[QUOTE=Raidyr;39081965]
I have no idea what that last part even means
[/QUOTE]
My point was that you seem upset over the fact that the game left you no choice, as if no game is allowed to throw bad consequences in your face if it doesn't give you any option to avoid it. Believing that all the scene is just meant to make you a bit sad over something the game forced you to do is missing the point somewhat.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;39081965]But Spec Ops The Line played the exact same. There was almost no freedom to do anything you want. As far as level design it followed CoD to a tee with the same ultra-linear hallways, checkpoints, and waiting on your buddies to breach the door before being allowed to move on. When "dudebro" shooters do this its boring and contrived linearity, when Spec Ops does it it's a great example of parody or satire or whatever.[/QUOTE]
Ironic shit gameplay is still shit gameplay
[editline]3rd January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;39082829]My point was that you seem upset over the fact that the game left you no choice, as if no game is allowed to throw bad consequences in your face if it doesn't give you any option to avoid it. Thinking that all that scene is meant to do is make you a bit sad over something the game forced you to do is missing the point somewhat.[/QUOTE]
The difference between a game and a movie/book is INTERACTION
It's just a weak part of the game in itself, but the way the devs and fans defend it is so pretentious that it blows my mind
The devs are good salespeople because they understand the most basic rule of business: making your audience feel like they're smart
Watching how quickly the "enlightened" flock to worship a linear shooter because it's "satirical", and therefore better than other linear shooters is embarassing
[editline]3rd January 2013[/editline]
What about the good parts of the game? [sp]Lugo's death? The growing tension between the squad members? The batshit crazy final levels of the game as a reflection of the collapse of Walker's mental state?[/sp]
No let's just heap praise on the worst, most predictable part of the game because it makes us feel better than other linear shooter playing plebs
Loved [sp]Spec Ops[/sp]. Not sure if it's my number 1 game this year, but it definitely would crack my top 5. Had a good narrative, memorable moments, a terrific ending, great level design, and solid game play.
[QUOTE=Skyward;39079423]Well, that said, you don't need to MAKE a good game to tell when a game is shit. I can't fly a plane, but if my pilot crashed and killed everyone but me, I'd have the right to be pissed.
And no, he's not a reviewer, he IS a critic, he's said this many times himself. There's a significant difference, that doesn't make him any less knowledgeable about the subject at hand.[/QUOTE]
Sometimes it's out of the pilot's hands. Sometimes a bird flies into the engine and the pilot can't prevent the plane from crashing, no matter how skilled he or she is.
I loved the story to [sp]Spec Ops[/sp] but I wish the gameplay could have been more solid. It felt pretty boring at times. Still, the story was good enough to make me force my way through that.
[QUOTE=Jund;39074260]I wasn't [I]implying[/I] anything of the sort
Whatever message they were trying to send (if they cared about the message at all) was limited by poor execution due to lack of funding and profit margins
Therefore the representation of their message was poor, and shouldn't be lauded it way it is
[editline]2nd January 2013[/editline]
If I piss on my bedsheets and say it's an "artistic symbolism of the fallacy of modern art messages" and some scmuck pays me 5 million for it, it doesn't mean I give a rat's ass about any sort of "message"[/QUOTE]
intentional fallacy
anything within the work is subject for the audience's interpretation at their whim. profit margins or the reasons for their execution are irrelevant
I'm afraid to play Spec Ops the Line because I'm afraid going into the game expecting the "surprise" will kinda negate the effect the surprise even had
[QUOTE=koeniginator;39088745]I'm afraid to play Spec Ops the Line because I'm afraid going into the game expecting the "surprise" will kinda negate the effect the surprise even had[/QUOTE]
There's no surprise. Everyone's just playing a big joke on you. The game is mediocre at best and it's become a big joke to say that it's amazing because it looked amazing but turned into another mediocre shooter. So go play it. Now. Please.
[QUOTE=DudeGuyKT;39093643]There's no surprise. Everyone's just playing a big joke on you. The game is mediocre at best and it's become a big joke to say that it's amazing because it looked amazing but turned into another mediocre shooter. So go play it. Now. Please.[/QUOTE]
yeah the plot feels like the entire game was made to be played comp multiplayer
go play it
Happy with his entire top 5
Far Cry and XCOM are amazing
[QUOTE=thisispain;39088383]intentional fallacy
anything within the work is subject for the audience's interpretation at their whim. profit margins or the reasons for their execution are irrelevant[/QUOTE]
Oh I see it was intended to be garbage 10/10
Also that's invalidated because the author tells you how you're supposed to feel
"This is your fault. We designed these things to happen, but none of this would have happened if you hadn't put the disc in the system, picked up the controller, and played the game simply because you wanted to go on an adventure and feel like a hero."
"We wanted the players to feel angry at us, the writers, because in many ways the game lied to them, the game tricked them in some way. We want the player to think, 'I can't believe this happened' and then make the choice within themselves to keep going on or has this game crossed a line and they're just done, they're just f-ing done and they're not going to do it anymore. That gamer emotion is always meant to match the character emotion."
