Spec Ops: The Line [SPOILERS]

YoshoKatana

So, I noticed a lot of you recently played Spec Ops: The Line. How'd you like it? I played it a few months ago, all in one sitting, and it was fantastic/horrifying. I agree with a lot of what the Extra Credits crew say about it (part 2), but I've also heard some interviews with the developers and the rabbit hold goes much deeper.

For example, did you notice that all the "real" scenes fade to black, but the hallucinations/dream sequences fade to white? And at the end, it fades to white.

Also, people complain about not having player agency when THE THING happens. You know the thing. Willy Pete. Anyway, people complain about that. And I think that was a very deliberate point about the disconnect between the player (possibly also representing sanity) and the character, who by that point is kind of crazyballs.

The developers also said (though I didn't notice this at the time) that as you progress in the game, the posters on the wall are actually posters of you.

EDIT: Also, when the "crowd control" scene happened, I didn't even consider shooting into the air. I tried to walk through the crowd, but they started throwing rocks at me and I frantically mowed the down. Now that I know I had a choice I feel like crap.

DevilUknow

I'm looking forward to playing it specifically to contrast it directly with Hotline Miami, which I suspect does the very things that Spec Ops does, but better.

chaosof99

I played it a couple of months ago partially because of the Extra Credits review (part 1, before watching part 2) and I was very impressed. The gameplay is not the best, and that is kind of expected from a non-Triple-A shooter and perhaps that is also the point to that, but the story is fantastic and very gripping and unnerving. I really felt terrible after THE THING happened. I didn't really think that it was badly done and there really was a choice there: Not continuing to play. I however kind of autopiloted through it and then when the game serves you with the consequences it really hammers that home, that being on autopilot is a very, very bad thing.

I also very much like their approach to choice. I did shoot one of the hang men, but I did fire into the air rather than into the crowd. I also attempted a number of the different endings. The game also has a great sense of irony.

It's one of the very few dramas in video games, which isn't there for you to have fun, or to make you feel like a badass. It's there to actually put you down. It's there to deconstruct the genre it works in and to put a mirror in front of you. "You're here because you wanted to be something you're not". One of the best lines in a video game, ever.

It's a game that should be played at least once by everybody, and particularly by the people who spend most of their gaming time with Call of Duty and other modern military shooters. It also doesn't take that long to play through it. I finished it twice in 12 hours of game time.

DevilUknow

EDIT: Also, when the "crowd control" scene happened, I didn't even consider shooting into the air. I tried to walk through the crowd, but they started throwing rocks at me and I frantically mowed the down. Now that I know I had a choice I feel like crap.

I hate this moment. There is zero reason for the player to assume that this will work; those are not people, they are AI controlled pixels in a game that is, mechanically, about shooting AI controlled pixels. The idea that shooting these "people", who are only people because of the narrative, is somehow revealing of the player's character is laughable.

I was going to do a big thing about Hotline Miami and games that are mechanically and narratively disconnected, and how story doesn't matter, but someone else did that.
[spoiler]

chaosof99

EDIT: Also, when the "crowd control" scene happened, I didn't even consider shooting into the air. I tried to walk through the crowd, but they started throwing rocks at me and I frantically mowed the down. Now that I know I had a choice I feel like crap.

I hate this moment. There is zero reason for the player to assume that this will work; those are not people, they are AI controlled pixels in a game that is, mechanically, about shooting AI controlled pixels. The idea that shooting these "people", who are only people.

But doesn't your reaction also highlight something about the game industry? About how it trains us to not consider alternate paths and solutions to situations because of half-assed programming and the bare illusion of "choice"?

Or does it actually really tell something about you and your approach to games, or that you didn't even try, because there are plenty of people who did find the "fire into the air" solution?

And this is what makes Spec Ops: The Line a great game. Because it actually prompts us to ask such questions which a ton of other games would never get us to wonder about.

DevilUknow

considering the entire game is a hallway, dressed to the hilt in false choices and "moral" choice that have zero impact on anything, and that the big narrative reveal at the end of the game is that the player could have "just stopped" (which presumably means that players should have turned the game off if they didn't like killing "Americans"), I'm hesitant to give the game much credit for blowing open the tropes of video games. If anything, I think it is a prime example of what happens when you try to get by on narrative wank without having anything interesting to actually DO.

