another one of my gripes with Spec Ops
the big "emotional" scenes like the white phosphorus lose all emotional impact when you realize how the game so cheaply forces you into it.
In the dialogue before the scene, Lugo and Adams argue whether or not you should use it. Because of their discussion about choice, and the fact you have to go to the mortar and activate it yourself, make me as a player think that I can choose to use it or take them out the hard way. So on my first try, I decided to not use the mortar. After taking out some of the rooftop snipers, their empty spots only become filled by infinitely respawning snipers after you kill them. It becomes painfully obvious that the game is shoehorning you into their linear scripted path, and takes away any impact the scene has.
i've never even heard of amy until just now
[QUOTE=kanesenpai~;39070697]another one of my gripes with Spec Ops
the big "emotional" scenes like the white phosphorus lose all emotional impact when you realize how the game so cheaply forces you into it.
In the dialogue before the scene, Lugo and Adams argue whether or not you should use it. Because of their discussion about choice, and the fact you have to go to the mortar and activate it yourself, make me as a player think that I can choose to use it or take them out the hard way. So on my first try, I decided to not use the mortar. After taking out some of the rooftop snipers, their empty spots only become filled by infinitely respawning snipers after you kill them. It becomes painfully obvious that the game is shoehorning you into their linear scripted path, and takes away any impact the scene has.[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj_5QuLiOUA[/media]
[QUOTE=kanesenpai~;39070697]another one of my gripes with Spec Ops
the big "emotional" scenes like the white phosphorus lose all emotional impact when you realize how the game so cheaply forces you into it.
In the dialogue before the scene, Lugo and Adams argue whether or not you should use it. Because of their discussion about choice, and the fact you have to go to the mortar and activate it yourself, make me as a player think that I can choose to use it or take them out the hard way. So on my first try, I decided to not use the mortar. After taking out some of the rooftop snipers, their empty spots only become filled by infinitely respawning snipers after you kill them. It becomes painfully obvious that the game is shoehorning you into their linear scripted path, and takes away any impact the scene has.[/QUOTE]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't there a good two hundred soldiers stationed at the gate? How many soldiers did you kill?
Because as far as I'm aware, the game never stops you from just shooting at them. But you'd run out of bullets before they run out of soldiers. And they're in an entrenched position with ATVs. You'll lose. You can fight without the white phosporous, but you'll lose.
The point of the segment was to show that the winning move was to not fight at all. That just because a force stands in the way of something it isn't right to eliminate it. And if you really can't connect at all to that idea, then you probably don't like any of the games that Spec Ops is talking about and aren't the intended target for that specific scene.
[editline]2nd January 2013[/editline]
It's like watching Clockwork Orange and not liking it because you thought all along that Alex DeLarge was just a victim of society. It isn't a fault of the creators that you don't connect with the situation, just as it isn't their fault if you're offended by its contents.
I expected WarZ on the worst category
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;39070918]Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't there a good two hundred soldiers stationed at the gate? How many soldiers did you kill?
Because as far as I'm aware, the game never stops you from just shooting at them. But you'd run out of bullets before they run out of soldiers. And they're in an entrenched position with ATVs. You'll lose. You can fight without the white phosporous, but you'll lose.
The point of the segment was to show that the winning move was to not fight at all. That just because a force stands in the way of something it isn't right to eliminate it. And if you really can't connect at all to that idea, then you probably don't like any of the games that Spec Ops is talking about and aren't the intended target for that specific scene.[/QUOTE]
The other point of the segment was to show that you shouldn't always do something just because an omnipresent piece of text on the pause menu tells you to. It says "use the white phosphorus," but there isn't anything actually forcing you to other than a line of words where your orders would usually be. It deliberately asks you to do something you (hopefully) know is wrong, but you go with it anyway.
[QUOTE=Jetpack Bear;39071134]I expected WarZ on the worst category[/QUOTE]
It was only games he played.
Personally, I feel as though the game is, yes, a [I]statement[/I], albeit not a very interesting one. Spec Ops: The Line isn't a bad game, but I feel as though the praise is unjust, as it presents interesting ideas, and narrative, but without being very satisfying for the player. I play games to have fun. Bland gameplay shouldn't be a statement, it should have been interesting to play, as well as interesting to watch. I'm up for debating, but let's just keep it civilized, I'm not against you, I'm just disagreeing with your opinion.
