Support NeoGAF

[ViviOggi]

I find Antitrop's absence worrying...

He's preparing the megapost to end this thread

 

[Dark Octave]

I have no clue what you were expecting. Cover shooter. That's all it is. That's all it ever claimed to be. The story didn't grab me either.

 

[Parakeetman]

He's preparing the megapost to end this thread

Sometimes, silence is the answer.

 

[Azih]

little to no character development = shitty character development, no change in position there...

I wasn't attacking anyone. I was a commentary on the state of the thread. Read the OP, then read the posts of all the people who've rallied to defend the game.

"insular community", "group consensus ", "ferver" is deriding the people making arguments as some sort of inbred hive mind instead of dealing with the arguments themselves. That' is no way to have a good conversation.

There's plenty to show that the characters depicted in the game change drastically from the start of the game to the end of the game. To say there is little to no character development is simply wrong.

 

[Fugu]

I think this game is bad and the point it's trying to make is a little dumb, too. The shock value of the game's various set pieces are severely limited by the fact that the player isn't actually choosing to do them and that they are simply a fixed part of the game's narrative. It's as if a book, written in second person, contained the lines "YOU DID THIS, YOU HORRIBLE MONSTER!" after some horrible atrocity that "I" committed. No I didn't, I read that I committed it. That is simply not the same, and the game's plot sort of falls apart when it conflates these two things.

Perhaps if the game had given me the choice to not be a horrible monster then I would feel differently about the value of the plot, but it doesn't, really. You're a horrible monster on rails up until the very end, and in a game that attempts to start a dialog about the decisions that games make players make, "choice" is a pretty glaring omission.

"insular community", "group consensus ", "ferver" is deriding the people making arguments as some sort of inbred hive mind instead of dealing with the arguments themselves. That' is no way to have a good conversation.

There's plenty to show that the characters depicted in the game change drastically from the start of the game to the end of the game. To say there is little to no character development is simply wrong.

Spec Ops: The Line™ is probably the first game that I've ever really felt was being pushed upon me by some sort of viral marketing team. Whether or not that's true I suppose I won't ever really know, and it's largely a result of the fact that the praise for the plot is often so hyperbolic and generally implies that the rest of videogaming is vapid by comparison. Someone posted an image on 4chan detailing an unsually high level of commonality between posts praising the game over a protracted period of time (many of them were exactly the same) and perhaps that stuck with me more than it should have -- considering how unreliable a piece of evidence that is -- but my experiences with the game itself and my conversations about it on the internet and elsewhere have only reinforced my opinion that this is either an unusually insular fanbase in a hobby known for insular fanbases or that there's something else going on here.

 

[Theecliff]

I wasn't attacking anyone. I was a commentary on the state of the thread. Read the OP, then read the posts of all the people who've rallied to defend the game.
.

Isn't that the whole point of these threads though? An OP that gives an opinion on something and as a result starts a discussion about it? Or is there something wrong with people defending the game - and if so, how are they any different to the people attacking it?

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Really loved the game. The squad's terror at what was happening in the beginning of the game made each encounter feel a lot more tense for me than the shooters where the characters don't seem to be taking the death dealing seriously. The vision obstruction stuff made the game feel just out of control enough to be a major positive in making the game more tense without making it annoying.

Not sure about the game lacking character development.

Spoiler

The guys obviously change and get more and more hardened (as shown in both their diminishing reactions to the violence they're committing in gameplay to the psychotic body language they start developing in cutscenes) as the game progresses. The cutscenes before they get the helicopter are ludicrously tense, due to their change in character to people that value human life less, and the cutscenes near the end are pretty heart-breaking I thought.

 

[Nostremitus]

"insular community", "group consensus ", "ferver" is deriding the people making arguments as some sort of inbred hive mind instead of dealing with the arguments themselves. That' is no way to have a good conversation.

There's plenty to show that the characters depicted in the game change drastically from the start of the game to the end of the game. To say there is little to no character development is simply wrong.

