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

[QUOTE="Animal-Mother"][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.

JangoWuzHere

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.

I think the only game IMO that really is important in the story department and could've really represented something today is silent hill 2. Goddamn that game was something special.

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?dreman999

Like I said it's not the same premise but they're both "horrors of war". Either way, ultimately that wasn't the main point. The Line has a mediocre story couple with mediocre gameplay (Which the die-hard fans actually say it's better than it having good gameplay because it completements the game :| )

I completely understand why people think it's "art" though. Because it tried to be deep. Whenever a game tries to be "deep" gamers gobble it up and think it's the second coming. It happened with MSG4, it's happening with The Line, it's gonna have withThe Last of Us. That's because most gamers' knowledge of stories is video games and mainstream movies.

As for myself, I've been spoiled by moviesApocalypse Now (Which was an infinitely better version of Heart), The Deer Hunter,Full Metal Jacket,Armadillo,The Bridge on the River Kwai,Hamburger Hill etc.

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?

topgunmv

Wouldn't people just be better off reading Heart of Darkness? You completely missed my point. Just because it hits the same thematic points doesn't make it any less valid. I'd argue that within the context of Spec Ops, the added thematic critique of the Modern Military Shooter Genre of game is substantial enough to validate the game and, in fact, elevate it to a level above the vast majority of games this year. Black Ops 2 is probably going to get a 9.0, but Spec Ops will undeniably be the better game(despite having worse gameplay, being less fun, and generally doing most things worse).

[QUOTE="Animal-Mother"][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.

JangoWuzHere

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.

[QUOTE="dreman999"] 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?tagyhag

Like I said it's not the same premise but they're both "horrors of war". Either way, ultimately that wasn't the main point. The Line has a mediocre story couple with mediocre gameplay (Which the die-hard fans actually say it's better than it having good gameplay because it completements the game :| )

I completely understand why people think it's "art" though. Because it tried to be deep. Whenever a game tries to be "deep" gamers gobble it up and think it's the second coming. It happened with MSG4, it's happening with The Line, it's gonna have withThe Last of Us. That's because most gamers' knowledge of stories is video games and mainstream movies.

As for myself, I've been spoiled by moviesApocalypse Now (Which was an infinitely better version of Heart), The Deer Hunter,Full Metal Jacket,Armadillo,The Bridge on the River Kwai,Hamburger Hill etc.

Added, your missing the point hear the the concept of the game is an issue ofmental trauma and seeing it on the perspective of the person going through it. Those movies you listen do not do that.

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.

JangoWuzHere

The game is constantly reminding you that you don't have a choice. It doesn't just acknowledge that fact, it embraces it. Player agency is a falacy in almost all modern shooters. The game is critiquing precisely that. If it gave you a choice, then it wouldn't have been able to as effectively demonstrate how awful it is that you are forced to do these things to move towards the end-state(which the genre convention dictates is good).

You missed the point of that entire exercise.

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.

JangoWuzHere

The thing is, the game doesn't really force you to feel bad about what you did. A lot of people will see Walker as a horrible person and will feel bad about all the atrocities they commit throughout the game, but Spec Ops still acknowledges players who are simply complying with the way the game is structured. This is highlighted in some of the game's endings as well as the end of the white phosphorous scene itself; only seconds after the Delta soldiers realize what they did, Walker finds a way of justifying his actions by saying they were out of his control. If you saw that scene's twist coming, you'd likely agree with him. Just because most people who play Spec Ops react to its protagonist negatively doesn't mean the game was expressly designed to elicit that reaction. Spec Ops seems open to any number of interpretations, and I bet a solid case could be made for Walker not really being the monster he's made out to be in most of the discussion surrounding this 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.

JangoWuzHere

Who in this thread is calling it the greatest game ever?

The game is massively flawed, and outright fails at a number of things that it attempts to do.

Regardless, it is attempting to do those things, and it is plainly criticizing the very genre conventions that it is following almost by the book. Everything it does, it does with the purpose of demonstrating how strange and ridiculous it is... It takes the entire Military Shooter Genre, and tears it apart piece by piece with its narrative as it goes through the motions within its gameplay. It is that very dissonance that gives the game meaning. Everyone complaining about the dissonance simply missed the point. It is important because in an industry filled with bland blockbuster attractions that literally go through the paces of what they need to do, and have absolutely nothing of value to SAY, Spec Ops tried to say something about the state of the industry. And it did so using the very same mechanics and design that it is criticizing...

If you want to dismiss it, go ahead... But you will definitely be wrong.

[QUOTE="JangoWuzHere"]

[QUOTE="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.dreman999

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.

