Support NeoGAF

[MJLord]

I actually picked this up because of all the praise it got here in various threads. Guess GAF is very divided over this game.

We all just wanted different things from it I guess. The "average shooter" played well into the narrative in my mind which makes great use of the game mechanics to influence narrative.

Some people don't give a shit about that and want something more fun.

 

[SkyTurnsRed]

There are some definite criticisms that can be leveled at this game, but this thread is making it painfully clear that the message of the game went over a lot of heads.

 

[Evrae]

That's the entire point of the game.

*activates Antitrop signal*

Just to clarify this for you, and others like you who think this was intelligent:

A bad game is a bad game.

Regardless of how much you are trying to perform a parody, a subversion or a critique of established concepts.

Far Cry 3 had a similar problem, but in the inverse. The gameplay there was done well, but the story which was trying to be subversive and controversial, made for a game that was abysmal to play through from start to finish, because it was largely pointless and stupid.

A bad game is a bad game.

The goal is to make a good game, and still effectively hit the mark with regard to whatever it is you're trying to critique. Metal Gear Solid 2 is one such game. Excellent mechanically, with a very deep and intricate story.

A bad game however, is just a bad game.

There are no excuses.

Spec Ops The Line gets full credit for trying to perform Heart of Darkness and comment on the stupidity of games by subverting forced player choices within the narrative.

But a bad game is a bad game.

 

[MJLord]

Just to clarify this for you, and others like you who think this was intelligent:

A bad game is a bad game.

Regardless of how much you are trying to perform a parody, a subversion or a critique of established concepts.

Far Cry 3 had a similar problem, but in the inverse. The gameplay there was done well, but the story which was trying to be subversive and controversial, made for a game that was abysmal to play through from start to finish, because it was largely pointless and stupid.

A bad game is a bad game.

The goal is to make a good game, and still effectively hit the mark with regard to whatever it is you're trying to critique. Metal Gear Solid 2 is one such game. Excellent mechanically, with a very deep and intricate story.

A bad game however, is just a bad game.

There are no excuses.

Spec Ops The Line gets full credit for trying to perform Heart of Darkness and comment on the stupidity of games by subverting forced player choices within the narrative.

But a bad game is a bad game.

Nice

Poem

Bro

I personally didn't have much of a problem with the gameplay. It was functional at the very least.

 

[Bricky]

But a bad game is a bad game.

I don't think anybody ever argued Spec Ops: The Line is a good 'game'. But it is definitely a great experience and the mediocre gameplay even kinda fits the story on top of that. Not everything game needs to be perfect mechanically to be worth playing through.

 

[Kusagari]

Just to clarify this for you, and others like you who think this was intelligent:

A bad game is a bad game.

Regardless of how much you are trying to perform a parody, a subversion or a critique of established concepts.

Far Cry 3 had a similar problem, but in the inverse. The gameplay there was done well, but the story which was trying to be subversive and controversial, made for a game that was abysmal to play through from start to finish, because it was largely pointless and stupid.

A bad game is a bad game.

The goal is to make a good game, and still effectively hit the mark with regard to whatever it is you're trying to critique. Metal Gear Solid 2 is one such game. Excellent mechanically, with a very deep and intricate story.

A bad game however, is just a bad game.

There are no excuses.

Spec Ops The Line gets full credit for trying to perform Heart of Darkness and comment on the stupidity of games by subverting forced player choices within the narrative.

But a bad game is a bad game.

But Spec Ops isn't a bad game.

Is the gameplay anywhere near the top of the genre? Nope, but it isn't bad either.

 

[Cave Johnson]

5 YEARS for a game like spec ops? Sorry man, it's not the "smart" aspect that's the issue - it's your ridiculous management and incompetence that would allow you take that long to make a mediocre-cum-semi-intelligent-narrative drivel that is Spec Ops: The Line. I bought it on sale and I think it is exactly the value that it presents itself to be.

COD had half the time and probably a smaller development budget but still manages to deliver the experiences the fans wanted. Hell yeah, you couldn't compete with them.

 

[ZSeba]

Well, people who demand smart games won't be the same who buy COD every year. So stop accusing a diverse group of people of hypocrisy

Anyways I'm thankful they made this game as it was truly something unique and worth playing, and I'm glad at least half this forum agrees

 

[Evrae]

But Spec Ops isn't a bad game.

