Spec Ops: The Line comp
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
92 comments displayed.
#1
-
metalkinkajou (01/03/2016) [-] I don't know if it's my favorite game ever, but as far as my experience with cover based/3rd person shooters go, Spec Ops: The Line definitely takes the cake for me
#145 to #144
-
metalkinkajou (01/04/2016) [-] Well, it's maaaaybe bit overhyped, but people get disappointed to stuff if they keep their expectations too high, so just keep that in mind and you most probably will have fun
#150 to #144
-
civilizedwasteland (01/04/2016) [-] the story is pretty cool, but i didn't really find it as emotionally engaging as everyone else. the rest of the game is just a typical 3rd person shooter.
Definitely worth $5 or less, if your getting it for console just rent it for a week.
Definitely worth $5 or less, if your getting it for console just rent it for a week.
#88
-
tehskyizblue (01/04/2016) [-] Did anyone else notice that he practices proper trigger discipline at the start and near the end he always has his finger on the trigger? I swear more games need little subtle details like this
#50
-
Mr Ronok (01/04/2016) [-] the white phosphorous is ****** up sure, but what really make the difference between man and monster is when you have the option to open fire on the group of unarmed civilians near the end. you didnt know the consequences of the WP strike, but you sure as hell know the end result of opening fire on a crowd of people
#57 to #50
-
feedtehtrollz (01/04/2016) [-] I've heard during that scene you have the ability to fire above their heads and cause them to flee in a panic instead of killing them
#14
-
hourlyb (01/03/2016) [-] Alright, listen here, Walt. ******* spoilers;
The twist in Spec Ops: The Line, while very different from anything else in the shooter genre, has one major flaw too it.
You have to feel responsible for the death of the civilians. But when the game presents you no other alternative outside of using the WP, why should you feel responsible for it's use? This isn't a game like Mass Effect which presents options for the player to choose, the game forces you to use it.
Here's a way they could have fixed it:
1. Either you could use the WP, causing the civilian casualties
OR
2. You could just attack the Damned 33rd head on, and in the end your teammates die.
Both of these create moral dubiousness for the player, making them wonder why they keep going.
And don't give me some horsecock about "OH YOU COULD JUST STOP PLAYING". No. That's not a legit or smart option. Your basically saying I should waste $20 because the writing is **** .
The twist in Spec Ops: The Line, while very different from anything else in the shooter genre, has one major flaw too it.
You have to feel responsible for the death of the civilians. But when the game presents you no other alternative outside of using the WP, why should you feel responsible for it's use? This isn't a game like Mass Effect which presents options for the player to choose, the game forces you to use it.
Here's a way they could have fixed it:
1. Either you could use the WP, causing the civilian casualties
OR
2. You could just attack the Damned 33rd head on, and in the end your teammates die.
Both of these create moral dubiousness for the player, making them wonder why they keep going.
And don't give me some horsecock about "OH YOU COULD JUST STOP PLAYING". No. That's not a legit or smart option. Your basically saying I should waste $20 because the writing is **** .
#15 to #14
-
catdownstairz (01/03/2016) [-] But the white phosphourous wasn't used on the damned 33rd, it was another regiment providing relief wasn't it?
#16 to #15
-
hourlyb (01/03/2016) [-] No, it is the 33rd.
Arriving at the Gate, which is heavily guarded by the 33rd, the team, disregarding Lugo's objections, uses a mortar loaded with white phosphorus to attack the 33rd. After the fire clears, the team learns to their horror that the 33rd were only providing shelter for civilians for their own safety in the coming battles, all forty-seven of whom have been killed by the white phosphorus rounds. Walker vows revenge on the 33rd, claiming that the 33rd had forced him to fire the phosphorus.
Arriving at the Gate, which is heavily guarded by the 33rd, the team, disregarding Lugo's objections, uses a mortar loaded with white phosphorus to attack the 33rd. After the fire clears, the team learns to their horror that the 33rd were only providing shelter for civilians for their own safety in the coming battles, all forty-seven of whom have been killed by the white phosphorus rounds. Walker vows revenge on the 33rd, claiming that the 33rd had forced him to fire the phosphorus.
#95 to #14
-
scowler (01/04/2016) [-] The game was intended to criticize Moral Railroading. But I agree with you. Realistically, Dubai's a big ******* city, there was nothing stopping them from finding a way around.
Really the moral of the story is that Deductive Reasoning keeps you out of trouble. Anyone with a working mind would've been able to deduce that the 33rd were performing a standard internment operation, in response to insurgent looters' hiding within local shelters.
Someone with a Practical Conscience - someone who clearly wanted to keep civilians out of the way, but clearly wasn't averse to writing off any notion of mercy toward the Looters - was likely calling the shots, The Radioman was just that, a Radioman. Too unhinged to provide strategic suggestions, but sane enough to compile intelligence and keep an ear to the ground.
Really the moral of the story is that Deductive Reasoning keeps you out of trouble. Anyone with a working mind would've been able to deduce that the 33rd were performing a standard internment operation, in response to insurgent looters' hiding within local shelters.
Someone with a Practical Conscience - someone who clearly wanted to keep civilians out of the way, but clearly wasn't averse to writing off any notion of mercy toward the Looters - was likely calling the shots, The Radioman was just that, a Radioman. Too unhinged to provide strategic suggestions, but sane enough to compile intelligence and keep an ear to the ground.
#62 to #14
-
Sethorein (01/04/2016) [-] yes. You should waste 20 dollars and realize just how desensitized the modern military shooter has made you to this kind of wanton violence. That's the point. If you were given alternatives this wouldnt be nearly as strong a criticism of the modern military shooter genre. When every other shooter gives you no choice, but glosses over the human aspect of war you consider that fine gameplay. When spec ops doesn't allow you to ignore the human aspect of war you are upset that you have no means to progress without sacrificing your humanity.
You think maybe that's the point?
You think maybe that's the point?
#83 to #62
-
azumeow (01/04/2016) [-] In every other modern military shooter, I'm not a sadistic monster.
In Spec Ops: The Line, I am.
In Advanced Warfare, I fought to save the wold from a genocidal megalomaniac.
In Battlefield 4, I fought to save China from being betrayed by its leaders.
In Battlefield 3, I fought to stop a nuclear war.
In Modern Warfare, I fought to stop madmen bent on ushering a third world war.
In Spec Ops: The Line, you're attacked by fellow US soldiers, tricked into murdering civilians, forced by your own psychosis into murdering more people, given the choice to take out your anger on the people you came to help, asked to accept your actions, and given the choice to commit mass murder.
By the time you actually have a choice, you've already been forced into a situation where you couldn't be reasonably blamed for prioritizing your mission and your survival above all else. The iconic scene relies on one of the few times you have NO choice and NO idea of what you're doing until its already done, and its touted as this great thing.
It's...it's a good lesson, don't get me wrong. They just ****** up the most important part of the delivery.
In Spec Ops: The Line, I am.
