-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Is anyone feeling very differently after completing Spec Ops: The Line?
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
grosvenor_92
Member
It's changed how I view stories in shooters and I hope more games will actually have a story that's worth telling and is thought provoking instead of just being a shooting gallery
BolognaSoup
Member
No. One of GAFs most overrated games I thought. Boring, repetitive, entirely predictable, generic gunplay, and immediately forgettable. It was only $5 though so I got my money's worth as a mindless, mostly pretty shooter.
To clarify: I didn't say that Spec Ops is necessarily more impactful than Apocalypse Now. What I did say is that the agency afforded to the player makes for a fundamentally different experience than passively watching something. If I'm still coming across clearly to anyone, think about the difference between playing a survival horror video game and watching a scary movie.
I think that this is an especially important point to make in regards to Spec Ops because the gameplay and story feed into each other much more directly than those components do in most other games.
I think that this is an especially important point to make in regards to Spec Ops because the gameplay and story feed into each other much more directly than those components do in most other games.
This
Dog Problems
Banned
I'm actually about to play through this the first time. Looking forward to it.
HiddenSentry
Member
For once I really wish I hadn't been paying really close attention to the game when I played THAT scene. I saw right through what it was trying to do, and I think it really ruined the effect for me. I don't play too many shooters, so its mediocre mechanics still held a little bit of charm for me. Helped that it was graphically pretty nice, too.
AHA-Lambda
Member
This. I'm sorry but imo Spec Ops gets far too much undue credit for subpar gameplay and a story that admittedly tries something different in a saturated and uninspired genre but has been done better before in the original Bioshock, for showing the illusion of choice in games.
Not really. I understand and respect what it's trying to do (and I appreciate it as well) but beyond that it didn't stay with me much.
It'd be cool if it is a first step into some kinds of games being more introspective, and I hope that more devs from here on put more emphasis into small things like incidental dialogue and how your character changes over time. If they are going for that of course.
It'd be cool if it is a first step into some kinds of games being more introspective, and I hope that more devs from here on put more emphasis into small things like incidental dialogue and how your character changes over time. If they are going for that of course.
BRocknRolla
Member
Great game. Wouldn't say any of it shook me though since I largely agreed with all the sentiments it put forth, and as others have noted, I understand it is a game, and actually love how the game comments on that very fact. (Loading Screen Message:
)
There's a lot to love about the game, and I almost appreciate it more knowing that plenty of dudebros probably picked it up since it wasn't advertised for what it really was, which is an interesting commentary on war in video games. Although, I guess I can't assume any of them were paying enough attention to the story to get it I guess.
A bit of flawed gameplay unfortunately during a number of sequences that holds you back, but it is more than overcome by everything else.
Something to the effect of, "The US Military does not condone shooting civillians, but this is just a game so why should you care?" and the of course, "Do you feel like a hero yet?"
There's a lot to love about the game, and I almost appreciate it more knowing that plenty of dudebros probably picked it up since it wasn't advertised for what it really was, which is an interesting commentary on war in video games. Although, I guess I can't assume any of them were paying enough attention to the story to get it I guess.
A bit of flawed gameplay unfortunately during a number of sequences that holds you back, but it is more than overcome by everything else.
I don't think it was that good. The reason I can't remember the story at the end is because they didn't tell me that much in the first place. And then they end it like it was some kind of huge revelation but throughout the game, I've been asking what actually happened but never getting much or any answer. It's like there's a disconnect between the first half of the game and the you-know-what scene.
The gameplay wasn't offensive though except for the vaulting option which often doesn't appear when you need it the most. That and it's kind of ridiculous that at one point in the game two-men party can defeat an entire army with 3-4 rapid turrets.
The gameplay wasn't offensive though except for the vaulting option which often doesn't appear when you need it the most. That and it's kind of ridiculous that at one point in the game two-men party can defeat an entire army with 3-4 rapid turrets.
It is. It just has a good ending.
