Crossing Spec Ops: The Line

[Erttheking]

You do realize that it started off with the steryotypical insurgent enemies who turned out to be the good guys right?

My apologies for quoting you so long after you actually made the post, but I gotta ask: how the hell is that possible? I have only played the demo but over the course of that the "stereotypical insurgents" first started shooting me without being provoked, and then in the next scene they were torturing and executing prisoners, so how are they "good guys" if all they are doing is at best committing slightly fewer atrocities than you?

OT: So spec-ops devs, I'm a monster for playing shooters and I should feel bad? well I guess i'll just do the heroic thing and not buy your pretentious wank.

Because you only fight them for the first few levels. It turns out that the 33rd turned on itself and went to civil war. The side that one imposed brutal martial law on the survivors of dubai and strung up the corpses of civilians and those they beat in the civil war alike. They also use brutal tactics to keep them in line, including bombing them with white phosphorus. The insurgents only attack you because they think you're with them and it doesn't really help that you go out of your way to help a 33rd squad that they managed to pin down.

No, you should feel bad for what you do while playing this shooter. I'm not going to feel guilty for all my years of playing Halo, this game just takes shooters and portrays them in a different light.

 

[Still Life]

-Snip-

I went into Spec Ops completely blind because I knew it would be story driven. It wasn't long before the now infamous mortar scene, where it had become pretty clear that the tone was going to get very dark.

Still, I played that scene out like any other Modern Warfare game (though, I certainly noted the reflection in the monitor) where I engaged the targets that I was presented with because I wanted to progress to the next stage. I knew as I targeted further up the encampment that there was a large concentration of people near an 'enemy' vehicle, and many of their silhouettes were indistinct in the heat of battle. Still, my task was pretty clear up to that point and I proceeded to rain death upon those hapless folks.

As I was surveying the dead civilian bodies, I became very much aware of the many realities of war that modern games, and other forms of pop-culture media conveniently make a habit of side-stepping.

Powerful stuff, and it's one of the best examples of good story-telling in a video game to date. I could easily write a lengthy essay on it, because I found Spec Ops jam packed with meaning (in a good, but sobering way).

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

-Snip-

I went into Spec Ops completely blind because I knew it would be story driven. It wasn't long before the now infamous mortar scene, where it had become pretty clear that the tone was going to get very dark.

Still, I played that scene out like any other Modern Warfare game (though, I certainly noted the reflection in the monitor) where I engaged the targets that I was presented with because I wanted to progress to the next stage. I knew as I targeted further up the encampment that there was a large concentration of people near an 'enemy' vehicle, and many of their silhouettes were indistinct in the heat of battle. Still, my task was pretty clear up to that point and I proceeded to rain death upon those hapless folks.

As I was surveying the dead civilian bodies, I became very much aware of the many realities of war that modern games, and other forms of pop-culture media conveniently make a habit of side-stepping.

Powerful stuff, and it's one of the best examples of good story-telling in a video game to date. I could easily write a lengthy essay on it, because I found Spec Ops jam packed with meaning (in a good, but sobering way).

This was pretty much my thought exactly. Once I saw the distinctly unarmed heat signature in the trench I was like "Are those civilians?", pondered dropping a round on them too just to be safe (which I think says something scary about me) but quickly decided to just focus on the vehicle that was highlighted as a target. The following walk through the camp and trench was firmly a "walk of shame" for Walker to me, but it also made me reflect on the state of modern FPS games and war in general and what kind of terrible weapons are actually used in modern conflicts.

I like to think myself as pretty good at reading plots, as an example I had Shutter Island figured out about halfway through, but it wasn't until I entered the last chapter that I realized that Walker had been an unreliable narrator for most of the game. The way they build up his "insanity" is pretty subtle and they made a terrific job of showing the slowly disintegrating cohesion of the squad as they are put under more and more pressure (and a lot of Lugos and Adams animosity makes a lot more sense when you consider that their CO is actually turning psychotic right before their eyes while they are trapped inside a hostile city without no way out).

