Let's say we had a choice to not use the white phosphorous (Spec Ops: The Line spoilers)

[BakaSmurf]

snip

That's a really good point actually. The "You're a monster for killing these civilians in a game" narrative doesn't say anything nice about their testers, QA team, or the people who designed and animated these people and their deaths. That's a much better way of expressing how stupid their blanket accusations of monstrosity are to the player (Who may just want to hear what Yager have to say). If we're evil for consuming it, they're evil for selling it. And if we should turn off the game, then they shouldn't profit from the game. If turning off the game is the correct response, then Yager should not profit from the game, by corrolary. And before someone comes at me with some bullshit about them needing money, we paid for it, so we "need" by the same argument, our entertainment. They could have done the game much more cheaply, and likely effectively (Since they didn't even try to look like CoD, MoH, Battlefield, or the many clones they spawned). If they're counter-culture revolutionaries, they have to be willing to do things which could reduce their sales. If profiting contradicts their message, they're hypocrites.

And I definitely agree about the WP moment from Homefront. You're involved in the acquiring and use of these weapons, and you're forced to walk among both your own, and your enemies, screaming as the flesh melts from their bodies, which was far more traumatising than "HURR DURR: YOU'RE EBEEIIIILLLL" (Which, would be giving Yager far too much credit for their sophistication).

Nice to see someone that's capable of getting the point I was trying to make across in a more concise manner then I would have. Kudos to you for not dropping to your knees and blowing Yager for merely attempting to make a deep deconstruction of the modern shooter genre [small](emphasis very much on "attempting" in this particular case)[/small] good sir.

 

[Loonyyy]

You've pretty much described how I feel about the game but am too dumb to put it to paper

The game assumes you're playing from a certain mindset, that of the dudebro frat boy, if you're not, then it just fails.

No it doesn't. It criticizes you if you're playing from such a mindset, but it doesn't assume so.

"Do you feel like a hero?"

The game tries for both, but it doesn't want you analysing things in the moment. It wants you following orders, and having fun. You're doing what you're told. The game makes this clear several times. If you're analysing it, and questioning those orders, it makes a lot less sense.

All of the emotional manipulation they try for requires that the player be enjoying what they're doing, or playing the game from a mindset with little analysis.

In order to even get some of the thematic subtext that's going on, you have to be playing it from an analytical mindset,

Which, you know, some of us did. Which is what Daystar and I were talking about. And then the emotional manipulation falls flat. Calling me a monster doesn't work when the only reason I'm playing is to hear them out. The message they want is "You're a monster for liking this". But I didn't. Instead it became "You're a monster for trying to hear me tell you you'd be a monster for liking this", which is fucking stupid and absurd. They have no concept of subtlety, or art. They beat you with a sledgehammer of an idea over and over, when they want to plant an idea in your head. I appreciate that the anger of the game ramps up, and that built a nice emotional climax for the game, but it needed to hold off on going to that level of all out, because that's the point where I stopped getting it.

in which case the game throws out all sorts of neat narrative devices and thematic content to ponder over.

What is this, apart from pointless praise? Neat narrative? An inconsistent unreliable narrator, which is done sort of well, but they never explain why their consistency in your teams speech should be important, apart from them wanking off how clever they are at writing. We see and hear other things, why should Lugo and Adams be any different?

The Narrative? A half-baked knock-off of Apocalypse Now, and Heart of Darkness, which we're all familiar with, at least on a memetic level, these tropes have been done to death. A confusing array of plans and subplots and intrigues which makes Modern Warfare 2 and 3 look insightful, well paced and comprehensible?

Thematic content? What? Dubai's kind of pretty, and the music's not terrible, but that's about it. Exploding heads? I'll admit the hellscape and the favella were kind of cool on a thematic level, but everything else has been done before and better. And these things aren't really anything more analytical anyway.

Nice to see someone that's capable of getting the point I was trying to make across in a more concise manner then I would have. Kudos to you for not dropping to your knees and blowing Yager for merely attempting to make a deep deconstruction of the modern shooter genre [small](emphasis very much on "attempting" in this particular case)[/small] good sir.