Oh wait, I'm stupid. I meant
Konrad shooting Walker. In that case the last frames are actually Walker pointing his own gun at himself and shooting
And yes
a dark sandstorm is behind you.
because normally noone would look behind himself at the start, at least I didn't
Passive Assassin
Member
No. But I liked the homage to Apocalypse Now.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Do you feel like a hero yet?
gwynplaine
Banned
about the brutal and gorey depiction of war - it's ok and i see what they're trying to do. if you do look at real war footage you'll see horrible stuff. gore all around. ice cold pilots giving commentary when they're circling trucks and blowing insurgents to bits with large caliber rounds, heads and brains splattered over the place from sniper rounds, fatal birth defects (we're talking one eyed harlequin babies and worse) due to depleted rounds, kids walking around with missing limbs. civilians in hospital beds with blood all over them bawling their eyes out. actual war footage disturbs me, not game pixels.
but that's all the stuff that CoD conveniently leaves out. it's not a political point or anything, and it's not a matter of right or wrong - it's the truth and a natural consequence of war and the game is trying to explore that.
but the game itself didn't affect me much. i thought the gameplay was bland and it bored me. i didn't like the story, but the dev commentary on it being a deconstruction of shooters was interesting, though not properly executed. their whole point was "why should be play modern military shooters and why do we glorify war in these games?" the basic point that i got from their intent was that the whole way to win was to not play their game or any other shooter game at all. i think that was heavily implied.
they complained about weak sales, but i think we should ask why we should bother buying their game if the intent is for us to stop playing these games.
but that's all the stuff that CoD conveniently leaves out. it's not a political point or anything, and it's not a matter of right or wrong - it's the truth and a natural consequence of war and the game is trying to explore that.
but the game itself didn't affect me much. i thought the gameplay was bland and it bored me. i didn't like the story, but the dev commentary on it being a deconstruction of shooters was interesting, though not properly executed. their whole point was "why should be play modern military shooters and why do we glorify war in these games?" the basic point that i got from their intent was that the whole way to win was to not play their game or any other shooter game at all. i think that was heavily implied.
they complained about weak sales, but i think we should ask why we should bother buying their game if the intent is for us to stop playing these games.
CheesecakeRecipe
Stormy Grey
One of the best game stories with the most bare and uninspired combat systems around. The people who are claiming it as "trying too hard" obviously aren't looking hard enough at the very subtle details that crept up as the game played. Phosphor112 covered a good chunk of them but there were several more. Everything was highly thought out in advance, and IMO did things far better than Bioshock because Bioshock fell to complete and utter shit after the big reveal.
A powerful commentary on modern warfare, games about modern warfare, and the tropes that we've come to expect as the norm from the genre. If only the combat was a bit tighter so that people would stop giving up before the big twist happens (and a careful eye can still notice plenty of things wrong before the twist occurs).
A powerful commentary on modern warfare, games about modern warfare, and the tropes that we've come to expect as the norm from the genre. If only the combat was a bit tighter so that people would stop giving up before the big twist happens (and a careful eye can still notice plenty of things wrong before the twist occurs).
XxSlasherMcGirkxX
Member
It's funny these topics keep coming up, because of GAF hype and it being free on PSN+ and knowing only the story is good. So last night I decided I'd boot it up and try to complete the whole game in one sitting. Started at 8pm finished at 1pm. It was a great ride. I never found myself bored with the gameplay but after chapter 8 I started liking the story as it shifted from boring military crap into something more. I would probually rate the game a solid 7, but it's a game that's worth the experience and time even though it's lackluster in many regards.
katsubento
Member
Story was great. The gameplay was not. I don't feel any different after playing it, but I understand what they were trying to do and that was commendable.
DryvBy
Member
Absolutely not. The story isn't even that good until the end. I guess because I've watched so many well-done movies, read well-written books that I don't really look for a "good story" in my gaming. It certainly helps, but good gaming is just good cheese on a cheese pizza. Deliciously golden cheese.
The game's ending didn't even "grab" me. I just thought, "Huh, that makes sense now. He's a crazy dude.". That's about all I got from it. I picked it up based on the hype of a superior story. Around chapter 2, I lost all focus on the story and wanted to just beat it -- which didn't take long since the game is hella short. HELLLLLLA short.