Yes, I totally agree with your assessment that Spec Ops contains some high quality storytelling. Not only because it manages to weave a powerful main storyline, but also because it handles its' subtext and theme very, very well. Hopefully it will sell well enough that the studio will be allowed to make another game, because I am looking forward to seeing what they can do next.

 

[DioWallachia]

Yathzee, Ebert doesn't give a fuck and even if he does and play THIS game in particular it wont be as effective as you said it is. UNLESS, he has played video games to the point that he knows the tropes and cliques that entail them or at least can enjoy the idea of games to the point that the dehumanizing element is overshadowed by the fun.

Let me put it this way, remember The Stanley Parable? the reason of WHY its so awesome is because it deconstructs the tropes that developers use to force the players INTO a single linear path to make sure they don't ruin their carefully crafted story. Tropes that a GAMER could understand by experiencing this phenomena before hand.

Roger isn't going to be affected by:
"Not the gore, not the darkness in Walker, but the darkness in me" unless there is already a preconception of what to expect in a genre that uses a lazy story to justify the mindless killing of "opposing forces" for fun and profit.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Oh the irony. You attack me for discounting Spec Ops as a manipulative and poorly written game, yet do the exact same thing for Metro 2033 (conveniently missing out on the terrific nuances regarding Russian folklore, history, society and the excellent game play mechanics that allow the player to influence the outcome of the game without ever drawing attention to itself). Was Metro perfect? Nah. Some levels were poorly designed and the voice acting was atrocious, but as for how the story was handled? Brilliant.

You mean the story that has an almost complete lack of player agency? The story in which only the most anal-retentive of exploring (since like 70% of the "flashpoints" needed are awarded by exploration) players will get the "good" ending on the first playthrough and most won't even realize there are two ending unless they get a guide? Don't get me wrong, I love Metro 2033 and its' source material and I think it has one of the best realized moods and atmospheres to date but to argue it as a prime example of storytelling as opposed to Spec Ops is bullshit.

Both games expect the player to relinquish control over major decisions (Why do I have to go with Hunter? I didn't want to leave my home station!) in order to set up the later plot. Both games contain moral dilemmas that have no immediate repercussions or aren't actual dilemmas because you don't have a choice (Do I really want to help the ranger and place the laser guidance sytem?). One might argue that Spec Ops: The Line is quite often derivative, but it is also very well aware of when it is and often is so intentionally to drive home a point.

Look, you are free to dislik Spec Ops: The Line for any of its' many flaws (below-par graphics, repetitive gameplay, extreme use of the color brown etc.), but the narrative, the plot and the deconstruction of the modern warfare genre of games are the strong points of Spec Ops: The Line. Your entire argument so far has stemmed out of your inability to distinguish between player and protagonist agency. Just like Artyom has no choice but to leave VDNKh or to help the Rangers, so does Walker have no choice but to use the WP to assault the Gate.

 

[ElPatron]

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.

Those virtual lives would be lost in someone else's gaming system. There was no way to prevent those deaths, the player is not at fault.

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.

If by art game you mean "we are more focused on making ourselves look smarter than actually create good gameplay" then you are 100% correct.

I can't rationalize those arguments. Now killing people is suddenly different because I am being told people are dying?

Whoa. So deep.

That was sarcasm.

Do you read a book, or watch a film, and complain that you're not being given a choice as to the protagonist's actions?

Non-interactive media. Irrelevant.

 

[Erttheking]

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.

Those virtual lives would be lost in someone else's gaming system. There was no way to prevent those deaths, the player is not at fault.

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.

If by art game you mean "we are more focused on making ourselves look smarter than actually create good gameplay" then you are 100% correct.

I can't rationalize those arguments. Now killing people is suddenly different because I am being told people are dying?

Whoa. So deep.

That was sarcasm.

Do you read a book, or watch a film, and complain that you're not being given a choice as to the protagonist's actions?

Non-interactive media. Irrelevant.

You're missing the point, you didn't play the game to not kill someone. The point is that most games are very linear and follow a set story, much like a book or a movie. I don't get why Spec Ops is a military shooter, (a series with very linear stories) is being criticized for lack of choice.