I love those guys. I actually did mention in the steam chat client that I hate them for making me do this despite knowing its just a game. But it comes to a point where the "it's just a...." argument doesn't work anymore. If it makes me feel uncomfortable then its surpassed that label entirely. Props to those guys for sticking to their guns and the publisher for letting a game like this come out.
To touch back on CoD for a sec, the problem is that even when it tries to show the Grim Reality of War, it's never more than a mission away from OORAH LET'S KILL SOME RUSSIANS AND/OR BROWN PEOPLE AND MAYBE BLOW UP A LANDMARK OR TWO. The first Modern Warfare juggled these concepts effectively - I'll get to that in a sec - but it's gotten sillier since then. Regarding No Russian, you push a bit and you can see the developers never really intended for players to partake; stuff like shooting civilians causing them to fly sideways. And lest we forget, there was always the creeping sensation that certain details didn't add up.
I find that controversy needs to be organic to be taken seriously, and intentional attempts at it miss the point. Consider the nuke scene in CoD4, which I'd argue had more impact than anything in later games. I always thought IW took the wrong lesson from the reaction to it. It wasn't shocking because you died, it was shocking because the mission failed and your moment of "no one gets left behind" bravado got you and your squad killed. That's why it stood out: it was good storytelling that just happened to be a spectacle.
Spec Ops takes this concept and runs with it, to great effect. Even if it never tried to mess with the player, there would still be a solid, horrifying story of Walker's descent into a situation that was FUBAR before he got there. Regarding the WP scene,
I felt it was a poor way to call the player out, functionally equivalent to Press X to Commit Atrocity. I think focusing on disturbing the player makes the writer sound too clever by half, assuming that every single player went into Spec Ops expecting just another military action game. I went in because I had heard it turned into a downward spiral of despair and insanity. The message of 'how far is the player willing to go' is a moot point for me because I didn't pay $49.99 for half a story. No game, show me how far you're willing to go.
However, and this is the important thing, the WP scene still works from a narrative standpoint. It's established that elements of the 33rd use WP, Walker doesn't yet know they're fighting each other, and the mortar presented a viable option to deal with an overwhelming force. It's a controversial scene that fits naturally into the plot, and, crucially, is the point of no return for Walker. It's well directed, visually disturbing, and creates a chilling sense of consequence to your actions; the idea that sometimes killing everyone that's shooting at you just makes things worse.
Basically, Spec Ops establishes a good story and then tries to go high concept, sometimes succeeding but always with the narrative as a backstop. In my opinion, that's a big reason it works so well.
"Here's a thing shoot it at them"
"Okay... hey that last group isn't firing at me, so I won't shoot at them"
YOU FAILED
"lets try this again without firing the thing"
*enemy snipers respawn infinitely until you fire the thing or die*
YOU FAILED
Okay Ill fire the damn thing
"YOU MONSTER WHAT HAVE YOU DONE"
Then again I didn't like "No Russian" either. I get what they were trying to do, but all the tension is let out from the fact that my guy is capable of getting in a shootout with literally hundreds of cops and winning
I've been thinking of spec ops as pretty much a direct criticism of the COD style games. Extremely linear, do exactly what the game is telling you sort of thing. While spec ops doesn't feel anywhere near as scripted, it's still designed for the mindset of being led by the game through a bunch of cinematic set peices. It's designed to hit the players that are used to not questioning things the hardest. At it's heart, no matter how smart it gets, the game is still a linear shooter, and it falls apart when you rebel and question it, just like cod does. http://youtu.be/pmJD0YYf0hk
I still enjoyed it, although I did go into it deciding to try and be as agressive in combat as possible, because from the demo, it looked like it could get a little dull just standing as far back as possible with a rifle and headshotting dudes for an entire game. So I did try to not think as much as normal for this game, just act. But I suppose that I do still think that the sniper section was a better bit, because it arose much more naturally out of the game, although I wouldn't have thought it would have worked without all the preceeding bits. So who knows.
I'm sure the lesson Take Two and others will take away from Spec Ops' failure, as hinted by other posters, is "don't make people feel emotions other than YEEEEEAH EXPLOSIONS!!! They done blowed up real good!! WOOO!!! in shooters."
Is this a dig? :P I was just complaining about lame ass fake choices is all, even No Russian gave you the option of not shooting the civvies.
(Note: I do not play shooters, all this info is second hand.)
Eh, without going into particulars, there are around 4-5 choices in the game that are legitimate in a fairly organic way, then one area where it seems like there should be a choice but there really isn't. There's rumors that they were considering putting in a branching choice there, but the lead writer insists that they always wanted it to happen the way it did to avoid cheapening the impact of the game. No Russian allowed you to personally waffle out of responsibility in the actions you were participating in, Spec Ops forces you to feel the gravity of what you've done... even if it may force you to do it. They wrote the game so that at times the choice you were actually making was whether to continue on, or turn off the game. Here's what the lead writer had to say about it:
“We wanted the player to be stuck in that same kind of situation, even to the point of maybe hating us, as the designer, or hating the game for, in many ways, tricking them, making them feel like we had cheated the experience and forced them to do this thing,” said Williams. “They would have to decide whether or not they could choose to keep playing a game like this after this moment, or if they would be pissed to the point of putting the controller down and saying ‘No, this is too much for me, I’m done with this. Fuck this game.’”
“There’s a certain aspect to player agency that I don’t really agree with, which is the player should be able to do whatever the player wants and the world should adapt itself to the player’s desire,” he said. “That’s not the way that the world works, and with Spec Ops, since we were attempting to do something that was a bit more emotionally real for the player. [...] That’s what we were looking to do,[...] is give direct proof that this is not a world that you are in control of, this world is directly in opposition to you as a game and a gamer.”
The smartest thing about the choices was how they were inserted into the game. Sometimes it was obvious, sometimes it wasn't, but there were no on-screen prompts or other special indicators. The controls don't change: you can still shoot and move normally, and it's on the player to figure out what to do. As I've said, it trained me to look for options that weren't there - even aside from that oft-mentioned scene - and wonder if other points had choices I wasn't seeing. Both from a mechanical and a narrative standpoint, they handled it so well it should be a textbook example.