[QUOTE=DaysBefore;39071157]It was only games he played.[/QUOTE]
He did play [b]Day[/b]Z.
[QUOTE=Hunterdnrc;39071236]Personally, I feel as though the game is, yes, a [I]statement[/I], albeit not a very interesting one. Spec Ops: The Line isn't a bad game, but I feel as though the praise is unjust, as it presents interesting ideas, and narrative, but without being very satisfying for the player. I play games to have fun. Bland gameplay shouldn't be a statement, it should have been interesting to play, as well as interesting to watch. I'm up for debating, but let's just keep it civilized, I'm not against you, I'm just disagreeing with your opinion.[/QUOTE]
I guess it ultimately depends on whether you want a good game or a good statement
i am the only person that enjoyed resident evil 6 a lot. :(
Pretty good list overall, though. Walking Dead would be my pick for GOTY, though to be fair I haven't played Spec Ops personally -- I saw quite a bit of the exposition, however, since my brother played it through in basically one sitting and I glanced over his shoulder every once in a while.
Also I would have included Hotline Miami somewhere in the top 5. (But wait, did he review Hotline Miami? Probably not.)
[QUOTE=Cone;39071297]I guess it ultimately depends on whether you want a good game or a good statement[/QUOTE]
It does. My point is is that a GOTY should have both. If anything, I liked it more for the theories about Walkerbthat came from it, not the "message."
[QUOTE=Hunterdnrc;39071236]Personally, I feel as though the game is, yes, a [I]statement[/I], albeit not a very interesting one. Spec Ops: The Line isn't a bad game, but I feel as though the praise is unjust, as it presents interesting ideas, and narrative, but without being very satisfying for the player. I play games to have fun. Bland gameplay shouldn't be a statement, it should have been interesting to play, as well as interesting to watch. I'm up for debating, but let's just keep it civilized, I'm not against you, I'm just disagreeing with your opinion.[/QUOTE]
Games can do a lot more than just provide you with fun, though. He mentioned that exact thing in his original Spec Ops review; "fun" isn't a universal factor in the greatness of a game, because there are things like horror games that gets graded after their ability to incite fear and oppression in the player (pretty much the opposite of fun). This becomes especially obvious when you look at other, more evolved forms of media such as books and films and what emotions and messages they typically intend to deliver.
Overall I don't agree with Spec Ops for GOTY. Regardless, Yahzee chose to pick it because he found its exceptional narrative qualities praise-worthy enough, acknowledging but putting aside its mediocre gameplay. He GOTY'd it because it's a game that everyone really should play.
[QUOTE=Hunterdnrc;39071432]It does. My point is is that a GOTY should have both. If anything, I liked it more for the theories about Walkerbthat came from it, not the "message."[/QUOTE]
I think GOTY is a bit much for Spec Ops. IMHO all it really has going for it is a plot with a lot of layers, great dialogue and characters, a badass soundtrack, and a fairly interesting setting. Anything more than these things sort of eludes the game's grasp, but what it does get right puts it firmly in "games to think about" territory without necessarily putting it in the "games to play" region.
[editline]2nd January[/editline]
And I mean that as in, you should only play the game as means of thinking about it. It isn't a game you play for the sake of it, it's a means to an end.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;39071480]Games can do a lot more than just provide you with fun, though. He mentioned that exact thing in his original Spec Ops review; "fun" isn't a universal factor in the greatness of a game, because there are things like horror games that gets graded after their ability to incite fear and oppression in the player (pretty much the opposite of fun). This becomes especially obvious when you look at other, more evolved forms of media such as books and films and what emotions and messages they typically intend to deliver.
Overall I don't agree with Spec Ops for GOTY. Regardless, Yahzee chose to pick it because he found its exceptional narrative qualities praise-worthy enough, acknowledging but putting aside its mediocre gameplay. He GOTY'd it because it's a game that everyone really should play.[/QUOTE]
don't know about you but i play horror games because its fun to be frightened
for me, dishonored is my favorite game this year.
[QUOTE=kaskade700;39068009]Generally multiplayer focus = steaming pile of shit in Yahtzee world.
He is indeed a clever man.[/QUOTE]
Did he ever review TF2? And I'm talking release day TF2, not TF2: hat trading sim. I dunno why but I get the impression he wouldn't [I] completely[/I] hate that one.
