Support NeoGAF

[JDSN]

This lady near the end of Chapter 3 where you're meant to flank the turret.

I love how the game never punishes you or even acknowledges what you just did, if this was Call of Duty you would get some shitty quote and a game over screen.

Edit: A wild ErikB appears!

 

[ErikB]

Trying to charge people £40 for a game so you can tell them off for buying it remains fucking dumb.

 

[Messofanego]

Thread derail in 3, 2, 1...go!

While I go watch the talk instead.

 

[O.DOGG]

Excellent presentation. Thanks for posting it. I think Spec Ops is the most important game to come out recently and I enjoy catching these glimpses into the thought process and the goals and ideas of the people who made it.

 

[AlexBasch]

Trying to charge people £40 for a game so you can tell them off for buying it remains fucking dumb.

I recall you were angry at the game for not understanding it's point.

 

[ErikB]

I recall you were angry at the game for not understanding it's point.

It turns out that 'you should feel bad for playing violent video games' is not a point I particularly want to hear.

And especially not pay for.

 

[Jocchan]

It turns out that 'you should feel bad for playing violent video games' is not a point I particularly want to hear.

And especially not pay for.

Good thing it's not, then.
But you must know that very well by now.

 

[JDSN]

It turns out that 'you should feel bad for playing violent video games' is not a point I particularly want to hear.

And especially not pay for.

Do you even remember why you posted here?

 

[jimi_dini]

This lady near the end of Chapter 3 where you're meant to flank the turret.

Ha

In all of my 3 playthroughs I never shot her.

I'm a good person.

 

[Rebel Leader]

Do you even remember why you posted here?

Do you?

It turns out that 'you should feel bad for playing violent video games' is not a point I particularly want to hear.

And especially not pay for.

 

[thequickandthedead]

Did Walt write scripts for any other games before Spec Ops or was Spec Ops his first?

 

[News Bot]

It turns out that 'you should feel bad for playing violent video games' is not a point I particularly want to hear.

And especially not pay for.

Don't pay for it and you don't need to hear it (even though that's not it). Now you've got no reason to bitch outside of attention seeking.

Did Walt write scripts for any other games before Spec Ops or was Spec Ops his first?

He's worked on Bioshock, Mafia, The Darkness and Civilization, but I don't know precisely what he's did in those.

 

[Sblargh]

I don't even remember that.

I remember going into the bioshock OT thread (because I got the game in the preorder) and telling people I did that. So it definetly worked on me and now I feel a bit weird that it was constructed to make me feel how I felt.

I mean, it even bothered me that the game never recognized that I just killed a civilian just because he ran in panic torwards me. The game left it all to me to think about and it ate me from the inside for a bit.

 

[I'm an expert]

Ha

In all of my 3 playthroughs I never shot her.

I'm a good person.

Did you shoot the 200 American soldiers after her? Did you drop white hot phosphorous on a young child and their mother? Still think you're good? Did you even care cause it wasn't real?!?!?!

 

[ErikB]

Don't pay for it and you don't need to hear it

Just so long as peoples preachy lectures are clearly marked in future, so I can avoid them.

 

[News Bot]

Just so long as peoples preachy lectures are clearly marked in future, so I can avoid them.

The thread title clearly stated what it is. You came in anyway because you don't want to avoid it, you want to bitch and whine over something you don't even understand.

 

[Dictator93]

• Step 1: Embrace Ludonarrative Dissonance — "Your character will never be more righteous than the core mechanic allows."
  
• Step 2: Always be Evolving — Show how the gameplay affects characters/environments over the course of the game
  
• Step 3: Choices Should Reflect Gameplay — Important story decisions made by the player through main/familiar game mechanics
  
• Step 4: Let Players Judge Themselves
  
  • Silent Judgement - Actions performed by the player that have no obvious consequence
  • Direct Judgement - Directly asking the player to judge themselves

this is really intelligently thought out. marry gameplay with story

 

[ErikB]

this is really intelligently thought out.

Keen for a future where your games silently judge you for playing them are you?

 

[News Bot]

Keen for a future where your games silently judge you for playing them are you?

I think everyone's most keen for a future where you fuck off.

this is really intelligently thought out. marry gameplay with story

Yes, I think gaming narratives can go a long way by removing the dissonance between gameplay and story. While there's a place for the disconnect between them in some games, others can benefit greatly from it.

 

[Collider]

"Your character will never be more righteous than the core mechanic allows."

Words of wisdom

 

[Dictator93]

Keen for a future where your games silently judge you for playing them are you?

