I feel like they are the only ones that care. Just look at Steam that has so many games with broken achievements due to game servers going down, and it's all for the devs to do.

Multiplayer achievements shouldn't exist if there are any external servers included imho, there's gonna be a time when you can't obtain them. For example the *Saintified - (upload your character online)* achievement for Saints Row 4, the servers are shut down. GOG just obmitted that one when it released here, while Deep Silver is too lazy to log-in to the game's Steam page and just delete that achievement from Steam. Even if people including myself have been complaining about it for at least 2 years.

You're screaming into the void man.

I think that people who don't have much need things like vide games or other fun things that will be able to distract tham and offer some fun even more.

Where is the Linux version by Virtual Programming?
Feral are to blame in other cases, but this case is because of Virtual Programming. Probably their fault though anyway.

No idea what kind of argument is ongoing in the previous pages, but:

Even though I have already bought this game on Steam before for 5€ and played it through, I highly approve the GOG release.

Insta-bought. More like this, please. AAA-releases of the yesteryear to GOG.

Having said that, I do have some reservations about the game, like how it tried to make the gamer feel a bad person, without giving any option (besides simply not playing the game). It didn't work, collateral damage didn't make me feel bad because, as said, the game didn't give me any choice.

What I liked the most about the game was how "real" the combat scenes felt. Playing the game was almost like looking at real combat firefight footage. The over-the-shoulder view worked great in this game, it still felt like a FPS.
Odd. I actually felt the third person view in this particular game added to immersion (like how you could see your character in pain taking cover etc.), and aiming still worked great like in first-person shooters.

Not much is lost since the multip player for the games pretty much sucks.
The designers are pretty blunt as they did not want multi player at all...they felt it would interfere with the game's message...but were forced to include it by Take Two.

"We wanted people to think about war," he continued. "We wanted them to think about why is it that I sit down and play a war game for fun. I'd be curious to know how many people who are against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan sit down and play a Call of Duty game for fun. At what point do people say, 'OK, this type of war is totally cool, because it's just for entertainment, it's a game.' We just want people to re-engage with the art and the entertainment that they were choosing to partake in."

Source: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/07/spec-ops-the-lines-lead-writer-on-creating-an-un-heroic-war-story/

Yeah and people also watch horror movies even if in the real life they don't want to get axe-murdered, or axe-murder others.

Anyway, good for me I am not categorically against war, so i am allowed to play war games with a clear conscience. Sometimes war is needed, like I am happy Finland defended itself against a bigger aggressor back in 1939, otherwise we would have ended up like the Baltic countries, at best.

Of course and so do I. They simply wanted to make people think about this they did not want to condemn those who like these kind of games. And yes, the only choice you were given in certain times, as ridiculously as it might sound, was to simply stop playing it. The whole problem with their intention is that a game will always be just a game and a movie will always be just a movie so normally you would not think so much about it at all because we are talking about some sprite collisions only ... The game tries to be a game and an artform with a statement about how we preceive things at the same time - it does not always succeed but imo this is the thing that makes this game stand out. As I said - it worked really good for me.

Btw: Michael Haneke did the same with his movie Funny Games and in an interview he stated that he wanted people to stop watching the movie because he hoped they would realize what they are watching and he wanted the viewer to ask himself why he is enjoying it and if this really i something the viewer should enjoy at all. Same poblem here: the viewer knows it's not reality and that's the reason he is even able to enjoy it - no matter how much the viewer might hate violence in real life. This begs the question if it can even be considered to be a problem when people enjoy questionable fiction as long as they realize that it's just fiction. Reminds me of people that are trying to ban certain movies or games because of them being unethically or sick ... then again it's still fiction so is there a problem at all?

Haneke, lol.

But you're right, Funny Games is not unlike The Line in the sense that Funny Games for the most part plays out like bog standard home invasion horror, only with the occasional fourth wall break and 100% more fingerwagging thrown in for good measure.

Why should it be a problem?

And more precisely, if it were a problem then why should Haneke get a free pass?

I'm also aware that Haneke is a great admirer of the film Salo, so why should Pasolini get a free pass to make a movie about a bunch of teenagers being forced to eat shit and having their eyes gouged out while at the same time Haneke condemns someone like Oliver Stone because Stone's Natural Born Killers "glorifies violence" in his opinion?

Strongly disagree. Funny Games is a fantastic film that makes some very profound points. There's nothing standard about it.

Please point them out for me. Because to me the central message in Funny Games, the one that's not really made but beaten into your head for 90 minutes, was the equivalent of a director making a porno movie while going "Well, gee, there sure is a lot of fucking in those films! All these wanton displays of carnal lust are sure to desensitise people and have an adverse effect on society!"

He might even have a point, but the way the message is presented - in the most blunt, ham-fisted manner imaginable, lacking any subtlety or nuance - comes across like a parent (Haneke) lecturing his child (the viewer), which I feel is quite condescending and presumptuous. That's why this film didn't resonate with me. At all.

Likewise, The Line seems to be designed to blow the minds of people who don‘t seem to have the capacity to figure out on their own how preposterously stupid the games they‘re playing are. Either that or it wants to cater to the crowd who do know, so they can nod along in agreement. Instead of showing the way to something truly new and challenging, The Line gets patted on the back for pointing out the painfully obvious.

It's not a problem for me and maybe even not for you - but there are people who would like such movies and games banned. Hatred anybody? As I said, I am also the opinion that everything that's fiction only is unproblematic, but I am well aware that my opinion is not shared by everybody. It'ss an ethical and maybe even a philosophical discussion though that might lead too far into OT though.

But no matter if OT or not: Haneke really condemneed Oliver Stone's NBK? That would be really funny since Stone never wanted (nor did) glorify violence in this movie at all. It was the opposite - Stone always said that you cannot make a movie that critizices violence without showing it ... I am also aware that many misinderstood this movie as well.
As I said before. Some people do resonate to such narratives and some don't. You want more subtlety, imo the not subtle way it's done (in Funny Games) is exactly why it worked for me. It's hard to overlook the senselessless in the violence in Funny Games in one scene he even makes it clear that it's impossinle the good guys will win/escape (knife/remote control) and he literally begs the viewer to somply stop watching and think about if the viewer really enjoyed to watch those things at all. Also there are still a few out there (hopefully not here ;)) that still have problems to be aware that fiction is fiction and reality is reality.

But again - this is beginning to become a general discussion about such narratives and the idea behind it and it leads far away from Spec-Ops. The discussion is interesting imo - but completely OT and it'S a matter of time until the first people here will get annoyed by it. So we should better stop.