That's just it, there's not enough to show the changes.It isn't wrong. In your opinion its enough, in mine it isn't. That's no excuse for all of the attempts to alter everyone else's opinions that's taking place in this thread. You see, I have no problem with you enjoying the game and having your opinions about it. For some reason, though, many here seem to be deeply offended by people who don't like it or don't feel certain aspects were presented well. That's the point of my previous post. That's the ferver I was talking about. It isn't an insult if it's actually happening, it's an observation. Why is it so important to have others share your opinions about this game? Especially when you're talking to others who've also played the game, your opinions don't invalidate those of others who also experienced the game.

 

[Prophet Steve]

It has everything to do with this conversation. There are clearly people here who had an almost religious experience with this game. It's been placed on a pedestal and the insular community has filled its shortcomings with their group consensus in order to make the game more than it was. The ferver is so great that the defense force felt the need to come en mass to shit up a thread because it wasn't praising the game. What's worse is that you seem to be calling for your leader to set the heathens straight.


It was a shit game with shit character development. You can imagine who they may have been before the game in order to justify your position all you want. My original point still stands, they didn't spend enough time on the characters to make any changes relevant.

I do not defend everything with the game, I know there are plenty of bad things about it. I am just pointing out that there is no to little character development in the game is pretty much factually wrong and you are doing nothing to convince me otherwise.

That's just it, there's not enough to show the changes.It isn't wrong. In your opinion its enough, in mine it isn't. That's no excuse for all of the attempts to alter everyone else's opinions that's taking place in this thread. You see, I have no problem with you enjoying the game and having your opinions about it. For some reason, though, many here seem to be deeply offended by people who don't like it or don't feel certain aspects were presented well. That's the point of my previous post. That's the ferver I was talking about. It isn't an insult if it's actually happening, it's an observation. Why is it so important to have others share your opinions about this game? Especially when you're talking to others who've also played the game, your opinions don't invalidate those of others who also experienced the game.

But, as I spoilered earlier.

Spoiler

When the game progresses Walker shouts and curses more during gameplay and there are more and more bits of dialogue that he enjoys killing the enemies. This was not at the beginning.
The small touch of having his finger on the trigger constantly later in the game.
The executions are getting more brutal.
The hallucinations showing the psychological effect.
And these are all things that are during gameplay, and not in cutscenes where his new personality is also apparent.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

That's just it, there's not enough to show the changes.It isn't wrong. In your opinion its enough, in mine it isn't. That's no excuse for all of the attempts to alter everyone else's opinions that's taking place in this thread. You see, I have no problem with you enjoying the game and having your opinions about it. For some reason, though, many here seem to be deeply offended by people who don't like it or don't feel certain aspects were presented well. That's the point of my previous post. That's the ferver I was talking about. It isn't an insult if it's actually happening, it's an observation. Why is it so important to have others share your opinions about this game? Especially when you're talking to others who've also played the game, your opinions don't invalidate those of others who also experienced the game.

But it's a game where the story is the characters reacting to the gameplay sequences and their demeanor during the gameplay sequences changes completely as the game goes along. I think there was plenty of development shown.

It's not like Mass Effect or Uncharted or a Rockstar game where the gameplay and story are usually separated and the main characters don't care at all about the mooks they have to gun down, Spec Ops' story happens in the gameplay frequently.

 

[Nostremitus]

I do not defend everything with the game, I know there are plenty of bad things about it. I am just pointing out that there is no character development in the game is pretty much factually wrong and you are doing nothing to convince me otherwise.

I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. I just stated my opinion and was swamped by people trying to force there's on me. It just seemed as though a group moved into the thread with the purpose of attacking those who didn't like the game. Maybe I was reading the posts wrong, I dunno. I apologize if I offended anyone.

But it's a game where the story is the characters reacting to the gameplay sequences and their demeanor during the gameplay sequences changes completely as the game goes along. I think there was plenty of development shown. It's not like Mass Effect or Uncharted or a Rockstar game where the gameplay and story are usually separated and the main characters don't care at all about the mooks they have to gun down, Spec Ops' story happens in the gameplay frequently.

