[QUOTE="Timstuff"]If gameplay isn't the focus of a game, then the developers are forgetting why we play them in the first place. You can play a game to be entertained or you can play a game for an experience. Very few games do the latter, most games do the former, and Spec Ops: The Line does the latter while sending a provocative message about the former.I haven't finished the game yet, but so far it's amazing. I already feel like that game has kicked me in the balls, and I'm not even that far into it so I know that it only gets heavier from here. I'm almost afraid to finish it, lol.
The gameplay is a little bit clumsy at times, and clearly that was not the prime focus of the game. However, the visuals are great, and you can definitely tell that a lot of love went into the art direction for this game, and good visuals is kind of important since the game has more emphasis on story than gameplay.
-RocBoys9489-
Spec Ops: The Line may be the most important game this year
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Timstuff"]If gameplay isn't the focus of a game, then the developers are forgetting why we play them in the first place.I haven't finished the game yet, but so far it's amazing. I already feel like that game has kicked me in the balls, and I'm not even that far into it so I know that it only gets heavier from here. I'm almost afraid to finish it, lol.
The gameplay is a little bit clumsy at times, and clearly that was not the prime focus of the game. However, the visuals are great, and you can definitely tell that a lot of love went into the art direction for this game, and good visuals is kind of important since the game has more emphasis on story than gameplay.
-RocBoys9489-
I wouldn't read Spec Ops' basic mechanics as a sign of laziness. The fact that it's so simplistic and, eventually, mindnumbing is an integral part of conveying its narrative. The whole campaign is about making the actions we perform in typical military shooters feel offputting, and the decidedly uninteresting gameplay goes along way to supporting that goal.
If a game tries to be fun and has unfun gameplay, then you're right, that's a problem. But Spec Ops experiments with what it means to play a shooter, and in doing so the devs sacrificed entertainment value in order to craft a pretty unique interactive experience. Ditching the fun gameplay that I can get in any other AAA shooter is perfectly fine with me if it's done in the name of giving players something truly artful and thought-provoking.
I envy your faith on devs. :P[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"]Yes, I do The game is not meant to be "fun" at alltagyhag
Do you think Nolan North was hired as the protagonist as a jab of the industry's use of him?
No, I think he was hired because he's a damn good voice actor.
I envy your faith on devs. :P[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"]Yes, I do The game is not meant to be "fun" at alltagyhag
Do you think Nolan North was hired as the protagonist as a jab of the industry's use of him?
No. That they confirmed. But they did say the shooting was intentional, so take that for what it is.
If gameplay isn't the focus of a game, then the developers are forgetting why we play them in the first place.[QUOTE="-RocBoys9489-"][QUOTE="Timstuff"]
I haven't finished the game yet, but so far it's amazing. I already feel like that game has kicked me in the balls, and I'm not even that far into it so I know that it only gets heavier from here. I'm almost afraid to finish it, lol.
The gameplay is a little bit clumsy at times, and clearly that was not the prime focus of the game. However, the visuals are great, and you can definitely tell that a lot of love went into the art direction for this game, and good visuals is kind of important since the game has more emphasis on story than gameplay.
WTA2k5
I wouldn't read Spec Ops' basic mechanics as a sign of laziness. The fact that it's so simplistic and, eventually, mindnumbing is an integral part of conveying its narrative. The whole campaign is about making the actions we perform in typical military shooters feel offputting, and the decidedly uninteresting gameplay goes along way to supporting that goal.
If a game tries to be fun and has unfun gameplay, then you're right, that's a problem. But Spec Ops experiments with what it means to play a shooter, and in doing so the devs sacrificed entertainment value in order to craft a pretty unique interactive experience. Ditching the fun gameplay that I can get in any other AAA shooter is perfectly fine with me if it's done in the name of giving players something truly artful and thought-provoking.
It still could be more fun, I don't care if it's making fun of Black Ops 2, I had way more fun playing through it in the four hours it took. It's a videogame not a movie or tv show.
