Is there any point in playing Spec Ops: the Line now?

[nomotog_v1legacy]

You can choose to turn off the game and do something else. I think the game kind of considers that a valid option. Basically turning off the game is equivalent to completing your mission.

Then wouldn't it be an even better choice to never buy the game in the first place.

I would say no don't buy it.
The gameplay is bad, a boring cover shooter that feels kind of sluggy. Your allies have a tendency of ignoring cover and running into enemy fire which you have to save them from. It has some weird mechanic where executing a wounded enemy gives you more ammo to your weapon than just shooting them from afar.
The story has been way overrated, it was kind of ok (I never finished it) but community feedback hyped it up and it just felt disappointing.
If you care about it there's some blatant gameplay and story segregation (I refuse to say ludicrous patronus or whatever some people call it) when the message is how you shouldn't enjoy violent video games while you can get achievements for killing 500 people with shotguns etc.

If you buy it, don't believe the hype if you don't expect too much from it you might enjoy it.

It's like war games. The only winning move is not to play. I think it's actually a little clever. (It was an intended option.) It's like a deconstruction of the military shooter taking the ideals of the genre and just shredding them in a blender basically turning what should be a really fun experience into a gut wrenching thing. Yes that dose include some narrative dissidence, but dissidence is like half the point of the game! I can't really explain it too well myself I'm afraid.

How far did you get into it?

 

[HannesPascal]

It's like war games. The only winning move is not to play.
...
How far did you get into it?

But that's my point if the only winning move is not to play a true master never even buys it.

I got to a point shortly after the first time you face the elite troops (was going to fuck up with the last water supply with the cia guy), had to eat so I turned it off and could never be bothered to turn it on again.

 

[Uriel_Hayabusa]

There's no choice because the protagonist doesn't believe he has a choice. He says it isn't his fault because he firmly believes there is no other option. So there's no other option. You're basically saying exactly what he did. 'I am not responsible for my actions because I had no other choice, so what if I did horrible things, I had to'.

"What happened here was out of my control!"
"Was it?"

I don't know that it necessarily buy the 'you can turn the game off' argument, but it's irrelevant. It's a tragedy, a downward spiral. We can't choose to make that better, that defeats the point.

My problem with the game isn't so much that horrible things happen courtesy of the player; but that the developers basically absolve themselves from any responsibility for making the game the way it was.

There's plenty of works of fiction where horrible things happen, but Spec-Ops: The Line is one of the few I can think of that wants to blame its audience (and ONLY its audience) for what it is. It's a violent game that condems violent games while laying the blame for the fact that blames everyone and everything else for that fact that it too, is a violent game.

Just to be clear: I don't hate the game. I actually admire what it set out to do. The idea of a shooter game that criticizes the way shooters simplify complex situations to provide easy catharsis is great. But when it comes down to it, it remains a game where you gun down hordes of enemy soldiers, but instead of the narrative telling you you're the world's greatest badass it tells you that you're a horrible person. In a way, the game is every bit as one-sided, manipulative and devoid of nuance as the games it so viciously mocks. It just has the opposite message.

(wow: that turned out longer than expected)

 

[epicdwarf]

From what I heard, the game DOES allow you to make choices it does not directly tell you are options. Example: In a secretion that you have to disperse a crowd to get past. The game allows you to simply just shoot in the air and kill no one. In another section you have to choice to save one of two people hang in from rope and being shot at by snipers. The game allows you to shoot both ropes down and also kill the snipers.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

It's like war games. The only winning move is not to play.
...
How far did you get into it?

But that's my point if the only winning move is not to play a true master never even buys it.

I got to a point shortly after the first time you face the elite troops (was going to fuck up with the last water supply with the cia guy), had to eat so I turned it off and could never be bothered to turn it on again.

Your not actually meant to win.

If you still have it, I suggest trying again. See if you can finish it.

 

[sir neillios]

Personally I'd say go for it when it's cheap.

I went into it knowing it subverted a lot of typical action game tropes and some nasty shit went down involving white phosphorus. And it still had a considerable affect on me, I felt really weird playing it. I think it's more than just the big OMG I DONE A BAD THING twists that the game throws at you. There is a very oppressive atmosphere that sets in.

If I was compiling a list of interesting games to play, I would put it on it.

 

[Something Amyss]

Everyone has heard of Spec Ops: the Line by now. It's clever subversion of FPS tropes and how it forces you to think about the trouble you cause in your attempts to play hero. But my question is this: is there any point in playing it now, since I know it's going to try and guilt trip me?

Since I know using the white phosphorus will hurt innocent people, can I opt out of it? If not, can I still say that it's my fault? Will I be forced to take actions I know are a bad idea, and then still be guilt tripped for it? Are my actions still my fault if I can't avoid doing them?

