Support NeoGAF

[Grimsen]

The game dropped to 40$ at Futureshop. I was going to use my 20$ off promotion that I got with Sleeping Dogs on Tekken tag, but I've been itching to get this game if it got to 30$ or less, so I'm gonna bite.

 

[KTallguy]

I'm of two minds about this game, I just finished it last night. It definitely was a really grating, not fun experience at times, partially because of the bad checkpointing and difficulty of some of the encounters. I'm really not sure if this is by design, to make you fatigued, or because the mechanics weren't as sharp as they could be. I managed to soldier on.

I really appreciated the player choice moments that came into play later. (big spoilers)

Spoiler

The scene where you nuked all those civilians didn't really hit me that hard, of course I felt bad, but I still think I treated it as the character doing it, not me. Was there any choice here? I didn't feel like I had player agency but maybe I'm wrong?

Because of the perceived limits that were put on my behavior, I didn't really feel responsible. Also I wish there were more "tricks", and that the tricks were more creative. There were a few that were pretty cool, but I think they could have taken a few pages from how Eternal Darkness fucked with the player.

Part of me applauds the fact that they used this military shooter format to force the player into these choices. And heaps of praise for providing several undocumented options, it reminded me of some of the high stress scenes in Heavy Rain. But part of me wishes that the game was more open, less like Call of Duty, and did things in a more system-oriented way. It's closer to a movie/book like experience, and it doesn't play up the strengths of the medium enough, I feel. If it was a survival game, you could be forced into terrible choices by way of trying to survive, and the whole thing could feel more organic. If you really feel like you're calling the shots, it would have more impact when those horrible choices come out of nowhere.

I loved how the voice acting and animations changed as the story went on. Maybe the fact that the combat was numbing and challenging in an annoying way was by design? I love the tongue-in-cheek slow down when you headshot someone, it's just a big fuck you to people who get their rocks off by playing COD online. The loading screen 4th wall breaking could have been integrated into the game more, I think the way it was done was a little sloppy.

Honestly all of my criticisms were probably things that the team talked about when making the game, and for time/money etc. reasons, that direction was shot down. This game being released to critical acclaim just opens the door for more of this stuff down the line, which I welcome with open arms.

Thanks to the team at Yager for taking all these risks, and 2K for bankrolling them.

Edit: This really speaks to my experience -->
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8157257/line-explores-reasons-why-play-shooter-games

 

[Messofanego]

So, has anyone figured out what the "Special Guest" credit means, when it says your username? Maybe most people think it's pointless, but I don't.

Does it mean the player is also along for the ride, and the game is acknowledging you as a spectator rather than in most games where you ARE the character like in RPGs. I think it's foreshadowing for more 4th wall breaking that will happen later on. That there will be a cognitive disconnect with the player versus the character, as Walker tends to descend to the dark side.

There's the whole purgatory interpretation where you're dead after the chopper crashes, so you're being invited to Walker's mind as he remembers the past?

I don't know!

 

[jett]

Been playing this, mostly because I had heard so much about the "narrative", I'm on chapter 10 and so far I'm pretty unimpressed. I'll watch Apocalypse Now if I feel like experiencing Apocalypse Now. Gameplay-wise it's tedious and monotonous. Is there any point in carrying on?

 

[firehawk12]

Been playing this, mostly because I had heard so much about the "narrative", I'm on chapter 10 and so far I'm pretty unimpressed. I'll watch Apocalypse Now if I feel like experiencing Apocalypse Now. Gameplay-wise it's tedious and monotonous. Is there any point in carrying on?

A lot of it hinges on the double twist at the end.

I'll say that I played the game on easy, for what it's worth.

 

[Parham]

Been playing this, mostly because I had heard so much about the "narrative", I'm on chapter 10 and so far I'm pretty unimpressed. I'll watch Apocalypse Now if I feel like experiencing Apocalypse Now. Gameplay-wise it's tedious and monotonous. Is there any point in carrying on?

