I wish to say long-winded and generally unkind things about Spec Ops:The Line.

[Gronk]

I haven't read all the posts here so if someone else already said this, sorry.

I can agree with some of the points the OP brings up, most of all that the argument that "you could always stop playing" is a pretty crappy argument. If I buy a game or a book, I will probably see it to the end as long as the story is not agressively bad. Otherwise what is the point of buying it in the first place?

Now to the other stuff. My opinion is that people are getting too hung up on the idea that the game is trying to guilt the player by forcing them to perform actions that they have no choice over. To me the game is not about a guilt trip, but about presenting a very mature story. I was not guilted when I played the game, I was always seeing walkers actions as his own, as if it was a movie. I play the game through walker, and sometimes shape the story, but I am not him.

What DID impress me about the game and the reason why it is one of my favourite games, is because it dared to go where few other games dare go these says it seems. The WP scene did not shock me because walker bombed civilians, but because the game forced me to walk through the burning ruins afterwards, seeing the result of my actions close up. It didn't back away from showing the closeup of the burned woman and her child. "No russian" has nothing to that scene, because even though you can gun down everyone in the airport, you never actually see the result.

After that scene i found myself trying to find a way around killing the enemies, thinking that there had been enough deaths already. Ofcourse the game didn't allow that, but perhaps that would have been too much to ask.

Also the game has you killing almost only americans. Something I thought was almost unthinkable in a shooter these days.

As I see it, the game is all about Walkers guilt, him trying to redeem himself and failing miserably. To me it is a great example of a good, thought through story in a game, in a market where stories are usually worse than the worst B-movies. Playing the game, I was repeatedly awed by the guts the game had, and I still can't believe someone actually dared put it into production.

Now about the big "choice", the WP scene. I think this is the only way they could do it, given the limited resources they had. This was the big set piece, and they just could not afford to let it be an actual choice. That's the problem with freedom of choice, the more you have as a player, the less you as a storyteller can shape and control it. Sometimes you just have to say "sorry, this is a story and to make the story work, we will do it like this". Can you think of any other games that try to do what spec ops does and still allow for freedom of choice?

And one last thing about the other choices in the game. I know many people hate the fact that the choices you make in the game doesn't really have any effect on the actual game, but I actually prefer this approach. What the game did was allowing you to shape the experience in your head. Did you kill this guy och the other? Did you shoot at the civilians? Many other games put a number on your choices, making them "good" or "bad", but the world seldom works like that, only games do. In spec ops, your only motivation is not some arbitrary reward, but because this is how you want the story to be.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

It seems to me like you went in knowing too many of the specifics. Spec Ops is a game that I have a really hard time recommending to people because if I start telling them why I like it it's very liable to shatter the experience for them. That in itself is a totally valid criticism of the game.

I can see how the white phosphorus part may fall a bit flat if you actually attempted to explore other options, but I feel like anyone who would do so at this point already has their guard up too much to be impacted by something like this. Most players are going to go for the phosphorus immediately and obliterate these guys without a second thought like I did. Even though Lugo says "WHYTE FOSFRUS IZ BAD," as the player you're just going to fucking shoot these guys anyways, so why should that matter to you? The idea is that when you see the dead civilians you're going to think back to the moment when you took out all those white blobs and casually thought "oh cool it got all of them, that's convenient."

I do have to say something about this though:

This is clearly outside the parameters of his original mission. I realise they say something about the "storm wall" blocking radio transmissions, but if that's the case then they should have turned around and walked back out to make a report, not kept killing their way forwards.

Walker could have turned around and left way before everything went to shit. In fact he was supposed to. That's kind the gut punch of the whole thing. I'm pretty sure there's a line that almost directly says this at the end. The reason walker acts the way he does is partially commentary on the nature of videogame protagonists, but it's not just about the choice that Walker made. You had complete agency to stop walker at any point in time or never to even be walker in the first place. And of course the game doesn't ACTUALLY expect you to just stop playing it. Even if you didn't do it because you "want to be the hero," drawing attention to the fact that you claim to have no choice when you literally have the power to turn the whole world off at your leisure is supposed to make you feel small. That's kind of the point.