Is the gameplay anywhere near the top of the genre? Nope, but it isn't bad either.

All things considered, especially the standards within the genre, it is a pretty bad game.

However much you subjectively may want to forgive its deficiencies, that's in the eyes of the beholder really. Some people may have thought the game was fantastic when they considered what was important to them.

However, the maligned execution on merging the narrative with the gameplay in order to make a point is stillborn due to the fact that the script suffers from glaring meta-narrative gaps, while the gameplay is functional at best, but again, compared to the industry standards, it is significantly poor.

It's a game that tries to do something meaningful, and fails because of poor execution.

The game is simply, objectively, bad.

 

[TitusGroan]

Just to clarify this for you, and others like you who think this was intelligent:

A bad game is a bad game.

Regardless of how much you are trying to perform a parody, a subversion or a critique of established concepts.

Far Cry 3 had a similar problem, but in the inverse. The gameplay there was done well, but the story which was trying to be subversive and controversial, made for a game that was abysmal to play through from start to finish, because it was largely pointless and stupid.

A bad game is a bad game.

The goal is to make a good game, and still effectively hit the mark with regard to whatever it is you're trying to critique. Metal Gear Solid 2 is one such game. Excellent mechanically, with a very deep and intricate story.

A bad game however, is just a bad game.

There are no excuses.

Spec Ops The Line gets full credit for trying to perform Heart of Darkness and comment on the stupidity of games by subverting forced player choices within the narrative.

But a bad game is a bad game.

Oh Evrae, with your text so poetically displayed
Allow this humble poet to reply in kind
There's nothing bad about the way that Spec Ops played
Hyperbole is the cancer of the mind

True, it falters compared to Vanquish's majesty
And is lesser than Max Payne, GOTY for all years
But average is average, not terrible, bad or travesty
And Spec Ops plays no worse than Uncharted or Gears

In truth, the squad mechanics could have been deeper
But lo! The smallest details are still sublime
The way even voices change twixt calm and creeper
Or character models change with passage of time

The animations are smooth, and develop with the story
The AI is competent, weapons snappy to hold
The graphics reflect as the narrative get more gory
The art direction coloured with purple, green and gold

So lest you think all game require gameplay innovation
Think you of Morrowind, combat broken to the core
Think of The Last Of Us, the must have game for Playstation
Average gameplay, being re-released for PS number Four.

 

[duckroll]

It says a lot about the game industry when even developers feel that the benchmark for success is that there is a chance for a sequel. Why should the question even come up? What more is there to say with regards to Spec Ops The Line? Why does it need a sequel? Who is asking for a sequel? Does Nolan talk about making a sequel to Memento or The Prestige? It's so weird to me that this is even something the developers would think about. They should be proud of what they've created, and happy to have made their mark by saying what they wanted to say, and are now able to say other things and do other things. Whether the game was successful or not, even entertaining the idea that a sequel would be appropriate kinda ruins the intent of the message.

 

[jimi_dini]

COD had half the time and probably a smaller development budget but still manages to deliver the experiences the fans wanted. Hell yeah, you couldn't compete with them.

I guess it's just easier to make a Michael Bay summer blockbuster for the masses, where there is lots of action and slow-mo and explosions and shooting and rank-ups and shit and that's basically it.

What fans are you talking about? CoD fans? Those will of course want to kill kill bang bang shoot shoot without remorse in more CoD games. Why should most of them be interested in a game, that's deconstructing shooters and makes them feel bad?

Spec Ops The Line isn't something that people would want to get an annual release out of anyway, because that simply wouldn't make sense. That's like asking for "Apocalypse Now 2: Age Of Extinction" and "Apocalpyse Now 3: Dark of the Heart".

The game is simply, objectively, bad.

nope.

 

[ZSeba]

It's a game that tries to do something meaningful, and fails because of poor execution.

The game is simply, objectively, bad.

That's completely subjective.

