Is this game fun to play? Not really. Is it engaging? Absolutely.
You folks have seen this happen. Games like Homefront, every Call of Duty after the first Modern Warfare, Battlefield 3, the reboot of Medal of Honor series, Socom 4, you probably get the idea. It didn't even help that this game had the cliche "man holding a gun with a frown" box art. It was even more of a hit when I played the atrocious demo and just labeled it as "the perfect example of a generic shooter".
Then something kicked me in the head. During my time on Youtube, I came across a two-part video on ExtraCreditz on how the game's story was meaningful and Yahtzee complementing the game (which was quite a surprise considering how Yahtzee doesn't like almost anything). Even biased IGN surprisingly complimented this title rather than labeling it as a lackluster shooter.
I was curious no doubt, I wanted to see what was the praise all about. Was this game actually going to impress, or is it going to be as laughable as MW2's attempts at shock value?
So big surprise, I bought the game for $35. So what was my reaction after the completion of this game? Simple, that was the best $35 I've spent in who knows how long.
Yager, I want to apologize you guys/gals for judging this game without even playing a good portion of it or looking into it. I thank you for creating one of the most engaging games I've ever played without being fun.
How is that possible you can ask? If you were to play the game solely for the gameplay, it would game off being both a waste of time and money. The game includes your typical, bread and butter, third person cover-based mechanics with a few squad commands to make it feel 'tactical" with the push of one button. The enemy A.I. charges at you or often stays open in the battlefield, often giving you room for a clear shot. So as far as you can tell, this game doesn't really scream innovative or unique say for the gimmick of using of using sand the blind or stun enemies temporarily (which doesn't come to effect often).
This game doesn't rely on that though. It doesn't want you to feel like a hero, a badass killing machine, or even a clever tactician. The guys/gals at Yager most likely didn't have the resources to pull off something that would rock our world. So instead of investing that money to creating a "cinematic" shooter with scripted events, and the whole "save world from Russian nuclear missile bomb" plot. They took a big risk, creating a game I swear, could have stormed a whole lot of controversy but failed to do so due to poor sales and lack of effective advertising.
How could this have been achievable? Imagine yourself being in a situation you don't want to be in but you're the one that brought yourself in it, grey moral choices that have no happy ending whatsoever, questioning your actions as loading screens pop up with messages such as "To kill for yourself is murder. to kill for the government is heroic, to kill for entertainment is harmless" later on, killing your fellow Americans, etc. In that case, I would hate being in the shoes of Captain Walker. The main leading protagonist whose objective is to simply find and confirm the status of John Konrad who supposedly went rogue, any survivors on a sand-ridden Dubai, and to order for evacuation as he is accompanied with two other squad mates Adam and Lugo.
What sounds like another hero's tale, soon becomes a guilt-ridden trip. This game isn't aiming to answer questions but rather give you them, it isn't interested in satisfying your blood-lust or need to feel like a hero but rather calling out the pathetic fantasy, nor does it hold your hand story wise. When you play a a game, you want choice right? But choices such as of those in games like inFAMOUS, Mass Effect, and Bioshock are always scripted and tend to be given to you in a nice little game hint (while being in a black and white moral scale). Spec Ops doesn't do this, it instead relies on the game's mechanics, you are sometimes given a choice to kill off people that weren't notified. What makes this special is that you can actually make choices solely on the games mechanics rather than the game just telling you.
The voice acting and dialogue is simply superb. You get the feeling that these men are not in a good situation, the buddy talk with one another during the earl parts of this game, and when the Radioman comes in. He serves as a funny, witty, deep, character that while criticizes your actions, you come off wondering if he's right.
The visuals themselves while not the sharpest in terms of object textures or the environment, get the job done. A good deal of time was put in the characters themselves. Their facial expressions, movements, and models seem lifelike enough to avoid hitting the uncanny valley (unlike Medal of Honor Warfighter).
Even the gameplay help reinforce the game's mechanics. Does it feel odd how the game allows you to slaughter countless foes yet it treats them like humans? You really no longer feel like a hero but rather someone paved with good intentions, only to be stuck in a horrific situation. The whole game makes you think, that's is simply the beauty of it and to go any further would ruin the experience.
Speaking of the experience, don't bother with the multiplayer. It's just another copy-paste COD vanilla experience that doesn't go with package since it forced in by 2K. It doesn't fit with the overall message and overall, it's just not fun to play all that much.
Question is should you buy this game? Yes if you want to be engaged. Avoid it if you just want fun and nothing more.