That is not what I was talking about. I was praising the writer's understanding of video game story telling. Regardless of the writer's moral underpinnings, his idea about marrying gameplay and story decisions (reinforcing story through gameplay mechanics, have the story advance through gameplay mechanics) is what I want from games.

I have to agree with you though... not every game should reinforce the immorality of killing in its narrative. THat is obviously not the purpose of all games... especially violent ones.

Different "Universes" have different grades of violence. SUspension of disbelieve in something like Dark Souls allows us to kill most small enemies in the game with relatively little thought as to their moral worth. As soon as we start killing larger more personified things... then it takes on a form that is quite different. Obviously, Spec Ops had a very different agenda then Dark Souls... and a completely different idea of intelligent narrative then Tomb Raider or recent ND games... they wanted to make the player feel the moral weight of their actions and then judge these for themselves.

 

[sonicmj1]

Keen for a future where your games silently judge you for playing them are you?

The writer explicitly says in this presentation that he doesn't think violent video games are bad, and the entire presentation is about how the game gives the player the freedom to judge themselves instead of the game making judgments for them.

I'd tell you to watch the presentation so you know what you're criticizing, but you've never listened to me before anyways.

 

[ErikB]

The writer explicitly says in this presentation that he doesn't think violent video games are bad

And you believe him?

I mean, we are in to judging people here.

 

[I'm an expert]

And you believe him?

I mean, we are in to judging people here.

Dude you were funny as shit in the RE6 days but I thought it was an act..now I'm starting to think it's real. =(

 

[ErikB]

Dude you were funny as shit in the RE6 days but I thought it was an act..now I'm starting to think it's real. =(

I want you to know I have silently judged you.

Oh yes I have.

 

[Whiteshirt]

No, because that would be saying violent movies are bad. Movies by the Coen Brothers frequently straddle between horror and comedy. Murder and the threat of it is often present but because of the presentation, its quite funny a lot of the time and doesn't seem out of place.

The problem here is that there is a clear disconnect between game narrative and gameplay mechanics. That's what this presentation is about, what makes it so hard to understand?

 

[I'm an expert]

I want you to know I have silently judged you.

Oh yes I have.

You don't have to do it silently. Come at me full force bro. I can handle it!! We're on da internetz!!

 

[News Bot]

what makes it so hard to understand?

Delusions.

 

[jimi_dini]

Did you shoot the 200 American soldiers after her? Did you drop white hot phosphorous on a young child and their mother? Still think you're good? Did you even care cause it wasn't real?!?!?!

I really didn't care about those US soldiers. They were enemies in a videogame just like "terrorists" or "race stereotypes" (the latter e.g. Uncharted series). I don't differentiate between russian, chinese or US soldiers. If it's okay to shoot russian soldiers or even civilians it sure is okay to shoot US soldiers.

But I normally always think before shooting. I also don't like games like Uncharted + Tomb Raider 2013 and such, where the story doesn't match the gameplay. Playing Manhunt? That's fine, because the gameplay makes sense in context of the story. Same with Spec Ops. What I don't like is playing some "funny witty guy" that is actually a massmurdering asshole, kills 500+ people and the characters around him don't even say a word about his actions. Worse yet they even help him murdering.

At least I noticed that the white dots were not soldiers and I actually got killed twice because I didn't want to bomb there. And according to an interview with one of the Spec Ops designers noticing that isn't common. By looking at other GAFers experiences it seems that many people on GAF noticed. Which I think is a good thing. I'm pretty sure that most of the typical CoD bra players wouldn't have noticed it. Which would mean that maybe a few of them that played Spec Ops could start thinking about it as well. Which would also be a good thing.

 

[I'm an expert]

I really didn't care about those US soldiers. They were enemies in a videogame just like "terrorists" or "race stereotypes" (the latter e.g. Uncharted series). I don't differentiate between russian, chinese or US soldiers.

But I normally always think before shooting.

At least I noticed that the white dots were not soldiers and I actually got killed twice because I didn't want to bomb there. And according to an interview with one of the Spec Ops designers noticing that isn't common. By looking at other GAFers experiences it seems that many people on GAF noticed. Which I think is a good thing. I'm pretty sure that most of the typical CoD bra players wouldn't have noticed it.

I have never played more than a few hours of CoD so I ain't no BRAH.. (I have played many hours of BF3 and MAG) ..but I bombed da fuckkkkkk outta dem white dots. But for the same reason you didn't care about killing innocent troops - they're just enemies in a video game. The civilians were the same to me, obstacles on my warpath. Why I don't quite get why you do differentiate them.

