Poll: Which do you think did Violence in Videogames better? Spec Ops the Line or Undertale?

[Wackymon]

As listed in the title, pretty much.

While I have not played spec ops, I'd enjoy hearing discussion, because the two games seem to hit on the same topic in differing manners. From my understanding, Spec Ops removes the act of Agency. Undertale seems to point out the fact that, you know, you're murdering shit, why the hell are you doing that. You don't have to do that.

So, I'd like to see which of the two you think handled the topic better, and I'd enjoy seeing some discussion.

 

[balladbird]

I'd argue that both do an excellent job of deconstruction, with the only difference being the genre they worked with. Spec ops explored the rationale of military shooters, and what a person who entered war zones for the sake of feeling like a badass hero would really be like, whereas undertale focused on the RPG, and how someone who endlessly hunted and killed random creatures for money and experience would impact their world.

This, I have a hard time saying one did a better job than the other. Interesting topic, though

 

[Skatologist]

Tough to say. Also Spec Ops doesn't completely get rid of agency, there are certain choices offered within game, but anyone can tell you all of them are pretty meaningless.

Anyways, I'd say both games have very much in common, but other than criticizing the the genre of games they reside in, the player for going down a murderous path, and a few other things, both have large differences between them that are about as apparent as them and the games they intend to criticize.

I'll just link two nice videos on the games that I'll use as a basis for a more thorough analysis of these games.

Spoiler: Good Game Design's Undertale Video

Spoiler: Errant Signal's Spec Ops Analysis

Summation of View: I appreciate UnderTale as being the first recognizable game to criticize violence without making it mandatory than the many good things I can say Spec Ops going right for it. I still think there are many more different ways violence and pacifism can be addressed in games, but it may be a while for someone to beat UnderTale on it.

That may be the gist of my view, but I'm prepared to write just a little more on the games if asked. Like which I think is a better overall criticism of their genre, or has the better morality, or is more applicable to criticize culture to outside of games, but I can't quite write my thoughts yet and OP only asked who did violence better so *shrug*.

 

[Wackymon]

That may be the gist of my view, but I'm prepared to write just a little more on the games if asked. Like which I think is a better overall criticism of their genre, or has the better morality, or is more applicable to criticize culture to outside of games, but I can't quite write my thoughts yet and OP only asked who did violence better so *shrug*.

Tell meh. Please. Give insightful critique.

I need to know.

 

[Kotaro]

They both did it very well, but I would give an edge to Undertale, because it actually gave you a choice.
In Spec Ops, you're required to be a bastard to win the game, and your only option if you don't want to do horrible things is to just stop playing.
In Undertale, you don't have to be a genocidal monster, which makes the conscious decision to actually take that course of action all the more meaningful and gives it far more impact.

 

[rcs619]

They both did it very well, but I would give an edge to Undertale, because it actually gave you a choice.
In Spec Ops, you're required to be a bastard to win the game, and your only option if you don't want to do horrible things is to just stop playing.
In Undertale, you don't have to be a genocidal monster, which makes the conscious decision to actually take that course of action all the more meaningful and gives it far more impact.

Indeed, although I feel like that was part of the point too. Even if you're one of the goodguys in a war (and *no* one in Spec-Ops was actually a good guy), you're still probably going to have to do terrible things to other human beings in order to survive.

That's something I'd love to see videogames do more often, humanize the other side. War is almost never black and white, and even if an enemy nation's government is obviously corrupt or in the wrong, more often than not the average soldier doing the fighting is still just, a regular person trying to serve their homeland and survive to go home again.

Undertale was great though. It had the perfect JRPG plot progression as it went from a silly adventure to a fight to save all of time and space. Also...

Spoiler

Sans really is a true hero, and his last stand is one of the most touching things in recent gaming. He knows he can't win, literally can't. But he's still there, blocking the way, pulling out every dirty trick in the book to try and save both monsters and humans.

 

[AT God]

I didn't vote since I haven't played Undertale yet but I don't think the two are comparable since it seems they go about it in different ways. While I really enjoyed Spec Ops story and meaning, I do sort of think they dropped the ball on the "big scene" by making it mandatory. They should have given the player the option of at least attempting to avoid that decision, such as attempting to attack without that weapon. They could have set it up to be impossible so it ultimately has to be done that certain way, but if they gave the illusion of choice I think it would have alleviated some people's concerns.

Spec Ops wasn't really about violence in general, it was specifically about war-time violence and how there really isn't any good versus bad when it comes to war, the person who kills the most, even if they are the good guy they are the bigger monster in the end.

 

[sXeth]

Spec Ops tries to make you feel guilty for a game in which you had no choice, for a situation in which it failed to provide critical information, and sympathetic for characters you had no interaction with. With the general "Word of God" on it being that you should've just stopped playing the 70 item you paid for.

Undertale gives you a choice, allows access to the information, and lets you interact with the characters to develop sympathy. Its also only ten dollars, if you wanted to do the "Don't play to win" route, not that its necessary in its case.

Seems like an obvious choice.

 

[Nuuu]

I can't really vote for for one over the other. They handle things differently, especially tied to the genre.

As stated before, Spec Ops focuses on bringing a more realistic morality into a military shooter, and again as stated before, one problem is that it forces you to do blatantly bad choices. It's interesting in what it does, and while it doesn't execute it ideally, it makes for an interesting experience.

