There's also no reason for a sequel. What happened in Dubai and Walker's mission are pretty solidly concluded by the end regardless of ending you choose.
You could make another in the same spirit, but there's no point to call it a sequel then.
:toxx: ?
Still, real sad to see great games not doing well.
Looking forward to dropping white phosphorus on an ewok village in BF2.
I wouldn't want to see a sequel to this game specifically either. It pulled its' thing of competently, the story is self-contained and there's nothing that really needs to be followed up on. A similar game made today wouldn't have the same impact.
I would however love to see more AAA-like games experiment with trope subversion, thought-provoking storytelling and 4th wall-breaking.
[QUOTE=Noob4life;52749408]:toxx: ?
Still, real sad to see great games not doing well.[/QUOTE]
Great is a stretch. It was a pretty big standard cover shooter minus the story, which isn't very impactful once someone figures out the gimmick and realizes they also aren't given a choice in what they do.
I'd say "good idea with mediocre implementation that ruins the whole theme if you're clever enough to notice that this trench of people isn't marked as a target and no matter how long you wait it isn't pulling you out of the aerial view thing because they couldn't decide between storytelling and social experiment and they tried to do both" is a better description.
[QUOTE=gk99;52749801]Great is a stretch. It was a pretty big standard cover shooter minus the story, which isn't very impactful once someone figures out the gimmick and realizes they also aren't given a choice in what they do.
I'd say "good idea with mediocre implementation that ruins the whole theme if you're clever enough to notice that this trench of people isn't marked as a target and no matter how long you wait it isn't pulling you out of the aerial view thing because they couldn't decide between storytelling and social experiment and they tried to do both" is a better description.[/QUOTE]
I mean if you ignore all the stylistic choices and general character arcs that the main cast go through in favor of focusing on how you can't clear the entire game without Walker hitting his critical moral event, sure. It's an absolute shame that people discount how SOTL works on so many different levels (including as a character study of Walker that the player can observe completely detached from his actions) just because they feel cheated by a morally dark thing happening in an entire game of morally dark situations
[QUOTE=gk99;52749801]Great is a stretch. It was a pretty big standard cover shooter minus the story, which isn't very impactful once someone figures out the gimmick and realizes they also aren't given a choice in what they do.
I'd say "good idea with mediocre implementation that ruins the whole theme if you're clever enough to notice that this trench of people isn't marked as a target and no matter how long you wait it isn't pulling you out of the aerial view thing because they couldn't decide between storytelling and social experiment and they tried to do both" is a better description.[/QUOTE]
"A game with a good idea and does something different for its time yet not completely fall flat on its face and gotten enough praises and sparked enough debates" sounds like a pretty great game to me even if a lot of people doesn't quite like the game. Good-but-not-great games get good reviews and are forgotten outside its fanbase in 6 months or less.
i went into it expecting yet another click-on-heads kinda deal, except the thing that gets clicked on is your own head
What exactly happened during development?
Not all games require or need a sequel, and Spec Ops: The Line is one of them.
It's a shame that this game did not do really well.
Although, I would like to see a spiritual successor game for Spec Ops: The Line.
I don't know what a sequel would add. The first game said what it wanted to say, and the shock value of all the subversion wouldn't work in a sequel. Maybe in 5 years time when there are some new industry trends that need to be knocked down a peg, then a sequel would be good.
[sp]this post was originally meant to be "spec ops the line was an extremely overrated game. it doesn't need a sequel for a number of reasons, so i'm glad the writer acknowledges that" but i have nothing better to do so yall get an essay instead[/sp]
spec ops the line was an extremely overrated game. i finally got around to playing it about 2 months ago and i was thoroughly disappointed. it wasn't bad, just not very good, and definitely not as amazing as everybody hypes it up to be for whatever reason.
the gameplay is garbage, pure and simple. really. my first and only playthrough on the hardest difficulty consisted of me sitting behind cover and popping up to click heads every now and again, the only thing hindering that being that for whatever reason scoped weapons were impossible to aim at the bad guys. the squadmates aren't particularly bright and most of the time i was forced to go run and revive them because they were dumb enough to run into enemy grenades and just general dumb shit like you'd expect from a shitty, scripted event filled third person shooter. how come when other games do this shit it's their nail in the coffin, but this game did it and it's supposed to be innovative or something?