[QUOTE="WTA2k5"][QUOTE="-RocBoys9489-"] If gameplay isn't the focus of a game, then the developers are forgetting why we play them in the first place.-RocBoys9489-
I wouldn't read Spec Ops' basic mechanics as a sign of laziness. The fact that it's so simplistic and, eventually, mindnumbing is an integral part of conveying its narrative. The whole campaign is about making the actions we perform in typical military shooters feel offputting, and the decidedly uninteresting gameplay goes along way to supporting that goal.
If a game tries to be fun and has unfun gameplay, then you're right, that's a problem. But Spec Ops experiments with what it means to play a shooter, and in doing so the devs sacrificed entertainment value in order to craft a pretty unique interactive experience. Ditching the fun gameplay that I can get in any other AAA shooter is perfectly fine with me if it's done in the name of giving players something truly artful and thought-provoking.
It still could be more fun, I don't care if it's making fun of Black Ops 2, I had way more fun playing through it in the four hours it took. It's a videogame not a movie or tv show. If you continue to treat video games as nonstop entertainment factories then it will never be taken seriously as an art medium. And it's not about "making fun" of Black Ops 2. That's just... ugh. Trying to respond to that just hurts.[QUOTE="-RocBoys9489-"][QUOTE="WTA2k5"]It still could be more fun, I don't care if it's making fun of Black Ops 2, I had way more fun playing through it in the four hours it took. It's a videogame not a movie or tv show. If you continue to treat video games as nonstop entertainment factories then it will never be taken seriously as an art medium. And it's not about "making fun" of Black Ops 2. That's just... ugh. Trying to respond to that just hurts. When have they not been?! They've always been about entertainment and gameplay. It's been like that every gen. GTA5 is gonna be a great game becuz it's gonna be fun. A story is just a great bonus to many of today's biggest budget titles. i.e. GTA5I wouldn't read Spec Ops' basic mechanics as a sign of laziness. The fact that it's so simplistic and, eventually, mindnumbing is an integral part of conveying its narrative. The whole campaign is about making the actions we perform in typical military shooters feel offputting, and the decidedly uninteresting gameplay goes along way to supporting that goal.
If a game tries to be fun and has unfun gameplay, then you're right, that's a problem. But Spec Ops experiments with what it means to play a shooter, and in doing so the devs sacrificed entertainment value in order to craft a pretty unique interactive experience. Ditching the fun gameplay that I can get in any other AAA shooter is perfectly fine with me if it's done in the name of giving players something truly artful and thought-provoking.
princeofshapeir
[QUOTE="-RocBoys9489-"][QUOTE="WTA2k5"]It still could be more fun, I don't care if it's making fun of Black Ops 2, I had way more fun playing through it in the four hours it took. It's a videogame not a movie or tv show. If you continue to treat video games as nonstop entertainment factories then it will never be taken seriously as an art medium. And it's not about "making fun" of Black Ops 2. That's just... ugh. Trying to respond to that just hurts.I wouldn't read Spec Ops' basic mechanics as a sign of laziness. The fact that it's so simplistic and, eventually, mindnumbing is an integral part of conveying its narrative. The whole campaign is about making the actions we perform in typical military shooters feel offputting, and the decidedly uninteresting gameplay goes along way to supporting that goal.
If a game tries to be fun and has unfun gameplay, then you're right, that's a problem. But Spec Ops experiments with what it means to play a shooter, and in doing so the devs sacrificed entertainment value in order to craft a pretty unique interactive experience. Ditching the fun gameplay that I can get in any other AAA shooter is perfectly fine with me if it's done in the name of giving players something truly artful and thought-provoking.
princeofshapeir
What if you don't want it to be taken seriously?
If you continue to treat video games as nonstop entertainment factories then it will never be taken seriously as an art medium. And it's not about "making fun" of Black Ops 2. That's just... ugh. Trying to respond to that just hurts.[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"][QUOTE="-RocBoys9489-"] It still could be more fun, I don't care if it's making fun of Black Ops 2, I had way more fun playing through it in the four hours it took. It's a videogame not a movie or tv show.Goyoshi12
What if you don't want it to be taken seriously?