I usually play evil people in my video games too. Every Elder Scrolls game I've played, I'm the bad guy. I try to kill as many innocents as I can. I usually have a general sadistic guy I like to play as too across all my games. As much as I've played games, I can't recall a time I've ever been a good guy when I have the option to be downright bad.
Maybe I'm just bitter. I bought this for $60 a few days after it came out on PlayStation 3. There was absolutely nothing, even the ending, that impressed me. I've seen it all before in various other forums of media.
But maybe I also don't sit around playing "modern combat" games and mentally glorify real war because my form of media told me to. They're just games and the countless slaughter of millions or even billions of polygonal tropes is what I'm into. Real life? Eff violence.
The game's ending didn't even "grab" me. I just thought, "Huh, that makes sense now. He's a crazy dude.". That's about all I got from it. I picked it up based on the hype of a superior story. Around chapter 2, I lost all focus on the story and wanted to just beat it -- which didn't take long since the game is hella short. HELLLLLLA short.
I usually play evil people in my video games too. Every Elder Scrolls game I've played, I'm the bad guy. I try to kill as many innocents as I can. I usually have a general sadistic guy I like to play as too across all my games. As much as I've played games, I can't recall a time I've ever been a good guy when I have the option to be downright bad.
Maybe I'm just bitter. I bought this for $60 a few days after it came out on PlayStation 3. There was absolutely nothing, even the ending, that impressed me. I've seen it all before in various other forums of media.
But maybe I also don't sit around playing "modern combat" games and mentally glorify real war because my form of media told me to. They're just games and the countless slaughter of millions or even billions of polygonal tropes is what I'm into. Real life? Eff violence.
Messofanego
Banned
Oh yeah, that was pretty cool. Even made a spoiler gif for it.
The huge sandstorm did give it a surreal fairytale feel where these people are just dumped in this place and not sure how they got there or why everything is crazy in this world
Yeah, Nolan North saying that creeped me the fuck out.
Liked this little bit with the candles, even if it's a little interaction, you can totally go pretentious like Walker is this monster come here to stamp out every civilians' lights for freedom.
Not particularly.
I considered the storytelling effective enough to keep me pressing on in spite of the generic game mechanics in place, and there were some nice touches (for instance, the text on the loading screens slowly growing more accusatory). The entire package did a fairly good job of depressing me... but it hasn't left any sort of permanent impression upon me.
I considered the storytelling effective enough to keep me pressing on in spite of the generic game mechanics in place, and there were some nice touches (for instance, the text on the loading screens slowly growing more accusatory). The entire package did a fairly good job of depressing me... but it hasn't left any sort of permanent impression upon me.
You know what annoys me about this game though? That loading and loading messages.
I was like "WAT? Way to be assuming. I just wanted to see what's going on in this messed up scenario". Also, in order to feel like a hero, you need to want to save someone but I don't think the game created that urgency to save anyone at all. I wasn't even sure if I was there to save Konrad or to evacuate the civilians because the game purposely make your reason to be there vague.
I assume the game talking about how Walker could just walk out but that's not really true because Walker was attacked at the start of the game and along the way got mixed message and ended up deciding to investigate the situation only to create bigger mess. So it's not entirely Walker's fault in the first place.
Worse of all was the loading itself. Way too long to restart the game only to put you a few minutes back where you last die. So fucking annoying.
I was like "WAT? Way to be assuming. I just wanted to see what's going on in this messed up scenario". Also, in order to feel like a hero, you need to want to save someone but I don't think the game created that urgency to save anyone at all. I wasn't even sure if I was there to save Konrad or to evacuate the civilians because the game purposely make your reason to be there vague.
I assume the game talking about how Walker could just walk out but that's not really true because Walker was attacked at the start of the game and along the way got mixed message and ended up deciding to investigate the situation only to create bigger mess. So it's not entirely Walker's fault in the first place.
Worse of all was the loading itself. Way too long to restart the game only to put you a few minutes back where you last die. So fucking annoying.
Yeah, it was the same way for me. When you're forced down a path in such an obvious way it's hard to feel responsible for what you're doing in the game. In that sense, it probably would've worked better as a movie.