 

[Alma Mare]

How the hell people still believe the White Phosphorous scene is meant to make you feel guilty? Seriously, it baffles me. It's like complaining Mortal Kombat fatalites didn't make you aroused. It just doesn't make sense.

Fine, the game may make you believe, at first, that this is an adventurous power fantasy and that you are free to project yourself into Walker, saviour of Dubai. But you get plenty of cues to stop doing that. Walker does a lot of things right out of the gate that you are given no say over. But if you failed to pick up the hints until then, he decides to use WP.
What does he do when he founds out how bad he fucked up?

He blames Konrad. He yells at his henchmen. And he swears that he'll "make them pay" for all of this.

This is meant to dissociate you from Walker, to make you realize he's a trainwreck that has screwed the pooch at least once and looks poised to do so again. If you had any doubts whether this is the kind of adventure you want to fantasize upon, it should be clear by now it isn't.

How in the blazes did you leave that believing it was meant to make you feel guilty? This was never about you.

 

[deathbydeath]

They can wake me up when their games have an intelligent message about RL issues.

Disclaimer: I have little opinion on the game itself and this post is not a critique of the game but instead merely arguments as to why the themes and issues brought up in Spec Ops are relevant:

Spec Ops: The Line isn't primarily a deconstruction of the Modern Military Shooter Myth (MMSM), but instead a critique on Western/American imperialism and military action, the absurdity of morality in those situations, and how modern day conflicts are fantasized beyond the point of silliness. As an American I have heard my elected leaders declare citizens and organizations of the countries we are invading to be "the bad guys". Almost a year ago, a man named Wayne LaPierre stated in a highly publicized press conference that "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun". LaPierre is the Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association, which holds a considerable amount of sway in out political system and in how laws are developed. The popularity of the MMSM scares me because people are supporting and perpetuating it, consciously or not. This fantasizing and celebration of modern day imperialism and military actions is very much a RL issue, and a game trying to tell its audience that the events in MMSMs have consequences is not a bad thing.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

Spec Ops : The Railroad could've been a whole lot more than an encrusted wank rag for the type of people who loathe the modern FPS-genre, if it had ever allowed for real freedom of choice. All they needed to include was just one fleeting, unannounced opportunity to stop following orders, break out Three Kings [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120188/] style and start doing things on your own initiative. As it only gives you the illusion of choice, any potential and meaningful impact from making those choices is immediately rendered null and void.

 

[Raikas]

Spec Ops : The Railroad could've been a whole lot more than an encrusted wank rag for the type of people who loathe the modern FPS-genre, if it had ever allowed for real freedom of choice. All they needed to include was just one fleeting, unannounced opportunity to stop following orders, break out Three Kings style and start doing things on your own initiative. As it only gives you the illusion of choice, any potential and meaningful impact from making those choices is immediately rendered null and void.

On the other hand, I never saw the game as being about personal choice, so I was playing it with the expectation that it was more linear. My expectation going in was that I was playing Walker's narrative rather than that I was building his story, so that there were some choices made it more engaging for me.

I think if I'd come to the game expecting more narrative flexibility I'd have felt differently, but as it was I found the character journey to still have quite the impact - I didn't see the White Phosphorus scene as the game trying to make me feel guilty, instead it felt like I was watching a trigger point for Walker's fall into total madness. From that angle I thought it was fairly successful.

 

[Something Amyss]

Thing is, are such folks really going to care what the game has to say? Especially when the game's moment-to-moment gameplay is basically indistinguishable from the games it's trying to critique. If they're just there for the big phallic guns, headshots and military lingo then the game unironically provides that in ample quantities.

This is the only point I can really argue against based on my limited experience with the game. However, it did get some people to actually stop and think. And really, isn't that enough? I'm sure more people said something "this shit is gay!" and went back to slaughtering everything that moves, but it seems to have reached some people. Maybe not enough to dissuade them from playing these games, but enough to actually provoke some thought.

I mean, it's funny hearing dudebros call anything 'deep,' but it does point to something within the game having some sort of actual impact outside of the people who would already be inclined to agree.

