Spec Ops: The Line may be the most important game this year

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by KingsMessenger (2570 posts) -

Anyone who has played and actually paid attention to Spec Ops probably already knows this, but as more and more people start to really dig into the game and what it says/does, I think that it is becoming increasingly apparent that Specs Ops could be the most IMPORTANT game of this year.

Brendan Keogh is writing a book of critical analysis of the game, looking closely at the narrative and mechanics of the game to analyze its message.

In a fledgling industry like this, which is still struggling with artistic expression and meaning, games like Spec Ops are extremely important to allowing people to understand the larger scope of meaning that games can bring. The game could become one of the seminal tentpoles of the entire "Games as Art" argument simply because the mechanics and gameplay are not dissonant with the narrative. Spec Ops, unlike BioShock/Braid/Limbo, cannot be split into its game parts and its narrative parts. The art is cohesive and whole.

For those that want an overview of what I am talking about, here is a fantastic video on it. Spoilerific, but massively interesting.

20-30 years from now, we could all look back on Spec Ops as one of the most significant titles in the "Games as Art" movement.

#2 Posted by Promised_Trini (3637 posts) -

I just beat the game last night.Really tripped me out at some points.

#3 Posted by tagyhag (15867 posts) -
Man I beat the game and think people look too deeply into it, just because it's a video game. It was a mediocre game with a mediocre story.
#4 Posted by KingsMessenger (2570 posts) -

Man I beat the game and think people look too deeply into it, just because it's a video game. It was a mediocre game with a mediocre story. tagyhag

Watch the video.

It is totally a retelling of Heart of Darkness, but then again so is Apocalypse Now. The game is a very, VERY strong indictment of the entire modern FPS Genre.

People aren't looking too deeply into it... The game is totally doing everything that is being brought up.

#5 Posted by WTA2k5 (3998 posts) -

Man I beat the game and think people look too deeply into it, just because it's a video game. It was a mediocre game with a mediocre story. tagyhag

No.

#6 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38219 posts) -

I had no idea the story was so good. I really should give it a shot, I had heard people say it was good before but after reading up on it just now it seems like it's really something.

#7 Posted by KingsMessenger (2570 posts) -

I had no idea the story was so good. I really should give it a shot, I had heard people say it was good before but after reading up on it just now it seems like it's really something.

seanmcloughlin

Frankly, it would be best if you came into it expecting it to be COD-Clone-102, so ignore what I say below.

It is good in the sense that what it is doing is really reflexive and critical. The game almost hates itself and you for playing it. But that is what makes it so interesting.

#8 Posted by PannicAtack (21040 posts) -
It seems interesting - I might pick it up if it goes on sale on Steam and I clear some of my massive backlog.
#9 Posted by freedomfreak (44536 posts) -
That video was spot on, and it's not even looking too deep into the game. Me and my brother talked about this game for hours on end. It makes me want to play through it again.
#10 Posted by Slashkice (13739 posts) -

All the talk of the game is making me interested in playing it, though it seems like half the people who've played it say it's a Heart of Darkness rip with pedestrian gameplay. But I've enjoyed divisive games before, and loved them (Nier comes to mind), so I'll likely check it out during a Steam sale or something.

#11 Posted by KingsMessenger (2570 posts) -

All the talk of the game is making me interested in playing it, though it seems like half the people who've played it say it's a Heart of Darkness rip with pedestrian gameplay. But I've enjoyed divisive games before, and loved them (Nier comes to mind), so I'll likely check it out during a Steam sale or something.

Slashkice

Those people aren't wrong necessarily, but the game has a lot to same about the Games Industry, which is sort of what makes it interesting. Apocalypse Now is a "Heart of Darkness rip" at its core also. And a pretty sloppy "rip" at that. Doesn't make that film any less of a classic or any less outstanding.

In the case of Spec Ops, I'd argue that the mundane/pedestrian gameplay is a significant and vital part of the game in that it helps to provide much of the meaning to its thematic and narrative tones. There is another video by Extra Credit (the Penny Arcade-based series) which discusses that and points out that it is as if Yager(the developer) looked at what they could do with their budget and timeline, and decided not to try to fight the fact that they were not going to be able to make a game as mechanically sound as Call of Duty, or with gameplay as interesting as Halo 4. Instead, they embraced the mundane/pedestrian gameplay design, and decided to take that as an opportunity to level a massive critical assault on the state of the modern game industry.