What I really like about Undertale is how it doesn't make a statement out of this. It doesn't tell you that killing everything in RPGs is bad, and it doesn't make you feel (too) guilty for killing a few random encounters in game. It creates an emotional experience that pertains to itself. The enemies in the game aren't evil spawn created from the final boss, just inhabitants trapped in the underground.

Spec Ops tries to make a statement across a genre, Undertale creates a situation that just applies to itself. While Spec Ops didn't do it perfectly, I have to give it points for making a nice experience out of it anyways.

 

[Mister K]

I can't really answer, since they both were a reaction to violence in a completely different genres and settings of games:

- Spec Ops is a comment on a "one man army, dudebro, shoot more question less, forget about the concequenses" western military FPS.

- Undertale is a comment on how people are willing to slaughter tons and tons of creatures in JRPG's just to get to higher character level.

Although, now that I think about it, Undertale, for the purposes of delivering their message, showed us the world where, unlike in other JRPG's, monsters AREN'T mindless, berserking creatures. I think it's kind of a cheating, morality wise. Would player had had the same reaction to Undertales monsters if the weren't cute creatures, with their own villages, etc., but the same roaming berserker kind as other JRPG's?

The message that "killing other people, your own kind, and enjoying it, is actually a bad bad thing", however, is universally understood.

 

[Broderick]

I can't really vote for for one over the other. They handle things differently, especially tied to the genre.

As stated before, Spec Ops focuses on bringing a more realistic morality into a military shooter, and again as stated before, one problem is that it forces you to do blatantly bad choices. It's interesting in what it does, and while it doesn't execute it ideally, it makes for an interesting experience.

What I really like about Undertale is how it doesn't make a statement out of this. It doesn't tell you that killing everything in RPGs is bad, and it doesn't make you feel (too) guilty for killing a few random encounters in game. It creates an emotional experience that pertains to itself. The enemies in the game aren't evil spawn created from the final boss, just inhabitants trapped in the underground.

Spec Ops tries to make a statement across a genre, Undertale creates a situation that just applies to itself. While Spec Ops didn't do it perfectly, I have to give it points for making a nice experience out of it anyways.

I would say Undertale, as it actually gives agency to the player, and doesnt make the player feel bad for something they quite literally couldnt control(for the most part). As for my reply to you though, Undertale does make somewhat of a statement, but this is really only in regards to the Genocide path.

Spoiler

At the end of the game, Sans confronts you and basically says "just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should". The game also seems to mock the audience of let's players, people who would watch the player kill others, but not actually do it themselves. Pretty interesting stuff.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

They're both great, but I'd give the edge to Spec Ops on this specific point. It better acknowledges that violence is a solution if applied knowingly and carefully. Within the scope of Undertale, pacifism is an acceptable solution, but that's not always the case. And Spec Ops doesn't take away your agency. You don't have to kill all those people, you can just turn the game off.

 

[Erttheking]

I absolutely love Spec Ops the Line and what it did...but I'll be the first to admit that Undertale did it better.

 

[Here Comes Tomorrow]

Honestly, I prefer Spec Ops.
I just prefer the presentation and the characters mental breakdown during the 3rd act was amazing. There were some great touches.

I don't understand how people can critisize Spec Op for taking away choice but not Undertale. I've not finished it yet, but the Genocide run changes a lot yes? To the point where nearly everyone has done it in order to experience the changes. The game is still effectivly taking away your choice by locking an entierly different story behind violence and then critisizing you for wanting to see everything the game has to offer.

 

[Ambient_Malice]

Spec Ops forces you to do really stupid things and then tries to guilt trip you for doing them. The often praised white phosphorus segment in Spec Ops was some of the worst game design and storytelling in any third person shooter.

Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 was a far more effective version of the same underlying concept because you were responsible for your own actions at multiple points in the game. A many players killed Mason during the sniper execution scene, for example, because they were conditioned to follow orders. An NPC tells them to shoot a "bad" character in the head, so they shoot the character in the head.

Plus the Harper execution scene where you're given a choice between shooting your teammate to stay undercover or attempting to assassinate the man you've been hunting for years. That's the sort of game design and storytelling Spec Ops tries to have, but fails at miserably because as aforementioned, the game tries to guilt trip you for its own poor design.


But as for your question, Undertale.

 

[Kingjackl]

They both make strong cases, but are hampered by the anti-violence message conflicting with the mechanics. In Spec Ops' case it's dressing up anti-war game commentary in the skin of a generic military shooter that rewards violence with progress. I feel like it would have been better if it had stuck to being anti-war, rather than a meta commentary about gamers. Because let's be honest, if your two main targets are escapist nerds and a bloated military industrial complex, what do you think you should be focusing on?

Undertale would definitely have a stronger case if not for the fact that the only reason people play the No Mercy run is to experience the two awesome boss battles unique to that campaign. But it does get the point for providing an alternative for violence for those who don't feel like being preached to, and for the regular fighting mechanics being deliberately dull and anticlimactic so people who take the violent path know they are taking the easier but less fulfilling option.

Edit: Wow, the poll is 50/50 at time of posting. Clearly a polarising topic, which is cool.

 

[Silence]

Hmm, what's better? The game that just pushed you down a path you can't really escape, or the game that blatantly tells you "You're a shit player, don't kill pixels"?

Spec Ops, Hands down, no question.