 

[AD-Stu]

Spec Ops: The Line really plays around with the assignment of guilt. I think the point of the White Phosphorus Incident was to put you in a similar position to the player. You assign blame to the game just as Captain Walker assigns blame to his mission and Konrad. And you continue to the end, secure in the knowledge that your hands are relatively clean.

[i/] Until...[/i] you reach the the tower, and you're confronted with the enormity of how meaningless your goals were.

This is pretty much my view on it - whether or not you took ownership of the guilt for the WP incident, however you rationalised it as the player, it got you asking questions about what happened, and about what happens in other games in the genre.

I'd say that makes it a success.

 

[Erttheking]

I actually kind of like how heavy handed it was. After all the layer caked on by years and years of CODs, I feel like being subtle is the last thing we need. Sure some of us roll our eyes everytime a COD comes out, but since millions of people still buy them every year, we're clearly the minority. Also something you might want to remember is that this game was advertised as a generic modern shooter, it was meant to lure standard COD players in and surprise them with all this stuff. Something that may have ended up shooting itself in the foot with. I think you need to cut them some credit, I'd think they'd notice it. The game...isn't really subtle about it's message. Heck, my group of friends all made up of veteran gamers pretty much forced me to turn the game off and didn't want to keep playing because they were so horrified by the White Phosphorous scene when I showed it to them.

The devs actually wanted you to have that response, so...well can't really fault them there. They wanted you to feel like things were out of your control and you had been forced to take the measures that had been forced upon you. Just like Conrad had.

Like I said above, they were trying to disguise it as a standard modern military game. He was a generic soldier, that was his personality, not much of a personality but it's a personality...not the best defense huh?

Probably just in case things went tits up they'd be able to get out more easily. It was established massive convoys got fucked royally in that sandstorm.

Yeah his obsession, they flat out state that at the end.

Well, I'd say he actually does a very good job of internalizing it. And the thing is...both of them have a few screws loose too.

Well, that's all I got.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

I think Yahtzee summed up what Spec Ops was trying to do (and for me, did do) with the killing of civilians. I play the Call of Duty games. That AC 130 mission in Modern Warfare was a blast to play, and I still enjoy playing it to this day. When I see a group of enemies together, I try to fry them all with one shot because "Hot Damn!" It's the thrill of snuffing those guys out with such overwhelming firepower that they didn't even know what hit them. I get a rush when I hit a truck and all the soldiers inside are toast before they can even pile out. Taking out large forces like that is a thrill for me, and I know it's a thrill for a lot of other people.

interesting points there, that ac130 level . i can understand why you would get that thrill from it because its designed to do it but the audio chilled me. ive seen videos of gun camera footage from them and from apaches and its scary how close to real life they nailed it with the audio. those arent people they are just images in a game

I know what you mean. Gun crews are extremely detached most times from the amount of death they are dealing out because I think they have to be, and I think that is what Spec Ops was trying to point out (and make some players feel uncomfortable about). Not the act of what you did--because as many people have said there's no choice, the game makes you do, so a lot of people don't feel the guilt since they didn't choose to do--but the feelings you had WHILE you did it: "Oh, this is fun!"

 

[An Individual]

I can generally agree with the things being said here but I feel that the "I wasn't given a choice so I can't feel guilty attitude" is some what missing the point. Much of the game is built around getting you to do things that you know or at least suspect are wrong but you do them anyway. Why? Well, because it's a game and that's what you do. Much of this is designed to explore the concept of Cognitive Dissonance (which is mentioned in one of the loading screens). You aren't necessarily meant to feel guilty about it so much as uncomfortable with it. I'll agree that the phosphorus scene was designed to put you in more of a "what did I just do?" state but if you saw it coming then obviously it isn't going to work on you.

Statements like that also bring up comments like this.

Walker: "What happened here was out of my control."

Konrad: "Was it? None of this would have happened if you?d just stopped."

There are at least two statements in the game to this effect. The general theme being that you don't have to be here. You don't have to do these things. There is always a choice. You can just turn off the game and do something else. Taking a scenario like this to it's extremes, if someone put a gun to your head and said they'd shoot you unless you shot someone else you might tell yourself that you aren't responsible for doing it but the process of actually doing it would still affect you. It's just that in this scenario it's the story being held hostage and atrocity your being asked to commit is part of an ultimately harmless fantasy world.