#12 Posted by speedfreak48t5p (9920 posts) -

I'll pick it up when the price comes down. I still need to play Dishonored, Halo 4, The Witcher 2, and Assassins Creed 3.

#13 Posted by pelvist (5292 posts) -

Man I beat the game and think people look too deeply into it, just because it's a video game. It was a mediocre game with a mediocre story. tagyhag

Thats exactly how I felt about the story and I thought the gameplywas repetitive and quite boring at times too.

#14 Posted by tagyhag (15867 posts) -

[QUOTE="tagyhag"]Man I beat the game and think people look too deeply into it, just because it's a video game. It was a mediocre game with a mediocre story. KingsMessenger

Watch the video.

It is totally a retelling of Heart of Darkness, but then again so is Apocalypse Now. The game is a very, VERY strong indictment of the entire modern FPS Genre.

People aren't looking too deeply into it... The game is totally doing everything that is being brought up.

I applaud the game for trying to be different. But if we were to put the game alongside other mediums where stuff like Apocalypse Now is...It's going to look like sh*t.

No.

WTA2k5
Well you convinced me.
#15 Posted by KingsMessenger (2570 posts) -

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

[QUOTE="tagyhag"]

Watch the video.

It is totally a retelling of Heart of Darkness, but then again so is Apocalypse Now. The game is a very, VERY strong indictment of the entire modern FPS Genre.

People aren't looking too deeply into it... The game is totally doing everything that is being brought up.

tagyhag

I applaud the game for trying to be different. But if we were to put the game alongside other mediums where stuff like Apocalypse Now is...It's going to look like sh*t.

No.

WTA2k5

Well you convinced me.

Gaming, comparatively, is still very young.

And when you consider that the technical limitations of gaming hindered progress/slowed for like twenty years, I'd say of course Spec Ops isn't going to compare favorably with Apocalypse Now... Spec Ops also was underfinanced, overly ambitious, and had too little time. Doesn't make its impact or thematic core any less significant. The game did what BioShock, Half-Life, Halo and countless other games failed to do. It had a coherent and cohesive unity, whereby the gameplay reinforce the narrative and was in fact part of the thematic core of the game, rather than just being the dissonant distraction that players embark upon for no reason other than "Because it is a game." Without the gameplay design that the game has coupled with the narrative that it tells, Spec Ops wouldn't mean the same thing. Separate one from the other; tell this story in a different game or tell a different story in this game, and the result wouldn't be the same. BioShock's story would mean the same thing with any other gameplay design. BioShock's gameplay design would feel the same with almost any other story... Can't say the same about Spec Ops. The game's meaning comes from its WHOLE.

#16 Posted by Dead-Memories (6586 posts) -

that certainly was an interesting read, I will definitely have to check this game out, i didn't realize how much of a cult hit it has become.

#17 Posted by gamefan67 (9971 posts) -
I did find the demo fairly enjoyable, and I've seen quite a bit of people praising this game. I might consider purchasing it if I ever see it at Gamestop.
#18 Posted by GeoffZak (3715 posts) -

Man I beat the game and think people look too deeply into it, just because it's a video game. It was a mediocre game with a mediocre story. tagyhag

^This

Spec Ops: The Line a work of art? XD Is this a joke?

#19 Posted by KingsMessenger (2570 posts) -

[QUOTE="tagyhag"]Man I beat the game and think people look too deeply into it, just because it's a video game. It was a mediocre game with a mediocre story. GeoffZak

^This

Spec Ops: The Line a work of art? XD Is this a joke?

No. Seriously, watch the video.

I am not saying it is the best game... I am merely saying that it is important. It legitimately does something -- which almost every other game that everyone like to laud in the "Games as Art" discussions likes to whip around -- unique. It is coherent and cohesive. It thematic meaning is truly rooted in the GAMEPLAY, combined with the narrative... In that way, it is more of a piece of "art" than BioShock and the like, which are at best interesting narratives framed around a run-of-the-mill shooter, with a ludicrous amount of cognitive dissonance surround everything you, as the player, do.

#20 Posted by tagyhag (15867 posts) -

[QUOTE="tagyhag"][QUOTE="KingsMessenger"] I applaud the game for trying to be different. But if we were to put the game alongside other mediums where stuff like Apocalypse Now is...It's going to look like sh*t. [QUOTE="WTA2k5"]

No.

KingsMessenger

Well you convinced me.

Gaming, comparatively, is still very young.