I realize that's where the story took place, maybe I just didn't care enough about the characters to notice all of the nuanced changes. That goes back to not giving enough back story on the characters to make me care enough, though. I agree that there was some character development, I guess I just didn't notice the small nuanced things. I dunno, it wasn't anything revolutionary for me. For instance, I didn't get the same experience others got from the set pieces, like the radio man getting killed. Maybe its because I've known real people who been in situations and realize that killing to complete the mission doesn't say anything about your character. They couldn't let the radio guy go, he had to be killed to preserve operational security.Then again, maybe I'm just numb to the changes you guys noticed.

 

[Sojgat]

I think this game is bad and the point it's trying to make is a little dumb, too. The shock value of the game's various set pieces are severely limited by the fact that the player isn't actually choosing to do them and that they are simply a fixed part of the game's narrative. It's as if a book, written in second person, contained the lines "YOU DID THIS, YOU HORRIBLE MONSTER!" after some horrible atrocity that "I" committed. No I didn't, I read that I committed it. That is simply not the same, and the game's plot sort of falls apart when it conflates these two things.

Perhaps if the game had given me the choice to not be a horrible monster then I would feel differently about the value of the plot, but it doesn't, really. You're a horrible monster on rails up until the very end, and in a game that attempts to start a dialog about the decisions that games make players make, "choice" is a pretty glaring omission.


Spec Ops: The Line™ is probably the first game that I've ever really felt was being pushed upon me by some sort of viral marketing team. Whether or not that's true I suppose I won't ever really know, and it's largely a result of the fact that the praise for the plot is often so hyperbolic and generally implies that the rest of videogaming is vapid by comparison. Someone posted an image on 4chan detailing an unsually high level of commonality between posts praising the game over a protracted period of time (many of them were exactly the same) and perhaps that stuck with me more than it should have -- considering how unreliable a piece of evidence that is -- but my experiences with the game itself and my conversations about it on the internet and elsewhere have only reinforced my opinion that this is either an unusually insular fanbase in a hobby known for insular fanbases or that there's something else going on here.

The game always struck me as having a wonderfully unique atmosphere, even before I got to the plot twists. I remember posting my first impression in the OT, that it reminded me of a great John Carpenter movie, which is probably the highest compliment I could pay any piece of entertainment. So many games have tried to capture that same quality, yet Spec Ops seems to do it effortlessly. It's not without it's flaws, and may indeed be an acquired taste, but I genuinely love what it does. I may be part of a viral marketing team though, so feel free to disregard my opinion.

 

[Llyrwenne]

But, as I spoilered earlier.

Spoiler

When the game progresses Walker shouts and curses more during gameplay and there are more and more bits of dialogue that he enjoys killing the enemies. This was not at the beginning.
The small touch of having his finger on the trigger constantly later in the game.
The executions are getting more brutal.
The hallucinations showing the psychological effect.
And these are all things that are during gameplay, and not in cutscenes where his new personality is also apparent.

The problem being is that these (mostly) subtle details, no matter how masterfully implemented, get lost if you can't get invested in the characters in the first place. The game did a shitty job of getting me to care for the characters and explain their motivations (Walker got saved by Konrad once, but that's about all we hear, since the loading screens tell me 'Walker doesn't want to talk about what happened in Kabul', and the other two guys are just along for the ride and shout at you a whole lot.), so I wasn't really that focused on their lines during combat. They were shouting all the time, so I didn't really notice that it significantly changed, which made the jumping-to-conclusions-stuff the characters did in the cutscenes even more sudden.

And I agree with those other two posters; I also feel like this game is being pushed on me, and unrightfully so. This is a mediocre shooter with poor mechanics, poorly told story and so-so twist ending, yet people keep placing it on a pedestal and praising it like it is some hugely important and deep game that has changed the industry. It kind of makes me hate the game more than it deserves.

 

[rosaceadude2112]

Not every good game needs RPGification. You can, you know, just shoot enemies and follow a storyline without a golden light beaming down over your character every 30 seconds while fireworks go off and achievement notifications flood your screen.

Spoiler

Do you feel like a hero yet?

