Support NeoGAF

[CornBurrito]

Hey guys isn't there a system in place where you can PM mods?

I mean this exchange has been going on for 3 fucking pages (@100ppp).

"I don't want to be lectured at."

"That isn't what the game does. Why don't you play it."

"I DONT WANNA BE LECTURED AT LOL"

"That isnt what the game does... Why don't you play it."

 

[ErikB]

Could we at least agree that making a hypothetical game that is just going to lecture people for playing it, which totally isn't this game, no sir, would be a fairly silly idea?

 

[jim-jam bongs]

By that logic, no one should ever enjoy a work with factual discrepancies that doesn't interrupt the internal logic of the story or the themes that try to convey.

thanks for this, I was kind of ignoring him because I couldn't think of a way to express this point in a coherent way. apocalypse now isn't a 100% true to history depiction of cambodia either, but it doesn't really need to be.

Hey guys isn't there a system in place where you can PM mods?

I mean this exchange has been going on for 3 fucking pages (@100ppp).

"I don't want to be lectured at."

"That isn't what the game does. Why don't you play it."

"I DONT WANNA BE LECTURED AT LOL"

"That isnt what the game does... Why don't you play it."

ErikB is a special guy, you should check out re6 threads if you ever doubted it.

Could we at least agree that making a hypothetical game that is just going to lecture people for playing it, which totally isn't this game, no sir, would be a fairly silly idea?

no we can't, for reasons I explained three pages ago.

 

[Haunted]

Does anyone know how much of Greg Kasavin's work ended up in the actual game? Is the whole thing written by him, or was his stuff far gone by the time the game came out? I forget if he showed up in the credits or not.

Funnily enough, I actually think Bastion does a better job than Spec Ops in terms of matching gameplay and story, but Spec Ops is probably the more ambitious game even if I didn't find it particularly successful.

I think Kasavin was "just" producer. Walt Williams and Richard Pearsey are credited as lead writers (narrative design), with Georg Struck (from Yager Germany) doing additional writing.

 

[XANDER CAGE]

I think Kasavin was "just" producer. Walt Williams and Richard Pearsey are credited as lead writers (narrative design), with Georg Struck (from Yager Germany) doing additional writing.

Huh, Walt Williams worked on The Darkness II apparently. That actually makes some sense, that game has some surprisingly good writing considering what it is.

 

[Alex]

Hey guys isn't there a system in place where you can PM mods?

I mean this exchange has been going on for 3 fucking pages (@100ppp).

"I don't want to be lectured at."

"That isn't what the game does. Why don't you play it."

"I DONT WANNA BE LECTURED AT LOL"

"That isnt what the game does... Why don't you play it."

Yeah, this is basically thread shitting at this point. I got this game for a few bucks off the last gamefly sale, liked it, wanted to read the break down here instead it's just this nonsense. What does it take for some people for that little internal alarm to go off and to realize that maybe this line of posting isn't the best idea?

 

[Parham]

By that logic, no one should ever enjoy a work with factual discrepancies that doesn't interrupt the internal logic of the story or the themes that try to convey.

Like I said before, the motivating factors for the CIA and Konrad's presence in Dubai are predicated on real world geopolitics. In this case, understanding the political relationship between all of the state actors involved is incredibly important.

thanks for this, I was kind of ignoring him because I couldn't think of a way to express this point in a coherent way. apocalypse now isn't a 100% true to history depiction of cambodia either, but it doesn't really need to be.

It isn't, but with good reason. Apocalypse Now begins in a relatively grounded and accurately portrayed environment that is easily understood by the viewer and then begins a slow transition into absurdity. Only as the characters travel further into the jungles of Vietnam, do they begin to lose their sense of a morality and enter into a realm complete insanity. Everything in Spec Ops, on the other hand, is over-the-top, absurd, and goofy from the very beginning. It is about as bombastic as any other shooter.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

Stop responding to that guy.

We've told people that for MONTHS in the RE6 thread. You think he would have at least attempted to grow a brain since his ban from NeoGAF(and Capcom Unity...and every message board he can spiel nonsense at), but think again.

 

[Parham]

We've told people that for MONTHS in the RE6 thread. You think he would have at least attempted to grow a brain since his ban from NeoGAF(and Capcom Unity...and every message board he can spiel nonsense at), but think again.

What has he been saying in the RE6 thread?