And when you consider that the technical limitations of gaming hindered progress/slowed for like twenty years, I'd say of course Spec Ops isn't going to compare favorably with Apocalypse Now... Spec Ops also was underfinanced, overly ambitious, and had too little time. Doesn't make its impact or thematic core any less significant. The game did what BioShock, Half-Life, Halo and countless other games failed to do. It had a coherent and cohesive unity, whereby the gameplay reinforce the narrative and was in fact part of the thematic core of the game, rather than just being the dissonant distraction that players embark upon for no reason other than "Because it is a game." Without the gameplay design that the game has coupled with the narrative that it tells, Spec Ops wouldn't mean the same thing. Separate one from the other; tell this story in a different game or tell a different story in this game, and the result wouldn't be the same. BioShock's story would mean the same thing with any other gameplay design. BioShock's gameplay design would feel the same with almost any other story... Can't say the same about Spec Ops. The game's meaning comes from its WHOLE.

Well I envy you for being able to enjoy its gameplay. As for me I've been spoiled by better games gameplay-wise.
#21 Posted by KingsMessenger (2570 posts) -

Well I envy you for being able to enjoy its gameplay. As for me I've been spoiled by better games gameplay-wise. tagyhag

I didn't inherently "enjoy" the gameplay(though I didn't hate it either)... It was mundane and pedestrian. But the game is more than that. I don't "enjoy" watching films like Shame, but that doesn't make it any less of a film. I don't "enjoy" watching Tree of Life, but that doesn't inherently remove any meaning or intellectual significance from the film. That is what the game is about... A shooter doesn't need to be a feedback loop that ignores cognitive dissonance and just ingratiates the player in the glory of senseless violence. There is more to it than that.

#22 Posted by whiskeystrike (12096 posts) -

I've been hearing so many crazy and polarizing things about this game. I'm just patiently waiting for the Steam Winter sale. I'm too curious for my own good at this point.

#23 Posted by mems_1224 (48996 posts) -
the game was so good. im glad i got it cheap on steam. i had written it off as a generic TPS when i played the demo. the gameplay was pretty mediocre but the story and dialogue between the soldiers was fantastic
#24 Posted by tagyhag (15867 posts) -

[QUOTE="tagyhag"]

Well I envy you for being able to enjoy its gameplay. As for me I've been spoiled by better games gameplay-wise. KingsMessenger

I didn't inherently "enjoy" the gameplay(though I didn't hate it either)... It was mundane and pedestrian. But the game is more than that. I don't "enjoy" watching films like Shame, but that doesn't make it any less of a film. I don't "enjoy" watching Tree of Life, but that doesn't inherently remove any meaning or intellectual significance from the film. That is what the game is about... A shooter doesn't need to be a feedback loop that ignores cognitive dissonance and just ingratiates the player in the glory of senseless violence. There is more to it than that.

I understand what you mean, but I just can't see it as a "good" game. Yes it has a unique setting and tries to be different than other video games (While still copying Heart). But I will always put the gameplay of a video game first. I can't with good conscience say that a video game has a good story when compared to other video games. I'll still compare it to other mediums.
#25 Posted by ShadowDeathX (10895 posts) -
The gameplay was so bad, I couldn't finish it. :(
#26 Posted by FrozenLiquid (13014 posts) -

Gaming, comparatively, is still very young.

And when you consider that the technical limitations of gaming hindered progress/slowed for like twenty years, I'd say of course Spec Ops isn't going to compare favorably with Apocalypse Now... Spec Ops also was underfinanced, overly ambitious, and had too little time. Doesn't make its impact or thematic core any less significant. The game did what BioShock, Half-Life, Halo and countless other games failed to do. It had a coherent and cohesive unity, whereby the gameplay reinforce the narrative and was in fact part of the thematic core of the game, rather than just being the dissonant distraction that players embark upon for no reason other than "Because it is a game." Without the gameplay design that the game has coupled with the narrative that it tells, Spec Ops wouldn't mean the same thing. Separate one from the other; tell this story in a different game or tell a different story in this game, and the result wouldn't be the same. BioShock's story would mean the same thing with any other gameplay design. BioShock's gameplay design would feel the same with almost any other story... Can't say the same about Spec Ops. The game's meaning comes from its WHOLE.