I think what you're "incapable of seeing" here is that this isn't supposed to be an over-the-top no-neck-shooter.

This reminds me of Fight Club - not everyone can see what it is saying. Maybe it's just not for you.

lmao. damning with faint praise.

 

[Azih]

I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. I just stated my opinion and was swamped by people trying to force there's on me. It just seemed as though a group moved into the thread with the purpose of attacking those who didn't like the game. Maybe I was reading the posts wrong, I dunno. I apologize if I offended anyone.

It's just there is a big difference between a claim of shit character development and little to no character development. Shit is just saying it was done badly (which could mean that it didn't happen sure but it could also mean that it was done clumsily, wasn't believable, made no sense, was too abrupt or a whole bunch of other problems). Saying little to no is making a statement on how much the characters changed throughout the course of the game and it's just really obvious that they changed a whole bunch.

 

[Kammie]

Okay. Let's take it slow. Play any racing game released in the last decade. What happens when you play it? You unlock new cars. What happens in Bioshock? You get new powers, you upgrade your weapons, you become stronger. Pretty much every game rewards you. Like I said, I'm not just talking about "filling up bars" or such. Have you seriously never played a game before? Games reward you in different ways. The Walking Dead rewards you with story, Mario rewards you with big variety in terms of levels, Driver San Fran gives you new cars, events and to some extent powers, and Final Fantasy levels you up and makes you more powerful. It's basic game design, even though a lot of gaffers don't grasp it. It comes in all forms. Then there's Spec Ops The Line. And (so far anyway) it doesn't reward you in any possible way. Again, since you seem a bit slow, I'm not just talking about leveling up and getting bars. In shooters it's often about gaining new weapons or abilities, or upgrading your existing weapons.

I haven't read the whole thread, but the problem here is that you're expecting the game to be something when it's trying to be something else. When you approach a movie, novel or game without any preconceptions, it works better. And even then, the point of this game *is* that it's playing off of what people are used to playing this generation.

What I don't understand is why you use this as a point of criticism. You play games, you're on GAF, so you've probably been playing games for a while--enough to know that for decades games operated on systems where you don't "level up" anything. A game opting for this type of design should be something that one can appreciate in this day and age, if anything.

Also, the game has clear and definite progression. It's just not based on the skills or power of the weapons you get. The developers knew what they were doing and this is all a voluntary design choice, not bad modern game design.

 

[Nostremitus]

It's just there is a big difference between a claim of shit character development and little to no character development. Shit is just saying it was done badly (which could mean that it didn't happen sure but it could also mean that it was done clumsily, wasn't believable, made no sense, was too abrupt or a whole bunch of other problems). Saying little to no is making a statement on how much the characters changed throughout the course of the game and it's just really obvious that they changed a whole bunch.

It wasn't obvious to me. The gamed didn't spend enough time on the characters to make any changes obvious. Like I said above, though, maybe I'm just numb to the changes or had already assumed they would behave in those ways.

 

[Azih]

I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. I just stated my opinion and was swamped by people trying to force there's on me. It just seemed as though a group moved into the thread with the purpose of attacking those who didn't like the game. Maybe I was reading the posts wrong, I dunno. I apologize if I offended anyone.

It's just there is a big difference between a claim of shit character development and little to no character development. Shit is just saying it was done badly (which could mean that it didn't happen sure but it could also mean that it was done clumsily, wasn't believable, made no sense, was too abrupt or a whole bunch of other problems Edit: like Tiemen said, the game just didn't get him to care about the characters in the first place). Saying little to no is making a statement on how much the characters changed throughout the course of the game and it's just really obvious that they changed a whole bunch.

 

[Screaming Meat]

Antitrop incoming.

 

[valentine71]

Characters may seem generic but interesting thing is how they transform. Its like reading Transformation and saying Samsa is generic.

 

[BolognaSoup]

This and Fez are probably GAFs most overrated games of the generation. Just a total turd of a game and you can even see the supposed big amazing reveal coming a million miles away as even the OP already mentioned.

