Crossing Spec Ops: The Line

[Yahtzee Croshaw]

Crossing Spec Ops: The Line

All it took was one scene to break the mold on shocking videogame moments.

Read Full Article

 

[krazykidd]

Dammit, i had to stop reading after the first paragraph because yahtzee told me to . I don't see myself buying it anywhere down the line , but he does have a point . I would probably buy it if i won some moneg at the dogtrack.

 

[Dragoon]

I really enjoyed the campaign in this game because of it's story, it was just really refreshing after all the "here's the foreign guys now go kill them all" stories of other war games. Although the gameplay itself was your typical 3rd person shooter fare.

 

[Steve the Pocket]

By the way, I don't know who's in charge of this sort of thing or if they're reading this, but the screenshot on page two is the actual full-size screenshot squeezed into a smaller space using HTML, not an actual shrunken-down image. Took forever to fully load that thing.

 

[Erttheking]

Except it's NOT the player that makes the decision, it's the game. The entire sequence was so poorly written and played out that I knew that the "oh god, what have you done?!" moment was only seconds away. So I did nothing. I refused to start shooting.

The game went nowhere. It just sat there.

"this is a bad idea" my friends repeated. I agreed and kept waiting.

Nothing.

Pfft. Fine, Spec Ops, if that's how you wanna play it. Bang.

OH GOD WHAT DID YOU WHY DID YOU DO THAT OH THE HUMANITY WAR IS AWFUL!

Yeah, real smooth and profound storytelling there. Not to even mention that Shyamalan twist at the end that attempts to be deep and startling, but just reads like a bad episode of Dallas.

Ah but you see, you DID make the choice...you made it when you popped the disk in. You started playing to game the kill people...and you got your wish. You could have just turned the game off and walked away...but you didn't.

Well, that's one interpretation of what they were going for anyway. Some can say that this is a massive deconstruction of military war games. I get the feeling that you knew about the bad thing that he was going to do before you started playing the game, which pretty much counts as a spoiler. I myself knew about it and the second I pressed the button to bomb the trench, my mind put two and two together. So yeah, it kind of does act like a spoiler.

 

[Prof. Monkeypox]

The "best" part of the white phosphorous sequence is that, as you rain mortar fire on to the entrenched camp from above, they enemies are dehumanized white dots- but once you've had your fun you then have to advance through the killing fields, walking slowly, and seeing the results of your actions in a very human and personal way. Chilling stuff.

 

[Loonerinoes]

Yep. Pretty much the same for me with the whole point being: "What was frightening were my thoughts while I was doing this thing, not so much just the thing itself."

Though funnily enough, even though the final choice of pulling the trigger on Walker 'felt' like the right one, that's not necessarily also true. For me the endings where Walker survives the guilt trip are moreso interesting than the suicide ending.

In one of them Walker becomes a complete monster.
In the other he is taken down and Yahtzee's viewpoint is expressed through Konrad's words.
But in the last one you surrender your weapon and you do go home.

Of course you're not particularly cheery about it, Walker doesn't feel like he even survived at all when being asked by the soldier...and yet he is still alive.

It reminds me of the final words in Full Metal Jacket: "I am in a world of shit...yes. But I am alive. And I am not afraid."

I guess that's all one can ask for if they cross that line. The strength to cross back home when it's finally over. I doubt it will truly be over for Walker for a long time - PTSD is a *****. But if he shoots himself in the head that chance will never be given...

But yeah, one's viewpoint on the 'right' ending does depend a lot on how much you can relate to Walker hahah. No argument there.

 

[Blueruler182]

Dammit, i had to stop reading after the first paragraph because yahtzee told me to . I don't see myself buying it anywhere down the line , but he does have a point . I would probably buy it if i won some moneg at the dogtrack.

Buy it. I spent a day playing it and I can honestly say it's one of the better gaming experiences I've had in a while. Other than the fact that I always seemed to be out of ammo, there is nothing about this game that wasn't great.

 

[Blueruler182]

Yeah, I kind of called the fact that you were slaughtering innocents. But it was seeing how the squad reacted that made me love the scene and hate myself, and that's kind of what I can say about the whole game. The fact that your squad is going through this hell, it's changing them, and they don't like you for putting them through it. They don't like you for being the crazed gunman that you play in every video game. In Arkham City the enemies regard you with fear when you start taking out their allies, their movements will change, their demeanor will change, and they'll panic. Because you're Batman and playing like Batman. In this game you're you as a gamer controlling this guy with a gun, and everyone you talk to sees the action of this gamer as the actions of a real person. And they fear him, like any sane man would.

It's kind of fantastic.

Spoiler

I do have a question though. I chose to save the civilians as opposed to Gould, due to knowing nothing about Gould except that he was sending civilians against soldiers, and the following actions up to the face melting played out like we went in with only half the plan and fucked it up because of that. Do the civilians still get roasted if you save Gould? Because, while that scene seems incredibly important to the ending, it seemed like something that could be done really well if you could avoid that scene altogether by choosing the mission over the civilians.