Huh? Spec Ops WANTS you to feel bad. One of the core themes of Spec Ops is bashing the shooter genre for not having any sort of moral value to the action.

Spec Ops has you [spoiler] Killing American soldiers, innocent civilians, destroying the peoples only hope of survival, etc. [/spoiler]

The entire white phosphorus scene was made to make the player feel uncomfortable about their own actions.

[QUOTE="dreman999"][QUOTE="JangoWuzHere"]

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.

JangoWuzHere

Huh? Spec Ops WANTS you to feel bad. One of the core themes of Spec Ops is bashing the shooter genre for not having any sort of moral value to the action.

Spec Ops has you [spoiler] Killing American soldiers, innocent civilians, destroying the peoples only hope of survival, etc. [/spoiler]

The entire white phosphorus scene was made to make the player feel uncomfortable about their own actions.

I wouldn't call it "bashing..."

It is more just contextualizing in a way that reveals the true nature of the cognitive dissonance going on. Same way No Russian used game mechanics to unsettle the player and contextualize the "evilness" of its antagonists, Spec Ops uses game mechanics to unsettle the player and contextualize the moral implications of their actions in these Military Shooters and reveal the cognitive dissonance of a story where you play the "Good Guy" fighting to save the world while you run around slaughtering hundreds or thousands of random people simply because they stand between you and your goal...

[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 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.

KingsMessenger

The game is constantly reminding you that you don't have a choice. It doesn't just acknowledge that fact, it embraces it. Player agency is a falacy in almost all modern shooters. The game is critiquing precisely that. If it gave you a choice, then it wouldn't have been able to as effectively demonstrate how awful it is that you are forced to do these things to move towards the end-state(which the genre convention dictates is good).

You missed the point of that entire exercise.

It's hard to feel any impact from a scene if you know you are going to end up being the bad guy. The developers could have the presented the mortar scene better. They didn't have to give me choice, but they could have disguised it better. It should have been a plot twist I didn't see coming.

You still missing the point of my question. I asked how the story is mediocre and you still have give me a reason why. Saying "Because Battle field is also a store about war" is not a reason.

Added, your missing the point hear the the concept of the game is an issue ofmental trauma and seeing it on the perspective of the person going through it. Those movies you listen do not do that.

dreman999

The battlefield part was just because you said the game wasn't mediocre because it was about the horrors of war. :P

I found it mediocre because the gameplay and story clash. You have your team always reflecting about how horrible this all is, and then you're able to get extra stuff with executions. It's like GTA 4.

You have Walker and your friends supposedely getting crazier as the game goes on, and yet there's moments where the old "military" dialogue is still used. Bug? Probably but it still distracts from the story

Of course the story itself isn't good at all but the way its told is different than other mainstream games which gives it a plus. (White Phosphorus part was neat though)

I'd still recommend the game because it's different, but most important game of this year? Please. In 10 years, it would have done nothing for the medium.

And LOL at this, please watch all the movies before making such an incorrect statement. :lol:

It's hard to feel any impact from a scene if you know you are going to end up being the bad guy. The developers could have the presented the mortar scene better. They didn't have to give me choice, but they could have diguised it better. It should have been a plot twist I didn't see coming.

JangoWuzHere

Fair enough. That is a perfectly valid criticism. Fail to see how that changes my point, or invalidates my point, or really changes anything.

At no point did I say that it was completely successful at everything it attempted, or that it was the best game ever, or really that it was even especially good. My point was simply that the game is important because it is doing something important, and it is garnering a reaction that is important. People are looking at this game and genuinely able to write about the GAME, not the story or the gameplay or the art style... No, the cohesive, WHOLE GAME. Name another game where the point or theme of the game was literally contained within the whole, and not just some part isolated off to the side. It is one of the mostly whole coherent games I've ever played. It has problem, and plot holes, and plenty of mistakes, but at no point is anything that I am doing not successfully reinforcing one of the themes of the game. That is why it is important. Because if games want to be taken seriously as an art form, developers need to figure out how to do that more often. Ebert, though he may be an ass, has always had a point about gaming... Gameplay hasn't really ever meant anything or added anything to the meaning of a game. Spec Ops is definitely a counterpoint to that claim.

Battlefield 3 had a story?PannicAtack

The battlefield part was just because you said the game wasn't mediocre because it was about the horrors of war. :P

I found it mediocre because the gameplay and story clash. You have your team always reflecting about how horrible this all is, and then you're able to get extra stuff with executions. It's like GTA 4.

