I think another aspect of the game that really got to me were all of Konrad's recordings and letters. Especially his last letter to his son. That really got me to tear up. It's powerful writing that can make me hate a character like Konrad so perfectly, and still feel abject pity for what he must have gone through after failing to save all those civilians.
Spec Ops: The Line;I now have PTSD.
- Thread starter Bradeck
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I can completely agree with him about DEFCON. I have the game and it's got more emotional impact than any FPS shooter or RPG that's tried to twist my heart strings. Just watching something so cold and so emotionless and completely without humanization is one thing...but the sound track, the only audio you get is some alarms...and occasionally when the bombs start dropping and you start seeing casualty figures, you can hear someone crying.DioWallachia said:
Having just read those for the most part I completely disagree with both of those and honestly think the author just sorta missed the point of the game while completely overlooking what the game actually did well in favour of disliking everything.DioWallachia said:
But hey, opinions and all that.
Spec Ops was no Apocalypse Now, but it's the closest a game has gotten yet and I admire it for the effort even if there were mistakes made along the way.
Such a good movie...
I don't really understand this criticism. Humans can be forced to do bad things through circumstance or necessity and still feel bad about it even if it was out of their control. I felt bad dumping my ex-gf, even though she "rail-roaded" me into it by being annoying, for example.kanyewhite said:
Just out of interest, why does something as inconsequential as choosing a sarcastic or polite comment increase your immersion but minor things like using a sniper over a pistol or something do nothing? Both largely inconsequential yet both provide a little bit of personalisation to the protagonist, how he talks or how he fights etc.Zhukov said:
I don't really understand this new obsession with "choices" though. Books don't have to have choices but can still draw you in completely if written well, even though the reader has no choice whatsoever about what direction the narrative is going in. I've nothing against some games going for lot's of choice and consequence, but i don't see why it needs to be in everything. A book often follows a protagonist or narrator through a specific story arc, a game can do the same. Only a game allows the player to experience directly what happens through the narrative.
But just because you can control the motions Walker goes through throughout doesn't mean you should have complete freedom over everything that happens in the game or else it's a terrible game. YOU are playing Walker's story, no one elses. Personally i think the fact that it's YOU experiencing directly the horrors of Walkers actions is what made it so effective.
I just can't get into it, I'm sure the story is great , but the shitty GAME keeps getting in the way. It isn't a good port either. I'm really struggling to get through it. A lot like ME2 or Bioshock, well not quite that bad, the story at least isn't as bad as those, but the gameplay is...
Amen, \I'm sorry but with gameplay that dull I'm the one that feels wronged!Daystar Clarion said:
The author of those articles is missing the point of the game. For an equivalent, look at the anime Neon Genesis Evangelion. It is FULL OF HOLES. Shit happens that doesn't make sense even in the rules defined by the universe itself, there are red herrings all over the place, the lore is contradictory, and if it were at all played straight it would be a complete failure and have faded into obscurity long ago.DioWallachia said:
Instead, it's the most important anime and one of the most important pieces of Japanese culture period in the last twenty years, because it is not at its core a Giant Robot anime. It's a deconstruction of the mecha genre and a story about one man's incredible daddy/mommy issues, and in that context it works brilliantly - it makes no sense because it doesn't need to.
Similarly, SpecOps: The Line is not a First/Third-Person shooter; it represents a new take on an older premise through the lens of a contemporary medium. This game is deconstructing modern military shooters and trying to talk about PTSD. What exactly is happening throughout the game is not clear;
Walker was a sick man before he got to Dubai and, as I like to believe it, began hallucinating from the moment he opened fire on that first CIA operative, and continues to do so until (in the ending I chose) he hands his AA12 over to the grunts that find him standing in a daze in the courtyard.
TL;DR
I suppose the best way to describe SO:TL is as an expressionist game, much like Psychonauts; its contents are exaggerated and unrealistic because, as a piece of art (and yes, games are art and this is perfectly valid in the context of any other artistic storytelling medium, so why not games as well), it is trying to make one or more points, incite feelings in the viewer/player/audience/consumer-of-artistic-medium, provoke discussion, and talk about the human condition. Citing its unrealism and its plot holes as flaws is missing the point of the game - "Realism" is a feature of shooters, and, as I contend, SO:TL is NOT a shooter. It is pretending to be one, because DECONSTRUCTION R GOOD. It's not perfect by any means, but it successfully does what it sets out to do, which is take apart the shooter genre, talk about PTSD, and challenge the player's understanding of their chosen medium.
EDIT: Okay, I just read all the way to the end of that first article complaining about the developers complaining about the multiplayer. Uh, do they seriously expect a game with a middling budget and no fanbase like that to compete with CoD? It ain't gonna happen. That's the entire reason the SP got MADE. They were told to make a successful shooter (SpunkGargleWeeWee, to paraphrase our own Yahtzee Croshaw), which is obviously an effectively impossible task because the shooter is stagnating and it has no room to grow; CoD and Battlefield have more or less consumed the entire market, and TF2 has the scraps.