KingsMessenger
Aite. I'm hiring out this game tonight based on your hype alone. I swear if it's anything less than incredibly stimulating..... hell hath no fury like FrozenLiquid's wrath.
#27 Posted by jsmoke03 (13363 posts) -

this game can't be the most important game this year UNLESS IT SOLD WELL ENOUGH. i'm not condemning the game for being bad, or being good (only played the demo) but unless it sold well, the message is lost. people can argue about the themes about moral absolutism or what not, but it stumbles in many ways.

1. a game thats anti violence, yet has violence....its like a smoker telling kids not to smoke. is the message wrong? NO. is the message being conveyed the right way? depends on how the receiver receivs the message.

2. generic gameplay makes the game forgettable.

3. gaming as a narrative or a thought provoking medium is a long way off if even possible....because gameplay and sales have to both match.

4. most people that play this game have already many influences or are old enough to have made most of their moral decisions already.

5. gaming is a form of escapism....if you start bombarding anti violence messages in anti violent games, you are ruining a persons experience if the gamer uses this form to relax from a stressful day or blow off some steam. i know when i get pissed, i play games and after an hour or 2, my anger levels become reasonable. if you take that away from me by preaching to me, you just ruined my game experience.

kudos for trying but unless its done well, its going to be forgettable to the mass public and game publishers will shy away from doing these types of games because they don't sell. you don't profit from a game that undersells...

edit: personally for me, i find these deep meanings in games pretty pointless....because you don't need it to have a good game. if i wanted to have something thought provoking, ill watch a 2 hour movie, or read a book

#28 Posted by WTA2k5 (3998 posts) -

this game can't be the most important game this year UNLESS IT SOLD WELL ENOUGH. i'm not condemning the game for being bad, or being good (only played the demo) but unless it sold well, the message is lost. people can argue about the themes about moral absolutism or what not, but it stumbles in many ways.

1. a game thats anti violence, yet has violence....its like a smoker telling kids not to smoke. is the message wrong? NO. is the message being conveyed the right way? depends on how the receiver receivs the message.

2. generic gameplay makes the game forgettable.

3. gaming as a narrative or a thought provoking medium is a long way off if even possible....because gameplay and sales have to both match.

4. most people that play this game have already many influences or are old enough to have made most of their moral decisions already.

5. gaming is a form of escapism....if you start bombarding anti violence messages in anti violent games, you are ruining a persons experience if the gamer uses this form to relax from a stressful day or blow off some steam. i know when i get pissed, i play games and after an hour or 2, my anger levels become reasonable. if you take that away from me by preaching to me, you just ruined my game experience.

jsmoke03

To respond to your points:

1. Really? Have you ever seen an anti-war movie? How many of them didn't involve a war?

2. In Spec Ops' case, its generic gameplay added to its narrative. It might not have particularly fun mechanics or well done set-pieces, but it engages its players in an exaggerated form of the gameplay structures it sets out to critique.

3. The argument that sales and meaning are positively correlated is unfounded. Many hugely influential works of art have been overlooked by the masses.

4. What?

5. Gaming doesn't have to be meaningless escapist fun, it can provide meaningful messages and Spec Ops provides more proof of that than pretty much any other game this year. It may not be fun or relaxing to play, but that doesn't mean its not a good, worthwhile experience.

#29 Posted by dreman999 (10748 posts) -
[QUOTE="tagyhag"]Man I beat the game and think people look too deeply into it, just because it's a video game. It was a mediocre game with a mediocre story.

How is the story Mediocre? It a game about the horrors of war.
#30 Posted by jsmoke03 (13363 posts) -

[QUOTE="jsmoke03"]

this game can't be the most important game this year UNLESS IT SOLD WELL ENOUGH. i'm not condemning the game for being bad, or being good (only played the demo) but unless it sold well, the message is lost. people can argue about the themes about moral absolutism or what not, but it stumbles in many ways.

1. a game thats anti violence, yet has violence....its like a smoker telling kids not to smoke. is the message wrong? NO. is the message being conveyed the right way? depends on how the receiver receivs the message.

2. generic gameplay makes the game forgettable.

3. gaming as a narrative or a thought provoking medium is a long way off if even possible....because gameplay and sales have to both match.

4. most people that play this game have already many influences or are old enough to have made most of their moral decisions already.

5. gaming is a form of escapism....if you start bombarding anti violence messages in anti violent games, you are ruining a persons experience if the gamer uses this form to relax from a stressful day or blow off some steam. i know when i get pissed, i play games and after an hour or 2, my anger levels become reasonable. if you take that away from me by preaching to me, you just ruined my game experience.

WTA2k5

To respond to your points:

1. Really? Have you ever seen an anti-war movie? How many of them didn't involve a war?

2. In Spec Ops' case, its generic gameplay added to its narrative. It might not have particularly fun mechanics or well done set-pieces, but it engages its players in an exaggerated form of the gameplay structures it sets out to critique.

3. The argument that sales and meaning are positively correlated is unfounded. Many hugely influential works of art have been overlooked by the masses.

4. What?

5. Gaming doesn't have to be meaningless escapist fun, it can provide meaningful messages and Spec Ops provides more proof of that than pretty much any other game this year. It may not be fun or relaxing to play, but that doesn't mean its not a good, worthwhile experience.

1. its why i said it depends on the receiver. do you assume i think that way?

2. generic gameplay...when i played it, it was functional, but i heard it wasn't always functional....and like i said, it depends on sales. i don't know how many people will buy a shooter if it doesn't play well.

3. works of art or games? art can be seen by anyone. games cost a lot more money and can't be experienced unless played...not everyone rents....

4. a person isnt going to play a game and realize war is bad unless you are a minor that shouldn't be playing that game anyway...most people at the age already made up their morality...i think a game isn't going to profoundly change that

5. but isn't meaningless escapist fun is what cod and halo are all about right? well according to a lot of people anyway....but yea those games....number 5 is more personal

#31 Posted by dreman999 (10748 posts) -

this game can't be the most important game this year UNLESS IT SOLD WELL ENOUGH. i'm not condemning the game for being bad, or being good (only played the demo) but unless it sold well, the message is lost. people can argue about the themes about moral absolutism or what not, but it stumbles in many ways.

1. a game thats anti violence, yet has violence....its like a smoker telling kids not to smoke. is the message wrong? NO. is the message being conveyed the right way? depends on how the receiver receivs the message.

2. generic gameplay makes the game forgettable.

3. gaming as a narrative or a thought provoking medium is a long way off if even possible....because gameplay and sales have to both match.

4. most people that play this game have already many influences or are old enough to have made most of their moral decisions already.

5. gaming is a form of escapism....if you start bombarding anti violence messages in anti violent games, you are ruining a persons experience if the gamer uses this form to relax from a stressful day or blow off some steam. i know when i get pissed, i play games and after an hour or 2, my anger levels become reasonable. if you take that away from me by preaching to me, you just ruined my game experience.

kudos for trying but unless its done well, its going to be forgettable to the mass public and game publishers will shy away from doing these types of games because they don't sell. you don't profit from a game that undersells...

edit: personally for me, i find these deep meanings in games pretty pointless....because you don't need it to have a good game. if i wanted to have something thought provoking, ill watch a 2 hour movie, or read a book

jsmoke03

1.One must anylize the arguement in order to make said argument. Viloence being in it dues not defer the fact that itis agenst violence.

2.Do you understand the issue of this topic is not about the gameplay.

3.It's clear that you missed the fact that it already happen many times over with games.

4.The issue here it that it bring these people to a new perspective to bring up it's points. It puts you in the shoes of a soldier to show the horriers of war.

5.Media is media. It matters not if it's a painting or a game. Being a game does not make it impossible or inapropiate for it to have a deep message. It's not a case that games are a form of escapism. The fact is that you see it that way and don't want to think more of it. The same can be said for books, Tv, animation, comics, plays, and music yet all this media have crossed the line to deeper meaning. Some how games can't?

#32 Posted by goblaa (19304 posts) -

Really? It has such a silly story.

#33 Posted by topgunmv (10408 posts) -

[QUOTE="Slashkice"]

All the talk of the game is making me interested in playing it, though it seems like half the people who've played it say it's a Heart of Darkness rip with pedestrian gameplay. But I've enjoyed divisive games before, and loved them (Nier comes to mind), so I'll likely check it out during a Steam sale or something.

KingsMessenger

Those people aren't wrong necessarily, but the game has a lot to same about the Games Industry, which is sort of what makes it interesting. Apocalypse Now is a "Heart of Darkness rip" at its core also. And a pretty sloppy "rip" at that. Doesn't make that film any less of a classic or any less outstanding.