You have Walker and your friends supposedely getting crazier as the game goes on, and yet there's moments where the old "military" dialogue is still used. Bug? Probably but it still distracts from the story

Of course the story itself isn't good at all but the way its told is different than other mainstream games which gives it a plus. (White Phosphorus part was neat though)

I'd still recommend the game because it's different, but most important game of this year? Please. In 10 years, it would have done nothing for the medium.

And LOL at this, please watch all the movies before making such an incorrect statement. :lol

tagyhag

You missed the point. The gameplay and story are supposed to clash... It is demonstrating how ludicrous that it, and how crazy it is that all of these modern military shooters force you to do things that are horrible and yet reward you constantly for them as if they are good. The gameplay is there to create a cognitive dissonance and clash with the narrative, which is constantly telling you that what you are doing is wrong. That is the meaning. And that is certainly not something you can get from Apocalypse Now.

Apocalypse Now is NOT a rip off of Heart of Darkness. It is an appropriation. There's a difference. I haven't played the game yet but I've heard that for its supposed debunking of violence its a standard Gears of War clone in terms of mechanics. Is that true?! :( I wish gamers would stop trying to read things into game just to make them "art" - it doesn't devalue games further just because they're not art. They're still fun. biggest_loser

People aren't reading into it... Everything is there, right on the surface of the game. Just watch the damn video in the OP.

It is just a standard Third Person Shooter mechanically. It is completely wraught in terms of how it spawns enemies(very obvious and antiquated). It doesn't give you choice most of the time.

But what everyone who criticizes the game for those things seems to forget is that one of the best ways to perform a critique on something is to copy the thing that you want to criticise and then twist it. The game embraces all the things that it wants to examine, because what better way to show someone the dissonance in an action than to force them to enact it while surrounding it with a context that encourages them to question that action?

There is nothing wrong with games just being fun, but there is also nothing wrong with games aspiring to something greater... If a game can reveal truths about the world that other forms of art cannot, then why shouldn't we strive to achieve that?

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]Battlefield 3 had a story?DarkLink77

[QUOTE="tagyhag"]

The battlefield part was just because you said the game wasn't mediocre because it was about the horrors of war. :P

I found it mediocre because the gameplay and story clash. You have your team always reflecting about how horrible this all is, and then you're able to get extra stuff with executions. It's like GTA 4.

You have Walker and your friends supposedely getting crazier as the game goes on, and yet there's moments where the old "military" dialogue is still used. Bug? Probably but it still distracts from the story

Of course the story itself isn't good at all but the way its told is different than other mainstream games which gives it a plus. (White Phosphorus part was neat though)

I'd still recommend the game because it's different, but most important game of this year? Please. In 10 years, it would have done nothing for the medium.

And LOL at this, please watch all the movies before making such an incorrect statement. :lol

KingsMessenger

You missed the point. The gameplay and story are supposed to clash... It is demonstrating how ludicrous that it, and how crazy it is that all of these modern military shooters force you to do things that are horrible and yet reward you constantly for them as if they are good. The gameplay is there to create a cognitive dissonance and clash with the narrative, which is constantly telling you that what you are doing is wrong. That is the meaning. And that is certainly not something you can get from Apocalypse Now.

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

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?

KingsMessenger

Wouldn't people just be better off reading Heart of Darkness? You completely missed my point. Just because it hits the same thematic points doesn't make it any less valid. I'd argue that within the context of Spec Ops, the added thematic critique of the Modern Military Shooter Genre of game is substantial enough to validate the game and, in fact, elevate it to a level above the vast majority of games this year. Black Ops 2 is probably going to get a 9.0, but Spec Ops will undeniably be the better game(despite having worse gameplay, being less fun, and generally doing most things worse).

You must be a 1984 fan.

At any rate, apocalypse now is widely considered one of the best films of all time.

The consensus on spec ops is that its decididly mediocre at best.

I totally understood that the game is "supposed to hate you" especially from some of the loading scenes. But come on, some stuff is just developer oversights. There is no perfect game.tagyhag

I am not calling it perfect. Jesus christ, learn to read.

[QUOTE="JangoWuzHere"]

It's hard to feel any impact from a scene if you know you are going to end up being the bad guy. The developers could have the presented the mortar scene better. They didn't have to give me choice, but they could have diguised it better. It should have been a plot twist I didn't see coming.

KingsMessenger

Fair enough. That is a perfectly valid criticism. Fail to see how that changes my point, or invalidates my point, or really changes anything.

At no point did I say that it was completely successful at everything it attempted, or that it was the best game ever, or really that it was even especially good. My point was simply that the game is important because it is doing something important, and it is garnering a reaction that is important. People are looking at this game and genuinely able to write about the GAME, not the story or the gameplay or the art style... No, the cohesive, WHOLE GAME. Name another game where the point or theme of the game was literally contained within the whole, and not just some part isolated off to the side. It is one of the mostly whole coherent games I've ever played. It has problem, and plot holes, and plenty of mistakes, but at no point is anything that I am doing not successfully reinforcing one of the themes of the game. That is why it is important. Because if games want to be taken seriously as an art form, developers need to figure out how to do that more often. Ebert, though he may be an ass, has always had a point about gaming... Gameplay hasn't really ever meant anything or added anything to the meaning of a game. Spec Ops is definitely a counterpoint to that claim.

I am not disrespecting your opinion. I never said it was bad to think about this game positively. I understand what it was trying to do, and what it was trying to do is important. However, I just didn't think it was very ssuccessful at what it was trying to convey, but that is obviously my own opinion.

I am not disrespecting your opinion. I never said it was bad to think about this game positively. I understand what it was trying to do, and what it was trying to do is important. However, I just didn't think it was very ssuccessful at what it was trying to convey, but that is obviously my own opinion.

JangoWuzHere

Fair enough. But as I have said many times, I am not calling a flawless game or the best game or even a "good" game. I am merely calling it important. And I genuinely cannot think of another game this year that would offer a significant counterargument. Plenty of games will sell better, and plenty will be better received critically, but I think that Spec Ops is probably going to have a more significant impact than most people on this forum want to acknowledge... Developers don't live in a bubble, and believe me there are more than a few developers who looked at Spec Ops and said "Holy ****"

[QUOTE="tagyhag"]I totally understood that the game is "supposed to hate you" especially from some of the loading scenes. But come on, some stuff is just developer oversights. There is no perfect game.KingsMessenger

I am not calling it perfect. Jesus christ, learn to read.

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]Apocalypse Now is NOT a rip off of Heart of Darkness. It is an appropriation. There's a difference. I haven't played the game yet but I've heard that for its supposed debunking of violence its a standard Gears of War clone in terms of mechanics. Is that true?! :( I wish gamers would stop trying to read things into game just to make them "art" - it doesn't devalue games further just because they're not art. They're still fun. KingsMessenger

People aren't reading into it... Everything is there, right on the surface of the game. Just watch the damn video in the OP.

It is just a standard Third Person Shooter mechanically. It is completely wraught in terms of how it spawns enemies(very obvious and antiquated). It doesn't give you choice most of the time.

But what everyone who criticizes the game for those things seems to forget is that one of the best ways to perform a critique on something is to copy the thing that you want to criticise and then twist it. The game embraces all the things that it wants to examine, because what better way to show someone the dissonance in an action than to force them to enact it while surrounding it with a context that encourages them to question that action?

There is nothing wrong with games just being fun, but there is also nothing wrong with games aspiring to something greater... If a game can reveal truths about the world that other forms of art cannot, then why shouldn't we strive to achieve that?

As I said, I haven't played the game, but how does this game "question" what you're doing if you "win" by killing people? You have to shoot bad guys to finish a standard level right? Not talking about scripted choice here. So doesn't that just become a standard reflex like any other game?

There is something wrong with aspiring to greater things sometimes- in this case, its like pseudo-intellectualism, you pretend to be reading something "deep" into things that aren't actually there.

Not saying this about you, but there are people on the Internet that are doing this and pushing this art thing because they can't handle any criticism of gaming. It has to be perfect in everyones eyes. Thats why they abuse people on Youtube, or especially females if they bring up something they feel "threatens" their medium.

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

[QUOTE="tagyhag"]I totally understood that the game is "supposed to hate you" especially from some of the loading scenes. But come on, some stuff is just developer oversights. There is no perfect game.tagyhag

I am not calling it perfect. Jesus christ, learn to read.

Want to know what one of the most significant films of all time is? Man with a Movie Camera. Is it a good film even? Not really. It is obnoxiously edited, and does numerous things far worse than a ton of other contemporary films. Nonetheless, I'd argue that it is the most important film in the entirety of film history. Why? Because it was a defining moment in the evolution of the medium into something more than just captured theatre. It changed the way film was constructed and edited, and it redefined what was possible with a movie.

Now, I am not saying that Spec Ops will do that for the gaming industry. Man with a Movie Camera had precursors as well... I am merely saying that Spec Ops could mark a significant turning point where Gameplay and Narrative come together in a way that makes gaming cohesive and whole, rather than this dissonant amalgam of non-sense that lacks unity and vision.