 

[jim-jam bongs]

It isn't, but with good reason. Apocalypse Now begins in a relatively grounded and accurately portrayed environment that is easily understood by the viewer and then begins a slow transition into absurdity. Only as the characters travel further into the jungles of Vietnam, do they begin to lose their sense of a morality and enter into a realm complete insanity. Everything in Spec Ops, on the other hand, is over-the-top, absurd, and goofy from the very beginning. It is about as bombastic as any other shooter.

and still you don't understand why it's the way it is?

 

[ErikB]

no we can't, for reasons I explained three pages ago.

Well, I fairly genuinely and quite seriously, don't think that making said hypothetical game which totally isn't this one, no sir, that lectures people for their choice of entertainment is going to be enormously effective at either convincing people who do like these games that they shouldn't, or in selling an enormous number of copies to them.

Certainly, If I hear a game is like Spec Ops, I will be thinking 'is this game going to give me shit for playing it?' which I don't think is going to be good for them.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

What has he been saying in the RE6 thread?

It's a long story, but just know that if you don't play the game the way he continues to tell everyone about for several hundred posts, you are an idiot who's clearly not sliding into cover enough.

 

[Parham]

and still you don't understand why it's the way it is?

Yes, I understand the reasoning. I am addressing your comparison to Apocalypse Now.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

Like I said before, the motivating factors for the CIA and Konrad's presence in Dubai are predicated on real world geopolitics. In this case, understanding the political relationship between all of the state actors involved is incredibly important.



It isn't, but with good reason. Apocalypse Now begins in a relatively grounded and accurately portrayed environment that is easily understood by the viewer and then begins a slow transition into absurdity. Only as the characters travel further into the jungles of Vietnam, do they begin to lose their sense of a morality and enter into a realm complete insanity. Everything in Spec Ops, on the other hand, is over-the-top, absurd, and goofy from the very beginning. It is about as bombastic as any other shooter.

So you want to apply real world logic to a game that you admit never does since the beginning. (not mention the CIA agent plan was... kind of nuts also... like everybody plans to "help" Dubai... that was a point that was even addressed in the beginning)

 

[XANDER CAGE]

It isn't, but with good reason. Apocalypse Now begins in a relatively grounded and accurately portrayed environment that is easily understood by the viewer and then begins a slow transition into absurdity. Only as the characters travel further into the jungles of Vietnam, do they begin to lose their sense of a morality and enter into a realm complete insanity. Everything in Spec Ops, on the other hand, is over-the-top, absurd, and goofy from the very beginning. It is about as bombastic as any other shooter.

Couldn't the argument be made that Spec Ops does that on purpose?

EDIT - woops, sorry, looks like I'm a little late on that one.

 

[Parham]

So you want to apply real world logic to a game that you admit never does since the beginning. (not mention the CIA agent plan was... kind of nuts also... like everybody plans to "help" them... that was a point)

I am saying the writers attempt to use real world logic to explain the motivations for their behavior, but ultimately fail.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Well, I fairly genuinely and quite seriously, don't think that making said hypothetical game which totally isn't this one, no sir, that lectures people for their choice of entertainment is going to be enormously effective at either convincing people who do like these games that they shouldn't, or in selling an enormous number of copies to them.

art isn't always popular nor financially successful? you should write a newsletter, sir, I will take six copies right now as I am out of toilet-paper.

Yes, I understand the reasoning. I am addressing your comparison to Apocalypse Now.

my comparison was that both depict settings which are inspired by a real place but substitute verisimilitude with deliberate exaggerations to enhance the themes of the narrative. which you seem to agree with, so I guess we're pals now.

 

[Haunted]

It isn't, but with good reason. Apocalypse Now begins in a relatively grounded and accurately portrayed environment that is easily understood by the viewer and then begins a slow transition into absurdity. Only as the characters travel further into the jungles of Vietnam, do they begin to lose their sense of a morality and enter into a realm complete insanity. Everything in Spec Ops, on the other hand, is over-the-top, absurd, and goofy from the very beginning. It is about as bombastic as any other shooter.

Erik actually loves Spec Ops and this whole thread is his meta-commentary on the game. The thread starts out with a grounded discussion of Spec Ops' merits and the validity of a critical analysis of its themes, then Erik comes in here with his ignorant shtick and the thread enters a spiral of absurdity and madness as he keeps posting stupid shit while ignoring everyone else's arguments around him, ultimately self-destructing his account in the process.


