The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
[PATV] Wednesday, August 22, 2012 - Extra Credits Season 5, Ep. 1: Spec Ops: The Line (Part 1)
Dog
Registered User, Administrator, Vanilla Staff admin
Registered User, Administrator, Vanilla Staff admin
This week, we talk about what makes Spec Ops: The Line so great (without spoilers).
Arvydas is a pretty awesome artist. You should check out his stuff.
Come discuss this topic in the forums!
here!
Dog on
0
Posts
penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/spec-ops-is-critical-of-war-and-players-of-war-games-an-interview-with-the (<-- actual link) it's VERY, VERY IMPORTANT that you do that.
I would reccomend you take a look at Chris Franklin's (aka Campster) analysis of the game
And last but not least I suggest this article: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-07-07-saturday-soapbox-guilt-by-association written by Richard Cobbet, that has a deep view on the mechanics of guilt.
EDIT: sorry for the embedded video window, I don't know how to reduce it.
For those that enjoy this program (as it is almost impossible not to) and enjoy the thought we are encouraged to put into games, the idea that we descend upon this title is heartening. It would achieve the very objective of the game having been made, prove to the market that games which provide this kind of depth can achieve success, and allow games of the future to know that these kinds of discussions with the player are not only encouraged, but rewarded.
Personally, I cannot wait until Extra Credits: Spec Ops: The Line Part II to drop next Wednesday. Way to kick off Season 5 with flair and that stapled Extra Credits goodness. Much love.
I know this will likely be answered in next week's spoiler-filled episode, but why make a spoiler-free one if you have nothing to say in it?
People who know the game likely didn't learn anything, and people who don't know the game don't know what you're talknig about.
I really think you should have gone directly with the second episode, maybe with just a short "next week we'll talk about this game and there will be spoilers, you should check it out before watching" message in the previous episode.
That said, I take your word that it's awesome, and I look forward for the next episode.
To everyone who is criticizing it, I would say the game is actually fun, just not the way you would expect. The story is gripping and challenges you as a human being. The shooting mechanics are not COD quality, but they are still fun.
The other side of the coin:
On the topic of you guys saying "It isn't fun, but it's really engaging" I think it is very important that people distinguish that games don't always have to be fun.
See, the way I see it is that games, first and foremost, must be entertaining or engaging rather than fun. Shindler's List wasn't a "fun" movie, but it was engaging as hell. Shadow of the Colossus wasn't really "fun" but it was entertaining and engaging and you wanted to keep playing. People need to stop thinking of "fun" as the be all end all qualifyer of a game's worth, and I honestly hope you do an episode on the distinction of "Fun vs. Engaging" and I really do think it's an important topic that must be brought up.
The Line is a videogame, not a movie. I has to be judged by all aspects of what makes a videoGAME a video G. A. M. E. That includes content, not just context. The narrative, no matter how great, will not justify a perfect score on its own and from what I have heard and seen, the actual mechanics behind the game are extremely polished and well implemented...and completely standard and uninspired. Apparently, that was on purpose for the sake of the narrative, which is a brave move and I can respect that, but I'm still playing a game and not watching a movie.
Game. Movie. Know the difference. It may save your life one day...but probably not.
They made a demo of the beginning of the game, I downloaded it, was bored to tears and just stopped playing it halfway through and then didn't give a second thought to Spec Ops. Their advertising campaign needed to be different. A few weeks ago, when Zero Punctuation released its written column on Spec Ops analyzing the story they way you are, Yahtzee noted that a lot of people had commented that they had the same reaction I did - they downloaded the demo, hated it, took it for the low budget CoD slog that it was trying to look like t and gave not a second thought to the game.
I know that there wouldn't have been nearly as much impact if you DIDN'T hold these expectations about they game but they really didn't take this into account in terms of how it would affect their advertising campaign; they didn't seem to realized the standard tools were not appropriate in this case.
I mean, at the end of the day, people play video games to be entertained and have fun. This game might go down in the books as an "art game" like Shadow of the Colossus, with a tiny cult following the sings its artistic praises. But the game would have been a hell of a lot bigger, and reached a hell of a lot more people, if they just created a game that followed the tenants of their allegory, instead of spending all its time ripping on other games in the genre.
Honestly, when I look at this game, I feel like I'm looking at a politician. Somebody who takes the time to point out all the flaws in his rivals, but can't be buggered to actually go through with any of his own promises. I don't need a game that flings shit at other games. I want a game that paves the way by showing what it means to be different with its own actions, rather than condemning those who don't do it themselves. It's a "do, don't tell," type of situation, and this game is doing a lot more telling than doing.
Thankfully I have next week off.
Up until this point, games have been point A-to-B entertainment, but I think this game is pivotal in that it shows another pathway. Someone said games shouldn't be like movies, but this is a perfect example of how the industry can mature and become more intellectually stimulating like movies. Up until now, game storytelling and writing, even from highly rated titles like Mass Effect, Dragon Age and GTA4, have had incredibly simplistic narratives and scripts peeled from B movies.
They excite us, but we don't finish the game with a greater understanding or introspection of ourselves, and these games generally don't excite us to question our society (outside of blanket ideas like "war for minerals is bad!). Games like Shadow of the Colossus and Journey are considered art by many people because of their beautiful aesthetic but I would posit that Spec Ops plunges much deeper into artistry because it's meant to move you at a core level, not a superficial one.
