spec ops: the line spoilers please

[josemlopes]

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 thing is that its not that, at all. A game that did that (kill badies and OMG you killed civilians!!!) was COD:MW 2. This game isnt even just about modern military shooters, its about all those games where you are the hero and kill thousands of character untill you reach your glorious victory and everyone is in joy.

In this game you think you are the hero because someone has to be it, right? Every game and movie has a hero so this probably has one too right? Apparently there was never a need for a hero and this is what happens when you try to be one.

This is basicly a deconstruction of a hero character, not just modern military shooters.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

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

No. We're getting butthurt you aren't even giving it a chance. Not only are we getting butthurt that you aren't giving it a chance because military shooters are teh sucks, you are going "y'all who did play this game have no taste."

That's rude.

 

[hermes]

I will not do the disservice of spoiling the entire game to you. If you want that, I am sure there are plenty of playthroughs in youtube (or you could just rent it, in the lowest difficultly the game can be finished on a single afternoon).

However, I will tell you why the game is great. Because it subverts your expectations on military shooters. Because it starts as a run of the mill shooter (all hail America, we are awesome, power fantasy and all that crap), and in the middle of it, it pulls the rug from under your feet and makes itself clear about how shitty those war situations are, and how shallow other games really are.

You start as the expected paladin, sent on a rescue mission and to bring freedom to the unwashed masses, but at the end you have done and seen so much, you are completely broken by PTSD... And the transition is impeccable.

 

[lechat]

No. We're getting butthurt you aren't even giving it a chance. Not only are we getting butthurt that you aren't giving it a chance because military shooters are teh sucks, you are going "y'all who did play this game have no taste."

That's rude.

apart from this post thank you to the last few posters who finally cleared it up for me especially Ymbirtt for a properly explained synopsis with actual emotional depth and josemlopes for a proper breakdown of exactly what they were going for

not to oversimplify but we have seen basically this story before in military movies but with an added touch of a bit of fight club i can now at last feel i understand spec ops without having to play it and thank all those who tried their best to explain the experience without trying to force it down my throat

my final thoughts: would make a good movie

 

[T3hSource]

my final thoughts: would make a good movie

Mmmm...no,it won't,because it requires YOU to take those actions instead of watching from a third person perspective.
This and people are really forgetting that while the Willie Pete scene was the turnaround,they don't recognize the weight and consequence of the second atrocity you "have" to do.
And also you don't need to look at it...screw this,you already ruined it for yourself.

Let this game stay in our memories of 2012 and let it rest as the sleeping classic.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

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?

Similar in a sense to Bioshock and its commentary on the lack of free will in games. You are presented a choice that isn't a choice that isn't really a choice at all, because without the restrictions, you would not receive the message each game wants to show you.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

my final thoughts: would make a good movie

Mmmm...no,it won't,because it requires YOU to take those actions instead of watching from a third person perspective.
This and people are really forgetting that while the Willie Pete scene was the turnaround,they don't recognize the weight and consequence of the second atrocity you "have" to do.
And also you don't need to look at it...screw this,you already ruined it for yourself.

Let this game stay in our memories of 2012 and let it rest as the sleeping classic.

Amen to that.

I'll never play it again, but I'll remember it for a long time.

 

[88chaz88]

my final thoughts: would make a good movie

Nope. Missed the point entirely.

 

[DoPo]

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

That's funny, because The Line actively deconstructs that, and you kill, probably a dozen or two "terrorists" in total.

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

That's also funny because it's not at all what the game does.

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

And maybe you shouldn't have thrown around dismissive and clearly ignorant comments like the one above to make anybody tell you that.

And here is the really funny part - instead of reading a tiny blurb, or watching a video, you took a tinier blurb of writing as what the whole deal is and decided to call it a day. Maybe, just maybe, your behaviour is rubbing people the wrong way because it shows ignorance and arrogance and not because "OMG, it's not your cup of tea?!?!??111!?"

 

[hermes]

my final thoughts: would make a good movie

Mmmm...no,it won't,because it requires YOU to take those actions instead of watching from a third person perspective.
This and people are really forgetting that while the Willie Pete scene was the turnaround,they don't recognize the weight and consequence of the second atrocity you "have" to do.
And also you don't need to look at it...screw this,you already ruined it for yourself.

Let this game stay in our memories of 2012 and let it rest as the sleeping classic.

In a way, it doesn't. The same way the player is included in the credits as a "guest star", most of the things that happened are not really choices...

The story would make a good movie because it already has (the story is heavily inspired by Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now), but it would have to be told differently because most of the impact uses language specific to the games medium. The biggest choice it makes is to make you play it.