Brilliant.

 

[CornBurrito]

It's a long story, but just know that if you don't play the game the way he continues to tell everyone about for several hundred posts, you are an idiot who's clearly not sliding into cover enough.

Can you link to a juicy example?

 

[vidcons]

Could we at least agree that making a hypothetical game that is just going to lecture people for playing it, which totally isn't this game, no sir, would be a fairly silly idea?

shut up
go away
you are really dumb and are always dumb
you just poorly
it's annoying
please stop

tell me i'm wrong

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

I am saying the writers attempt to use real world logic to explain the motivations for their behavior, but ultimately fail.

I think you are missing my point.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

I think you are missing my point.

You're saying that a lot in this topic

 

[NEOPARADIGM]

The shame here is that EricB's point is perfectly valid; he's not into games that throw lectures his way. Sweet. Why he insists on making it over and over and over and over and over and over is very ... ignore-worthy.

 

[ErikB]

The shame here is that EricB's point is perfectly valid;

If more people accepted that I might repeat it less often.

Might.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

You're saying that a lot in this topic

Welp, sorry. I just tough I was pretty clear in that example. Verisimilitude and "Real World Logic" are two complete different things, and that Spec Ops make pretty clear that its world is pretty bizarre and not guide it by normal logic. And that is theme of the game if you consider that everybody that you meet is pretty fucked up by war, and it works with theme of no video game heroes and the only way to win is not to play.

 

[Parham]

my comparison was that both depict settings which are inspired by a real place but substitute verisimilitude with deliberate exaggerations to enhance the themes of the narrative. which you seem to agree with, so I guess we're pals now.

Like I said in my previous post, there isn't much a transition into the absurd in Spec Ops. Apocalypse Now, by comparison, manages to do that quite successfully. That is what makes the tonal shift all the more impactful.

I think you are missing my point.

Possibly! Could you elaborate on your last post a bit?

 

[Grimsen]

Spec Ops is definitely a game to try. Personally, playing it and then reading the different dev interviews and other analyses about it has been one of the most memorable meta experience this gen.

Also, what would happen if a game were to berate the player for not sliding into cover properly?

 

[NZNova]

This book sounds interesting. I'll pick it up for sure.

If more people accepted that I might repeat it less often.

Might.

One day you'll convince the internet you're right, if you just post hard enough.

 

[ErikB]

Also, what would happen if a game were to berate the player for not sliding into cover properly?

People would accuse it of hand holding. Sadly.

 

[Dr.Guru of Peru]

If more people accepted that I might repeat it less often.

Might.

It might be easier to do that if your posts were comprehensible.

English for dummies: keep your sentence structure simple, stupid.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

If more people accepted that I might repeat it less often.

Might.

now now, we all know that's not true.

anyway, I've never denied that your point of view is valid. it's just one I find objectionable and ignorant, so I'm explaining why.

Like I said in my previous post, there isn't much a transition into the absurd in Spec Ops. Apocalypse Now, by comparison, manages to do that quite successfully. That is what makes that shift all the more impactful.

okay, but that does mean that you've overcome your frustration with the inaccuracy of the setting sufficiently enough to assess how well it achieves its goals. that's good to hear.

 

[daycru]

I'm buying Spec Ops next time I see it solely based on how upset its gotten hippie hippie hippiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiie guy.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

Like I said in my previous post, there isn't much a transition into the absurd in Spec Ops. Apocalypse Now, by comparison, manages to do that quite successfully. That is what makes that shift all the more impactful.

But that is pretty different from a "it does poorly" or "Misinterprets Dubai and its situation".

I will say it works here because this is a video game intro, and to us is what we typically expect from a military shooter (and is what it tries to convey), the game is as "realistic" as the Nolan's Batman movies are (not that much if you think about it. but that was not the purpose) but that is kind of subjective for everyone so I guess that we more or less agree to disagree.

 

[Parham]

okay, but that does mean that you've overcome your frustration with the inaccuracy of the setting sufficiently enough to assess how well it achieves its goals. that's good to hear.

I am not entirely certain where you're getting that from. Spec Ops didn't manage to get an important piece of Heart of Darkness / Apocalypse Now right specifically because the setting is wildly inaccurate.

But that is pretty different from a "it does poorly" or "Misinterprets Dubai and its situation".