In the case of Spec Ops, I'd argue that the mundane/pedestrian gameplay is a significant and vital part of the game in that it helps to provide much of the meaning to its thematic and narrative tones. There is another video by Extra Credit (the Penny Arcade-based series) which discusses that and points out that it is as if Yager(the developer) looked at what they could do with their budget and timeline, and decided not to try to fight the fact that they were not going to be able to make a game as mechanically sound as Call of Duty, or with gameplay as interesting as Halo 4. Instead, they embraced the mundane/pedestrian gameplay design, and decided to take that as an opportunity to level a massive critical assault on the state of the modern game industry.

So wouldn't people just be better off watching Apocalypse Now instead of enduring a mediocre game that aims to hit exactly the same thematic points?

#34 Posted by campzor (34932 posts) -
[QUOTE="tagyhag"]Man I beat the game and think people look too deeply into it, just because it's a video game. It was a mediocre game with a mediocre story.

havnt played the game, but this is what it seems is happening.
#35 Posted by Vatusus (5474 posts) -

Have yet to play the game, but from that video it looks people are definitely looking too deep into it.

#36 Posted by GhoX (5371 posts) -
The gameplay was tolerable. After the first hour of generic play, the game really surprised me in the face. I had to finish the entire game on the same day. It had a very powerful message.
#37 Posted by dreman999 (10748 posts) -

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

[QUOTE="Slashkice"]

All the talk of the game is making me interested in playing it, though it seems like half the people who've played it say it's a Heart of Darkness rip with pedestrian gameplay. But I've enjoyed divisive games before, and loved them (Nier comes to mind), so I'll likely check it out during a Steam sale or something.

topgunmv

Those people aren't wrong necessarily, but the game has a lot to same about the Games Industry, which is sort of what makes it interesting. Apocalypse Now is a "Heart of Darkness rip" at its core also. And a pretty sloppy "rip" at that. Doesn't make that film any less of a classic or any less outstanding.

In the case of Spec Ops, I'd argue that the mundane/pedestrian gameplay is a significant and vital part of the game in that it helps to provide much of the meaning to its thematic and narrative tones. There is another video by Extra Credit (the Penny Arcade-based series) which discusses that and points out that it is as if Yager(the developer) looked at what they could do with their budget and timeline, and decided not to try to fight the fact that they were not going to be able to make a game as mechanically sound as Call of Duty, or with gameplay as interesting as Halo 4. Instead, they embraced the mundane/pedestrian gameplay design, and decided to take that as an opportunity to level a massive critical assault on the state of the modern game industry.

So wouldn't people just be better off watching Apocalypse Now instead of enduring a mediocre game that aims to hit exactly the same thematic points?

Apocalypse now but you on a perspective of one observing madness. The line puts you in the perspective of one that has gone mad. Added, it's interactive with multiple endings.
#38 Posted by dreman999 (10748 posts) -

Really? It has such a silly story.

goblaa
How is the story silly?
#39 Posted by tagyhag (15867 posts) -
[QUOTE="dreman999"][QUOTE="tagyhag"]Man I beat the game and think people look too deeply into it, just because it's a video game. It was a mediocre game with a mediocre story.

How is the story Mediocre? It a game about the horrors of war.

So is Battlefield 3 and yet its story sucks. If you transfered the game to a movie with no change in the script whatsoever. You think reviewers will say it has a good story? No because it's been done before AND done better. I don't cut video game stories slack just because they're set in a video game.
#40 Posted by Ballroompirate (23868 posts) -

I still need to buy Spec Ops The Line, looks pretty decent plus I loved the demo.

#41 Posted by Shottayouth13- (6879 posts) -
I'm completely out of ammo in this one part so I'm kinda stuck. I'll get around to beating it around the holidays though, when I have the time.
#42 Posted by dreman999 (10748 posts) -
[QUOTE="tagyhag"][QUOTE="dreman999"][QUOTE="tagyhag"]Man I beat the game and think people look too deeply into it, just because it's a video game. It was a mediocre game with a mediocre story.

How is the story Mediocre? It a game about the horrors of war.

So is Battlefield 3 and yet its story sucks. If you transfered the game to a movie with no change in the script whatsoever. You think reviewers will say it has a good story? No because it's been done before AND done better. I don't cut video game stories slack just because they're set in a video game.

