Spec Ops The Line Discussion in 2020 Cause why not.

[Houseman]

Different narrative mediums. It's all about having an emotional or intellectual response and making sense of it. Being repelled or disturbed for effect is a universal technique.

Of course.

But I think Ezekiel meant that the game just didn't inspire an emotional investment ON TOP OF the fact that it makes you do a bad thing and then tries to make you feel bad about the thing it forced you to do. This particular attempt at invoking emotion just wasn't effective.

 

[Bartholen]

One of the only games I've gotten 100% achievements on on Steam (it's not very hard to be honest) and beaten on the highest difficulty setting. I do think it's genuinely one of the best video game stories ever told, because it's meta in such subtle ways, and there's tons of tiny details to disturb the player in a way only games could: the changing tone of the loading screen texts, the harsher and harsher combat dialogue, the deteriorating physical appearance of the protagonist (by the end he looks like a more horrific version of the Hound from ASOIAF) and so on. There's a short segment that lasts for 40 seconds at best where you're pitted against a heavy trooper and the lights start flickering. But whenever the lights come back on the heavy is always in a different spot in a way that shouldn't be possible with his movement speed. Such a simple and small touch, but such a memorably disturbing one I'm writing about it here right now. When I first played it I already knew the big twist moment and what made it special, but I was still taken aback by just how incredibly dark and depressing it gets. Nolan North carries the whole game, and it's one of his best performances. The game also looks great on PC despite its age, due to the very strong visual design of the locations and especially use of color, which alone is something that makes it stand out amongst its contemporaries.

On my TLOU2 playthrough I often stopped to compare them, and Spec Ops always came out on top. Mostly because Spec Ops takes around 20 less hours to beat, and its horrific elements felt like they were serving a point, rather than being gratuitously lurid. In Spec Ops you could lose yourself in the core gameplay, and then be taken aback when that would stop and the consequences of your actions would be revealed. TLOU2 felt like it was hammering the player non-stop with "What you did was bad and you should feel bad!" with all its repulsiveness, which in turn just made the game unpleasant to play.

I think Spec-Ops: The Line suffers from its own sales pitch. You kinda need to go into the game blind in order truly experience its deconstruction, but on the surface it's too generic to want to go in blind. So the only way it can hook you in is by spoiling its own suprise. I'm not so much speaking about the game itself here, but the marketing and praise.

I don't think the deconstruction element is necessarily needed to make the game special. You could just say that if Call of Duty is Top Gun, Spec Ops: the Line is Apocalypse Now. You could still recommend it as a compelling narrative-driven game without making a big deal about its subtleties and deconstructive elements, which would then come as a pleasant surprise.

There is one glaring issue with the PC version though: the section where you run from a helicopter is flat out impossible. That is, unless you cap the framerate at 30 for that section alone (it was some setting that changes the framerate). The damage you take is tied to the framerate and not actually the player's actions, so that glitch turns what should be a short, action-packed setpiece into a weird exercise in messing with a game's performance.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Of course.

But I think Ezekiel meant that the game just didn't inspire an emotional investment ON TOP OF the fact that it makes you do a bad thing and then tries to make you feel bad about the thing it forced you to do.

Here's what.

I've gone down many "evil paths" down several multiple-ending games. In the end all of them unequivocally try to make you feel bad for your choices, but I never do, because that's just sprinkles over the fact that I made my choice and that there's an equally feasible path that will congratulate me for taking it, if I feel like it. Most of the time I will take the "good path" just because it's the most sensible and usually feels like a proper ending rather than a glorified game over. And yet it's just as easy to choose either, which takes away the dramatic weight of it. In reality life tends to work in terms of offering to choose between the lesser of two evils or two good options that are irreconcilable. There's always an opportunity cost.

The point of Spec Ops itself is to show how we can miss out on the choices that (in the long run) matter by focusing on the ones that don't. The game trains players by facing them with really obvious, clean-cut decision making where they choose to do one thing or the other (none of which affect the gameplay or the story itself). By the time you reach *that* scene in Spec Ops a pattern of do-the-right--or--wrong-thing has been established to the point you don't notice that you *don´t* have a choice when it would've made a difference. The people complaining about not having a choice here are missing the point, which is that they (and the character) made that choice as soon as the game began.

You don't have to like it or agree with it, but complaining about a lack of choice is missing the point that the game is actively trying to make by not giving you a choice.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Hawki]

Books and movies aren't interactive.

Choose Your Own Adventure Books: "Oi!"

 

[Jarrito3002]

This has got me thinking. How do you make engaging narrative but have people not feel "cheated" in their interactive freedom?

I am on the side of the narrative of Spec Ops was great it did not make me feel bad because most games their gameplay and story are separate to the whole of their experience. Like most of MGS big masterful moments were doing cutscene when it becomes more cinema than game. Spec Ops had that perfection where the game felt one with narrativve. The way the loading screen get more morbid, the way Walker and the Squad lose their sanity it was perfection.

What an example of player choice still having weight to it. Cause I agree with Johnny most games with unlimited player choice make outcomes pretty stale.

 

[Zetatrain]

The point of Spec Ops itself is to show how we can miss out on the choices that (in the long run) matter by focusing on the ones that don't. The game trains players by facing them with really obvious, clean-cut decision making where they choose to do one thing or the other (none of which affect the gameplay or the story itself). By the time you reach *that* scene in Spec Ops a pattern of do-the-right--or--wrong-thing has been established to the point you don't notice that you *don´t* have a choice when it would've made a difference.

I think the issue is that some players did notice something was up when they reached that scene and only pulled the the trigger when they realized it was the only choice they could make to advance the story/game. They felt cheated because of the disconnect between player and player character. Those players wanted to reconsider the current course of action, but the PC didnt seem to have any second thoughts of firing the white phospherous into the crowd below.

I remember someone saying that he correctly guessed the densely packed group of white dots were civilians because apparently before the white phospherous scene there was radio chatter about moving a large group of civilians. I believe it was during actual gameplay and not an actual cutscene. Though granted this was many years ago, so correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Bartholen]

I think there's a bit of misconception going on here. Player input =/= player choice, and interactivity =/= freedom. A narrative without any choice or freedom can still be meaningful to the player, because it's driven by player input: we're the ones who are pushing the story forward. I'd compare it to pushing a minecart on a track: you don't have any choice in where the minecart will go, but the minecart is still moving because of your input. I don't think Spec Ops: The Line was ever pushed as a game where player choice would be an important factor.

I think the thing that makes TLOU2 stumble where Spec Ops succeeded is balancing the darkness and misery with something else. Not necessarily levity, but something to provide contrast. Both games are escalatingly bleak with next to no hope, but Spec Ops becomes increasingly surreal and meta as it goes along, moving it to something a little beyond a game. It also does a genre switch into full-on horror by the end which also contrasts with the military shooter affect in the beginning. TLOU2 on the other hand starts dark, gets darker and more miserable as it goes on, stays miserable and only miserable, and stays firmly grounded in its narrative, and that's why it fails to provide contrast.

 

[Drathnoxis]

I liked the game a lot after playing it for the first time last year. It's got just the right amount of reality warping to be effective and it doesn't go for the whole "it was all a PTSD dream" ending that far too many games do. All the little details really make the game, as people here have been saying. I also really liked that at the end when the rescue team shows up you actually can murder them all, it's tough to do, but I thought it was a fitting ending.

 

[Jarrito3002]

I liked the game a lot after playing it for the first time last year. It's got just the right amount of reality warping to be effective and it doesn't go for the whole "it was all a PTSD dream" ending that far too many games do. All the little details really make the game, as people here have been saying. I also really liked that at the end when the rescue team shows up you actually can murder them all, it's tough to do, but I thought it was a fitting ending.

That ending did feel right. But the crazy part bout it is that all the endings feel like they could be the right ending and we could have consersation about that alone. Most games one ending is the definitive ending this one all of them have chance as that shot.

 

[Kae]

I think I stated my opinions of this game not too long ago, but yeah it's overall pretty good and while the shooting is pretty generic at least they bothered making it work well and pretty tense, as there's actually a lot of pretty hard encounters, so even if the gameplay isn't great it's both competent and functional.

A thing I really liked about the game was the illusion of choice, while I get that one of the game's biggest criticisms is the fact that it doesn't let you choose so therefore you don't feel responsible, I think part of it is because in other situations the game actually handles it pretty well.

Spoiler: For example

There's the scene in which you encounter the men that are tied up (The one's later revealed to be corpses) Konrad tells you that you have to kill one of them but allows you to do whatever, choose either, shoot both, shoot the ropes to free both of them, it accounts for all of these scenarios and it's not the only part of the game that does it, I'd mention other parts but TBH it's been a while since I played it and I don't remember super great but there was also a scene with a CIA operative that allows you to choose, I think there's a scene when an American soldier is going to kill someone and it's a similar situation where you can kill him before he does it or do nothing or shoot the guy instead.

So anyway my point is that because of this the game does a pretty good job of making the player feel like they are in control, especially if the player (Like me) has been particularly defiant and decided to kill an American Soldier to save someone and disobeyed Konrad's commands, but this is probably the same issue that generates the divisiveness since if the player feels like they're in control they're either going to accept the outcome of the white phosphorous scene since they have already bought into the illusion of choice or the spell is going to be broken by it which is probably what caused the knee-jerk reaction of people claiming the scene really doesn't work because they can't feel responsible for something they were forced to do.

That being said I personally feel that the narrative is strong enough to carry the game even if the spell has been broken, as it shouldn't be understated that the voice actors really do a fantastic job, it genuinely feels like they are slowly being weathered down and losing the grip of reality and the dialogue is pretty decent too, there wasn't anything particularly cringy or that got me out of the experience, but yeah solid game, I still recommend it to people to be honest, especially since it's in sale very often and as such it's very inexpensive.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I think the issue is that some players did notice something was up when they reached that scene and only pulled the the trigger when they realized it was the only choice they could make to advance the story/game. They felt cheated because of the disconnect between player and player character. Those players wanted to reconsider the current course of action, but the PC didnt seem to have any second thoughts of firing the white phospherous into the crowd below.

I remember someone saying that he correctly guessed the densely packed group of white dots were civilians because apparently before the white phospherous scene there was radio chatter about moving a large group of civilians. I believe it was during actual gameplay and not an actual cutscene. Though granted this was many years ago, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Maybe some players did pick out the twist ahead, who knows. I'm sure there's at least someone out there who watched The Sixth Sense unspoiled and was totally nonplussed when it turned out that Vader is Luke's father. The effect of something can be lost on anybody for circumstantial or empirical reasons. As for that player "disconnect" on assuming any blame, I feel like it's engineered in the game. Walker is quite obviously just as disconnected from his own guilt.

I don't remember about the civ radio chatter but if it was there either I dismissed it as background flavor or was simply too busy trying not to get killed to pay it any attention.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

Spec Ops: The Line is probably my favorite narrative to have experienced, and holds the special honor of being one of the few pieces of media to have completely pulled the rug from under me. Like, not *the big scene*, but the entire game plot got me in its trap. I'm one of those people that tend to try and run ahead of the plot to find out the big twist, and let.me tell you, spoilers here on out...

Spoiler: Spoiler

You want to know the point where I thought, "hang on, something isn't right about all this"? The lobby of the Burj Khalifa when those last soldiers say that they are all thats left of the 33rd and we're surrendering to you. I went through the WHOLE game basically like Walker, only thinking about getting Conrad. White phosphorus some civilians? Conrad's gonna pay for this. Destroy the last of the water supply for all the survivors still in Dubai? Man, that Conrad is a monster and must be stopped. That moment in the lobby was litreally chilling to me, and it only got worse as the last of the game played out. I had to put down the controller in shock when I found out the big twist, and got, imo, the most thematic ending of "Conrad" shooting Walker in the head, with the split second shot of showing at the very end of Walker all alone, collapsing.

 

[Zetatrain]

The effect of something can be lost on anybody for circumstantial or empirical reasons.

True but the question is are those reasons the fault of the game or player

As for that player "disconnect" on assuming any blame, I feel like it's engineered in the game. Walker is quite obviously just as disconnected from his own guilt.

I disagree

In order for the white phosphorous scene to work the player's mentality has to be in line with Walker's. If the player uses the white phosphorous launcher without hesitation then the scene works because the consequences feel like the result of the player's "choice". But if the player hesitates and tries to deviate from the scripted sequence they will realize that they can't proceed further until they pull the trigger. As a result the player is unlikely to feel any guilt since its pretty obvious that the game forced you to pull the trigger.