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]Apocalypse Now is NOT a rip off of Heart of Darkness. It is an appropriation. There's a difference. I haven't played the game yet but I've heard that for its supposed debunking of violence its a standard Gears of War clone in terms of mechanics. Is that true?! :( I wish gamers would stop trying to read things into game just to make them "art" - it doesn't devalue games further just because they're not art. They're still fun. biggest_loser

People aren't reading into it... Everything is there, right on the surface of the game. Just watch the damn video in the OP.

It is just a standard Third Person Shooter mechanically. It is completely wraught in terms of how it spawns enemies(very obvious and antiquated). It doesn't give you choice most of the time.

But what everyone who criticizes the game for those things seems to forget is that one of the best ways to perform a critique on something is to copy the thing that you want to criticise and then twist it. The game embraces all the things that it wants to examine, because what better way to show someone the dissonance in an action than to force them to enact it while surrounding it with a context that encourages them to question that action?

There is nothing wrong with games just being fun, but there is also nothing wrong with games aspiring to something greater... If a game can reveal truths about the world that other forms of art cannot, then why shouldn't we strive to achieve that?

As I said, I haven't played the game, but how does this game "question" what you're doing if you "win" by killing people? You have to shoot bad guys to finish a standard level right? Not talking about scripted choice here. So doesn't that just become a standard reflex like any other game?

There is something wrong with aspiring to greater things sometimes- in this case, its like pseudo-intellectualism, you pretend to be reading something "deep" into things that aren't actually there.

Not saying this about you, but there are people on the Internet that are doing this and pushing this art thing because they can't handle any criticism of gaming. It has to be perfect in everyones eyes. Thats why they abuse people on Youtube, or especially females if they bring up something they feel "threatens" their medium.

I suppose "question" was the wrong word. I say it is more of a critique. It criticises itself and all games like it. It suggests that the very nature of the gameplay is at odds with the narrative. That isn't detracting from the point of the game, that IS the point of the game.

I suppose "question" was the wrong word. I say it is more of a critique. It criticises itself and all games like it. It suggests that the very nature of the gameplay is at odds with the narrative. That isn't detracting from the point of the game, that IS the point of the game.

KingsMessenger

But you're just repeating what you said before.

How does the game critique its own game play if you WIN by killing guys and clearing out levels?

If the game is frequently bound by that "rule" how does it say that its a negative component of the game?

How does the game critique its own game play if you WIN by killing guys and clearing out levels?

biggest_loser

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

I suppose "question" was the wrong word. I say it is more of a critique. It criticises itself and all games like it. It suggests that the very nature of the gameplay is at odds with the narrative. That isn't detracting from the point of the game, that IS the point of the game.

biggest_loser

But you're just repeating what you said before.

How does the game critique its own game play if you WIN by killing guys and clearing out levels?

If the game is frequently bound by that "rule" how does it say that its a negative component of the game?

Its narrative and the emotional/moral resonance of how it contextualizes those actions. You "win" but you don't feel like you have won. Also, I suppose that it is worth noting that the ending contains a few "lose" states, and none of the "win" states are particularly rosey.

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

I suppose "question" was the wrong word. I say it is more of a critique. It criticises itself and all games like it. It suggests that the very nature of the gameplay is at odds with the narrative. That isn't detracting from the point of the game, that IS the point of the game.

KingsMessenger

But you're just repeating what you said before.

How does the game critique its own game play if you WIN by killing guys and clearing out levels?

If the game is frequently bound by that "rule" how does it say that its a negative component of the game?

Its narrative and the emotional/moral resonance of how it contextualizes those actions. You "win" but you don't feel like you have won. Also, I suppose that it is worth noting that the ending contains a few "lose" states, and none of the "win" states are particularly rosey.

But if its the same action over and over, through various levels of killing henchmen you don't know, how does that have any emotion to it?

And how many people will play this game thinking 'wow this is so bad that I'm killing people, even though they're shooting at me!'

We're talking about the general game play that makes up the hours, not just the ending or scripting as I mentioned.

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]

But you're just repeating what you said before.

How does the game critique its own game play if you WIN by killing guys and clearing out levels?

If the game is frequently bound by that "rule" how does it say that its a negative component of the game?

biggest_loser

Its narrative and the emotional/moral resonance of how it contextualizes those actions. You "win" but you don't feel like you have won. Also, I suppose that it is worth noting that the ending contains a few "lose" states, and none of the "win" states are particularly rosey.

But if its the same action over and over, through various levels of killing henchmen you don't know, how does that have any emotion to it?