You are far enough along in the game that I would recommend finishing it. I personally do not believe it gets any better; but, to be quite frank, I do not think that even a single chapter in the game could be described as anything more than mediocre.

 

[jett]

A lot of it hinges on the double twist at the end.

I'll say that I played the game on easy, for what it's worth.

You are far enough along in the game that I would recommend finishing it. I personally do not believe it gets any better; but, to be quite frank, I do not think that even a single chapter in the game could be described as anything more than mediocre.

Yeah I ended up finishing it. Gameplay is what it is(meh) but I'll say that the narrative stuck with me longer than most games. I'm sure if I went back to the game I'd find a lot of plot holes with the twist but "thankfully" I do not want to replay Spec Ops.

 

[firehawk12]

Yeah I ended up finishing it. Gameplay is what it is(meh) but I'll say that the narrative stuck with me longer than most games. I'm sure if I went back to the game I'd find a lot of plot holes with the twist but "thankfully" I do not want to replay Spec Ops.

If you read up thread, you should check to see if you got the "real" twist.

Spoiler

The whole game was a dream

.

 

[jett]

If you read up thread, you should check to see if you got the "real" twist.

Spoiler

The whole game was a dream

.

I read that's sort of what the actual writer of the game purports, but it makes no sense and there is no indication of such. Narrative is messy to be honest, but I like what it tried to do.

 

[firehawk12]

I read that's sort of what the actual writer of the game purports, but it makes no sense and there is no indication of such. Narrative is messy to be honest, but I like what it tried to do.

I dunno, I picked up on it when I was playing it before I heard the author explain the ending, so the clues are there.

Of course, taken to the extreme, that

Spoiler

ending would explain all the plot holes.

lol

 

[Parham]

I dunno, I picked up on it when I was playing it before I heard the author explain the ending, so the clues are there.

Of course, taken to the extreme, that

Spoiler

ending would explain all the plot holes.

lol

Spoiler

The US army sent a battalion to the UAE against everyone's wishes because ~*~*Reasons*~*~.

 

[firehawk12]

Spoiler

The US army sent a battalion to the UAE against everyone's wishes because ~*~*Reasons*~*~.

Spoiler

While you were writing checks, they went and did something!

Spoiler

Honestly, in real life US troops were in Haiti after the earthquake there. It's not that unreasonable to try to provide humanitarian aid. Of course there's all the conspiracy stuff about the rich in Dubai evacuating long before the storm hit, but it's all a dream anyway. lol

 

[Parham]

Spoiler

Honestly, in real life US troops were in Haiti after the earthquake there. It's not that unreasonable to try to provide humanitarian aid. Of course there's all the conspiracy stuff about the rich in Dubai evacuating long before the storm hit, but it's all a dream anyway. lol

Spoiler

It's not surprising when that aid is solicited. However, the UAE explicitly denies any and all requests for foreign assistance. Also, strangely enough, not a single member of the Arab League offers a helping hand.

 

[firehawk12]

Spoiler

It's not surprising when that aid is solicited. However, the UAE explicitly denies any and all requests for foreign assistance. Also, strangely enough, not a single member of the Arab League offers a helping hand.

I think it's probably best not to look too closely at the geopolitics. lol

 

[Parham]

I think it's probably best not to look too closely at the geopolitics. lol

Between the remarkably average shooting mechanics and poorly realized narrative, that doesn't really say anything other than "omg u kill peolpe in war gaems, u savage", I am not certain why this game is deserving of anything more than derision.

Spoiler

(Lugo and Radioman were pretty humorous though, so I'll give the game that.)

 

[firehawk12]

Between the remarkably average shooting mechanics and poorly realized narrative, that doesn't really say anything other than "omg u kill peolpe in war gaems, u savage", I am not really certain why this game is deserving of anything more than derision.

Spoiler

(Lugo and Radioman were pretty humorous though, so I'll give the game that.)

