Support NeoGAF

[Izick]

Hmm, after watching those videos about the game, it definitely seems like an interesting game, to say the least. I don't know how to really feel about it though. I like the themes and bits of narrative I've seen, but I just don't know if those are good enough positives to hide the boring gameplay.

I feel like a lot of Gaf has a skewed view of this, because from what I can tell, most of Gaf is against the regular "dudebro" shooter, I mean part of the community here made a game called "Dudebro" for Pete's sake. I mean, it doesn't weaken the narrative per-se, but I feel like it lessens the impact a bit. Most of us see a lot of these games use jingoistic blood-lust as a marketing strategy.

With all that said, it's hard to really get behind a game that is so...dull when it comes to the main part of the medium that differentiates it from movies/music. I mean, it's interesting they use player interaction and choice as actual, real ideas instead of a black and white gimmick, and I like that idea, but I just keep coming back thinking, "but how good is all that if there's nothing to play? Why not make this a movie or interactive novel? I mean that's one of the reasons people dislike Heavy Rain it seems.

I don't know, that's just some ranting; at the end of the day, if I like this game or not, I'm very happy that a game like this exists. Sure, it seems to be very flawed, but at least it's something different, and it's something that's treading some newish ground.

 

[SirButterstick]

This thread has inspired me to do another playthrough of this excellent game. Thanks!

 

[ErikB]

This thread has inspired me to do another playthrough of this excellent game. Thanks!

...Games message a bit lost on you then?

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

Why is always comes back to "I rather read a book or watch a movie" , even the argument is kind of faulty because there is really bad books and really bad movie.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Dude, it's jim-jam bongs, of course he does.

<3

So like I say, only stupid people will have finished the game...

when I look at guernica I don't feel good. when I play spec ops I don't feel good either. not all art requires enjoyment to be appreciated, and I'd actually posit that, if anything, it's "stupid people" who are incapable of appreciating negative emotions and the ideas and concepts which can only be explored through an expressive work being unafraid to elicit them.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

So like I say, only stupid people will have finished the game...

If anything, the stupid people are the ones requiring all video games to be happy-happy fun time entertainment.

 

[abadguy]

Because being boring, tedious and frustrating actually works in favor of the game thematic. Not everyone plays video games for the gameplay alone, at least not me.

Also, the attitude of "going to see it in you tube" kind of dismiss the importance of actually buying or supporting this kind of games.

Well i don't think anyone plays videogames for the gameplay alone, myself included. That said, i feel that gameplay is the most important part and eveything else is there to complement the gameplay in my opinion. I can't really support games where its not the priority no matter what they're about. Games are not like movies and books where story telling should take priority.

 

[Jintor]

That's a curiously one-sided view of games. Just because they have this unique property doesn't mean it should be the only part that can be used or explored.

 

[Jackpot]

So like I say, only stupid people will have finished the game...

Go troll somewhere else. If there are any other forums left that haven't banned you.

 

[squidyj]

Well i don't think anyone plays videogames for the gameplay alone, myself included. That said, i feel that gameplay is the most important part and eveything else is there to complement the gameplay in my opinion. I can't really support games where its not the priority no matter what they're about. Games are not like movies and books where story telling should take priority.

why not?

 

[abadguy]

If anything, the stupid people are the ones requiring all video games to be happy-happy fun time entertainment.

You sound as ignorant as he does.

why not?

Because the very notion of gamplay being "secondary" or not as important as telling a story in a video game is not one i agree with.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

I decided to change my avatar in honour of this thread.

Well i don't think anyone plays videogames for the gameplay alone, myself included. That said, i feel that gameplay is the most important part and eveything else is there to complement the gameplay in my opinion. I can't really support games where its not the priority no matter what they're about. Games are not like movies and books where story telling should take priority.

I think that you need to make a distinction between "gameplay" and "interactivity". while the medium is the only one which allows for interactivity, what we traditionally define as gameplay isn't the only form of interactivity available. so I disagree with the idea that gameplay must always be a focal point, but do think that ignoring the most important difference the medium possesses in relation to other mediums is a bad move.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

You sound as ignorant as he does.

"I can't really support games where its not the priority no matter what they're about. Games are not like movies and books where story telling should take priority."