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
So I found a Let's Play of this on Youtube, my tired old laptop not really having the wherewithal to play it properly, and wound up watching the whole thing in one sitting. Only thing: The guy playing found most of the intel (not all), but only actually inspected one of the intel pieces. Would someone please post on here what the others were? All the guides I've found online just show how to find them, not their actual contents.
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
I've uploaded screenshots of all the intel (minus two pieces that I guess I missed... one from chapter 3, one from chapter 6) to my Steam screenshot library. All of the intel is voice acted and not necessarily by the same person, so keep that in mind when reading it. If you start on the last one in the list that was uploaded today, then work your way to the top of the list of screenshots you'll get them in chronological order by chapter.
The smartest thing about the choices was how they were inserted into the game. Sometimes it was obvious, sometimes it wasn't, but there were no on-screen prompts or other special indicators. The controls don't change: you can still shoot and move normally, and it's on the player to figure out what to do. As I've said, it trained me to look for options that weren't there - even aside from that oft-mentioned scene - and wonder if other points had choices I wasn't seeing. Both from a mechanical and a narrative standpoint, they handled it so well it should be a textbook example.
Mechanically, the game is pretty dull, but this bit in particular I really liked. Example and expounding on the other side of the spoiler.
Towards the end there's that bit where you find yourself surrounded by angry locals who just got done stringing up your buddy. From the atmosphere, the preceding sequence, and your remaining buddy's dialog, the game is basically egging you on to say "fuck it" and open fire on them. Having seen quite enough death for one evening, I tried to muscle through. The crowd will push you back in. So I just opened fire into the sky. And it worked! They all scurried off. We left without further bloodshed, which was the closest thing I could chalk up to a win for that whole fucked up situation.
It was a small thing, but I think that's what really makes this game. No one thing. But lots and lots of small things working in concert.
Regarding Dat Scene:
The whole white phosphorous thing didn't quite work for me as intended. If you listened to the spoilercast, Jeff Gerstmann mentions that the people in the trench are clearly civilians. I picked up on that, too, for basically all the same reasons he lays out. Which was a pity. The imagery was certainly disturbing, though I think the initial reveal of the WP was far more effective for me. I liked that they put you on the receiving end of that fucking awful weaponry before asking you to pull the trigger, so that you'll know damn well the weight of what you're about to do.
So, neat scene and all, but my "breaking point" on that game wasn't there. Although, unexpectedly, I did still have one.
Shortly after you "liberate" the water tankers, when the trucks are blown, and people are yelling at you, and there's fire and and death and you get to the end where Riggs is trapped... The game lays out how fucked things are, how fucked Walker's role in this is, and then asks you to shoot Riggs or let him be burned alive.
I just felt sick. Christ, what was the point anymore? I turned off the game for the night and very seriously considered not going back to it. But then I thought about it, and I came to the same conclusion @Stolls put did. "I didn't pay $49.99 for half a story." At the end of the day, there's still a value proposition to be taken into account that's inherent to the medium. So I pushed on. (Although, that was mostly a thought exercise. Full disclosure, I was playing a friend's copy. But hey, he still paid money for it, so that sorta counts, right?)
All-in-all, while I don't think SOL succeeds on everything it sets out to do, it's definitely more thought-provoking than I had anticipated. I wouldn't want all of my games like this -- Christ, I wouldn't want a third of my games like this -- but I'm glad to have another title to point at like Bioshock when I wanna say "yo dawg, games are all artistically meritorious 'n shit."
0
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
Did you put him out of his misery or leave him?
@Dehumanized - Thanks mate. Nothing too juicy in there but all fairly interesting?
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
Where the refugees have you surrounded, I like how everyone has been finding the non-lethal solution to the problem organically. We all got to that part certain that we're supposed to mow these people down, but the game did its job in making you not want too. I had a Point Break moment myself. I wanted to shoot them all soooo bad, but I couldnt bring myself to do it. Emptied the whole mag into the sky, and noticed the crowd disperse in a panic. I just sat there in awe for a few moments.
Such a special game.
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
The whole white phosphorous thing didn't quite work for me as intended. If you listened to the spoilercast, Jeff Gerstmann mentions that the people in the trench are clearly civilians. I picked up on that, too, for basically all the same reasons he lays out. Which was a pity. The imagery was certainly disturbing, though I think the initial reveal of the WP was far more effective for me. I liked that they put you on the receiving end of that fucking awful weaponry before asking you to pull the trigger, so that you'll know damn well the weight of what you're about to do.
More spoilers about "that scene":
You know, I think that scene still works even if the player is aware that the people in the trench are civilians. In fact, I'd be surprised if the developers wanted the player to be completely unaware of that possibility, since one of the main themes of the game is to indict the player for continuing to play even though they are aware how fucked up the actions of the protagonist are (as well as a larger critique of military shooters as a genre).
If the reveal of the civilians was a complete surprise to the player, it might not have had the same impact, since the player can just shrug off the moral responsibility for pulling the trigger. If the player is almost certainly aware that they are (virtually) dropping a horrific weapon near civilians, they have to make that choice knowing it could go horribly wrong, or perhaps just assuming that the conventions of the genre won't allow those civilians to be brutally killed.
The whole white phosphorous thing didn't quite work for me as intended. If you listened to the spoilercast, Jeff Gerstmann mentions that the people in the trench are clearly civilians. I picked up on that, too, for basically all the same reasons he lays out. Which was a pity. The imagery was certainly disturbing, though I think the initial reveal of the WP was far more effective for me. I liked that they put you on the receiving end of that fucking awful weaponry before asking you to pull the trigger, so that you'll know damn well the weight of what you're about to do.
More spoilers about "that scene":
You know, I think that scene still works even if the player is aware that the people in the trench are civilians. In fact, I'd be surprised if the developers wanted the player to be completely unaware of that possibility, since one of the main themes of the game is to indict the player for continuing to play even though they are aware how fucked up the actions of the protagonist are (as well as a larger critique of military shooters as a genre).
If the reveal of the civilians was a complete surprise to the player, it might not have had the same impact, since the player can just shrug off the moral responsibility for pulling the trigger. If the player is almost certainly aware that they are (virtually) dropping a horrific weapon near civilians, they have to make that choice knowing it could go horribly wrong, or perhaps just assuming that the conventions of the genre won't allow those civilians to be brutally killed.
