Poll: Is Spec Ops: the Line overrated?

[blackdwarf]

I do think some people don't think in the right mindset when it comes to this game. The main criticism it gets from people who don't like it is the gameplay is mediocre, which if it was left to stand on its own merits I would agree with. However when it is coupled with the story it changes because one of the stories messages is war isn't fun. The game needed sub par shooting in order to tell its message.

I think of it in the same way I think of survival horror games and their controls. Amnesia and Silent Hill are both games with clunky awkward controls but they add to the experience the designers were trying to create and both games would be worse off without them.

I think the main complaint is that the gameplay just really doesn't work all time. I died a lot because of bad controls. But it is true that they made the gameplay really recognizable so a player who has played similar games, would get in the same mindset really fast and then be called out on that. The controls did add to the experience, but the it was still flawed and justified criticism.

I don't think it is overrated. I really "enjoyed" my time with it, although I went in the game knowing some of the stuff already which was a shame.

 

[IronMit]

That goes against what I believe a game should do.

In that case, may I ask why? Why shouldn't a game ask questions of you? Hell, why stop there. Even though I don't feel this is what Spec Ops does, let me ask hypothetically and directed at your original statement: why shouldn't a game tell you to stop enjoying shooters? Are games, and by extension their developers, not allowed to have an opinion even on the genre they work in?

This is something that people complain about on these forums everyday. That people are wrong to judge the games that they enjoy. Why is it now okay when a dev does it and charges money for it.

How do you know it's the exact same people?

Or if it were the same people maybe they were annoyed about the WAY it was being judged.
I find it's hypocritical that people slate my shooter games when they watch trash TV like x factor. Or judge shooter games and leave movies and books and the news intact.

spec ops 'judges' the genre in a different way, if it does at all. It may just be examining the simplicity of the genre

Spec ops made you question why you play the genre. When the majority of other people judge games they are blaming it for all of societies problems and not their culture, wage inequality etc etc

.... most people that judge games don't know anything about games.
Spec ops examines shooters whilst being a shooter. Massive massive difference.. you really went off on a tangent here to further your absolutest opinion that this game shouldn't exist.

 

[Marik Bentusi]

It claims to be a deconstruction of Moder War games when it itself is a modern war game.

It needs to be in order to introduce twists on tired tropes.

It claims to lambast the player for engaging in war crimes (and I could do a whole separate rant on why I think the very idea of war crimes is stupid) and then FORCES the player to do horrible things.

As Konrad says in the heavily fourth-wall-breaking ending scene, "none of this would have happened if you just stopped. But on you marched. And for what?" - this game is HEAVY on the fourth wall. Both Walker and the player thought "This is really wrong, but it's kind of what I'm supposed to do, right? I don't have a choice, I have to continue" when they could have just stopped.
The loading screens are also full of stuff like "To kill for yourself is murder. To kill for your country is heroic. To kill for entertainment is harmless" or "The US military doesn't condone violence against unarmed combatants. But this isn't real, so why should you care?"

It targets the consumer when it should be aiming itself at developers or the publishers that mandate what they create.

It targets players on purpose. Those that want this puerile power fantasy, this romanticization of war, they want to feel like heroes for mindlessly killing whatever the game throws in front of them.
The game explicitly condemns these players for shutting their brain off. It wants to switch on their brains again and make them think about what they're doing, be critical of what they're doing.

"Do you feel like a hero yet?"
"You're here because you wanted to feel like someone you're not: A hero"

Again, these are themes that go with the players as well as with Walker, who from the beginning wanted to reach the heroism of the idol described in the opening narration: Konrad. Even as his psyche turns the guy into a scapegoat, Walker continues until the end because the believes he is (or can be) the hero, the guy that solves everything by killing the bad dude, the one that can save Dubai.
And players want pats on the shoulder as well, be it because they gain points or because of a flashing VICTORY screen or because they win against impossible odds as the good guys in a good VS evil war as frequently depicted by shooters.

It has the same problem as Warhammer 40000, in that its so bleak that it's impossible to take seriously. Things get so dark and so gritty, it almost becomes a black comedy, or hell, it does become a black comedy whenever The Radioman opens his fat gob.