I kind of get annoyed at the Yager devs, because, yeah, I enjoy the games they say they're criticising (Before someone asks me this), but I already realised how fucked up it is that I enjoy virtual mass-murder, and the concern for how this is dehumanising and the like. Even Extra Credits did a better section of this in their videos on "Propaganda games" and "Call of Juarez: The Cartel". That took 12 minutes or so, and explained it concisely and reasonably, and didn't spend the time trying to bludgeon me with the suggestion that I'm a monster. And the games that they criticise aren't without commentary already. Modern Warfare (Which many assume is the target) already had criticisms on Nuclear Proliferation, on ends-means justification, on expendability. Their idea of heroics was bleak. The reward for heroes was death and an unmarked grave. And there are very real criticisms you can make of these, but they missed them so hard I wonder if they even played them. They seemed so proud of how shocking it was that you were shooting Americans. Oh, wait, you did that in those games as well. Nice role reversal there Yager. Only a few years too late.

And not only that, they're so smugly and self-satisfiedly criticising the VERY GAME THEY'RE MAKING, and PROFITING FROM. Hypocrisy. They can call me a monster, but I name them sell-outs.

It's criticism and deconstruction, and that's good. But it's not good criticism or deconstruction, it's just the closest thing we've got. It's like Bear Grylls: Drinking elephant shit isn't that nice, but if it's the closest thing to water, it's better than going without.

I really like that corrolary: If we're monsters for consuming it, they're the same for selling it.

 

[Xan Krieger]

I would say the whole dead civilians thing is simply an unexpected consequence of a tactically sound decision. They can really be filed under "shit happens" since without the sweet WP it would've been next to impossible to advance. Admittedly when I did it I felt like crap but now looking back it was the only real choice (though I do wonder if I wasted bullets shooting the badly wounded soldiers that survived the WP).

 

[Last Hugh Alive]

Here to defend Spec Ops as well, though I won't use the "You could just turn the game off" defense. I do agree with it, but it's not a terribly satisfying answer (or story conclusion, really). Rather, I believe the game's narrative objective was not yell "DON'T enjoy this, you monster!" but instead ask "WHY would you enjoy this?".

Here's the way I look at it: The Line is a game setting out to make a statement about particular genres and trends in modern AAA shooters, specifically along the lines of Call of Duty and it's replications on the market. I assume that was the general goal. I also assume the deceptively generic title and box art were there to sucker-- I mean, draw in players who are usually attracted to such games.

As mentioned, the white phosphorus scene was not meant to be a player choice (of course it deliberately gives the illusion of choice, not just seen here but in the nature of the game up to that point). It was just another thing you do in the game, another thing that happens, occurring in the first place to show us Walker's character turn.

The thing is, isn't this scene something you see occasionally in the Modern Warfare games? Hasn't this general Hand of God scenario, where the player utterly obliterates enemies who have no chance of escaping or defending themselves, become somewhat token of the modern military shooter genre? Picking an example out of a hat, do you remember the Call of Duty 4 mission "Death From Above"? What was your reaction? Did you, like me, have quite a bit of fun with it? Or did you resent the game for not giving you a choice in dropping explosives on all those people? Did you even question it at the time?

The only thing Spec Ops' scene does differently from any of that is the spin afterwards, where the game rubs your face in the results. I love that scene in Spec Ops because of the way it demonstrates the implications of similar, unquestioned situations in more popular shooters.

To finish off, I can totally get it if you saw it coming, that it didn't do much for you or you thought it was poorly executed. It wasn't a perfectly and flawlessly crafted moment, it's certainly far from a perfect game, and I won't argue if you feel it's been severely over hyped by The Escapist. But I'm sorry, pretty much ANY other reason from "I didn't get to decide Walker's actions here" is acceptable. If this was Commander Shepard you may have a point.

 

[Mikeyfell]

This has probably been said before but the game totally did give you a choice to not use the White Phosphorous.
You could have turned it off.
Just like Walker could have just turned around and left Dubai.

It was your choice to keep playing even after you knew he planned to use the WP.

 

[AngryBritishAce]

Is it impossible now a-days to simply enjoy (I use that word lightly when concerning Spec Op: The Line) a game without the entire gaming community complaining about one of it's features?

Either just let yourselves get immersed in Walker's story, and there for being brought on a great emotional rollercoaster, or don't, meaning you don't like the game. And if you don't like it, you've already made your decision; why continue complaining about the fact that the act which is written to begin the decent into Walker's insanity doesn't give the player choice or forces them to feel bad about it?

 

[Spitfire]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that either of those games actively question your actions at the end, or challenge you as a player for what you did.

Neither does Spec Ops.