 

[bidguy]

haha people buy cod because it actually has good gameplay

spec ops is the most bland, boring shooting i have ever played

 

[TitusGroan]

It says a lot about the game industry when even developers feel that the benchmark for success is that there is a chance for a sequel. Why should the question even come up? What more is there to say with regards to Spec Ops The Line? Why does it need a sequel? Who is asking for a sequel? Does Nolan talk about making a sequel to Memento or The Prestige? It's so weird to me that this is even something the developers would think about. They should be proud of what they've created, and happy to have made their mark by saying what they wanted to say, and are now able to say other things and do other things. Whether the game was successful or not, even entertaining the idea that a sequel would be appropriate kinda ruins the intent of the message.

For what it's worth, the developer interviewed isn't Walt Williams, who was the main guy responsible for the anti-violence tone the game's story ended up taking. If you're going to interview Managers and Art Directors, of course they're going to think along more industry standard lines than a guy who thought it would be cool to take Heart of Darkness and apply it to COD.

 

[thetrin]

Spec Ops: The Line doesn't need a sequel. It told its piece in one game. It was perfect.

 

[Discotheque]

It says a lot about the game industry when even developers feel that the benchmark for success is that there is a chance for a sequel. Why should the question even come up? What more is there to say with regards to Spec Ops The Line? Why does it need a sequel? Who is asking for a sequel? Does Nolan talk about making a sequel to Memento or The Prestige? It's so weird to me that this is even something the developers would think about. They should be proud of what they've created, and happy to have made their mark by saying what they wanted to say, and are now able to say other things and do other things. Whether the game was successful or not, even entertaining the idea that a sequel would be appropriate kinda ruins the intent of the message.

huge problem in the videogame industry here. everything needs a sequel.

i think they should leave last of us alone too but that's sony's new media darling so expect a 4 or 5 game series there.

anyways i never wanted a spec ops sequel but i'd love to see more from this team. it's really well written

 

[Evrae]

That's completely subjective.

No, that argument is not cyclical.

Oh Evrae, with your text so poetically displayed
Allow this humble poet to reply in kind
There's nothing bad about the way that Spec Ops played
Hyperbole is the cancer of the mind

True, it falters compared to Vanquish's majesty
And is lesser than Max Payne, GOTY for all years
But average is average, not terrible, bad or travesty
And Spec Ops plays no worse than Uncharted or Gears

In truth, the squad mechanics could have been deeper
But lo! The smallest details are still sublime
The way even voices change twixt calm and creeper
Or character models change with passage of time

The animations are smooth, and develop with the story
The AI is competent, weapons snappy to hold
The graphics reflect as the narrative get more gory
The art direction coloured with purple, green and gold

So lest you think all game require gameplay innovation
Think you of Morrowind, combat broken to the core
Think of The Last Of Us, the must have game for Playstation
Average gameplay, being re-released for PS number Four.

I laughed, good job. I'll disagree with the Spec Ops assertions, but that was really nicely done.

 

[duckroll]

For what it's worth, the developer interviewed isn't Walt Williams, who was the main guy responsible for the anti-violence tone the game's story ended up taking. If you're going to interview Managers and Art Directors, of course they're going to think along more industry standard lines than a guy who thought it would be cool to take Heart of Darkness and apply it to COD.

Yeah that's fair. It's still disappointing to see the developers express disappointment in the lack of blockbuster success by saying "we're never making a sequel" though. I guess when it comes down to it, the question is whether Yager learned much from making Spec Ops The Line, or if best things about the game was really entirely the brainchild of Walt Williams. I would certainly prefer to think that some of it at least rubbed off on them, because that would make any future title they make more interesting. :/

 

[ArjanN]

Oh Evrae, with your text so poetically displayed
Allow this humble poet to reply in kind
There's nothing bad about the way that Spec Ops played
Hyperbole is the cancer of the mind

True, it falters compared to Vanquish's majesty
And is lesser than Max Payne, GOTY for all years
But average is average, not terrible, bad or travesty
And Spec Ops plays no worse than Uncharted or Gears

In truth, the squad mechanics could have been deeper
But lo! The smallest details are still sublime
The way even voices change twixt calm and creeper
Or character models change with passage of time

The animations are smooth, and develop with the story
The AI is competent, weapons snappy to hold
The graphics reflect as the narrative get more gory
The art direction coloured with purple, green and gold

So lest you think all game require gameplay innovation
Think you of Morrowind, combat broken to the core
Think of The Last Of Us, the must have game for Playstation
Average gameplay, being re-released for PS number Four.