Then you can continue to reward EA and Activision for releasing annual modern military shooters so long as you're entertained, if you're fine with that. Just imagine if Adam Sandler romcoms were the only movies released.[QUOTE="-RocBoys9489-"][QUOTE="princeofshapeir"] If you continue to treat video games as nonstop entertainment factories then it will never be taken seriously as an art medium. And it's not about "making fun" of Black Ops 2. That's just... ugh. Trying to respond to that just hurts. princeofshapeirWhen have they not been?! They've always been about entertainment and gameplay. It's been like that every gen. GTA5 is gonna be a great game becuz it's gonna be fun. A story is just a great bonus to many of today's biggest budget titles. i.e. GTA5 Which is exactly why you need more games like Spec Ops to deliver provocative messages and provide meaningful experiences rather than fun gameplay. If you consider how film evolved it's not far off from gaming's current predicament now. There's an opportunity to move the medium beyond mindless entertainment. But the difference is Spec Ops sucked as far as actually playing the game went. You gotta build from the ground up, and gameplay is ALWAYS the base. That's why I don't consider the walking dead a video game and more of an interactive piece of digital graphics.
[QUOTE="Goyoshi12"][QUOTE="princeofshapeir"] If you continue to treat video games as nonstop entertainment factories then it will never be taken seriously as an art medium. And it's not about "making fun" of Black Ops 2. That's just... ugh. Trying to respond to that just hurts. princeofshapeir
What if you don't want it to be taken seriously?
Then you can continue to reward EA and Activision for releasing annual modern military shooters so long as you're entertained, if you're fine with that. Just imagine if Adam Sandler romcoms were the only movies released.Well....I am certainly entertained by their games. Their company policies are highly questionable and pretty much downright awful but the games they publish...eh, I've played worse. It all depends on if I'm being entertained, if they release good quality entertainment products that I deem as fun then sure I'll support them (unless of course their company policeis outreach to ludicrious territories then no-go purchases from me which is somewhat where I stand with EA after the whole Mass Effect debocale).
Also, no. I can't imagine that because I don't want to.
Adam Sandler...
*shudder*
Which is exactly why you need more games like Spec Ops to deliver provocative messages and provide meaningful experiences rather than fun gameplay. If you consider how film evolved it's not far off from gaming's current predicament now. There's an opportunity to move the medium beyond mindless entertainment. But the difference is Spec Ops sucked as far as actually playing the game went. You gotta build from the ground up, and gameplay is ALWAYS the base. That's why I don't consider the walking dead a video game and more of an interactive piece of digital graphics. Well, when you consider the gameplay is intentionally redundant and repetitive it takes on another meaning. I think it's fair, then, to compare it to The Walking Dead or Heavy Rain because you "play" Spec Ops for the narrative and message it offers, not the gameplay. In fact, you can even consider not playing the game at all the "best ending" since the story is based on the player fulfilling Walker's actions albeit unintentionally, as he or she is constantly misled by by an unreliable protagonist.[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"][QUOTE="-RocBoys9489-"] When have they not been?! They've always been about entertainment and gameplay. It's been like that every gen. GTA5 is gonna be a great game becuz it's gonna be fun. A story is just a great bonus to many of today's biggest budget titles. i.e. GTA5-RocBoys9489-
Then you can continue to reward EA and Activision for releasing annual modern military shooters so long as you're entertained, if you're fine with that. Just imagine if Adam Sandler romcoms were the only movies released.[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"][QUOTE="Goyoshi12"]
What if you don't want it to be taken seriously?
Goyoshi12
Well....I am certainly entertained by their games. Their company policies are highly questionable and pretty much downright awful but the games they publish...eh, I've played worse. It all depends on if I'm being entertained, if they release good quality entertainment products that I deem as fun then sure I'll support them (unless of course their company policeis outreach to ludicrious territories then no-go purchases from me which is somewhat where I stand with EA after the whole Mass Effect debocale).
