Poll: Is Spec Ops: the Line overrated?

[veloper]

The narrative is on rails and you had no player agency. It is surprising that you would feel guilt.
I consider it a cheap trick and not a profound message.

There was this one guy who ranted at DmC and mentioned the new pretty levels. "Bullshit" - he called out "The contrast between blue and orange is a cheap trick into tricking the eye into liking it." Remember kids, choosing colours and contrasts is a cheap trick for artists to succeed.

Player agency is always defined by how involved the player is. My motivations aligned with Walker's. The narrative is linear, no doubt about it, but there was another cheap trick. It fooled me by giving me the illusion of choice and for some time I did not realize how railroaded I was - until it all became one big trainwreck.

This is one of the games where I understand when somebody absolutely hates it. In order for a narrative to work, you gotta allow it to fool you. 1984 is a great book, yet if you absolutely refuse to believe in the possibility of such a scenario - refuse to be fooled by it - it will fly over your head.

It's not the same thing though. A book you could also dismiss on such grounds like terrible writing, plotholes, inconsistencies, etc. but a disconnect between the protagonist and the reader, is not one of them.

Within a game an experienced gamer may try the limits of the gameworld and as you hit too many arbitrary barriers, the player is nolonger playing the role of the main, but back to observing the PC from the outside.
"Yeah we get it, the PC is an idiot. So what?"
At best, when the illusion does work, the player is playing a role like an actor plays a role: it's still just another character to play.

Over a decade ago, an old RPS called Deus Ex also had NPCs telling the player what to do and not telling them they had a choice, but the player often did have a choice and the game would respond appropriately.
Now the mistake is also the player's mistake. THAT is how you would guilt trick a player.

You may like everything you want. You may like fastfood. Just don't expect it to get any better. Don't expect to get recognition for it.

If low grade fiction is your thing and you don't buy all that games=art crap, then you are in luck, because that's the future of gaming we are heading towards. All the charts point to more cinematic experiences and easier gameplay.
We can expect to see some more "exceptional" titles with fairly decent story telling and minimal gameplay. That and lots of mediocrity too.

The gaming community is too reliant on outsider prespective. There is no big authority that examines each music, painting or book and after a careful evaluation proclaims it to be art. Most people still call abstract paintings bullshit yet that doesn't keep museums from obtaining such pieces of art. Games don't need recognition in my opinion.

Games are art and that doesn't mean much. They can be bad or good, shitty or great. Art is a common product and a source of entertainment these days.

What is fine art is decided in a circle jerk of artists and closely associated art critics. I agree that the art label doesn't mean much. It's an Escapist need and not my thing necessarilly. I'm interested in a different quality.
Movie critics are a better example, they are not afraid to call something bad. Game reviewers could take an example to them.
It's not that we need outsiders to validate us; it is we who should look at games from the outsider perspective more often. If we did, then mediocrity in games wouldn't be regarded as excellent so often anymore.

 

[Elijin]

Wait, people think its better than movies?

I'd heard it was a good example of that videogames are capable of good stories, comparable to movies...


I wouldnt say its overrated since almost everything I hear is "Spec ops has awful, frustrating and generic gameplay, BUT has some really interesting story, especially with how the player interacts with the events."

So in that respect, from what I've heard, I wouldnt call it overrated.

 

[bananafishtoday]

What games cannot do is compete directly with cinema, because games will always be worse at being movies. Game developers should not try to do so and we shouldn't encourage them.

Games like FF or MGS, yeah, I'd agree they're trying to shoehorn in cinema storytelling and producing a poor man's movie as a result. On the other hand, Spec Ops: The Line and the Walking Dead aren't trying to be movies. Despite being linear stories, their interactivity informs and plays a central role within their narrative, offering experiences that a passive medium like film can't.

It was not the story which blew me away (which probably the book is much better at conveying). It's just the first time in my life I felt guilt like never before. No movie or book could have accomplished that. It was me who was carrying out the orders and I had to bear the consequences. Many players complained that it felt forced and ridiculous, but for me it worked.

The narrative is on rails and you had no player agency. It is surprising that you would feel guilt.
I consider it a cheap trick and not a profound message.

I had a similar experience to the person you quoted. The game was an emotional roller coaster for me--I went from profound guilt, to stubborn determination, to cold vengefulness, to utter despair, to catharsis.

Your offhanded dismissal of the game's storytelling techniques doesn't invalidate the experiences others have with the game. It can work for some and fail for others. Maybe it just ain't your cup of tea.

 

[veloper]

What games cannot do is compete directly with cinema, because games will always be worse at being movies. Game developers should not try to do so and we shouldn't encourage them.