And how many people will play this game thinking 'wow this is so bad that I'm killing people, even though they're shooting at me!'

We're talking about the general game play that makes up the hours, not just the ending or scripting as I mentioned.

The game isn't trying to make you feel bad about each individual soldier you kill, but it makes frequent use of setpieces and dialogue that add emotional weight to your atrocities. The generic combat sequences alone might not register that much of an emotional impact, but the campaign definitely elicits a strong response when looked at as a whole, as do some of the game's bigger setpiece moments.

But even that sort of discredits the cleverness of the game's core mechanics. Its singleminded focus on killing done through simplistic mechanics almost seems meant to be mindnumbing and desensitizing - as if to make you so caught up in the violence that you likely won't realize the terrible things you're doing until you're given room to really reflect on it all. The game's white phosphorous sequence is probably the biggest moment that highlights this idea.

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]

But you're just repeating what you said before.

How does the game critique its own game play if you WIN by killing guys and clearing out levels?

If the game is frequently bound by that "rule" how does it say that its a negative component of the game?

biggest_loser

Its narrative and the emotional/moral resonance of how it contextualizes those actions. You "win" but you don't feel like you have won. Also, I suppose that it is worth noting that the ending contains a few "lose" states, and none of the "win" states are particularly rosey.

But if its the same action over and over, through various levels of killing henchmen you don't know, how does that have any emotion to it?

And how many people will play this game thinking 'wow this is so bad that I'm killing people, even though they're shooting at me!'

We're talking about the general game play that makes up the hours, not just the ending or scripting as I mentioned.

[QUOTE="dreman999"][QUOTE="JangoWuzHere"]

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.

JangoWuzHere

Huh? Spec Ops WANTS you to feel bad. One of the core themes of Spec Ops is bashing the shooter genre for not having any sort of moral value to the action.

Spec Ops has you [spoiler] Killing American soldiers, innocent civilians, destroying the peoples only hope of survival, etc. [/spoiler]

The entire white phosphorus scene was made to make the player feel uncomfortable about their own actions.

[QUOTE="dreman999"]

You still missing the point of my question. I asked how the story is mediocre and you still have give me a reason why. Saying "Because Battle field is also a store about war" is not a reason.

Added, your missing the point hear the the concept of the game is an issue ofmental trauma and seeing it on the perspective of the person going through it. Those movies you listen do not do that.

tagyhag

The battlefield part was just because you said the game wasn't mediocre because it was about the horrors of war. :P

I found it mediocre because the gameplay and story clash. You have your team always reflecting about how horrible this all is, and then you're able to get extra stuff with executions. It's like GTA 4.

You have Walker and your friends supposedely getting crazier as the game goes on, and yet there's moments where the old "military" dialogue is still used. Bug? Probably but it still distracts from the story

Of course the story itself isn't good at all but the way its told is different than other mainstream games which gives it a plus. (White Phosphorus part was neat though)

I'd still recommend the game because it's different, but most important game of this year? Please. In 10 years, it would have done nothing for the medium.

And LOL at this, please watch all the movies before making such an incorrect statement. :lol:

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]

But you're just repeating what you said before.

How does the game critique its own game play if you WIN by killing guys and clearing out levels?

If the game is frequently bound by that "rule" how does it say that its a negative component of the game?

biggest_loser

Its narrative and the emotional/moral resonance of how it contextualizes those actions. You "win" but you don't feel like you have won. Also, I suppose that it is worth noting that the ending contains a few "lose" states, and none of the "win" states are particularly rosey.

But if its the same action over and over, through various levels of killing henchmen you don't know, how does that have any emotion to it?

And how many people will play this game thinking 'wow this is so bad that I'm killing people, even though they're shooting at me!'

We're talking about the general game play that makes up the hours, not just the ending or scripting as I mentioned.

The gameplay doesn't exist in a vacuum. it is constantly surrounded by narrative and art design that clash with the gameplay design. the entire point is to create that cognitive dissonance where the player understand their actions, and dislikes them, but continues on because that is what the game requires. Yes, you push on to the winstate by killing hordes of enemies for see mingly no reason, but the game contextualizes that, and in doing so provides a critique of war and the modrrn military shooter genre of games. Dismissing it because the script provides that is silly, because the script doesnt mean the same thing separated from the gameplay either... The two gain their meaning from their unity... Which is my entire point as to why the game is important.

KingsMessenger

If this is supposed to be an achievement in video game storytelling and there is a disconnect between the emotional narritive (cutscenes/scripted events) and the mindless bland shooting (gameplay) how is this accomplished? In this case I'd say Shadow of the Colossus was a better success in that regard, even though people exaggerate that one too. It isn't even telling a story that hasn't been done multiple times in other mediums, how is this an advancement in video games? I like what the story does-- and would have done better without interaction-- but honestly.