 

[Lightspeaker]

The big argument supporters of the game make though that cracks me up is this "Oh but you have the choice to stop playing the game". Because yeah.......... when I buy a game for 60+ dollars that's what I'm looking for.

I'm always highly amused by this supposed counter-argument. Regardless of how you feel about that choice, its STILL A CHOICE. And thus your counter-argument is no argument at all.

Rationalise it all you want. Insist that you don't want to buy a game only to not finish it. Rile against how its unfair that you didn't have any other option but to do these horrible things to continue. Claim that the violence doesn't matter because its just a bunch of computer code. Complain how unfair it is that it tries to make you feel guilty for reveling in it, or ignoring it focusing on the goal, or whatever story you told yourself to get through the game. Whatever you like if it makes you feel better.

However it doesn't change or excuse the fact there was absolutely nothing forcing you to carry on playing. Nothing. You could have uninstalled right there and then and never have carried out any of those awful acts. You did not have to do it. "I had to keep playing" is the same kind of excuse as "just following orders" in that it is no excuse at all. There is ALWAYS a choice to be made, even if that choice is simply to stop.

But you didn't stop, did you? You chose to continue trying to play the big hero and to see what could be recovered from the situation. But there wasn't. There was only more death, more violence and a finale showing that everything you did was for nothing. There was no payoff at the end of the game, no big victory scene, no heroics. Only death, loss and a ignoble finish.

But that's ok, because so did I. And so did many others.

Frankly the game left me a lot to think about. And the fact that people like yourself and the OP and several posters in this thread are so apparently so frustrated with it illustrates to me how wildly successful it has been with its goals.


But ok, you didn't like it. That's fair enough, not everything is for everyone especially with how uncomfortable this game is designed to make you feel. However regardless of that I sincerely feel that Spec Ops: The Line is one of the most important games of the last few years and that everyone should play through it once to take from it what they will. Some won't like it; but if it gets through to even a fraction of people its still worth doing.




Captcha: hunky dory

No, Captcha. It most definitely was not hunky-dory in Dubai; and that was the whole point.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

The big argument supporters of the game make though that cracks me up is this "Oh but you have the choice to stop playing the game". Because yeah.......... when I buy a game for 60+ dollars that's what I'm looking for.

I'm always highly amused by this supposed counter-argument. Regardless of how you feel about that choice, its STILL A CHOICE. And thus your counter-argument is no argument at all.

Rationalise it all you want. Insist that you don't want to buy a game only to not finish it. Rile against how its unfair that you didn't have any other option but to do these horrible things to continue. Claim that the violence doesn't matter because its just a bunch of computer code. Complain how unfair it is that it tries to make you feel guilty for reveling in it, or ignoring it focusing on the goal, or whatever story you told yourself to get through the game. Whatever you like if it makes you feel better.

However it doesn't change or excuse the fact there was absolutely nothing forcing you to carry on playing. Nothing. You could have uninstalled right there and then and never have carried out any of those awful acts. You did not have to do it. "I had to keep playing" is the same kind of excuse as "just following orders" in that it is no excuse at all. There is ALWAYS a choice to be made, even if that choice is simply to stop.

But you didn't stop, did you? You chose to continue trying to play the big hero and to see what could be recovered from the situation. But there wasn't. There was only more death, more violence and a finale showing that everything you did was for nothing. There was no payoff at the end of the game, no big victory scene, no heroics. Only death, loss and a ignoble finish.

But that's ok, because so did I. And so did many others.

Frankly the game left me a lot to think about. And the fact that people like yourself and the OP and several posters in this thread are so apparently so frustrated with it illustrates to me how wildly successful it has been with its goals.


But ok, you didn't like it. That's fair enough, not everything is for everyone especially with how uncomfortable this game is designed to make you feel. However regardless of that I sincerely feel that Spec Ops: The Line is one of the most important games of the last few years and that everyone should play through it once to take from it what they will. Some won't like it; but if it gets through to even a fraction of people its still worth doing.