Dat scene:
I do like that they let you attempt to bypass the WP by shooting everybody, even if you do just get mowed down by tons of fire in a hurry. They at least let you feel like you gave it your best but that the WP is really your only option to get through there.
@Dehumanized - Thanks mate. Nothing too juicy in there but all fairly interesting?
Yeah, it mostly provides some background information that isn't presented in the main storyline. There are some things in there that spoil plot points up to the chapter in the game from when you find them, though.
As I've said, "that scene" didn't quite resonate with me beyond a purely cinematic level, though I had been spoiled on it by a preview a while back so I sort of knew it was coming. That, and retail finance inoculates a person against most headscrews that gaming can throw at you. I've grown used to feeling like a helpless pawn trapped in a depressing shithole and routinely railroaded into doing harm.
And really, what kind of idiot battalion leaves a mortar with that much ordnance overlooking their own base guarded by one schmuck with his back turned to the door? That's just asking for a war crime.
On a serious note, I didn't notice the civilians during the mortar section, so I can't say how obvious it was in hindsight. Mostly I was distracted by A) seemingly getting shot, and seeing Walker's face in the screen reflection, which did kind of creep me out.
Still, other sections did get me to think about the game in terms of my actions instead of Walker's. Some of the choices did beg questions of the player: what a person would do in an utterly horrible situation, absent anyone to judge them for taking one choice or another. With you-know-who later on,
when I shot Riggs, I wasn't really thinking about whether he did the right thing, or about how ironic it was to grant him a quick death considering what we'd just done. I felt his actions (and the CIA's) were cruel and selfish - snuffing the city out just so nobody would learn what happened - but leaving Dubai to grind itself out was certainly no happy ending. Regardless, burning to death is one of the most horrible ways to go, and I just couldn't let it happen. I don't care if it was doing a favor for a complete monster. It was tempting to let cruelty beget cruelty, but I felt I'd be losing a part of myself in so doing. Like with the crowd, it was a line I just couldn't cross.
Shooting him in the head wasn't for him. It was for me.
No question, it's an intense game when it's firing on all cylinders. Like MrPsychoed said, it's not where I want all or even many games to go, but Spec Ops is what I would consider an important experience. Bleak as it is, the medium is richer for having it.
Yeah, here's all the choices I made on my playthrough. Probably will do the other ones when I can bring myself to play the game again:
-Civvies over Gould.
-Shot the soldier on the bridge
-Shot Riggs
-Did not kill the civilians (I pistol whipped one instead of shooting in the air, though)
-Shot 'Konrad', surrendered to the military
Obviously I could go back and see the other endings, but I feel like this is the one I 'earned', and don't want to go through the others without playing more of the game.
I kind of went full psycho after a while, in a kind of daze wondering what was wrong with myself. A few bad choices early, and then spiraling downwards.
- Gould over civvies, which started me thinking I can't win
- murder the soldier on the bridge as well, figured he was... worse somehow.
- Let riggs burn. He just doomed the city to die horribly, and I helped him.
- As the civilians closed in I mowed them all down. Executed the people begging for it afterwards. I have no idea why I did this, apart from feeling like shit and lashing out. I marathonned the game over a night, this tends to make me more emotional, and at that point I was angry at pretty much everyone involved in the game.
- Shot konrad, surrendered, echoed the main characters final line.
Overall I found it to be a quite intense experience, and looking at it afterwards I really don't know why I did the more gruesome choices. I loved it though, and it makes me sad it sold badly.
As I've said, "that scene" didn't quite resonate with me beyond a purely cinematic level, though I had been spoiled on it by a preview a while back so I sort of knew it was coming. That, and retail finance inoculates a person against most headscrews that gaming can throw at you. I've grown used to feeling like a helpless pawn trapped in a depressing shithole and routinely railroaded into doing harm.
And really, what kind of idiot battalion leaves a mortar with that much ordnance overlooking their own base guarded by one schmuck with his back turned to the door? That's just asking for a war crime.
On a serious note, I didn't notice the civilians during the mortar section, so I can't say how obvious it was in hindsight. Mostly I was distracted by A) seemingly getting shot, and seeing Walker's face in the screen reflection, which did kind of creep me out.
Still, other sections did get me to think about the game in terms of my actions instead of Walker's. Some of the choices did beg questions of the player: what a person would do in an utterly horrible situation, absent anyone to judge them for taking one choice or another. With you-know-who later on,
when I shot Riggs, I wasn't really thinking about whether he did the right thing, or about how ironic it was to grant him a quick death considering what we'd just done. I felt his actions (and the CIA's) were cruel and selfish - snuffing the city out just so nobody would learn what happened - but leaving Dubai to grind itself out was certainly no happy ending. Regardless, burning to death is one of the most horrible ways to go, and I just couldn't let it happen. I don't care if it was doing a favor for a complete monster. It was tempting to let cruelty beget cruelty, but I felt I'd be losing a part of myself in so doing. Like with the crowd, it was a line I just couldn't cross.
Shooting him in the head wasn't for him. It was for me.
No question, it's an intense game when it's firing on all cylinders. Like MrPsychoed said, it's not where I want all or even many games to go, but Spec Ops is what I would consider an important experience. Bleak as it is, the medium is richer for having it.
And unfortunately it'll probably never happen again:
Take-Two Interactive announced in its first quarter 2013 financial report today. Max Payne 3 and Spec Ops: The Line both sold fewer copies than Take-Two anticipated, leading to first quarter results below the company's expectations, CEO Strauss Zelnick said.
Yeah, once I saw that Amazon was selling the PC download version for 50% off within a week of launch I presumed Take Two was trying to cut their losses.
Between the low sales and the surprisingly low Metacritic scores, I'm not expecting any kind of sequel (but really, would anyone want one?). Right now my hopes are that Yager sticks around long enough to make something else worthwhile, and that this game develops enough of a cult following to keep it in the public eye. I'd also be surprised if it doesn't become a stock reference in "games as art" debates as well.
However, looking at things from a more "glass half full" perspective, I'm honestly amazed this game got made at all.