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;39071764]
for me, dishonored is my favorite game this year.[/QUOTE]
Seconded. That game has such an awesome back story. It's so different from anything else, and best of all, the gameplay allowed me the option of knocking out almost everyone in an area, picking them up and [I]dumping them all on the roof.[/I]
I still like to imagine what it would be like when they woke up...
[QUOTE=Mr Shadyface;39071877]Did he ever review TF2? And I'm talking release day TF2, not TF2: hat trading sim. I dunno why but I get the impression he wouldn't [I] completely[/I] hate that one.[/QUOTE]
He's said multiple times that he used to play TF2 quite a bit. And he did it, somewhat, when he did the Orange Box a few years ago.
[QUOTE=Hunterdnrc;39068087]Jesus Christ [sp]Spec Ops was not that fantastic.[/sp]
Here's even a video why. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mvAqlrEfk[/url][/QUOTE]
This guy thinks that Spec Ops was meant to be some super deep criticism of war.
People praise it because it's a criticism about how boringly gung-ho games are about killing.
He even acknowledges it at the end what the fuck is he doing?
Optimistically it's a game that opens the gates for other, larger developers to try out some stories that [I]actually[/I] go into the deeper themes this guy assume Spec Ops presents by pointing to it and going "Nobody go offended or upset over that."
[QUOTE=Mr Shadyface;39071877]Did he ever review TF2? And I'm talking release day TF2, not TF2: hat trading sim. I dunno why but I get the impression he wouldn't [I] completely[/I] hate that one.
[/QUOTE]
He did review the Orange box way back then, and more recently he described TF2 with something along the lines of "[I]... a multiplayer experience matched only by competitive breast massage[/I]" :v:
[QUOTE=kanesenpai~;39070697]another one of my gripes with Spec Ops
the big "emotional" scenes like the white phosphorus lose all emotional impact when you realize how the game so cheaply forces you into it.
In the dialogue before the scene, Lugo and Adams argue whether or not you should use it. Because of their discussion about choice, and the fact you have to go to the mortar and activate it yourself, make me as a player think that I can choose to use it or take them out the hard way. So on my first try, I decided to not use the mortar. After taking out some of the rooftop snipers, their empty spots only become filled by infinitely respawning snipers after you kill them. It becomes painfully obvious that the game is shoehorning you into their linear scripted path, and takes away any impact the scene has.[/QUOTE]
the devs actually wanted to force your hand at that part. they said they wanted the player to be mad at the game for making them do it.
it's a "the only way to win is to not play" situation.
I don't think I've ever watched one of Yahtzee's videos for the actual review. I just think he's pretty funny.
[QUOTE=ShazzyFreak0;39072251]the devs actually wanted to force your hand at that part. they said they wanted the player to be mad at the game for making them do it.
it's a "the only way to win is to not play" situation.[/QUOTE]
Indeed, there is another obscure example of a title that explored this particular gameplay meta-concept (and more); [url=http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=95511356]The Stanley Parable[/url].
[QUOTE=Hunterdnrc;39071432]It does. My point is is that a GOTY should have both. If anything, I liked it more for the theories about Walkerbthat came from it, not the "message."[/QUOTE]
It's his GOTY, he can have whatever criteria he wants on it. I haven't played it myself, but I'd say that even with lackluster gameplay it manages to leave a longlasting impression and a message to people who play it. I'd say that's GOTY material.
My biggest criticism with Spec Ops The Line doesn't lie with the game itself, but rather the praise that has been veritably piled on top of it, quite deliberately to hide the games true nature. It's not terrible; I'd give it a solid 7. It has workable combat mechanics and a pretty good story all things considered. It takes place in an entirely unique location and the characters are genuinely interesting. I don't personally think it deserves GOTY but if someone wants to give 2012 to the mediocre third person shooter with a good story then whatevs.
No, my problem has to do with the pretentious-level of "criticism" the game gets. We can't simply say "It's an okay game with a good story, pick it up". Every flaw that is in the game actually has to be some sort of super-meta reference to the games industry and the military complex. It's a biting commentary on todays social issues. The controls are rough not because it's a relatively inexperienced developer but because the game is supposed to be[I] intentionally not fun to play. [/I]The game forces you into doing shit like the [sp]white phosphorous[/sp] scene and when you criticize it as what it is, a hamfisted attempt by the developers to make you emotional, oh that's what they intended.