Nicely done.

 

[ZSeba]

Did the interview even mention a sequel? At least in the OP all they say is they'll never make a millitary shooter again.

 

[duessano]

I thought the game was fine until spoilers

Spoiler

the white phosphorus bit, you only see white blobs in the view finder and it is clear that they are civilians but you aren't given the option to not fire, just to serve its preachy story

You are given the option, just turn your system off. You aren't forced to play the game.

 

[ZSeba]

No, that argument is not cyclical.
.

Your argument is "I don't like it so it must be objectively bad"

 

[Berto]

haha people buy cod because it actually has good gameplay

spec ops is the most bland, boring shooting i have ever played

You should play more games Mr. Hyperbole. There's a lot of trash laying around

 

[Jito]

You are given the option, just turn your system off. You aren't forced to play the game.

So deep.

 

[Silky]

People trying way too hard to get their opinions across.

Spec Ops was a good game. It had flaws. But it was good. I caught on to it's message, but i admit that it should have done a bit better delivering it. It's not meant to have amazing gunplay but the gunplay it does have is serviceable enough for the game. There really isn't a need for a sequel because you can't really set it up. I hope Yager does good for Dead Island 2--A series I enjoy a lot.

 

[TitusGroan]

Yeah that's fair. It's still disappointing to see the developers express disappointment in the lack of blockbuster success by saying "we're never making a sequel" though. I guess when it comes down to it, the question is whether Yager learned much from making Spec Ops The Line, or if best things about the game was really entirely the brainchild of Walt Williams. I would certainly prefer to think that some of it at least rubbed off on them, because that would make any future title they make more interesting. :/

Well certainly, the art direction, character modelling, sound direction and animations all reflected the story's themes incredibly well, so I would be amazed if those departments had somehow managed to pull that off without some initiative on their own. The thing is, with any interview, there's always going to be a certain amount of stuff that isn't quite in context, simply because we don't know what their plans were behind the scenes. They might have had a belter for a second installment planned out.

I mean, if you head Ford-Coppola talking about making a Godfather 2 directly after the first one came out, you might have had pause for thought there as well, but look what happened...

At the end of the day, I agree that the industry does place too much emphasis on sequel potential as a barometer for success, but at the same time, it's a developer's prerogative if they have ideas for a sequel in future, and that shouldn't be used as ammo against them. The Yager guys seem like smart developers, and to have a lot of talent across their departments, so I wouldn't want to assume this is just mindless sequel griping from them.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

Spec Ops might be one of my favourite games of the last few years. Just a gripping game from finish to end.

 

[Cave Johnson]

I guess it's just easier to make a Michael Bay summer blockbuster for the masses, where there is lots of action and slow-mo and explosions and shooting and rank-ups and shit and that's basically it.

But that's what developers have been trying to do for years!!! And without even remotely half the success that it has. I really believe you are undermining the attempts from the studios at Activision. Sure, they rely on braindead tropes, but that strawman doesn't work when those "games" can't even grab half the audience COD does.

What fans are you talking about? CoD fans? Those will of course want to kill kill bang bang shoot shoot without remorse in more CoD games. Why should most of them be interested in a game, that's deconstructing shooters and makes them feel bad?

An prime example of a developers knowing their established fanbase and desiging games around them. Spec Ops wanted to take said fanbase by making a pop-and-shot shooter while expanding the audience who are "intellectually" feasible to see their gimmick. It's all about appealing to both sides and. they. failed.

Spec Ops The Line isn't something that people would want to get an annual release out of anyway, because that simply wouldn't make sense. That's like asking for "Apocalypse Now 2: Age Of Extinction" and "Apocalpyse Now 3: Dark of the Heart".

nope.

It's not about annualizing a series, (Which makes no sense considering the ending of the game) but trying to establish a "safe" zone in regards to gameplay while using their schtick for the more "receptive" audience. Gameplay that heavily relies on the tropes the game subtly criticizes on but ironically spends more development time on. If they wanted a punchline to said game, they would've had at least developed the game in half the time COD was in order to showcase how "easy" it is to make a blockbuster-Bayish title. The fact that it didn't only overshadows their attempt to poke fun of said tropes.