To those who think the gunplay is bad, it's not. It's average-above average. The guns, sounds and visuals are all done well (the sounds and soundtrack are actually superb) and the shooting is repetitive, with the cover mechanic being streamlined to a fault. I also don't buy the argument that the gameplay was made generic so it'd relate to other AAA shooters. But it's still not bad gameplay. The difficulty can be frustrating but it doesn't feel cheap (except at FUBAR level, but all shooters' max levels are like that) and you generally don't die due to bad mechanics, just bad decisions.
The most important part of the gameplay is that the story telling and the moral decisions are tied into it. It is not simply a vehicle from cut scene to cut scene, because a lot of the most jarring scenes happen fully under your control.
If I can defend the experience one way, it'd be this: Spec Ops' gunplay is not as bad as BF3's story, but its storytelling is as much an accomplishment as BF3's gunplay. Even without selling well, this game will make an impact on the industry as it proves games can be a good writer's medium.
Also, Thalesnm, what they really want to talk about is specific story details, because in this game they're what makes it shine. Being vague about it simply will not get the point across, trust me.
And before you start off on how EC isn't trying hard enough: "The Usual Suspects." "The Sixth Sense." "The Crying Game." "Bioshock." Can you imagine seriously trying to discuss these works of art without ruining the surprise?
And yes, I count Bioshock as a work of art.
I understand how the concept of SO:TL could work, but it is a bit off-putting to me- especially after reading a certain article in The Cut concerning the writing team's goals. According to them, the player is meant to experience the guilt of his decisions and actions within the game; but from what I understand, there are no "real" choices in the game- with exception to one: continuing to play the game.
To me, that's a bit weak. Trying to convict the player's conscience for playing something incredibly engaging and well-written (I wouldn't know personally, but I believe those who say it is) is like trying to guilt a child for eating an ice cream cone that you just handed to him. What did you think was going to happen?
I think (from a completely academic standpoint, as I have not played) that the "guilt" aspect could have been more effective and less obvious had the "bad" choices been avoidable but more attractive in terms of accomplishing the goals of the player's character. Then the player would have actually been part of the decision-making process, and therefore culpable.
In the end, I will probably never play the game, due largely to some extremely stupid comments made by the head writer in the above-mentioned article. Therefore, I gladly welcome next week's spoiler-filled episode. Keep up the good work, guys.
@Thaesnm:
Yeah, I noticed that, too. I will no doubt also receive a number of down votes.
tl:dr, don't think of the guilt as punishment, but as an invitation to empathise with a character that does questionable things.
That said, though I have not played the game I've seen Yahtzee's review. My main grievance, and it's not a huge one, is this--I don't think the message is nearly as risky as people seem to think it is. We seem to think that because we play games where you mow down Russians like ants that we as gamers really want to mow down Russians like ants. And who knows, maybe in the CoD/BF3 crowd there are tons of people who really do think it's okay to kill all Russians. But the hardcore gamer crowd is already pretty anti-American/anti-military. So it seems like a lot of people are praising this game not because it challenged their way of thinking but because it validated it. The demonization of anyone in uniform as a heartless monster, the idea that there is no such thing as justified violence--that's what most of the hardcore crowd already believes. I'm not saying Spec Ops believes this, but Yahtzee and many of the others praising this game certainly do.
I don't think I'm a monster. But when William Wallace gives his speech before going into war, when the Allies charge Normandy in a WW2 movie, when Inigo says "I want my father back you SOB" and stabs the six-fingered man, I cheer. I'm not some racist who wants to kill all Russians, I don't think anything our military does is good "because 'Merica". But at the same time I'm not going to say that anyone who kills someone is a soulless bastard who gets off on ending lives.
Again not a criticism of Spec Ops and certainly not of EC. But the most compelling moral challenges are the ones that show us both sides of an issue. Ryan, Fontaine, and Lamb all had completely different worldviews. But they were all wrong because they were all taken to the extreme. I'd love it if a game showed the wrong on both ends of the violence spectrum--the side that glorifies violence AND the side that demonizes it.
So yes, I understand why they avoided "real choices", but I'm also coming from a position where I know exactly what the writers wanted (as I read it in an interview), and I feel their expectations for the player are, perhaps, a little lofty when compared with the actual game itself. Without "real choices", there is no guilt; and without guilt, there is no vehicle for thought. This is true for me, anyway.
The real irony is that I'm sure it's a great game. If the EC team (whom I greatly respect) is doing a multi-part series on it, that says a lot to me. However, I can't forget what I know about the writers and their stated intentions; and frankly, that ruined the entire thing for me. Thanks, Ben Kuchera.
Also: Corretion- The article was in the PA Report, not The Cut. My most egregious bad.
@RatherDashing89: I disagree with your assertion about the worldviews of most of the "hardcore" gamers. I imagine they're somewhere around your (our) level, actually. As for your suggestion, I like it. In fact, it reminds me of Gundam Seed's plot. Basically, the viewer naturally sympathizes with one side (Earth), then the other (Plant), then neither as he is exposed to the flaws of both. Good stuff.
The rest of the choices are player driven, and unlike Bioshock, you're never completely aware of what all the choices are. Also unlike Bioshock, there's no material reward attached to it because then you're just defaulting to utilitarianism and there's no ethical dialogue happening. Very few people decided on Little Sisters because of some emotional connection to them or the world around them - instead they made a calculated decision of medium reward now or big reward later. In this, the choices are mostly driven by your emotion (although in the same way that you're not made aware of all the options, you're also not made aware if there's any consequences to your decisions.)
There's one like that near the end, and it's a real "holy crap" moment because there's one option that's NEVER presented in shooters and if you took it, you most likely did it because you followed your own moral code in the face of other, more obvious options. That or you misclicked.