Also, no. I can't imagine that because I don't want to.
Adam Sandler...
*shudder*
I'm not critiquing your decision, but if you want games to emphasize entertainment above all else that's fine. You just won't see video games treated as an art form, and you'll see the mainstream media continue to label gamers as children.[QUOTE="Goyoshi12"][QUOTE="princeofshapeir"] Then you can continue to reward EA and Activision for releasing annual modern military shooters so long as you're entertained, if you're fine with that. Just imagine if Adam Sandler romcoms were the only movies released. princeofshapeir
Well....I am certainly entertained by their games. Their company policies are highly questionable and pretty much downright awful but the games they publish...eh, I've played worse. It all depends on if I'm being entertained, if they release good quality entertainment products that I deem as fun then sure I'll support them (unless of course their company policeis outreach to ludicrious territories then no-go purchases from me which is somewhat where I stand with EA after the whole Mass Effect debocale).
Also, no. I can't imagine that because I don't want to.
Adam Sandler...
*shudder*
I'm not critiquing your decision, but if you want games to emphasize entertainment above all else that's fine. You just won't see video games treated as an art form, and you'll see the mainstream media continue to label gamers as children. I think that's funny, they seem very socially acceptable now. My professors play games and talk about them sometimes lol.[QUOTE="Goyoshi12"][QUOTE="princeofshapeir"] Then you can continue to reward EA and Activision for releasing annual modern military shooters so long as you're entertained, if you're fine with that. Just imagine if Adam Sandler romcoms were the only movies released. princeofshapeir
Well....I am certainly entertained by their games. Their company policies are highly questionable and pretty much downright awful but the games they publish...eh, I've played worse. It all depends on if I'm being entertained, if they release good quality entertainment products that I deem as fun then sure I'll support them (unless of course their company policeis outreach to ludicrious territories then no-go purchases from me which is somewhat where I stand with EA after the whole Mass Effect debocale).
Also, no. I can't imagine that because I don't want to.
Adam Sandler...
*shudder*
I'm not critiquing your decision, but if you want games to emphasize entertainment above all else that's fine. You just won't see video games treated as an art form, and you'll see the mainstream media continue to label gamers as children.The whole, "Gaming as an art form" has worn it's charm off of me, I don't like it because games will never achieve the same level of respect as art or literature which is what some people want out of games. I will admit that games (and movies quite frankly) have improven over time in terms of becoming a more serious form of entertainment but trying to step their boundaries on that image will not go well for them.
Besides, if we want people to take our hobbies seriously, I would think the better idea for us would be to better ourselves more so than our games. We could have endless rows of artsy games littering the entire gaming industry but no one will really give a damn what you're playing if you act like an immature COD brat.
I finished it a month ago and it was a "interesting" experience. Got to give to the developers props for doing something creative and advancing the medium as a creative art form. All I can say is if you're looking for a unique experience then check it out when it goes on sale. I got a Steamworks copy for $7.50 on Amazon during the Christmas sales.
The gameplay was below mediocre that I just couldn't bother playing through it
I'm not critiquing your decision, but if you want games to emphasize entertainment above all else that's fine. You just won't see video games treated as an art form, and you'll see the mainstream media continue to label gamers as children.[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"][QUOTE="Goyoshi12"]
Well....I am certainly entertained by their games. Their company policies are highly questionable and pretty much downright awful but the games they publish...eh, I've played worse. It all depends on if I'm being entertained, if they release good quality entertainment products that I deem as fun then sure I'll support them (unless of course their company policeis outreach to ludicrious territories then no-go purchases from me which is somewhat where I stand with EA after the whole Mass Effect debocale).
Also, no. I can't imagine that because I don't want to.
Adam Sandler...
*shudder*
Goyoshi12
The whole, "Gaming as an art form" has worn it's charm off of me, I don't like it because games will never achieve the same level of respect as art or literature which is what some people want out of games. I will admit that games (and movies quite frankly) have improven over time in terms of becoming a more serious form of entertainment but trying to step their boundaries on that image will not go well for them.