It starts off with Lugo making piss-poor jokes and Adams laughing at them. Radioman, as you've already stated, later serves as the middleground with stuff like "Where does all this violence come from! Is it the videogames? I bet it's the videogames!". After his death, you're well into hell by now, so jokes just seem completely misplaced when Lugo attempts a heroic sacrifice, goes missing some time later and ends up hanged. Inserting a joke there just would have been terrible taste. There's also not a whole lot of room for anyone to breathe after the water is lost.

Can't comment on 40k because I find its over-the-top-ness cheesy and hilarious, and believe it's done on purpose to some degree.

Finally, the whole concept, the whole being of the game is utterly paradoxical: the story is meant to make players question why they play games, players want the game to be fun, the game can't be fun or the players won't question, but if the game isn't fun, then the players fuck off and play something that is, so to try and make them stay, the game tries to be both fun and not fun, and features lots of exploding heads and slo-mo giblets. You see? It's hypocritical to have your game be wall-to-wall violence and have an ultimately anti-violence message.

If Spec Ops makes you switch off the game because you've decided you can no longer justify all the amoral stuff you're doing in it with "for entertainment!", then it's achieved one of its prime goals. It means Spec Ops made the player criticize his own behavior and change it - maybe that's even the devs' best case scenario for what players could take from this game.

I think the slow-mo gibbing heads can be interpreted differently. Yahtzee came to one conclusion, I think it's supposed to break the action on purpose so you have a moment to think about what you've just done. Spec Ops does like lingering on the bad stuff you do, most prominently the WP scene, so it doesn't seem out of line for its design.

Having an awesome and subversive story means absolutely dick when your gameplay is crap. There are certain rules you have to abide in this medium, certain inviolable rules, and Spec Ops broke them.

There's plenty of popular (as "objective" as we're ever going to get to "good") games with weak gameplay and great other aspects like narrative. People usually agree that Morrowind is a pretty good game with great atmosphere and world-crafting for example, even if the main mechanic, combat, is pretty terrible.
There's also more gameplay to Spec Ops than cover-based TPS. Frequently a single shot, or lack therof, makes for the most impactful decisions you get to make. Try to think of Spec Ops as a bit less of a game and a bit more of a message and critique told as it could only be told in an interactive medium with a post-modern audience filled to the brink with cod clones.

Finally, trying to use killing to shock a seasoned videogame player is like trying to put out a chemical fire with a garden hose. It tales a lot more than just "These people died, AND IT'S YOUR FAULT!!!!11one!" to get a reaction other than a maniacal grin from me.

If stuff like the WP scene didn't shock you, it's not the game that's broken. But it's part of what Spec Ops criticizes actually, that we've become so dulled by violent entertainment we don't think about it anymore and don't feel bad about it anymore. And I'm glad I've had that little eye-opener, because it made me feel utterly, utterly disgusted at playing the flamethrower level in FarCry 3. It's almost a comical counter-part to Spec Ops, what with two chars having a massive gun boner for the flamethrower, reggae WUB WUB ad nauseum, drugs, red barrels and waves of masked mooks as far as the eye could see.

 

[Marik Bentusi]

Spec Ops is just stating the obvious (and preaching to the choir imo)

You might get that impression on forums like these because most people now playing the game got it because they were intrigued by its criticism. However, it was designed to look like spunkgargleweewee exactly so that people that like spunkgargleweewees pick it up and Spec Ops does *not* have to preach to the choir.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

In fact, if it was a film, I think it wouldn't be praised. The twist at the end felt like the bad Twilight Zone episodes

Spec Ops: The Line is great BECAUSE it would not be as compelling a film. A film or a book has to be open to interpretation by being ostensibly vague. Spec Ops allows the audience to actually see their interpretation of the character through and act accordingly.

Put bluntly, based on what you've said about it, it seems like you may have missed part of what it's ultimately about.

Also, regarding the ending, there is no twist. It's a progression since

Spoiler

Walker is revealed to be crazy far before Konrad is revealed to be a figment of his imagination. The game subtly hints that he's actually crazy from the very beginning. As his psyche wears down more and more it becomes less and less subtle, but he's already having vivid hallucinations before the Konrad reveal. When you say "near the end... they were supposed to be all crazy, except Walker" you have that completely backwards. Lugo and Adams have been through a lot of trauma and stress, and while it does take a toll on them, both of their actions change to reflect coping mechanisms (Lugo becomes angry, bitter, and cold. Adams goes into a state of denial.) Walker however is psychologically unstable from the very beginning to the very end. His actions only seem "normal" by videogame character standards because the notion that the game is trying to propose is that realistically, most of them are insane.