[QUOTE=koeniginator;39088745]I'm afraid to play Spec Ops the Line because I'm afraid going into the game expecting the "surprise" will kinda negate the effect the surprise even had[/QUOTE]
True, going into the game knowing some of the "big" scenes kinda deflates them, but it's a nice story nonetheless. If you've watched Apocalypse Now, you won't be as impressed.
Anyway, his definition of Playstation All Stars Battle Royale is perfect. I'll probably be using it anytime someone starts talking about the game.
[QUOTE] "This is your fault. We designed these things to happen, but none of this would have happened if you hadn't put the disc in the system, picked up the controller, and played the game simply because you wanted to go on an adventure and feel like a hero."[/QUOTE]
no I wanted to get some entertainment out of my $60 purchase you pretentious fuck.
I've got to say, for a while after playing it Spec Ops did make me quite Cynical of heroes in various games and films, as I took the time to think about the consequences they could bring, so I'll give it kudos for that. The story was great but I don't think the game should be heralded as anything super special considering [I]in my opinion[/I] the gameplay was boring and the campaign was really short.
I don't think it should be a role model for what every game should be like either, the world's depressing as it is. Anyways, what made the way it makes you think good is that no other game has done something like that, otherwise it'd be stale and we'd be asking for more less depressing games where you're not emotionally tied down to everything you do and can just have some fun blasting things.
[QUOTE=DudeGuyKT;39093643]There's no surprise. Everyone's just playing a big joke on you. The game is mediocre at best and it's become a big joke to say that it's amazing because it looked amazing but turned into another mediocre shooter. So go play it. Now. Please.[/QUOTE]
thanks but i'm not falling for it
[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;39093585]I'm just glad that he acknowledged how good The Walking Dead was. I think he mentioned that he only played the first two episodes and he didn't care that much about what happens next in the story, and for a game that's basically just story, I thought it would end up on his worst list, but I guess he must have picked up the other three episodes.[/QUOTE]
I figure people were nagging him about finishing it when episode 5 came out.
[QUOTE=Jund;39096019]
Also that's invalidated because the author tells you how you're supposed to feel
[/QUOTE]
what the author says about the work is utterly irrelevant
Definitely what I love the most about Spec Ops is how it subverts the shooter genre by playing with something I have long thought is entirely wrong with every 'manshooter' nowadays, and that is the blind obedience that it entices in you where you are always somehow the hero, the guy who did everything to make it right, disregarding the people you killed as it's all justified by the end. You were just following orders, whoever double crossed you is clearly evil and your intentions were always the best.
[sp]Only that, in retrospective that's not the case in this game. The 33rd never went actually rogue, they were just following orders, Lugo and Adams were just following your orders, and the weight of your actions corresponds entirely to you, the player. You are responsible, personally for the destruction of Dubai. The white phosphorus segment illustrates this perfectly. You didn't have to do it, you just did it, and immediately went on to place the blame on somebody else and went on with your mission. You chose personally to ally with the CIA on the simple basis that they weren't the ones firing at you, but the CIA was actively trying to destroy any evidence of the 33rd ever existing to avoid diplomatic backlash. John Konrad was dead for a long time and you were the only one to believe he was alive, and on top of that the one pulling the strings. You attempt to rationalize the hardships you see by creating a villain, something we do as players as well. The very first segment with the insurgents and you saving the 33rd looks generic as fuck, but without a lead villain, a ring leader, it becomes odd and unusual, and thus you start making your own conclusions.
THAT is were the game shines. The fact that you are forced to see how just playing along despite it being against your senses. You never went truly crazy, you just went there to follow orders, and when those orders stopped coming from an authority you made up that authority, and when that authority stopped handing orders you made them yourself.[/sp]
And that's what makes an otherwise discount bin game become instead a diamond in the rough.
[QUOTE=Big Bang;39102416]Definitely what I love the most about Spec Ops is how it subverts the shooter genre by playing with something I have long thought is entirely wrong with every 'manshooter' nowadays, and that is the blind obedience that it entices in you where you are always somehow the hero, the guy who did everything to make it right, disregarding the people you killed as it's all justified by the end. You were just following orders, whoever double crossed you is clearly evil and your intentions were always the best.
[sp]Only that, in retrospective that's not the case in this game. The 33rd never went actually rogue, they were just following orders, Lugo and Adams were just following your orders, and the weight of your actions corresponds entirely to you, the player. You are responsible, personally for the destruction of Dubai. The white phosphorus segment illustrates this perfectly. You didn't have to do it, you just did it, and immediately went on to place the blame on somebody else and went on with your mission. You chose personally to ally with the CIA on the simple basis that they weren't the ones firing at you, but the CIA was actively trying to destroy any evidence of the 33rd ever existing to avoid diplomatic backlash. John Konrad was dead for a long time and you were the only one to believe he was alive, and on top of that the one pulling the strings. You attempt to rationalize the hardships you see by creating a villain, something we do as players as well. The very first segment with the insurgents and you saving the 33rd looks generic as fuck, but without a lead villain, a ring leader, it becomes odd and unusual, and thus you start making your own conclusions.