 

[Sande]

The "it's a bad and boring shooter to strengthen the narrative" argument never ceases to crack me up.

 

[TitusGroan]

The "it's a bad and boring shooter to strengthen the narrative" argument never ceases to crack me up.

That's kind of not the argument at all. Part of the appeal of the game is that shooting guys in the head isn't that much fun, which isn't the same thing as not being very good. The game uses gunplay mechanics which are compelling, but that is not the same thing as fun. The same way that Saving Private Ryan's intro is compelling without necessarily being enjoyable, the shooting in Spec Ops is compelling without being a barrel of laughs. The developers managed this by making ammo relatively scarce, and the game somewhat harder than normal, meaning fights feel challenging and tense, rather than easy and enjoyable.

A game can use gameplay to convey emotions other than fun, as evidenced by just about every MGS game ever.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

The gameplay wasn't "bad and boring" it was just nothing special. Not good, not bad. Servicable. Wether that's intended or not really doesn't matter that much in the end. If you can deal with okay gameplay for a fantastic and interesting story you should play Spec Ops. If not, probably not.

 

[Gustav]

It says a lot about the game industry when even developers feel that the benchmark for success is that there is a chance for a sequel. Why should the question even come up? What more is there to say with regards to Spec Ops The Line? Why does it need a sequel? Who is asking for a sequel? Does Nolan talk about making a sequel to Memento or The Prestige? It's so weird to me that this is even something the developers would think about. They should be proud of what they've created, and happy to have made their mark by saying what they wanted to say, and are now able to say other things and do other things. Whether the game was successful or not, even entertaining the idea that a sequel would be appropriate kinda ruins the intent of the message.

I am pretty sure they were asked by Gamestar (the publication) about a sequel and this was their answer.

As for why a Managing Director would think in sequels? Well, it's means security for the studio. Having another project lined up really helps.

 

[Baron_Calamity]

I enjoyed Spec Ops quite a bit more so than most Call of Dutys. I've played the single player of all of them and yet World at War is my favorite so I'm weird. I got the commentary and enjoyed the twist. However I don't feel Spec Ops needs a sequel. I'm not sure I would have bought it if there a sequel ever came out.

BTW what are they working on now?

 

[Deadbeat]

So deep.

You are just too dumb to understand dude.

 

[Gustav]

I enjoyed Spec Ops quite a bit more so than most Call of Dutys. I've played the single player of all of them and yet World at War is my favorite so I'm weird. I got the commentary and enjoyed the twist. However I don't feel Spec Ops needs a sequel. I'm not sure I would have bought it if there a sequel ever came out.

BTW what are they working on now?

Dreadnought, a space shooter.
Dead Island 2, a free to play version of Dead Island (at least that is the rumor.)

 

[Fantastapotamus]

You are just too dumb to understand dude.

That picture is pretty stupid

 

[KissVibes]

Dead Island 2, a free to play version of Dead Island (at least that is the rumor.)

Where is that the rumor?

Because Google pulls up absolutely nothing about that.

 

[jimi_dini]

But that's what developers have been trying to do for years!!! And without even remotely half the success that it has.

No. Plenty of shooter developers want to get a share of that CoD audience. And those fail. Of course. Because the CoD audience wants CoD and nothing else.

I really believe you are undermining the attempts from the studios at Activision. Sure, they rely on braindead tropes, but that strawman doesn't work when those "games" can't even grab half the audience COD does.

What are you talking about? Just because a game is a shooter doesn't automatically mean that the developer wanted a piece of dat CoD audience. MGS 4 / MGO is also basically a shooter and it surely didn't want to grab the CoD audience. It wanted to be "more inclusive" and lots of people like shooting, but that's not the same as wanting to grab the CoD audience.

And just because lots of people are "eating" "food" at McDonalds doesn't mean that "food" at McDonalds is great. Activision got lucky and they are just basically releasing the same game over and over again with a few changes here and there until the audience has enough and goes away (see those guitar games). Same with Michael Bay movies. I'm sorry, but I'm simply not impressed by such a behaviour.