I'm sure the lesson Take Two and others will take away from Spec Ops' failure, as hinted by other posters, is "don't make people feel emotions other than YEEEEEAH EXPLOSIONS!!! They done blowed up real good!! WOOO!!! in shooters."
Is this a dig? :P I was just complaining about lame ass fake choices is all, even No Russian gave you the option of not shooting the civvies.
(Note: I do not play shooters, all this info is second hand.)
Eh, without going into particulars, there are around 4-5 choices in the game that are legitimate in a fairly organic way, then one area where it seems like there should be a choice but there really isn't. There's rumors that they were considering putting in a branching choice there, but the lead writer insists that they always wanted it to happen the way it did to avoid cheapening the impact of the game. No Russian allowed you to personally waffle out of responsibility in the actions you were participating in, Spec Ops forces you to feel the gravity of what you've done... even if it may force you to do it. They wrote the game so that at times the choice you were actually making was whether to continue on, or turn off the game. Here's what the lead writer had to say about it:
“We wanted the player to be stuck in that same kind of situation, even to the point of maybe hating us, as the designer, or hating the game for, in many ways, tricking them, making them feel like we had cheated the experience and forced them to do this thing,” said Williams. “They would have to decide whether or not they could choose to keep playing a game like this after this moment, or if they would be pissed to the point of putting the controller down and saying ‘No, this is too much for me, I’m done with this. Fuck this game.’”
“There’s a certain aspect to player agency that I don’t really agree with, which is the player should be able to do whatever the player wants and the world should adapt itself to the player’s desire,” he said. “That’s not the way that the world works, and with Spec Ops, since we were attempting to do something that was a bit more emotionally real for the player. [...] That’s what we were looking to do,[...] is give direct proof that this is not a world that you are in control of, this world is directly in opposition to you as a game and a gamer.”
It's an interesting quote, but ... I guess he doesn't play videogames? It's rare that a game even gives you the illusion of being able to do whatever you want. "No, this is too much for me, I'm done with this. Fuck this game" is what I was afraid he was thinking ("...either I do whatever stupid thing you make me do to progress or I'm out however much I spent on the game"). It's not really thought provoking, it's manipulative, like when a film shows you a nice old cop and his family then kills him three days before retirement and expects you to care more.
I don't play many shooters because the point he was trying to make is one that I internalised when I was 12 and my mum refused to buy me a Medal of Honour game - war is awful and killing people is terrible. I don't think that scene is going to make much of an impact on anyone who hasn't yet realised this, and for many of the well-balanced adults out there it'll be a case of "Yeah, I knew this already", robbing the scene of impact while simultaneously making them feel like trading the game back due to it sacrificing entertainment value for making a message.
I'm not too surprised at the lackluster sales/scores, though it is disappointing. Best I'm hoping for is elements of the game are used piecemeal going forward: the combat system finds a good home in a more balanced action game, the organic decisions inspire similar moments, the meta-commentary on the shooter genre resurfaces in some unique fashion, games explore less orthodox settings (Dubai could've been used better, but I loved the idea considering how dystopian it already is) and so on.
More than that, I hope the writers continue to find work. I consider it a mark of good storytelling if you can take out one of the hooks and still have a good story, and on that end I think Spec Ops delivers. Even if their next task is something more ordinary, they've proven they can write good dialogue, a complex plot, and clear character arcs. Consider my interest piqued in anything they have a hand in going forward.
Knowing this industry, the "lesson" the publishers will learn from the low sales of Spec Ops is "don't make players of shooters experience emotions besides WOOOOO!!! EXPLOSIONS, FUCK YEAH!! WAR IS AWESOME, BRO!!!"
Knowing this industry, the "lesson" the publishers will learn from the low sales of Spec Ops is "don't make players of shooters experience emotions besides WOOOOO!!! EXPLOSIONS, FUCK YEAH!! WAR IS AWESOME, BRO!!!"
I had to stop playing during parts of the game. It starts to hit way too close to home. But bravo on the developers, those scenes are definitely effective.
That scene:
The Willy Pete scene: while I've never had to use WP, I have been around plenty of incoming mortar attacks: 190+ in a year span (with about 80-90 occurring in one day, in a 5hr stretch) and bunch of IED/VBIED's. Walking through the camp and you hear the people in agony, wishing for death, charred remains, craters and jesus christ, I can start to smell what death smells like again. The way they emphasized the lost limbs and wounds I had to turn it off because it's too much, it just reminds me of too much. Even typing this now is acting as a trigger to my PTSD, and it's bringing up memories and smells.
Most games either ignore or don't care about that kind of presentation, or that part of war. It's a non-issue. Here though, kudos to the devs. Wow.
It's an interesting quote, but ... I guess he doesn't play videogames? It's rare that a game even gives you the illusion of being able to do whatever you want. "No, this is too much for me, I'm done with this. Fuck this game" is what I was afraid he was thinking ("...either I do whatever stupid thing you make me do to progress or I'm out however much I spent on the game"). It's not really thought provoking, it's manipulative, like when a film shows you a nice old cop and his family then kills him three days before retirement and expects you to care more.
I don't play many shooters because the point he was trying to make is one that I internalised when I was 12 and my mum refused to buy me a Medal of Honour game - war is awful and killing people is terrible. I don't think that scene is going to make much of an impact on anyone who hasn't yet realised this, and for many of the well-balanced adults out there it'll be a case of "Yeah, I knew this already", robbing the scene of impact while simultaneously making them feel like trading the game back due to it sacrificing entertainment value for making a message.
The message of the game is a bit different than "war is awful", and more of a criticism of the idea of war as a subject for video games and entertainment.
Further, slightly less vague thematic thoughts in spoilers:
And yes, the game's critique does revolve around the idea that the player either does a litany of horrible things or they stop playing. The most apt comparison is to the movie Funny Games which also indicts the viewer for continuing to watch. You may find that heavy-handed or ineffective, if you ever actually play the game, but I found it to be more effective than allowing the player to fully enjoy shooting and blowing up a bunch of people and slapping a trite "war is heck" message on top of it.
I had to stop playing during parts of the game. It starts to hit way too close to home. But bravo on the developers, those scenes are definitely effective.