Battlefield is not about the horrors of war. It just a war story. Battlefield is nothing like the line. You play a soldier going mad in the field and warping his perspective as he denies reality. I don't see how that makes for a Mediocre story or anything like Battlefield.
#43 Posted by tagyhag (15867 posts) -

Battlefield is not about the horrors of war. It just a war story. Battlefield is nothing like the line. You play a soldier going mad in the field and warping his perspective as he denies reality. I don't see how that makes for a Mediocre story or anything like Battlefield.dreman999

Battlefield was about "Getting the job done despite having your friends die" It wasn't the exact same premise as The Line, but that sounds horrific to me. :P And yet it was lame. There was nothing trandensending or masterful about The Line. It only got into the heads of those whose movie's knowledge goes as far as Transformers.

#44 Posted by PannicAtack (21040 posts) -
Battlefield 3 had a story?
#45 Posted by Animal-Mother (27167 posts) -

I think spec ops:the line asks questions the player normally wouldn't ask.

It makes them think about it a bit more too, especially that white phosphorus scene.

As a game it's ok. Really it's nothing special.

But the narrative keeps you interested enough, makes the right decisions and asks the right questions.

#46 Posted by dreman999 (10748 posts) -

[QUOTE="dreman999"] Battlefield is not about the horrors of war. It just a war story. Battlefield is nothing like the line. You play a soldier going mad in the field and warping his perspective as he denies reality. I don't see how that makes for a Mediocre story or anything like Battlefield.tagyhag

Battlefield was about "Getting the job done despite having your friends die" It wasn't the exact same premise as The Line, but that sounds horrific to me. :P And yet it was lame. There was nothing trandensending or masterful about The Line. It only got into the heads of those whose movie's knowledge goes as far as Transformers.

You just failed to make any sense or point. Battlefeild fallows the premise that to get the job done it takes sacrifice. That's a common war theme. Added it's no where near as horrific as the concept of the line...That their worse thing then death and you have to live with what you do and experience in war the rest of your life. You have not realize there's are worse thing then death? Battlefeild covers the concept of physical trauma, which the soldier accepts because of the nature of his job. The line covers the concept of the mental trauma of war, which can be a far heavier burden then physical trauma. You don't see this?
#47 Posted by dreman999 (10748 posts) -

I think spec ops:the line asks questions the player normally wouldn't ask.

It makes them think about it a bit more too, especially that white phosphorus scene.

As a game it's ok. Really it's nothing special.

But the narrative keeps you interested enough, makes the right decisions and asks the right questions.

Animal-Mother
Thank you. You at least get this.
#48 Posted by JangoWuzHere (17721 posts) -

I felt the same way as Jeff Gerstmann did when he played the game. I'm specifically talking about the white phosphoruspart.

[spoiler] It's easy to tell that the people you will kill at the top are civilians. However, there is no way to exit out of the mortar screen and simply fight the rest of the military with your guns. You are FORCED to kill them to progress the story, but it takes away the player impact if you KNOW that it's the only way to progress. [/spoiler]

I think limiting player choice in that scene was a crummy move. I didn't feel disgusted or sick from my actions because it was the only way I could move forward in the story.

#49 Posted by Animal-Mother (27167 posts) -

I felt the same way as Jeff Gerstmann did when he played the game. I'm specifically talking about the white phosphoruspart.

[spoiler] It's easy to tell that the people you will kill at the top are civilians. However, there is no way to exit out of motor screen and simply fight the rest of the military with your guns. You are FORCED to kill them to progress the story, but it takes away the player impact if you KNOW that it's the only way to progress. [/spoiler]

I think limiting player choice in that scene was a crummy mood. I didn't feel disgusted or sick from my actions because it was the only way I could move forward in the story.

JangoWuzHere
That's the problem some of these want to be "deep" games have. They have the tendency to remind you that they are a game.
#50 Posted by JangoWuzHere (17721 posts) -

[QUOTE="JangoWuzHere"]

I felt the same way as Jeff Gerstmann did when he played the game. I'm specifically talking about the white phosphoruspart.

[spoiler] It's easy to tell that the people you will kill at the top are civilians. However, there is no way to exit out of motor screen and simply fight the rest of the military with your guns. You are FORCED to kill them to progress the story, but it takes away the player impact if you KNOW that it's the only way to progress. [/spoiler]

I think limiting player choice in that scene was a crummy mood. I didn't feel disgusted or sick from my actions because it was the only way I could move forward in the story.

Animal-Mother

That's the problem some of these want to be "deep" games have. They have the tendency to remind you that they are a game.

A lot of people like to praise Spec Ops for what it does, but people seem to forget that the game has flaws aside from the generic shooter gameplay.