If Bioware or Treyarch tried some of the shit Spec Ops The Line does and made their excuse up as "We intentionally made the game mechanically unsound to evoke a reaction from the player", they would be tarred in feathered in a fucking instant. But because Spec Op (supposedly) is targeting the "dudebro" shooters everything is hunky dory because it buys into our preconceived notions of those games and the people that play them.
Not to mention even [B]Black Ops 2[/B] manages to have choices throughout the game that affect the ending
If you buy games expecting them to be mediocre then you'll be pleasantly surprised
Other than that it's a slightly above average game overall
[editline]2nd January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Raidyr;39072910].[/QUOTE]
Trying to criticize this game is almost as hard as trying to criticize pieces of art in front of hipsters
Even if something is bad, that's because it was INTENDED BY THE CREATOR to be that way and it SUCCEEDED BY INVOKING EMOTIONS (of anger generally)
[QUOTE=Raidyr;39072910]My biggest criticism with Spec Ops The Line doesn't lie with the game itself, but rather the praise that has been veritably piled on top of it, quite deliberately to hide the games true nature. It's not terrible; I'd give it a solid 7. It has workable combat mechanics and a pretty good story all things considered. It takes place in an entirely unique location and the characters are genuinely interesting. I don't personally think it deserves GOTY but if someone wants to give 2012 to the mediocre third person shooter with a good story then whatevs.
No, my problem has to do with the pretentious-level of "criticism" the game gets. We can't simply say "It's an okay game with a good story, pick it up". Every flaw that is in the game actually has to be some sort of super-meta reference to the games industry and the military complex. It's a biting commentary on todays social issues. The controls are rough not because it's a relatively inexperienced developer but because the game is supposed to be[I] intentionally not fun to play. [/I]The game forces you into doing shit like the [sp]white phosphorous[/sp] scene and when you criticize it as what it is, a hamfisted attempt by the developers to make you emotional, oh that's what they intended.
If Bioware or Treyarch tried some of the shit Spec Ops The Line does and made their excuse up as "We intentionally made the game mechanically unsound to evoke a reaction from the player", they would be tarred in feathered in a fucking instant. But because Spec Op (supposedly) is targeting the "dudebro" shooters everything is hunky dory because it buys into our preconceived notions of those games and the people that play them.[/QUOTE]
It's just a matter of how the devs have executed the gameplay as a narrative metaphor and how their presenting their story.
Like, lets take a look at Far Cry 3, a game that the writer vehemently says is a satirical and deconstructive take on shooters and the act of shooting people itself. It plays solidly, like a shooter should, movement feels fine, you can feel the impact of hitting your enemies and so on and so forth.
It feels good to play, is my main point.
Now Spec Ops: the Line has a very austere and spartan approach to its mechanical design, everything feels rather impactless and very typical of the genre, the guns just act as they should and as you expect, but without feeling rewarding.
It's a dull experience.
So here we have to very different mechanical approaches to how two fairly similar games are designed. But the important thing is that both games are said to be a deconstructive and satirical take on the wider motives and mechanics behind shooters. The fact that Far Cry 3 still feels like its rewarding the typical shooter gameplay, while being critical of it means there is a tonal disconnect between the general gameplay and the narrative. This doesn't happen in Spec Ops: The Line because the gameplay is designed with the narrative in mind.
Complaining that Yager designed the gameplay mechanics to benefit their narrative approach is like complaining that The Walking Dead's gameplay [i]is[/i] the narrative.
Having said that, while I believe that The Line is an incredibly important game, and an indictment on the shooter genre that it has needed for a while, I do not believe it deserves a GOTY award, it deserves recognition for sure, but I do not feel it is the best game to come out this year. That would either be Dishonored or X-COM: Enemy Unknown.