Activision releasing a CoD, that has a story like Spec Ops The Line? That would take some serious balls. They don't, because they would risk their CoD franchise. MGS 2 did something like that and that took serious balls as well. It won't happen again. Way too much risk.

An prime example of a developers knowing their established fanbase and desiging games around them.

More like: releasing the same game over and over with a few nuts and bolts added or removed. See all sorts of annual video game franchises. Also see the typical blockbuster movie sequels including all those silly remakes of superb movies.

Spec Ops wanted to take said fanbase by making a pop-and-shot shooter while expanding the audience who are "intellectually" feasible to see their gimmick. It's all about appealing to both sides and. they. failed.

source?
If they actually wanted to do that, they simply would not have designed the game around the story and they also would have designed an actual major multiplayer component instead of adding one in the last minute, because the publisher told them to do so.

but trying to establish a "safe" zone in regards to gameplay while using their schtick for the more "receptive" audience.

source?

Gameplay that heavily relies on the tropes the game subtly criticizes on but ironically spends more development time on.

What does it matter? Are you just salty about The Line? The story is not tacked on, but integrated into the gameplay. That's why it works so well and I guess that's also why it took so long, because it's simply difficult to do so. It's way easier to have certain gameplay (like mindlessly shooting people in the head) and then a story in cutscenes, that tells the player that shooting people in the head is sorta bad.

If they wanted a punchline to said game, they would've had at least developed the game in half the time COD was in order to showcase how "easy" it is to make a blockbuster-Bayish title.

What are you talking about? Spec Ops The Line is simply not a blockbuster-Bayish title, it wouldn't make sense to annualize it and this fact should have been obvious to the developers. If they actually wanted to get a part of dat CoD audience, they would have designed it completely different.

The publisher had possibly something different in mind, but the publisher obviously didn't understand anything about The Line, because he forced the developers to add a bad multiplayer mode to it.

 

[Gustav]

Where is that the rumor?

Because Google pulls up absolutely nothing about that.

Maybe that was the rumor for Dreadnought? I remember that they were looking for a monetization expert or something.

Edit:

Here you go
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/spec-ops-the-line-dev-working-on-free-to-play-game/1100-6416537/

 

[Glass Rebel]

That's kind of not the argument at all. Part of the appeal of the game is that shooting guys in the head isn't that much fun, which isn't the same thing as not being very good. The game uses gunplay mechanics which are compelling, but that is not the same thing as fun. The same way that Saving Private Ryan's intro is compelling without necessarily being enjoyable, the shooting in Spec Ops is compelling without being a barrel of laughs. The developers managed this by making ammo relatively scarce, and the game somewhat harder than normal, meaning fights feel challenging and tense, rather than easy and enjoyable.

A game can use gameplay to convey emotions other than fun, as evidenced by just about every MGS game ever.

Yeah, it wasn't good at that either. Spec Ops isn't particularly challenging nor did it make me feel tense. I finished the game and I appreciate what Yager was trying to do (I might be biased though since I know someone at the studio) but claiming that the game is anything but a by the numbers run-of-the-mill shooter as far as mechanics are concerned is giving the game more credit than it deserves.

Maybe that was the rumor for Dreadnought? I remember that they were looking for a monetization expert or something.

Edit:

Here you go
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/spec-ops-the-line-dev-working-on-free-to-play-game/1100-6416537/

That was almost 100% Dreadnought. Dead Island: Epidemic is a separate game developed by Sunlock Studios. Yager has nothing to do with that.

 

[Gustav]

Yeah, it wasn't good at that either. Spec Ops isn't particularly challenging nor did it make me feel tense. I finished the game and I appreciate what Yager was trying to do (I might be biased though since I know someone at the studio) but claiming that the game is anything but a by the numbers run-of-the-mill shooter as far as mechanics are concerned is giving the game more credit than it deserves.



That was almost 100% Dreadnought. Dead Island: Epidemic is a separate game developed by Sunlock Studios. Yager has nothing to do with that.

I wouldn't categorize Dreadnought as AAA, though. Description fits more with Dead Island 2.

 

[jimi_dini]

Spec Ops isn't particularly challenging nor did it make me feel tense.

