So I've been playing Spec Ops: The Line

[zumbledum]

I was stunned by the ZP review ,all the time i expected Yahtzee to go "lol no its crap"

the story isnt bad but i didnt get any of the emotional impact at all, actually as i sit and think the story is very good. its not anti war , there is no war in it, its a fall of society scenario , what people will do when pushed far enough situation. but for me Max payne 3 had more emotional impact.

bold statement or what well let me explain. i was running through the favellas i see an un armed guy on a rooftop i draw a bead on him and creep forward he sees me scarpers and sets off a firework as an alarm... later im running and gunning down a street and i see a kid running.. 2 in the chest one in the head and as i go past i look down, hes not in gang colours theres no gun and it hits me , he was just running away poor kid just wanted to get home and i had just been smug about the extreme skill that took him apart and left his bleeding carcass on the floor.
and that had an impact on me.

But spec ops.. its all forced i obviously cant go in to details because this thread is a lot about should you play it or not and spoilers area no no. but there are like 4 scenes which are meant to really resonate and for me they loose all power because your actions are forced theres no choice in it. and all the events that were wrong were clearly wrong and i was just thinking oh ffs is anyone really that retarded to believe that and then do this? the character you play is so far out of whack with the way i would of done in the situations it just robbed it for me.

its still good and im glad i played through it twice , which btw doesnt take that long it is short! but its also the right length for the pacing and story so i dont hold it against it.
the gameplay is solid enough but it is normal chest high wall hugathon.

in short , good game worth playing , think they went too far trying to strong arm you into guilt that it brakes the impact a bit.

 

[ResonanceSD]

Just finished the game.


Fuck. Mind Fuck.

Buy it. Play it. Ignore @zumbledum in his above post. It's fucking amazing. One of my top 3 games ever.

 

[ResonanceSD]

The main drawcard for me so far is the story. Combat controls are a bit arsed, but I can live with that.

Totally with you there. The first time I discovered some of the cover mechanics was 90 minutes before the end of the game -_-'

 

[MedDoctor]

I actually liked the game
got a great storyline and gameplay ^^
I bought it right here
http://www.mmoga.com/Steam-Games/Spec-Ops-The-Line.html?ref=779&affiliate_subid2=SOTLUS

 

[devotedsniper]

It's a good game, it's such a shame it's so short though and the combat/cover system could do with abit of polishing but other than that theres nothing really wrong with it.

My favourite quote from this game would have to be;

Spoiler: Not really a spoiler but just incase

"Where's all this violence coming from? Is it the video games? I bet its the video games." The wording might be 1-2 words off i only noted it down after the scene to tell it to a friend.

 

[Pink Gregory]

I played the demo.

So far...eh, if it's supposed to be based on Heart of Darkness (Konrad = Kurtz/Conrad, I assume), that's fine, it's an interesting morality tale that can now reach those who haven't read it; but I don't reckon story alone can carry a full-price boxed game that can be (apparently) breezed through in a weekend; aside from an interesting and thought-provoking story/character development, it's an utterly generic third-person shooter.

But perhaps this will start a trend for interesting stories in these kind of games.

 

[ResonanceSD]

If the game was any longer, it'd cease being action and become straight up horror.


To everyone decrying it and having only played the demo.

Like you.

I played the demo.

If you actually do play it through, you'll find out why it's short. The length actually makes sense.

 

[DioWallachia]

I felt that it was a bit forced, seeing as how it's the game that makes most of the darkest decisions for you, and not you, yourself. For me it would have had more of an impact if I was faced with several options and I picked the wrong one by accident.

THIS.

I find very weird that Yahtzee didnt do a skit like "Alone In The Dark" where he mentions this about the forced moment of reviving your "love interest":

"Perhaps the crowning moment of her hideousness is when she nearly dies and the game forces you to press a button sequence in order to revive her with CPR. Although the spiteful cow never actually dies, no matter how many times you deliberately fuck up. "

The sequence would have felt a lot more organic if you were under attack constantly (like in a "last stand/hold the line until you win" sort of way, like Warcraft 3, Starcrat 2 Protoss missions, or Halo Reach) where the enemy keep respawning over and over and end up overwhelmed, but you can just end it by using....

Spoiler

The White Phosphorous:

 

[Pink Gregory]

If the game was any longer, it'd cease being action and become straight up horror.


To everyone decrying it and having only played the demo.

Like you.

I played the demo.

If you actually do play it through, you'll find out why it's short. The length actually makes sense.

I see your point, but I'm not really talking in terms of the length, had I played the whole thing I certainly wouldn't disagree on the length of the story (I can almost guarantee that); what's for some reason (maybe I'm a sucker for punishment) annoying me is that, as good as the story may be, this is still interactive storytelling, and what I played fell flat on the interactive side, I mean even just an option to direct Adams and Lugo rather than just indicating what to shoot at would have been nice; but then again this is coming from someone who enjoyed Gears of War (gameplay wise) and earlier Conflictesert Storm and CoD, so perhaps I'm just too used to shooters to see past it.

