Let's say we had a choice to not use the white phosphorous (Spec Ops: The Line spoilers)

[Genocidicles]

Ok, I've seen a few people saying how Spec Ops: The Line isn't that edgy or whatever because the game forces you to use the white phosphorous.

What if you could choose not to do it though? Say you had the choice to actually fight the enemies yourself (and win) instead of sending the drone in and accidentally killing a ton of civilians, or something like that?

Surely the majority of people would go for the option that leaves all the civilians alive, right? The civilians surviving (or at least dying at the hands of someone who isn't Walker) means Walker probably doesn't go insane and the game would probably end on a relatively happy or bittersweet note.

Seriously, I just don't get why so many people harp on about the game not giving you a choice at this bit, when choosing something else would just ruin the game's story.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

It would have probably worked if it wasn't so blatantly obvious.

A huge mass of white specks all concentrated in one area? I fucking knew what was going to happen before I did it (no, the game wasn't spoilered before I played it).

I appreciate what the game was trying to do, but for me, it just failed at every attempt at emotional manipulation.

I wasn't trying to be a hero like the game kept accusing me of, I just wanted to play a good game, and unfortunately, this game relies on its story and not it's gameplay mechanics to entertain the player.

If the story doesn't grab you, like it didn't with me, then all you're left with is a really mediocre shooting gallery.

 

[Zhukov]

Oh for fuck's sake. I do not like having my opinion misrepresented.

The problem isn't that it doesn't give you a choice. I understand that any decent story requires a degree of linearity/railroading.

The problem is that it spends the rest of the game trying to make you feel guilty for something you had no hand in.

"We're not going to let you proceed until you firebomb those civilians."
"Ooookay then, here goes."
*Whoomph!*
"YOU MONSTER, YOU FIREBOMBED ALL THOSE CIVILIANS!"

PS. I actually quite liked the game.

 

[m19]

My problem was that the game did give you choices before that scene and when you get there it frames it like one of those choices. But there isn't a choice and it's confusing. It could be executed better. Otherwise you either embrace inhabiting Walker and let the narrative take you for a ride or you don't.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well people did get spoiled on choice, but to tell a certain story you can't let everything be changed.
However in the case we are talking about they did it in a really bad way, because the game makes it look like you are steering the character and then suddenly that control is taken from your hands... do not fucking do that, the situation was perfectly suited for someone else to make that action and still have the same impact, but they weren't thinking that their setup will feel like bullshit.

Games this high strung take far more attention to detail and when things are sloppy it stands out like a sore thumb.

 

[Full]

To me, that scene wasn't trying to make you feel bad, really, just trying to make you feel awkward or conflicted, like Walky Walks. It was trying to put you more into the shoes of the protagonist and then point out how absurd the lengths of some story-railroading goes.

Saying "that's not fair, I shouldn't feel bad about that", is exactly what Walker was saying to himself.

 

[kailus13]

If the options were to use the white phosphorous or leave, ending the game then and there, I feel that it would work better. You can choose to not do it, but you'd miss out on the rest of the game. It would still be railroading, but it wouldn't feel like it as much.

 

[saintdane05]

But guys... you do have a choice! Its there, since the beginning of the game!


You turn the game off. The thing wasn't barraging you for killing the civilians, it was barraging you for doing so under blind orders. The only way to win is to not play. This has come from one of the head developers.

 

[Madkipz]

Ok, I've seen a few people saying how Spec Ops: The Line isn't that edgy or whatever because the game forces you to use the white phosphorous.

What if you could choose not to do it though? Say you had the choice to actually fight the enemies yourself (and win) instead of sending the drone in and accidentally killing a ton of civilians, or something like that?

Surely the majority of people would go for the option that leaves all the civilians alive, right? The civilians surviving (or at least dying at the hands of someone who isn't Walker) means Walker probably doesn't go insane and the game would probably end on a relatively happy or bittersweet note.

Seriously, I just don't get why so many people harp on about the game not giving you a choice at this bit, when choosing something else would just ruin the game's story.

Captain walker chooses to use white phosphorous. Captain walker chooses to not leave dubai. Captain walker is the one hallucinating. The game is questioning what kind of player would follow that kind of story. The game devs specifically tailored their game towards that line of thought. So when people whine about having no choice. Really they are just parroting the captain walker in their head blaming the damned 33rd for having no choice.

 

[teebeeohh]

Ok, I've seen a few people saying how Spec Ops: The Line isn't that edgy or whatever because the game forces you to use the white phosphorous.

What if you could choose not to do it though? Say you had the choice to actually fight the enemies yourself (and win) instead of sending the drone in and accidentally killing a ton of civilians, or something like that?

Surely the majority of people would go for the option that leaves all the civilians alive, right? The civilians surviving (or at least dying at the hands of someone who isn't Walker) means Walker probably doesn't go insane and the game would probably end on a relatively happy or bittersweet note.

Seriously, I just don't get why so many people harp on about the game not giving you a choice at this bit, when choosing something else would just ruin the game's story.

Captain walker chooses to use white phosphorous. Captain walker chooses to not leave dubai. Captain walker is the one hallucinating. The game is questioning what kind of player would follow that kind of story. The game devs specifically tailored their game towards that line of thought. So when people whine about having no choice. Really they are just parroting the captain walker in their head blaming the damned 33rd for having no choice.

except the all the things Conrad says to walker at the end are also directed towards the player. You always have a choice, you can turn the game off.
i would have loved the option to just turn around and walk back out of the city at every point. They could even give me the passive-aggressive "you only had to kill X people to realize how fucked up this all is, you are less of a monster than Y% of players"

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

Put the spoiler warning in front of the rest of the title, for crying out loud. Spoiling major plotpoints to a game that's not even a year old in a thread's title is disrespectful, to say the least. I really do hate being "that guy", but people shouldn't have to worry about having major plotpoints to a very recent game spoiled just because they glanced at some thread titles in the Gaming Discussion section.