Captcha: hunky dory

No, Captcha. It most definitely was not hunky-dory in Dubai; and that was the whole point.

I do understand that it is indeed a choice one can make. What I take issue with is the belief that that is somehow a point in the games favour. I find the idea of a game which cost 60 dollars at launch would encourage players to simply stop playing it to be completely absurd. It goes against the very reason I play video games.

 

[Zhukov]

But you didn't stop, did you? You chose to continue trying to play the big hero and to see what could be recovered from the situation. But there wasn't. There was only more death, more violence and a finale showing that everything you did was for nothing. There was no payoff at the end of the game, no big victory scene, no heroics. Only death, loss and a ignoble finish.

But that's ok, because so did I. And so did many others.

You are presuming motives at a most prodigious rate

I didn't continue playing because I wanted to be a hero. I don't have any such desire. (I'm not saying I'm immune to violent heroic power fantasies, I just have no interest in military-flavoured ones.) I continued playing because I wanted to see what would happen and where the game would go.

If there had been a little prompt in the corner of the screen saying 'Hold Shift-R to stop being an idiot, retreat and make a report to your superiors like any non-retarded soldier would have done several hours ago' then I would have done that and it would have been a valid choice within the game. (Although I probably would have replayed later to see what happens if I didn't do that.) That is not equivalent to turning off the game.

Turning off the game does not end the story. Walker still does what he does and shit still goes down. I just wouldn't be there to see it.

Besides, a game, or any piece of media, exists to be experienced. A piece of media that causes its audience to walk away would be failing as hard as it is possible for media to fail.

 

[Gorrath]

I know a lot of people do the whole "The message means nothing because I didn't have a choice" or "Us super intelligent people knew that was a crowd full of civilians!"

that's the big thing for me, regarding people who complain about the lack of choice... they want the choice almost certainly BECAUSE they knew the twist was coming ahead of time, which defeats the purpose of there being a choice there in the first place.

and they almost universally deny it, which, depending on how they rationalize their denial, can go from eye-rolling to painful. "the way those white dots were moving was so chaotic, I knew they were civilians... because soldiers wouldn't be moving the slightest bit chaotically while having white phosphorous rained down on them!"

... I don't play many military shooters... in fact, unless I'm with a group of friends who want to play them... I never do... and thus my incredulity might be unfair... but I feel I can safely say that not more than a tiny, TINY minority of players can say, with a straight face that they saw the twist coming without being spoiled beforehand... which brings me to my point regarding the whole "the game railroaded us" thing.

If a person can honestly, with a 100% straight face, say that, without knowing that twist was coming, they would have honestly looked for an alternative to the White Phosphorus, then I respect their disgruntlement at the lack of a choice. If not, then... well, to use the tabletop gaming jargon... you're getting mad at the game for railroading you because you're trying to meta game... and it's hard to feel bad for you being cheated when you're cheating in the first place.

...and again... I refuse to believe more than a tiny percentage of gamers knew what was coming without forewarning.

I just wanted to respond here because I fit your criteria. I did not spoil the game for myself, but I was quite aware that the pit was full of non-combatants. It wasn't a 100% thing, but it seemed rather a good chance and in fact I shot the phosphorous around the pit as much as I could while I wondered what the hell I was missing since I couldn't advance. The only thing that made me change my mind and think that it wasn't full of civilians was that I had to shell them before it'd let me move on. Then, bam, you find out it was in fact the civs. I'll go into all the reasons I presumed that part of the camp was full of civs if you want but no need to waste time on it if you can accept that I'm not just trying to bluff you.

Now that I've said all that, I don't care that I wasn't given a choice. The character I was playing very well might not have realized they were civs and the consequences of his action would have, and were, devastating to him. I am not surprised people found that part problematic, but I was horrified by it. I found the scene both effective and well done. I think the people who say "I didn't care because I didn't have a choice" are right to say it, but I guarantee if the same happened to them in real life, with real lives lost they would never, ever utter those words. When your actions, whether you have a choice in those actions or not, lead to the horrible deaths of terrified people who did nothing wrong, you better believe you'll care. But this is, of course, a video game and no pixels were harmed in the making of it. It worked for me though, as I can empathize with Walker in a very deep and meaningful way.

