Crossing Spec Ops: The Line

[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.

 

[ElPatron]

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.

But somehow the game is supposed to have an emotional engagement with the player when he faces the things he chose to do. Except he didn't. He had to. Which gives it the "ends justify the means" feeling. Honestly, it made it fall short in my opinion. Do this, this is wrong. Whoopeti-doo.

I felt more "emotional engagement" in "No Russian". At least I had the time to convince myself I was committing an awful crime for the sake of not having to put someone else trough that situation, and obviously trying to save millions of lives in the process. And the game never pretended it was really my fault or my choice.

 

[Erttheking]

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.

But somehow the game is supposed to have an emotional engagement with the player when he faces the things he chose to do. Except he didn't. He had to. Which gives it the "ends justify the means" feeling. Honestly, it made it fall short in my opinion. Do this, this is wrong. Whoopeti-doo.

I felt more "emotional engagement" in "No Russian". At least I had the time to convince myself I was committing an awful crime for the sake of not having to put someone else trough that situation, and obviously trying to save millions of lives in the process. And the game never pretended it was really my fault or my choice.

I don't think you really get the idea. Basically you agreed to do everything in the game when you turned it on. If you really didn't want to do it you could have just turned it off and walked away. Because let's be honest, it may not have been your "choice" but it wasn't your "choice" when you incinerate the weighted companion cube in Portal and be honest with me, did you really hesitate to use the mortar?

 

[ElPatron]

it may not have been your "choice" but it wasn't your "choice" when you incinerate the weighted companion cube in Portal and be honest with me, did you really hesitate to use the mortar?

No, it wasn't my choice. I did what I have to do to accomplish my goals. Even incinerating the companion cube.

 

[Erttheking]

it may not have been your "choice" but it wasn't your "choice" when you incinerate the weighted companion cube in Portal and be honest with me, did you really hesitate to use the mortar?

No, it wasn't my choice. I did what I have to do to accomplish my goals. Even incinerating the companion cube.

Well then you have another way of looking at it, you wanted to accomplish your goal and while doing so, you caused the deaths of a couple dozen people. You wanted to accomplish the goal, and in order to get to it you made a staircase of bodies. Either way you are responsible for killing those civilians, there's no denying that.

 

[GloatingSwine]

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.

That's the rationalisation Walker keeps trying to use...

Also, you do have a choice. You can open fire on the soldiers with your guns, and see how far you get.

 

[InsanityRequiem]

Non-interactive media. Irrelevant.

I'm gonna have to fight you on the words there. 'Non-interactive media'. There is no such thing whatsoever called "Non-interactive media". One definition for interactive is acting upon or in close relation with each other. By that definition, watching the tv or reading a book is interactive media. You pick up a book, read the words, turn the pages. You are interacting with the story, absorbing what is given to you. When you read, do you imagine what will happen in the story later on before you get to the end of the book? That's interacting with the story of the book. Do you get mad then if the book didn't go how you wanted it to go then? Same with television, grabbing the remote, turning to the show you want, and watching/listening to the show going on. I bet you have the same imagination running in how you think the show will go.

By the very nature stories interact with our minds, they are not "Non-Interactive".

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

And you still seem confused with basic set up and beginning of a story and a major decision that removes established gameplay choices in order to force a plot twist on the player instead of organically tying it into the design that has been previously set in place.

Since this is the gist of our contention, the rest being pretty irrelevant details, Ill just focus on it. As far as player agency goes there's no difference between "You have to leave the station in order to save it" and "You have to use WP to defeat these enemies". Since your argument hinges on the loss of player agency during the Gate chapter in Spec Ops, it is strange that you pick a game which has just as little player agency during major plot points.

Besides, I'd argue that the WP scene comes pretty organically in the context of the established storyline. Walker and his squad faces an obstacle they realize they won't be able to get through by conventional means, so Walker decides to use a weapon we've been show previously is terrifying because it is the only way he'll ever get past the enemy camp. Considering the character you are playing (a driven special forces soldier), it makes sense that he wouldn't launch a suicidal attack or turn back, just like it makes sense that Artyom leaves VDNKh even if the player never gets to decide whatever we want to stick around until the monsters overrun the station or not.

