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

[Murais]

It's an easy fix.

Give the option of the firefight (and have it be almost impossibly difficult), then have the opposing forces execute the civilians if you choose that option. It establishes narrative chops of the futility of trying to save *everyone* in a war, still gives indirect blame, and adds more gravity on another playthrough if you *do* use the white phosphorus. The choice being between the difficulty of inevitability (and the consequences of being stubborn in a war scenario) and the ease of monstrosity (which thematically is what the use of drones represent in a position of power). Does a better job of putting you in that Kurtz-like position that they sit you in at the end of the game.

Still loved the game, though.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

Then it would have ruined those other choices which also looked to be forcing you into doing the wrong/horrible thing.

While forced and could have been designed better, the White phosphorous is essential to the story Yager were trying to tell and a way for them to make you choose the wrong decisions latter down the line without you knowing about it.

 

[sextus the crazy]

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?

The choice would ruin the whole thing. People would choose to fight cleanly because they know they can beat all of the enemies without WP because they can just stall it out like any action shooter game. Walker chooses to use WP because he knows that without artillery there's no way that they would be able to take on the enemy forces.

SOOOOOOOOO not true. Who wouldn't love using White Phospherous? The game could also have made it incredibly hard to win without it.

We're assuming that people will pick the good option, like it mass effect or Fallout 3. Granted, most of those choices didn't let you rain down war crimes on your opponents. I'm more complaining about how the ability to game the system removes weight from the choice by lowering the necessity of WP.

 

[TheDoctor455]

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.

Part of the point was to get you angry at the developers for that segment, and for all the hate the game puts on you for it. Just as the characters were blaming the circumstances.

 

[Erttheking]

I kinda admit that the whole "you could've just turned the game off" argument doesn't really hold water when I think about it. Still there are two ways that I can' view it that makes me like the game.

1. Just as Walker's story

2. A deconstruction of modern military shooters in general and why people would ever want to play them.

Also, if I could've made the choice, I would've been sadistic. I would've made it possible for Walker and company to overpower the Damned 33rd, but Lugo and Adams both die in the assault, and the civilians are ungrateful towards Walker.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

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.

It could easily work. But the enemies would have to be impossible to beat. Then it would be a (real) choice between your own death or your survival and the death of civilians.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

Because teh agme isn't blaming you, it's blaming Walker and you by extension. If he didn't have the guilt weighing over hsi head then the downturn of his character into complete madness wouldn't have been as poignant. Frankly teh game slams on the guilt in better ways than that one scene, like the walkup through the burnt area and hearing all the soliders moaning and crawling along was more impactful to me than the cutscene.

Also in an earlier portion of the game a woman runs out in the middle of a gun fight and the first time I went through there I pit two barrels in her head, purley on instinct. Then theres the part with the crowd and my fisrt instinct was to put a couple of barrels into them too.

 

[Psylumin]

I think that it would have lost its weight if this was just one of three possible ways to go through this particular mission. You would have said "Kay, its bad because I chose the 'bad' way" and would think about the next play through. The people wouldn't seem dead, because you knew that they could just as well have been alive if you did something else.

Normally, when you are not given any choice in a 'choice-driven' game, it means that nothing special will happen. You think nothing will go wrong, because you didn't have any say in the matter. In Mass Effect, you can eradicate entire species if you choose to do so, but you know that that kind of huge plot point will only happen if you are given a choice for it to happen. That means that in later parts of the game, you know nothing horrible will happen if you are not given a choice, so you always feel at ease until that dialogue wheel pops up. It really takes the tension away, and you can really predict what choice will make bad things happen.

Spec Ops gives you the illusion that every major part of the game will be the outcome of your choices, making you think that, as long as you are making good choices, nothing bad will happen. You feel safe, and you feel like everything is predictable. Instead, you find out that all these choices that you were given are absolutely meaningless, even though they might have seemed hard at first. You thought you are in control of where the story is going, you are God.

In fact, I think the whole previous sequence with the saving of civilians was put there intentionally to make you seem in control. You saved two civilians, so you can save everyone in the game. Then, shortly after, you kill so many people without any choice in the matter.
Its quite genius, IMO.

 

[Austin Manning]

It's an easy fix.

Give the option of the firefight (and have it be almost impossibly difficult), then have the opposing forces execute the civilians if you choose that option. It establishes narrative chops of the futility of trying to save *everyone* in a war, still gives indirect blame, and adds more gravity on another playthrough if you *do* use the white phosphorus. The choice being between the difficulty of inevitability (and the consequences of being stubborn in a war scenario) and the ease of monstrosity (which thematically is what the use of drones represent in a position of power). Does a better job of putting you in that Kurtz-like position that they sit you in at the end of the game.

Still loved the game, though.