MoonsaultSlayer
Member
Glad I saw this and the quote. I did not shoot the helicopters, and always waited until I was fired upon before shooting. Then the game forced me to give a kill command to my squadmates. I just sat there and got some Easter chocolates hoping the game would recognize my "choice" since it desperately wants to make a point about we gamers and the genre. Nope.
gwynplaine
Banned
there's a gdc talk about why there are rail points
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...ine_contextualizes_violence_through_story.php
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...ine_contextualizes_violence_through_story.php
I think the point was that the player could drop the controller and walk away at any point in time, but many of us kept going in the hopes that despite the shit Walker pulled, there was some great evil to defeat. So the player just keeps pressing forward, wading through a sea of fuckups, looking towards that moment where it all becomes worth it, because that is what we would come expect from a military shooter. I was never an ardent fan of those games, but the ending did give me some pause.
...the gameplay was shit, though.
...the gameplay was shit, though.
thequickandthedead
Member
Why has there been so much intense hatred for this game recently?
Geez, if Spec Ops already managed to pull you in so deep, I strongly suggest you to skip Bioshock Infinite, before you throw yourself off of a building in a whiskey fueled bout of depression!
O.DOGG
Member
After Spec Ops I catch myself being more sensitive to violence in video games. I still enjoy it mostly but the extreme violence puts me off now. Case in point, I absolutely hated what I had to do in the latest Tomb Raider. Also the up close executions in Bioshock Infinite shouldn't have been in the game. I think Spec Ops is the reason for this new outlook.
Are being emotionally affected by SO:TL and watching Apocalypse Now mutually exclusive? I wonder.
I enjoyed the game's story, but the awful combat kept pulling me out of the experience. I also felt zero connection to any of the meathead characters, and the bad "choices" the game forces you to make were extremely obvious. I deliberately tried to play the game as I would have approached it as a person.
-During almost all conversation scenes, I didn't shoot, even when enemies began to shoot back. Nope, doesn't work.
-During the white phosphorus scene, I tried to snipe all the enemies instead of using the WP before I realized there was no way down.
-When asked to choose between shooting the two prisoners, I decided to ignore the command and move on. Then I realized there was no way to proceed, because the game would autokill you.
Now, I get the whole "if you want to do the right thing, you stop playing" dealio, but this is a video game. That's silly. The only part it makes sense is at the very end of the game, not when you start playing. Cool ideas, but not necessarily the best execution.
I enjoyed the game's story, but the awful combat kept pulling me out of the experience. I also felt zero connection to any of the meathead characters, and the bad "choices" the game forces you to make were extremely obvious. I deliberately tried to play the game as I would have approached it as a person.
-During almost all conversation scenes, I didn't shoot, even when enemies began to shoot back. Nope, doesn't work.
-During the white phosphorus scene, I tried to snipe all the enemies instead of using the WP before I realized there was no way down.
-When asked to choose between shooting the two prisoners, I decided to ignore the command and move on. Then I realized there was no way to proceed, because the game would autokill you.
Now, I get the whole "if you want to do the right thing, you stop playing" dealio, but this is a video game. That's silly. The only part it makes sense is at the very end of the game, not when you start playing. Cool ideas, but not necessarily the best execution.
i didn't feel differently after playing it because everything that is happening around you is absurd and the game is very VERY full of itself
when you're not already in combat and you're not being ambushed, the game frequently has sequences when you sneak up on people and they're having conversations about random stuff. this is supposed to make you think "oh, these are people too, killing them is bad." if you needed a game to tell you that soldiers are people then something's probably wrong.
but let's say you want to use this information... how? there's no option to surrender do anything but kill them. the game won't even let you sit in place forever, the conversations end with a very obvious cue line like OKAY IM GOING TO GO CHECK OUT OVER IN THAT GOOD HIDING SPOT BRB BRO and then you are discovered and fired upon. at this point shooting back is unambiguously self-defense.