But no, I would not say it's overrated at all. Maybe it gets a lot of praise around here but if you look at the sales numbers and most mainstream gaming outlets' "top whatever games of 2012" it might as well not even exist.

 

[UrinalDook]

This is something that people complain about on these forums everyday. That people are wrong to judge the games that they enjoy. Why is it now okay when a dev does it and charges money for it.

That's actually a very good response, and you've caught me between trying to decide whether I support the rights of people to like what they like in peace, or the rights of others to criticise people based on what they like.

At the moment, I think I support both and that... doesn't make any sense.

Perhaps I'll duck out by saying I think sometimes you need people to criticise your tastes so you can either reaffirm - for yourself if no one else - why you like those things, or reassess your position.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

That's actually a very good response, and you've caught me between trying to decide whether I support the rights of people to like what they like in peace, or the rights of others to criticise people based on what they like.

At the moment, I think I support both and that... doesn't make any sense.

Perhaps I'll duck out by saying I think sometimes you need people to criticise your tastes so you can either reaffirm - for yourself if no one else - why you like those things, or reassess your position.

Well I'm glad we can end it on a agreeable note. This argument expanded out of control fast.

 

[UrinalDook]

Oh? Sorry if it felt like an argument. For me it was a humble discussion, and I enjoyed every step of it.

 

[awesomeClaw]

I thought it was great...even though I completely disagreed with it.

My main problem was the lack of choice. Some people say "Well why didn´t you stop playing then?" I just don´t think that argument really holds any water. Not only would you maybe have gotten at most two hours entertainment out of this 60$ product, you´d also be doing something that goes against all logic.

Ask yourself: What is the point of a game?

The answer is: To be played with.

Therefore, if the game is designed with the hope that you will not play with it, it is a fundamentally flawed game.

If we follow that point, we end up with the inevitable conclusion that what we did in the game was the only real, logical option we could possibly have taken, meaning Walker was JUSTIFIED in bombing those civilians, because it was in reality: The only option available.

Then why did I like it? Because it took me a good day or two to figure out those arguments that relieved me of responsibility. I´ve never had to think that long or that hard about a game, and that´s why I like it. It doesn´t have to win the argument to be a good game, it just has to engage you in it long enough.

 

[Milanezi]

I chose "yes". I had a wonderful time with the game, and might even play it again given the time, but I didn't feel any of the feelings people were so shocked with: I didn't feel as if the game was accusing me of "being a mindless gamer", and the impact scenes such as the ending or the whole attack with... I don't recall it, it was like napalm, you know what I'm talking about... There was no "emotional punch", Bioshock, Mass Effect, Lost Odyssey and others have made me question the character's motives much more. Of course, if I only focus on, shall we call it, "realistic shooters" (CoD, which I LOVE, Battlefield, etc.) this IS the only one to bring a few emotions other than simply "follow orders". What i liked the least was the ending, it was very cliché, and out of touch from both Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now...
Saying that this medium (games) is an art, ummm well... WHAT is an art? I mean, nowadays one can throw shit mixed with urine and semen on top of a brick wall, encase it and present it as "art", I'm sorry, but it's not, it's just crap, movies are art, but are everyone of them? What defines art, I don't believe it's the medium, you filming something, putting paint to the canvas, or even programming the game, that doesn't define art. Don't ask me what does, because saying it's "quality" would be unfair as well, it would be subjective, I love Da Vinci and I love Dalí, but I hate Picasso, I think it lacks taste, but for some reason, I will never say "it isn't art". Anyway, I don't think Spec Ops was a piece of art, much more entertainment for the sake of it, I hate to say it, but it's true, same goes for Mass Effect, I'd say Bioshock, however, had that something else to it, and without a doubt, Lost Odyssey, true works of art both of them.

 

[IronMit]

I thought it was great...even though I completely disagreed with it.