I think context is important though. It's a war game that actually tries to say something meaningful about war outside of the typical stories that we get in video games and it does it in an interesting way by forcing you into shittier and shittier choices. The fact that the game is okay with you murdering hundreds of US troops is probably enough to be considered a revelation in itself.

I'll be the first to say it's not perfect, but at the very least, it's interesting - and that's something you really can't say about war games these days.

 

[Parham]

I think context is important though. It's a war game that actually tries to say something meaningful about war outside of the typical stories that we get in video games and it does it in an interesting way by forcing you into shittier and shittier choices. The fact that the game is okay with you murdering hundreds of US troops is probably enough to be considered a revelation in itself.

I'll be the first to say it's not perfect, but at the very least, it's interesting - and that's something you really can't say about war games these days.

I had this discussion with a couple of other GAFers a few months back, but I will briefly touch upon it again: Spec Ops desperately wants the player to take itself seriously and, as a result, forgoes any nuance or attention to detail. The choices, intentional or not, have very little bearing on the direction of the game and are often the result of the player being placed incredibly contrived scenarios. I will give Yager credit for experimenting, just as much as I will give credit to Quantic Dream for developing Heavy Rain, which I believe is equally bad. I am glad that both studios are giving an honest effort; but, I wouldn't call their games anything more than that.

With that said, I do not mean to imply that you, or anyone else in this thread, should not be able to enjoy the game or are wrong for liking it. I, personally, just do not see the game's appeal.

 

[firehawk12]

I had this discussion with a couple of other GAFers a few months back in this very thread, but I will briefly touch upon it again: Spec Ops desperately wants the player to take itself seriously and, as a result, forgoes any nuance or attention to detail. The choices, intentional or not, have very little bearing on the direction of the game and are often the result of the player being placed incredibly contrived scenarios. I will give Yager credit for experimenting, just as much as I will give credit to Quantic Dream for developing Heavy Rain, which I believe is equally bad. I am glad that both studios are giving an honest effort; but, I wouldn't call their games anything more than that.

With that said, I do not mean to imply that you, or anyone else in this thread, should not be able to enjoy the game. I, personally, just do not see the game's appeal.

Oh, that's totally fair. I just play enough games where the devs don't give a shit about the story so that when someone tries to do something interesting, I'm easily pleased.

Like, The Walking Dead isn't really the best thing ever, since the action parts are pretty bad and the puzzle parts are almost non-existent (and you soon realize that the choices are as trivial as the ones found in a BioWare game), yet I still think it's one of the better experiences this year. I'm affording Spec Ops the same respect.

I'm not going to hold it against Spec Ops because the people in Dubai speak the wrong language. I know that totally breaks the experience if you know what people speak there, but if the options are to dislike a game that tries to tell an interesting story or praise a game that gets various things wrong... it's a bit of a rock and a hard place. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt anyhow.

(And I was still skeptical after Greg Kasavin dropped out of the project. I do think there was an even more fucked up game here at one point, but they had to reign it in).

 

[Parham]

Oh, that's totally fair. I just play enough games where the devs don't give a shit about the story so that when someone tries to do something interesting, I'm easily pleased.

Like, The Walking Dead isn't really the best thing ever, since the action parts are pretty bad and the puzzle parts are almost non-existent (and you soon realize that the choices are as trivial as the ones found in a BioWare game), yet I still think it's one of the better experiences this year. I'm affording Spec Ops the same respect.

I'm not going to hold it against Spec Ops because the people in Dubai speak the wrong language. I know that totally breaks the experience if you know what people speak there, but if the options are to dislike a game that tries to tell an interesting story or praise a game that gets various things wrong... it's a bit of a rock and a hard place. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt anyhow.

(And I was still skeptical after Greg Kasavin dropped out of the project. I do think there was an even more fucked up game here at one point, but they had to reign it in).

