However, before I do, allow me to make one thing clear: I actually rather liked the game. I found it moderately enjoyable as a straight-up third person cover-based shooter. I liked how some situations would accommodate non-obvious actions on the player's part (For example, at the bit when the game clearly expected me to start firing into the crowd, I fired into the air instead and was impressed when the game's scripting reacted appropriately). Lastly, as someone who is rather put off by the prevailing tropes of the military shooter genre, I approve of what The Line was trying to do.
We clear on all that?
Good. Now, let the whining commence!
(Spoilers, by the way. Loud, proud and untagged. You've been warned.)
Firstly, I cannot help but feel that the whole subversive message business is rather poorly aimed. My reaction to most of it was a great big, "Yeah, no shit." What's that you say Spec Ops? Violent fantasies of martial heroism are a bit pathetic? Ya don't say! Oh, those scenes where you bombard and kill helpless enemies from the complete safety of a distant weapons platform are pretty damn creepy? Yup, well done champ.
"But!" You might tell me, "Those messages weren't aimed at a handsome, intelligent and brilliantly insightful individual such as yourself! They were directed at the people who get a kick out of military shooters. That's why the game started off all safe and familiar with Whitey McBuzzcut and his Yankee pals shooting Foreign-speaking brown people in a desert."
Thing is, are such folks really going to care what the game has to say? Especially when the game's moment-to-moment gameplay is basically indistinguishable from the games it's trying to critique. If they're just there for the big phallic guns, headshots and military lingo then the game unironically provides that in ample quantities.
Secondly, I found the attempts to make the player feel guilty to be rather inept. The game very clearly wanted me to feel bad about the whole white phosphorus incident and the general murder and mayhem. However, it never gave me any choice in the matter. I cannot be made to feel guilty about an action that wasn't of my doing. That's like saying, "That guy over there killed a kitten! Therefore you are a monster!" You need to make me choose to do it, or at least make me want to do it, then you can happily go about guilt-tripping me inside out.
(Oh, and please don't even bother with the, "Well, you had the choice to turn off the game", argument. Just... don't. If nothing else, doing so would have prevented the game from delivering to me its much vaunted message and thus it would have failed in its purpose.)
"But!" You might say, "It wasn't about you the player being guilty. It was about Captain Walker's descent into madness and his guilt."
If that's the case then they failed to establish what kind of person he was and what he was like before he went nuts. If you want me to appreciate a good old fashioned descent into madness then you must first show me the what the madman was like when he was sane. As it is, Walker is a borderline blank slate and his delusions (the broken radio, the hanging corpses etc) are presented to the player as Walker sees them, which leads me to believe that the player is intended to project onto Walker rather than observe him from a detached perspective.
Lastly, let's talk plot holes.
Now, I'm actually pretty flexible with plot holes. I'm of the opinion that if I don't notice them or they don't bother me while I'm playing (or watching, or reading) then they're not a big deal. I guess I'd prefer they not be there at all, but whatever, shit happens, writers make mistakes too.
So I mention the following because I found them highly noticeable and they bothered me.
- Why did they only send three guys on foot to find out what was going on in Dubai? I guess this can be put down to plot necessity, but still...
- Why the hell does does Walker not contact his superiors once he starts exchanging fire with American soldiers? This is clearly outside the parameters of his original mission. I realise they say something about the "storm wall" blocking radio transmissions, but if that's the case then they should have turned around and walked back out to make a report, not kept killing their way forwards. Besides, at one point Walker mentions "calling for evac" as something they can do, so they apparently have comms of some kind. I guess this could be put down to Walker's obsession. but that just leads me to my next one.
- Why the hell are Lupo and Lieutenant Whatsisname following a man who is clearly mad? During the flashback bit at the end it shows Walker talking into the broken radio while the other two exchange what-the-fuck looks, so they are clearly aware that something is up. Yet they continue to follow. "Chain of command", you might say, but that doesn't involve following the orders of a man who has started hearing voices.