You'll note my overuse of sarcastic quotes in these posts. I tried to think of an alternative, but games have made me too lazy.

Dave

I hate this moment. There is zero reason for the player to assume that this will work; those are not people, they are AI controlled pixels in a game that is, mechanically, about shooting AI controlled pixels. The idea that shooting these "people", who are only people because of the narrative, is somehow revealing of the player's character is laughable.

I shot the ground. What reason do we have to believe it wouldn't work, other than "games don't work that way?"

That's exactly the sort of choice I want in games: non-traditional solutions accomplished through in-game mechanics instead of button prompts.

Without being able to watch your video (I'm on a train), I think you're dramatically overstating HLM's success. That game has some pretty good visual commentary, but it's narrative is so on-the-nose that I was rolling my eyes through most of it.

DevilUknow

The success of HLM is that it shows how little of an impact narrative has on games when the game is actually fun to play.

chaosof99

which is something ONLY the player could have done as it is never a valid choice to the character

Wrong. It wasn't only a possibility for Walker to stop his death march, it was in fact his orders. He was on a Recon mission. He and his two buddies were supposed to find out what happened to the 33rd and then retreat and report to his superiors. While this is not an explicit option within the game, it was an implicit one for you to turn off the game and consider your job, the one you were ordered to do, done.

It's the false sense of duty, the observed necessity of a "hero" in the situation and the presumptuous assumption of that role, that makes both you the player and Walker the character you control continue on the mad quest that is this game.

DevilUknow

When I said "to the character" I meant "in the game" (other than the Quit option in the pause menu that is). My bad.

My point is that every terrible thing the player does, they were forced into doing by the game and punished with Game Over screens for avoiding. If the structure of the game allowed player to call off the mission, find less expedient or easy options THEN the game can start wagging its finder at the player when they choose to continue to do the easy expedient thing.

chaosof99

But you do have that option. You can simply stop playing. Nobody is "forcing" you to do anything. It is entirely up to you to play that game, to finish it, and it is entirely on you to bear the consequences of your actions that you freely chose to engage in. Yes, it is a game that makes you feel bad for playing it. That's the point of it!

I also liked the Hotline Miami video you posted above. However, I think you are falling into a false dichotomy, or a false value system. You seem to think that the explicit lack of contextualization in Hotline Miami and its focus on gameplay is in some way superior or more valuable than having a game like Spec Ops: The Line which contextualizes your behavior and shows you the full detail of the atrocities that you commit within it. Why aren't both valid opinions, or at least valuable avenues for the medium of video games to explore?

DevilUknow

I'm saying that Spec Ops: This Line FAILS to contextualizes your behaviour and show you the full detail of the atrocities that you commit within it because YOU don't do any of those things. You push a button to start a cut scene in which the character WALKER does those things (or you don't and you either get a Game Over screen or nothing happens).

In the early 20th century, when people were shown movies of a train careening towards them, the audience would get scared and scatter. I feel like, in 100 years, Spec Ops will be seen as another example of THAT phenomenon.

Dave

Uh, you infact DO do those things. You fired the white phosphorous. You shot the civilians, motherfucker. Not in a cutscene, in real time. In fact, I don't recall Walkercommiting -any- atrocity in a cutscene.

If you want to interpret HLM like that: okay, I guess. I don't think it's exactly high satire to say "you know how sometimes games are really fun but have a shit narrative to excuse their murder? well here's another one!" and effectively leave it at that.

YoshoKatana

I'd contend that there was a lot of choice in the game, especially due to the mechanics. You know how the "takedowns" get more and more gruesome and personal as the game goes on? Well, you also get a lot of ammo/health/items from doing them. Around the mid-point I had to decide if I wanted to keep doing them, weighing my personal disgust with the bonuses they give.

There is also the ending, which I think was multiple-choice done in a very natural way. (both the mirror scene and the rescue scene at the end, which I believe could have ended three different ways)

EDIT: Also, I have to say that while the mechanics of the game were pretty basic, they were fun and had good kinaesthetics. Also, after the mannequin scene I frantically shot any mannequin I saw for the rest of the game.

DevilUknow

You are as responsible for the actions of Walker as Gene Hackman is for the actions of Lex Luthor.

chaosof99

What Dave said. Just because your character avatar has a name you didn't choose and has a backstory you didn't make doesn't mean that the actions that you control aren't your actions.

chaosof99

You are as responsible for the actions of Walker as Gene Hackman is for the actions of Lex Luthor.