For what it's worth, I thought that not using the right language was the least of its problems. It wasn't necessarily an issue in and of itself, as developers do that all of the time. Rather, it seemed indicative of how Yager didn't put very much effort into getting the setting right. I said as much in my posts that followed a few days later.

 

[firehawk12]

For what it's worth, I thought that not using the right language was the least of its problems. It wasn't necessarily an issue in and of itself, as developers do that all of the time. Rather, it seemed indicative of how Yager didn't put very much effort into getting the setting right. I said as much in my posts that followed a few days later.

Haha, yeah, I understand. Funny enough, I wrote a long, long ass post about the game after I finished it, so that stuff was definitely not on my mind when I completed the game. I think I just accepted a lot of what happened as just a series of concessions to a) set the game in Dubai and b) let you kill American soldiers.

 

[Lime]

Finished this a couple of hours ago. I'm not praising the game as the second coming of Christ in terms of narrative, but it is probably one of the best from a critical perspective in regards to its shooter/war genre. I can't come up with other examples of shooters, which at least reflects and critically engages the theme and the actions of the player. Nonetheless, there are many flaws in terms of writing, storytelling and the use of mechanics/rules that drag the game's legacy down, but at least it was incredibly refreshing to experience. Moreover, the narrative plays a lot with the player in a somewhat subtle way. I'm mostly referring to standard game design conventions that were reflected upon. E.g. Walker explicitly saying at a crucial moment in the game "Sometimes there is no control." or something along those lines. It really is a big commentary on scripted war games and their embedded design values.

Overall I'd say it's a refreshing experience, that mechanically is incredibly derisive, while its semiotic layer makes it one of the most interesting shooters out there. Its narrative is not particularly well-written, nor is it intelligent in how it addresses the player, but the entire premise of criticising itself and others shooters makes the game worthy of respect and some degree of admiration.

Just a quick question: Did anyone else get automatic scripted gameplay sequences during some of the "run away from the explosion/helicopter/bad guys" segment? I let go off my controller/keyboard at one point and Walker just kept on running towards the next cutscene. Deliberate from Jager's design or unintentional bug?

 

[firehawk12]

I never tried... I just assumed that you'd die if you didn't run.

 

[Foliorum Viridum]

Been playing this over the last few days after picking it up cheap because I heard it has a great story and I'm pretty underwhelmed. The game itself is fairly decent, but the story has been vastly over hyped. As someone who really enjoys a good narrative in games this hasn't done it for me, with the exception of one or two nice scenes.

I don't regret the purchase, but now at chapter 14 I'm wondering why everyone was raving about the story when it was so standard.

 

[NullPointer]

I don't regret the purchase, but now at chapter 14 I'm wondering why everyone was raving about the story when it was so standard.

Not the word I would use at all, but to each his own.

And hey, wasn't there supposed to be some co-op content for this? Did it ever come out? Was it worthwhile at all?

*hopes he didn't hallucinate co-op*

 

[bishoptl]

Been playing this over the last few days after picking it up cheap because I heard it has a great story and I'm pretty underwhelmed. The game itself is fairly decent, but the story has been vastly over hyped. As someone who really enjoys a good narrative in games this hasn't done it for me, with the exception of one or two nice scenes.

I don't regret the purchase, but now at chapter 14 I'm wondering why everyone was raving about the story when it was so standard.

Finish it.

 

[Foliorum Viridum]

I will, but at this rate I'll be surprised if the chapter or two I have left blow me away!

Null - It does try some new things, so I suppose "standard" isn't entirely fair, but I feel it fails mostly at what it tries to achieve. I like that they try to do some things, but it's mostly really clumsy or half hearted. I feel the game had a to be a lot darker and based in reality than it is for them to have nailed it. There are one or two scenes where something supposedly terrible happens, then 30 seconds later you're in a wave of 40 enemies with your squad just forgetting all about it. I know this is a problem with a lot of games (ala Nathan Drake has killed 10000 people) but it sticks out a lot more than usual in this game.