so, sure, you are forced into a firefight. you slaughter hundreds of people because if you don't they will kill you. why will they kill you? because despite contextualizing them as people with these conversations, the game treats them as videogame enemies. outside of specific story sequences they don't surrender or try to bargain with you so you have LITERALLY no alternative but to kill them (in real life, people surrender - not EVERYONE, but someone).
the only thing they do that's different from normal videogame enemies is crawl around on the ground in pain. but they're still not people, because people can use words. the first half of the game is centered around the characters being confused about everything happening, desperately trying to get answers, yet you have no option to do so much as ask one of these soldiers for some kind of explanation. there's not even language barrier as an excuse for most of the game but more importantly THIS IS LITERALLY THE SAME WAY THE LOCUST ARE TREATED IN GEARS OF WAR
the game gives the player NO tools to resolve ANY situation peacefully (or even non-lethally, other than trying to cripple everyone instead) and continually forces the players into situations where A) they are acting in self-defense B) they are doing things that make no sense (white phosphorous sequence, sequence when you first get the helicopter). so it's hard to take it seriously as commentary on the player's actions. yet the game plasters death screens with LOOK HOW CLEVER WE ARE messages like "do you even remember why you're here" and "do you feel like a hero yet" which i cannot even comprehend how there are people here who think that's good. it's insulting to the player and self-aggrandizing for the developer.
if you were stretching you could spin spec ops as a commentary on SOLDIERS or something, since being forced by the developers to do things and then mocked for it doesn't really make sense as a commentary on you or gamers. but it's so divorced from reality, what real soldiers face, how real soldiers act, how real combat works, that it doesn't even work for that.
worse the ending (another LOOK HOW CLEVER WE ARE move from the developers) means that it's not even about a "normal" (laughable in the context of everything that happens in the game) soldier but instead about
. at BEST it is a commentary on videogames or videogame developers or videogame characters but WOW is that a weak and pointless message being conveyed because everyone already makes fun of how bad all of those things are at stories all the time.
if this game made you feel differently about anything, please re-examine what it made you feel differently about. before playing this game, did you not know that murdering people is bad? that soldiers are people? that life is cheap in videogames? that in war soldiers don't have perfect intel? that in war soldiers shouldn't use chemical weapons on human beings ever, especially when there is ZERO intel? why didn't you know these things already? WHAT DID SPEC OPS TEACH YOU?
and whatever it taught you, if the game you options to NOT be a murderous lunatic, if soldiers could surrender and you could ask them for information, if you could bargain, if you could retreat like a sane person and get in contact with your superiors, would you have learned the same thing? in other words, if none of the bad shit the game made you do happened, would you have learned the same thing? if the answer is yes, why did spec ops make you do stupid shit for no reason? if the answer is no, what was going through your head BEFORE playing this game that you needed a developer to FORCE you to do this stuff and then MOCK you for doing it to change your thinking?
when you're not already in combat and you're not being ambushed, the game frequently has sequences when you sneak up on people and they're having conversations about random stuff. this is supposed to make you think "oh, these are people too, killing them is bad." if you needed a game to tell you that soldiers are people then something's probably wrong.
but let's say you want to use this information... how? there's no option to surrender do anything but kill them. the game won't even let you sit in place forever, the conversations end with a very obvious cue line like OKAY IM GOING TO GO CHECK OUT OVER IN THAT GOOD HIDING SPOT BRB BRO and then you are discovered and fired upon. at this point shooting back is unambiguously self-defense.
so, sure, you are forced into a firefight. you slaughter hundreds of people because if you don't they will kill you. why will they kill you? because despite contextualizing them as people with these conversations, the game treats them as videogame enemies. outside of specific story sequences they don't surrender or try to bargain with you so you have LITERALLY no alternative but to kill them (in real life, people surrender - not EVERYONE, but someone).