In Advanced Warfare, I fought to save the wold from a genocidal megalomaniac.
In Battlefield 4, I fought to save China from being betrayed by its leaders.
In Battlefield 3, I fought to stop a nuclear war.
In Modern Warfare, I fought to stop madmen bent on ushering a third world war.
In Spec Ops: The Line, you're attacked by fellow US soldiers, tricked into murdering civilians, forced by your own psychosis into murdering more people, given the choice to take out your anger on the people you came to help, asked to accept your actions, and given the choice to commit mass murder.
By the time you actually have a choice, you've already been forced into a situation where you couldn't be reasonably blamed for prioritizing your mission and your survival above all else. The iconic scene relies on one of the few times you have NO choice and NO idea of what you're doing until its already done, and its touted as this great thing.
It's...it's a good lesson, don't get me wrong. They just ****** up the most important part of the delivery.
#163 to #83
-
shigiddy ONLINE (01/04/2016) [-]
You did have a choice. You could have stopped playing at any point and refused to go any further. But YOU chose to keep going. YOU kept going and committing atrocities despite hating yourself. Don't blame the game for making you do it, blame yourself for not stopping the game.
THAT is the point.
THAT is the point.
#132 to #83
-
hazardpay (01/04/2016) [-] Isnt the whole point of the delivery that you had no choice, because of your choices before hand? I'm pretty sure one of your squadmates mentioned something about calling in back up and walker chose not to. sure it isnt YOUR choices, but if you get immersed into this game like i did, you still feel that weight.
#98 to #14
-
notjustalurker ONLINE (01/04/2016) [-] The game is telling you Walker's story, just because you are playing doesnt mean its your story, its walker's.
The suggestion you make its nice, but that is not what happened, there is a story and the game fallows it, you shouldn't feel bad because you made those decisions, but because you feel empathy for walker and his bad decisions. But ultimately you can feel whatever you want m8, that's not the writer's problem.
Pretty much all linear games are like this, i dont know why people fail to see it when it comes to spec ops: the line. People don't complain when you have no options on, for exemple, Brothers: Tale of twoo sons, what happens in the story makes you feel sad, even though you had no options, should you stop feeling sad because you had no options?
The suggestion you make its nice, but that is not what happened, there is a story and the game fallows it, you shouldn't feel bad because you made those decisions, but because you feel empathy for walker and his bad decisions. But ultimately you can feel whatever you want m8, that's not the writer's problem.
Pretty much all linear games are like this, i dont know why people fail to see it when it comes to spec ops: the line. People don't complain when you have no options on, for exemple, Brothers: Tale of twoo sons, what happens in the story makes you feel sad, even though you had no options, should you stop feeling sad because you had no options?
#103 to #14
-
exerthaddock (01/04/2016) [-] That's the point of the scene, though. It explores the question, "Can you feel bad about things out of your control?" The player didn't have a choice because Walker didn't have a choice. Also, unless you got it spoiled for you, you didn't know you were dropping WP on civilians, just like Walker didn't know. The game isn't targeting the player directly, like in, say, Walking Dead. It targets the player indirectly through Walker, like No Russian in CoD.
#19 to #14
-
comicironic ONLINE (01/03/2016) [-]
>OH YOU COULD JUST STOP PLAYING
But this is the idea. The designers said that it's a perfectly valid option to stop playing the game at any time. That happens to be one of Walker's choices: when you quit and never continue, Walker leaves Dubai and returns with the info he's gathered.
The choice to continue forward has its own consequences, and your obsession with it is ultimately Walker's, in that you want to see the whole thing through to the end. Walker doesn't want to give up on meeting Konrad and finding someone to blame, especially if it isn't himself. You, as the player, don't want to leave the narrative in a way that feels half-finished: you want closure as much as Walker does.
When you, as a player, demand to advance, and choose to do so despite the costs, you are acting exactly as Walker acts. You refuse to leave when you should know better, you abandon your original mission and commit an atrocity in the name of your personal motives, and you end up angry: you didn't have a choice, so how could you be punished? But the fact is that you did have a choice, and you didn't want to take that choice because it would have left you feeling incomplete, even if it was the right thing to do. This is what Walker's obsession with Konrad does in the exact same way: he feels that he couldn't have chosen differently, but the fact is that he could have chosen to leave it alone.
I think this is the most powerful part of Spec Ops as a player experience: every action Walker takes as a totally mentally deranged man is exactly the echo of the player in a video game who wants to complete a story, who wants to believe they're the good guy in a situation, and who wants to attribute faults to the world rather than their own failings. Walker is the video-game mentality in a realistic character, to the point where he can choose to shoot his rescuing force for the hell of it.
But this is the idea. The designers said that it's a perfectly valid option to stop playing the game at any time. That happens to be one of Walker's choices: when you quit and never continue, Walker leaves Dubai and returns with the info he's gathered.
The choice to continue forward has its own consequences, and your obsession with it is ultimately Walker's, in that you want to see the whole thing through to the end. Walker doesn't want to give up on meeting Konrad and finding someone to blame, especially if it isn't himself. You, as the player, don't want to leave the narrative in a way that feels half-finished: you want closure as much as Walker does.
When you, as a player, demand to advance, and choose to do so despite the costs, you are acting exactly as Walker acts. You refuse to leave when you should know better, you abandon your original mission and commit an atrocity in the name of your personal motives, and you end up angry: you didn't have a choice, so how could you be punished? But the fact is that you did have a choice, and you didn't want to take that choice because it would have left you feeling incomplete, even if it was the right thing to do. This is what Walker's obsession with Konrad does in the exact same way: he feels that he couldn't have chosen differently, but the fact is that he could have chosen to leave it alone.
I think this is the most powerful part of Spec Ops as a player experience: every action Walker takes as a totally mentally deranged man is exactly the echo of the player in a video game who wants to complete a story, who wants to believe they're the good guy in a situation, and who wants to attribute faults to the world rather than their own failings. Walker is the video-game mentality in a realistic character, to the point where he can choose to shoot his rescuing force for the hell of it.
#21 to #19
-
hourlyb (01/03/2016) [-] I would believe you, if they had a cutscene showing that.
But they don't.
When you quit, you just quit. No scene showing him leaving Dubai, just a "Are you sure" and back to your desktop.
That's it.
What your saying is that wasting $20 is a smart idea and a valid option.
That's all your're saying.
I would agree with you if this were, say, a RPG where you can choose what happens.
But you can't.
You're just a actor in a play; playing a already written part.
But they don't.
When you quit, you just quit. No scene showing him leaving Dubai, just a "Are you sure" and back to your desktop.
That's it.
What your saying is that wasting $20 is a smart idea and a valid option.
That's all your're saying.
I would agree with you if this were, say, a RPG where you can choose what happens.
But you can't.
You're just a actor in a play; playing a already written part.
#24 to #21
-
comicironic ONLINE (01/03/2016) [-]
That's just because you want your choice to be validated, but the game doesn't tell you it's completed because Walker doesn't think it's completed.