Same issue with PS:T, which I will at some point play, and I will probably be captivated by the story, but if it falls down on the 'game' aspect as some people seem to suggest (then again being based on a similar system to Baldur's Gate isn't exactly detrimental) then I'm certainly not going to think of it as revolutionary in storytelling.

This might all be so much bollocks, because I enjoyed Fahrenheit (Indigo Prophecy), despite the ridiculous second half, and the gameplay in that is hardly substantial, then again, I did buy it for like £5.

I don't know, I personally disagree that it's revolutionary in storytelling and story, but I'm being unfair, it's encouraging, and hopefully will turn some from the military shooter crowd onto something with some depth.

Feel free to point out that I'm not really making any point.

 

[DioWallachia]

I see your point, but I'm not really talking in terms of the length, had I played the whole thing I certainly wouldn't disagree on the length of the story (I can almost guarantee that); what's for some reason (maybe I'm a sucker for punishment) annoying me is that, as good as the story may be, this is still interactive storytelling, and what I played fell flat on the interactive side, I mean even just an option to direct Adams and Lugo rather than just indicating what to shoot at would have been nice; but then again this is coming from someone who enjoyed Gears of War (gameplay wise) and earlier Conflictesert Storm and CoD, so perhaps I'm just too used to shooters to see past it.

Same issue with PS:T, which I will at some point play, and I will probably be captivated by the story, but if it falls down on the 'game' aspect as some people seem to suggest (then again being based on a similar system to Baldur's Gate isn't exactly detrimental) then I'm certainly not going to think of it as revolutionary in storytelling.

This might all be so much bollocks, because I enjoyed Fahrenheit (Indigo Prophecy), despite the ridiculous second half, and the gameplay in that is hardly substantial, then again, I did buy it for like £5.

I don't know, I personally disagree that it's revolutionary in storytelling and story, but I'm being unfair, it's encouraging, and hopefully will turn some from the military shooter crowd onto something with some depth.

Feel free to point out that I'm not really making any point.

Interesting how something that has been done on books and movies now feels "revolucionary" on GAMES, because of the utter incompetence in delivering a good story in the genre of "Realistic FPS/TPS" lately. Dont you think?

I would say that we should at least let more people know about the game AND make sure to inform the developers that we would like to see stories like it but with more emphasis on being told IN gameplay and not cutscenes.

Speaking of switching characters in mid fight, it reminded me of Evolva, where you can switch between your 4 Genohunters at anytime and control them personaly. Then again, that game didnt have much of a story so i cannot say that there was much context of WHY you can switch at all except for the Unnamed Scientist that made the Genohunters being a proxy for the player.

If they wanted to innovate on Spec Ops: The Line, they could have pulled a Rashomon by switching the characters and end up making multiple paths thanks to it. You end up seeing a different sequence if you reach a Cutscene checkpoint with other characters.

 

[DioWallachia]

Are you there?

Nope, i got suspended

Oh...........ok, i had a question for you that you can try to answer it later.

To WHO you think that the......player punch scene know as "White Phosphorus" was made for? Why i ask this? well, let me copy pasta what i wrote on the forum of Yahtzee Extra Punctuation of this game:

"Yathzee, Ebert doesn't give a fuck and even if he does and play THIS game in particular it wont be as effective as you said it is. UNLESS, he has played video games to the point that he knows the tropes and cliques that entail them or at least can enjoy the idea of games to the point that the dehumanizing element is overshadowed by the fun.

Let me put it this way, remember The Stanley Parable? the reason of WHY its so awesome is because it deconstructs the tropes that developers use to force the players INTO a single linear path to make sure they don't ruin their carefully crafted story. Tropes that a GAMER could understand by experiencing this phenomena before hand.

Roger isn't going to be affected by:
"Not the gore, not the darkness in Walker, but the darkness in me" unless there is already a preconception of what to expect in a genre that uses a lazy story to justify the mindless killing of "opposing forces" for fun and profit."

This is kinda the same problem that Bioshock 1 had, that game uses a justification of WHY the player cant go around doing stuff that isnt supposed to do because...

Spoiler

you are a brainwashed pawn in a greater scheme and cant disobey the orders you are given.........except that it is not true.

You (the player and by extension your avatar) CAN go around do whatever you want, the only reason that the game believes that you are doing what it wants is because there is only one path to complete the game but that isnt really manipulation nor it makes me question MY own free will, UNLESS i were the kind of player that obeys ANYTHING the game says me to do and then i get bitchslaped with that revelation for it.

But for every other kind of gamer how would that revelation affect them?

Spec Ops doesn't justify much this FORCED decision but at least, as Yahtzee said, plays with the inner darkness of the player, who at this point just went along with it because "its just another mindless shooter and its time for MOAR RAEP of white dots. FOR GREAT JUSTICE!!!"

With those things in mind, how would do make a scenario where the choice of using the weapon ACTUALLY feels like a rational choice? and since i mentioned Bioshock, what about a scenerio for that game as well?

 

[DioWallachia]

Exactly my fucking point!:


What is with people NOT noticing that they have been duped into believing that they HAD the choice?