Games like FF or MGS, yeah, I'd agree they're trying to shoehorn in cinema storytelling and producing a poor man's movie as a result. On the other hand, Spec Ops: The Line and the Walking Dead aren't trying to be movies. Despite being linear stories, their interactivity informs and plays a central role within their narrative, offering experiences that a passive medium like film can't.

The Walking Dead atleast made a half-assed attempt at giving the player some choice (without consequence), but Spec Ops deserves no such consideration.
When you have a game that is completely on rails, then there's no reason to regard the story any better than you would do for a movie.
Either the gameplay (the shooting) becomes that annoying obstacle in between the parts of narrative, or the narrative becomes those cutscenes that break up the game sections.
Until you introduce C&C, the narrative is still a seperate thing from the gameplay and we don't need to treat the writers with special kid gloves.

It was not the story which blew me away (which probably the book is much better at conveying). It's just the first time in my life I felt guilt like never before. No movie or book could have accomplished that. It was me who was carrying out the orders and I had to bear the consequences. Many players complained that it felt forced and ridiculous, but for me it worked.

The narrative is on rails and you had no player agency. It is surprising that you would feel guilt.
I consider it a cheap trick and not a profound message.

I had a similar experience to the person you quoted. The game was an emotional roller coaster for me--I went from profound guilt, to stubborn determination, to cold vengefulness, to utter despair, to catharsis.

Your offhanded dismissal of the game's storytelling techniques doesn't invalidate the experiences others have with the game. It can work for some and fail for others. Maybe it just ain't your cup of tea.

I cannot deny that the game had an effect on you and others, but why would that count as proof of quality?

It is my experience that makes me less easily impressed. I know I am not the main character of a game.

Consider, what is the message here?
"Blindly following orders is bad, mkay?" That may have been a great message for a movie from 50 year ago. Games get no special pass for being out of date. Even for games this idea isn't exactly new (see Deus Ex).

Or is it: "Modern military first person shooters are stupid!" Then the devs should make a parody like Call of DOOty. We all get that COD is dumb, now entertain us. Makes us laugh.

More likely the message intended to convey is this:
"Modern military shooters are BAD and because you play them YOU ARE A MONSTER!!!!!!!!!!!"
That just doesn't fly with me.
COD Blobs is just a game. The player is not the PC. The player doens't even get C&C. Players shouldn't feel bad about it. They may have cheap taste and like shitty things, but it's not a crime.

There is no relevant message here. Playing with emotions only works against the inexperienced.

 

[bananafishtoday]

The Walking Dead atleast made a half-assed attempt at giving the player some choice (without consequence), but Spec Ops deserves no such consideration.
When you have a game that is completely on rails, then there's no reason to regard the story any better than you would do for a movie.
Either the gameplay (the shooting) becomes that annoying obstacle in between the parts of narrative, or the narrative becomes those cutscenes that break up the game sections.
Until you introduce C&C, the narrative is still a seperate thing from the gameplay and we don't need to treat the writers with special kid gloves.

The gameplay and narrative in Spec Ops are a unified whole. Walker never physically does anything in a cutscene that affects the plot. Everything he does is done by the player, and what's more, it's done using the actual game mechanics (moving and shooting) rather than dialogue wheels or menu selections. Plenty of games suffer from gameplay-story segregation, but Spec Ops isn't one of them.

Just because the game is linear doesn't mean its narrative can be presented just as well by a movie. Allowing the player to be the tragic hero serves to amplify the tragedy, and it works becaaause...

I cannot deny that the game had an effect on you and others, but why would that count as proof of quality?

It is my experience that makes me less easily impressed. I know I am not the main character of a game.

...feeling as if you are the protagonist is necessary to the willing suspension of disbelief in the context of certain games. Honestly, you're missing the point if you think knowing you're not actually Captain Walker is a sign of intellectual maturity. It would be like saying "Lord of the Rings does not impress me. I'm experienced enough to know there's no such thing as Middle Earth."

Consider, what is the message here?
"Blindly following orders is bad, mkay?" That may have been a great message for a movie from 50 year ago. Games get no special pass for being out of date. Even for games this idea isn't exactly new (see Deus Ex).

Or is it: "Modern military first person shooters are stupid!" Then the devs should make a parody like Call of DOOty. We all get that COD is dumb, now entertain us. Makes us laugh.

More likely the message intended to convey is this:
"Modern military shooters are BAD and because you play them YOU ARE A MONSTER!!!!!!!!!!!"
That just doesn't fly with me.
COD Blobs is just a game. The player is not the PC. The player doens't even get C&C.