>What your saying is that wasting $20 is a smart idea and a valid option.
It is a valid option. What "waste" means is entirely subjective: do you feel as though you are owed the game's ending simply because you already invested something into the experience? If you do, you're mimicking Walker's own emotional blindness throughout the game: he doesn't want to stop because of everything he's had to do so far to get there.
Ultimately, Spec Ops has no happy experiences. You don't get any extra value added from being able to skip past the WP scene, because the rest of the game is based off that decision. Your money's worth doesn't come from going home, because you'd still be missing out on content.
This is the crucial connection you form with Walker: you feel as though you are owed something, and will pay any price to get it, but you don't consider the alternative to be a valid option. Spec Ops plays on that feature of the medium, that you will literally be leaving something incomplete if you choose to not take Walker any further in his obsession with Konrad, and it makes you feel frustrated.
>What your saying is that wasting $20 is a smart idea and a valid option.
It is a valid option. What "waste" means is entirely subjective: do you feel as though you are owed the game's ending simply because you already invested something into the experience? If you do, you're mimicking Walker's own emotional blindness throughout the game: he doesn't want to stop because of everything he's had to do so far to get there.
Ultimately, Spec Ops has no happy experiences. You don't get any extra value added from being able to skip past the WP scene, because the rest of the game is based off that decision. Your money's worth doesn't come from going home, because you'd still be missing out on content.
This is the crucial connection you form with Walker: you feel as though you are owed something, and will pay any price to get it, but you don't consider the alternative to be a valid option. Spec Ops plays on that feature of the medium, that you will literally be leaving something incomplete if you choose to not take Walker any further in his obsession with Konrad, and it makes you feel frustrated.
#25 to #24
-
hourlyb (01/04/2016) [-] I feel like I'm owed better writing, yes.
If you watch a ****** movie, you don't think "Oh, it's my fault for wanting a better movie. I'm the dumb guy."
No, you feel ******* ripped off.
And I would be inclined to agree with you if the game played well.
But it doesn't.
It plays like **** . Aiming is turgid, moving feels slow and like he's walking in water all of the time.
The only things completely good about it are the voice acting and the environment design.
That's it.
If you watch a ****** movie, you don't think "Oh, it's my fault for wanting a better movie. I'm the dumb guy."
No, you feel ******* ripped off.
And I would be inclined to agree with you if the game played well.
But it doesn't.
It plays like **** . Aiming is turgid, moving feels slow and like he's walking in water all of the time.
The only things completely good about it are the voice acting and the environment design.
That's it.
#26 to #25
-
comicironic ONLINE (01/04/2016) [-]
What part of the writing wasn't up to your standards?
Do you want a "Walker died on the way back to his home planet" popup when you decide to stop playing the game? I don't, since I feel it would have made every choice in the game less meaningful. The whole emotional impact of the WP scene would have disappeared if you were actually shown the choices available, instead of experiencing them from Walker's mindset and therefore discarding the choice to give up out of personal desire.
The game forces you to pick the WP scene or stop playing: if you feel this is bad design, you haven't understood the relationship between Walker's experience of that scene as part of the narrative and the player's experience of it as part of gameplay.
If you still feel this is bad design, then maybe Spec Ops simply isn't the game for you. This is something you risk with media: it isn't obligated to appeal to you.
Do you want a "Walker died on the way back to his home planet" popup when you decide to stop playing the game? I don't, since I feel it would have made every choice in the game less meaningful. The whole emotional impact of the WP scene would have disappeared if you were actually shown the choices available, instead of experiencing them from Walker's mindset and therefore discarding the choice to give up out of personal desire.
The game forces you to pick the WP scene or stop playing: if you feel this is bad design, you haven't understood the relationship between Walker's experience of that scene as part of the narrative and the player's experience of it as part of gameplay.
If you still feel this is bad design, then maybe Spec Ops simply isn't the game for you. This is something you risk with media: it isn't obligated to appeal to you.
#29 to #26
-
hourlyb (01/04/2016) [-] The fact that the game expects me to take responsibility for Walker's actions, when 95% of the game is scripted.
That is like saying the actor playing Hamlet should feel responsible for the 8 deaths that happen.
The game developers are more guilty than I am, scripting the game to happen this way.
There is a very clear disconnect between the players and Walker, both physically & mentally.
Whereas with something like Mass Effect I feel much more responsible because I can choose what Shepard will do.
That is like saying the actor playing Hamlet should feel responsible for the 8 deaths that happen.
The game developers are more guilty than I am, scripting the game to happen this way.
There is a very clear disconnect between the players and Walker, both physically & mentally.
Whereas with something like Mass Effect I feel much more responsible because I can choose what Shepard will do.
#32 to #29
-
comicironic ONLINE (01/04/2016) [-]
>95% of the game is scripted
Sure, but that's all other characters.
From what I remember, the game does very little in forcing your decisions: Walker is always under your control, he's just put into difficult situations. If you can't handle the fact that a situation can force you to make choices you'd rather not make, Spec Ops might not be the game for you, because it's a game about making difficult choices in difficult situations.
You don't feel responsible for Walker's actions, you feel responsible for the decisions you make when you control him, and you're meant to empathise with him/feel disturbed by him whenever his obsession with Konrad pulls him into those difficult situations.
The game developers haven't scripted the game for you, they've just put you in a series of situations where they say "if you want to proceed, you will have to do x", and as a gamer you don't make the mental step of asking "do I want to proceed", you just do x. And whenever you do x and it turns out to be a bad thing, you feel what Walker feels, which is that you've been forced to do x, but you're ignoring the fact that you're not forced to progress: that's the choice the player makes on their own.
The game is not "here is a world, go make decisions in it", it is "here is the hard decision, how do you pick". If you don't feel responsible, it's because you're experiencing the same denial that Walker experiences: you think the goal is paramount, so the options in how you get there are the only important ones, rather than questioning whether the goal is worth the options.
Sure, but that's all other characters.
From what I remember, the game does very little in forcing your decisions: Walker is always under your control, he's just put into difficult situations. If you can't handle the fact that a situation can force you to make choices you'd rather not make, Spec Ops might not be the game for you, because it's a game about making difficult choices in difficult situations.
You don't feel responsible for Walker's actions, you feel responsible for the decisions you make when you control him, and you're meant to empathise with him/feel disturbed by him whenever his obsession with Konrad pulls him into those difficult situations.
The game developers haven't scripted the game for you, they've just put you in a series of situations where they say "if you want to proceed, you will have to do x", and as a gamer you don't make the mental step of asking "do I want to proceed", you just do x. And whenever you do x and it turns out to be a bad thing, you feel what Walker feels, which is that you've been forced to do x, but you're ignoring the fact that you're not forced to progress: that's the choice the player makes on their own.