Also criticizing the most criticized genre with the most common criticism doesn't add to it, especially when perpetuating what is wrong with it.

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

The gameplay doesn't exist in a vacuum. it is constantly surrounded by narrative and art design that clash with the gameplay design. the entire point is to create that cognitive dissonance where the player understand their actions, and dislikes them, but continues on because that is what the game requires. Yes, you push on to the winstate by killing hordes of enemies for see mingly no reason, but the game contextualizes that, and in doing so provides a critique of war and the modrrn military shooter genre of games. Dismissing it because the script provides that is silly, because the script doesnt mean the same thing separated from the gameplay either... The two gain their meaning from their unity... Which is my entire point as to why the game is important.

TilxWLOC

If this is supposed to be an achievement in video game storytelling and there is a disconnect between the emotional narritive (cutscenes/scripted events) and the mindless bland shooting (gameplay) how is this accomplished? In this case I'd say Shadow of the Colossus was a better success in that regard, even though people exaggerate that one too. It isn't even telling a story that hasn't been done multiple times in other mediums, how is this an advancement in video games? I like what the story does-- and would have done better without interaction-- but honestly.

Also criticizing the most criticized genre with the most common criticism doesn't add to it, especially when perpetuating what is wrong with it.

[QUOTE="TilxWLOC"]

If this is supposed to be an achievement in video game storytelling and there is a disconnect between the emotional narritive (cutscenes/scripted events) and the mindless bland shooting (gameplay) how is this accomplished? In this case I'd say Shadow of the Colossus was a better success in that regard, even though people exaggerate that one too. It isn't even telling a story that hasn't been done multiple times in other mediums, how is this an advancement in video games? I like what the story does-- and would have done better without interaction-- but honestly.

Also criticizing the most criticized genre with the most common criticism doesn't add to it, especially when perpetuating what is wrong with it.

dreman999

Out side of telling the player everything they saw in the game was a lie warp by the main character in an act of denial of reality....

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what exactly you mean, you are quoting me, but I don't understand the context.

[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.

[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.

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

dreman999

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?

1.yea one must analyze, but think about how much of the cod community are made up of kids. theres a lot of common sense that kids don't soak up, its why i said it depends on the receiver. you are the 2nd guy that tried to argue the point...the message isn't going to be received by everybody the same way....and thats what i pointed out.

2. yes i understand the issue. the gameplay is what held this back from being talked about more. a great script with bad acting doesn't make for anything memorable. what good is a game with a lot of good ideas if its a mediocre game? what good is an idea if it isn't memorable? it isn't. you can't be the most important game of 2012 if it isnt remembered in about 20 years because everything else about that game is forgettable...plus if it didnt make enough money, more in depth provactive type themed games may not be published. so yea i know what im talking about

3. games that are thought provoking that dont sell dont get made into a sequel...they don't become the video game trend...they become niche games....is it any wonder why games like grim fandango don't get made nowadays while cod and bloody violent games get yearly sequels? so if spec ops didn't make money...more games like spec ops wont be made mainstream....so its still status quo....generic violent fps games with no moral depth will keep getting made while anti violence/moral provactive games aren't going to be made...

4. horrors of war? i'm sorry but a video game isnt going to replace an experience like 9/11, or the vietnam war or the influence of your parents. cod hasn't changed my mind that war is good or war is bad. ive personally lived a country being put in marshall law and a coup where i saw tanks rolling down my street. i'm sorry i don't feel that a video game can reinforce such a thing more effectively than parents can...or even other mediums like books or movies/tv

5. games can't right now because it isn't that good yet at conveying any sense of depth or appealing on emotion. i'm sorry but stories and dialogues are b movie grindhouse film quality. i didn't say it can't i said that if im trying to relax on cod, i'm not going to listen to a game telling me killing people without question is bad...i'm just going to play and it falls on deaf ears....or i wouldn't play it at all. like i said in a previous post, this is more my personal experience. if you don't like #5's reasoning...i'm sorry but i don't want to hear that crap if im trying to unwind.

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.

JangoWuzHere

You actually had a choise: drop the controller and stop playing. This is something Spec Ops reminds you time to time and some people don't seem to get. It's a game that actually tells you to stop playing it. But no, you just wanted to be a hero.

Spec Ops: The Line is one of the most important games this gen. Last game that actually tried to show the horrors of war and what it does to human mind was Brothers in Arms: Hell's highway, which was pretty ignored.