 

[rosaceadude2112]

cool games that comment on video game violence:

Kane and Lynch 2: Dog Days
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
Half-Life 2

 

[Mogwai]

Finished the game last week. The gameplay is so utterly boring. The only redeeming quality is the story. All in all, way too hyped.

 

[FrontalMonk]

I played through Spec Ops shortly after the hype train took off, and to me I felt like the hype was there mainly because the game felt like such an unpolished, unrecognized gem. It wasn't like "this is the best damn game ever", it was more like "this game that bombed so hard on all the review sites and didn't sell well is actually a really important game". And that's the type of game I'd classify it as.

It's not a great game.

It's not a fun game.

It is, however, an important game.

It's for the reasons that everyone else described that I sat back while the credits rolled, scratched my chin, and thought about the game for a few minutes. The only other game I've done that with this generation is The Last of Us. And putting this game in the same conversation as that one is high enough praise for me.

 

[May16]

Oh.
Well I loved it.

And sadly, it's one of those things that's more of a work of art than a game in the end.

So, yes, you end up with a very tiring, un-fun experience. As it was designed to be. It's not what most games are designed to be, but that's pretty clearly the deal with Spec Ops The Line.

You may have also been negatively affected by reading and being told repeatedly "This is great, this is great, get your body ready, this is gonna wow you, prepare to be amazed, did I mention this is GREAT!?!?" That can have a reverse effect sometimes. :/

 

[SolidChamp]

It's unfortunate that the game play was weak as shit. It was almost worth finishing for the story alone. Almost.

 

[RionaaM]

No. How many times do I have to explain this? That's not what "rewarding" means. At all. It's not like "hey, you killed people, here have a lollipop". It's more like "hey, you completed this section of the game, your character is now stronger/acquired a new weapon/reached a area that's much different from the one before/you now get a cut-scene to follow the interesting story-line". Anything.

Seriously. It's getting tiresome explaining the basics of game design.

You're the one who doesn't get it. I know what you are saying, and I stand by what I posted earlier. The rewards you seek, the game purposefully avoids providing them. War is not supposed to be fun, nor rewarding. You aren't meant to get a price (be it a new weapon or area or a mind-blowing cutscene) for killing 300 soldiers. The game doesn't want to give you that.

I love how you think everyone's misunderstanding you, even to the point where you called a poster "slow", but you fail to understand the very basics of what's being said to you.

 

[BattleMedic]

What a game, the stories better than bioshock infinites anyway.

 

[LonelyGreyWolf]

Alright guys. For you I went back and played it. You say things step up in chapter 7/8, but I'm at chapter 12 now I think; shortly after you do the helicopter flight again. It's the exact same thing as in the first hour, except Walker is now really angry and really want to kill people. The moral is thrown in your face. Even during the loading screens it says "Feel like a hero yet?". Yeah no, I get it.

I'm really giving this game a try, guys. I might go back to it tomorrow, but I really can't keep playing it any more today.

 

[PIMPBYBLUD]

Takes about half the game for the story to kick in.

But once it does. Wow.

Combat sucked but basically this

 

[PIMPBYBLUD]

Alright guys. For you I went back and played it. You say things step up in chapter 7/8, but I'm at chapter 12 now I think; shortly after you do the helicopter flight again. It's the exact same thing as in the first hour, except Walker is now really angry and really want to kill people. The moral is thrown in your face. Even during the loading screens it says "Feel like a hero yet?". Yeah no, I get it.

I'm really giving this game a try, guys. I might go back to it tomorrow, but I really can't keep playing it any more today.

The second helicopter encounter is when things started to really get interesting. The ending is freakin awesome...Nolan North style.

 

[vladdamad]

I thought the story/atmosphere were magnificent, except for some poor writing in places (

Spoiler

sweet dreams, bitch

), up until the ending. I seriously don't get the praise for the ending. Before the twist, the game has this strange, dream-like tone, but the ending grounds the whole story in a shoddy twist that's supposed to help everything make sense but doesn't. I would have been fine if they had ended the story

Spoiler

just as the lift to the top of the tower opens. The character development is done - Walker knows he's a terrible person, we know he's a terrible person. We don't need a lecture from a pseudo-Silent Hill-like hallucination. It was the most unsubtle thing that could have been done in the circumstances.