the only thing they do that's different from normal videogame enemies is crawl around on the ground in pain. but they're still not people, because people can use words. the first half of the game is centered around the characters being confused about everything happening, desperately trying to get answers, yet you have no option to do so much as ask one of these soldiers for some kind of explanation. there's not even language barrier as an excuse for most of the game but more importantly THIS IS LITERALLY THE SAME WAY THE LOCUST ARE TREATED IN GEARS OF WAR
the game gives the player NO tools to resolve ANY situation peacefully (or even non-lethally, other than trying to cripple everyone instead) and continually forces the players into situations where A) they are acting in self-defense B) they are doing things that make no sense (white phosphorous sequence, sequence when you first get the helicopter). so it's hard to take it seriously as commentary on the player's actions. yet the game plasters death screens with LOOK HOW CLEVER WE ARE messages like "do you even remember why you're here" and "do you feel like a hero yet" which i cannot even comprehend how there are people here who think that's good. it's insulting to the player and self-aggrandizing for the developer.
if you were stretching you could spin spec ops as a commentary on SOLDIERS or something, since being forced by the developers to do things and then mocked for it doesn't really make sense as a commentary on you or gamers. but it's so divorced from reality, what real soldiers face, how real soldiers act, how real combat works, that it doesn't even work for that.
worse the ending (another LOOK HOW CLEVER WE ARE move from the developers) means that it's not even about a "normal" (laughable in the context of everything that happens in the game) soldier but instead about
a soldier with serious, crippling mental problems that only make sense in a dramatic context and NOT as real mental problems
if this game made you feel differently about anything, please re-examine what it made you feel differently about. before playing this game, did you not know that murdering people is bad? that soldiers are people? that life is cheap in videogames? that in war soldiers don't have perfect intel? that in war soldiers shouldn't use chemical weapons on human beings ever, especially when there is ZERO intel? why didn't you know these things already? WHAT DID SPEC OPS TEACH YOU?
and whatever it taught you, if the game you options to NOT be a murderous lunatic, if soldiers could surrender and you could ask them for information, if you could bargain, if you could retreat like a sane person and get in contact with your superiors, would you have learned the same thing? in other words, if none of the bad shit the game made you do happened, would you have learned the same thing? if the answer is yes, why did spec ops make you do stupid shit for no reason? if the answer is no, what was going through your head BEFORE playing this game that you needed a developer to FORCE you to do this stuff and then MOCK you for doing it to change your thinking?
TUROK
Member
No, because I'm fucking awesome.
I did everything with the best possible outcome. I even noticed the mass of squirming white dots before I launched the WP at them, so I knew that the game was just trying to make me feel bad on purpose, so I bombed those civvies to hell and went "fuck you, game, I'll bomb the fuck out of innocent people and enjoy it if you don't give me another option."
I did everything with the best possible outcome. I even noticed the mass of squirming white dots before I launched the WP at them, so I knew that the game was just trying to make me feel bad on purpose, so I bombed those civvies to hell and went "fuck you, game, I'll bomb the fuck out of innocent people and enjoy it if you don't give me another option."
Tummi Gummi
Member
This is the correct response to such games.
i'm going to be perfectly honest, if before you are forced to kill them gears of war had the locust wistfully talk to each other about what their lives were like as tiny baby locust, gears of war would be literally indistinguishable to me in terms of messaging from this game
gears of war has all the same shit, enemies behave the same way in both games, the main character is a psychopathic asshole who makes random (often catastrophically bad) decisions, has to keep his team in line, is fighting in self-defense but also gives no quarter and revels in violence
gears of war even has segments where you walk around in the camps of destitute civilians (who hate you and are sometimes hostile) which are totally analogous to the segments where you walk around in the camps in dubai.
the only difference is that gears of war DOESNT have locust sob scenes, although hilariously gears of war 3 does try to give them some reasoning for what they're doing (you don't care at all, just as you don't care about the 33rd in spec ops). it's also more ridiculous in settings and events, but when your scale of realism spec ops->gears of war goes from "completely impossible" to "COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE" it hardly makes a difference
edit: arguably the locust are treated better in actual gameplay than the local insurgents and US soldiers in spec ops, because at least they try to help each other when they're wounded. i also am pretty sure the standard, human-size locust did not usually abandon cover to run at 3 dudes with assault rifles while wielding nothing but a knife
gears of war has all the same shit, enemies behave the same way in both games, the main character is a psychopathic asshole who makes random (often catastrophically bad) decisions, has to keep his team in line, is fighting in self-defense but also gives no quarter and revels in violence
gears of war even has segments where you walk around in the camps of destitute civilians (who hate you and are sometimes hostile) which are totally analogous to the segments where you walk around in the camps in dubai.