Unfortunately that wouldn't work. The scene is supposed to be a deconstruction of Airplane gunner sections of Modern Warfare, with it being an empowering moment to the player as they curb-stomp hundreds of enemies and then sucker-punching them with the horrific results (the way the soldiers and civilians died). It's one of the moments where the player really questions why they're doing this.

Replacing that with "Oh the enemy soldiers killed the people we were trying to save" completely undermines the scene as it encourages players to keep going and killing the "evil NPCs" without pausing for thought. It would take a moment meant to cause genuine introspection and turn it into No Russian.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

You mean... remove the one bit of the whole game experience that still causes discussions, outrage as well as philosophical exchange and political rage storms?

The game was mediocre at best.

That scene was set up as being as manipulative as possible, without bothering much about the actual, harsh realities of war and the motivations, reasons and reasoning behind it.

To me, it was more exploitative than, say, the first interactive experience of being blown to bits by a nuclear explosion in Call of Duty / Modern Warfare.

So, in retrospect, Spec Ops: The Line was a game that tried a bit too hard to be a movie, or maybe a book, just something that it wasn't. Don't get me wrong. I liked some of that Apocalypse Now vibe they went for. The whole thing, though, is quite forgettable.

 

[bug_of_war]

I don't get what some people are saying. Yes they kept sorta of throwing the WP moment in your face, but I never felt as though they were rubbing it in with sand and glue. Also, to those saying you should have had a choice, it would be REALLY stupid if 3 dudes managed to take out the amount of soldiers down there. It was a realistic choice by Walker, why risk going in and shooting at hundreds of well armed people when you have the option to blow them away.

But OT: First play through, unless it was spoiled I think many would choose the WP to conserve ammo. Second play through I think most people would leave the WP just to see how it effected the ending differently. Personally I think it would have ruined the story though as I cannot think of any other way that they can make it so that Walker really breaks. I mean come on, when you see the mother and child burnt to a crisp holding each other, that's fuckin' emotional.

 

[GlorySeeker]

Honestly, when it came to the phosphorus, I was so wrapped up in the story, It hadnt even crossed my mind that those could have been civilians. So, spec ops succeeded with me. I did find myself second guessing my choices at that point. A little guilty even. But mostly it was just a way to make Walker, arc as a character. Which it achieved. Choice or not, I liked it.

 

[Genocidicles]

That's not just a major plotpoint - it's the major plotpoint in Spec Ops: The Line. It's the equivalent of Bioshock's...

Spoiler

"Would You Kindly"

... twist and is widely regarded as the defining moment of the entire game. How is it not an important spoiler?

What you do with the WP is the major plotpoint. Just saying the player uses it doesn't spoil anything.

The choice would ruin the whole thing. People would choose to fight cleanly because they know they can beat all of the enemies without WP because they can just stall it out like any action shooter game. Walker chooses to use WP because he knows that without artillery there's no way that they would be able to take on the enemy forces.

That's what I was saying. If you read my whole post you'll see I was talking about people who wanted a choice to not use it.

It could easily work. But the enemies would have to be impossible to beat. Then it would be a (real) choice between your own death or your survival and the death of civilians.

That already happens IIRC.

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

That's not just a major plotpoint - it's the major plotpoint in Spec Ops: The Line. It's the equivalent of Bioshock's...

Spoiler

"Would You Kindly"

... twist and is widely regarded as the defining moment of the entire game. How is it not an important spoiler?

What you do with the WP is the major plotpoint. Just saying the player uses it doesn't spoil anything.

Yes it does, especially if you know what white phosphorous is.

 

[Scarecrow]

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.

Well this ended quickly. Daystar, he derails threads -AND- ends them before they even start!

OT: Pretty much what Daystar said, if it wasn't obvious. It really only has one trick up it's sleeve, and if that trick flops, then it's all over.

 

[Sectan]

I'm seeing a lot of "The point of the game is to see whether you keep playing or not." Don't know about you, but if I had dropped cash to get the game I'd keep playing it. Or at least get pissed off for the game going "YOU MONSTER YOU DIDN'T QUIT PLAYING A GAME YOU SHELLED OUT CASH FOR HOW DARE YOU!"

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

I'm seeing a lot of "The point of the game is to see whether you keep playing or not." Don't know about you, but if I had dropped cash to get the game I'd keep playing it. Or at least get pissed off for the game going "YOU MONSTER YOU DIDN'T QUIT PLAYING A GAME YOU SHELLED OUT CASH FOR HOW DARE YOU!"

Welcome to the world of deconstructions, this is pretty much how lots of satirical or counter-culture art works. Sure, it might not be very nice to the consumer, but on the other hand I as a consumer also paid money to play a wargame in which I would perform war crimes...