spec ops: the line spoilers please
- Thread starter lechat
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Daystar Clarion said:
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
Don't misinterpret my criticism.Beat14 said:
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.
OK, first of all, great avatar.lechat said:
Second: the game really does start like uber-'merican-macho military shooter, but after a certain scene
the one where you drop white phosphorous on innocents
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.
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.Daystar Clarion said:
I really enjoyed it because it makes you feel bad for doing what you do in the game. Yes a lot of the twists are predictable, but I'd mark that up to me expecting the twists and being experienced with twists; I've seen more than a few in my time, and I can smell them from a mile away. I still enjoy the game because the combat is fun and refreshing, and the story is also very refreshing.
No matter who you shoot in the game, no matter the circumstance, you will feel like a complete asshole for it later.
The ending was the only twist that I didn't expect, that was really neat.
No matter who you shoot in the game, no matter the circumstance, you will feel like a complete asshole for it later.
The ending was the only twist that I didn't expect, that was really neat.
You missed the pointDaystar Clarion said:
You could have turned the game off, but you didn't. The lead writer has said that turning the game off and ejecting the disc was a perfectly acceptable ending for the game. Just how Captain Walker could have stopped any time but didn't so that he could see his personal mission through to the end and be "the hero", you could have turned the game off after the countless atrocities the game makes you commit, but you don't because you wanted to see it through to the end. Your choice is to turn the game off as it descends further into barbarism. The guilt comes if you don't, and continue to perpetuate evil.
How many games would have the guts to surreptitiously encourage the player to stop playing, in vain? How many games would even have the guts to acknowledge commonality like that between the game and the player? How many games break the fourth wall for something other than humor? That's why Spec Ops: The Line is special.
I see your last sentence mentioning, it making you feel like a monster.Daystar Clarion said:
Otherwise forgive me for having a go when it looks like you had an issue with if you could make a choice about doing certain things.
In the same way you told me "Don't misinterpret my criticism".
Do look at what you said.
Please let me know if I have gone wrong with my language skills, sure I may have over baked my point about tight knit stories. However I think getting the wrong end of the stick was easy to do so on this one.
Anyway. sorry if it has got a bit petty. I'll stop now as I have roamed far from OP.
Capatcha: "return to sender"
lol
DISCLAIMER: This is all personal opinion.
And this come to another point as to why this game is loved and praised by fanatical masochists like us: While it doesn't make a lot of sense and keeps the story as ambiguous as possible to leave room for interpretation.Room which the thinking player can fill in his own personal take on the story.
You're right,they're derivative "choices",just like you pointed out:hermes200 said:
That is the real choice,and the rest that is presented just gives you the illusion of player choice by giving proper,at least at the defined moment,reasoning.hermes200 said:
Possibly,but it wouldn't be done in the same style and it would be kind of pointless to make a movie inspired from a game which is inspired by another movie which is inspired by a novel.Therefore a movie would be redundant and it can't even hope of having the same impact to a viewer as Spec Ops has to the player.hermes200 said:
Is that the cognitive dissonance I missed the first time I played through?Because I took full responsibility for Walker's actions,without trying to find excuses for "my" actions.However this causes another conflict,I'm trying to become a viewer,but that is impossible,because the game has to be played in order to progress,hence I have to be the player.I'm trying to detach myself,but I don't because I'm engaged and curious,so I ditch that idea and progress and take even further personal responsibility for Walker's actions.I feel responsible because I caused it.hermes200 said:
And this come to another point as to why this game is loved and praised by fanatical masochists like us: While it doesn't make a lot of sense and keeps the story as ambiguous as possible to leave room for interpretation.Room which the thinking player can fill in his own personal take on the story.
I didn't miss the point at all.alphamalet said:
I paid money for the game, and I'll be damned if I'm going to throw away money because 'not playing is a viable choice'.
It's a lazy and pretentious method of giving the player a choice and then spouting 'see you're just like Walker.' when the player has the audacity to use something they paid for.
Bollocks.
The game tried to make me feel like monster.Beat14 said:
It didn't do a very good job.
That DID get a little snarky , but please everyone is entitled to an opinion and its almost impossible to change an opinion. I'd seriously hate to see a rage thread here. Its a game where you love it or you hate it. I personally loved it, but I can see the other side as well.Beat14 said:
Daystar Clarion said:
It's not lazy and pretentious. If you truly believe games are art, then what Spec Ops: The Line did is one of the most innovative artistic statements this medium has seen, reminiscent of certain techniques used in classic fine art. I would go into more detail, but I don't want to do a lengthy write up if you aren't interested (which I'm not sure that you are).
With your last post you're basically saying that because you couldn't progress through the game without committing the atrocities, that somehow you are absolved of the responsibility of what happens in the game, and thus you feel no guilt.