Spec Ops has a lot more to say than you give it credit for, but as for its commentary on modern FPSes, it's not trying to make juvenile blanket statements like "CoD is dumb" or "CoD is evil." It's not so much a condemnation as it is a deconstruction, in the same way that Madame Bovary is a deconstruction of romance novels, or Watchmen is a deconstruction of super hero comics. (Before you jump on me for that comparison, I'm not saying these works are of equal quality. I'm saying they're trying to accomplish the same goals.)

Players shouldn't feel bad about it. They may have cheap taste and like shitty things, but it's not a crime.

There is no relevant message here. Playing with emotions only works against the inexperienced.

Your impeccable taste is noted. We are all very impressed.

 

[veloper]

The Walking Dead atleast made a half-assed attempt at giving the player some choice (without consequence), but Spec Ops deserves no such consideration.
When you have a game that is completely on rails, then there's no reason to regard the story any better than you would do for a movie.
Either the gameplay (the shooting) becomes that annoying obstacle in between the parts of narrative, or the narrative becomes those cutscenes that break up the game sections.
Until you introduce C&C, the narrative is still a seperate thing from the gameplay and we don't need to treat the writers with special kid gloves.

The gameplay and narrative in Spec Ops are a unified whole. Walker never physically does anything in a cutscene that affects the plot. Everything he does is done by the player, and what's more, it's done using the actual game mechanics (moving and shooting) rather than dialogue wheels or menu selections. Plenty of games suffer from gameplay-story segregation, but Spec Ops isn't one of them.

Just because the segregation is not also a seperation in time, doesn't mean there's a unified whole. Basicly the player is just shooting stuff in a railroaded fashion. Calling that part of the narrative is a long stretch.
Not as bad using as CGI cutscene interruptions perhaps, but still not full integration either.

Full integration would mean interaction between the narrative and player actions and you cannot do that when the narrative is completely railroaded.

Just because the game is linear doesn't mean its narrative can be presented just as well by a movie. Allowing the player to be the tragic hero serves to amplify the tragedy, and it works becaaause...

I cannot deny that the game had an effect on you and others, but why would that count as proof of quality?

It is my experience that makes me less easily impressed. I know I am not the main character of a game.

...feeling as if you are the protagonist is necessary to the willing suspension of disbelief in the context of certain games. Honestly, you're missing the point if you think knowing you're not actually Captain Walker is a sign of intellectual maturity. It would be like saying "Lord of the Rings does not impress me. I'm experienced enough to know there's no such thing as Middle Earth."

A better comparison would be NOT LARPing Strider or Frodo, because you don't need that crap just in order to read some fantasy novel.

All that can ever be expected of the reader, or the player in this case, is that he or she tries to understand the protagonist. Identifying yourself with the protoganist is entirely optional.
Worse, a main protagonist that easy to identify with, is the easy way out for a writer and that's not necessarilly a good thing.

The game's guilt trip experience actually hinges on the player identifying with Walker, which is a weakness in the narrative.

Consider, what is the message here?
"Blindly following orders is bad, mkay?" That may have been a great message for a movie from 50 year ago. Games get no special pass for being out of date. Even for games this idea isn't exactly new (see Deus Ex).

Or is it: "Modern military first person shooters are stupid!" Then the devs should make a parody like Call of DOOty. We all get that COD is dumb, now entertain us. Makes us laugh.

More likely the message intended to convey is this:
"Modern military shooters are BAD and because you play them YOU ARE A MONSTER!!!!!!!!!!!"
That just doesn't fly with me.
COD Blobs is just a game. The player is not the PC. The player doens't even get C&C.

Spec Ops has a lot more to say than you give it credit for, but as for its commentary on modern FPSes, it's not trying to make juvenile blanket statements like "CoD is dumb" or "CoD is evil." It's not so much a condemnation as it is a deconstruction, in the same way that Madame Bovary is a deconstruction of romance novels, or Watchmen is a deconstruction of super hero comics. (Before you jump on me for that comparison, I'm not saying these works are of equal quality. I'm saying they're trying to accomplish the same goals.)

You know, maybe the game was some attempt at deconstruction, if one that hinged on the player identifying with the PC. It may not be up to par with literature, cinema or even the Watchmen, but since it does more than the usual mediocre writing, we'll give it a passing grade. Let's be generous even: a 7 out of 10 for the story.

Now we're back at my main point: WHY are we all raving about content that is merely above average?

Shouldn't we be less euphoric because a game narrative doesn't suck completely? What's worse, the gameplay for Spec Ops is rather mediocre. The game excels not by any criterium.

Worse example: the Walking Dead, more than euphoric, this is the Game of the Year all over the gaming communities. What do we get? A decent story and very poor gameplay.