My main problem was the lack of choice. Some people say "Well why didn´t you stop playing then?" I just don´t think that argument really holds any water. Not only would you maybe have gotten at most two hours entertainment out of this 60$ product, you´d also be doing something that goes against all logic.

Ask yourself: What is the point of a game?

The answer is: To be played with.

Therefore, if the game is designed with the hope that you will not play with it, it is a fundamentally flawed game.

If we follow that point, we end up with the inevitable conclusion that what we did in the game was the only real, logical option we could possibly have taken, meaning Walker was JUSTIFIED in bombing those civilians, because it was in reality: The only option available.

Then why did I like it? Because it took me a good day or two to figure out those arguments that relieved me of responsibility. I´ve never had to think that long or that hard about a game, and that´s why I like it. It doesn´t have to win the argument to be a good game, it just has to engage you in it long enough.

The game tricks you into thinking there is choice. It gives you a few fake choices but the exact same things happen anyway. eg. Gould always dies.
Just so when the White phosphorpus scene comes up you regain control but have your character say 'there is no choice'. If they didn't trick you into thinking there were choices near the start of the game then the white phosphorous scene wouldn't raise the question 'where is my choice!?' It would be like a typical shooter but would simply show the downfall of Walker without the 4th wall stuff
The WP scene lets you regain control and activate the WP. So it feels like a decision.

Would you continue the game if it suddenly told you to kill babies in cold blood? Who would you blame if you did? would you take any responsibility for continuing? Would you blame the fact that you payed for the game so you have to complete it?

You think you are role playing as Walker...but the WP event is where the disconnect happens and then he blames everyone else and not himself. The player is blaming the game designers and not himself.

Konrad illusion at the end asks you who is to blame for the 47 deaths. If you shoot yourself then you take responsibility in game and in real life. If you wish to reject his 'you should of just stopped' argument then you shoot him.

You will never accept responsibility if you think along the lines of 'I payed $60, of course I will complete it'lol. Rather imagine all games are free and there are so many of them to play. You could of easily ejected the disc and played something else.

You are right though..the game almost loses it's audience in the very tricky WP scene. You were 'guided' towards the WP instead of having your fake choice. But then there would be no story.


Another theory is Walker die's in the helicopter at the start. And the entire game is Walker justifying his actions to himself. 'konrad's trying to prove a point'..about war. 'I've done this before'. Therefore nothing can change. Just if he accepts or rejects it was his fault at the end. That's the only real choice

 

[Machine Man 1992]

I thought it was great...even though I completely disagreed with it.

My main problem was the lack of choice. Some people say "Well why didn´t you stop playing then?" I just don´t think that argument really holds any water. Not only would you maybe have gotten at most two hours entertainment out of this 60$ product, you´d also be doing something that goes against all logic.

Ask yourself: What is the point of a game?

The answer is: To be played with.

Therefore, if the game is designed with the hope that you will not play with it, it is a fundamentally flawed game.

If we follow that point, we end up with the inevitable conclusion that what we did in the game was the only real, logical option we could possibly have taken, meaning Walker was JUSTIFIED in bombing those civilians, because it was in reality: The only option available.

Then why did I like it? Because it took me a good day or two to figure out those arguments that relieved me of responsibility. I´ve never had to think that long or that hard about a game, and that´s why I like it. It doesn´t have to win the argument to be a good game, it just has to engage you in it long enough.

This. Granted, I started to loathe the game for the exact same reasons, but looking back now, I think it was more I was sick of the opinion hive-mind and was raging against the established order.

 

[Mangod]

Overrated? No.

Over-hyped? Fuck yes.

Let us be honest here; whenever something is touted as the "best (thing) ever", no matter the medium, people will come into it with expectations that nothing will ever live up to. Take Citizen Kane, for example. When I saw it for the first time, it was after having been repeatedly bludgeoned over the head with how it's the greatest movie ever made. The movie was still very good, but I was still disappointed at the end because it didn't live up to the expectations I had of the "greatest movie of all time".

Spec Ops: The Line is a good game, a great game, but the hype surrounding it has forced it to try to live up to expectations that it could never hope to satisfy.

 

[alphamalet]

The Walking Dead is far more overrated than Spec Ops.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

It claims to be a deconstruction of Moder War games when it itself is a modern war game.