Most of the horrible things that happened are because the game "forces your hand" by making those choices for you, they are not really choices, but you still carry on with the actions and are responsible for the consequences. You, the same as Walker, may not want to kill civilians with phosphorous, destroy the water supply or kill all those american soldiers, but the game, the same as Konrad, forces you. The same way as the main character constantly tries to avoid the responsibility by saying "this is not my fault, I am not to blame for this, this is Konrad's doing, I have to keep going and complete my mission" instead of just walking away; many players (even here) avoid the responsibility by saying "this is not my fault, I am not to blame for this, this is the game's doing, I have to keep going and complete the game" instead of just turning it off. The game give you horrible objective after horrible objective as a mirror to Walker's stubbornness and determination, leaving the option to stop implicitly stated, and then turns around and ask you (quite literally) "how many people have you killed today? do you feel like a hero yet? this is all your fault". That is the real power behind the phosphorus scene... not that it was scripted and required for the story to continue; but that, in order to continue the story you/Walker pulled the trigger.

 

[ohnoitsabear]

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

That's funny, because The Line actively deconstructs that, and you kill, probably a dozen or two "terrorists" in total.

Spoiler

And actually, if you know the language these people are speaking (I can't remember what it is at the moment), you find out that they think that you are members of the 33rd about to take them back to their base camp. And then you kill them without being provoked. Yeah.

Anyway, to all of the people saying that you don't really have a choice in most of the game's sequences, the game actually deconstructs this idea very well. At one point, one of the characters (I can't remember which one), says something along the lines of, "you always have a choice." Now, at first glance, this statement seems outright false in terms of the game, because the game normally doesn't present multiple options to get past certain sequences. However, what this line actually refers to is that you do have a choice to actually play the game. You can always turn off the game and walk away at any time.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you have to agree with the lack of choices the game presents you. All I'm saying is that it's something that the game not only acknowledges, but actually explores.

 

[DoPo]

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

That's funny, because The Line actively deconstructs that, and you kill, probably a dozen or two "terrorists" in total.

Spoiler

And actually, if you know the language these people are speaking (I can't remember what it is at the moment), you find out that they think that you are members of the 33rd about to take them back to their base camp. And then you kill them without being provoked. Yeah.

Didn't know that. Damn, more and more details are cropping up any time I see a discussion about it. I also didn't know about the mirror suicide Ymbirtt posted. I actually did it, but I just let Konrad pull the trigger.

Anyway, to all of the people saying that you don't really have a choice in most of the game's sequences, the game actually deconstructs this idea very well. At one point, one of the characters (I can't remember which one), says something along the lines of, "you always have a choice." Now, at first glance, this statement seems outright false in terms of the game, because the game normally doesn't present multiple options to get past certain sequences. However, what this line actually refers to is that you do have a choice to actually play the game. You can always turn off the game and walk away at any time.

It must have been Konrad. I think it was also on the tooltips.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you have to agree with the lack of choices the game presents you. All I'm saying is that it's something that the game not only acknowledges, but actually explores.

Another thing to note - when the game does offer you choices - damn, they are good ones. Especially the ending. I liked the endings very much.


To recap - you can commit suicide or not. If you do - things go on as they are, presumably. If you don't, soldiers come as backup - you can surrender or try to kill everybody (I've even seen people mention they didn't know about the surrender option - it was a game - just keep shooting, right?). If you surrender...well you survive. Bodily, at least. But there is backup, Dubai is (somewhat) saved. If you try to kill everybody you can succeed or fail. If you fail you don't survive bodily. Dubai is (somewhat) saved...maybe. If you succeed, you murder the squad sent to retrieve you and subject the remaining ones to what you've been through.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

People forget, your not playing you in this game, your playing walker. An making the choices he made. So arguments about choice are pointless. Your making the choices HE made, not what you would. Anyway, this is my game of the year. Mostly because it surprised me and blew my expectations.

 

[RobfromtheGulag]

I did essentially what OP did not, and bought the game during the holiday sale just because it caused so much uproar.

1. The gameplay was average to bad. In the end I had to switch down to the lowest difficulty because of stupid vehicle missions where you had no cover. This would put a sour taste in my mouth in any game.

2. The vast majority of the 'evil' things you do are caused by:
A. Primarily miscommunication
B. Secondarily the protagonist is apparently crazy in that he's created a sort of alternate persona of this Colonel inside himself.

If the locals hadn't simply started shooting at you the instant you showed up, you would have explained (even have a translator with you) that you were there to help. But maybe they think you're part of the 33rd, so okay, wrong place wrong time, whatever. They seem to have no problem distinguishing you later.
-
If the CIA hadn't shot at you the instant you showed up.
-
If the 33rd hadn't shot at you the instant you showed up.
-
If there were an option, like near the end after they hang the guy to just walk away, you could have done that at the very beginning and avoided a lot of fuss. I did NOT kill the locals at that point, and I tried to avoid bloodshed in each miscommunication scenario, but the game would not let you.