Spec Ops is a game that gives you a limited degree of choice, but makes all the important choices for you, which means that, in its conclusion, the game doesn't reflect the actions of the player, but the actions of the protagonist.
What you're implying is that the player's decision to keep playing represents consent for the actions taken by the protagonist. It doesn't, and to claim otherwise is being presumptuous of the player's motivation.

 

[Digitaldreamer7]

Your title spoils the game. Maybe next time type in "Is the morality issue in spec ops actually a choice (spoilers ahead)" Then proceed to talk about the white phosphorous thing. So as you don't spoil it in the title with a glance.

 

[DjinnFor]

I'm seeing a lot of "The point of the game is to see whether you keep playing or not." Don't know about you, but if I had dropped cash to get the game I'd keep playing it.

The question is, why? Because "You want to feel like a Hero, even when you're not?"

I think that people realize they don't have a valid answer for why they kept playing, and are disguising that fact by blaming the developers.

See:

if you do decide to stick it through to the bitter end, then you'd better be ready when the game turns around and asks you what the hell you thought you were doing.

Do people have the capability to analyze their motivations for continuing to play despite the fact that they think the gameplay mechanics are boring and felt the game was shaming them for something they never did?

Why is "getting to the end" of every story so desirable to people? What do they expect at the end? A resolution where all the problems raised in the previous hours of play are resolved? Do they feel that savagely murdering virtual people for no good reason for the past few hours just wasn't fun enough to justify that $60 purchase and that they should continue for a few more hours to get their money's worth?

True, I could have turned the game off, but that's a waste of my time and money.

So you're saying the value of a shooter is in how long you spend enjoying the savage, unjustifiable murder of random strangers and how well the story resolves itself to make you out as the hero in the end?

Spec Ops doesn't have a neat, satisfying resolution.
You aren't the Hero in the story.

So the question stands: Why did you keep playing? What were you expecting to get out of it?

Maybe you have a valid answer, but before you could possibly know if your answer is good enough, someone has to ask you the question. That's what Yager did. This is an opportunity for you as a player to ask yourself why you play games, and shooters in general, particularly narrative-based shooters. That's what you spent $60 on; an opportunity for some directed introspection on why you spent that $60, what you wanted to get out of it, and how that compares to what happens in the real world.

Cheaper than a professional psychologist by far.

I quit around 30 minutes after the very obviously telegraphed white phosphorous scene because I was bored of the incredibly bland mechanics

Congratulations, you got over your juvenile power fantasy and recognized the game for what it was designed to be. You should feel good about yourself.

 

[ninjaRiv]

The illusion of choice is what makes it effective. After killing the civies, I immediately thought "Shit, if only I had saved that guy instead of going for that other guy. He could have warned me." I spent the rest of the play through thinking it WAS my fault but in actual fact, I was blindly following orders. I had no choice there. The only choice I had was to turn it off. And that's apparently what the developers wanted.

 

[Weaver]

I quit around 30 minutes after the very obviously telegraphed white phosphorous scene because I was bored of the incredibly bland mechanics

Congratulations, you got over your juvenile power fantasy and recognized the game for what it was designed to be. You should feel good about yourself.

Thank you for your condescending implication that I went into Spec Ops with a "juvenile power fantasy" and that the game somehow cured me of it through it's miraculous nature. I've hung up my adoration of "mature" ultraviolence somewhere on the better side of 10 years ago.

I don't play MMS games. I think they're boring and derivative. I don't buy them, I don't watch their trailers, I don't care about them in any way. The only reason I bought and played Spec Ops is cause everyone kept hailing it's narrative as the greatest achievement in video game writing since planescape. Missing out on the caveat that you have to be a complete gunbro for it to actually have any impact at all.

The writing, let's be real, wasn't really very good. The characterization was generally weak and I felt the game, as a whole, was just a complete wash. I regret spending the $5 i did on it at a GMG sale.

 

[ninjaRiv]

I'm seeing a lot of "The point of the game is to see whether you keep playing or not." Don't know about you, but if I had dropped cash to get the game I'd keep playing it. Or at least get pissed off for the game going "YOU MONSTER YOU DIDN'T QUIT PLAYING A GAME YOU SHELLED OUT CASH FOR HOW DARE YOU!"