This is the problem with this kind of twist in any medium. At one time, it may have been the surprise of the century that Darth Vader was Luke's father; now, thanks to pop culture ubiquity, that's probably the first thing anyone knows about Star Wars.

Opinions?

I doubt any film twist would impact you in the same way. I mean, you're talking about being forced and guilt tripped, so I don't think this is about knowing the twist, but not liking the specific outcome and not wanting to feel like the bad guy.

 

[Matthew Jabour]

From what I heard, the game DOES allow you to make choices it does not directly tell you are options. Example: In a secretion that you have to disperse a crowd to get past. The game allows you to simply just shoot in the air and kill no one. In another section you have to choice to save one of two people hang in from rope and being shot at by snipers. The game allows you to shoot both ropes down and also kill the snipers.

I, too, saw that episode of Extra Credits. Now what are YOUR thoughts?

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Since I know using the white phosphorus will hurt innocent people, can I opt out of it? If not, can I still say that it's my fault?

No and no.

There's an invisible wall which prevents you from progressing and the enemies come at you in infinite waves unless you use the white phosphorus and kill all those innocence people....You also have to kill those civilians if you want to progress.

So the only correct way to play is to turn the game off?

Whether you feel guilty or not it's still an incredible story. Surprisingly deep, nuanced, powerfully written, with some pretty fantastic acting and some stunning locations and direction. It's one of my favorites, and surprise or no surprise I'd definitely call it worth checking out.

I have no clue on what you're on about, lay off the drugs? Are trying to justify that bullshit argument that "you can stop playing any time"? They didn't even bother implementing the illusion of a choice.

Lame game mechanics, lame plot/story but decent parody even though it's a parody of itself. There's nothing inherently good about this game.

There's no choice because the protagonist doesn't believe he has a choice. He says it isn't his fault because he firmly believes there is no other option. So there's no other option. You're basically saying exactly what he did. 'I am not responsible for my actions because I had no other choice, so what if I did horrible things, I had to'.

"What happened here was out of my control!"
"Was it?"

I don't know that it necessarily buy the 'you can turn the game off' argument, but it's irrelevant. It's a tragedy, a downward spiral. We can't choose to make that better, that defeats the point.

Is it really worth playing? I bought it once long ago and never got past the first level or so because, and you can't blame it, it plays soooo fucking generic.

is it's story the "Walking Dead Game" good?

 

[kasperbbs]

It's not as good if you already know all the tricks that they have set up. On my first playthrough i had a hunch that something was up with that white phosphorus scene so i tried to advance without using it, but it was impossible so i scorched all of them and had to listen to the npc's whining about it. But i would still recommend it just to experience it for yourself, it's probbaly very cheap right now anyway.

 

[sextus the crazy]

Yeah, I'd say it's still worth a look. There are scenes other than the phosphorous one.

It's not an overly long game and it'll be dirt cheap by now, so you don't stand to lose much.

I say this as someone who wasn't a huge fan, so I'm not just it's worth playing because "OMG it's my most favourite game EVAR!" At the very least, it's an interesting experiment.

Seconded. I liked the game a bunch, but I know it's very a divisive experience. However, it's worth playing because it's an interesting game that does more with the MMS genre than pretty much anything else.

 

[epicdwarf]

I, too, saw that episode of Extra Credits. Now what are YOUR thoughts?

I say it is still worth playing if you haven't yet. It sounds and looks interesting enough to warrant at least one play through. Sure it might guilt trip you on the things you have done, but what other shooter on the market does that?

 

[ThatDarnCoyote]

It's definitely worth playing. You can know the full plot of Apocalypse Now, and it's still worth watching.

Personally, I've always thought Spec Ops: The Line's reputation as a devastating deconstruction of mil-shooters was grossly oversold. The guilt trip it seeks to lay on players is a bit too obvious to work, and the whole "you could make the choice to turn it off" is one of the most asinine things I've ever heard a developer say. (I forgive it because the game they produced is so good).

That said, the game is quite effective at telling a different kind of war story than we typically see from video games. While the story is plainly a re-interpretation of Heart of Darkness or Apocalypse Now, it still manages to feel fresh and compelling. The environments are very well designed, and really convey the atmosphere of doom and desperation. So deeply did The Line's portrait of a graveyard Dubai drill itself into my consciousness, that to this day when I see pictures of the real Dubai I feel a slight twinge.

The White Phosphorous scene is pivotal, but there's more to the game than that (the final sequence at the tower in particular is very well executed). And whether or not the WP scene has its desired effect on the player or not, its effect on the characters is undeniable, and that's what gives the story its power.

I say get it.