The game zigzags back and forth between whether the 33rd is helping the locals or killing them. My ultimate goal, the one I assumed Walker (main char) was on as well, was to help the locals. So when I get told 'oh no the 33rd are just mindlessly executing locals' then I go and try to kill them. Then they say 'no the 33rd are trying to keep everyone happy and we give them water and shelter'.

I can't bring myself to think about the game hard enough, I breezed through it, found maybe 3 pieces of the Intel which was supposed to flesh out the story I guess, and that's it. By the end the difficulty settings had me so pissed I didn't care who died. I think if I spent the time thinking about it I could come up with several glaring plot holes which lead to this shitstorm of events. Oh, and this 'storm wall' is super convenient.

But.... we're not supposed to be focusing on minor details, we're supposed to be focusing on war is bad blah blah blah. I think they could have gotten that message across a lot more concisely. I read an interview with the writer at PAreport and his entire schtick was that 'the user is supposed to make the choices'. Which is absolute bull, because as I've listed above I didn't get to make any choices. The infamous White Phosphorous scene(which was not even a false choice like the earlier 'choices' to fire upon friendlies, it was in a @#$*ing cutscene, ie no choice whatsoever, and would have been avoided because I'd prefer a firefight to that pitiful minigame) that is probably their crowning achievement in the game strikes me as tacky. Piles of dead bodies and, wait, oh no, I've killed a single mother and her child. Except that this had little impact because long before that scene we'd been Knee Deep in the Dead, literally. What is this single duo supposed to elicit that the others did not? Is the audience supposed to be so simple as to not consider children as collateral casualties?

I think the game would have been a lot stronger if:
a. They had just written their own story rather than ripping off Apocalypse Now and Heart of Darkness. When I get in one of these scenarios, I just think to myself "Why don't I just go read the original, it's probably more poignant anyway since it inspired this person to create their own version of it".
b. Walker, the main character, had not been crazy. Crazy has got to be my least favorite trope. For me, personally, Silent Hill 2 was the first time I was shocked by my main character not being totally 'with it'. But after that it just got watered down by straight to DVD horror films and such, it's just such an easy scapegoat. Why don't we put metaphorical goats or unicorns in there while we're at it, he's crazy, who cares. It totally undermines the credibility. Because crazy is still this media term that we grasp on to when we can't understand something, and that gets convoluted to the closest our generation has to magic, or the unknown.
Ed Gein killed tons of people.
Why?
He was crazy!
Oooooh
Perhaps the game is trying to actually explain why Walker's crazy, which is more than we generally do, and would be respectable, but if that boils down to them essentially saying 'you like playing games you're a killer at heart' that's beating me over the head with it. We've been down this path before, I'm sure a lot of us questioned ourselves when Columbine happened or whatnot, 'do I feel like killing real people after playing doom?' The vast majority of us clearly disassociate these games from reality.

TL;DR
The game is preaching to the choir.

I talked to my friends about it and we agreed that with the low sales it's unlikely that the Modern Warfare/BF players are swarming to this game. It probably hardly made a blip on their radar. They didn't even buy Warfighter, why would they buy this? It doesn't even have multiplayer! (the audacity)
The people buying this game are people who've read reviews, ie follow gaming news circles, the thinking people. We know games have the potential to be over the top, we aren't out there giving games like Naughty Bear 95/100 scores. The message is old, and the game was average.

My favorite takeaway were the giant female face posters, which seemed to be different in each chapter. I still wonder at their meaning. Being so prominent I'm sure they had some. Perhaps that outsiders view us as kind of crazy.

 

[Alma Mare]

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.

I keep seeing this criticism over and over, and to my mind it misses the point like a champ. If you had choice over that scene, you would take over the story. It would be a story about YOU leading the delta team through Dubai. It isn't. It's Walker's story and Walker is in the process of screwing the pooch. You only get to see it from the front row. You certainly are not expected to feel guilty because, as you pointed out, you never made that choice. Walker did. I literally facepalmed when I saw what he did. If it hadn't happen so far, that is your cue to understand that Walker is a fucktard, Walker is fucking things up and the rest of the show will consist of him trying to claw out of this one while you slowclap along. You get some choice here and there, but do you honestly expect it to be relevant? You can't trust what the guy sees, let alone whether he's having the right idea. He is not a hero, his attempts to be one end up horribly, so why should you get to feel one by proxy?

 

[Daystar Clarion]

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.

