Yeah, it took a good 10 seconds or so for the latter to register as an option.
-
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.
LTTP: Spec Ops: The Line (I am Sick) [SPOILERS]
- Thread starter CoachKevin
- Start date
Yeah, it took a good 10 seconds or so for the latter to register as an option.
I went down, down, down and the flames went higher
And it burns, burns, burns, the ring of fire
The ring of fire
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Well, I find it odd that no one has written about the book even though it apparently sold over a thousand copies. lol
Ok, I just bought it. I doubt I'll be able to give my thoughts on it tonight, though. It's 177 (large text) pages.
First impression is that this book is surprisingly well written for what it is.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
lol
Well, let me know. I'll probably end up pulling the trigger as well out of curiosity, although I don't know when I'll have the time to actually read it.
Wow, on Page 6 even this guy is dropping truth bombs about the insanity of most game characters, in that Walker turns into a "normal game character" by the end of the game. He even draws comparisons with Nathan Drake (due to the Nolan North aspect) and his battle-hardened willingness to kill others without a second thought.
This book might be way better than I expected...
Think about characters like Jason Brody from Far Cry 3, who so willingly embrace and enjoy their situation. It really does make Capt. Walker look like the most sane shooter character ever.
This book might be way better than I expected...
Think about characters like Jason Brody from Far Cry 3, who so willingly embrace and enjoy their situation. It really does make Capt. Walker look like the most sane shooter character ever.
I played it on the suicide mission difficulty, and I agree horrible might be the wrong word for the shooting mechanics and general gameplay but it is below average.
The guns don't have any unique feel to them and it just seems to be a general cover shooter.
And I have to say the controls aren't particularly responsive or intuitive. Getting into and out of cover can be a pain at times.
I did enjoy the game as a whole though.
I had no idea about that.
I waited for a little while trying to see if they would clear out. Then I bought into what Walker would do in that situation, your friend just died and you are on a road to vengeance to get those responsible.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Ah, does he say ludonarrative dissonance? lol
Messofanego
Banned
This has been my favorite word this generation
Once Clint Hocking says something, you better fucking repeat it.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Hehe.Ctrl + F "ludonarrative".
Just once in the first sentence of Chapter Three.
Honestly, I don't even know if people like the term anymore. I certainly think it's applicable, but I feel like games journalists like to make fun of it. Even the Idle Thumbs guys say it ironically now, which is a bit disappointing.This has been my favorite word this generation
Once Clint Hocking says something, you better fucking repeat it.
The Idle Thumbs crew was also not very down with the themes of Spec Ops, so their dismissal of the term most closely associated with press about the game is not surprising to me.
I have no preference for the term one way or the other and seeing it does not bother me, but I do believe that it might just be a little played out in 2012.
If you would care to share your thoughts of why you disliked the game as much as the rest of us have expressed why we liked it, I would be interested to hear why. I'm not trolling you either, I'm serious.
As I've said before in this thread, I'm fascinated to hear the other side of this game.
Warm Machine
Member
I have a very strong statement I need to make when in comes to video games and our current state of game media, especially given the scripted nature of events in games. You can think I'm whacked out or not but here goes...
Watching long plays and videos of games is an awful way of experiencing and understanding them. Spec-Ops The Line makes a very powerful case for that. The White Phosporous scene is best experienced, and is importantly experienced, when you the player is actually guilty of pulling the trigger. The impact of that moment can only be guaged when it is a surprise to you and when you do it yourself. Watching someone else do it completely undermines the entire point. Knowing that it is going to happen undermines the entire point.
I felt a very similar thing when "No Russian" hit and news of what it was and how it happens spread. Thankfully, once again I ignored the media and knew nothing about the scene until I was knee deep in it and making my own choices. Playing through that as I did, the ending to that scene worked perfectly on me. I felt like a used piece of shit.
Others who watch this stuff and get spoiled get the experience completely nerfed. They are able to stand outside the moment, not have the immediacy of involvement, and therefor are able to criticise it in a fashion that betrays the truthfulness of play.
Game videos should be used only to guage if it looks like the basic mechanics of the game will appeal to you. I think most people on GAF can judge gameplay and feedback satisfaction simply based on a minute of continuous gameplay. For that reason videos are important but for anything narrative you are just cheating yourself out of being surprised and once that happens your ability to critically evaluate story and impact drops to near zero.
Watching long plays and videos of games is an awful way of experiencing and understanding them. Spec-Ops The Line makes a very powerful case for that. The White Phosporous scene is best experienced, and is importantly experienced, when you the player is actually guilty of pulling the trigger. The impact of that moment can only be guaged when it is a surprise to you and when you do it yourself. Watching someone else do it completely undermines the entire point. Knowing that it is going to happen undermines the entire point.
I felt a very similar thing when "No Russian" hit and news of what it was and how it happens spread. Thankfully, once again I ignored the media and knew nothing about the scene until I was knee deep in it and making my own choices. Playing through that as I did, the ending to that scene worked perfectly on me. I felt like a used piece of shit.
Others who watch this stuff and get spoiled get the experience completely nerfed. They are able to stand outside the moment, not have the immediacy of involvement, and therefor are able to criticise it in a fashion that betrays the truthfulness of play.
Game videos should be used only to guage if it looks like the basic mechanics of the game will appeal to you. I think most people on GAF can judge gameplay and feedback satisfaction simply based on a minute of continuous gameplay. For that reason videos are important but for anything narrative you are just cheating yourself out of being surprised and once that happens your ability to critically evaluate story and impact drops to near zero.
That was the problem though: It's a damn video game. Up to that point you have killed more people then are in the valley below, so thinking that you can just hold up and shoot them all isn't that big of a leap of logic. That's the problem: You kill way too many people in the game with just your gun, and all of a sudden the game decides to tell you: Nope! All those guys are going to magically respawn.
The only thing I criticize that moment for is making me get angry at a video game instead of getting angry at what happened in the story. Believe me, I wish the game had driven me to make the decision to use that phosphorous instead of just forcing me to do it. If it had, the resulting scenes would have had much more of an impact. Unfortunately, when the game zooms in on the dead woman and child, the only thing I was thinking was "Goddamn game and your stupid respawning snipers" when I want to be thinking "Oh shit....what did I do?"
If you would care to share your thoughts of why you disliked the game as much as the rest of us have expressed why we liked it, I would be interested to hear why. I'm not trolling you either, I'm serious.
As I've said before in this thread, I'm fascinated to hear the other side of this game.
I thought it was widely accepted that the game part of Spec Ops is crap? It plays like shit and the enemy encounters are dull, tedious and repetitive. I liked the presentation/story aspects of the game, although only to a certain point. If I want to experience Apocalypse Now, I'll watch Apocalypse Now.
So which movies/books should other shooters "borrow" from this time?
Warm Machine
Member
I agree with you (amazing!) when it comes to the gameplay. I found the gameplay reasonably lousy. The cover sticking was not accurate enough and the control difficulties when dealing with too many sets of cover in proximity was frustrating as all hell. I also played on the highest difficulty level too which only made things worse.
When it comes to experiencing Apocalypse Now, obviously that is just a variation on a classic novel. Spec Ops uses the same source but the story beats and happenstance are incredibly different. The only thing all three materials share is the general theme of a journey into personal darkness. AN ends on a far brighter note than Spec Ops does and that is saying something.
With the lack of choice the game gives you at pivotal moments, I'm on the side that says that it is a purposeful design decision to support the entire concept. CoD doesn't give you a choice for the most part. It doesn't branch interactively. As comment on those sorts of games, the lack of choice is part and parcel of the game's delivery. Would the game be better with a branching narrative, possibly, but then the point may not ever actually be made and the player would be absolved of their body count throughout the game.
My biggest gripe in the game's design as it support the narrative is the loading screens. I think it would have been far more chilling just to have stats play out. Accuracy, kills, civilian deaths, shots fired, head shots, etc. Add some more as the game plays out. Those stats would start as badges of honour mentally and by the end would be a sickening and chilling death toll.
bigboss370
Member
it was never a mechanic though, that's the problem. there were like only about three times it happened and each one was scripted.
wha? that's the wrong move lol. did you not feel, after all the shit you put those civilians through, that you deserved it? that's how i felt, which is why i shot into the ground instead of at them.
Messofanego
Banned
I've heard this way too much that it's become a bit silly.
They share similarities, but they're not going for the same thing. Even down to the characters, Walker and Willard are really different characters from beginning to end. Captain Walker can be seen as an extension of the player. There are points where the game and Konrad address you. The protagonist of Apocalypse Now is in control, while in Spec Ops no one is. Willard (Apocalypse Now) and Captain Walker (Spec Ops) have different goals, and the antagonist is completely different. Spec Ops is more in line to do with PTSD, how close a person is to insanity, the hero complex, and player agency. It's a commentary on the military shooter genre and people who play them. It's not about war specifically, it's about the individual. Apocalypse Now is to do with the insanity of war, and since you're not interacting, it's not about the viewer.
Here's a nice comparison between the two.
Square Triangle
Member
Fantastic game.
jim-jam bongs
Member
holy shit someone gets it
The_Player
Member
Because the thread's title is warning about spoilers?
Eh, bought this cheap and was disappointed with everything except the gameplay lol.
Story is bloated and obvious.
Characterisation is tonedeaf and confusing.
The message is shallow, borderline patronising.
The gameplay saves it from itself. Spec Ops is a decent shooter, very little more. I'm glad it got made, but I would rather just have dudebro shooters than dudebro shooters that swing at windmills.
Story is bloated and obvious.
Characterisation is tonedeaf and confusing.
The message is shallow, borderline patronising.
The gameplay saves it from itself. Spec Ops is a decent shooter, very little more. I'm glad it got made, but I would rather just have dudebro shooters than dudebro shooters that swing at windmills.
jim-jam bongs
Member
one tilts at windmills
The_Player
Member
Quick tip: abandon this thread and don't come back until finishing the game. The less you know about the game, the better.
HyperCubed4
Member
I like to think that's sort of the point. It uses tired shooter tropes to ridicule (for lack of a better term) standard shooters. In any case, I'll post the Extra Credits videos about the game because they
Spec Ops: The Line (Part 1)
Spec Ops: The Line (Part 2)
In a post Spec Ops world I'm fascinated to see if we'll get anything from Six Days in Fallujah. I feel like there is some serious room for a survival-horror style military game (Which is exactly what a deployment to a war zone is, a survival of horror) which Six Days purported to be.
Spec Ops the line has you shooting US Army soldiers, I feel like Six Days is decidedly less controversial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Days_in_Fallujah
Or maybe it will just suck, but I like the premise.
Spec Ops the line has you shooting US Army soldiers, I feel like Six Days is decidedly less controversial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Days_in_Fallujah
Or maybe it will just suck, but I like the premise.
jim-jam bongs
Member
okay I lol'd
I think an important aspect of Spec Ops that doesn't get enough attention is the evolving dialogue throughout the game, as well as the evolving aggression.
I'm sure many just breezed right through the game and didn't even really notice the way Walker's execution animations subtly change throughout the game. At first it's somewhat human, snapping their neck swiftly or putting a bullet in their head, but by the end of the game when Walker has completely lost it his execution moves become savage and brutal. Repeatedly smashing the enemy's head into the ground while letting out animalistic sounds. Or even worse jamming the muzzle of the rifle all the way into the enemy soldier's mouse and watching as the muffled soldier frantically screams for help while waving his arms, only to be put down. Fucking brutal.
The soundtrack adds to this as well, with such songs as "Hush" and other popular classic rock songs (evokes Apocalypse Now), but the end of the game has notably more subdued, serene, depressing music that goes a long way in showing you just how far the character have fallen.
I will argue that Nolan North does a better job with Capt. Walker than he does with Nathan Drake. Drake is often one of the most criticized game characters in terms of his happy-go-lucky attitude towards danger and death. Though the game is profanity-laden, it becomes far more angry and depraved at the very end, and especially after the most key moment of the game. I think as much praise that can be put on the game can be put on North's performance as well. Walker goes from telling his squadmates "Kill confirmed" at the beginning of the game to "HE'S FUCKING DEAD" or "Kill is fucking confirmed" and worse at the end of the game is pretty cool to me, I really appreciate that. Towards the end of the game North does a fantastic job in sounding very tired, very weary, and very much like someone who has been through some shit. Overall, I guess I would just say that Spec Ops has better character development than pretty much everything else out there; it's also something I would like to see from more games in the future and I'm fascinated to see more games like this on the next generation of consoles. Could be some pretty wild stuff on there, I can't wait.
I'm sure many just breezed right through the game and didn't even really notice the way Walker's execution animations subtly change throughout the game. At first it's somewhat human, snapping their neck swiftly or putting a bullet in their head, but by the end of the game when Walker has completely lost it his execution moves become savage and brutal. Repeatedly smashing the enemy's head into the ground while letting out animalistic sounds. Or even worse jamming the muzzle of the rifle all the way into the enemy soldier's mouse and watching as the muffled soldier frantically screams for help while waving his arms, only to be put down. Fucking brutal.
The soundtrack adds to this as well, with such songs as "Hush" and other popular classic rock songs (evokes Apocalypse Now), but the end of the game has notably more subdued, serene, depressing music that goes a long way in showing you just how far the character have fallen.