That scene:
The Willy Pete scene: while I've never had to use WP, I have been around plenty of incoming mortar attacks: 190+ in a year span (with about 80-90 occurring in one day, in a 5hr stretch) and bunch of IED/VBIED's. Walking through the camp and you hear the people in agony, wishing for death, charred remains, craters and jesus christ, I can start to smell what death smells like again. The way they emphasized the lost limbs and wounds I had to turn it off because it's too much, it just reminds me of too much. Even typing this now is acting as a trigger to my PTSD, and it's bringing up memories and smells.
Most games either ignore or don't care about that kind of presentation, or that part of war. It's a non-issue. Here though, kudos to the devs. Wow.
Yanno, I had never even considered what this game would do to someone dealing with that. Do you think that this game should have come with a disclaimer of some sort since it is so vivid?
I had to stop playing during parts of the game. It starts to hit way too close to home. But bravo on the developers, those scenes are definitely effective.
That scene:
The Willy Pete scene: while I've never had to use WP, I have been around plenty of incoming mortar attacks: 190+ in a year span (with about 80-90 occurring in one day, in a 5hr stretch) and bunch of IED/VBIED's. Walking through the camp and you hear the people in agony, wishing for death, charred remains, craters and jesus christ, I can start to smell what death smells like again. The way they emphasized the lost limbs and wounds I had to turn it off because it's too much, it just reminds me of too much. Even typing this now is acting as a trigger to my PTSD, and it's bringing up memories and smells.
Most games either ignore or don't care about that kind of presentation, or that part of war. It's a non-issue. Here though, kudos to the devs. Wow.
Yanno, I had never even considered what this game would do to someone dealing with that. Do you think that this game should have come with a disclaimer of some sort since it is so vivid?
Nah, the ESRB rating is M, which denotes content may have an impact. I find that sufficient enough.
It's an interesting quote, but ... I guess he doesn't play videogames? It's rare that a game even gives you the illusion of being able to do whatever you want. "No, this is too much for me, I'm done with this. Fuck this game" is what I was afraid he was thinking ("...either I do whatever stupid thing you make me do to progress or I'm out however much I spent on the game"). It's not really thought provoking, it's manipulative, like when a film shows you a nice old cop and his family then kills him three days before retirement and expects you to care more.
I don't play many shooters because the point he was trying to make is one that I internalised when I was 12 and my mum refused to buy me a Medal of Honour game - war is awful and killing people is terrible. I don't think that scene is going to make much of an impact on anyone who hasn't yet realised this, and for many of the well-balanced adults out there it'll be a case of "Yeah, I knew this already", robbing the scene of impact while simultaneously making them feel like trading the game back due to it sacrificing entertainment value for making a message.
The message of the game is a bit different than "war is awful", and more of a criticism of the idea of war as a subject for video games and entertainment.
Further, slightly less vague thematic thoughts in spoilers:
And yes, the game's critique does revolve around the idea that the player either does a litany of horrible things or they stop playing. The most apt comparison is to the movie Funny Games which also indicts the viewer for continuing to watch. You may find that heavy-handed or ineffective, if you ever actually play the game, but I found it to be more effective than allowing the player to fully enjoy shooting and blowing up a bunch of people and slapping a trite "war is heck" message on top of it.
The loading screens are a bit on-the-nose at times, but their taunts are pretty clear examples of how the game sees the player.
"Do you even know why you're here anymore?"
"Do you feel like a hero yet?"
"The US Military does not condone the killing of unarmed combatants. But this isn't real, so why should you care?"
"This is all your fault."
It's an interesting quote, but ... I guess he doesn't play videogames? It's rare that a game even gives you the illusion of being able to do whatever you want. "No, this is too much for me, I'm done with this. Fuck this game" is what I was afraid he was thinking ("...either I do whatever stupid thing you make me do to progress or I'm out however much I spent on the game"). It's not really thought provoking, it's manipulative, like when a film shows you a nice old cop and his family then kills him three days before retirement and expects you to care more.
I don't play many shooters because the point he was trying to make is one that I internalised when I was 12 and my mum refused to buy me a Medal of Honour game - war is awful and killing people is terrible. I don't think that scene is going to make much of an impact on anyone who hasn't yet realised this, and for many of the well-balanced adults out there it'll be a case of "Yeah, I knew this already", robbing the scene of impact while simultaneously making them feel like trading the game back due to it sacrificing entertainment value for making a message.
The message of the game is a bit different than "war is awful", and more of a criticism of the idea of war as a subject for video games and entertainment.
Further, slightly less vague thematic thoughts in spoilers:
And yes, the game's critique does revolve around the idea that the player either does a litany of horrible things or they stop playing. The most apt comparison is to the movie Funny Games which also indicts the viewer for continuing to watch. You may find that heavy-handed or ineffective, if you ever actually play the game, but I found it to be more effective than allowing the player to fully enjoy shooting and blowing up a bunch of people and slapping a trite "war is heck" message on top of it.
I don't enjoy the regular war games where you shoot mans and blow up stuff, so I can't say that I have any plans to play this one. This game isn't for me as it has nothing to say that I don't already know, while not providing me with what I actually play games for.
Maybe the goal of the game is to ensure that everyone who buys it never buys another military shooter again, resulting in developers killing the genre. I can get behind that.
Where the refugees have you surrounded, I like how everyone has been finding the non-lethal solution to the problem organically. We all got to that part certain that we're supposed to mow these people down, but the game did its job in making you not want too. I had a Point Break moment myself. I wanted to shoot them all soooo bad, but I couldnt bring myself to do it. Emptied the whole mag into the sky, and noticed the crowd disperse in a panic. I just sat there in awe for a few moments.
Such a special game.
Fucking A. I just couldn't anymore. I was just like....shit violence begest violence. I've never been tired of violence in a game before, but I was drained.
I didn't think of shooting in the air, I
Smacked the main instigator in the mouth with teh butt of my gun and they all ran away
Man, I was just tired by that point. So glad I happened to pick it up, cause honestly, when looking at it at PAXEast I just thought, meh.