Yeah, ok, guy

 

[PBalfredo]

Why? The themes of the game and the meta-commentary on the industry force the game to take that route. Of course you can argue it's putting art ahead of crafting an enjoyable experience, but there're a range of vapid third person shooter experiences with better mechanics if that's what you want. Spec Op's is a niche game that focuses on meta commentary in almost every aspect - from the game progression, the art, the menus and so on. The illusion of player choice and the games commentary on it is a core part of the games theme.



But there're choices in the game that parrot exactly the kind of choices you're promoting...

It only weakens the points the game is trying to make about its contemporaries. About how we as players have no reservations about committing great acts of violence as long as it is part of an objective in "winning". Adding choice to the white phosphorous scenario only distances the game from titles like Call of Duty, because in those games a similar choice isn't presented, weakening the critique.

You seem to be concentrating on single events and criticizing the game for condemning your choice. But the choice being condemned isn't a single one. It's the collective whole. It's the choice of buying and playing the modern FPS.

Seems to me that that Spec Ops method of critique is to be exactly like other linear military corridor shooters, but a more self-aware one. That's nice, but if I don't put a lot of thought about my actions in other brainless, choiceless FPS games, what makes you think I'm going to internalized the violence in Spec Ops when it does the same thing, but makes a fuss about it? I had just as much choice burning people in Spec Ops as I did in Modern Warfare or Homefront, or watching a Let's Play of someone else doing that. It's just not going to stick with me.

What does stick with me are the choices I've made in other games. I have internalized my decision on

Spoiler

who to let die on Virmire in Mass Effect

. I've internalized decisions I've made in Fallout: New Vegas

Spoiler

were I had to kill a good woman for the greater good

. Spec Ops would have been a more powerful game if it chose to embrace the strengths of the medium instead of working against it just like the games it chooses to criticize.

And the blanket condemnation on FPS games is a presumptuous one. One that only works on games that offer the player no choice, which Spec Ops is equally guilty of. But there are FPS games that I can buy and not be complacent in the violence. I got the pacifist achievements to prove it.

 

[ErikB]

Well, for what it is worth, I don't think a game that has you unthinking do something that makes things worse and then tells you off for it works because most games don't have you do something that makes things worse. The games go to insane lengths to assure you that shooting these dudes will make the world better (at least for the character you are playing, if he is that kind of guy). So the message when Spec Ops tries to make you feel bad isn't that you should feel bad, it is that you should stop playing the game.

 

[abadguy]

"I can't really support games where its not the priority no matter what they're about. Games are not like movies and books where story telling should take priority."

Yeah, ok, guy

Your point? He is calling people who enjoy what this game is doing " stupid hippies " or whatever and you're calling those who don't play games for "high minded intellectualism", "stupid".It all comes down to insulting those for liking something you don't . Pretty childish.

 

[28 Posts Later]

Seems to me that that Spec Ops method of critique is to be exactly like other linear military corridor shooters, but a more self-aware one.

Yes, it uses gameplay to critique other games...the games theme and message would be significantly weaker if it didn't set an initial tone of parroting them.

That's nice, but if I don't put a lot of thought about my actions in other brainless, choiceless FPS games, what makes you think I'm going to internalized the violence in Spec Ops when it does the same thing, but makes a fuss about it?

Well the fact the game then forces you to question those actions that, at the time, seemed reasonable. Did you play the game after being spoiled of its themes and message?

Spec Ops would have been a more powerful game if it chose to embrace the strengths of the medium instead of working against it just like the games it chooses to criticize.

It would also fail to criticize those games in any meaningful way.

And the blanket condemnation on FPS games is a presumptuous one. One that only works on games that offer the player no choice

Well yes, those are the games it is criticising...

 

[Izick]

I guess another thing that doesn't really "click" for me is that I never really connect violence in entertainment (video-games, movies, television, or music) with real life violence. I don't really feel "bad" or remorseful for the most part because I know it's all just entertainment, but when it comes to something as small as those abused animals commercials, I usually get misty-eyed, or at least a little torn up on the inside.

I mean, I'm sure I would have definitely felt bad if I had played through the game and experienced the section with the white-gas or whatever the technical name is, but I don't think it could ever compare to the smallest bit of sorrow I feel for real life pain or anguish. I do think it's an interesting mechanic that can't really be done in other mediums, guild for the player/viewer that is.

 

[jimi_dini]

what makes you think I'm going to internalized the violence in Spec Ops when it does the same thing, but makes a fuss about it? I had just as much choice ... in Spec Ops

...

I've internalized decisions I've made in Fallout: New Vegas were I had to

Spoiler tags, what are they for?