Oh please.

It has some good ideas, I will give it that much. I personally value the setting far more than I do the story. The narrative does some neat things with the protagonist and changes your perceptions quite well towards the end. But it doesn't do it any better than Black Ops or BioShock. The mortar scene for example, if you want to avoid it you can't because the game puts an invisible wall in the way and just keeps respawning soldiers until you run out of ammo.

The game funnels you down the same worn track that other shooters do except it changes the flag color and wants you to be all surprised and smitten because it thinks it is clever. It's a generic shooter with an above average story that tries pretty hard but is not quite supported well enough. Singularity has a better story than Spec Ops.

5. games can't right now because it isn't that good yet at conveying any sense of depth or appealing on emotion. i'm sorry but stories and dialogues are b movie grindhouse film quality.jsmoke03

i didn't say it can't i said that if im trying to relax on cod, i'm not going to listen to a game telling me killing people without question is bad...i'm just going to play and it falls on deaf ears....or i wouldn't play it at all. like i said in a previous post, this is more my personal experience. if you don't like #5's reasoning...i'm sorry but i don't want to hear that crap if im trying to unwind.

I must admit the game was good but didnt deliver upon my personal expectations..

Demo was horrible, felt like a real generic shooter, but I heard the story ment to be good.

one of the few games ive ever beat then jumped right back into a 2nd playthrough.. i love Spec Ops

5. games can't right now because it isn't that good yet at conveying any sense of depth or appealing on emotion. i'm sorry but stories and dialogues are b movie grindhouse film quality. i didn't say it can't i said that if im trying to relax on cod, i'm not going to listen to a game telling me killing people without question is bad...i'm just going to play and it falls on deaf ears....or i wouldn't play it at all. like i said in a previous post, this is more my personal experience. if you don't like #5's reasoning...i'm sorry but i don't want to hear that crap if im trying to unwind.

jsmoke03

What you want from games, and what you find appealing in games isn't what games only do or only are. Many of not most people go to the cinemas to be entertained by moving pictures, or take photographs purely as a keepsake, and listen to music for a catchy tune. That doesn't nullify either of those forms of media in their potency or richness as forms of art. Games are the same; difference here being they're young; it's like when sound was suddenly introduced in film, and look how long it took for that to legitimise itself then more than a cheap, consumable imitation of theatre.

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

The gameplay doesn't exist in a vacuum. it is constantly surrounded by narrative and art design that clash with the gameplay design. the entire point is to create that cognitive dissonance where the player understand their actions, and dislikes them, but continues on because that is what the game requires. Yes, you push on to the winstate by killing hordes of enemies for see mingly no reason, but the game contextualizes that, and in doing so provides a critique of war and the modrrn military shooter genre of games. Dismissing it because the script provides that is silly, because the script doesnt mean the same thing separated from the gameplay either... The two gain their meaning from their unity... Which is my entire point as to why the game is important.

TilxWLOC

If this is supposed to be an achievement in video game storytelling and there is a disconnect between the emotional narritive (cutscenes/scripted events) and the mindless bland shooting (gameplay) how is this accomplished? In this case I'd say Shadow of the Colossus was a better success in that regard, even though people exaggerate that one too. It isn't even telling a story that hasn't been done multiple times in other mediums, how is this an advancement in video games? I like what the story does-- and would have done better without interaction-- but honestly.

Also criticizing the most criticized genre with the most common criticism doesn't add to it, especially when perpetuating what is wrong with it.

I've said this at least a dozen times now....

The disconnect between narrative and gameplay is a thematic element, highlighting the disconnect between humanity's drive for violence and the harsh reality of that violence.

Robert E. Lee said, "It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."

This can ONLY be accomplished in a video game because ONLY a video game can allow the player to experience the same dissociative clash that a real soldier would(though obviously, it isn't exactly the same). On one hand, we revel in the glory of battle and enjoy the act of mindlessly killing. On the other, when faced with the reality of actions they torment us and tear us down. The game is doing exactly that. The gameplay is this mindless, numbing kill machine. The narrative is our conscience. The game as a whole conveys this message of cognitive dissonance. Remove the gameplay design so that it is less of a mindless kill machine and the meaning loses impact. Remove the narrative conscience of the game and the meaning loses impact. Without the entirety of the game, the full scope of the thematic meaning of the game would not be the same. THAT is the accomplishment of Video Game Storytelling here. A game where the gameplay isn't just some sideshow, where what you are doing is directly related to what the game is trying to convey to you... Shadow of the Collosus sure did not do that. And BioShock absolutely did not either.