I loved this game and everything it had to say about shooters as a genre, but I had a problem with one aspect of the storytelling. A relatively minor one, considering how floored I was by the final summation, but I really would've liked to see:
a better explanation of what exactly happened in Dubai. What they do explain is mostly told via narration and NPCs, but I would've just loved it if (from the "show, don't tell" school of storytelling) the game has Walker make some of the same legitimately horrible decisions that the 33rd did early on in the occupation. So when it comes time to answer the question "How did the 33rd let things get so fucked up?" gets asked, the answer is "They did the same exact thing you did." Again, very minor complaint, as the ultimate fate of Konrad shows that they opted for a different direction.
Also, of all the loading screen tips you guys have mentioned, I didn't see any of you mention this one:
"If Lugo survived, he probably would've had PTSD. So, really... he's the lucky one."
I had to stop playing during parts of the game. It starts to hit way too close to home. But bravo on the developers, those scenes are definitely effective.
That scene:
The Willy Pete scene: while I've never had to use WP, I have been around plenty of incoming mortar attacks: 190+ in a year span (with about 80-90 occurring in one day, in a 5hr stretch) and bunch of IED/VBIED's. Walking through the camp and you hear the people in agony, wishing for death, charred remains, craters and jesus christ, I can start to smell what death smells like again. The way they emphasized the lost limbs and wounds I had to turn it off because it's too much, it just reminds me of too much. Even typing this now is acting as a trigger to my PTSD, and it's bringing up memories and smells.
Most games either ignore or don't care about that kind of presentation, or that part of war. It's a non-issue. Here though, kudos to the devs. Wow.
Yanno, I had never even considered what this game would do to someone dealing with that. Do you think that this game should have come with a disclaimer of some sort since it is so vivid?
Nah, the ESRB rating is M, which denotes content may have an impact. I find that sufficient enough.
It certainly had an impact.
Fair enough, I was just curious what your perspective would be on that. Thanks!
I now feel like a terrible person for having not even thought of trying to find a solution to the crowd problem that didn't involve applying lead to face.
I loved this game and everything it had to say about shooters as a genre, but I had a problem with one aspect of the storytelling. A relatively minor one, considering how floored I was by the final summation, but I really would've liked to see:
a better explanation of what exactly happened in Dubai. What they do explain is mostly told via narration and NPCs, but I would've just loved it if (from the "show, don't tell" school of storytelling) the game has Walker make some of the same legitimately horrible decisions that the 33rd did early on in the occupation. So when it comes time to answer the question "How did the 33rd let things get so fucked up?" gets asked, the answer is "They did the same exact thing you did." Again, very minor complaint, as the ultimate fate of Konrad shows that they opted for a different direction.
Also, of all the loading screen tips you guys have mentioned, I didn't see any of you mention this one:
"If Lugo survived, he probably would've had PTSD. So, really... he's the lucky one."
"How many Americans have you killed today?"
Actually kind of a valid question considering Walker's mental state. He was clearly inflating the numbers during some of those later fights. Those 40-something civilians from the Willy Pete probably don't count - although maybe one or two were expats trapped in the city - and Teleporting Mannequin Heavy was at least partly imaginary. That alone would fuck up the numbers.
I loved this game and everything it had to say about shooters as a genre, but I had a problem with one aspect of the storytelling. A relatively minor one, considering how floored I was by the final summation, but I really would've liked to see:
a better explanation of what exactly happened in Dubai. What they do explain is mostly told via narration and NPCs, but I would've just loved it if (from the "show, don't tell" school of storytelling) the game has Walker make some of the same legitimately horrible decisions that the 33rd did early on in the occupation. So when it comes time to answer the question "How did the 33rd let things get so fucked up?" gets asked, the answer is "They did the same exact thing you did." Again, very minor complaint, as the ultimate fate of Konrad shows that they opted for a different direction.
Also, of all the loading screen tips you guys have mentioned, I didn't see any of you mention this one:
"If Lugo survived, he probably would've had PTSD. So, really... he's the lucky one."
I actually never saw that one on my playthrough, I did get this absolute spoilery gem, though:
(slightly after Lugo died, but before Adams)
Collateral damage can be justified, if the gain outweighs the cost. How much do you think Adams and Lugo are worth?
Got it from Gamefly yesterday and blasted through to the part where
I have to choose between the CIA guy and the civilians. I picked the CIA guy because in the heat of the moment I just started shooting everyone with a gun on them, then afterwards Lugo and Addams had a fight.
This has to be Nolan North's best performance ever. Walker's really selling me on how nasty things are getting. Even though I rented it, I'll probably buy it on Steam someday out of principle.
Am I far into the game? Halfway through? So far it's been enjoyable and disturbing in some parts, but I'm hoping this is not as fucked up as it gets.
Doing a little more reading on the endings, I keep reading that
certain endings can be locked out based on your decisions. Specifically, if you make a habit of killing innocents (possibly even in combat with the odd NPC civvie running around), performing executions, or picking the (relatively) darker options, you won't be able to surrender if you shoot Konrad. Not sure how true that is, but it wouldn't surprise me given the aforementioned little things the devs sprinkled throughout the game.
I do believe all that affects Walker's general demeanor, if in slightly different shades of madness. I tended to pick the lesser evil where possible and largely avoided executions (on accident, I should say) and even at the end he seemed somewhat better composed than I expected. Still obsessed with Konrad, but occasional dialogue suggested it was a means to an end and he still had the pretense of evacuating Dubai. Presumably if you're a complete monster he sounds even more unhinged. Not 100% sure on this, but it would explain those moments.
I loved this game and everything it had to say about shooters as a genre, but I had a problem with one aspect of the storytelling. A relatively minor one, considering how floored I was by the final summation, but I really would've liked to see:
a better explanation of what exactly happened in Dubai. What they do explain is mostly told via narration and NPCs, but I would've just loved it if (from the "show, don't tell" school of storytelling) the game has Walker make some of the same legitimately horrible decisions that the 33rd did early on in the occupation. So when it comes time to answer the question "How did the 33rd let things get so fucked up?" gets asked, the answer is "They did the same exact thing you did." Again, very minor complaint, as the ultimate fate of Konrad shows that they opted for a different direction.
Also, of all the loading screen tips you guys have mentioned, I didn't see any of you mention this one:
"If Lugo survived, he probably would've had PTSD. So, really... he's the lucky one."
"How many Americans have you killed today?"