The game is not "here is a world, go make decisions in it", it is "here is the hard decision, how do you pick". If you don't feel responsible, it's because you're experiencing the same denial that Walker experiences: you think the goal is paramount, so the options in how you get there are the only important ones, rather than questioning whether the goal is worth the options.
#39 to #32
-
fcrocker (01/04/2016) [-]
Given that discussion on FJ is usually pseudo-autistic ******** , this was actually pretty interesting.
I guess when it comes down to it blurring the lines between gameplay mechanics and narrative devices (Such as Bioshock, playing off the linearity and blind following of objectives) is always going to break down if you think about it too much.
That being said, techniques such as that should be applauded as they are a lot more powerful in actually evoking an emotional response. The alternative being the simple picking from a few preset options seen in most modern games, which still feels very artificial.
I guess when it comes down to it blurring the lines between gameplay mechanics and narrative devices (Such as Bioshock, playing off the linearity and blind following of objectives) is always going to break down if you think about it too much.
That being said, techniques such as that should be applauded as they are a lot more powerful in actually evoking an emotional response. The alternative being the simple picking from a few preset options seen in most modern games, which still feels very artificial.
#81 to #14
-
anon (01/04/2016) [-]
The reason the game got me was the fact that I didn't stop to consider the other options. The game presented a solution like any other set piece. "There's a weapon, use it." So I did, and saw the consequences only after. That effect doesn't work on everyone, but it certainly worked for me.
#27 to #14
-
sausagekingofchica ONLINE (01/04/2016) [-]
Sort of piggybacking on your comment, I kinda have the same issues with the message that Spec Ops: The Line tried to convey. During that scene, you are given no other option to progress. Claims that you could just "stop playing" as a means to progress while preserving your morals opens a quagmire of more questions rather than solving it. Would it be just as valid a response to mod the game in such a way that there exists a more idealistic alternative? Many would say no, arguing that as we are not the developers, this approach would not be canon or the "true" approach. If so, then why blame the player for taking the WP route?
If anything, the real monster here shouldn't be the player, but rather the developer. Without providing suitable alternatives, the use of WP is ultimately the most justified option simply because the alternatives are invalid. To taunt players for making such a decision would be hypocrisy when the developers have offered unsuitable means of progression through any other means. Yes, leaving could be seen as a valid option, in that we would not need to see any end cutscene or reward to know that it is probably the most morally best approach. Great, no more blood on our hands. But that videogame can no longer be viewed in a vacuum; modding the game for a better alternative is just as valid an approach.
I understand that the purpose of Spec Ops: The Line is to provide players with morally conflicting set-pieces that may speak to the larger issues surrounding modern military shooters and the ethics surrounding actual military interventionist policies. But the way it does so by constraining moral options ultimately robs player of owning those actions and relating to its message.
If anyone reading this disagrees, please do not hesitate to respond. I genuinely want other thoughts on this as I have been thinking a lot about this game and its message lately.
If anything, the real monster here shouldn't be the player, but rather the developer. Without providing suitable alternatives, the use of WP is ultimately the most justified option simply because the alternatives are invalid. To taunt players for making such a decision would be hypocrisy when the developers have offered unsuitable means of progression through any other means. Yes, leaving could be seen as a valid option, in that we would not need to see any end cutscene or reward to know that it is probably the most morally best approach. Great, no more blood on our hands. But that videogame can no longer be viewed in a vacuum; modding the game for a better alternative is just as valid an approach.
I understand that the purpose of Spec Ops: The Line is to provide players with morally conflicting set-pieces that may speak to the larger issues surrounding modern military shooters and the ethics surrounding actual military interventionist policies. But the way it does so by constraining moral options ultimately robs player of owning those actions and relating to its message.
If anyone reading this disagrees, please do not hesitate to respond. I genuinely want other thoughts on this as I have been thinking a lot about this game and its message lately.
#31 to #27
-
comicironic ONLINE (01/04/2016) [-]
You could mod the game, but all you'd be doing is rejecting the reality presented to you in favour of one that makes it seem as though you're making the morally correct choices. The value of your choice is nullified because it's no longer made in the difficult context put forward by the developers in the first place: you could mod in a better alternative, but you'd no longer be playing the original game and you still haven't confronted that specific moral choice. We can't warp reality to suit our needs in the real world, so doing so in the game is meaningless.
>To taunt players for making such a decision would be hypocrisy when the developers have offered unsuitable means of progression through any other means
It's not hypocrisy, it's exactly the point of the decision in the first place. The game doesn't throw you a bone for not completing it because it's a part of the game's design: Walker's story, and by extension that of the player, only resolves itself when he finds Konrad and faces his own choices. Unless that point is reached, both you and Walker are leaving it incomplete, and you're meant to feel like that, even if it annoys you. Giving up is the hardest choice, because it doesn't give you closure, just like it wouldn't give Walker closure. Welcome to the interactive artform.
The point the game is trying to make is that, as a player, you seem to progress for the sake of progressing. You're capable of making moral choices in the game without coming to a halt, but ultimately pushing to go forward has to have its own consequences. As a player, you perfectly match Walker's deluded mentality: you want to strive to the ultimate goal despite the cost, you feel frustration at the choices you are being "forced" to make, and you discard the idea of stopping as being valid.
>To taunt players for making such a decision would be hypocrisy when the developers have offered unsuitable means of progression through any other means
It's not hypocrisy, it's exactly the point of the decision in the first place. The game doesn't throw you a bone for not completing it because it's a part of the game's design: Walker's story, and by extension that of the player, only resolves itself when he finds Konrad and faces his own choices. Unless that point is reached, both you and Walker are leaving it incomplete, and you're meant to feel like that, even if it annoys you. Giving up is the hardest choice, because it doesn't give you closure, just like it wouldn't give Walker closure. Welcome to the interactive artform.
The point the game is trying to make is that, as a player, you seem to progress for the sake of progressing. You're capable of making moral choices in the game without coming to a halt, but ultimately pushing to go forward has to have its own consequences. As a player, you perfectly match Walker's deluded mentality: you want to strive to the ultimate goal despite the cost, you feel frustration at the choices you are being "forced" to make, and you discard the idea of stopping as being valid.
#36 to #31
-
sausagekingofchica ONLINE (01/04/2016) [-]
Firstly, thank you for the thorough response. I wasn't trying to ruffle anyone's feathers with my comment and was hoping for a well-intended debate (hope you didn't see it that way, I come off as a douche sometimes).
Secondly, I agree that validation for choosing the morally right option is unnecessary. In this case, feeling "incomplete" would be a small price to pay for maintaining Walker's/the player's morals. Giving up would be the most sound choice. My suggestion of modding comes from my opinion on how leaving the game opens up other questions about player involvement. If leaving is valid, then it is safe to assume that the decision in the game to press on never happens if I leave. However, this outcome is the only one written in the game. Because of this, I feel that even if I left, those actions would still be committed even without my involvement.