Try on the hardest difficulty.

Especially the part where

Spoiler

the player is alone is quite challenging and also quite tense

.

 

[TitusGroan]

Yeah, it wasn't good at that either. Spec Ops isn't particularly challenging nor did it make me feel tense. I finished the game and I appreciate what Yager was trying to do (I might be biased though since I know someone at the studio) but claiming that the game is anything but a by the numbers run-of-the-mill shooter as far as mechanics are concerned is giving the game more credit than it deserves.

Most run-of-the-mill shooters don't offer squad mechanics the way Spec Ops does, nor do they offer the sheer range of contextual animations the game does. They didn't go out of their way to make the gameplay super-duper fun because if they did, the same people criticising the game now would probably be going on about Ludonarrative Dissonance instead. The mechanics are solid, there's a good range of options available to the player regarding how to take out enemies, and the gameplay works holistically with the story to maintain the feeling of how relentless and repetitive the violence is. It's supposed to feel like a relentless grind, because that's kind of what the story is trying to say. Meat into the grinder, and all that.

Spoiler

That they still manage to break the gunplay up with white phosphorous sections, helicopter sections, and psychedelic sections where you're marching towards a burning tower, at least suggest some creativity on the gameplay designers' part. I can't think of another shooter that has me march through burning sand towrds a burning tower while dead people rise up around me.

 

[RocketRacoon]

Lotta vented anger in ITT.

I loved Spec Ops The Line and I'm glad I bought it day one, regardless of this or that...but I wouldn't have given it nearly as much notice if it hadn't dropped at the end of June.

Deadzone of games and good reviews were a nice motivator, I think this should really just be a tale for smaller gamers or risks.

PUT OUT GAMES IN THE SUMMER.

And no 2014, I don't consider the END of August the Summer, they're just backloading the Holiday. Games in Late August/Sept/Oct/Nov then Feb/March.

Spec Ops the Line would've eventually gotten my sale, but it got my 59.99 sale because it was smartly placed (sent to die?)

 

[Azih]

Well there's a good reason why challenging stories are much more common in the indie scene. Michael Bay movies aren't the place for social commentary either. Yager did great stuff and I'm glad they created Spec Ops: The Line and I'm glad they're still around to make other things.

I've only played the first Modern Warfare so I really got to know. Are other single player CoD campaigns really better than the one in Spec Ops:The Line in terms of gameplay? How so? They all seem pretty samey to me.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

The obsession with sequels, and the creation of franchises instead of games which stand alone, is a truly shitty part of this industry.

Oh Evrae, with your text so poetically displayed
Allow this humble poet to reply in kind
There's nothing bad about the way that Spec Ops played
Hyperbole is the cancer of the mind

True, it falters compared to Vanquish's majesty
And is lesser than Max Payne, GOTY for all years
But average is average, not terrible, bad or travesty
And Spec Ops plays no worse than Uncharted or Gears

In truth, the squad mechanics could have been deeper
But lo! The smallest details are still sublime
The way even voices change twixt calm and creeper
Or character models change with passage of time

The animations are smooth, and develop with the story
The AI is competent, weapons snappy to hold
The graphics reflect as the narrative get more gory
The art direction coloured with purple, green and gold

So lest you think all game require gameplay innovation
Think you of Morrowind, combat broken to the core
Think of The Last Of Us, the must have game for Playstation
Average gameplay, being re-released for PS number Four.

 

[Cave Johnson]

What are you talking about? Just because a game is a shooter doesn't automatically mean that the developer wanted a piece of dat CoD audience. MGS 4 / MGO is also basically a shooter and it surely didn't want to grab the CoD audience. It wanted to be "more inclusive" and lots of people like shooting, but that's not the same as wanting to grab the CoD audience.

But unlike those games you mentioned, Specs fall in line in exactly what your standard shooter achieves (in order to fit the 4th wall flashboards). Otherwise, what would be the point of self-criticizing the game that goes beyond a shooter if it was in the same league as MGS4?

And just because lots of people are "eating" "food" at McDonalds doesn't mean that "food" at McDonalds is great. Activision got lucky and they are just basically releasing the same game over and over again with a few changes here and there until the audience has enough and goes away (see those guitar games). Same with Michael Bay movies. I'm sorry, but I'm simply not impressed by such a behaviour.