Actually kind of a valid question considering Walker's mental state. He was clearly inflating the numbers during some of those later fights. Those 40-something civilians from the Willy Pete probably don't count - although maybe one or two were expats trapped in the city - and Teleporting Mannequin Heavy was at least partly imaginary. That alone would fuck up the numbers.
...I'm just sayin' is all.
Yeah, I'm a horrible person.
Was the Heavy a mannequin? I just thought he was using a strobe light in a dark room to get you to think he was teleporting and was just moving around a lot. I didn't see the mannequin part.
Posts
I find that controversy needs to be organic to be taken seriously, and intentional attempts at it miss the point. Consider the nuke scene in CoD4, which I'd argue had more impact than anything in later games. I always thought IW took the wrong lesson from the reaction to it. It wasn't shocking because you died, it was shocking because the mission failed and your moment of "no one gets left behind" bravado got you and your squad killed. That's why it stood out: it was good storytelling that just happened to be a spectacle.
Spec Ops takes this concept and runs with it, to great effect. Even if it never tried to mess with the player, there would still be a solid, horrifying story of Walker's descent into a situation that was FUBAR before he got there. Regarding the WP scene,
However, and this is the important thing, the WP scene still works from a narrative standpoint. It's established that elements of the 33rd use WP, Walker doesn't yet know they're fighting each other, and the mortar presented a viable option to deal with an overwhelming force. It's a controversial scene that fits naturally into the plot, and, crucially, is the point of no return for Walker. It's well directed, visually disturbing, and creates a chilling sense of consequence to your actions; the idea that sometimes killing everyone that's shooting at you just makes things worse.
Basically, Spec Ops establishes a good story and then tries to go high concept, sometimes succeeding but always with the narrative as a backstop. In my opinion, that's a big reason it works so well.
Now playing: Teardown and Baldur's Gate 3 (co-op)
Sunday Spotlight: Horror Tales: The Wine
I've been thinking of spec ops as pretty much a direct criticism of the COD style games. Extremely linear, do exactly what the game is telling you sort of thing. While spec ops doesn't feel anywhere near as scripted, it's still designed for the mindset of being led by the game through a bunch of cinematic set peices. It's designed to hit the players that are used to not questioning things the hardest. At it's heart, no matter how smart it gets, the game is still a linear shooter, and it falls apart when you rebel and question it, just like cod does.
I still enjoyed it, although I did go into it deciding to try and be as agressive in combat as possible, because from the demo, it looked like it could get a little dull just standing as far back as possible with a rifle and headshotting dudes for an entire game. So I did try to not think as much as normal for this game, just act. But I suppose that I do still think that the sniper section was a better bit, because it arose much more naturally out of the game, although I wouldn't have thought it would have worked without all the preceeding bits. So who knows.
Steam // Secret Satan
Eh, without going into particulars, there are around 4-5 choices in the game that are legitimate in a fairly organic way, then one area where it seems like there should be a choice but there really isn't. There's rumors that they were considering putting in a branching choice there, but the lead writer insists that they always wanted it to happen the way it did to avoid cheapening the impact of the game. No Russian allowed you to personally waffle out of responsibility in the actions you were participating in, Spec Ops forces you to feel the gravity of what you've done... even if it may force you to do it. They wrote the game so that at times the choice you were actually making was whether to continue on, or turn off the game. Here's what the lead writer had to say about it:
Now playing: Teardown and Baldur's Gate 3 (co-op)
Sunday Spotlight: Horror Tales: The Wine
Many spoilers.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/dehumanized/screenshots
Mechanically, the game is pretty dull, but this bit in particular I really liked. Example and expounding on the other side of the spoiler.
It was a small thing, but I think that's what really makes this game. No one thing. But lots and lots of small things working in concert.
Regarding Dat Scene:
The whole white phosphorous thing didn't quite work for me as intended. If you listened to the spoilercast, Jeff Gerstmann mentions that the people in the trench are clearly civilians. I picked up on that, too, for basically all the same reasons he lays out. Which was a pity. The imagery was certainly disturbing, though I think the initial reveal of the WP was far more effective for me. I liked that they put you on the receiving end of that fucking awful weaponry before asking you to pull the trigger, so that you'll know damn well the weight of what you're about to do.
So, neat scene and all, but my "breaking point" on that game wasn't there. Although, unexpectedly, I did still have one.
I just felt sick. Christ, what was the point anymore? I turned off the game for the night and very seriously considered not going back to it. But then I thought about it, and I came to the same conclusion @Stolls put did. "I didn't pay $49.99 for half a story." At the end of the day, there's still a value proposition to be taken into account that's inherent to the medium. So I pushed on. (Although, that was mostly a thought exercise. Full disclosure, I was playing a friend's copy. But hey, he still paid money for it, so that sorta counts, right?)
All-in-all, while I don't think SOL succeeds on everything it sets out to do, it's definitely more thought-provoking than I had anticipated. I wouldn't want all of my games like this -- Christ, I wouldn't want a third of my games like this -- but I'm glad to have another title to point at like Bioshock when I wanna say "yo dawg, games are all artistically meritorious 'n shit."
@Dehumanized - Thanks mate. Nothing too juicy in there but all fairly interesting?
Such a special game.
More spoilers about "that scene":
If the reveal of the civilians was a complete surprise to the player, it might not have had the same impact, since the player can just shrug off the moral responsibility for pulling the trigger. If the player is almost certainly aware that they are (virtually) dropping a horrific weapon near civilians, they have to make that choice knowing it could go horribly wrong, or perhaps just assuming that the conventions of the genre won't allow those civilians to be brutally killed.
Yeah, it mostly provides some background information that isn't presented in the main storyline. There are some things in there that spoil plot points up to the chapter in the game from when you find them, though.
On a serious note, I didn't notice the civilians during the mortar section, so I can't say how obvious it was in hindsight. Mostly I was distracted by A) seemingly getting shot, and
Still, other sections did get me to think about the game in terms of my actions instead of Walker's. Some of the choices did beg questions of the player: what a person would do in an utterly horrible situation, absent anyone to judge them for taking one choice or another. With you-know-who later on,
Shooting him in the head wasn't for him. It was for me.