THAT is were the game shines. The fact that you are forced to see how just playing along despite it being against your senses. You never went truly crazy, you just went there to follow orders, and when those orders stopped coming from an authority you made up that authority, and when that authority stopped handing orders you made them yourself.[/sp]
And that's what makes an otherwise discount bin game become instead a diamond in the rough.[/QUOTE]
Finally someone who gets it. People forget that it's a TPS, and about Walker, not you specifically.
[QUOTE=Big Bang;39102416]Definitely what I love the most about Spec Ops is how it subverts the shooter genre by playing with something I have long thought is entirely wrong with every 'manshooter' nowadays, and that is the blind obedience that it entices in you where you are always somehow the hero, the guy who did everything to make it right, disregarding the people you killed as it's all justified by the end.[/QUOTE]
This is a silly point. It's a game, I could give two shits if I'm gunning down faceless terrorists for 'Murricuh or whatever, it's not meant to make me feel for the guys I'm killing. There are quite a few games where the "bad guys" are given a voice/face so the player can have sympathy/thoughts about who the real bad guy is. Fuck, even BLOPS II did that, while maintaining entertaining gameplay.
[quote][sp]The 33rd never went actually rogue, they were just following orders, Lugo and Adams were just following your orders, and the weight of your actions corresponds entirely to you, the player.[/sp][/quote]
[sp]Yes they did. The were supposed to pull out and they did not, they were treasonous, and just because they were taking orders from a nut doesn't make them "innocent." Same goes for Lugo and Adams, they're guilty by association[/sp].
[quote][sp]You are responsible, personally for the destruction of Dubai. The white phosphorus segment illustrates this perfectly. You didn't have to do it, you just did it, and immediately went on to place the blame on somebody else and went on with your mission.[/sp][/quote]
[sp]Again, you [B]have[/B] to do the WP. You HAVE TO. "You're forced to see what damage you did" point is null as well because other man shooter games don't have you using something that was illegal. It's an interesting idea, but it would of had more of an impact if you were shooting them, like we have done in countless other shooter games. The AC130 segment is different if not only for the fact that there is no suffering when you were mowing terrorists down, they're gone in a moment. But you had to do it. You had to kill the civilians. You had to fire upon the friendlies, because Walker as a character is a fucking crazy son of a bitch. That doesn't provide any depth at all, just scripted story.[/sp]
[quote][sp]You chose personally to ally with the CIA on the simple basis that they weren't the ones firing at you, but the CIA was actively trying to destroy any evidence of the 33rd ever existing to avoid diplomatic backlash.[/sp][/quote]
Okay? [sp]If anything, it's a generic plot twist. THE CIA WAS DOING NAUGHTY ALL ALONG!!! Even that isn't REALLY the case, unless I misintrepreted the game, I'm pretty sure the CIA was taking out Konrad, because he was actively committing war crimes.[/sp] What's your point?
[quote][sp]John Konrad was dead for a long time and you were the only one to believe he was alive, and on top of that the one pulling the strings. You attempt to rationalize the hardships you see by creating a villain, something we do as players as well. The very first segment with the insurgents and you saving the 33rd looks generic as fuck, but without a lead villain, a ring leader, it becomes odd and unusual, and thus you start making your own conclusions.[/sp][/quote]
[sp]But Konrad WAS still the villain. He wasn't a good man, and he caused a lot of the problems in Dubai. I don't understand what you're trying the say. The game had a clear cut villain, even if he was dead.[/sp]
[quote][sp]THAT is were the game shines. The fact that you are forced to see how just playing along despite it being against your senses. You never went truly crazy, you just went there to follow orders, and when those orders stopped coming from an authority you made up that authority, and when that authority stopped handing orders you made them yourself.[/sp]
[/quote]
[sp]"The fact that you are forced to see how just playing along despite it being against your senses." This bothers me. Spec Ops is NOT the first game to do this. What about No Russian in MW2? The [I]exact[/I] same thing can be said, you were just following orders even though it was horrible. Walker on the other hand is nuts. He's crazy. He sees things that aren't there. Having to make up decisions doesn't make you talk to a broken radio.[/sp]
Tl;dr
Spec Ops: The Line is a good game. The story [I]is[/I] interesting, the game play is par level. The story, paired with the twists is interesting, but this deep meta meaning is stupid as hell, and I wouldn't be shocked if the developers didn't mean any of it. It's a fine story about Walker, it really is, it may even be considered great, but it's not anything special.
[QUOTE=G-Strogg;39103981]Finally someone who gets it.[/QUOTE]
There isn't anything to get, it's subjective.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