But it wasn't the story or its message that I had issues with. I loved the story and was ecstatic when I heard that there existed a military shooter that deconstructed choices in other military shooters shooters. It was how they conveyed that messaged that I had issues with. The choice of leaving the game or pressing on and seeing the death of all thousands of innocents felt lacking. As a player, I felt that I could not own my actions if the choice was as made like that. I wanted the developers to make me feel awful, as if I really committed all those atrocities that Walker committed when I decided to press on. But I felt that because of the way the choice was represented, there was a rift between Walker's actions and my own, and that I was simply going along for the ride. When that happened, it became easy for me to rationalize my own involvement. Maybe that is the ultimate message of the developers: how easy it is for players to rationalise difficult choices and the problems with how players do so.
I wasn't frustrated, just a little disappointed in how it's message didn't resonate with me as well as I was hoping.
Thirdly, I admit that calling it hypocrisy was a heavy-handed comment on my part and I apologize for that. It's just that I felt that calling the player a monster made me wonder about the developer's role in creating these conditions. To me it felt like someone threatening to kill me if I did not kill another another person; of course I would feel awful about my actions, but I feel a larger part of the blame would fall onto the one whom made the threat. In the game, the 33rd were the first to fire upon Walker as they assumed that he was with the CIA operatives, if I remember correctly. It feels similar in this case, but if I am wrong, please let me know.
Lastly, the fact that Konrad was just a fabric of Walker's imagination lessened it's emotional impact as I was more inclined to believe that Walker had less of a choice than what I believed upon seeing that ending.
Once again, thank you for the response.
Secondly, I agree that validation for choosing the morally right option is unnecessary. In this case, feeling "incomplete" would be a small price to pay for maintaining Walker's/the player's morals. Giving up would be the most sound choice. My suggestion of modding comes from my opinion on how leaving the game opens up other questions about player involvement. If leaving is valid, then it is safe to assume that the decision in the game to press on never happens if I leave. However, this outcome is the only one written in the game. Because of this, I feel that even if I left, those actions would still be committed even without my involvement.
But it wasn't the story or its message that I had issues with. I loved the story and was ecstatic when I heard that there existed a military shooter that deconstructed choices in other military shooters shooters. It was how they conveyed that messaged that I had issues with. The choice of leaving the game or pressing on and seeing the death of all thousands of innocents felt lacking. As a player, I felt that I could not own my actions if the choice was as made like that. I wanted the developers to make me feel awful, as if I really committed all those atrocities that Walker committed when I decided to press on. But I felt that because of the way the choice was represented, there was a rift between Walker's actions and my own, and that I was simply going along for the ride. When that happened, it became easy for me to rationalize my own involvement. Maybe that is the ultimate message of the developers: how easy it is for players to rationalise difficult choices and the problems with how players do so.
I wasn't frustrated, just a little disappointed in how it's message didn't resonate with me as well as I was hoping.
Thirdly, I admit that calling it hypocrisy was a heavy-handed comment on my part and I apologize for that. It's just that I felt that calling the player a monster made me wonder about the developer's role in creating these conditions. To me it felt like someone threatening to kill me if I did not kill another another person; of course I would feel awful about my actions, but I feel a larger part of the blame would fall onto the one whom made the threat. In the game, the 33rd were the first to fire upon Walker as they assumed that he was with the CIA operatives, if I remember correctly. It feels similar in this case, but if I am wrong, please let me know.
Lastly, the fact that Konrad was just a fabric of Walker's imagination lessened it's emotional impact as I was more inclined to believe that Walker had less of a choice than what I believed upon seeing that ending.
Once again, thank you for the response.
#30 to #14
-
ltbuttstrong (01/04/2016) [-] I completely agree with you mate. When the game gives you no choice there's really moral ambiguity available, it's just you playing out Walker's story. Which is interesting enough on it's own, and I appreciate what they were trying to achieve but I feel they didn't really succeed in trying to make the player feel responsible for your character's choices.
I mean I'm glad so many players obviously got an emotional response out of it, so it did a fairly good job I guess. But when the games makes everyone you meet immediately antagonistic and then tries to guilt you because you responded appropriately, that's pushing it.
Also, do I feel like a hero yet? Well I just took a heavily entrenched position almost single-handedly, after fighting my way through hundreds of enemy combatants trying to gun me down, while wounded and running on little other than adrenaline and willpower. So yes as a matter of fact, I do feel pretty ******* heroic right about now thank you very much
I mean I'm glad so many players obviously got an emotional response out of it, so it did a fairly good job I guess. But when the games makes everyone you meet immediately antagonistic and then tries to guilt you because you responded appropriately, that's pushing it.
Also, do I feel like a hero yet? Well I just took a heavily entrenched position almost single-handedly, after fighting my way through hundreds of enemy combatants trying to gun me down, while wounded and running on little other than adrenaline and willpower. So yes as a matter of fact, I do feel pretty ******* heroic right about now thank you very much
#33 to #30
-
comicironic ONLINE (01/04/2016) [-]
The game does give you a choice. The choice is not "how do you proceed", with a good and a bad option, but "do you proceed", where proceeding is the bad option. The design is meant to draw parallels between how Walker doesn't question whether what he does is worth eventually getting to Konrad and how the player doesn't question whether the morality of their actions justifies getting to the end of the game.
If you say that "not playing isn't an option", congratulations! You've empathised with Walker on a deeper level, because you share his obsession with getting to Konrad.
If you say that "not playing isn't an option", congratulations! You've empathised with Walker on a deeper level, because you share his obsession with getting to Konrad.
#34 to #33
-
ltbuttstrong (01/04/2016) [-] That makes no sense. I can see what you're trying to say but in a game that "mechanic" is so unintuitive it's retarded. This isn't global thermonuclear war, it's a ******* game. You learn how best to play a game based on the feedback it gives. Spec Ops plays out like any other game, so you treat it like every other game. There is no feedback for quitting the game that indicates it was the right choice, or even a viable one. Besides, Dubai presents itself as a mystery to be solved. Your whole reason for being there is to recon, "Find out what happened to Dubai". That is the main objective of the game, and the only way to achieve that is to finish it.
#166 to #34
-
comicironic ONLINE (01/04/2016) [-]
>Your whole reason for being there is to recon, "Find out what happened to Dubai". That is the main objective of the game, and the only way to achieve that is to finish it.
It's not. If you play through the opening of the game again, your mission is to enter Dubai (which you do), locate survivors (which you do), and leave to call in air support (which you **** up to the extreme). Konrad even reminds you of it at the end of the game, because Walker moves forward under the pretense of the mission when he's actually focused on finding Konrad due to his obsessions.
>Spec Ops plays out like any other game, so you treat it like every other game.
That's deliberate. If you didn't play it like every other game, it wouldn't throw you so many curveballs.
> There is no feedback for quitting the game that indicates it was the right choice, or even a viable one.
Because there are no "right" choices. It's the morally better choice, but the game doesn't reward you for it because you end up leaving Walker's story unfinished. The point of the segment isn't that you literally stop playing and feel better about yourself, it's that you're meant to understand the cost of progression. You never *have* to use the white phosphorus: nobody else forces you to press that button and make that decision. It's your own desire to advance that brings it about, and therefore, your alternative is not advancing.