 

[Foliorum Viridum]

The ending was meh. Pretty standard twist, and considering I didn't really think many of the choices were all that great it didn't really evoke anything from me.

Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2 both had narrative moments that made me feel some extremely strong emotions about war. This game didn't.

Bit disappointing the story was over hyped, but as a four hour experience I'm glad I played it.

 

[NullPointer]

The ending was meh. Pretty standard twist, and considering I didn't really think many of the choices were all that great it didn't really evoke anything from me.

hrmmph something something grumble something.

 

[Foliorum Viridum]

That actual was a standard twist. It's been done in so many similar stories.

 

[NullPointer]

That actual was a standard twist. It's been done in so many similar stories.

Not the ending I got.

 

[Tomat]

The ending was meh. Pretty standard twist, and considering I didn't really think many of the choices were all that great it didn't really evoke anything from me.

Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2 both had narrative moments that made me feel some extremely strong emotions about war. This game didn't.

Bit disappointing the story was over hyped, but as a four hour experience I'm glad I played it.

It's funny because those games glorify it for the most part (not saying you're wrong for feeling that way though).

Which ending did you actually get? I was pretty satisfied with the one I selected at first (end spoilers)

Spoiler

Shot Konrad, and went home with the soldiers that showed up.

 

[NullPointer]

It's funny because those games glorify it for the most part (not saying you're wrong for feeling that way though).

Which ending did you actually get? I was pretty satisfied with the one I selected at first (end spoilers)

Spoiler

Shot Konrad, and went home with the soldiers that showed up.

I did the other thing. ENDING SPOILERS ->

Spoiler

And terminated my own command all over the walls. Honestly shocked the hell out of me.

 

[Foliorum Viridum]

It's funny because those games glorify it for the most part (not saying you're wrong for feeling that way though).

Which ending did you actually get? I was pretty satisfied with the one I selected at first (end spoilers)

Spoiler

Shot Konrad, and went home with the soldiers that showed up.

I did the opposite.

MW and MW2 don't try to take such a grim look at war, but ironically the moments they do I think they nail it perfectly. Spec Ops tries throughout and nothing really resonated with me. The AC-130 level in Modern Warfare alone is more chilling than anything in this game, I'd argue.

I'd like this team to get another crack at something similar. I think there is something special they haven't tapped in to.

Edit: And, to be honest, this game glorifies war just as much with it's Hollywood set pieces and waves of guys being ploughed down by three guys.

Not the ending I got.

You mean the

Spoiler

it was all in your head thing?

 

[NullPointer]

The AC-130 level in Modern Warfare alone is more chilling than anything in this game, I'd argue.

Its very close, I'll give you that. Death from Above was truly a disturbing level, but subtle in how its pulled off.

 

[firehawk12]

The ending was meh. Pretty standard twist, and considering I didn't really think many of the choices were all that great it didn't really evoke anything from me.

Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2 both had narrative moments that made me feel some extremely strong emotions about war. This game didn't.

Bit disappointing the story was over hyped, but as a four hour experience I'm glad I played it.

I know I sound like an asshole, but you didn't get the real ending.

In fact,

Spoiler

none of the endings are the real ending

.

 

[Foliorum Viridum]

Elaborate.

 

[firehawk12]

Elaborate.

It's all up thread, but basically

Spoiler

everything after the intro is a dream or hallucination

. Whether you think that's a cop out or not, is up to you I suppose, but I quite liked it in terms of what it says about Walker and his state of mind.

The alternative is that everything

Spoiler

after the helicopter crash

is a hallucination... but they're both basically the same thing.

 

[Foliorum Viridum]

I would consider that rubbish personally. The most cliche thing to do.

 

[firehawk12]

I think it's better than all the other endings, considering what the game is about.