False equivalency. A movie is a finished work. It is deterministic and static. The actors within never have the option to act differently. When you are in a game, you actually do have that option.

It should however also be noted that certain actors have in fact refused to take roles because they didn't like the characterization their role was to have.

Another false equivalency you engage in is the fact that you shifted what you are talking about. Gene Hackman is an actor. He is one of the people who made the piece of medium, not a member of the audience.

Yes, games have a limited amount of freedom, but the freedom it provides for the viewer is greater than the freedom of film, or books, or any other medium really. It is also new because you can view it as the players creating the content with in the limited freedom the game provides. And yes, there is always the option for a player to refuse to continue playing.

It is our free choice to substitute the fantasy of the game for our reality and the actions we commit in the context of the fantasy are our actions.

Rym

Refusing to continue playing a game like this isn't a contextual decision, and thus has zero moral relevance. Moral decisions in games are only interesting or meaningful if they occur within the context of the game itself OR are pointedly not provided.

See Covetous for an excellent example:
http://www.kongregate.com/games/austinbreed/covetous

You have basically only one option: continue your course.

It makes its point succinctly.


Covetous has no moral choice: just a exploration of a moral situation. For this game to have had a moral choice, the player needed to have a consequence for not going through the motions. E.g., a health bar that drops over time, replenished only by feeding, simultaneous to a health bar for the host, which drops when fed upon.

DevilUknow

False equivalency

Apt equivalency. The game is a finished work. It is deterministic and static in that you are allowed to take the range of actions that the developers thought of, or no action at all (you also have the option to walk out of a movie theatre).

Gene Hackman, the actor, had as much control over Lex Luthor as the player has over Walker. Each player plays it slightly differently, but his range of options still has to conform to where the script is going. Just like how Hackman can never decide that Lex will turn over a new leaf and devote his intellect to solving the world's problems, the player can't decide to hop in the first jeep they see and say "Hey everyone! I'm gonna haul ass to Lalapalooza!" and end the story right there.

Games CAN give you that freedom, but when they don't they better have their mechanics down; I love Bayonetta even if it is nonsense. That's why I'm so hard of Spec Ops: The Line; It is a B-Grade shooter with a narrative that wants to be challenging and interesting but doesn't pull it off.

Maybe this is why I don't like the mob scene. If the game actually was what people seem to think it is, then that scene would work brilliantly; a choice the player can make, driven by the mechanics of the game, that has a direct impact on the outcome. Since the rest of the game fails so miserably to live up to this, and because there is barely any difference between shooting the mob and scaring it, it falls flat.

chaosof99

Just watched the video of the Spec Ops:The Line by the Errant Signal guy. It is quit good.


Rym, you are overlooking the fact that Spec Ops: The Line draws the metacontext of a player sitting in front of a screen into the context. It is a deconstruction of the genre, and at times it talks directly to the player rather than just the character on the screen that you are controlling. This includes the loading screens when you are not controlling anybody.

It is an allegory. It makes you do things that the game itself says you shouldn't be doing but you as a player have convinced yourself must be done.

Rym

It is an allegory. It makes you do things that the game itself says you shouldn't be doing but you as a player have convinced yourself must be done.

My trouble with that is that it's inelegant. I'll play through ANY game, take ANY action in a game, just to explore the tree. The point of a game is to play it.

I'll play Deus Ex once killing nobody, and again killing basically everyone I see or meet.

chaosof99

You know how else I know that Spec Ops is a good game?


Yeah, it actually does that you at one point.

DevilUknow

that is literally a joke.

TheWhaleShark

I'm sorry, but "you can put down the controller" is not a game choice. It's inelegant, ham-fisted, self-congratulatory, ego-stroking bullshit.

You know what would have been better? An in-game option to radio home and essentially end the mission at any point. You'll still deconstruct the genre, and even the entire usual gaming experience.

The only use of "put down the controller" is to berate your audience for playing your game.

Fuck that.

chaosof99

But that's the fucking point. To berate the audience. Yes, you don't like it. Nobody likes being berated. But what Spec Ops does was about time for someone to do. It asks you why you are engaging in the slaughter of hundreds of people and when you invariably run to your cop-out answer of "you left me no choice" or "it's what the game expects me to do" it clearly tells you that that is not an answer or a justification. That instead it's a lie that you tell yourself in order to make you feel better about the atrocities you have committed.