It's not. If you play through the opening of the game again, your mission is to enter Dubai (which you do), locate survivors (which you do), and leave to call in air support (which you **** up to the extreme). Konrad even reminds you of it at the end of the game, because Walker moves forward under the pretense of the mission when he's actually focused on finding Konrad due to his obsessions.
>Spec Ops plays out like any other game, so you treat it like every other game.
That's deliberate. If you didn't play it like every other game, it wouldn't throw you so many curveballs.
> There is no feedback for quitting the game that indicates it was the right choice, or even a viable one.
Because there are no "right" choices. It's the morally better choice, but the game doesn't reward you for it because you end up leaving Walker's story unfinished. The point of the segment isn't that you literally stop playing and feel better about yourself, it's that you're meant to understand the cost of progression. You never *have* to use the white phosphorus: nobody else forces you to press that button and make that decision. It's your own desire to advance that brings it about, and therefore, your alternative is not advancing.
#66 to #33
-
anon (01/04/2016) [-] I never bought the game and I think it's garbage. Technically, I'm a morally superior person to everyone who did by this logic. The developers are saying I'm a better person for not giving them money, and on that front at least, I can agree.
Also, you can't judge a criminally insane person by their actions, which is why nutters go to high security nuthouses instead of jail. The entire concept of seriously trying to judge whether the actions of a person who can't understand reality and shoots at people who aren't even there are morally sound is completely pointless. The real bad guys are his squad members, who are confirmed in the ending to be so ******* retarded that they seriously followed the orders of a madman who spoke into a broken radio and randomly fired at nothing without any question. How ******* incompetent do you have to be to follow someone who is obviously completely insane?
Also, you can't judge a criminally insane person by their actions, which is why nutters go to high security nuthouses instead of jail. The entire concept of seriously trying to judge whether the actions of a person who can't understand reality and shoots at people who aren't even there are morally sound is completely pointless. The real bad guys are his squad members, who are confirmed in the ending to be so ******* retarded that they seriously followed the orders of a madman who spoke into a broken radio and randomly fired at nothing without any question. How ******* incompetent do you have to be to follow someone who is obviously completely insane?
#59
-
sladee ONLINE (01/04/2016) [-] It makes me sad that MGSV was meant to be like that or better but ended up being ok.
#43
-
roflwaffflegod (01/04/2016) [-] Is there even any choice in this game? I mean how am i supposed to feel bad about the things i have done if i had no choice?
#46 to #43
-
angrybacteria (01/04/2016) [-] There are choices.
Many of them don't matter.
But a few of the most important ones do.
I don't want to spoil anything.
Many of them don't matter.
But a few of the most important ones do.
I don't want to spoil anything.
#77 to #46
-
Stevethewizard (01/04/2016) [-]
Game's been out for years, and the post itself spoiled damn near everything.
I'll ******* spoil it, since you're too spineless to do what needs to be done.
Since I'm not a jackass, though, I'll put the spoilers in a spoiler tag.
First big choice is what to do with the alleged CIA guy. You can let him alert his team, which results in him coming back guns blazing, or you can just ******* cap him, which results in his team coming out pretty much just one at a time, so you can get the drop on them.
Second is whether to rescue someone from CIA interrogation or save some civvies. If you save the civvies, the guy dies. If you save the guy, he spouts off some last words, then dies. Either way, you get a map.
Third "choice" is the White Phosphorus. I say "choice" because it's not a gameplay choice, it's a "you do this, there's no turning back" choice. It's the choice to continue the game, consequences be damned, or stop while you're still just shooting back at enemy combatants. If you keep going to finish the game, you're a bad person, and the game wants you to know that.
Fourth is the "three options" choice. You're contacted by Konrad, who tells you to choose someone to shoot between two targets: a thief who stole to feed his family, and a soldier who defied orders. You're told to shoot one, or his snipers will shoot you. Your third option is to shoot the ******* snipers.
Then, there's the final two choices.
First is dealing with "Konrad", who's actually the MC's way of rationalizing all the ****** up **** he's done. Konrad has been dead for years. You were the maniac the whole time. You can either let Konrad shoot you (MC kills himself), or you can shoot Konrad (MC shoots a mirror, accepts he's a terrible person).
Final choice is when the soldiers show up to find you. This one's multiple choice. You can let them take you in, in which case you receive much needed mental help... or you can shoot at them. If you shoot at them, it's kill or be killed. If you kill them, it's a fine way of saying "Welcome to Dubai." If they kill you, you're finally free.
That's all the memorable choices that I'm able to recall at the moment. It's been a while since I touched that game.
I'll ******* spoil it, since you're too spineless to do what needs to be done.
Since I'm not a jackass, though, I'll put the spoilers in a spoiler tag.
First big choice is what to do with the alleged CIA guy. You can let him alert his team, which results in him coming back guns blazing, or you can just ******* cap him, which results in his team coming out pretty much just one at a time, so you can get the drop on them.
Second is whether to rescue someone from CIA interrogation or save some civvies. If you save the civvies, the guy dies. If you save the guy, he spouts off some last words, then dies. Either way, you get a map.
Third "choice" is the White Phosphorus. I say "choice" because it's not a gameplay choice, it's a "you do this, there's no turning back" choice. It's the choice to continue the game, consequences be damned, or stop while you're still just shooting back at enemy combatants. If you keep going to finish the game, you're a bad person, and the game wants you to know that.
Fourth is the "three options" choice. You're contacted by Konrad, who tells you to choose someone to shoot between two targets: a thief who stole to feed his family, and a soldier who defied orders. You're told to shoot one, or his snipers will shoot you. Your third option is to shoot the ******* snipers.
Then, there's the final two choices.
First is dealing with "Konrad", who's actually the MC's way of rationalizing all the ****** up **** he's done. Konrad has been dead for years. You were the maniac the whole time. You can either let Konrad shoot you (MC kills himself), or you can shoot Konrad (MC shoots a mirror, accepts he's a terrible person).
Final choice is when the soldiers show up to find you. This one's multiple choice. You can let them take you in, in which case you receive much needed mental help... or you can shoot at them. If you shoot at them, it's kill or be killed. If you kill them, it's a fine way of saying "Welcome to Dubai." If they kill you, you're finally free.
That's all the memorable choices that I'm able to recall at the moment. It's been a while since I touched that game.
#137 to #77
-
jonandstuff (01/04/2016) [-] Real Spoilers to add onto Steve's post Also the choice between letting the cia bloke (Who is sort of a dick from the MC's perspective) burn alive in a truck crash, or honoring his last request of putting him down quickly wasting your last bullet on him.