 

[ThatDarnCoyote]

I understand people's complaints about that sequence. Still, the whole game has a running theme throughout; that doing horrible things "because you have to" doesn't make them any less horrible. It is this truth that breaks Walker, and you find out at the end that it broke Konrad too.

Much as I liked Spec Ops: The Line, I have to roll my eyes at that argument, "Well, you could just turn the game off." It's a cheap cop-out, and it smacks of the creators doing exactly what they portray Walker as doing, and what they accuse the players of doing - blaming someone else for a situation that they created.

Look, you sold us a different kind of game and a different kind of story. Don't kick and accuse people because they paid you money, wanted to experience that story, and it didn't quite work for them.

 

[Genocidicles]

snip.

How is that in any way an important spoiler?

Oh no! Now you know that there is white phosphorous in the game and you use it! That sure reveals all the major plot twists!

 

[ksn0va]

My problem was that the game did give you choices before that scene and when you get there it frames it like one of those choices. But there isn't a choice and it's confusing. It could be executed better. Otherwise you either embrace inhabiting Walker and let the narrative take you for a ride or you don't.

Whenever I get to control a character in a game with a preset story...

Anyways, for everyone else, take this scenario: You wake up in the middle of the night and hear noises inside your closet. you grab your gun and start aiming. At this point you're so scared of your life after hearing that a serial killer was on the loose. You contemplate for a bit but eventually decide that the only choice for you to survive was to start shooting. Afterwards... You see you brothers dead body!!!

In the end you realize the other things that you could've done to make sure that the it was really an intruder that broke into your home.

 

[knight steel]

snip.

How is that in any way an important spoiler?

Oh no! Now you know that there is white phosphorous in the game and you use it! That sure reveals all the major plot twists!

You monster,how could you spoil such a great game, that *incident* is one of the biggest surprises in the game and packs the biggest punch and you ruin it,that's it I'm not playing the game and it's all your fault T_T

 

[M920CAIN]

I'm just sad that the casualties were so low. I wanted to burn more civilians.

 

[Raikas]

Saying "that's not fair, I shouldn't feel bad about that", is exactly what Walker was saying to himself.

Yeah, I appreciated that - it felt imperfect, but that was the whole point.

But then I'd heard it described as a plot-driven piece before I played it, so to be fair, I can see how it might take on a different flavour if you were expecting something with more of a dynamic story (or better gameplay mechanics, for that matter).

 

[Happiness Assassin]

You do have the choice to keep fighting the enemies, but they just keep respawning, forcing you to use the white phosphorus or die basically. It is a Hobson's choice, where the only variable is when you give in.

 

[Madkipz]

Ok, I've seen a few people saying how Spec Ops: The Line isn't that edgy or whatever because the game forces you to use the white phosphorous.

What if you could choose not to do it though? Say you had the choice to actually fight the enemies yourself (and win) instead of sending the drone in and accidentally killing a ton of civilians, or something like that?

Surely the majority of people would go for the option that leaves all the civilians alive, right? The civilians surviving (or at least dying at the hands of someone who isn't Walker) means Walker probably doesn't go insane and the game would probably end on a relatively happy or bittersweet note.

Seriously, I just don't get why so many people harp on about the game not giving you a choice at this bit, when choosing something else would just ruin the game's story.

Captain walker chooses to use white phosphorous. Captain walker chooses to not leave dubai. Captain walker is the one hallucinating. The game is questioning what kind of player would follow that kind of story. The game devs specifically tailored their game towards that line of thought. So when people whine about having no choice. Really they are just parroting the captain walker in their head blaming the damned 33rd for having no choice.

except the all the things Conrad says to walker at the end are also directed towards the player. You always have a choice, you can turn the game off.
i would have loved the option to just turn around and walk back out of the city at every point. They could even give me the passive-aggressive "you only had to kill X people to realize how fucked up this all is, you are less of a monster than Y% of players"

That's what i said. The game questions what kind of player you are to follow along such a narrative, but the story that is being told is Captain Walkers. "You always have a choice." Says Lugo, and then Walker says something along the lines of "Not really no." Because it's Walkers story you don't get to choose your cake and eat it to. Captain walker already made the choices for you to enter dubai. To use the white phosphorous and to blame it all on Conrad. The player is merely playing along and given a few outlets such as shooting in the air to scare civvies or saving two of them at the "cost" of their information source dying (which the guy does anyhow).

 

[Rednog]

People harp on the game because the game spends a great deal of time harping that there's always a choice and when it actually matter they take the choice away from you and then harp on and on about how you're the bad guy for making a choice when you didn't actually make one. And please don't give me the bs of "you could've turned off the game", that's not making a choice at all, that's a non choice. If I'm supposed to be in Walker's shoes and actually care about what happens in the game then I don't have the choice to poof out of existence.

The whole turn off the game argument is flawed because by that sentiment I could easily argue, well why should I care? If it's just a game then it really doesn't matter if a killed a bunch of pixels. I can't feel bad for making a choice in the game when a developer is basically telling me that I'm just toying around with a machine.

Even then I personally got sick of the characters constantly berating me for the white phosphorus thing, I mean it wasn't even Walker's idea in the first place to use the phosphorus, Adams was the one to go hey look white phosphorus let's use it! Yet he shares the sentiment with Lugo that Walker is the bad guy.