 

[joeygreco1985]

I just finished this game a couple of days ago and I really enjoyed it. It was one of those rare games that just kept getting better and surprising me the more I played. I liked how the title screen and load screens changed along with the situation, and the voice actors got more visibly upset as the game went on. I haven't felt that way since comparing David Hayter's voice at the begging of Metal Gear Solid to the end. Great acting for a great game

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

I would consider that rubbish personally. The most cliche thing to do.

you could also just consider the entire

Spoiler

game to be a kind of purgatory. See Jacob's ladder, for instance. It would certainly explain the inexplicable setting of Ozymandian Dubai. Hubris in all things, so to speak. And of course, most games openly accept their 'purgatory status' as the game needs a hero whom must endure trials or purge the realm of some type of corruption.

Obviously, that is just one possible interpretation of authorial intent, not what the story actually shows. That part is what it is, and that goes for any medium, in my opinion. It's guessing the intent that keeps things interesting.

 

[antitrop]

Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2 both had narrative moments that made me feel some extremely strong emotions about war. This game didn't.

As a veteran I couldn't disagree more. Spec Ops tackles an important aspect of war, the psychological. Call of Duty, at least MW2 and 3 are just popcorn flicks with little narrative or even vaguely realistic plot lines and events.

I'll give you a very tiny bit of Call of Duty 4, there was some decent stuff in there.

 

[rangersfan414]

Man, I'm always low on ammo or have none...I've already meleed a heavy b4 but am stuck on another one cause i have no ammo.

 

[antitrop]

Man, I'm always low on ammo or have none...I've already meleed a heavy b4 but am stuck on another one cause i have no ammo.

The game is best on Easy. Trust me.

 

[EatinOlives]

So I bought this for cheap from Amazon and managed to finish the game. Holy shiet.

Spoiler

I think what gets me the most is the fact that the complete psychotic that is Walker is the player. In many, many ways he's a reflection of the player himself, continuing to rationalize why he's doing completely fucked up things "there's a bad guy at the end on the top of that really tall tower!" It's all too obvious that this is a commentary on the player. We do fucked up things in games that in a remotely realistic setting are entirely psychotic simply because we arbitrarily decided it's the "right" thing to do. Kill American soldiers? Well, the game told me to, so now they're the enemy!

I think the final choice at the very end is by far the most significant of them all. I think it's a bit of an assessment of the player him/herself. "Bad" epilogue is that you as a player learned absolutely nothing. The soldiers came here to help you and take you home, and you still went and killed them because LOL BAD GUYZ. You basically learn nothing that the game tried to tell you, and you are awarded no points. "Good" epilogue is you do learn the lesson and for one second you've gained enough senses to quit the psychopathic charade of killing "enemies" in the game.

Most interesting/disturbing part of it all, I actually chose the bad ending. Under the pretense that I was "playing" Walker and yeah, he's gone mad at that point, rite? Rite?

 

[NotTheGuyYouKill]

So I bought this for cheap from Amazon and managed to finish the game. Holy shiet.

Spoiler

I think what gets me the most is the fact that the complete psychotic that is Walker is the player. In many, many ways he's a reflection of the player himself, continuing to rationalize why he's doing completely fucked up things "there's a bad guy at the end on the top of that really tall tower!" It's all too obvious that this is a commentary on the player. We do fucked up things in games that in a remotely realistic setting are entirely psychotic simply because we arbitrarily decided it's the "right" thing to do. Kill American soldiers? Well, the game told me to, so now they're the enemy!

I think the final choice at the very end is by far the most significant of them all. I think it's a bit of an assessment of the player him/herself. "Bad" epilogue is that you as a player learned absolutely nothing. The soldiers came here to help you and take you home, and you still went and killed them because LOL BAD GUYZ. You basically learn nothing that the game tried to tell you, and you are awarded no points. "Good" epilogue is you do learn the lesson and for one second you've gained enough senses to quit the psychopathic charade of killing "enemies" in the game.

Most interesting/disturbing part of it all, I actually chose the bad ending. Under the pretense that I was "playing" Walker and yeah, he's gone mad at that point, rite? Rite?

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

 

[Messofanego]

I love that the game is still inspiring some great articles.

Spec Ops The Line - This Changes Everything (The Escapist)

How most games use character deformation as window dressing (Batman games, Wolverine) compared to this game:

Aesthetically, of course, this is old news. We've seen Batman's ratio of cloak to holes change dramatically as he descends into the darkness of Arkham. We've been subjected to Max Payne's fall from grace and his accompanying hairline fluctuations. But Captain Walker's journey into madness is punctuated throughout the game by stuff that's just glossed over by a lot of other companies, slotting neatly into areas segmented off for lip-service.

It's clear that Walker looks a right mess by the end of the story. Gone from the blue-eyed military rescue leader, the madness of Dubai has cast him anew. His uniform and insignia are tattered and covered in sand and blood and ash. He's no longer a soldier; Captain Walker has become a warrior. A killer, even - he's waded so far through blood that he may as well keep going until he reaches the other side.

The story was originally much more simple:

Richard Pearsey, writer and narrative designer on the project, weighed in: "Originally, the story was much more straightforward and called for the Delta Squad to be sent to assassinate Konrad who had illegally led his battalion out of a war in Iran and was looting a recently destroyed Dubai.

"The set up left all of our characters with very limited room for growth or for our perceptions of them and the game scenario to change, which was something we very much wanted. Konrad was the bad guy. We knew it; the squad knew it; and the job was to terminate his command.

"In the final version, the story is a mystery. What happened to John Konrad? The environment is central to plot and character development. The squad is not there to kill; they volunteered for a rescue mission. Konrad and his men are good guys, heroes, and so is the squad. Now, we have somewhere to go. We can now play with player expectations, especially with the expectation that in a military shooter we are the good guy and that anyone who gets in our way needs killing."

How they developed the adaptive "barking":

Everything changes. Take the barks, for example - the phrases shouted back and forth between characters during combat. Initially these wouldn't sound out of place in any standard by-the-numbers war shooter. They're clean, crisp orders and warnings, stuff like "flash that bunker" and "hostile eliminated."

Pearsey speaks up. "The writing process was mainly iterative. We planned for three full sets of barks for each squad member, each representing a specific phase of a character's arc. Each bark, of course, is intended to provide either feedback or information to the player - the trick is to avoid too much repetition. Variations are written for each bark. Then, they are written. Over and over."

The process behind making this all happen, called "Thin Slices" by the development team, is revolutionary enough to warrant a talk at this year's GDC Europe . An action as benign as healing a wounded teammate starts as an encouragement to get up and work through the pain, moves into desperation at their situation, and ends in screamed orders to get up and keep moving because Walker needs them to keep killing people.

What was once an act of compassion has been rewritten as an act of aggression, triggered by the player. Things that started out as violent - for example, highlighting a target for your squadmates to shoot - are stripped of euphemism, as "Take out that sniper!" becomes "Kill him." Same act. Different words.

The Slow Mo Headshots:

It doesn't stop there. The slow-motion bursts earned by performing headshots seem par for the course, as far as the genre is concerned. You're rewarded for your skill at shooting by getting a second or so of breathing room, allowing you to size up the fight and act more decisively. But something became apparent the longer I fought, and the more headshots I achieved.

I wasn't using the slow-motion to perform better as a player; I was watching the headshot, instead. And with that, I started to get uncomfortable about what the slowed time meant. At the outset, it's a thumbs-up for doing well, a confirmation that you have performed well at the challenges the game has set you. Look how small these heads are, it says. Look how well you've done by shooting them.

And then, suddenly, it's not. Look at how well you've done, the game starts to say. You've killed a human being. You killed him in one shot because you're good at shooting people. Watch him die as a reward.