If you want to look at it that way, then that is completely your prerogative, but I uphold that this sentiment misses the point of the game. I'm not sure whether or not you want to have a conversation about this, so I'll leave it at that.
Nice edit you did there.alphamalet said:
At least you had the sense to notice the irony and change it.
I assume you are referencing the last part of my post. It was meant as humor, but I figured that the tone would probably be lost, so I edited it.Daystar Clarion said:
As far as the game goes, I think it's a clever example of how PTSD sets in, and it's certainly got a better story than most modern day military shooters, but I think it's a story that follows Walker, not a story that tests the player.alphamalet said:
I just don't think it's as subversive as others like to believe.
It played like arse too.
Very pretty though.
Well, if you didn't take it that way, then I could understand why it might not feel very special to you. Fair enough I suppose.Daystar Clarion said:
I don't think it played terribly. All of the mechanics and shooting felt good, albeit very familiar and typical of other games in the genre. However, I feel this played into one of the beautiful things about the game. We will start talking in circles though so I'll just leave it at that.
Yes I agree, sorry I just got a little confused by something.janjotat said:
Unsurprisingly I also love the game, although ages ago before playing it, the ending and another key scene was spoiled for me without warning. That isn't me saying I love the game mechanics
Spoiler's ahoy!
Very interesting thread so far that has cleared up some of the confusion that I felt after completing the game - especially the player/game relationship[footnote]As in, you didn't have to continue the game and it essentially told you that you could have always quit instead of continuing Walker's murder spree[/footnote] is an interesting thing to take into account here; one that I hadn't so much formalized into a theory while trying to beat the game. And trying is the perfectly fitting description as the disgust of what you do while playing Walker steadily mounts[footnote]One of the most intense moments the game offered for me after the White Phosphorous scene was that helicopter attack on the broadcast tower - you can feel the insanity of what you are doing in that sequence and erase the last doubts that Walker is completely deluded by now[/footnote] until you finally gaze over the burning ruins of a once great city whose (second) demise you alone caused - a great downward spiral that the game (usually) knows how to employ and show.
However, as my personal interpretation I always saw that as more of a deconstruction of the hero stereotype and the modern shooter than a commentary on the nature between player action and the game itself. While it highlights that often enough and works in guilt-tripping you for what you do in the game and throughly questions the responsibility of the player it somehow seems a bit too inconsistent and those guilt attempts seem awfully constructed at times: as some poster above noted, many of those atrocities rely on miscommunication, that storm-wall thing is never properly explained[footnote]I haven't found 3 or 4 intel pieces in the starting zones so if there was something you can disregard that point[/footnote], the whole CIA thing and what the 33rd actually want to do is only hinted at for the most part and seems very constructed for lack of a better word[footnote]it's worth pointing out that the game probably wants to remain mysterious on the nature of those groups in an attempt to not provide any black and white painting of it's setting - possibly as a deliberate commentary on the nature of warfare. However, that somehow clashes with the expectation we have at the end - wouldn't it have worked much better if the 33rd was presented essentially as a bunch of monsters in the second half of the game, when Walker was thoroughly deluded already and then subvert that right at the very end?[/footnote] and, most importantly, the fucking "water supply" consisted of three trucks pumping water out of an almost empty swimming pool - considering the game mentions thousands of people in there how on earth could the city have "survived" more than a few weeks at most? The city was doomed to fall and as cruel and ironic as it sounds, Walker was probably the best chance of saving the inhabitants of this doomed city. His downfall is therefore a deconstruction of the idealistic hero stereotype in games, most notably of the MMS-genre.
As for the player/game relationship and the nature of choice, I think it's much less impactful than another game that managed to do this and was already mentioned in this thread: Bioshock. Bioshock went down the route of telling you what to do in pure FPS fashion and then goes on to say: "You thought you did that by choice! You didn't! Essentially like in every other game!!! Trololololol!!!". Free Will is an illusion in a video game and Bioshock highlighted this difference between freedom (Objectivist ideology, art-deco design, "sand-boxy-feel" of the game areas) and constraint (The city of rapture as a claustrophobic nightmare, the craving of the addicted as well as the player to adam) at every turn and, in my opinion, works much better in highlighting this dichotomy. Spec-Ops, however, seems much less out to do this than it is about flat-out telling you that what you are doing is bad by showing you the dire consequences that your/Walker's actions bring, bar any choice you might have had, coupled with moral dilemma's that are just too constructed at times. Hence I read it more as a commentary on the shallowness of most MMS games or hero-oriented fiction peppered with a strong "war is no game"-message than about choice, although especially the ending is a brilliant exercise in questioning the player's responsibility to his actions in-game.
