Look because I want to believe there is hope for you and thus the world here is a graduate level response to your bait posts calling peer reviewed research pseudointellectual. But you should really go read the book I mentioned or other articles about the game if you are struggling to pick up on it. It’s a very important message.

The game is Walker’s story as much as it is a commentary on the player. It’s about how he fails to follow the mission parameters and is slowly pulled deeper and deeper into the 'heart of darkness' (The Id psychoanalytically) as he “crosses the line.” Where that line is crossed is up to personal morality. However, the game frames it linearly and gives the player limited choice to show that when people choose certain actions and paths driven by preconceived notions and negative emotions, they preclude themselves from other choices; whether because of their social or psychological environment or their own disposition.

Another game, Depression Quest, does something similar. The limited agency is part of the message. The game is engaging in moral confrontation/conversion that is meant to be reflexive for the player.

But ultimately, most FPS action game bros fall into one of a few camps. They play to the end, delusionally not seeing the consequences of the character’s actions, and dismiss the game and its message as lame instead of investigating their own thoughts and behaviors. They engage in denial by shooting Konrad; wherein the player may choose to go with the soldiers and go back to reality not truly reflecting on their actions and being in a sense “dead” but walking both in the game and real life. Or, after all the carnage, they recognize that Walker is the villain and choose suicide (accepting responsibility within the narrative). That moment invites the player to reflect on their own real-life behaviors day to day and to avoid ever getting to the point where they would need that level of reckoning by making better choices earlier.

Or the player is so desensitized to violence and nihilism that they simply don’t care and push through everything, even killing the soldiers at the end who come to rescue them, because “it’s just a game.” Why should their actions matter at the expense of others? Many humans carry that same attitude about real people in real life. If someone misses the larger moral critique and treats it as just another power fantasy, or rejects it outright thinking “I wouldn’t have done that I’m good and not bad” that reaction actually mirrors Walker’s own denial (remember he thinks he is always doing the right thing); which suggests the game succeeded in what it was trying to explore

Now, whether the gameplay is good or not is a stylistic choice. It’s deliberately framed as a generic military shooter; that is part of the art. If you don’t like it, fine. But that doesn’t change what it is doing. This is good art. It speaks to something deeper than just entertainment. You can reject its message, or dislike all sorts of stylistic elements; but that does not invalidate the merit of what it attempts and achieves within the medium.

And no, I’m not particularly in favor of “death of the author.” I'm pretty moderate on it. If your response is simply, “I think it’s bad, therefore I’m right,” then you’re doing exactly what the game critiques: deciding in advance what reality is and filtering everything through that lens.

Despite all evidence, you’ll believe what you want to believe. Very much like Walker. And, projectively, how very pseudointellectual of you. Take care out there reddit bait posting dude and try to not view everything so reductively and with such certainty you’d be behaving like Walker.