You push the responsibility for your actions away and frame it as a lack of choice brought about by an outside force, when you do have choice. The game itself tells you as much, with Walker continually blaming Conrad, and declaring that he had no choice. Just instead of Conrad, you blame the developer. And it directly tells you that, and I'm quoting now, "there is always a choice"!

HMTKSteve

Quitting the game is only a valid game play choice if the publisher is offering to buy the game back from you.

TheWhaleShark

That instead it's a lie that you tell yourself in order to make you feel better about the atrocities you have committed.

Or, y'know, "it's a game and that's the theme." I don't know about you, but the sum total of my morality is not derived from video games. I also possess an ability to separate fantasy from reality. This enables me to do things like re-tell Viking sagas without getting morally offended at their barbarism. Or play Dungeons and Dragons without believing that magic is real.

Maybe you want to ask why we as humans look at violence as a form of entertainment. Good fucking question, and one that's been asked for thousands of years. This is not original in any capacity.

Saying "put down the controller" is essentially the same type of "choice" as "do what I say or die" - in context, it's not a choice at all. That's it. There is literally no way out. It's not a cop-out - the developer designed it like that.

My whole issue here is that anyone thinks it was about time for someone to do this. People have bemoaned violence in video games since the medium was first created. We have frequently encountered this very quandry, and many gamers and game designers have addressed it in a variety of ways throughout the years.

"There is always a choice" is hardly a new concept, and I contend that if you were actually moved by this game - if it actually "hit home" and "made you think," or otherwise seemed "necessary" - then you were really pretty fucked up from the start, and obviously don't challenge your moral stances as it is. If that's the case, some ego-masturbating railroad game narrative isn't going to change your mind.

Quitting the game is only a valid game play choice if the publisher is offering to buy the game back from you.

Also this. What kind of fuckstick charges you for a game, and then says "HAHA YOU SUCK FOR PLAYING THIS?"

No, it's not challenging. It's pretentious, and does nothing to actually change the landscape of discussion regarding our addiction to violence as entertainment.

Rym

TheWhaleShark is spot on with every single thing he posted in this thread.

If you didn't have a choice in the context of the game itself then you didn't have a choice.

chaosof99

WhaleShark, we are assuming in this discussion that the player no longer wants to continue playing. This is largely due to the Yaeger actually showing the wake of destruction and death the player leaves behind, rather than glossing over that very important detail that so many other shooter games do, but it is true nonetheless. The game fosters the insight that the actions you engage in aren't what you should be doing. That it's all wrong and bad, but that realization that you don't really want to play anymore is your own.

It is therefore in the best interest and in fact covers the desire of the player to put down the controller and stop playing (and reportedly there have been a number of players in playtesting that actually refused to continue after the white phosphorous incident). However, the player still marches on because he wants to see the rest of the game or because of some sort of obligation he or she feels. Because "that's the game and that's the theme" or some other garbage like that.

The "about time" thing was also in part because of where we are right now, where the video game medium is dominated by games which glorify military action as an absolute moral good and do not bother with the consequences which such conflicts in fact entail. Where violence isn't just used as a form of entertainment, but as the first and only option for conflict resolution.

Your contention in the last paragraph before you quoted Steve on the other hand is absolute garbage, and boils down to nothing but an ad hominem attack. So fuck you for that.

As for the game telling you not to play it but not offering a refund: It's an experimental game. It is in my opinion a very worthwhile experience which is why I have repeatedly recommended it to other people in this forum to buy and play. It also cost money to make and it's a product that they sell. Why would they give you a refund anyway? If the game convinced you that the style of modern military shooter that it eviscerates is bad, do you think you should get a refund for your Call of Duty?


And maybe you disagree with it succeeding, but at the very least it attempts to showcase and expose the inherent problems of the modern military shooters that are so very popular right now, and how they are unhealthy and untrustworthy power fantasies which paint a false picture of actual modern military action.

Rym

Covetous did this already, and did it better.

This game does it poorly and inelegantly. In games, non-contextual decisions aren't decisions. They literally don't exist.

Amp

I would suggest playing the game first then make an opinion. It will surprise you, that is if you go in with an open mind.