Very interesting thread so far that has cleared up some of the confusion that I felt after completing the game - especially the player/game relationship[footnote]As in, you didn't have to continue the game and it essentially told you that you could have always quit instead of continuing Walker's murder spree[/footnote] is an interesting thing to take into account here; one that I hadn't so much formalized into a theory while trying to beat the game. And trying is the perfectly fitting description as the disgust of what you do while playing Walker steadily mounts[footnote]One of the most intense moments the game offered for me after the White Phosphorous scene was that helicopter attack on the broadcast tower - you can feel the insanity of what you are doing in that sequence and erase the last doubts that Walker is completely deluded by now[/footnote] until you finally gaze over the burning ruins of a once great city whose (second) demise you alone caused - a great downward spiral that the game (usually) knows how to employ and show.
However, as my personal interpretation I always saw that as more of a deconstruction of the hero stereotype and the modern shooter than a commentary on the nature between player action and the game itself. While it highlights that often enough and works in guilt-tripping you for what you do in the game and throughly questions the responsibility of the player it somehow seems a bit too inconsistent and those guilt attempts seem awfully constructed at times: as some poster above noted, many of those atrocities rely on miscommunication, that storm-wall thing is never properly explained[footnote]I haven't found 3 or 4 intel pieces in the starting zones so if there was something you can disregard that point[/footnote], the whole CIA thing and what the 33rd actually want to do is only hinted at for the most part and seems very constructed for lack of a better word[footnote]it's worth pointing out that the game probably wants to remain mysterious on the nature of those groups in an attempt to not provide any black and white painting of it's setting - possibly as a deliberate commentary on the nature of warfare. However, that somehow clashes with the expectation we have at the end - wouldn't it have worked much better if the 33rd was presented essentially as a bunch of monsters in the second half of the game, when Walker was thoroughly deluded already and then subvert that right at the very end?[/footnote] and, most importantly, the fucking "water supply" consisted of three trucks pumping water out of an almost empty swimming pool - considering the game mentions thousands of people in there how on earth could the city have "survived" more than a few weeks at most? The city was doomed to fall and as cruel and ironic as it sounds, Walker was probably the best chance of saving the inhabitants of this doomed city. His downfall is therefore a deconstruction of the idealistic hero stereotype in games, most notably of the MMS-genre.
As for the player/game relationship and the nature of choice, I think it's much less impactful than another game that managed to do this and was already mentioned in this thread: Bioshock. Bioshock went down the route of telling you what to do in pure FPS fashion and then goes on to say: "You thought you did that by choice! You didn't! Essentially like in every other game!!! Trololololol!!!". Free Will is an illusion in a video game and Bioshock highlighted this difference between freedom (Objectivist ideology, art-deco design, "sand-boxy-feel" of the game areas) and constraint (The city of rapture as a claustrophobic nightmare, the craving of the addicted as well as the player to adam) at every turn and, in my opinion, works much better in highlighting this dichotomy. Spec-Ops, however, seems much less out to do this than it is about flat-out telling you that what you are doing is bad by showing you the dire consequences that your/Walker's actions bring, bar any choice you might have had, coupled with moral dilemma's that are just too constructed at times. Hence I read it more as a commentary on the shallowness of most MMS games or hero-oriented fiction peppered with a strong "war is no game"-message than about choice, although especially the ending is a brilliant exercise in questioning the player's responsibility to his actions in-game.
It's more than a little ironic that people are telling a guy he needs to play this game BECAUSE the message is important. And of course, that message is: shooters only give you two choices 1) commit atrocities or 2) don't play the game.
I get the need to put realistic weight into shooters, but until shooters stop making their protagonists invincible war-machines, that's not going to make much sense outside video games. No soldier goes from place to place killing dozens to hundreds of people at a time. There is the occasional mass killing, but that's never the responsibility of a single fighter. Just think about how absurd FPS numbers really are. One set of soldiers consists of literally hundreds of fighters while the other consists of one to four, yet the hundreds all die and the one to four suffer at most one emotional casualty.
Games are games, and as such you cannot equate your actions within them to real world morality. Not even real world mass killers make that leap.
I get the need to put realistic weight into shooters, but until shooters stop making their protagonists invincible war-machines, that's not going to make much sense outside video games. No soldier goes from place to place killing dozens to hundreds of people at a time. There is the occasional mass killing, but that's never the responsibility of a single fighter. Just think about how absurd FPS numbers really are. One set of soldiers consists of literally hundreds of fighters while the other consists of one to four, yet the hundreds all die and the one to four suffer at most one emotional casualty.
Games are games, and as such you cannot equate your actions within them to real world morality. Not even real world mass killers make that leap.