 

[Zhukov]

My problem with the white phosphorous scene was the way the game tried to make me feel guilty about it afterwards. You know, with the walk through the burning bodies and the cutscene with the dead mum and kid.

It didn't work because the game didn't give me a choice beforehand. If it had said, "Either use the phosphorous or face a really tough fight on foot" and I had chosen the phosphorous then it would have worked fine. But as it was, I didn't feel anything because I wasn't responsible. It was as if Bioshock had started telling me off for killing Andrew Ryan.

 

[TheSYLOH]

The part that really got to me was the fact that the entire time, you see a reflection of your characters face in the screen.
All the Modern Warfare types have a sort of detached feel to them. You're just some distant AC-130 lobbing genocide at anonymus blobs.
In Spec-Ops it hammers it home, YOU! YES YOU! are the one doing this horrible thing.
If you got a glossy screen you can see your own face superimposed over Walker's face.

That my friends is ART!

Spec Ops: The Line is somebody's Art Game that just so happened to be born a Third Person Modern Warfare Shooter.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Except it's NOT the player that makes the decision, it's the game. The entire sequence was so poorly written and played out that I knew that the "oh god, what have you done?!" moment was only seconds away. So I did nothing. I refused to start shooting.

The game went nowhere. It just sat there.

"this is a bad idea" my friends repeated. I agreed and kept waiting.

Nothing.

Pfft. Fine, Spec Ops, if that's how you wanna play it. Bang.

OH GOD WHAT DID YOU WHY DID YOU DO THAT OH THE HUMANITY WAR IS AWFUL!

There was no other choice. No other way around. It was the only way forward. It was either that or go back and abandon the mission. And if you want to abandon the mission all you have to do is turn off the game. You chose not to abandon the mission.

But I agree about the final twist. Pulling a Fight Club ending is never a good idea.

Basically, it gives poor choices, or none at all, and tries to be profound about them when in truth it never really gives the player any choice at all.

The illusion of choice was the whole point.

 

[josemlopes]

Also, how many people here know about this?

Spoiler

Walker dies after the heli crash

 

[Loonerinoes]

Except it's NOT the player that makes the decision, it's the game. The entire sequence was so poorly written and played out that I knew that the "oh god, what have you done?!" moment was only seconds away. So I did nothing. I refused to start shooting.

The game went nowhere. It just sat there.

"this is a bad idea" my friends repeated. I agreed and kept waiting.

Nothing.

Pfft. Fine, Spec Ops, if that's how you wanna play it. Bang.

OH GOD WHAT DID YOU WHY DID YOU DO THAT OH THE HUMANITY WAR IS AWFUL!

Yeah, real smooth and profound storytelling there. Not to even mention that Shyamalan twist at the end that attempts to be deep and startling, but just reads like a bad episode of Dallas.

Ah but you see, you DID make the choice...you made it when you popped the disk in. You started playing to game the kill people...and you got your wish. You could have just turned the game off and walked away...but you didn't.

Well, that's one interpretation of what they were going for anyway. Some can say that this is a massive deconstruction of military war games. I get the feeling that you knew about the bad thing that he was going to do before you started playing the game, which pretty much counts as a spoiler. I myself knew about it and the second I pressed the button to bomb the trench, my mind put two and two together. So yeah, it kind of does act like a spoiler.

Yes, how dare you buy our action game. How DARE you? Wanting an action game, pfft, what is the matter with you? Repent!

It's poorly written moralizing on a level that first year grad students would write. "Haha, see, you thought you were reading a romantic story, but it's all about how you should be judged for wanting to love!"

Basically, it gives poor choices, or none at all, and tries to be profound about them when in truth it never really gives the player any choice at all.

So basically, what you don't like is that there is no 'real' choice in this videogame, because (big surprise) that is the whole point of the narrative? The point that in war there really isn't that much of a choice if you want to survive/go through with it to its bitter end?

I've always found it humorous how every time the detractors for this game scream 'But there isn't a real choice like an RPG!!!' I just chuckle to myself and think: 'Yes. And that's why this story works so well in the context of war.' You either get that concept or you do not. If you don't well...I guess this game really isn't for you and feel free to play other games that pat you on the back and tell you what a good person you are, because it seems to me that's what most of the gaming generation really does want out of games. Their own virtual security blanket, their own romantic quest where they overcome the odds by the end heh.

Trouble is war is not a story with a clearly happy ending and no choice you make (other than not to play the game) will lead you to one. And that's why this game's narrative works so well.

captcha: do more sit-ups

HOO-AH!

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Wank wank wank wank wank.

That's all I'm hearing. "Oh, you don't like these choices? Stop playing the game you bought. Yeah, we totally made a product that costs 60 euros so we could tell you to stop playing it."