 

[duckroll]

I want you to know I have silently judged you.

Oh yes I have.

Let's move on from silent judgement to direct judgement. I am directly asking you to judge yourself. If you feel that you are about to shit up another Spec Ops thread, I recommend you hit the Back button on your browser in future.

 

[reddwarf42]

Ludonarritive Dissonance never bothers me. Shooting is the on of the main gameplay loops and I don't consider those parts canon to the story. They are outside of the story in my mind and I can separate them mentally.

What gameplay loop would you replace shooting with? Platforming? Puzzle solving?

None of the things that would replace shooting/swordplay would probably sell enough for AAA budgets.

Even the darling of NeoGAF, Dark Souls, has a killing stuff loop.

 

[Risette]

Ludonarritive Dissonance never bothers me. Shooting is the on of the main gameplay loops and I don't consider those parts canon to the story. They are outside of the story in my mind and I can separate them mentally.

What gameplay loop would you replace shooting with? Platforming? Puzzle solving?

None of the things that would replace shooting/swordplay would probably sell enough for AAA budgets.

Even the darling of NeoGAF, Dark Souls, has a killing stuff loop.

Uh, he's proposing to change the nature of the characters, not how it plays.

 

[Sblargh]

Ludonarritive Dissonance never bothers me. Shooting is the on of the main gameplay loops and I don't consider those parts canon to the story. They are outside of the story in my mind and I can separate them mentally.

What gameplay loop would you replace shooting with? Platforming? Puzzle solving?

None of the things that would replace shooting/swordplay would probably sell enough for AAA budgets.

Even the darling of NeoGAF, Dark Souls, has a killing stuff loop.

That's the premise of his talk. It usually doesn't bother people. Maybe it would be interesting if it did.

 

[Riposte]

I'm watching this and I don't know if I want to bother watching passed the starting bits. I'm already unimpressed by the extent he is trying to equate killing in a war or hunting context to combat scenarios in a videogame. You can't actually kill/murder/cause harm in a videogame because nothing is alive and nothing dies. All the more true that you can't kill "someone" or even an animal. He goes as far to highlight that shooting a gun is a physically impacting activity, but skips over the fact you don't actually fire guns while playing a videogame, not even when you are holding a "light-gun" or a wiimote or move controller accessory. Most obvious shit in the world.

Games do try to create the illusion of someone being alive and someone dying from gunfire, but he is starting from the position that is something along the lines of "Can you believe we swing at so many baseballs with bats like it was nothing? My granddad remembers every man he's beaten to death with a baseball bat. Makes you think/blows your mind/would be a good line for a TED talk!" I guess I could see how he may take this and use it to reach where we would get with a more sensible position (the complete reverse of what he is saying: we begin disassociated with violence in games, and they become more personal and real as we add in more realistic, shocking themes - these themes may be as pleasing as they may be horrifying (but not by much since videogames are still highly unrealistic) and there you have some discussion, especially on execution), but it is such a profoundly stupid position to begin from that I just want to dismiss it completely. The summary sounds like it could be interesting though.

 

[Easy_D]

I really liked how all the killing in Spec Ops was adressed directly by the story.

But on the other hand... Let's take Uncharted as an example. From what I understand what people love about the games is the combat and the story. If we were to apply the same rule of thumb in Uncharted you'd either have to

A) Cut down on the combat so Nathan's personality and the game's story.

B) Have the story directly adress Nathan Drake's jungle rampage, which would change the tone of the entire game.

And where's the fun in that? You'd either have a game where the lovable scamp that is Nolan No--Nathan Drake is pretty much insane, just like Nolan No-- Captain Walker, or a game where the combat that everyone seems to love so much is cut down severly.

Granted I haven't played the games at all so I might not be fit to make a comparison like that. But I think there is a place for games like Uncharted, because it's okay for games to just be fun and not have a message. But games like Spec Ops that do have a message are welcome in my eyes too. There's room for both.

 

[ErikB]

It usually doesn't bother people. Maybe it would be interesting if it did.

Honestly not keen.

 

[Sblargh]

Honestly not keen.

Really? I was under the impression that you loved the idea.

 

[I'm an expert]

Do people really like Uncharted's combat? I love the games, but it is definitely not for the combat. It's too one-dimensional. The reason Spec Ops' combat stood out for me is the (99% of the time working) ai partners/commands, the level design, and the more than capable enemy AI. Uncharted you can dig into one location for an entire fight and hang out.

 

[Kritz]

Trying to charge people £40 for a game so you can tell them off for buying it remains fucking dumb.