the only difference is that gears of war DOESNT have locust sob scenes, although hilariously gears of war 3 does try to give them some reasoning for what they're doing (you don't care at all, just as you don't care about the 33rd in spec ops). it's also more ridiculous in settings and events, but when your scale of realism spec ops->gears of war goes from "completely impossible" to "COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE" it hardly makes a difference
edit: arguably the locust are treated better in actual gameplay than the local insurgents and US soldiers in spec ops, because at least they try to help each other when they're wounded. i also am pretty sure the standard, human-size locust did not usually abandon cover to run at 3 dudes with assault rifles while wielding nothing but a knife
Never played Gears 3, but I'm sure the USA-on-USA violence in SO:TL resonated with lot of American players as well. I'm sure it'd be more difficult for black players to throw the rock at the interracial couple in Bioshock Infinite as well, regardless of if they typically play the "renegade" route in games.
since most of what you do in the game is in self-defense, you don't have much of a choice anyway. but the game doesn't really capitalize, internally, on the "i'm fighting my own countrymen" aspect. the characters have several conversations about this at the beginning but by the halfway mark they clearly no longer give a shit, even before the REALLY ridiculous stuff goes down. i think they stop caring and never mention it again around the point where one of them says something like "the 33rd is clearly no longer acting as part of the US army."
like the white phosphorous scene - none of them have a major problem with using white phosphorous on american soldiers. NONE OF THEM. lugo argues about it but immediately shuts up when ordered to do it - okay, if it's an order, i guess i will use this white phosphorous on american soldiers. you're meant to feel miserable about it as you walk through the carnage aftewards, but the main character is mostly "had to be done, whatever" about the whole thing. it's when they find out that they hit the CIVILIANS that there's the big dramatic impact. point being that they care more about foreign civilians than US soldiers which, not that that's NECESSARILY the wrong position for them to take, but internally that's how the game is playing out.
as for EXTERNALLY - how the PLAYER feels - i don't really know. the game isn't pushing in that direction, but is it possible someone feels that way? probably. i don't really understand how, ethically, someone would be fine in a videogame murdering europeans, arabs, africans, but suddenly have a holdup about shooting american soldiers (in self-defense, when the american soldiers are torturing people over the radio and seem to have established concentration camps everywhere). i would imagine these people would be more upset about a game even being MADE where US soldiers are the enemies, but i could be wrong. i am american btw
NinjaCatfish
Member
The whole freaking POINT is that you're not doing it out of self defense. At any point, Walker could have left, but he kept moving the goalposts forward to justify moving further into Dubai, and to justify the killing of US soldiers.
They mention that the 33rd are no longer acting like members of the US Army, but really they are. Have you stopped to consider that maybe the 33rd were protecting the locals, and trying to help them? You destroy their water sources, kill them 33rd unprovoked just because they're in a videogame and that's what you do in a videogame.
Your mission was to check on Dubai, not to keep going in deeper and deeper. Walker does this because he feels like he has to, just like you keep going further because you feel like that is what you're supposed to do in a videogame. If anyone's acting like not a part of the US Army, it's Walker.
Why? Just because it did not move you does not make other player's experience invalid. I think it's great that developers are exploring story in games that moves the medium forward. Even in well worn and formulaic genres.
The game's story was ok, but I didn't think it wasn't really anything special. I am already fully aware of the stupidity of most shooters and i felt like it was a very heavy handed way of making a point that really doesn't need to be made.
The gameplay was mediocre, completely forgettable.
The gameplay was mediocre, completely forgettable.
That was my thought as well phosphor112. While a bit out there with some of the hallucinations, overall, the story was indeed one to remember. One of the better stories this generation...and right there with Homefront in my opinion.
Gameplay wise, pretty bad. Graphics were horrible, color pallette was shit, controls were pretty fucked at times. Gameplay was nothing memorable.