I already bought Fallout: NV and just waiting for a bit of time to play it. And I also want to play Spec Ops. :/

 

[iammeiam]

Well, for what it is worth, I don't think a game that has you unthinking do something that makes things worse and then tells you off for it works because most games don't have you do something that makes things worse. The games go to insane lengths to assure you that shooting these dudes will make the world better (at least for the character you are playing, if he is that kind of guy). So the message when Spec Ops tries to make you feel bad isn't that you should feel bad, it is that you should stop playing the game.

The point is more to make you think about the fact that you're assuming doing Terrible Thing X is going to make everything okay, despite your squadmates telling you it's a terrible idea, solely because it allows you to get further in the game. Specifically, it calls out the assumption that anything that allows progress is good, because you're playing the Good Guy.

Only, it turns out, Terrible Thing X is just a terrible thing that you did to get further in a video game. There's no redeeming moment where it makes the world a better place, it's just a shitty thing you did to get further in a game. The game continues along those lines: you can't redeem yourself by killing more people. It's not going to be okay if you just shoot enough bad guys, things are just going to get worse.

The point isn't "if you beat the game you're an asshole." The point is "We're not going to give you a cookie and wave a magic wand and make everything okay if you beat the game." The game clearly wants you to finish--it wants you to try and get the various endings to do your best to 'fix' things--the game just makes it clear beating the game doesn't make you a hero. It makes you a person who beat a video game.

 

[Jintor]

I decided to change my avatar in honour of this thread.

:lol :lol :lol

 

[Maztorre]

Well, for what it is worth, I don't think a game that has you unthinking do something that makes things worse and then tells you off for it works because most games don't have you do something that makes things worse. The games go to insane lengths to assure you that shooting these dudes will make the world better (at least for the character you are playing, if he is that kind of guy). So the message when Spec Ops tries to make you feel bad isn't that you should feel bad, it is that you should stop playing the game.

Are you saying that what you do in Call of Duty/Battlefield is justified because the game has explained to you that it is OK to kill hundreds of people?

 

[More Fun To Compute]

So the fighting in this game is quite dull and the overall scenario seems to be not that interesting.

Is it true to say that this only really deserves to be wrote about in this detail because it puts itself in stark contrast against a lot more popular and well made games and that it leaves a lot of elements open to interpretation?

 

[JB1981]

Wait Spec Ops: The Line was a good game ? This is the third person shooter that looked like every other popular third person shooter?

 

[ErikB]

Are you saying that what you do in Call of Duty/Battlefield is justified because the game has explained to you that it is OK to kill hundreds of people?

Well the people you kill do tend to be terrorists or nazis or republicans, or other wholly irredeemable people.

 

[28 Posts Later]

Is it true to say that this only really deserves to be wrote about in this detail because it puts itself in stark contrast against a lot more popular and well made games and that it leaves a lot of elements open to interpretation?

No, there're two videos that have been posted in the thread that go into a fair amount of detail with regards to the games themes and message(s). It deserves to be written about because of the vast number of ways it criticizes its fellow modern military games, game violence in general and the comments it makes on player agency - all skilfully interwoven into the game either visually, narratively or mechanically.

 

[PBalfredo]

The point is more to make you think about the fact that you're assuming doing Terrible Thing X is going to make everything okay, despite your squadmates telling you it's a terrible idea, solely because it allows you to get further in the game. Specifically, it calls out the assumption that anything that allows progress is good, because you're playing the Good Guy.

Only, it turns out, Terrible Thing X is just a terrible thing that you did to get further in a video game. There's no redeeming moment where it makes the world a better place, it's just a shitty thing you did to get further in a game. The game continues along those lines: you can't redeem yourself by killing more people. It's not going to be okay if you just shoot enough bad guys, things are just going to get worse.

The point isn't "if you beat the game you're an asshole." The point is "We're not going to give you a cookie and wave a magic wand and make everything okay if you beat the game." The game clearly wants you to finish--it wants you to try and get the various endings to do your best to 'fix' things--the game just makes it clear beating the game doesn't make you a hero. It makes you a person who beat a video game.

It does that, but I feel it also calls the player an asshole for Terrible Thing X when the loading tips decide to make it personal.