Unlike the Executions or the barks, nothing changes aside from the player's interpretation of what they've done. I was shooting people in the head because I liked watching the second of slow motion, because slow motion is cool. I didn't think about what it meant in real terms, outside of the game.

The Executions:

That's the strength of Spec Ops: the mechanisms never change, but the perception of them and framing devices surrounding them do. The Execution mechanic, for example, starts out as a vaguely novel way of performing close combat attack. A tap of the melee button knocks an enemy to the ground, where they can be shot as normal or killed automatically with a second press.

Initially, this seems like payback for being assaulted - it isn't an instant kill button, but a desperate struggle to stop someone shooting you in the face by shooting them in the face instead, or punching them in the head so hard they pass out. But the visceral, up-close nature of the kills lends a certain satisfaction to pulling them off.

It's only when they get more up close visceral, do they start to become unpleasant. As Walker's condition degrades, his executions get dirtier; shots are pumped into enemies with an almost casual disregard. Guns are jammed into mouths and heads are smashed into paste with rifle butts. Where Captain Walker's actions were once the subject of the 2-second cutscene that plays out, now the victims take center stage. Their eyes widen, and they shake their heads in fear, and the camera zooms in on their sweat-drenched faces in their last moments.

Richard continues: "To be honest, I was concerned when Execution Moves were put on the table. I thought they had the potential to undermine our character arcs. A 'curb stomp' at the beginning of the game would have spelled doom.
"My apprehension lasted all of 10 seconds, though, because that wasn't what the design team had in mind at all - the move was intended to bolster the evolving character mental states, and it's very effective in enhancing this aspect of the game.

The narrative and mechanics were designed in tandem:

"In fact, one of the aspects of The Line that I think is often overlooked is how well the design supports the overall narrative approach and vice versa. The narrative and the mechanics were designed in tandem with narrative being part of the core design team - kind of like a UN Observer - so each group's efforts complemented the other rather than competing against one another ."

The player and Walker are the same:

And that's the heart of the matter. You both change. As Walker staggers through Dubai, turning a rescue mission into an act that will kill a whole city, he transmutes into something horrendous - a terror, something that good-natured men and women (like you!) would be rightfully scared of, free from notions of glory, a killer put under your control for entertainment.

The player, changes, too. Changes from someone having fun playing a game to someone questioning why they're playing it, what they're doing in-game. They are the force that keeps Walker killing, and the game makes no qualms about underlining that fact though tone, style and even some chillingly direct messages on loading screens, which let the author speak directly to the reader without the medium of third-person shooter getting in the way.

 

[firehawk12]

I found it interesting how Walt Williams never did an execution or noticed that they gave extra ammo because it just wasn't something that surfaced to him via the game designers anyway.

The fact that the executions are "Uncharted style" in that they give you bonus ammo (how does that even work?) broke any effect they might have had on me anyway.

I do find it interesting that there was some debate on whether or not the player should have infinite ammo in a particular non-interactive sequence near the end. That was unfortunately one of the ways that the "third person shooter" medium got in the way of telling a story.

 

[spekkeh]

LTTP, started playing this the other day, not going to read everything here obviously. Just had the white phospor scene and the subsequent standoff with Konrad. Man. Amazing. I mean it's so over the top to the point of being laughable, but I loved it nonetheless. Love that for pretty much the first time ever, a game could make me feel heavy remorse, guilt even. That's something games can add to entertainment because of agency. Weird actually that until now it's only been power trips and never (really) the other side of the medal.

I do have to say that after getting stuck on an annoying setpiece I switched it to easy (great that they give you that option by the way). Enjoying it more now, but the difficulty curve is still all over the place.

 

[Revenant]

just finished this game.

It certainly made me feel...uncomfortable.

Think i'll need to sit and digest this one a bit before reading more of this thread. interesting game though, the gameplay itself is pretty standard if not a bit rough at times, but the story and thematic content are worth seeing. Frankly this games wears you down though, i need a break.