It needs to be in order to introduce twists on tired tropes.

But it doesn't. The gameplay is a Gears of War style TPS with sand physics. Sure the story is a more "realistic" take on the Modern War story. If you want to deconstruct or satirize a genre, don't be exactly like it.

It claims to lambast the player for engaging in war crimes (and I could do a whole separate rant on why I think the very idea of war crimes is stupid) and then FORCES the player to do horrible things.

As Konrad says in the heavily fourth-wall-breaking ending scene, "none of this would have happened if you just stopped. But on you marched. And for what?" - this game is HEAVY on the fourth wall. Both Walker and the player thought "This is really wrong, but it's kind of what I'm supposed to do, right? I don't have a choice, I have to continue" when they could have just stopped.
The loading screens are also full of stuff like "To kill for yourself is murder. To kill for your country is heroic. To kill for entertainment is harmless" or "The US military doesn't condone violence against unarmed combatants. But this isn't real, so why should you care?"

I see fourth wall breaking as a flaw, not a virtue. If you can't communicate your message without talking directly to the audience, then the problem lies in the shitty writing, not in the audience. The loading screen inanity is shit I already know, because like most people I can tell the difference between real and simulated violence.

It targets the consumer when it should be aiming itself at developers or the publishers that mandate what they create.

It targets players on purpose. Those that want this puerile power fantasy, this romanticization of war, they want to feel like heroes for mindlessly killing whatever the game throws in front of them.
The game explicitly condemns these players for shutting their brain off. It wants to switch on their brains again and make them think about what they're doing, be critical of what they're doing.

"Do you feel like a hero yet?"
"You're here because you wanted to feel like someone you're not: A hero"

Again, these are themes that go with the players as well as with Walker, who from the beginning wanted to reach the heroism of the idol described in the opening narration: Konrad. Even as his psyche turns the guy into a scapegoat, Walker continues until the end because the believes he is (or can be) the hero, the guy that solves everything by killing the bad dude, the one that can save Dubai.
And players want pats on the shoulder as well, be it because they gain points or because of a flashing VICTORY screen or because they win against impossible odds as the good guys in a good VS evil war as frequently depicted by shooters.

Except the player isn't Walker. The game goes out of it's way to try and alienate the player. This isn't the player's fault, all I am is an angry little id that takes over for the combat, so I feel the blame the game tries to lay at my feet is undeserved. The game hasn't earned the right to lay any guilt on me, because it hasn't done anything to make me part of the game.

It has the same problem as Warhammer 40000, in that its so bleak that it's impossible to take seriously. Things get so dark and so gritty, it almost becomes a black comedy, or hell, it does become a black comedy whenever The Radioman opens his fat gob.

It starts off with Lugo making piss-poor jokes and Adams laughing at them. Radioman, as you've already stated, later serves as the middleground with stuff like "Where does all this violence come from! Is it the videogames? I bet it's the videogames!". After his death, you're well into hell by now, so jokes just seem completely misplaced when Lugo attempts a heroic sacrifice, goes missing some time later and ends up hanged. Inserting a joke there just would have been terrible taste. There's also not a whole lot of room for anyone to breathe after the water is lost.

Can't comment on 40k because I find its over-the-top-ness cheesy and hilarious, and believe it's done on purpose to some degree.

I'll concede this point.

Finally, the whole concept, the whole being of the game is utterly paradoxical: the story is meant to make players question why they play games, players want the game to be fun, the game can't be fun or the players won't question, but if the game isn't fun, then the players fuck off and play something that is, so to try and make them stay, the game tries to be both fun and not fun, and features lots of exploding heads and slo-mo giblets. You see? It's hypocritical to have your game be wall-to-wall violence and have an ultimately anti-violence message.

If Spec Ops makes you switch off the game because you've decided you can no longer justify all the amoral stuff you're doing in it with "for entertainment!", then it's achieved one of its prime goals. It means Spec Ops made the player criticize his own behavior and change it - maybe that's even the devs' best case scenario for what players could take from this game.

I think the slow-mo gibbing heads can be interpreted differently. Yahtzee came to one conclusion, I think it's supposed to break the action on purpose so you have a moment to think about what you've just done. Spec Ops does like lingering on the bad stuff you do, most prominently the WP scene, so it doesn't seem out of line for its design.