I dunno, man. Spec Ops: The Line got more people talking about ludonarrative dissonance than anything else before it. That's a good thing. When there's a flaw in a medium, and the group consuming it isn't really caring to acknowledge it, it doesn't hurt to present an argument via the medium itself. Maybe I'm giving the game too much credit in that regard, but I don't think the conversations about Tomb Raider, Bioshock and Far Cry would be as heavily weighted towards the clash between narrative and gameplay without Spec Ops setting the stage. Then again, the mass murderer problem in Uncharted seemed to be a hot topic somewhere after the launch of 2 or 3.

Also, it's not like the first Bioshock's takeaway wasn't just, fuck you player for playing a corridor shooter. Both games had the same commentary on a player's agency. It's perhaps the closest thing to satire that games have at the moment.

Just so long as peoples preachy lectures are clearly marked in future, so I can avoid them.

The title of the topic is, "Walt Williams (Spec Ops: The Line writer) on contextualizing violence in games".

Do people really like Uncharted's combat? I love the games, but it is definitely not for the combat. It's too one-dimensional. The reason Spec Ops' combat stood out for me is the (99% of the time working) ai partners/commands, the level design, and the more than capable enemy AI. Uncharted you can dig into one location for an entire fight and hang out.

They're both kinda identical except for the control schemes I played them on, really. It's funny that I think back and I think I played both games primarily with an AK-47 and one of those little pump action shotguns. Like, the same type of shotgun in both. And they both had the same range and stopping power. Really bizarre now I think about it. I think just because I played Spec Ops on PC I enjoyed the combat more, simply because I could headshot every motherfucker I set my cursor on. I can't aim for shit on a DS3 so I was more keen on using spray weapons and torso shots.

 

[Risette]

Also, it's not like the first Bioshock's takeaway wasn't just, fuck you player for playing a corridor shooter. Both games had the same commentary on a player's agency. It's perhaps the closest thing to satire that games have at the moment.

MGS2 did it first, and far better than any of those games.

 

[duckroll]

Do people really like Uncharted's combat? I love the games, but it is definitely not for the combat. It's too one-dimensional. The reason Spec Ops' combat stood out for me is the (99% of the time working) ai partners/commands, the level design, and the more than capable enemy AI. Uncharted you can dig into one location for an entire fight and hang out.

I think Uncharted has pretty mediocre shooting mechanics. Spec Ops wasn't really any better though. The AI stuff is interesting for maybe 20 minutes, and then it's just the same boring encounter design where it's wave after wave of enemies while you hang behind cover. Neither games are good examples of interesting or good shooter design imo.

 

[ErikB]

The title of the topic is, "Walt Williams (Spec Ops: The Line writer) on contextualizing violence in games".

And the title of the game was 'Spec Ops: The Line', not 'Walt Williams silently judges you for playing Call of Duty'.

 

[jimi_dini]

The civilians were the same to me, obstacles on my warpath.

How so?
Did those civilians shoot you?
Or they were just there and you shot them?

Why I don't quite get why you do differentiate them.

Those US soldiers were programmed to shoot at me. The civilians weren't.

But in total yeah, I'm actually sick of shooters. I'm sick of violent gameplay that tries to be "mature", although it's exactly the opposite of mature. That's why I would have really loved the idea of an adventure Tomb Raider, where the objective is to survive (food + water wise) and not kill hundreds of people in extremely violent ways. And I wouldn't even have bought Spec Ops if GAF wouldn't have told me that it's worth it for the story and the experience. I would have thought that it's another mindless shooter where you shoot things and that's it.

B) Have the story directly adress Nathan Drake's jungle rampage, which would change the tone of the entire game.

And where's the fun in that?

Was Spec Ops fun? I wouldn't say so. Does a game need to be "fun"? Wait, I mean does every game need to be "fun"?

For Uncharted they could have AT LEAST made him go solo on his murder sprees and make him look like Lazarevic. Why not play a massmurder asshole that is a massmurder asshole in story + gameplay? At least that would make sense. Or make the other characters comment on his actions. But don't make it a sitcom storywise, but a violent shooter mess gameplay wise. That doesn't fit. I think Last Of Us may deliver exactly in that area (at least that's what I hope).

Or well they could have used the Indiana Jones way and made every enemy a Nazi. That would have worked too.

Or shoot robots like in Binary Domain. Perfectly fine.

 

[Easy_D]

I think Uncharted has pretty mediocre shooting mechanics. Spec Ops wasn't really any better though. The AI stuff is interesting for maybe 20 minutes, and then it's just the same boring encounter design where it's wave after wave of enemies while you hang behind cover. Neither games are good examples of interesting or good shooter design imo.