 

[DjinnFor]

Umm, yeah? It is. Force the player to do something and then scold them for doing it and pretend that it's some kind of artistic statement? That's bad design right there.

That wasn't what happened, though.

Really, all that need be said is this: "Would you kindly...?"

 

[Aggelos Kotsikos]

Being the stupid bastard I am, I ignored Yahtzee's advice, and read this review a couple of days before playing the game myself. So I was aware that there would be a scene that was supposed to make me feel guilty for even taking the game out of it's box. When the time to bomb those civilians came, I was thinking "What Yahtzee was saying, was bullshit, I don't feel guilty for burning those people, I don't even feel remorse" But when I had to face what I had done to the civilians, those thoughts went away and were replaced by "Well, I guess I am officially an asshole, aren't I ?" The years of playing games like CoD, and BF, made me think I had become immune to any "shocking" mommnets, but that scene, really made me reconsider.However, it wasn't the image of the mother hugging her child that gave me those emmotions, it was the dying enemy soldier, that talked to Walker, right before he saw the dead bodies of the civilians. His final words "We were trying to help", instead of dehumanizing him, and the rest 33rd, dehumanized Walker and his men. That made me feel like I was the monster in this story, instead of the enemy.Every detail from that point on, made me feel worse and worse for killing members of the 33rd.

 

[DioWallachia]

Umm, yeah? It is. Force the player to do something and then scold them for doing it and pretend that it's some kind of artistic statement? That's bad design right there.

That wasn't what happened, though.

Really, all that need be said is this: "Would you kindly...?"

People keep bringing up Bioshock as if it's supposed to somehow validate something.

All it does is remind me that poor storytelling has been in critically acclaimed games before, and will continue to be for quite a while still.

Sorry to jump in the conversation so late but why Bioshock is brought up? the only reason of why the game mocks the player choices is because there wasn't one really.

Replace the good old invisible walls with closed doors = critical acclaim? It could have been more powerful if ALL the choices lead to the same conclusion to feel the horror of free will being an illusion or to at least demonstrate that the antagonist were effectively very well prepared to anticipate your every move and fuck you over no matter what you do.

 

[ElPatron]

Either way you are responsible for killing those civilians, there's no denying that.

There is a difference between being ordered to kill civilians and orders can be refused, let court-martial handle it.

I never really had a choice.

snip

All very true, but I don't think I understand why is that relevant.

And I don't get mad when things don't end the way I want. I get mad when I get plot-holes. Then I start "Retake [insert name]" on Facebook.

That's exactly how Walker see's it.

Walker, as a character, had a "choice". The narrative made him chose a path. Fine by me, I'm in.

But trying to make *me* feel guilty for something that was never my responsibility? That's pretty far-fetched.

 

[Ashcrexl]

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.

Agreed. It was a well-made scene, but it would justify it further if you could actually attempt to attack the Gate on foot. They could make the battle almost impossible (or literally impossible), so that you're forced to go back and use the mortar simply to make things easier for yourself. That would actually make the aftermath your responsibility, even if the game did rig the playing field for that.

well, i figured that Walker and Co. had already agreed that it was actually impossible to assault the Gate with that army and realistically (which is what the story aspires to be) they would be absolutely right. So the mortar was a necessary evil last resort just so you could reach your goal, finding Konrad, which at this point, you probably still want to reach.

 

[trlkly]

All I know is that any game that tries to make it seem like suicide is the right choice has just failed to be remotely moral. They've taken on the responsibility of every person who not sees that message and thinks it's a good idea--I hate being alive, so I shouldn't be. No, you should go to a therapist and stop hating being alive. This is like telling people that the right thing to do is to go rape children.

I don't really give a shit about the other part, as I never feel guilty for things the game makes me do. It only breaks my suspension of disbelief.

 

[trlkly]

That's exactly how Walker see's it.

Walker, as a character, had a "choice". The narrative made him chose a path. Fine by me, I'm in.

But trying to make *me* feel guilty for something that was never my responsibility? That's pretty far-fetched.

See this is where I think me and a lot of people differ.

I didn't feel as though they were trying to make me feel responsible for it. Any shock or guilt that I felt was just an extension of Walkers. Walker made that choice, not you. You're not playing as a 'you' avatar, who makes the decisions you would make. You're playing as walker, he's a defined character and the choices he makes and the ramifications they have are part of his development.

His lack of agency and by extension yours, was a large part of the meaning behind that scene. That's why they had you using a very impersonal tool, with the laptop screen that put a huge barrier between you and the actions. With the reflection keying in after every strike.

Then you very much disagree with Yahtzee. That's what we're commenting on here--his opinion that the point is to make you feel guilty. And the fact that, for many of us, that didn't work.

 

[DioWallachia]

Then you very much disagree with Yahtzee. That's what we're commenting on here--his opinion that the point is to make you feel guilty. And the fact that, for many of us, that didn't work.

This is the kind of topic where one has to dig up old games like Bioshock and Metal Gear Solid 2 to compare how good they are in saying that the audience sucks for following orders.

Just saying.

 

[sequio]

Recently finished the game, some thoughts:

Spoiler

1) It's not a moral choice when there's no choice about it i.e. do [bad things] for game progress? feels good man. killing the soldier that stole gum from his buddy while i'm going around slaughtering his other buddies? yep, felt good. can't progress in the game unless kill civilians with white phospherous? sure, let's have a go at it. Not like there was an actual choice in the matter like go down and check them out myself.

2) having a stealth option that isn't really an option is a bs waste of my time and ruined a good deal of the gameplay for me more than the bad wall/vaulting mechanics.

3) Tried to do "good" actions i.e. I let the rookie soldier live, saved civilians before gould, wanted to let radioman live (fk you lugo), shot only 1 civ (fk you adamns), shot konrad, and lowered my aa12 at the end. Then find out I could just reload and still get 4 endings. Knowing your previous actions don't affect the endgame outcome kills replay value, which this game could have had.

4) Knew walker was hallucinating when he thought the enemy coming down the zip line was lugo, furthered reinforced by hallucinating enemies as adams then lugo again. Already guessed konrad was dead for rest of the game

5) Developers saying "we meant to do that" doesn't validate the bad design. If a platform game where controsl only work 50% of the time by design and deveopers say "we meant to do that" doesn't somehow negate the bs of the problem i.e. yes developers, i blame you for intentional bad game design. coincidentally, trolls go around deliberately pissing people off at others' expense.

6) game lacks subtlety. That's the only way i can explain knowing that the heat signatures at the gate were civilians and not soldiers since 1) they weren't all facing my direction like every other soldier was and b) a lot of civilians from the hotel were moved to a different locatoi *hint*hint*. As far as the storyline goes, at least black ops had me guessing even though I suspected when i "coincidentally" met reznov for the 3rd or 4th time. Even bioshock with the "would you kindly" was more of a surprise. Like I said in #4, already knew konrad was probably long dead and I was hallucinating while endangering myself and others.

7) Ignoring 1-6, SO: OTL is an above average shooter. not really mad at the "choices" but rather disappointed at its shallowness considering the reviews it got. If i didn't read/see the reviews my expectations would have been lower and I would have probably enjoyed the game better. lesson learned. gg OTL

 

[Rangerboy87]

Well I can officially say that I'm glad I obeyed Yahtzee. Just finished Spec Ops this weekend and...WOW!! That scene was definitely a shocking moment for me. This was definitely the hardest game I ever played (emotionally anyway). I still enjoyed it and it's definitely going into my all-time favorites list for story alone.

It's funny Yahtzee mentioned GOW 3 because I thought about his review of that a few chapters later when I started thinking, "I almost need to stop before this idiot gets everyone killed." Truly a memorable game.