But it is serviceable to the audience they target, even if they run it to the ground. Hype meters for the latest COD-spacey showcase that.

source?
If they actually wanted to do that, they simply would not have designed the game around the story and they also would have designed an actual major multiplayer component instead of adding one in the last minute, because the publisher told them to do so.

Playing the game for instance is a good indication of how the gameplay works. It is a pop-and-shot shooter, end of story. This isn't Rainbow Six or SOCOM.

What does it matter? Are you just salty about The Line? The story is not tacked on, but integrated into the gameplay. That's why it works so well and I guess that's also why it took so long, because it's simply difficult to do so. It's way easier to have certain gameplay (like mindlessly shooting people in the head) and then a story in cutscenes, that tells the player that shooting people in the head is sorta bad.

Salty? Let's not resort to dismissive remarks like that. The self-aware gimmick has run it's course in the first few title cards. I agree, it works but to create a $60 game around that, I just don't see it. If you wanna see a perfectly good 4th wall plot attempt then Bioshock (from the same publisher) pretty much got this down. You can easily see how they could cop-out and make the most linear game possible just for that

Spoiler

"Would you Kindly"

moment and it would still work. But that's where both games differ; Bioshock knows how to encompass the content and justifies it's production values - Spec Ops, does not.

What are you talking about? Spec Ops The Line is simply not a blockbuster-Bayish title, it wouldn't make sense to annualize it and this fact should have been obvious to the developers. If they actually wanted to get a part of dat CoD audience, they would have designed it completely different.

What I meant for chasing that "COD audience" is that the game didn't try to establish itself differently for the 3rd person perspective (See TLOU) because the resulting gameplay element is a pick up and play title.

The publisher had possibly something different in mind, but the publisher obviously didn't understand anything about The Line, because he forced the developers to add a bad multiplayer mode to it.

But they gave them 5 years worth of budget to work on so they must've liked what they seen - which is most likely the shooting aspect. Adding the multiplayer give credence to that hypothesis because at face-value it resembles your standardized 3rd person game.

 

[TitusGroan]

What I meant for chasing that "COD audience" is that the game didn't try to establish itself differently for the 3rd person perspective (See TLOU) because the resulting gameplay element is a pick up and play title.

Firstly, Cave Johnson, work on your formatting.

Secondly, how exactly do you expect a third-person shooter to differentiate its mechanics from COD for a third-person perspective, when that game is acting as a criticism of COD? That's like criticising Watchmen for using superheroes, and not using more original characters to tell its story.

Thirdly, if you're going to critcise Spec Ops for not having original enough gameplay underneath its story to make it stand out as a game, it's probably best if you don't use TLOU as a comparison point, a game with a fine story sitting on top of, ultimately, very basic stealth and shooting mechanics. They're both following the same school of design, so please don't try and paint them as being at opposite ends of the spectrum.

 

[TheSeks]

Your lack of control as a player is part of what the game comments on. Read into what the characters are saying and you'll find that they're speaking to you, the player, telling you that your only real means of control is the choice to continue or stop playing. By continuing to play you are complicit in what the game makes you do.

One could say the same for CoD's "No Russian" stage, in which you can choose to not shoot civilians, but they will get shot all the same. This is a common trope in military shooters. Protected an NPC for a few minutes? They get shot in a cutscene. You have no control as you walk down the game's corridor. Only the illusion of it.

Sorry, but at that point: Spec-Ops' "meta commentary" went out the window. "WHY ARE YOU DOING THESE THINGS THAT ARE HORRIBLE!? WHY ARE YOU STILL PLAYING!?"

"...Because you made me do these things. Because I want to see the ending that was overhyped to hell, Yager."

The only organic "illusion of choice" that actually felt good was

Spoiler

shooting the civilians or shooting in the air to get them to back off you after they kill one of your squad-mates

. Too bad that falls on it's face a few hours later when

Spoiler

the entire Dubai trek was Walker going insane/hallucinating so who knows if we actually even shot civilians. For all we know Walker could've just carried an AK and PEW PEW PEW'd while hallucinating sandstorms.