Bullshit.

We should totally stop making games with good narrative because of people like you. Let's just make CoD and give gamers big explosions. That's all they deserve.

Jesus fuckin' Christ. This is the first modern military shooter with some depth and you're complaining that it's not more like CoD.

 

[Jumplion]

Well, I spoiled myself by reading it, but this article only made me want to play the game even more. I don't really mind spoilers all that much, it actually lets me think about what led up to the event. It's on sale on STEAM for a small discount for $30 and I'm fairly tempted to go for it.

When I first heard that this game was based off of "Heart of Darkness", having read the book myself and seeing gameplay/playing the demo, I called complete bullshit on it. It was just another military shooter that was going to have some vague references from its source material, all the while you shoot foreigners and go gun-ho at the enemy with a gimmicky sand mechanic to make it stand out.

I may still be right, I haven't played the game and my personal opinion might be more critical, but as I said before in Yahtzee's review of the game I am much more open to giving this game a chance. I'm as jaded as can be, I'm not impressed by anything anymore, but this sort of peak into this game by several reviews have taught me to not just toss out a concept just because I expect it to fail. It could still fail, sure, but it's not fair to not give it the chance.

 

[Balkan]

Except it's NOT the player that makes the decision, it's the game. The entire sequence was so poorly written and played out that I knew that the "oh god, what have you done?!" moment was only seconds away. So I did nothing. I refused to start shooting.

The game went nowhere. It just sat there.

"this is a bad idea" my friends repeated. I agreed and kept waiting.

Nothing.

Pfft. Fine, Spec Ops, if that's how you wanna play it. Bang.

OH GOD WHAT DID YOU WHY DID YOU DO THAT OH THE HUMANITY WAR IS AWFUL!

Yeah, real smooth and profound storytelling there. Not to even mention that Shyamalan twist at the end that attempts to be deep and startling, but just reads like a bad episode of Dallas.

Ah but you see, you DID make the choice...you made it when you popped the disk in. You started playing to game the kill people...and you got your wish. You could have just turned the game off and walked away...but you didn't.

Well, that's one interpretation of what they were going for anyway. Some can say that this is a massive deconstruction of military war games. I get the feeling that you knew about the bad thing that he was going to do before you started playing the game, which pretty much counts as a spoiler. I myself knew about it and the second I pressed the button to bomb the trench, my mind put two and two together. So yeah, it kind of does act like a spoiler.

Yes, how dare you buy our action game. How DARE you? Wanting an action game, pfft, what is the matter with you? Repent!

It's poorly written moralizing on a level that first year grad students would write. "Haha, see, you thought you were reading a romantic story, but it's all about how you should be judged for wanting to love!"

Basically, it gives poor choices, or none at all, and tries to be profound about them when in truth it never really gives the player any choice at all.

So basically, what you don't like is that there is no 'real' choice in this videogame, because (big surprise) that is the whole point of the narrative? The point that in war there really isn't that much of a choice if you want to survive/go through with it to its bitter end?

I've always found it humorous how every time the detractors for this game scream 'But there isn't a real choice like an RPG!!!' I just chuckle to myself and think: 'Yes. And that's why this story works so well in the context of war.' You either get that concept or you do not. If you don't well...I guess this game really isn't for you and feel free to play other games that pat you on the back and tell you what a good person you are, because it seems to me that's what most of the gaming generation really does want out of games. Their own virtual security blanket, their own romantic quest where they overcome the odds by the end heh.

Trouble is war is not a story with a clearly happy ending. And that's why this game's narrative works so well.

captcha: do more sit-ups

HOO-AH!

Did I say anywhere that it needed to be like an RPG? No. So stop putting words in my mouth.

If the game is hellbent on moralizing something that it claims are my choices, then it better give me actual choices. If it decides to drag the conclusion to one single point every time, the writers should at least consider what they want to say. As it stands, they have nothing of value because they're basic way of going about it is broken.

Wank wank wank wank wank.

That's all I'm hearing. "Oh, you don't like these choices? Stop playing the game you bought. Yeah, we totally made a product that costs 60 euros so we could tell you to stop playing it."

Bullshit.

We should totally stop making games with good narrative because of people like you. Let's just make CoD and give gamers big explosions. That's all they deserve.

Jesus fuckin' Christ. This is the first modern military shooter with some depth and you're complaining that it's not more like CoD.

Next time, actually read what was said. If you can't do that, stop trying to get in the conversation. Nobody is wanting more COD, it's one of the most boring franchises going around. But thinking that Spec Ops is somehow a step in the right direction with this kind of storytelling, then we're at odds.

At least provide something to the discussion, something of value other than "it was spectacular!"

Dude , Yahtzee didnt said "STOP PLAYING THE GAME " but he said that the most heroic thing to do its to stop . That pretty much the game`s point about war .