I will say it works here because this is a video game intro, and to us is what we typically expect from a military shooter (and is what it tries to convey), the game is as "realistic" as the Nolan's Batman movies are (not that much if you think about it. but that was not the purpose) but that is kind of subjective for everyone so I guess that we more or less agree to disagree.

It isn't, given that the importance of the tonal shift is predicated on the characters and player/viewer starting in a realistic and grounded environment.

 

[CornBurrito]

I tried a bit of the demo. Blowing up birds is kind of fun. Maybe I'll buy the game someday.

I do have to wonder if killing wantonly in video games has any impact on how we view killing in real life. Otherwise there really isn't a point to the game's criticism is there? I guess it might act as unintentional propaganda in the case of war games. Though is unintentional propaganda effective?

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

I am not entirely certain where you're getting that from. Spec Ops didn't manage to get an important piece of Heart of Darkness / Apocalypse Now right specifically because the setting is wildly inaccurate.

Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now are not exactly known for their accuracy in the depictions of they respective settings.

It isn't, given that the importance of the tonal shift is predicated on the characters and player/viewer starting in a realistic and grounded environment.

And that it is entirely subjective, like I said in the end of that quoted post

 

[ErikB]

I do have to wonder if killing wantonly in video games has any impact on how we view killing in real life.

I know I was in favour of the invasion of Iraq because I wanted to see stuff blow up on telly. I also think it is a shame we can't use the predator drones the UK has bought to assassinate... everyone I don't like.

I still don't wanna get lectured at by my video games.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

I am not entirely certain where you're getting that from. Spec Ops didn't manage to get an important piece of Heart of Darkness / Apocalypse Now right specifically because the setting is wildly inaccurate.

did we not just agree that apocalypse now also has a wildly inaccurate setting? the fact that it becomes more and more absurd as the trip downriver progresses doesn't change that in any way. and to be frank, the fact that the film starts in an entirely different country to where it ultimately ends up doesn't really do much to support this notion that spec ops handles the setting poorly because the descent isn't gradual.

 

[XANDER CAGE]

I tried a bit of the demo. Blowing up birds is kind of fun. Maybe I'll buy the game someday.

I do have to wonder if killing wantonly in video games has any impact on how we view killing in real life. Otherwise there really isn't a point to the game's criticism is there? I guess it might act as unintentional propaganda in the case of war games. Though is unintentional propaganda effective?

Personal anecdote here - Burnout is one of my favorite games of all time. I very much enjoy driving like an idiot and crashing into things and watching the cars come apart.

I was involved in a head on collision once, somebody ran a red light. Luckily everyone was unhurt, aside from some bruises. The thought that I could have been killed or in some way responsible for somebody else's death is still a pretty chilling thought, to this day. It also hasn't had any sort of effect on my enjoyment of Burnout, Need for Speed, Grand Theft Auto, or any other games involving vehicular stupidity. That being said, I think it'd be really interesting to see some kind of driving game that highlights how ridiculous driving games can be. They revel in complete irresponsibility, something that in real life I'm deathly afraid of.

I think that's all Spec Ops is trying to do - it's pointing out a logical discrepancy. A lot of people never really think twice about their entertainment. As I mentioned earlier, you definitely don't have to hate something to deconstruct it; in fact, I'd wager that most of the best satirical/parody/deconstructionist films, books, and games have come from people with a great appreciation for the genre they're picking apart. Spec Ops isn't trying to get you to feel bad about enjoying violence or shooting in games, it's simply trying to get some critical thinking cogs moving. It never suggests that the player should stop playing games or not enjoy action, it simply takes the fairly toothless big-budget action genre and looks at it through another lens. Sometimes art doesn't have to have an end goal, it just needs to provoke a "huh, interesting" or what have you.

 

[CornBurrito]

I know I was in favour of the invasion of Iraq because I wanted to see stuff blow up on telly. I also think it is a shame we can't use the predator drones the UK has bought to assassinate... everyone I don't like.

Not sure if serious, or just mocking what is actually a valid question.

I'm not saying that playing shooters will turn us into violent bloodhungry beasts. I'm simply asking whether it is possible that they could desensitize us ever so slightly.

 

[Mr_Appleby]

I watched

a gaffer.

Crawl.


Along the edge.

Of a straight- razor.

 

[ErikB]

As I mentioned earlier, you definitely don't have to hate something to deconstruct it

Sure. I just get the impression that Spec Ops does hate it.