 

[AD-Stu]

Is it really worth playing? I bought it once long ago and never got past the first level or so because, and you can't blame it, it plays soooo fucking generic.

is it's story the "Walking Dead Game" good?

Not really, no. But I don't think that's the point either: The Walking Dead was nothing but story. In Spec Ops the in-game "story", and indeed the gameplay and pretty much everything else about it, is secondary to the message it's trying to send to the player.

In that way, I walked away from Spec Ops a lot more impressed than I was by something like The Walking Dead. Your mileage may vary though...

As for OP: it's only eight hours long and definitely worth a play, as others have said there's a lot more to it than just the WP scene.

 

[josemlopes]

It's definitely worth playing. You can know the full plot of Apocalypse Now, and it's still worth watching.

Personally, I've always thought Spec Ops: The Line's reputation as a devastating deconstruction of mil-shooters was grossly oversold. The guilt trip it seeks to lay on players is a bit too obvious to work, and the whole "you could make the choice to turn it off" is one of the most asinine things I've ever heard a developer say. (I forgive it because the game they produced is so good).

I honestly dont think that the argument of turning it off was that poorly placed, it certainly isnt expected from the player to do (I mean, really? Is someone really going to stop playing the game?) but the idea to me seems that the player expects to be a hero in the end of the story, therefore he must continue somehow even if he isnt liking what he is doing. I think the idea was just to drop the message directly to the player that he could have left the story himself before things got worse even though the deluded player would still go on because of his expected good ending (dont forget that the player bought the game expecting another modern shooter where the hero kills them all and wins the war). Just dropping the hint that the player still has control over the deep the story goes even if the game doesnt let him quit by its own terms.

I kind of get where the devs were coming from but it isnt something that can be entirely agreeable because it lacked more context.

 

[thewatergamer]

Really Depends I bought it on sale without hearing ANYTHING about it aside from yahtzee's zero punctuation praising it, so I bought it on impulse, and damn the story hit's you hard, but that is assuming that the story wasn't spoiled...

So I honestly can't say

 

[WouldYouKindly]

Some things should be experienced first hand. The white phosphorous incident makes you feel like a right asshole, but it's hardly the only incident and for sheer body count, it's not the worst thing you do either.

The actions you do are horrific, but what's even worse is the reason you(being your character) does them.

 

[Win32error]

Any work with a specific hook or idea will suffer with time. The more succesful, the more it'll get copied and parodied, and after years people can't look at it straight anymore. It'll probably happen with spec ops when more devs try to cash in on the effect it had. It won't be much, and maybe it'll take years or a few decades, but eventually the unique approach will get old because newer games do it better.

That's not the case yet. Not by a long shot. Yes, a lot of the plot has been spoiled by webcomics and analyses (at least a game like this gets some attention that way), but it's not like you already know everything that's coming. Unless you watched a let's play, in which case shame on you.

As for me, I knew about the phosforus going in. It did reduce the impact of the scene, especially because i tried preventing it two times. I do agree with some people that the player is being railroaded into an atrocity, but I can see how the devs couldn't have you not do it. And you probably figured out already that the americans aren't the big damn heroes the makes you think they are in the first two hours or so, that'll do some damage to the emotional curve.

BUT. There's more to this game than "oh god, war is bad" and "oh god, you just did something horrible while possibly feeling really good about it". The REAL point of the story (not making the former two seem invalid) only starts driving home near the third act, and it does so in an extremely good way. It also does somewhat resolve the issue of railroading you into killing civilians. If you have read an in-depth analysis of the story it might not work deeply into you. Still worth checking out though, it's not expensive, it doesn't take too much time on most of the settings (26 hours, all achievements unlocked. That's roughly 3 playthroughs for all difficulties), and it's worth seeing what everybody got so worked up over.

I know i've been writing half an essay here, but it just worked that well for me. Despite knowing the one thing every critic jumped at when looking at this game, at least intentionally. Aside from the story, the game is decent. Cover-based yes, not very dynamic, but the setpieces are good and...

I just forgot about the radioman. He really sets the stage and the mood in a large part of the game. Just for him i'd play it. Between him and all the fun little bits that the line has to offer (shooting up dubai, dropping tonnes of sand on people, failing the stealth in the aquarium and getting blasted with lights and music), it's worth a single playthrough even disregarding the story. You won't disregard the story.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

It's still a fun game and, it's dirt cheap. Of course it's worth playing. It's like the Super Mario games: you know Bowser is going to kidnap Peach and you will rescue her from him but it's the journey that the experience worth it. I would also say Bioshock is worth another playthrough even though that's another example of, "we all know the plot twist". So is Knights of the Old Republic. Fun games are still going to be fun, even if you know where the plot takes you.