[QUOTE=Jund;39073025]Not to mention even [B]Black Ops 2[/B] manages to have choices throughout the game that affect the ending
If you buy games expecting them to be mediocre then you'll be pleasantly surprised
Other than that it's a slightly above average game overall
[editline]2nd January 2013[/editline]
Trying to criticize this game is almost as hard as trying to criticize pieces of art in front of hipsters
Even if something is bad, that's because it was INTENDED BY THE CREATOR to be that way and it SUCCEEDED BY INVOKING EMOTIONS (of anger generally)[/QUOTE]
It seems Treyarch's Call of Duty is more better than Infinity Ward's "Spunkgargleweewee"
[QUOTE=The Stills;39073177]
Complaining that Yager designed the gameplay mechanics to benefit their narrative approach is like complaining that The Walking Dead's gameplay [I]is[/I] the narrative.[/QUOTE]
Except I'm not complaining about that, I'm complaining that the mechanics just aren't very good and that I don't buy into the "Game is good because its purposefully bad" idea.
I'm glad you brought up Far Cry 3 though, a game that does something similar to what Spec Ops does but in a much more enjoyable to play package with exponentially more content.
[QUOTE]Having said that, while I believe that The Line is an incredibly important game, and an indictment on the shooter genre that it has needed for a while [/QUOTE]
It really isn't, and the shooter genre doesn't need indictments it needs enjoyable games. Enjoyable stories are cool and developers wanting to insert their politics into games is okay as long as it's done well (Spec Ops gets hamfisted at times) but, and I may just be old fashioned here, games should be judged atleast mostly on the gameplay, and not the narrative.
[editline]2nd January 2013[/editline]
Basically, I disagree with the idea that the gameplay was intentionally made poor to fit with the narrative, and even if it was (no way to know now, cats out of the bag on that one) I'd call that a pretty stupid way to make a video game.
I think you're being too critical on the mechanics, they are by no stretch of the imagination [i]bad[/i] they just do everything that you expect them to, they are the most typical and generic mechanics a shooter needs to function.
And that's exactly the point by making the mechanics generic and as simple as they could, they create the right frame of mind to be lulled into a false sense of security, you can't tell me that it didn't help the narrative to be in the mindset "yep, just another shooter, no worries." when the game pulls the rug out from under you with the [sp]White Phosphorus[/sp] event.
The [sp]White Phsophorus[/sp] scene is effectively The Line's [sp]Would You Kindly?[/sp] scene, except instead of meandering about for a few more hours, in direct betrayal of the very message the scene tried to make, it goes on to reinforce the message made by the scene by continuing the character arc and making the narrative progressively and progressively more emotionally ravaging.
[QUOTE=The Stills;39073484]I think you're being too critical on the mechanics, they are by no stretch of the imagination [I]bad[/I] they just do everything that you expect them to, they are the most typical and generic mechanics a shooter needs to function.[/QUOTE]
I'm not being too critical, I'm being critical enough. I already noted that the game is, in my book, solid. It works for what it is. I just disagree that the mechanics aren't very interesting because the developers purposefully made them so.
[QUOTE]And that's exactly the point by making the mechanics generic and as simple as they could, they create the right frame of mind to be lulled into a false sense of security, you can't tell me that it didn't help the narrative to be in the mindset "yep, just another shooter, no worries." when the game pulls the rug out from under you with the [sp]White Phosphorus[/sp] event.[/QUOTE]
Are you suggesting that the game wouldn't have worked without movement and shooting being more enjoyable?
Also the rug wasn't really pulled out from under me as that scene was incredibly hamfisted and arbitrary to continue progressing through the game. [sp]Oh I guess I can't rappel down and I don't have the health or ammo to actually fight the enemies anyway, I guess I have to use this mortar. Oh now the game is forcing me to use it on a Humvee instead of dropping down and using an RPG. Oh now my mortar shells explosion radius suddenly increased and I killed a lot of civilians[/sp]. I'd say the whole scene could have been done better if I had any kind of choice during it's happening but I'm sure that would have "broken the narrative" or some other nonsense.
[QUOTE]The [sp]White Phsophorus[/sp] scene is effectively The Line's [sp]Would You Kindly?[/sp] scene[/QUOTE]
Well the [sp]Bioshock[/sp] scene was much better than the white phosphorous one but I can see the comparisons sure yeah.
[QUOTE]except instead of meandering about for a few more hours, in direct betrayal of the very message the scene tried to make, it goes on to reinforce the message made by the scene by continuing the character arc and making the narrative progressively and progressively more emotionally ravaging.[/QUOTE]
I actually think a lot of the latter stuff, especially with the Radioman and your two squadmates, was pretty well done.
[editline]2nd January 2013[/editline]
This post looks like some kind of redacted CIA document :v:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