I keep seeing this criticism over and over, and to my mind it misses the point like a champ. If you had choice over that scene, you would take over the story. It would be a story about YOU leading the delta team through Dubai. It isn't. It's Walker's story and Walker is in the process of screwing the pooch. You only get to see it from the front row. You certainly are not expected to feel guilty because, as you pointed out, you never made that choice. Walker did. I literally facepalmed when I saw what he did. If it hadn't happen so far, that is your cue to understand that Walker is a fucktard, Walker is fucking things up and the rest of the show will consist of him trying to claw out of this one while you slowclap along. You get some choice here and there, but do you honestly expect it to be relevant? You can't trust what the guy sees, let alone whether he's having the right idea. He is not a hero, his attempts to be one end up horribly, so why should you get to feel one by proxy?

The prospect of playing a dumb fuck soldier entertains me even less.

The game bored me, which is pretty much the most damning thing you can say about a game.

 

[Alma Mare]

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.

I keep seeing this criticism over and over, and to my mind it misses the point like a champ. If you had choice over that scene, you would take over the story. It would be a story about YOU leading the delta team through Dubai. It isn't. It's Walker's story and Walker is in the process of screwing the pooch. You only get to see it from the front row. You certainly are not expected to feel guilty because, as you pointed out, you never made that choice. Walker did. I literally facepalmed when I saw what he did. If it hadn't happen so far, that is your cue to understand that Walker is a fucktard, Walker is fucking things up and the rest of the show will consist of him trying to claw out of this one while you slowclap along. You get some choice here and there, but do you honestly expect it to be relevant? You can't trust what the guy sees, let alone whether he's having the right idea. He is not a hero, his attempts to be one end up horribly, so why should you get to feel one by proxy?

The prospect of playing a dumb fuck soldier entertains me even less.

The game bored me, which is pretty much the most damning thing you can say about a game.

Then it's a matter of you not being interested in what the game has to offer, not the game failing to deliver. Which is fair, but not the game's fault

 

[Beat14]

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.

I understand video games are all for choice, but a story can be much more tight knit when if follows one path and sets out to show a certain point. If it's allowed to deviate I think it would take away from the message the game wants to make, as many more people will be the hero and save every one, or at least try to.

Spec ops has the illusion of you trying to save people, which isn't going to match the realism of you making the choices yourself, but it allows the story to be concise and stay away from being another modern shooter.

The twists were quite plain to see as you get used to the vibe of the game, I personally loved the decent into madness and think it is a shame the OP doesn't want to experience it first hand.

Guess I see it more like a book in some ways.


Fair opinion, and all that palaver.

Edit: I messed up the start of the post

 

[Daystar Clarion]

I do not understand the people who complain about lack of choice, such as when you drop the WP on the civilians. Are you the sort of people who only read books

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.

I understand video games are all for choice, but a story can be much more tight knit when if follows one path and sets out to show a certain point. If it's allowed to deviate I think it would take away from the message the game wants to make, as many more people will be the hero and save every one, or at least try to.

Spec ops has the illusion of you trying to save people, which isn't going to match the realism of you making the choices yourself, but it allows the story to be concise and stay away from being another modern shooter.

The twists were quite plain to see as you get used to the vibe of the game, I personally loved the decent into madness and think it is a shame the OP doesn't want to experience it first hand.

Guess I see it more like a book in some ways.


Fair opinion, and all that palaver.

Don't misinterpret my criticism.

I don't care that I couldn't make a choice, I cared that the game tried to make me feel guilty because of it.

 

[Mister K]

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

OK, first of all, great avatar.
Second: the game really does start like uber-'merican-macho military shooter, but after a certain scene

Spoiler

the one where you drop white phosphorous on innocents

it all changes.
After you've finally reached the helicopter scene, which appeared in the beginning, it changes even more: instead of usual messages during loading screnes (shoot guys in the head, etc.) you see messages like: "Do you feel like hero already?". And the ending scene made me simply sit in my chair for a few minutes.

While this game is the most mediocre shooter as a game, from the narative point of view it is something you don't see very often: it, I won't be afraid of this word, condemnes the modern military shooter genre. It makes you feel ashamed for playing them, or at least vaccinies you from loving them if you are like me and have never played them. It condemnes all those stories, where you and your uber-'merican-macho soldier friends come to foreign land and basically murder anything that is brown or communist.
But, IMHO, it has no replay value and if you want to watch certain scenes it is a lot easier to find them on youtube.

Don't misinterpret my criticism.

I don't care that I couldn't make a choice, I cared that the game tried to make me feel guilty because of it.

I don't think that YOU are the target, rather those, who think that nuking and act similar to it are acceptible, i.e. fans of CoD's story.