This is the same with movies, though. You could turn off Eraserhead, The Audition or Saw off any time but you keep watching. It's part of the experience to know you could turn it off but keep going.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

I was a bit annoyed at the time, but really, Walker didn't really have any other option if he wanted to proceed. It was either drop the bombs, abandon the mission and leave Dubai, or take on a few hundred guys with TANKS and DIE.

Still didn't stop me from feeling like shit every time I clicked the R1 button to bomb them, though.

BTW, I didn't see the civilians bit coming, and I'm usually Genre Savvy. I saw the mass of white dots and went "OH GOSH, look how much backup they have...".

Saying "that's not fair, I shouldn't feel bad about that", is exactly what Walker was saying to himself.

This. Exactly this.

Part of what makes that scene good is that you, as the player will be thinking "It's not my fault, the devs made me do it!" Just like Walker is going "It's not my fault, the bad guys made me do it!"

Also, you DO have an implicit option of just not playing the game any further.

I almost made that choice in another game I played recently in which I got a BS, out of nowhere "CHOOSE GOOD OR EVIL" ending in a game I REALLY loved. I stared for a few minutes and then said "Ok, so I'm either a Complete Monster and a psycho...Or I'm an idiot who lets the one responsible for ALL the harm that came about get away with it. !@#$ that. Whatever happens after this is non-canon to me". The only reason I continued was to unlock the New Game + mode.

 

[Sectan]

I'm seeing a lot of "The point of the game is to see whether you keep playing or not." Don't know about you, but if I had dropped cash to get the game I'd keep playing it.

The question is, why? Because "You want to feel like a Hero, even when you're not?"

Looking at a game like Spec Ops it would totally defeat the purpose to quit playing. The twist ending or whatever part part of the experience. I've read about spec ops and if I decided to play it I'd play through to the bitter end just to see for myself what this game's about. Not because I'd try to be An Hero (sic), but because the developers crafted a story for people to experience. It seems weird that a developer would spend time and money to craft an experience and try change people's perceptions with it, yet wanting your players to "quit while they're ahead" and avoid playing the game entirely and making your point be missed.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

The game assumes you're playing from a certain mindset, that of the dudebro frat boy, if you're not, then it just fails.

I didn't play it like that, but it STILL got to me.

Basically, I have a bit of a hero complex. All the way to the end of the game, I was thinking "80% of this is my fault. But I can still fix it. I can still fix this. I can still-"

And then the ending came around and went "No you can't. Also, you can only blame yourself."

...And then I died. Because I hesitated. I could not blame the villain (for obvious reasons). But offing myself solved nothing either. So I waited and got shot because I refused to deny blame for what I did, but also refused to punish myself because I still thought I could salvage something.

Also, that scene with Lugo in the shantytown hit me hard, and actually was part of what prevented me from offing myself directly at the end. Scenes like the one with lugo tend to REALLY hit my berserk button. I had the gun leveled at the mob with my gun switched to grenade launcher mode, my finger on the R1 button, ready to unleash a volcano of vengeance on them. But even so, I could not do it, which confirmed to me that I could still fix the mess I caused since I could still make the right call, even when it was personal.

And then the game went "That's nice, but that's not gonna happen.". x_x

Was is upsetting to me? Yeah, it was. Do I hate the game for doing it? Not really. I still find it once of the most emotionally engaging games I've ever played.

 

[TrulyBritish]

I kinda admit that the whole "you could've just turned the game off" argument doesn't really hold water when I think about it. Still there are two ways that I can' view it that makes me like the game.

1. Just as Walker's story

2. A deconstruction of modern military shooters in general and why people would ever want to play them.

Also, if I could've made the choice, I would've been sadistic. I would've made it possible for Walker and company to overpower the Damned 33rd, but Lugo and Adams both die in the assault, and the civilians are ungrateful towards Walker.

Then people would still probably complain that they don't have a choice to do the game completely perfectly.

 

[Erttheking]

I kinda admit that the whole "you could've just turned the game off" argument doesn't really hold water when I think about it. Still there are two ways that I can' view it that makes me like the game.

1. Just as Walker's story

2. A deconstruction of modern military shooters in general and why people would ever want to play them.

Also, if I could've made the choice, I would've been sadistic. I would've made it possible for Walker and company to overpower the Damned 33rd, but Lugo and Adams both die in the assault, and the civilians are ungrateful towards Walker.

Then people would still probably complain that they don't have a choice to do the game completely perfectly.

How come people didn't get up in arms over the walking dead then?