I feel that Nier was a game that nailed the desperate attempts to fix things. It's a game without any party that's truly evil, just different group with conflicting interests and no understanding of one another. After the events of ending A, there is a real sense that the player can "do better this time". But then during the B playthrough you begin to understand the motives behind your "enemies" and the player become more desperate to set everything right, but things are only getting worse. By the time D ending rolls around, the sacrifice it asks of you becomes reasonable in the player's need to fix everything.

Spoiler

Even though in the long run, everything is still fucked. Cavia, ladies and genglemen

 

[boiled goose]

also watch the extra credits two part analysis:

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/spec-ops-the-line-part-1

 

[ErikB]

also watch the extra credits two part analysis:

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/spec-ops-the-line-part-1

Speaking of cocks who liked it...

 

[Riposte]

If you want to criticize military shooters, why not just skip parody and talk about it on NeoGAF?

 

[More Fun To Compute]

No, there're two videos that have been posted in the thread that go into a fair amount of detail with regards to the games themes and message(s). It deserves to be written about because of the vast number of ways it criticizes its fellow modern military games, game violence in general and the comments it makes on player agency - all skilfully interwoven into the game either visually, narratively or mechanically.

But you are agreeing with me in saying that it is only interesting in that it contrasts with more popular games.

 

[28 Posts Later]

But you are agreeing with me in saying that it is only interesting in that it contrasts with more popular games.

No, the criticism of other titles is interesting but there's more to the game than that singular aspect. Remove the 'only' from your sentence and you're at least closer to the truth.

 

[ErikB]

Well the fact the game then forces you to question those actions that, at the time, seemed reasonable. Did you play the game after being spoiled of its themes and message?

I got it when it came out, and I had heard murmurs of Moral Choices, so I was trying hard not to shoot at anyone who didn't shoot at me first. And when a woman rather determinedly ran in front of my gun sights I reloaded the game (er... Several Times) when I shot her. I did give up before anything interesting happened though.

It is a fair point, but I really don't WANT games that try to trick me in to feeling bad to become a thing, and once you know the secret, it kinda doesn't work any more. Or something.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

No, the criticism of other titles is interesting but there's more to the game than that singular aspect. Remove the 'only' from your sentence and you're at least closer to the truth.

Doesn't sound like there is much that is interesting or new there to me.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

So the fighting in this game is quite dull and the overall scenario seems to be not that interesting.

Is it true to say that this only really deserves to be wrote about in this detail because it puts itself in stark contrast against a lot more popular and well made games and that it leaves a lot of elements open to interpretation?

actually the scenario is extremely interesting; dubai is the jeweled whore of the middle-east, and the initial premise is lifted from one of the best books ever written about war, so you're way off the mark there chief.

also, the fighting is no more dull than the "more popular" titles which it critiques.

 

[iammeiam]

It does that, but I feel it also calls the player an asshole for Terrible Thing X when the loading tips decide to make it personal.

I never took it as a judgment on me-the-player as a person, more the game outright making it increasingly clear that justifying my actions as Walker was getting more and more impossible and requiring more and more twisted logic. I won't deny that the game wanted you to feel bad, but I tended to feel bad in the way I feel bad when something in The Walking Dead games goes wrong. I haven't been able to turn up a full list of loading screens for the game, though, and I doubt I saw all of them, so my view may be skewed by the ones I got.

And I'm with you on Nier, that game was extremely effective at what it did to the RPG genre. Although it does more or less have the sidequest where Weiss calls you an idiot for wasting your time on sidequests, which I thought was hilarious.

 

[ErikB]

also, the fighting is no more dull than the "more popular" titles which it critiques.

It is kinda hard to get the impression that there is any joy in it. This doesn't seem to be a game that understand the lure of these games.

CoD may be evil, but it is also cool as fuck. Anyone who doesn't think a DEVGRU commando with a HK416 with full rails, magpul angled foregrip and ACOG sight is awesome is probably dead inside.

Spec Ops doesn't seem to accept the cool as fuck part. Hence the feeling of being lectured, rather than being part of a discussion.

 

[Eidan]

It is kinda hard to get the impression that there is any joy in it. This doesn't seem to be a game that understand the lure of these games.

CoD may be evil, but it is also cool as fuck.

Spec Ops doesn't seem to accept the cool as fuck part. Hence the feeling of being lectured, rather than being part of a discussion.

You want the game to criticize violence, while at the same time glorifying it and making it awesome?

 

[jim-jam bongs]

It is kinda hard to get the impression that there is any joy in it. This doesn't seem to be a game that understand the lure of these games.

CoD may be evil, but it is also cool as fuck.