No question, it's an intense game when it's firing on all cylinders. Like MrPsychoed said, it's not where I want all or even many games to go, but Spec Ops is what I would consider an important experience. Bleak as it is, the medium is richer for having it.
Now playing: Teardown and Baldur's Gate 3 (co-op)
Sunday Spotlight: Horror Tales: The Wine
-Shot the soldier on the bridge
-Shot Riggs
-Did not kill the civilians (I pistol whipped one instead of shooting in the air, though)
-Shot 'Konrad', surrendered to the military
Obviously I could go back and see the other endings, but I feel like this is the one I 'earned', and don't want to go through the others without playing more of the game.
- Gould over civvies, which started me thinking I can't win
- murder the soldier on the bridge as well, figured he was... worse somehow.
- Let riggs burn. He just doomed the city to die horribly, and I helped him.
- As the civilians closed in I mowed them all down. Executed the people begging for it afterwards. I have no idea why I did this, apart from feeling like shit and lashing out. I marathonned the game over a night, this tends to make me more emotional, and at that point I was angry at pretty much everyone involved in the game.
- Shot konrad, surrendered, echoed the main characters final line.
Overall I found it to be a quite intense experience, and looking at it afterwards I really don't know why I did the more gruesome choices. I loved it though, and it makes me sad it sold badly.
And unfortunately it'll probably never happen again:
Between the low sales and the surprisingly low Metacritic scores, I'm not expecting any kind of sequel (but really, would anyone want one?). Right now my hopes are that Yager sticks around long enough to make something else worthwhile, and that this game develops enough of a cult following to keep it in the public eye. I'd also be surprised if it doesn't become a stock reference in "games as art" debates as well.
However, looking at things from a more "glass half full" perspective, I'm honestly amazed this game got made at all.
It's an interesting quote, but ... I guess he doesn't play videogames? It's rare that a game even gives you the illusion of being able to do whatever you want. "No, this is too much for me, I'm done with this. Fuck this game" is what I was afraid he was thinking ("...either I do whatever stupid thing you make me do to progress or I'm out however much I spent on the game"). It's not really thought provoking, it's manipulative, like when a film shows you a nice old cop and his family then kills him three days before retirement and expects you to care more.
I don't play many shooters because the point he was trying to make is one that I internalised when I was 12 and my mum refused to buy me a Medal of Honour game - war is awful and killing people is terrible. I don't think that scene is going to make much of an impact on anyone who hasn't yet realised this, and for many of the well-balanced adults out there it'll be a case of "Yeah, I knew this already", robbing the scene of impact while simultaneously making them feel like trading the game back due to it sacrificing entertainment value for making a message.
I got the bad ending.
More than that, I hope the writers continue to find work. I consider it a mark of good storytelling if you can take out one of the hooks and still have a good story, and on that end I think Spec Ops delivers. Even if their next task is something more ordinary, they've proven they can write good dialogue, a complex plot, and clear character arcs. Consider my interest piqued in anything they have a hand in going forward.
Now playing: Teardown and Baldur's Gate 3 (co-op)
Sunday Spotlight: Horror Tales: The Wine
dem furreners 'sploded reeeeel good there!
That scene:
Most games either ignore or don't care about that kind of presentation, or that part of war. It's a non-issue. Here though, kudos to the devs. Wow.
There are no good endings.
The message of the game is a bit different than "war is awful", and more of a criticism of the idea of war as a subject for video games and entertainment.
Further, slightly less vague thematic thoughts in spoilers:
Yanno, I had never even considered what this game would do to someone dealing with that. Do you think that this game should have come with a disclaimer of some sort since it is so vivid?
It certainly had an impact.
The loading screens are a bit on-the-nose at times, but their taunts are pretty clear examples of how the game sees the player.
"Do you feel like a hero yet?"
"The US Military does not condone the killing of unarmed combatants. But this isn't real, so why should you care?"
"This is all your fault."
I don't enjoy the regular war games where you shoot mans and blow up stuff, so I can't say that I have any plans to play this one. This game isn't for me as it has nothing to say that I don't already know, while not providing me with what I actually play games for.
Maybe the goal of the game is to ensure that everyone who buys it never buys another military shooter again, resulting in developers killing the genre. I can get behind that.
Fucking A. I just couldn't anymore. I was just like....shit violence begest violence. I've never been tired of violence in a game before, but I was drained.
Smacked the main instigator in the mouth with teh butt of my gun and they all ran away
Man, I was just tired by that point. So glad I happened to pick it up, cause honestly, when looking at it at PAXEast I just thought, meh.
I want to know more PA people on Twitter.
Also, of all the loading screen tips you guys have mentioned, I didn't see any of you mention this one:
Fair enough, I was just curious what your perspective would be on that. Thanks!
Actually kind of a valid question considering Walker's mental state. He was clearly inflating the numbers during some of those later fights. Those 40-something civilians from the Willy Pete probably don't count - although maybe one or two were expats trapped in the city - and Teleporting Mannequin Heavy was at least partly imaginary. That alone would fuck up the numbers.
...I'm just sayin' is all.
Yeah, I'm a horrible person.
Now playing: Teardown and Baldur's Gate 3 (co-op)
Sunday Spotlight: Horror Tales: The Wine
I actually never saw that one on my playthrough, I did get this absolute spoilery gem, though:
Collateral damage can be justified, if the gain outweighs the cost. How much do you think Adams and Lugo are worth?
This has to be Nolan North's best performance ever. Walker's really selling me on how nasty things are getting. Even though I rented it, I'll probably buy it on Steam someday out of principle.
Am I far into the game? Halfway through? So far it's been enjoyable and disturbing in some parts, but I'm hoping this is not as fucked up as it gets.
Twitter
I do believe all that affects Walker's general demeanor, if in slightly different shades of madness. I tended to pick the lesser evil where possible and largely avoided executions (on accident, I should say) and even at the end he seemed somewhat better composed than I expected. Still obsessed with Konrad, but occasional dialogue suggested it was a means to an end and he still had the pretense of evacuating Dubai. Presumably if you're a complete monster he sounds even more unhinged. Not 100% sure on this, but it would explain those moments.
Now playing: Teardown and Baldur's Gate 3 (co-op)
Sunday Spotlight: Horror Tales: The Wine