Uh... yeah... that's all I got. My old essay-writing instincts are screaming for me to come up with a nice neat conclusory paragraph, but I can't be arsed. So I'm just going to end it here rather abruptly. And awkwardly.
We clear on all that?
Good. Now, let the whining commence!
(Spoilers, by the way. Loud, proud and untagged. You've been warned.)
Firstly, I cannot help but feel that the whole subversive message business is rather poorly aimed. My reaction to most of it was a great big, "Yeah, no shit." What's that you say Spec Ops? Violent fantasies of martial heroism are a bit pathetic? Ya don't say! Oh, those scenes where you bombard and kill helpless enemies from the complete safety of a distant weapons platform are pretty damn creepy? Yup, well done champ.
"But!" You might tell me, "Those messages weren't aimed at a handsome, intelligent and brilliantly insightful individual such as yourself! They were directed at the people who get a kick out of military shooters. That's why the game started off all safe and familiar with Whitey McBuzzcut and his Yankee pals shooting Foreign-speaking brown people in a desert."
Thing is, are such folks really going to care what the game has to say? Especially when the game's moment-to-moment gameplay is basically indistinguishable from the games it's trying to critique. If they're just there for the big phallic guns, headshots and military lingo then the game unironically provides that in ample quantities.
Secondly, I found the attempts to make the player feel guilty to be rather inept. The game very clearly wanted me to feel bad about the whole white phosphorus incident and the general murder and mayhem. However, it never gave me any choice in the matter. I cannot be made to feel guilty about an action that wasn't of my doing. That's like saying, "That guy over there killed a kitten! Therefore you are a monster!" You need to make me choose to do it, or at least make me want to do it, then you can happily go about guilt-tripping me inside out.
(Oh, and please don't even bother with the, "Well, you had the choice to turn off the game", argument. Just... don't. If nothing else, doing so would have prevented the game from delivering to me its much vaunted message and thus it would have failed in its purpose.)
"But!" You might say, "It wasn't about you the player being guilty. It was about Captain Walker's descent into madness and his guilt."
If that's the case then they failed to establish what kind of person he was and what he was like before he went nuts. If you want me to appreciate a good old fashioned descent into madness then you must first show me the what the madman was like when he was sane. As it is, Walker is a borderline blank slate and his delusions (the broken radio, the hanging corpses etc) are presented to the player as Walker sees them, which leads me to believe that the player is intended to project onto Walker rather than observe him from a detached perspective.
Lastly, let's talk plot holes.
Now, I'm actually pretty flexible with plot holes. I'm of the opinion that if I don't notice them or they don't bother me while I'm playing (or watching, or reading) then they're not a big deal. I guess I'd prefer they not be there at all, but whatever, shit happens, writers make mistakes too.
So I mention the following because I found them highly noticeable and they bothered me.
- Why did they only send three guys on foot to find out what was going on in Dubai? I guess this can be put down to plot necessity, but still...
- Why the hell does does Walker not contact his superiors once he starts exchanging fire with American soldiers? This is clearly outside the parameters of his original mission. I realise they say something about the "storm wall" blocking radio transmissions, but if that's the case then they should have turned around and walked back out to make a report, not kept killing their way forwards. Besides, at one point Walker mentions "calling for evac" as something they can do, so they apparently have comms of some kind. I guess this could be put down to Walker's obsession. but that just leads me to my next one.
- Why the hell are Lupo and Lieutenant Whatsisname following a man who is clearly mad? During the flashback bit at the end it shows Walker talking into the broken radio while the other two exchange what-the-fuck looks, so they are clearly aware that something is up. Yet they continue to follow. "Chain of command", you might say, but that doesn't involve following the orders of a man who has started hearing voices.
Uh... yeah... that's all I got. My old essay-writing instincts are screaming for me to come up with a nice neat conclusory paragraph, but I can't be arsed. So I'm just going to end it here rather abruptly. And awkwardly.
) but I don't think how smart you are means anything. In fact, I feel like I was the perfect audience for it. Let me explain...