Spec Ops doesn't seem to accept the cool as fuck part. Hence the feeling of being lectured, rather than being part of a discussion.

the combat isn't preachy at all dude. heads explode when you shoot them for crying out loud, and the things you and your allies say/grunt definitely fit the mold. the scene where you

Spoiler

destroy the tower with a minigun

to the sound of butt-rock at top volume absolutely is an attempt to capture that "war is hell, BUT GIT SOME" attitude of COD.

 

[28 Posts Later]

Spec Ops doesn't seem to accept the cool as fuck part. Hence the feeling of being lectured, rather than being part of a discussion.

The game goes to great lengths to show the horrific effect the grind of mass murder has on Walker. Spec Ops is criticising that very aspect of CoD.

Edit: Having said that jim-jam is right, the combat is mechanically satisfying; and there are moments the game parodies the Call of Duty style to ensure, at least momentarily, the player feels good about their actions. That's what makes the reveals so enticing, the fact you initially saw nothing wrong, and may even have had fun, performing that task.

 

[ErikB]

You want the game to criticize violence, while at the same time glorifying it and making it awesome?

Addressing the terrible attraction of such things is important, yes.

 

[Eidan]

Addressing the terrible attraction of such things is important, yes.

Spec Ops directly addresses the appeal of such games. I'm not sure what you're talking about.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

actually the scenario is extremely interesting; dubai is the jeweled whore of the middle-east, and the initial premise is lifted from one of the best books ever written about war, so you're way off the mark there chief.

also, the fighting is no more dull than the "more popular" titles which it critiques.

I've read that book and the "glamour" of dubai leaves me cold.

 

[28 Posts Later]

I've read that book and the "glamour" of dubai leaves me cold.

Given all you've posted in this thread it's clear the game isn't for you.

 

[sonicmj1]

This could be interesting. I wonder what will result from it.

I do think Nier tackled a lot of those same issues effectively, but their decision to save the real emotional punch for the second loop probably made it harder for that message to get exposed. They both turn the hero's journey on its head in similar ways, and I agree that Nier deserved more attention than it got.

That said, they tackle the issue of perspective in very different ways. Spec Ops never takes the steps to humanize the other side that Nier does, and there are important reasons for that. I think that people looking at Spec Ops just as a critique of military shooters are leaving a lot on the table without good reason.

I can't find the source, but I remember reading or hearing in one of the press interviews with writer Walt Williams that he finds the mechanic of "choice" in games fairly unrealistic in general; that life rarely offers up the kinds of choices that you get in Mass Effect. Whether or not I agree, there's a lot to be gained from engaging Spec Ops on its own terms even outside of what we know about the conventions of games or military shooters.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

I've read that book and the "glamour" of dubai leaves me cold.

I've read the book and also find dubai's glamour "cold"; hence my description of it as the jeweled whore of the middle-east. hey, I've also read snow white but still found snow white and the huntsman a pretty entertaining way to kill 90 minutes on a transatlantic flight. I'm really not sure where you're going with this.

 

[sonicmj1]

I got it when it came out, and I had heard murmurs of Moral Choices, so I was trying hard not to shoot at anyone who didn't shoot at me first. And when a woman rather determinedly ran in front of my gun sights I reloaded the game (er... Several Times) when I shot her. I did give up before anything interesting happened though.

It is a fair point, but I really don't WANT games that try to trick me in to feeling bad to become a thing, and once you know the secret, it kinda doesn't work any more. Or something.

Maybe you should play the rest of the game before you criticize it for "lecturing" you.

 

[Choc]

Hopefully, Keogh doesn't do anything crazy with the formatting. I would prefer to convert this to AZW and read it on my Kindle.

i have told him how to self publish on Kindle. Same with ibookstore.

so you just might get what you want

 

[vidcons]

you all are just playing spec ops wrong

tell me i'm wrong

 

[Parham]

actually the scenario is extremely interesting; dubai is the jeweled whore of the middle-east, and the initial premise is lifted from one of the best books ever written about war, so you're way off the mark there chief.

also, the fighting is no more dull than the "more popular" titles which it critiques.

Yager only chose Dubai because the city looks exotic and can very easily be made into a no-man's land. Otherwise, they wouldn't have done such an incredibly poor job depicting the city, the UAE, or its neighboring Arab states.

i have told him how to self publish on Kindle. Same with ibookstore.

so you just might get what you want

Awesome, thanks!