So yeah. Fantastic atmosphere, great art style, terrible ending. Still an important game to play in my opinion.

 

[Levyne]

I thought the story/atmosphere were magnificent, except for some poor writing in places (

Spoiler

sweet dreams, bitch

), up until the ending. I seriously don't get the praise for the ending. Before the twist, the game has this strange, dream-like tone, but the ending grounds the whole story in a shoddy twist that's supposed to help everything make sense but doesn't. I would have been fine if they had ended the story

Spoiler

just as the lift to the top of the tower opens. The character development is done - Walker knows he's a terrible person, we know he's a terrible person. We don't need a lecture from a pseudo-Silent Hill-like hallucination. It was the most unsubtle thing that could have been done in the circumstances.

So yeah. Fantastic atmosphere, great art style, terrible ending. Still an important game to play in my opinion.

I mostly agree, but the flash backs / revelations to earlier game scenes was well done imo.

(I'm being vague but minor spoilers)

Spoiler

The radio, the hanging survivor choice, etc

 

[vladdamad]

I mostly agree, but the flash backs / revelations to earlier game scenes was well done imo.

(I'm being vague but minor spoilers)

Spoiler

The radio, the hanging survivor choice, etc

Yes, but what annoyed me was those flashbacks were the only things that make sense after the twist is revealed. I thought things like

Spoiler

why did Konrad go insane (if he ever existed), why the rebellion occured, who Radioman is, etc, would be explained, but all of this backstory was just dropped.

The twist raises a lot more inconsistencies than answers existing questions imo, unless I'm missing some audio logs which explain this or I'm just being really dense.

 

[Azih]

Yes, but what annoyed me was those flashbacks were the only things that make sense after the twist is revealed. I thought things like

Spoiler

why did Konrad go insane (if he ever existed), why the rebellion occured, who Radioman is, etc, would be explained, but all of this backstory was just dropped.

The twist raises a lot more inconsistencies than answers existing questions imo, unless I'm missing some audio logs which explain this or I'm just being really dense.

Spoiler

The hidden intel pieces kinda make a lot of this clear. Konrad existed. His act of hubris in trying to play hero and use the 33rd to save the citizens ended in abject failure and he commited suicide in despair right after his last transmission "This is Colonel John Konrad, United States Army. Attempted evacuation of Dubai ended in complete failure. Death toll, too many. " The reason for his arrogance is explained as well in a psych evaluation intel playback.

There are a few pieces of intel on Radioman that paint him in a very different and much more sympathetic light. At least at the start of Konrad's attempted evacuation before everything went to hell on the 33rd.

You really should look up all the hidden intel playbacks on youtube. You are missing a few very well written and acted pieces of info.

 

[vladdamad]

Spoiler

The hidden intel pieces kinda make a lot of this clear. Konrad existed. His act of hubris in trying to play hero and use the 33rd to save the citizens ended in abject failure and he commited suicide in despair right after his last transmission "This is Colonel John Konrad, United States Army. Attempted evacuation of Dubai ended in complete failure. Death toll, too many. " The reason for his arrogance is explained as well in a psych evaluation intel playback.

There are a few pieces of intel on Radioman that paint him in a very different and much more sympathetic light. At least at the start of Konrad's attempted evacuation before everything went to hell on the 33rd.

You really should look up all the hidden intel playbacks on youtube. You are missing a few very well written and acted pieces of info.

OK, I might do that then. That's fair enough, but I still don't think that a game should go out of its way to hide bits of fairly important story from you, not a huge fan of audio logs personally. If it's small bits of info about the characters, that's fine, but when it's the actual context of what's happening, that's what I don't really like. Had a similar issue with Bioshock Infinite, despite loving that game.

 

[gogosox8]

Spec Ops was mediocre through and through.




The game was a lot shorter than that for me, and I even stopped to take screenshots. Normal mode.

I tend to play games slower than most people though. I tend to look around and navel gaze and try to search everything in the level. I did play it on hard so that may also be a reason why it was 8 hours for me.