Agreed, cover based combat is dull. I liked the few moments in Spec Ops were you're constantly on the move in order to progress much more than the "Here are 10 waves of enemies and a heavy to top it off" segments.

Imagine how hard the game would hit if you found yourself truly enjoying the shooting mechanics.

And the title of the game was 'Spec Ops: The Line', not 'Walt Williams silently judges you for playing Call of Duty'.

Eh, I think it was pretty clear that the game wouldn't be your run of the mill military shooter since the first reveal trailer years ago, it's why I personally was interested in the first place. Granted can't blame a guy for thinking "Cool, a nice looking military shooter set in sandstormy Dubai? Yeah that seems cool" only to have the rug pulled under his feet and left with a foul taste in his mouth. Which I understand is what you experienced?

 

[News Bot]

And the title of the game was 'Spec Ops: The Line', not 'Walt Williams silently judges you for playing Call of Duty'.

You were complaining that the topic was incorrectly labeled, not the game. All you're doing now is cementing your apparent lack of functional thought.

 

[ErikB]

You were complaining that the topic was incorrectly labeled, not the game.

I really wasn't.

 

[I'm an expert]

I think Uncharted has pretty mediocre shooting mechanics. Spec Ops wasn't really any better though. The AI stuff is interesting for maybe 20 minutes, and then it's just the same boring encounter design where it's wave after wave of enemies while you hang behind cover. Neither games are good examples of interesting or good shooter design imo.

I think the areas where you were left alone (chap 6 and 13) were really jarring since you had been a 3 man unit till then. In Uncharted you feel fine going from one wave to the next as a single man, but in Spec Ops there was a sense of urgency when you were the only guy vs 15 dudes. Dispatching them alone actually made me feel like I (the character) was competent enough to not have to rely on my partners. I'm not saying Spec Ops is the best example of these kind of games, but I do think there's more to it than an Uncharted.

How so?
Did those civilians shoot you?
Or they were just there and you shot them?

I think I felt the urgency of Walker's mission earlier than most other players. I kind of knew this was a get the mission done by any means necessary kind of guy before chapter 8. So civilians being in the vicinity of my battles really didn't mean much to me. I sacrificed the group of civilians during the first choice sequence for the CIA operative without a single hesitation.

 

[News Bot]

I really wasn't.

Then you did a shit job of explaining yourself given that this was your statement:

Just so long as peoples preachy lectures are clearly marked in future, so I can avoid them.

In a thread regarding a lecture whose points you also attempted to criticize.

 

[sonicmj1]

I'm watching this and I don't know if I want to bother watching passed the starting bits. I'm already unimpressed by the extent he is trying to equate killing in a war or hunting context to combat scenarios in a videogame. You can't actually kill/murder/cause harm in a videogame because nothing is alive and nothing dies. All the more true that you can't kill "someone" or even an animal. He goes as far to highlight that shooting a gun is a physically impacting activity, but skips over the fact you don't actually fire guns while playing a videogame, not even when you are holding a "light-gun" or a wiimote or move controller accessory. Most obvious shit in the world.

Games do try to create the illusion of someone being alive and someone dying from gunfire, but he is starting from the position that is something along the lines of "Can you believe we swing at so many baseballs with bats like it was nothing? My granddad remembers every man he's beaten to death with a baseball bat. Makes you think/blows your mind/would be a good line for a TED talk!" I guess I could see how he may take this and use it to reach where we would get with a more sensible position (the complete reverse of what he is saying: we begin disassociated with violence in games, and they become more personal and real as we add in more realistic, shocking themes - these themes may be as pleasing as they may be horrifying (but not by much since videogames are still highly unrealistic) and there you have some discussion, especially on execution), but it is such a profoundly stupid position to begin from that I just want to dismiss it completely. The summary sounds like it could be interesting though.

I think you're taking his words in a different sense than he meant them.

I mean, clearly violence in video games isn't as impactful as real life violence, and it can't be, for the reasons you stated. But narratively speaking, it's supposed to mean something. The violence may be simulated for the player, but for the characters, that violence is real. If we're going to take those characters seriously, the violence should probably affect them.

Games often teach us to ignore the impact of violence. It already means little to us, and if it means little to the characters as well, it's easy to ignore. This lecture is about ways of bringing that dissonance out and showing it to the player. Then, we can grapple with what it means.

I don't think Walt Williams wants to make a game where the player remembers the face of every man he kills. He just wants to make us aware of the narrative absurdity our distance creates.