No, you didn't. The other option was to put the controller down and stop playing. You had a choice, and you made yours. Your action killed those people. And you should feel bad about it. It's all very meta.Nachtmahr said:
If you try to justify it as 'That's not a real option because I paid money for this game and have to play it to it's conclusion to get my money's worth', then I can't help but feel as though you missed the point the game was trying to make.
There have been a few games that I've played that have left a very real emotional affect on me after playing. Also, there have been games that I've been brought nearly to tears (or at least that stuck-in-your-throat feeling you get sometimes) while playing. You said it best when you gave the writers credit for that. It really is the sign of top-notch storytelling that makes you actually "Feel" something while you play a "game". And yes, feeling bad about things you've done in a game that you would feel bad about doing in real life is a good sign. I honestly wonder at those people who play a game where you can do horrible things (by choice, mind you) and still walk away feeling nothing. This may be that they are able to disassociate themselves from a video game, and that's good, I think. But I also wonder that if people who feel nothing during game play like that would also feel nothing about doing such things in real life.... But I'm no scientist.
And in response to your post's title; I'm a 7-year Army Veteran who served in 3 combat zones. I am actually diagnosed with severe PTSD due to that. Saying you have PTSD from playing a video game, however wonderfully written and emotionally involving, in my view, isn't even close. Not getting on your case, it's just...I dunno, the use of PTSD for every little thing people go through these days...
Ah, nvm.
Great post and good topic.
And in response to your post's title; I'm a 7-year Army Veteran who served in 3 combat zones. I am actually diagnosed with severe PTSD due to that. Saying you have PTSD from playing a video game, however wonderfully written and emotionally involving, in my view, isn't even close. Not getting on your case, it's just...I dunno, the use of PTSD for every little thing people go through these days...
Ah, nvm.
Great post and good topic.
I hear you. At the point in chapter 7 (or 8 or 9 can't remember) where you do a bad thing, my first reaction when i saw a guy still moving was to shoot him thinking that he deserved it. I felt like shit when i reached the soldier who said that they were helping.erttheking said:
Well, let's see; I think that aside from the fact that the game forces you to do some serious stuff, what made it compelling for me was the mindset in your own head, I think I was so used to these games, I stopped questioning whys or hows.
And this is the one that for the first time got me "hold on..." That's was made it brilliant to me, it's not what happens in the game so much, it's what's happen in your head even after you stopped playing it.
Oh, and for the choices... let's see:
1- Kill the US Soldier that tried to escape.
2- Let the guy burn.
3- Kill the snipers, but couldn't save those two hanging anyways, though it's obvious why.
4- Shoot to the air to scare the posse.
5- Tested every ending.
And this is the one that for the first time got me "hold on..." That's was made it brilliant to me, it's not what happens in the game so much, it's what's happen in your head even after you stopped playing it.
Oh, and for the choices... let's see:
1- Kill the US Soldier that tried to escape.
2- Let the guy burn.
3- Kill the snipers, but couldn't save those two hanging anyways, though it's obvious why.
4- Shoot to the air to scare the posse.
5- Tested every ending.
An episode of Extra Credits "spoiled" the game for me, but I was still interested in seeing how it was all executed. I recently watched an LP of it from someone who actually "got" it - even started dropping the phrase "We're descending into the Heart of Darkness" during the ubiquitous rappelling scenes. Hearing "Oh God, I hope those weren't civilians." during the Mortar section, and then watching the LPer mercy kill the writhing burn victims, was one of the few experiences from a video game (even witnessed second hand) that 'reached' me.
One thing that seems to be missing in the discussion is the fact that
Also, the dichotomy between "Die, *****" executions and "He turned us into killers" is simple. If someone is trying to kill me, and I have to kill them to stay alive, my adrenaline is up and I'm going to do whatever it takes. I'm going to say things to psych myself up, to put on an image if only for my own benefit to keep me from realizing that I'm a person and so are my enemies.
Killing unarmed civilians in a horrible way is something else entirely.
This is one of those games I wish I could un-hear about and go into completely blind.
Another shooter that got to me, that I actually played, was Far Cry 2. I remember fighting like hell to keep a partner (who had saved me several times) alive during a bad firefight. When I couldn't and she ended up dying, soaking up all my syrettes until she went to sleep forever, I re-loaded and tried again. When I finally managed to keep her alive, I felt like I had really accomplished something. When the end game events occurred, I felt betrayed and angry. Blood for pay, and nothing else matters. I gladly died on the ridge, making sure the bomb detonated. The character I was playing was broken at that point, a part of the problem.
Strange how both games drew inspiration from Heart of Darkness.
One thing that seems to be missing in the discussion is the fact that
Walker is screwed up from the start. He doesn't suddenly snap due to what happened in Dubai. He *arrived* snapped, courtesy of what happened in Kabul.