 

[Five]

I appreciate what the game was trying to do, but also agree with those who think it failed.

If it was trying to be realistic, trying to show what war is really like, why was it such an improbable story? How did that entire battalion get lost? Why did they only send in three dudes to find them? How in the world was the entire city covered up in a sand storm? The game is a joke from the outset.


This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I think Saints Row 3 does a better job of making the point than Spec Ops: The Line did. The point, of course, being that shooting is really only fun when it's in a highly stylized, in-no-way-realistic manner.

 

[Dick Justice]

For me, the gameplay was serviceable, but the fantastic soundtrack, atmosphere and narrative more than made up for it.

 

[PBalfredo]

You know, considering the game really hangs its hat on the idea of "the only winning move is to not play", the fact the OP was ready to bail before The Horrible Thing That Happens, but everyone here said "No, keep playing! Finish the game!", y'all are a bunch of dicks.

 

[EatinOlives]

I hope nobody who's piling on the hate for this game has a problem with insipid shooters or rollercoaster setpiece-heavy linear games. There's always this backlash against games like CoD for being "dudebro", yet the first shooter in the big-budget retail space that tries something different is derided for utterly meaningless stuff like "bu-bu-bu- I can't unlock more guns! This is bullshit!"

Even if you don't think the execution is good at all (which I would disagree with but at least understand), people should at least appreciate that a game of this kind exists, where it's trying to present something a little bit more thoughtful than a mindless shootbang. But I guess if people dismiss the game's commentary as pretentious garbage then turn around and complain the game is also crap for not rewarding you with XP or whatever, it's indicative that studios shouldn't even try this kind of thing again, which is very unfortunate.

 

[Mengetsu]

If you don't understand the PTSD and the way it effects a solder on the field then you won't understand the story of this game. It has a deep story if you read the Intel about what's going on in the game and who you're fighting and why.

Spoiler

He needed someone to blame and he blamed his superior a dead man!

I feel like most days people are playing games like watching a movie or a show. Just to be doing it to kill time. I feel bad for people who doesn't understand stories like this and how deep it goes. Online gaming is where you belong for that mindless/numb less fun.

 

[jetjevons]

For me, the gameplay was serviceable, but the fantastic soundtrack, atmosphere and narrative more than made up for it.

Sums it up for me. I loved it.

 

[Sojgat]

Spoiler

For those still trying to work out the plot: take note of when the screen flashes white and Walker seems unsteady on his feet, this denotes that the following sequences are not what they seem (this sometimes happens before events in the plot you otherwise might never question). Pay careful attention to the environment, especially those large advertisements featuring the face of someone who shouldn't be there. When Walker references remembering that the helicopter battle had already happened, that's not a self aware joke about the story being told through a flashback. Everything in the game means something, what it all points to in terms of the narrative isn't really groundbreaking stuff, but the fact that it's being explored in a video game is. There are multiple valid interpretations of the game's events, and that big reveal at the end might not mean what you think it does.

 

[Barryman]

Yeah keep playing, it takes about halfway in for the game to get more interesting.

Just kidding, it's still a super-linear, middlingly-executed killfest. Except the length of the encounters keeps increasing?

The story was OK, but it was essentially a less intellectually engaging riff on the same themes of player agency that Bioshock so masterfully tackled years before Spec Ops The Line came out. I really don't understand why so many people feel this game was such a revelation.

 

[Barryman]

If you don't understand the PTSD and the way it effects a solder on the field then you won't understand the story of this game. It has a deep story if you read the Intel about what's going on in the game and who you're fighting and why.

Spoiler

He needed someone to blame and he blamed his superior a dead man!

I feel like most days people are playing games like watching a movie or a show. Just to be doing it to kill time. I feel bad for people who doesn't understand stories like this and how deep it goes. Online gaming is where you belong for that mindless/numb less fun.

The story beats you described aren't deep or complex. I thought they were pretty rote and predictable. In fact, if you've played this game at all, it's probably because you've heard enough chatter about it that you already can figure out exactly what will happen with the story.