"Just stop playing" is a bullshit argument. It has to be a legitimate choice from within the game itself. Turning off the game is a choice made outside of the game, and therefore NOT part of the game.

And there's a line (see what I did there?) between lingering on the bad stuff you do (which I remind you, you have no option not to do) and grindhouse style gratuitous exploitation. Spec Ops crosses this line and keeps going. In attempting to show you the horrible stuff the game made you do, it ultimately undermines it's own point while doing so.

Having an awesome and subversive story means absolutely dick when your gameplay is crap. There are certain rules you have to abide in this medium, certain inviolable rules, and Spec Ops broke them.

There's plenty of popular (as "objective" as we're ever going to get to "good") games with weak gameplay and great other aspects like narrative. People usually agree that Morrowind is a pretty good game with great atmosphere and world-crafting for example, even if the main mechanic, combat, is pretty terrible.
There's also more gameplay to Spec Ops than cover-based TPS. Frequently a single shot, or lack therof, makes for the most impactful decisions you get to make. Try to think of Spec Ops as a bit less of a game and a bit more of a message and critique told as it could only be told in an interactive medium with a post-modern audience filled to the brink with cod clones.

I can't comment on Morrowind, or Oblivion for that matter, because Skyrim was the only TES game I've ever played, but I will say that there's more to an RPG's gameplay than combat. A TPS like Spec Ops' gameplay is combat. If the combat is utterly pedestrian, then it's a crappy TPS, end of story.

Finally, trying to use killing to shock a seasoned videogame player is like trying to put out a chemical fire with a garden hose. It tales a lot more than just "These people died, AND IT'S YOUR FAULT!!!!11one!" to get a reaction other than a maniacal grin from me.

If stuff like the WP scene didn't shock you, it's not the game that's broken. But it's part of what Spec Ops criticizes actually, that we've become so dulled by violent entertainment we don't think about it anymore and don't feel bad about it anymore. And I'm glad I've had that little eye-opener, because it made me feel utterly, utterly disgusted at playing the flamethrower level in FarCry 3. It's almost a comical counter-part to Spec Ops, what with two chars having a massive gun boner for the flamethrower, reggae WUB WUB ad nauseum, drugs, red barrels and waves of masked mooks as far as the eye could see.

Far Cry 3 is also fun. Remember that, Fun? What we used to have before it became to mainstream? And if we've become so dulled by constant violence, then wouldn't it behoove the game to try and broach it's message in a way that we aren't numb to?

 

[Frotality]

Spec Ops is praised for doing something different. you're thinking of it in a linear, gameplay/narrative quality sense, which was never the developers intent. the gameplay is generic and stale for a very good reason: its not that they couldnt make it better, its that the whole freakin point of the game is to make you question the true value of all the other generic and stale shooters you play. to put it bluntly: you're not supposed to enjoy it. the game was made to deconstruct a genre, not provide a good example of it. Yager wanted to communicate something with their game, and they communicated that message very well, something few games have done, and for that they should be praised.

you cant think of it in an X out of 10 kind of way. it had a message, and it delivered it well. a refreshing change of pace from games simply trying to out-gore each other, dont you think?

 

[Brainwreck]

For a condemnation of videogaming, it sure is.
But the story definitely had its moments. Just wish it had a little less hatred for its audience.

 

[Denamic]

Every single game in existence, and every game that will come in the future, are all both underrated and overrated.
Because people have different goddamn opinions.

 

[HannesPascal]

Maybe what bothered me was the phosphorous situation.

Spoiler

I actually like the way you were forced to use the white phosphorous and tried to shoot my way through at least two times before I decided to use it because I had seen what the stuff did. When I started using it I shot the rpgs, snipers and cars then when I was supposed to shoot the car on the bridge I saw that there were people beneath it and thought: "These guys look unarmed and since they are just standing still I guess they must be captives." Sure we can say that's not I that make the choices but Walker (which is a crappy way to handle choice in an interactive medium) but if I can detect that some of the dots on the computer screen are civilians surely Walker a trained soldier could as well.

 

[Gearhead mk2]

NO! Why the fuck is this even a real question?!