Also, the dichotomy between "Die, *****" executions and "He turned us into killers" is simple. If someone is trying to kill me, and I have to kill them to stay alive, my adrenaline is up and I'm going to do whatever it takes. I'm going to say things to psych myself up, to put on an image if only for my own benefit to keep me from realizing that I'm a person and so are my enemies.
Killing unarmed civilians in a horrible way is something else entirely.
This is one of those games I wish I could un-hear about and go into completely blind.
Another shooter that got to me, that I actually played, was Far Cry 2. I remember fighting like hell to keep a partner (who had saved me several times) alive during a bad firefight. When I couldn't and she ended up dying, soaking up all my syrettes until she went to sleep forever, I re-loaded and tried again. When I finally managed to keep her alive, I felt like I had really accomplished something. When the end game events occurred, I felt betrayed and angry. Blood for pay, and nothing else matters. I gladly died on the ridge, making sure the bomb detonated. The character I was playing was broken at that point, a part of the problem.
Strange how both games drew inspiration from Heart of Darkness.
I have family that fought in the most horrific wars in this past Century, wars your country doesn't even remember existed, despite supplying weapons to the participants. Those people, including one former Commando, ALL have some degree of PTSD. I understand your idolization of those people, but the fact of the matter is, your objectification and idealization of them is as far removed from reality as you claim the game is. And as insulting.Nachtmahr said:
a) Because things like weapon choice do not define a personality. They can complement a personality, and in games that let me I will often use them to do just that, but in the absence of other options they do not constitute a personality on their own.Shpongled said:
b) Because the game never reacts to my choice in weapons. Using a shotgun a lot doesn't make Walker act more aggressive. Using a sniper doesn't make him cold and calculating. Other characters never comment on the weapon I'm using. However, in, for example, The Walking Dead, other characters will call me out if I tell inconsistent lies. They'll get annoyed with me if I'm rude or aggressive toward them. If I tell them my opinion of another character they then go and pass it on. If I swear around Clementine, she repeats it later in company and all the adults give me accusing looks. That's the game reacting to my choice. Small choices and small reactions, sure, but reactions nonetheless.
a) I am not obsessed with choice. I'm fine with linear games that have zero narrative-related choice. More on this later.
b) What works in book may not necessarily work in games. Also, how exactly does a book not allow the reader "experience directly what happens through the narrative"?
Either this bit wasn't aimed at me or I have failed to explain myself clearly.
I do not think SO:TL is a terrible game. I think it is a pretty good game. I liked it. I don't think I should have complete freedom of choice in it. I would have been fine if it had no choice at all.
My problem is:
a) The game tries to make me feel guilty for things I did not choose to do. It's like someone walking up to me, grabbing my wrist and using it to punch themselves in the mouth with my hand, then trying to tell me off for committing assault. My reaction is not going be, "Oh my God, you're right. I'm a horrible person who punches people in the mouth." Instead, my reaction is, "What are you talking about? You did that, you twat, not me. You should have stopped and contacted your superiors for new orders as soon as you were fired upon by US troops because I'm pretty damn sure your original orders didn't cover this situation." "Experiencing directly the horrors of Walker's actions" has a significantly lessened effect if I am not responsible for those horrors.
b) Walker is not well defined enough for me to care what happens to him. So, once again, "experiencing directly the horrors of Walker's actions" has a significantly lessened effect.
Apologies for the wall-o-text.
Someone who understands why FarCry 2 is great! Thank you! Sometimes I feel so alone in praising that game.Echopunk said:
If arguments are anything like duelling, then in case of Spec Ops: The Line people are trying to duel by wrangling a sword out of each others hands. Each argument for Spec Ops can be turned against it and vice versa. It's impossible to come to a conclusion. People just say "It tried to guilt trip me and failed, 0/10" or "I felt guilty and horrible 10/10". Sometimes it's "It only had the illusion of choice and a linear story 0/10" or "It's illusion of choice masterfully masked how linear the story was 10/10"
Each piece of art is using a magician's trick to make the audience believe that what they portray is the reality. Paintings use lightning and realism, books try with good characters and logical plot. In this case, illusion of choice was the "trick" to make us believe we had a choice at the Gates. That's either absolutely amazing mechanic or a mere cheap trick.
I was blown away, but I realize that it left many other unaffected - as it always happens with art.
Each piece of art is using a magician's trick to make the audience believe that what they portray is the reality. Paintings use lightning and realism, books try with good characters and logical plot. In this case, illusion of choice was the "trick" to make us believe we had a choice at the Gates. That's either absolutely amazing mechanic or a mere cheap trick.
I was blown away, but I realize that it left many other unaffected - as it always happens with art.
Hyperbole - yes. Other reviewers used words like "emotionally drained", "shell-shocked" or "nauseous". OP just trying to say that he feels like shit.Truglington said:
Don't let anyone make you feel bad about your emotional response, OP. Thats what the game is *supposed* to do, at least for those that make an effort to get invested in the characters.
I won't say it was a traumatic experience for me, but I was definitely glad when it was over.
I won't say it was a traumatic experience for me, but I was definitely glad when it was over.