Then the choice of opening fire on a mass of civilian cunts or just scaring them off with shots into the air
Then the choice of opening fire on a mass of civilian cunts or just scaring them off with shots into the air
#56 to #43
-
theimmortalbeaver (01/04/2016) [-] Spec Ops The Line is essentially a deconstruction of the entire modern military shooter genre so the idea that you don't have any choice in how you progress is a big part of the critique, as that's how most violent "shoot the foreigner" games operate. Along the same line of thought, the writer on the game said he considered turning the game off for good to be an appropriate, canonical ending to the experience.
In the end, you do actually have a choice. Kill people because a game told you to, or walk away. Do you feel like a hero yet?
In the end, you do actually have a choice. Kill people because a game told you to, or walk away. Do you feel like a hero yet?
#13
-
psychologyxplain (01/03/2016) [-] Cognitive Dissonance mentioned, swell with The Uncanny Valley
#104
-
exerthaddock (01/04/2016) [-] Without trying to sound like a pretentious douchebag, I get the feeling that people are missing the point of Spec Ops. I keep seeing people say stuff like, "But the game is **** because there is no choice." That's the point! A game can put players through a moral dilemma without offering them choice. The game constantly explores the question, "Can you feel bad about things out of your control?" And you can. The game takes every available opportunity to defy the expectations of the player, and this is no exception. In many ways, the game is like an exploration of the relationship between player and player character. Are we really in control of Walker, or do we just represent the last shred of self awareness in his increasingly psychotic mind, as he railroads us into committing atrocities, and our fear and distrust of him grows in parallel to the men under his command. If Spec Ops: The Line were a movie, none of this would be an issue, but because it is a game we have been conditioned to expect it to present things in a certain way, even though it doesn't have to.
#157 to #104
-
angelious ONLINE (01/04/2016) [-] tinysubversions.com/videogamemoralityplay/
it has a great story and all...but seriously...people here having existential crisis over it? thats just silly.
it has a great story and all...but seriously...people here having existential crisis over it? thats just silly.
#112 to #108
-
fresighto (01/04/2016) [-] Or, OR or Maybe it's media used to covey a greater point about humanity as a whole, without actually having to ******* be in the situation you actual ******* idiot.
Also they're not wrong. War in general is ****** and makes you make some **** choices, situations where right still doesn't mean good. I'm not anti war... but goddamn is it a nasty business. I regret nothing except the necessity of it.
Also they're not wrong. War in general is ****** and makes you make some **** choices, situations where right still doesn't mean good. I'm not anti war... but goddamn is it a nasty business. I regret nothing except the necessity of it.
#10
-
anon (01/03/2016) [-]
Spec Ops: The Line and Farcry 3 probably hold my number one spots for being a game that tried to convey a psychological aspect too hard and in doing so messed up.
Spec Ops is trying to make you feel horrible, yet in that situation you are forced into fighting and killing the 33rd. Right off the bat these are ex-American soldiers and if you feel any sort of issue in trying to kill them then it's very well enough to attempt to make contact and talk to these people. But magically that option isn't available to you, yet during WW1 soldiers in opposite trenches were able to say "hey let's not kill each other on Christmas". In the end your character turns out to be the big bad and because the game didn't give you any real choice you really had no other option. It's a rail morality system where the "choices" given have less impact than letting that one guy get his face burned in Black Ops 2.
BTW I would give more credence to Black Ops 2 when it came to moral choices than Spec Ops. After all in Black Ops 2 you didn't know that you could shoot the captain in the leg, nothing prompted you for it, but it was an option versus shooting him in the head.
Metro 2033, same thing. Moral prompts are inherently built into the game, you don't know that saving the Red Line soldiers from execution is a moral choice but it is a choice you can make. Saving them draws the attention of the Reich troopers but saves their lives and letting them get executed allows you to sneak by. It's a true choice system there.
Does it play well as a game, yes it does play well. Does it convey any true statement about morality? No, it tries but it fails because in the end you didn't make any choices and the studio just wanted to make you feel bad.
Games that don't put an idea of a "message" or an "ideal" before their characters and setting tend to develop better bonds with characters in my own experience.
Spec Ops is trying to make you feel horrible, yet in that situation you are forced into fighting and killing the 33rd. Right off the bat these are ex-American soldiers and if you feel any sort of issue in trying to kill them then it's very well enough to attempt to make contact and talk to these people. But magically that option isn't available to you, yet during WW1 soldiers in opposite trenches were able to say "hey let's not kill each other on Christmas". In the end your character turns out to be the big bad and because the game didn't give you any real choice you really had no other option. It's a rail morality system where the "choices" given have less impact than letting that one guy get his face burned in Black Ops 2.
BTW I would give more credence to Black Ops 2 when it came to moral choices than Spec Ops. After all in Black Ops 2 you didn't know that you could shoot the captain in the leg, nothing prompted you for it, but it was an option versus shooting him in the head.
Metro 2033, same thing. Moral prompts are inherently built into the game, you don't know that saving the Red Line soldiers from execution is a moral choice but it is a choice you can make. Saving them draws the attention of the Reich troopers but saves their lives and letting them get executed allows you to sneak by. It's a true choice system there.
Does it play well as a game, yes it does play well. Does it convey any true statement about morality? No, it tries but it fails because in the end you didn't make any choices and the studio just wanted to make you feel bad.
Games that don't put an idea of a "message" or an "ideal" before their characters and setting tend to develop better bonds with characters in my own experience.
#20 to #10
-
comicironic ONLINE (01/03/2016) [-]
What are the eight scariest words in the English language?
"We're Delta Force, and we're here to save you!"
As >>#11 said, your choice is always walking away.
Walker commits as many leaps of judgement as his enemies, such as when he assumes the 33rd are moving civilians to kill them, or when he assumes that the insurgents are automatically bad for killing American soldiers. He's stuck in his worldview, and he blocks out everything against it, even to the point of imagining Konrad, but the action the player takes is continuing when communication isn't possible. Sure, you can't talk, but you don't have to shoot, either.
"We're Delta Force, and we're here to save you!"
As >>#11 said, your choice is always walking away.
Walker commits as many leaps of judgement as his enemies, such as when he assumes the 33rd are moving civilians to kill them, or when he assumes that the insurgents are automatically bad for killing American soldiers. He's stuck in his worldview, and he blocks out everything against it, even to the point of imagining Konrad, but the action the player takes is continuing when communication isn't possible. Sure, you can't talk, but you don't have to shoot, either.
#11 to #10
-
matralith [OP](01/03/2016) [-] You did have a choice in the sense that, as the game repeatedly told you, you didn't walk away. You chose to keep playing, just like Walker chose to keep advancing.
But that is kind of the point of the game. You could have chosen to walk away at any time. And maybe different choices could have saved everyone, or maybe something else could have been done to make the world a happy place. But "you" were there, and "you" made those choices. Walker felt he had no choice because he was just reacting to the voices in his head. That Walker could only choose from the options in front of him. You felt you had no choice because you were just playing a game. That you could only choose from the options in front of you.