the plot wasn't particularly great either. "OH BUT IT TEACHES YOU ABOUT THE HORRORS OF WAR AND SHIT MAN ITS SO DEEP AND IT LIKE BLEW MY MIND WHEN IT TURNED OUT THAT [sp]IT WAS ALL A HALLUCINATION[/sp] AND SHIT DUDE" no. every single thing that happens in the game is contrived just for the sake of making the player feel like an asshole, which i understand is the point of it in the end-- [sp]nolan north twisted his own perception of the events to cope with his ptsd and justify what he was doing by telling himself that its all konrad's fault[/sp]. however, it sells itself purely on shock value-- the only moments in the game that anybody remembers are the ending because, well, it's the last thing you see in the game, and the [sp]white phosphorous scene[/sp] because it's the only memorable thing that happens in the game. and even then, these are flat out stupid events, especially the latter which is completely void of any player agency and, more importantly, a [sp]friendly fire[/sp] mistake that a trained military officer wouldn't have made in the first place. "BUT THEY'RE EXPLORING THE REALISTIC CONSEQUENCES OF A PLAYER'S ACTIONS IN ANOTHER GAME!!11" you can rationalize it however you want, but when a plot requires its otherwise smart characters to forgo common sense to move itself along, then that means you just have a stupid plot.
the ending twist isn't even hinted at for a single moment. it fell flat on its face because it was like a kick in my face, which is what it was supposed to be of course, but it just comes off as stupid because it further removes any agency i might have had-- [sp]all the people you killed and shit, and all the terrible things you've done, have been for nothing because konrad was already dead anyway.[/sp] which wouldn't be a problem, but again, this was without any clever hints or anything like that. just suddenly at the end [sp]HEY IT WAS HALLUCINATIONS DO YOU FEEL LIKE A HERO YET???/[/sp] it sounds like something i'd expect out of a shitty b-movie, but without even the fun gameplay to make it worthwhile. it takes would could have been a deep, mature story about ptsd and fucks it up by failing to explore the actual mental consequences of war and instead just using gruesome imagery to say "SEE WE'RE MAKING A POINT WAR IS BAD." besides the dumb twist, the rest of the game just plays out like a generic action game filled with scripted sequences to make the player feel badass, and then tell you that you're an asshole for doing so. it's like the game is slapping you upside the head because you enjoy action movies.
and don't you dare say it was original or different for its time. its right up there with all the boring ass games like shitty third person shooters that nobody should remember. it was chasing after the WOAH ITS ALL TURNED ON YOUR HEAD AT THE END MAN plot bullshit after black ops and inception, which by 2012 was by no means original. even fuckin mass effect 3 did it like come on. as for the gameplay, even i am alive had better third person shooting than this piece of crap.
spec ops the line is a super overhyped game that only remains relevant because of it's cult following, like many shitty movies and games tend to do (contrary to what noob4life said about how it would have lost it's fanbase after 6 months if it wasn't great). it doesn't need a sequel for a number of reasons, so i'm glad the writer acknowledges that.
[QUOTE=Baconator 7;52750578][sp]this post was originally meant to be "spec ops the line was an extremely overrated game. it doesn't need a sequel for a number of reasons, so i'm glad the writer acknowledges that" but i have nothing better to do so yall get an essay instead[/sp]
spec ops the line was an extremely overrated game. i finally got around to playing it about 2 months ago and i was thoroughly disappointed. it wasn't bad, just not very good, and definitely not as amazing as everybody hypes it up to be for whatever reason.
the gameplay is garbage, pure and simple. really. my first and only playthrough on the hardest difficulty consisted of me sitting behind cover and popping up to click heads every now and again, the only thing hindering that being that for whatever reason scoped weapons were impossible to aim at the bad guys. the squadmates aren't particularly bright and most of the time i was forced to go run and revive them because they were dumb enough to run into enemy grenades and just general dumb shit like you'd expect from a shitty, scripted event filled third person shooter. how come when other games do this shit it's their nail in the coffin, but this game did it and it's supposed to be innovative or something?