 

[gyrobot_v1legacy]

On the WP thing, the player has exactly the same choices Walker had:
1. Try to take on an entire regiment without the mortar, getting your ass killed
2. Say "fuck that" and get the hell out of Dubai (this is the "turn off the game" option)
3. Use the mortar because neither of the other options appeal

Showing how creepy those setpieces are is a nice touch, but that's just the icing on the cake. The main point is that in war you get stuck making shitty choices. Walker's options were to leave Dubai under the control of an insane US Army regiment, get killed in a hopeless battle, or use the mortar. None of those is a "good" choice. That was a recurring theme in all the other "make a choice" moments: there is no right call. That's also one reason Spec Ops shows a form of storytelling no other medium could pull off: watching a movie or reading a book, it's easy to say "that character is evil. I would never stoop that low". In Spec Ops, you don't get that luxury. You can say to yourself, "I would have gone down fighting rather than resort to such a weapon", but the niggling voice in the back of your mind will reply "then why didn't you?" It leaves the player in the position of the fallen hero pleading that "there was no other way".

And so what? I had send 100 millions to their deaths in a robot that spewed stuff that makes radiation look like febreeze just so I wouldn't serve the interest of a corporate backed movement designed to hunt down rebels or outright serving them. And I got called out for being a monster, and so what? You guys created the monsters through your senseless bickering.

As quoth the Courier from Fallout told Boone "The only thing you forgot to bring was more ammo". The logical outcome is to suck it up and put these poor folks out of their misery. There is no hope, honor or humility for these poor souls. A painful release through death is the only way. You don't save Dubai by getting people out, you do it by ending their misery.

 

[balladbird]

I just wanted to respond here because I fit your criteria. I did not spoil the game for myself, but I was quite aware that the pit was full of non-combatants. It wasn't a 100% thing, but it seemed rather a good chance and in fact I shot the phosphorous around the pit as much as I could while I wondered what the hell I was missing since I couldn't advance. The only thing that made me change my mind and think that it wasn't full of civilians was that I had to shell them before it'd let me move on. Then, bam, you find out it was in fact the civs. I'll go into all the reasons I presumed that part of the camp was full of civs if you want but no need to waste time on it if you can accept that I'm not just trying to bluff you.

that's fair. In hindsight I may have come across as more confrontational than I intended. My incredulity regarding the matter aside, I'm not actually in a position to call anyone a liar. The only point I wanted to make was that it was very possible that people may have caused more of their own chagrin than the game did over that scene, so a bit of personal reflection should be used.

 

[Bonk4licious]

The game was satire, and satire isn't effective unless it's relevant. A comedian isn't funny making fun of politics unless it's relevant to us. Making fun of George W. Bush with his voice, Bill Clinton about his sex-capades, these are things we are familiar with because they happened recently, they are relevant to us. Spec Ops was a game that couldn't get funding without being generic, and while they had these polished, generic mechanics in place, they wanted to make the story a satire on the industry. It made sense and a connection because it was generic, and relevant. I'm not defending the gameplay at all, but it wouldn't have connected if it were introducing new mechanics, NOT blowing helicopters, and not making you that standard rag tag but invincible group of patriots. From there, once we feel like it's what we know already, they pull some plot twists we're not quite used to and try to get you to think about why these games make you feel these ways, just by default.

For me, the gameplay wasn't interesting until I pumped it to hard difficulty and played more seriously, and even then I did get a little bored at a couple points because of it. My only point is that the story shouldn't get a rap because the authors didn't get you to feel anything, it was a story with a purpose and I think it fulfilled it well. If you didn't question anything about the killing, then I think the message was delivered.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

The game is preaching to the choir.

The kind of gamer Spec Ops is criticising, doesn't play Spec Ops.

Essentially, this ends up making the game a lecturer, then curb stomping anyone who wants to hear what it has to say.

'SO YOU WANT TO BE A HERO, LOOK AT ALL THE HORRIBLE THINGS YOU DID.'

'Well, no, actually sir, I just wanted to hear what you ha-'

'SILENCE, FEEL BAD, FEEL BAD FOR THE CHOICES YOU MADE."