I will argue that Nolan North does a better job with Capt. Walker than he does with Nathan Drake. Drake is often one of the most criticized game characters in terms of his happy-go-lucky attitude towards danger and death. Though the game is profanity-laden, it becomes far more angry and depraved at the very end, and especially after the most key moment of the game. I think as much praise that can be put on the game can be put on North's performance as well. Walker goes from telling his squadmates "Kill confirmed" at the beginning of the game to "HE'S FUCKING DEAD" or "Kill is fucking confirmed" and worse at the end of the game is pretty cool to me, I really appreciate that. Towards the end of the game North does a fantastic job in sounding very tired, very weary, and very much like someone who has been through some shit. Overall, I guess I would just say that Spec Ops has better character development than pretty much everything else out there; it's also something I would like to see from more games in the future and I'm fascinated to see more games like this on the next generation of consoles. Could be some pretty wild stuff on there, I can't wait.
O.DOGG
Member
Thanks for that. It points out moments I didn't even notice in the game.
I have to play it again. I think it's a great comment on following orders among other things. In a way the game is giving you orders to keep on playing. I remember that even though it got very uncomfortable I just had to push through! You can always turn the game off, you dumb fuck!
Thanks for making this thread, and making me think more about it. I also bought that book. Looking forward to reading it.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
So I spoke to Walt Williams a bit and there's a clear divide between the writing team and the game design team. So for example, he didn't like how that silly water tanker scene played and never wanted you to have infinite grenade ammo. That was something the game design team put in...
So I don't know how much intent you can put into the gameplay. And even then, average encounter design is still average encounter design. You can't really excuse it by saying it fits with the story. Certainly you wouldn't excuse bad acting or bad lighting in a film just because it happened to be thematically convenient.
I remember when there was a spate of "parody" games that tried to make fun of bad game design... except their own games replicated the very design that they were trying to mock.
And on a related note, I asked Walt about the VERY videogamey aspect of the executions. It does the idiotic Uncharted 2/3 thing where if you kill someone with an execution, somehow they spit out extra ammo and grenades.
And he admitted that he didn't notice that "problem" because he never executed any enemies when he played through the game. That was yet another element that he had no control over or awareness of and one of the game designers put it in. Maybe for balance issues? I don't know. But it was one of the more sillier moments of the game.
That game is dead. They took the engine and turned it into that multiplayer XBLA shooter that no one played.
(And looking on wikipedia, it looks like that game bombed so hard that the company disappeared and it was pulled from Steam).
---
Oh yeah, I also ended up buying the Spec Ops book. What the hell. lol
I've very much believed even in the early days that Six Days in Fallujah would probably suck ass. But I really like some of the ideas about it and I would like to see the more interesting aspects of what it was going for thematically explored further, preferably by a competent dev team like Yager.
Apparently Breach also only sold like 15,000 units in its first week. BOOOOOOOOOOMBA
The white phosphorus scene is pretty dumb imo, on the gameplay part they spoil the surprise of the cinematic part... you are watching that big group of civilians through the camera, you already know that you have killed a shit ton of people.
The worst part, i already didn't want to shoot that last projectile, it didn't make any sense, to put all that people on danger for killing the last pair of soldiers...
And then the cinematic scene triggers like, surprise motherfucker! You did all this! Bullshit.
At least they could use a normal camera instead of a infrared one, and put the civilians under a tent or something... or give the players a way to stop using the fucking phosphorus.
A real choice and consequence system on a videogame is 10 times more powerful than throwing some digital gore at your face; but they went the easy way.
The worst part, i already didn't want to shoot that last projectile, it didn't make any sense, to put all that people on danger for killing the last pair of soldiers...
And then the cinematic scene triggers like, surprise motherfucker! You did all this! Bullshit.
At least they could use a normal camera instead of a infrared one, and put the civilians under a tent or something... or give the players a way to stop using the fucking phosphorus.
A real choice and consequence system on a videogame is 10 times more powerful than throwing some digital gore at your face; but they went the easy way.
I thought that was an incentive to get people to use the executions when they might otherwise avoid them. A player might try to take the "moral high ground" and avoid brutal takedowns, but because they'd need ammo, they'd change their ways, and also see another aspect of Walker's character arc. Which I thought was a good idea, except I never reached a point where I needed to do that.
I don't think the game had mediocre encounter design as part of some greater point, though. It had to fit the shooter mold, certainly, but the game's message would have been the same if it played just as well as Gears did. Overly long fights against unbelievable waves of enemies worked against the game more than they aided it.
I think it would have been better if a lot of the areas in the back quarter of the game were more sparsely populated, and you were more obviously the aggressor. I like the encounters the most when you're coming up on unsuspecting groups of enemies, and I think if they'd limited the fighting to quick, pointless victories over overmatched and desperate soldiers, it would have sat better with everything else that was happening.
At least since Yager decided to put it in the game they did something interesting with it. In Gears of War you do the same curb stomp animation at the end of the game as you do in the first 5 minutes.