 

[TedNindo]

Wow I totally missed this game. I've been thinking about stuff like this for years now. But hardly any games have done it. But this is great.

I've played a lot of shooters and I've enjoyed them. But its great that a game confronts you with the reality of killing people and the consequences. I find it hilarious when you think about a game like uncharted where you are supposed to be the good guy but you are killing thousands of people and laugh it away at the next cutscene like nothing happened. Killing people doesn't make you feel good.

COD could be the most disturbing game ever created if they portray it in a different way. Now its just a mindless shooting gallery.


edit: BTW I think we need more confronting games that don't just serve as escapism. The game industry will need it if it wants to become more mature. Every medium offers this. But there are only a handful of games that do the same. There are so many possibilities besides fun and saving the day that haven't been explored on this medium that could create experiences that no other medium can offer because of interactivity.

 

[XANDER CAGE]

Wow I totally missed this game. I've been thinking about stuff like this for years now. But hardly any games have done it. But this is great.

I've played a lot of shooters and I've enjoyed them. But its great that a game confronts you with the reality of killing people and the consequences. I find it hilarious when you think about a game like uncharted where you are supposed to be the good guy but you are killing thousands of people and laugh it away at the next cutscene like nothing happened. Killing people doesn't make you feel good.

COD could be the most disturbing game ever created if they portray it in a different way. Now its just a mindless shooting gallery.

To Call of Duty's credit, a lot of the series is actually surprisingly cynical about the conflicts they're presenting, Call of Duty 4 especially.

 

[Parham]

Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now are not exactly know for they accuracy in the settings.

It's been a while since I've seen or read either, so please explain to me what part of Apocalypse Now's portrayal of Vietnam, or Cambodia, for example, manages to be wildly inaccurate. The small bits that didn't properly reflect the war, like the surfing and Ride of the Valkyries scenes, were largely inconsequential to the characters involved and were intended to foreshadow what was to come.

did we not just agree that apocalypse now also has a wildly inaccurate setting? the fact that it becomes more and more absurd as the trip downriver progresses doesn't change that in any way. and to be frank, the fact that the film starts in an entirely different country to where it ultimately ends up doesn't really do much to support this notion that spec ops handles the setting poorly because the descent isn't gradual.

I disagree. The introductory segment of Apocalypse Now is relatively more grounded than Spec Ops.

 

[iammeiam]

FWIW, Richard Pearsey (Narrative Designer) says the game's purpose is (article has full-game spoilers):

In the end, The Line is not about ethics and morality in war or war games. The game raises questions but does not answer them -- because it is not about answers, but emotion. We wanted to affect the player and generate an emotional response to the game over and above and the adrenalin rush normally associated with shooters. We wanted to demonstrate that shooters could do more than just thrill, and to a great extent I think we succeeded.

 

[Messofanego]

Like I said in my previous post, there isn't much a transition into the absurd in Spec Ops. Apocalypse Now, by comparison, manages to do that quite successfully. That is what makes the tonal shift all the more impactful.


Possibly! Could you elaborate on your last post a bit?

To a first-time player, it's not obvious and the tonal shift to becoming a psychological thriller

Spoiler

(remember the Konrad billboards?)

sets in later on. So I'd say it's still successful here.

I think just by how it opens with the helicopter shooting,

Spoiler

then it happens as "deja vu" later on, and how there's a purgatory interpretation that everything after the helicopter crash could be hallucination (white fade)

, it's pretty absurd from the start. No transition needed.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

It's been a while since I've seen or read either, so please explain to me what part of Apocalypse Now's portrayal of Vietnam, or Cambodia, for example, manages to be wildly inaccurate. The small bits that didn't properly reflect the war, like the surfing and Ride of the Valkyries scenes, were largely inconsequential to the characters involved and were intended to foreshadow what was to come.

Google "An Image of Africa" for Heart of Darkness. Is basically you whole complain with criticism to inherently colonialism and racism, but transplanted to Conrad's work.

 

[Barkley's Justice]

I'd like to read this but feel I wouldnt get the "whole story" without having played the game.

 

[PBalfredo]

I think just by how it opens with the helicopter shooting,

Spoiler

then it happens as "deja vu" later on, and how there's a purgatory interpretation that everything after the helicopter crash could be hallucination (white fade)

, it's pretty absurd from the start. No transition needed.

Oh God. Don't even get me started on this shit.

Don't even.