It sounds like you are more annoyed that there wasn't a happy ending. You feel that without the ability to succeed, you can't be blamed for the failure. You wanted to "be the hero" who snuck around and avoided hurting anyone. And that is one of the things I love about the game: You could never succeed if you were the hero. Instead, you tried to be the hero, and just made things worse.
From the moment "you" chose to be the hero, Dubai was damned. And YOU chose to be the hero by playing the game. Because nobody plays games like this to NOT be the hero.
But that is kind of the point of the game. You could have chosen to walk away at any time. And maybe different choices could have saved everyone, or maybe something else could have been done to make the world a happy place. But "you" were there, and "you" made those choices. Walker felt he had no choice because he was just reacting to the voices in his head. That Walker could only choose from the options in front of him. You felt you had no choice because you were just playing a game. That you could only choose from the options in front of you.
It sounds like you are more annoyed that there wasn't a happy ending. You feel that without the ability to succeed, you can't be blamed for the failure. You wanted to "be the hero" who snuck around and avoided hurting anyone. And that is one of the things I love about the game: You could never succeed if you were the hero. Instead, you tried to be the hero, and just made things worse.
From the moment "you" chose to be the hero, Dubai was damned. And YOU chose to be the hero by playing the game. Because nobody plays games like this to NOT be the hero.
#42
-
dutchfag (01/04/2016) [-] I didnt think this game was very good, its just a mediocre third person shooter with some "YOURE THE MONSTER" story to make up for the boring gameplay
#127
-
pickanickname (01/04/2016) [-] **pickanickname used "*roll picture*"**
**pickanickname rolled image**True story tho same happened to me
**pickanickname rolled image**True story tho same happened to me
#91
-
fuzzyballs (01/04/2016) [-] look, it bugs me that they made ****** gameplay and when went "oh, it was totally intentional, we're making fun of CoD's ****** gameplay"
**** that, just admit your game sucked
and it didn't have any real choices either
shoot that fleeing soldier? he was just running, not even pointing a gun at you, of course I didn't shoot, but what did it matter anyways, you just go straight into a firefight against other US soldiers
this game sucked, and I am ready for your read thumbs, see if it changes anything
**** that, just admit your game sucked
and it didn't have any real choices either
shoot that fleeing soldier? he was just running, not even pointing a gun at you, of course I didn't shoot, but what did it matter anyways, you just go straight into a firefight against other US soldiers
this game sucked, and I am ready for your read thumbs, see if it changes anything
#96 to #91
-
theruinedsage (01/04/2016) [-] Or
you know
It was intentional, and they were making fun of the gameplay
To lul you into a sense of "it's just a game"
But if you have the emotional debt of a potato, good for you, go back to CoD.
you know
It was intentional, and they were making fun of the gameplay
To lul you into a sense of "it's just a game"
But if you have the emotional debt of a potato, good for you, go back to CoD.
#101 to #91
-
frenzyhero (01/04/2016) [-] The gameplay was solid. I don't know what you're talking about. Not good enough to warrant a 2nd playthrough, but it didn't bore me, and I enjoyed finding interesting ways I could interact with the environment in combat. I didn't play multiplayer.
It's not about choices. The game is about the illusion of choice. Yes, it didn't have ANY choices. That's life. As the post said - don't use the phosphorous, you die. Use it, and you're a monster. There's not a choice.
It's not about choices. The game is about the illusion of choice. Yes, it didn't have ANY choices. That's life. As the post said - don't use the phosphorous, you die. Use it, and you're a monster. There's not a choice.
#85
-
wobblewub (01/04/2016) [-] The game was good, and feely, and what not, but didn't really hit me like most
this picture cuts pretty deep though, addressing the player directly is kinda ****** up
this picture cuts pretty deep though, addressing the player directly is kinda ****** up
#64
-
anon (01/04/2016) [-]
Several things about the mortar scene. What got me was that I was having fun. Here these jerks had been killing me every few encounters or so (played on hard and you die quite a bit on it) and finally I was basically untouchable and was slaughtering them in droves using the floating thermal targeting cam. There I was, fully satisfied with my revenge on the 33rd, I might have even laughed when the fuel tank blew sending a wave of burning gas down what I thought was a path full of 33rd reinforcements.
Then I got to walk through what I'd done, see the charred bodies, the ash floating through the air, people that had tried to shield their friends with their own body and failed. It was pretty sobering that I'd been_ happy_ to have been doing this, I felt like the biggest asshole around. Then I got the the civilians.... It took me awhile to come back after that.
My next play through I tried about a dozen times to not use the mortar. You don't even stand a chance. Your cover is partially destructible, you probably don't have a long-range gun, not that you'd have time to aim it as you either get sniped in the head or two-shot by hyper accurate machine gun fire. I think at best I killed five before going down, and you don't get help from the team either.
In the end though I understand it. Forcing you to mortar the place might not be the best literary decision but the other choice had you finding them and maybe talking to them and finding out about the 33rd, thus changing the entire direction of the game. Or maybe they'd have fled and you wouldn't get to talk. Either way, it'd have removed a major turning point in the game and in the protagonists development along with the first time a game had seriously impacted me and made me think about what I'd done. What a monster I'd gleefully become all because I'd been handed a bit of power.
Then I got to walk through what I'd done, see the charred bodies, the ash floating through the air, people that had tried to shield their friends with their own body and failed. It was pretty sobering that I'd been_ happy_ to have been doing this, I felt like the biggest asshole around. Then I got the the civilians.... It took me awhile to come back after that.
My next play through I tried about a dozen times to not use the mortar. You don't even stand a chance. Your cover is partially destructible, you probably don't have a long-range gun, not that you'd have time to aim it as you either get sniped in the head or two-shot by hyper accurate machine gun fire. I think at best I killed five before going down, and you don't get help from the team either.
In the end though I understand it. Forcing you to mortar the place might not be the best literary decision but the other choice had you finding them and maybe talking to them and finding out about the 33rd, thus changing the entire direction of the game. Or maybe they'd have fled and you wouldn't get to talk. Either way, it'd have removed a major turning point in the game and in the protagonists development along with the first time a game had seriously impacted me and made me think about what I'd done. What a monster I'd gleefully become all because I'd been handed a bit of power.
#69
-
creamymcgee ONLINE (01/04/2016) [-] >Spec Ops: The Line is better than Heart of Darkness or Apocalypse Now
Yeah, if you're like, 16.
Yeah, if you're like, 16.
#165
-
jackmaccone (01/04/2016) [-] i still can't play this game again, Lugo looks too similar to my brother and after he died i started crying like a little girl
i searched for this picture on google and accidentally saw the pic where lugo is bloodstained and hanging, i started to tear up
i searched for this picture on google and accidentally saw the pic where lugo is bloodstained and hanging, i started to tear up
#152
-
inquisition (01/04/2016) [-] Who else here didn't give a **** when they found the charred civilians?
Not even being edgy, the game just didn't make it sad for me.
Not even being edgy, the game just didn't make it sad for me.