Granted, I thought certain parts of it were well-executed, like the incidental dialog evolving throughout the game (although I also knew this was going to happen before jumping in to the game from listening to the Bombcast).

The intel drops added very little to the story as far as I remember. It really just felt like a military skinned Bioshock ripoff to me, with none of that game's variety, panache or artistry.

 

[EatinOlives]

I should also mention the game as a whole was meant to be misleading. You weren't supposed to know it was meant to be story heavy with the themes it's presenting until you actually played the game. Now that the game has been out for a couple years and people have been talking about it the effect has worn off, because I think a lot of people are coming in already knowing exactly all the cards the game is dealing and are coming off unimpressed.

EDIT: I also think people are misinterpreting the praise it's getting. I'm seeing a lot of people referring to the "story", and they think things like cutscenes and dialogue and shit. That isn't what people are talking about in terms of the story. They're talking about things like

Spoiler

Conrad's face being in a billboard in the beginning of the game

,

Spoiler

lush lone trees in the middle of the desert that die when you turn the camera around

, and

Spoiler

people's eyes being spray painted black in billboards where an atrocity has occurred

. And that's another thing, people read about this stuff before having played the game and then they play those parts and simply say "that's it? So what, it's just a dead tree. Oooo how 'deep'.", but again that's missing the point. You weren't supposed to know this stuff was in the game, and those details were more than the sum of their parts when you discovered them on your own. Now that the details are out in the wild and have been discussed countless times people who are new to the game aren't going to get the same experience out of it.

 

[Barryman]

I should also mention the game as a whole was meant to be misleading. You weren't supposed to know it was meant to be story heavy with the themes it's presenting until you actually played the game. Now that the game has been out for a couple years and people have been talking about it the effect has worn off, because I think a lot of people are coming in already knowing exactly all the cards the game is dealing and are coming off unimpressed.

That's a good point. I can imagine that if I played this expecting a Call of Duty ripoff instead of a Bioshock ripoff, I would've been much more impressed with it.

The trouble is, I never would have played it, nor would most in this discussion, which makes that intention sort of ill-advised. That goal would have only been truly successful if the developers of Call of Duty, a military FPS with a huge built in audience, decided to pursue it. This game's audience seems to be mostly enthusiast press and forum-goers, all of whom discover the game *because* of the buzz around its story.

 

[EatinOlives]

That's a good point. I can imagine that if I played this expecting a Call of Duty ripoff instead of a Bioshock ripoff, I would've been much more impressed with it.

The trouble is, I never would have played it, nor would most in this discussion, which makes that intention sort of ill-advised. That goal would have only been truly successful if the developers of Call of Duty, a military FPS with a huge built in audience, decided to pursue it. This game's audience seems to be mostly enthusiast press and forum-goers, all of whom discover the game *because* of the buzz around its story.

Well that's the wonderful thing about going in blind. I only knew about the game until people started raving about it, but until I started the game I never actually discussed it or perused spoiler threads. All I knew about the game was that it was awesome and I should play it.

Whether or not that's the fault of the player is up for debate, but I do see the conflict in a little-known game only getting recognition when people rave about things that ruins the experience if you know them ahead of time.

 

[Nostremitus]

If you don't understand the PTSD and the way it effects a solder on the field then you won't understand the story of this game. It has a deep story if you read the Intel about what's going on in the game and who you're fighting and why.

Spoiler

He needed someone to blame and he blamed his superior a dead man!

I feel like most days people are playing games like watching a movie or a show. Just to be doing it to kill time. I feel bad for people who doesn't understand stories like this and how deep it goes. Online gaming is where you belong for that mindless/numb less fun.

Hyperbole. I think I have a fairly solid understanding of PTSD from first and third hand experience. All I'm going to say is that I disagree with you. It is possible that people "get" the story and still don't think it's very good at all.


Edit: For the record, I didn't read the spoiler threads before playing, I just saw the game getting referenced as lot.

Personally, I think MOH told a better story from that frame ofvreference .

Spoiler

That shit with Rabbit at the end made me tear up a bit.