the plot wasn't particularly great either. "OH BUT IT TEACHES YOU ABOUT THE HORRORS OF WAR AND SHIT MAN ITS SO DEEP AND IT LIKE BLEW MY MIND WHEN IT TURNED OUT THAT [sp]IT WAS ALL A HALLUCINATION[/sp] AND SHIT DUDE" no. every single thing that happens in the game is contrived just for the sake of making the player feel like an asshole, which i understand is the point of it in the end-- [sp]nolan north twisted his own perception of the events to cope with his ptsd and justify what he was doing by telling himself that its all konrad's fault[/sp]. however, it sells itself purely on shock value-- the only moments in the game that anybody remembers are the ending because, well, it's the last thing you see in the game, and the [sp]white phosphorous scene[/sp] because it's the only memorable thing that happens in the game. and even then, these are flat out stupid events, especially the latter which is completely void of any player agency and, more importantly, a [sp]friendly fire[/sp] mistake that a trained military officer wouldn't have made in the first place. "BUT THEY'RE EXPLORING THE REALISTIC CONSEQUENCES OF A PLAYER'S ACTIONS IN ANOTHER GAME!!11" you can rationalize it however you want, but when a plot requires its otherwise smart characters to forgo common sense to move itself along, then that means you just have a stupid plot.
the ending twist isn't even hinted at for a single moment. it fell flat on its face because it was like a kick in my face, which is what it was supposed to be of course, but it just comes off as stupid because it further removes any agency i might have had-- [sp]all the people you killed and shit, and all the terrible things you've done, have been for nothing because konrad was already dead anyway.[/sp] which wouldn't be a problem, but again, this was without any clever hints or anything like that. just suddenly at the end [sp]HEY IT WAS HALLUCINATIONS DO YOU FEEL LIKE A HERO YET???/[/sp] it sounds like something i'd expect out of a shitty b-movie, but without even the fun gameplay to make it worthwhile. it takes would could have been a deep, mature story about ptsd and fucks it up by failing to explore the actual mental consequences of war and instead just using gruesome imagery to say "SEE WE'RE MAKING A POINT WAR IS BAD." besides the dumb twist, the rest of the game just plays out like a generic action game filled with scripted sequences to make the player feel badass, and then tell you that you're an asshole for doing so. it's like the game is slapping you upside the head because you enjoy action movies.
and don't you dare say it was original or different for its time. its right up there with all the boring ass games like shitty third person shooters that nobody should remember. it was chasing after the WOAH ITS ALL TURNED ON YOUR HEAD AT THE END MAN plot bullshit after black ops and inception, which by 2012 was by no means original. even fuckin mass effect 3 did it like come on. as for the gameplay, even i am alive had better third person shooting than this piece of crap.
spec ops the line is a super overhyped game that only remains relevant because of it's cult following, like many shitty movies and games tend to do (contrary to what noob4life said about how it would have lost it's fanbase after 6 months if it wasn't great). it doesn't need a sequel for a number of reasons, so i'm glad the writer acknowledges that.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for writing that out but you should probably remove some of the foaming rage if you want anyone to take you seriously.
Spec Ops is a cool game with a story that's unusual for video games and great production design. The gameplay isn't gonna set the world on fire but I enjoyed it well enough.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52751421]Spec Ops is a cool game with a story that's unusual for video games and great production design. The gameplay isn't gonna set the world on fire but I enjoyed it well enough.[/QUOTE]
The thing about the gameplay is that it's a bit by the numbers but it's not bad. It's genuinely solid to above average.
[QUOTE=Citrus705;52749873]What exactly happened during development?[/QUOTE]
Yager was forced by Take Two to tack on a multiplayer which the game didn't need and drained time and resources that could have and would have been better spent elsewhere.
I'm perfectly fine with The Line never getting a sequel. That's the kind of story you don't try to continue, not directly. But Spec Ops [i]was[/i] a pre-existing series even before it, and there'd be nothing wrong with using the brand so long as you make it damn clear you're not aping The Line or trying to cash in on its cult classic status. Then again, the problem with that is that Spec Ops as a series is so generic and obscure otherwise that anyone would associate it with and compare it to The Line anyway.
So I guess at that point, if they ever make another shooter or game altogether they just call it something else and don't pull a Hideo Kojima "from the creator(s) of" sort of thing.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
