spec ops: the line spoilers please

Recommended Videos

lechat

New member
Dec 5, 2012
1,377
0
0
big spoiler warning (i hope)



ok so i really don't see how spec ops could be that revolutionary and i will not be forcing myself to play a military shooter no matter how good it is claimed to be so feel free to spoil the whole thing for me inside this thread
thank you
 

thatonedude11

New member
Mar 6, 2011
188
0
0
First off, it is worth it. Even if you don't like MMSs, it is an experience worth having. It's $15 on steam right now, and might go cheaper on a flash sale in the next few days. If you are still not convinced, well...
There is a scene about halfway through the game where you inadvertently drop white phosphorous onto what you think are enemies. Turns out they were civilians. Not only that, but unlike the infamous No Russian mission in Modern Warfare 2, Spec ops makes you feel like a piece of shit for doing it. The game just goes downhill from there.
 

RedAce

New member
Dec 19, 2012
9
0
0
the game is at its peak when you know nothing about it other than its an MMS, i highly recommend playing it before you read any spoilers.
 
Dec 14, 2009
15,525
0
0
Honestly, I'm glad I only paid £6 for the thing.

Really underwhelmed me, and I saw every 'twist' a mile away.

The infamous white phosphorous scene would have probably had more of an impact if it:

a: Wasn't so blindingly obvious (who didn't think a huge group of immobile targets weren't civilians?)

b: It gave you an actual choice, but you have to drop the phosphorous on them, the game kills you otherwise.



The game basically tells you that you're monster for killing civvies, but you can't progress the game until you do.
 

GangstaGeek

New member
Nov 14, 2012
28
0
0
Daystar Clarion said:
Honestly, I'm glad I only paid £6 for the thing.

Really underwhelmed me, and I saw every 'twist' a mile away.

The infamous white phosphorous scene would have probably had more of an impact if it:

a: Wasn't so blindingly obvious (who didn't think a huge group of immobile targets weren't civilians?)

b: It gave you an actual choice, but you have to drop the phosphorous on them, the game kills you otherwise.



The game basically tells you that you're monster for killing civvies, but you can't progress the game until you do.
The game is making a statement on how little *choice* many games have even though we have an illusion of choice.

Although thanks for giving your opinion though. We still need some that aren't all praise.

But seriously the game is great, has a great story and really deals with alot of the issues of everything that is wrong in a game.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,757
5
43
GangstaGeek said:
Daystar Clarion said:
Honestly, I'm glad I only paid £6 for the thing.

Really underwhelmed me, and I saw every 'twist' a mile away.

The infamous white phosphorous scene would have probably had more of an impact if it:

a: Wasn't so blindingly obvious (who didn't think a huge group of immobile targets weren't civilians?)

b: It gave you an actual choice, but you have to drop the phosphorous on them, the game kills you otherwise.



The game basically tells you that you're monster for killing civvies, but you can't progress the game until you do.
The game is making a statement on how little *choice* many games have even though we have an illusion of choice.
No it isn't.

It's forcing you to perform a particular action then trying to make you feel guilty about it. It's not the only game to do so, but imitating what other games do is not making a statement.

What exactly about the scene in Spec Ops makes it a statement as opposed to a common mistake?
 

lechat

New member
Dec 5, 2012
1,377
0
0
cool thats basically what i was expecting and has saved me time playing the thing
my original assumption was the gameplay involved "press X to murder innocent ppl or unplug the computer to not"

i still fail to see how that is revolutionary. maybe it's because i don't play military shooters but do those just ask you to slaughter innocent civilians then pat you on the back for it or what?
 

ischmalud

New member
Feb 5, 2011
145
0
0
lechat said:
big spoiler warning (i hope)



ok so i really don't see how spec ops could be that revolutionary and i will not be forcing myself to play a military shooter no matter how good it is claimed to be so feel free to spoil the whole thing for me inside this thread
thank you
mate put a threat up about this a few days ago....and yea....its boring
 

88chaz88

New member
Jul 23, 2010
236
0
0
You're bad and you should feel bad.

Seriously that's possibly the biggest spoiler to the game I'm ever going to give. If you can't force yourself to play it watch an LP. You can't just read the game's story, you need to experience it.
 

Guitarmasterx7

Day Pig
Mar 16, 2009
3,871
0
0
It's an extremely harsh takedown of the military shooter and the mindset associated with it, as well as what I would consider to be the most brilliant character piece in videogame history.

The ending is nothing short of brilliant. It doesn't ask you to make a big choice that changes the outcome of everything. By that point it says what it wants to say, both to the main character and you as a player, and you're less making a choice that's going to change it but rather interpreting how the main character (and by proxy you) choose to process that. I feel like it's one of the very few cases wherein a game can honestly be called a work of art. It's not built around gameplay or story. It's built around a theme and it expresses it though mechanics. It could never exist as anything outside of an interactive medium and I guarantee you've never played anything like it.
 

zumbledum

New member
Nov 13, 2011
672
0
0
the lack of choice did a lot of damage for me to , the biggest for me was the CIA scene were you decide to team up with them to go after the water trucks.
but if you look past the fact the man we play as is a bit of a retard and dont treat the game as an attempt to make us feel guilty but to let us empathize with a basically good man who ends up in a bad way the rest of the story the descent into darkness is pretty well done.
I did enjoy my play through and did finish it which is pretty rare for me
 

talker

New member
Nov 18, 2011
313
0
0
wel, let's sum it up, shall we?

1: you drop white phosphorous on innocent civilians, burning them alive

2: you hallucinate throughout the game that the supposed evil mastermind is toying with you by way of a radio, forcing you to make choices that will haunt your memory

3: you destroy the water supply, dooming everybody in the city to death by dehydration.

4: your team's sniper and medic, Lugo, is lynched by a mob

5: when you finally reach the enemy base it turns out he hand been dead all along
 

Halceon

New member
Jan 31, 2009
820
0
0
If you want to have the story delivered to you properly without playing the game, watch an LP. None of these comments can do it justice. Or grab Killing is Harmless.
 

88chaz88

New member
Jul 23, 2010
236
0
0
zumbledum said:
the lack of choice did a lot of damage for me to , the biggest for me was the CIA scene were you decide to team up with them to go after the water trucks.
but if you look past the fact the man we play as is a bit of a retard and dont treat the game as an attempt to make us feel guilty but to let us empathize with a basically good man who ends up in a bad way the rest of the story the descent into darkness is pretty well done.
I did enjoy my play through and did finish it which is pretty rare for me
That lack of choice and the disconnect we feel is part of the critique of the genre. How many decisions do you make in other MMS's? Little to none, but we normally go along with that bullshit because the game doesn't call us own on it.

Also I would never describe Walker as a good man. He's ignorant in the beginning and insane towards the end. None of the acts or descisions he makes in the game could ever be described as good.
 

rbstewart7263

New member
Nov 2, 2010
1,246
0
0
Best description of the game would be from critical intel. Id check his article out.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/criticalintel/10114-The-Critical-Games-of-2012?utm_source=features&utm_medium=index_carousel&utm_campaign=all

Also criticl intel and robert rath are great reads irregardless you should be reading his articles anyway.
 

lechat

New member
Dec 5, 2012
1,377
0
0
geez some of you guys are getting a bit butthurt about one guy refusing to play one single genre of game. it's not like its my little pony or anything serious.

i do not like military shooters because i don't see the appeal of running around gunning down other ppl because they are a different race or religion and the usual tacked on "BTW these guys are terroizters and they wantz to take your freedomz!!" is not enough motivation for what i consider to be a boring genre
the fact that the game basically does the same thing but mixes it up with an exciting twist of "killing innocent ppl is bad amirite?" does not change the fact that i would not enjoy the gameplay

the reason i asked for ppls description of the game is because reading a tiny blurb or watching a video will not capture the emotion received by those who had actually played it and since the spec ops fanboys are nearly on par with dark souls and MLP fans i had hoped you guys could explain to me what was so revolutionary about it without freaking out that is wasn't my cup of tea
 

88chaz88

New member
Jul 23, 2010
236
0
0
lechat said:
geez some of you guys are getting a bit butthurt about one guy refusing to play one single genre of game. it's not like its my little pony or anything serious.

i do not like military shooters because i don't see the appeal of running around gunning down other ppl because they are a different race or religion and the usual tacked on "BTW these guys are terroizters and they wantz to take your freedomz!!" is not enough motivation for what i consider to be a boring genre
the fact that the game basically does the same thing but mixes it up with an exciting twist of "killing innocent ppl is bad amirite?" does not change the fact that i would not enjoy the gameplay
All that is why you should play the game.

If you don't like action games or shooters then that's fine, I'm aware of many people who don't, in said case watch an LP. You won't get the full experience but you'd understand more than if you just read a plot synopsis.
 

King Billi

New member
Jul 11, 2012
595
0
0
lechat said:
geez some of you guys are getting a bit butthurt about one guy refusing to play one single genre of game. it's not like its my little pony or anything serious.

i do not like military shooters because i don't see the appeal of running around gunning down other ppl because they are a different race or religion and the usual tacked on "BTW these guys are terroizters and they wantz to take your freedomz!!" is not enough motivation for what i consider to be a boring genre
the fact that the game basically does the same thing but mixes it up with an exciting twist of "killing innocent ppl is bad amirite?" does not change the fact that i would not enjoy the gameplay

the reason i asked for ppls description of the game is because reading a tiny blurb or watching a video will not capture the emotion received by those who had actually played it and since the spec ops fanboys are nearly on par with dark souls and MLP fans i had hoped you guys could explain to me what was so revolutionary about it without freaking out that is wasn't my cup of tea
The plot for this game was spoiled for me before I played it and it was still a very worthwhile and affecting experience for me.

Just knowing one small part of a game without the personal journey to reach it or the greater context behind it isn't going to answer for you why others find it so revolutionary or interesting. It has to be experienced for itself so either step up and take the risk that you probably won't like it or just forget about it entirely.
 

Rack

New member
Jan 18, 2008
1,379
0
0
lechat said:
the reason i asked for ppls description of the game is because reading a tiny blurb or watching a video will not capture the emotion received by those who had actually played it and since the spec ops fanboys are nearly on par with dark souls and MLP fans i had hoped you guys could explain to me what was so revolutionary about it without freaking out that is wasn't my cup of tea
But we can't, if we could then it wouldn't be revolutionary. Everything about Walker's slide into madness is baked into the experience, you can't encapsulate it any way without actually playing it. We can tell you how every aspect of the game subtly shifts to tell the story without words, how Walker's figurative descent is matched by a real descent in gameplay terms, or any of the subtle ways the game tells its story but it won't really give even an approximation of what the real experience is. Play it or pass it by, spoiling yourself on it was as pointless as you discovered it to be.
 

Ymbirtt

New member
May 3, 2009
222
0
0
I'm about to spoil pretty much the entire game now. And a small amount of Dishonored. You've been warned.

A lot of emphasis is placed on the White Phosphorous scene, and whilst it is one of the game's two turning points, there is more to it than just that scene. The game sets you off with an objective, namely "go into Dubai, see if anyone's still alive in there, and then bug out and let us know if you find anyone who needs evacuation and we'll send in something more substantial than three guys".

You get your answer about 10 minutes in, you find some Arabs, and since it's a game you shoot them all. You find that they've been killing other American soldiers, so of course you shoot more of them. It's a game where you're an American soldier and there are some dirty foreigners, same as everything else so far.

Then they swap out the foreign people for American soldiers. You'll be shooting at them now. The game makes this swap about an hour in, when you're still thinking "oh, it's just another military shooter, I don't care who I'm shooting, I just want to shoot people".

Then they reveal that the American soldiers are rounding up civilians to be evacuated. The people you're shooting are actually trying to help people. You're still in "another military shooter" mode, so you don't care. Your character, Captain Walker, makes up John Konrad, who he then starts blaming for everything he's done wrong. Walker hallucinates a series of radio messages from Konrad, taunting him. You're not told that Konrad is dead, and that the radio messages are hallucinations, the player is just told that Konrad is evil and he should die.

And THEN the White Phosphorous scene happens. Just as the player says "I didn't kill those people, it's the game's fault", Walker says "No, this isn't my fault, this is all Konrad's fault, let's find him and kill him". Then Walker's character shifts. His voice stabs change from "Focus fire on my target" to "KILL HIM!". Rather than killing wounded enemies with a swift bullet between the eyes, he starts to torture them a little, he'll shoot them in the kneecap to let them squirm before taking their head off. From the player's point of view, they're still doing the same things - running up to a wounded enemy and pressing shift to kill them. From Walker's point of view, he's still doing the same thing, he's taking soldiers that are wounded in battle and putting them out of their misery. But we know that something's changed, the camera's focused more on the victim than on the killer, and the game isn't congratulating the player for scoring some good kills, it's making the player out to be a murderer.

You continue regardless, because you've got an objective to complete; find Konrad and kill him, because you didn't choose to do any of those things, Konrad did it. You find another man who tells you that he can take you to Konrad in return for a favour; help him steal Dubai's water supply. The game tells you to destabilise an entire city, and so you do. Walker rationalises everything by saying "no, not my idea, not my choice, I can't exactly turn back, so I'll help this guy". So on you go, the game tells you "destroy the water supply - this will kill everyone in Dubai", and the player, absolved of responsibility, heads out and does just that.

This post's getting awfully long, so I'm going to fast forward a little - a squadmate dies, you besiege an american military encampment, and then you actually reach your goal. You enter the tallest tower in Dubai, and John Konrad reveals himself. He's painted a picture of the White Phosphorous scene, and he asks you about it. "How do you think it looks?" "No, I didn't do this, you did." That line right there is said both to the player and to Captain Walker. By this point, most players had forgotten the original objective. You're told "You're here because you wanted to feel like something you're not - a hero". How heroic does the player normally feel at the end of a game? You're told, "well done, you saved the world, you're the best thing in the universe!". Even in the "bad" ending of Dishonored, Emily tells you right at the end "You're my hero Corvo!". Spec Ops doesn't have a "good" ending, it asks you just how heroic you feel for murdering an entire city full of people, and it does so straight-faced, and then gives you a simple question.

"Can you still live with yourself?"

Your hallucination of Konrad walks you over to his dead body, slumped in a chair holding a gun, having shot himself through the head a very long time ago. The secrets are finally revealed, you learn that there is no Konrad, and that Walker has been shifting the blame for his actions onto someone who doesn't exist, just as the player has been blaming the game for the things that they've done. Walker picks up the gun, and is given a choice. Walker and Konrad's illusion walk over to a mirror, Konrad pulls out a gun and points it at Walker saying "I'm going to count to 5, then I'm pulling the trigger. If you think this is really my fault then shoot me", and the game switches back from cutscene mode to third person shooter mode. You and Konrad are in front of a mirror, so you can see your own reflection, as well as Konrad's illusion. Using exactly the same mechanics as you used to kill every other person in the game, you use the mouse to aim the gun either at a man who doesn't exist, or at yourself, then left click to pull the trigger.

The suicide is probably the most powerful thing I've seen a game do:
Watch the video and listen out for the double-lines, said to Walker but meant for the player.

Reading about the game can't do it justice, but it's a powerful, demanding, and beautifully crafted experience for people who really want to explore how well a game can tell a story and make a point.