You'd think gaming (PC and console) is DEAD already, if this is the BEST that developers can come up with. At this point you have to wonder, why am I still wasting my time with games, if this it the best on offer? Lets read a good book instead.

Only these games aren't the best on offer and some games can still excel on gameplay levels and then no other medium can come anywhere close.
It's just that our current criteria suck, because we hold onto double standards for game narratives.

Players shouldn't feel bad about it. They may have cheap taste and like shitty things, but it's not a crime.

There is no relevant message here. Playing with emotions only works against the inexperienced.

Your impeccable taste is noted. We are all very impressed.

The funny thing is, if Spec Ops and TWD actually had good gameplay, I would have been cheering alongside with most of you. A good shooter with a decent story is an improvement over a good shooter with a crap story and this goes doubly for a a puzzle-adventure game (IF only).

As it stand now though, we cannot have nice things, because of double standards.

 

[G-Force]

The funny thing is, if Spec Ops and TWD actually had good gameplay, I would have been cheering alongside with most of you. A good shooter with a decent story is an improvement over a good shooter with a crap story and this goes doubly for a a puzzle-adventure game (IF only).

As it stand now though, we cannot have nice things, because of double standards.

However, having excellent and "fun" gameplay would ruin the narrative and goes against the message. Reason why Call of Duty succeeds is two fold

1. Succeeds in fulfilling the player's power fantasy through the narrative
2. Having satisfying gameplay that reenforces this image.

In many of the war games the player always justified in being in the right and does heroic deeds just to show how badass they are. Everything from using high tech weaponry to doing brutal kills with a knife. The player continues until the end because they want to continue feeling like a hero and the gameplay is fun. It's one thing to watch a Rambo movie and go "Man Ranbo is such a badass" and instead say "Wow I AM the badass soldier saving the world."

Spec Ops wanted to do the opposite and show the player how horrible these wartime actions are. Everything from showing the collateral damage to war, making the enemies US soldiers and giving a face and back story behind the masses you killed was the game's intention of having you go "I am doing some messed up stuff." Much like Walker continues the mission despite warning signs from his squad and failed attempts in order to try to salvage what little is left in Dubai, the player continues playing in hopes that in the end there is one big heroic act that turns them around. At the very end the game takes this reasoning and shoves it at the players face. If the gameplay of Spec Ops was satisfying then we could easily justify ourselves for liking the game simply because it is fun. The narrative had to be the biggest reason why players continued moving onward, not the gameplay.

TLR - It would have been hypocritical to make an anti-war game if the gameplay glorified war at the same time.

 

[veloper]

The funny thing is, if Spec Ops and TWD actually had good gameplay, I would have been cheering alongside with most of you. A good shooter with a decent story is an improvement over a good shooter with a crap story and this goes doubly for a a puzzle-adventure game (IF only).

As it stand now though, we cannot have nice things, because of double standards.

However, having excellent and "fun" gameplay would ruin the narrative and goes against the message. Reason why Call of Duty succeeds is two fold

1. Succeeds in fulfilling the player's power fantasy through the narrative
2. Having satisfying gameplay that reenforces this image.

In many of the war games the player always justified in being in the right and does heroic deeds just to show how badass they are. Everything from using high tech weaponry to doing brutal kills with a knife. The player continues until the end because they want to continue feeling like a hero and the gameplay is fun. It's one thing to watch a Rambo movie and go "Man Ranbo is such a badass" and instead say "Wow I AM the badass soldier saving the world."

Spec Ops wanted to do the opposite and show the player how horrible these wartime actions are. Everything from showing the collateral damage to war, making the enemies US soldiers and giving a face and back story behind the masses you killed was the game's intention of having you go "I am doing some messed up stuff." Much like Walker continues the mission despite warning signs from his squad and failed attempts in order to try to salvage what little is left in Dubai, the player continues playing in hopes that in the end there is one big heroic act that turns them around. At the very end the game takes this reasoning and shoves it at the players face. If the gameplay of Spec Ops was satisfying then we could easily justify ourselves for liking the game simply because it is fun. The narrative had to be the biggest reason why players continued moving onward, not the gameplay.

TLR - It would have been hypocritical to make an anti-war game if the gameplay glorified war at the same time.

You may be onto something here. Gameplay may be very well be at odds with story telling.

Gaming history supports this proposition atleast. From Planescape Torment to The Walking Dead, for some reason we never get a proper story AND great gameplay in the same game.
Could be coincidence. Could be all such attempts are well and truly fucked even before they start. Worth looking into atleast.

Now we're back at alternatives #1 and #2. The indie way or the hard way.