Why not? Games might have the greatest capacity of all art/entertainment media to provide impactful experiences because they compel people to actually interact with the experience at hand. If developers ignore this potential in favor of playing it safe, thus holding the medium back from truly progressing, that would be a real shame.
Fine art and literature are respected because 1) they've been around for a long, long time and 2) because individual artists within those fields dared to take their respective media forward over the years. Just because video games have only been around for a few decades and have been known to provide a singular experience (focused on fun and player empowerment) doesn't mean that formula shouldn't be changed or built on.
Intentionally being average is not an excuse for making an average at best game. Kudos you had something meaningful to say for once for a videogame company, but you did it through a game that isn't impressive. A game worth playing if you taking gaming stories seriously? Yes, absolutely you should try it. The most important game of last year? Please in what is consistently b1tched about as a "weak year" it has no business being in the top 10 of last year. jg4xchampI'd put it in the top 10 pretty easy.
I don't get how this "the game is intentionally bad" theory came about. Not only is it just a stupid thing to do, but the story is obviously written around the idea that you've enjoyed your 6-8 hours of mass murder (see: Konrad's lines at the end, the fact it's just more interesting to have the player deal with the dichotomy of how unsettling-to-downright-horrifying the game's events are and the dopamine rush of gunning down mooks).
A lot of it is people trying to give the game credit for more than it is trying to do. I don't thin it's intentionally bad, but I thinking the gameplay segment at the end is supposed to feel monotonous. My two cents.I don't get how this "the game is intentionally bad" theory came about. Not only is it just a stupid thing to do, but the story is obviously written around the idea that you've enjoyed your 6-8 hours of mass murder (see: Konrad's lines at the end, the fact it's just more interesting to have the player deal with the dichotomy of how unsettling-to-downright-horrifying the game's events are and the dopamine rush of gunning down mooks).
Slow_Show
[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]Intentionally being average is not an excuse for making an average at best game. Kudos you had something meaningful to say for once for a videogame company, but you did it through a game that isn't impressive. A game worth playing if you taking gaming stories seriously? Yes, absolutely you should try it. The most important game of last year? Please in what is consistently b1tched about as a "weak year" it has no business being in the top 10 of last year. DarkLink77I'd put it in the top 10 pretty easy.I'd barely call it top 10 now, and that's without playing Xcom, Far Cry 3, Mark of the Ninja, Sleeping Dogs, or a host of hipster indie sh1t.
It's plot is good for what it is, but there are plenty of games from last year that flat out play better for what they are, and in other cases(The Walking Dead or Journey) are more far more unique on a game design level or far more powerful on a narrative level. Contrary to douchy system wars opinions there were a lot of pretty good games from last year.
I'd put it in the top 10 pretty easy.I'd barely call it top 10 now, and that's without playing Xcom, Far Cry 3, Mark of the Ninja, Sleeping Dogs, or a host of hipster indie sh1t.[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]Intentionally being average is not an excuse for making an average at best game. Kudos you had something meaningful to say for once for a videogame company, but you did it through a game that isn't impressive. A game worth playing if you taking gaming stories seriously? Yes, absolutely you should try it. The most important game of last year? Please in what is consistently b1tched about as a "weak year" it has no business being in the top 10 of last year. jg4xchamp
It's plot is good for what it is, but there are plenty of games from last year that flat out play better for what they are, and in other cases(The Walking Dead or Journey) are more far more unique on a game design level or far more powerful on a narrative level. Contrary to douchy system wars opinions there were a lot of pretty good games from last year. I didn't play everything from last year (it was a decent year, nothing special), but I feel like Spec Ops stand out enough and is well-written enough to earn it's place. It also has something to say, and says it well, which almost never happens in video games. It's almost like a Kojima game, except that Walt Williams is a competent writer. But I do put more emphasis on narrative than most, so I'm willing to cut it more slack as a game.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment