[QUOTE=ZuXer;52501754]If I remember correctly, the part where there are 2 guys hanging and you have to choose which one you shoot to punish. No matter what you do, they both end up dead, and then later the game is giving you shit for letting them die.[/QUOTE]
You either remember wrong or didn't understand that scene. You also do get a third option to attack the snipers instead of the prisoners. Not that it matters, because there are no snipers and the two hanging men were already dead so at worst you're shooting a corpse. At the end of the game you discover that Walker is so consumed by guilt that his mind is hallucinating Konrad as some ruthless villain to justify the atrocities he committed.
You thought you had a choice but you didn't, you're just following the story of a delusional maniac.
I don't know why so many people think the game was trying to guilt trip players, to me sounds like missing the point of using videogames as a medium to tell a story. You're looking at the story from Walker's perspective, you're not him.
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;52501788]I suggest replaying the game because it doesn't present itself like that at all. Sure the first 3 minutes at best seem normal enough but the game's tone becomes surreal, threatening and ominous from the music the scenery and the mysterious DJ blasting upbeat music while you fight in middle eastern post apoc hell hole.
The game doesn't pretend to be a dumb shooter, it's an incredibly grim game from the get go with stupid shooter gameplay.[/QUOTE]
I replayed it and I don't see what you mean. The atmosphere at the start isn't any different from what you get in the beginning of a Battlefield campaign.
For me, Spec op's problem is that it came out in 2012 after a long line of great - decent next gen Third Person Shooters when everyone was looking for something new, and not 2006, where it all started with Ghost Recon AW 1 and Gears 1.
While the gameplay is fluid, nicely refined and better than the 2 games above, it's not exactly the major leap forward from those games that you're looking for, and it's had 6 years on both of those.
It's like the film Age of Ultron, completely forgettable because you've seen it all with Avengers Assemble, even though there's nothing really wrong with it.
I enjoyed it but i can't lie, the reason I played it was for the Story.
[QUOTE=haloguy234;52501458]I feel so bad because I picked this game up a few months after it released, and I couldn't take it. I got all the way up to I think chapter 3 before getting bored of the bland mechanics and putting it away. Years later I read up on the game and of course had all of the fun stuff spoiled, but it made me feel awful. It made me wonder how many other people out there felt the same way and quit playing it, never to experience what the game really had to offer.
I think what upsets me most about it is how, as stated in this video, the signs of what the game has to offer are right there in the main menu.[/QUOTE]
don't feel awful, what you're describing is the primary failing of the game
the players aren't to blame if the game isn't appealing enough for people to get through to the interesting story
[editline]24th July 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ryo Ohki;52502003]
You thought you had a choice but you didn't, you're just following the story of a delusional maniac.
I don't know why so many people think the game was trying to guilt trip players, to me sounds like missing the point of using videogames as a medium to tell a story. You're looking at the story from Walker's perspective, you're not him.[/QUOTE]
the thing that distinguishes videogames from other forms of fiction is the ability of the player to interact with the artwork, and in some cases, to alter the flow and outcome of the story
to say that "you're not him", and that criticisms from those players is missing the point of videogames as a medium is, to me, the cleanest miss of videogames as a medium, and the greatest squandering of what videogames does that no other medium can - interaction and agency within a framework
this isn't to say spec ops did, or didn't succeed, but i think your defence of it here really falls flat
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52502157]the thing that distinguishes videogames from other forms of fiction is the ability of the player to interact with the artwork, and in some cases, to alter the flow and outcome of the story
to say that "you're not him", and that criticisms from those players is missing the point of videogames as a medium is, to me, the cleanest miss of videogames as a medium, and the greatest squandering of what videogames does that no other medium can - interaction and agency within a framework
this isn't to say spec ops did, or didn't succeed, but i think your defence of it here really falls flat[/QUOTE]
I agree with your point to a certain degree. It is definitely the strong suit of video games as a medium to give the player agency, but I also think there is definitely room for video games to completely take that agency away to fulfill a specific narrative, like they did with Walker. They're just two different kinds of storytelling that some may have certain preferences about.
I think the reason why this kind of storytelling is not well understood is because gamers are not used to being walled off from who they're playing as. The last few decades of RPGs and vague military shooters have conditioned us to expect that the character we control is an extension of ourselves.
[editline].[/editline]
It's a bit like, you've been reading choose-your-own-adventure books all your life and then you read The Shining and don't get why you can't stop Jack from trying to murder his family. Apples and oranges
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52502157]the thing that distinguishes videogames from other forms of fiction is the ability of the player to interact with the artwork, and in some cases, to alter the flow and outcome of the story
to say that "you're not him", and that criticisms from those players is missing the point of videogames as a medium is, to me, the cleanest miss of videogames as a medium, and the greatest squandering of what videogames does that no other medium can - interaction and agency within a framework
this isn't to say spec ops did, or didn't succeed, but i think your defence of it here really falls flat[/QUOTE]
It's a subversion that plays on your expectation, you automatically assume Walker's actions are righteous and the difficult choices you need to make to fight a perceived evil justify your actions, and so does Walker himself.
The fact that the game gives you the illusion of control and then takes it away from you makes the ending even more shocking, because Walker coming to terms with reality is as much a shock for him as it is for you, the player that has been walking that path with him.
Walker isn't inherently evil, he's a delusional, broken man. His unwillingness to accept the consequences of his actions sent him on a downward spiral of madness and violence. He did really think he was doing the right thing, and so did we.
But the game isn't berating you for "falling for it", or even shooting pixels on a screen. Aside from just telling Walker's story, it just wants to make you think, how many times in games have you done terrible things without really questioning whether it was the right thing to do? How many shooters did you play where the hero slaughters hundred of enemies and in the end we never really thought twice whether it was the right thing to do?
I don't understand why this game is so divisive for people. It seems like either you love it despite its flaws or hate it with a burning passion.
The problem is that for what the writing does pull off, even if occasionally a little too on the nose (the loading screen 'tips' descending into comments directly aimed at the player don't really help the game's image despite fitting perfectly with how surreal it gets), the gameplay does let it down. It's solid, it's standard, it represents a gameplay that fits the characters thematically seeing as they are trained special ops soldiers and all, and the further you go into the game, the more aggressive and advancing the player has to get as everything just goes to absolute shit.
But as Raycevick himself pointed out, the inconsistent advertising, the perception for multiple chapters up until close to midgame that it is a generic third-person-shooter a dime a dozen, and other things like the worthless and broken multiplayer, break the game. Couple that with a storyline that is absolutely biting towards its own genre yet continues to use its conventions without a hint of irony here and there, all the while blasting Walker for his madness and shooting jabs at the player in the process (to the point that when Lugo freaks out about the white phosphorous and Walker turning them into nothing more than killers, he seems to almost be pointing more at the camera than at Walker), and it's easy for the average person who paid $60 on release on the off-chance that the game looked interesting to just write it off or even despise it.
It's a very volatile product one way or another.
[QUOTE=ZuXer;52501805]This, also I remember a few pre-release interviews and they were all nudge nudge wink wink this game is different guys.
I guess what's the main fault is, is that they did try to have a new and innovative, thought provoking story, and there are elements that really did make it seem like they tried, but then you have the majority of the game that's just bad. If you want to do something new, then go for it all the way, don't half-ass it. If you want to show the horrors of war, and the fucked up shit that you do in shooters, don't make the player take a bunch of on rails turret sections where you mow down people. That's why it's insulting, it tries to berate these actions, then forces you to do the same shit. It's like ironic shitposting, it's still shitposting.
Feels like the game has an identity crisis. Maybe that's what happened, they wanted to be different, but still wanted to appeal to a lot of people, or the publisher intervened, but with this, it kinda undermines their intentions. I feel like this story would've worked better in an indie game or if the entire game, with both story and gameplay was fully behind it. And I mean, it can be done with games, the ending of MGS3 where you have to actually pull the trigger got more of a reaction out of me with that sequence, than the entire 8 hour snore and groanfest spec ops is.[/QUOTE]
Despite that, The Line seems to do what it should better than MGS5.
Why?
Well, based on what we saw before MGS5 was released, from trailers and from what was told to us, it seemed like it was gonna be a story about revenge, with a lot of guilt tripping in between, for your actions throught the game. Knowing this, I expected loads of imagery and plays around BB, as we got with this game.
Alas, that fell flat through the floor. The only thing that sort of reaches that level of story telling is the part where you kill the infected in your base, and even then, its very badly built up, and further loses its strength with the clumsy cinematic after you kill them. It ends up being a chore, almost like cleaning a house. You aren't really given a choice, and it ends up being a thing you HAVE to do, even if the game doesn't implies that you have to do it.
You don't get anything haunting you for the things you've done. The most you get is people talking behind your back, and Huey giving you shit, trying to shift the blame onto you.
You're never really pointed any fingers for your actions, other than bringing Quiet into the base, and even then that isn't a big deal. Shooting your comrades is the worst you'll ever do, and even then, you're pretty much putting them out of their misery and ending what could be an outbreak.
I'd imagine that Spec Ops tells you that you "have to do it". That you're just following orders, but that in the end, there were no orders. That you didn't have to carelessly burn a group of people. And the game slowly shows you what you're turning into, and what you've been doing, and how awful it is.
MGS5 has the same "bloodier the less good you are" mechanic, but all that does is...? I mean, you could kill a fuckton of people, and in the end, that only impacts your nukes or whatever. It doesn't really tie into the story.
It's as if a car had a gauge for the window washer fluid. Yes, its there, and its telling you how much is there left, but do you really care about it in the end? It's just window washer, it won't impact anything else other than a dirty window, unlike a fuel or an oil gauge.
It doesn't help that its reversible either. You could start being "good" again and instead of killing people you just knock them out or extract them, and you'll be seen as a good boy again.
For a game that is supposed to show you some drastic actions and revenge, that indeed do happen against the villain of the story, it sure gets you scot free once you've been as good or better as you've been evil. And that ultimately ruined the story aspect of the game. I understand there were constraints with Kojima, but he could have crafted something better for a story, and have a real story of vengeance and guilt because of the so paraded sins of the father.
The Line, even if a bit on the nose, seems to do this a lot better, albeit with no choice over your actions.
[editline]24th July 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=DinoJesus;52502528]I don't understand why this game is so divisive for people. It seems like either you love it despite its flaws or hate it with a burning passion.[/QUOTE]
Seems like people hate it because other people love and praise it.
Just like how Ray talked about people calling certain things pretentious.
[QUOTE=Ryo Ohki;52502515]It's a subversion that plays on your expectation, you automatically assume Walker's actions are righteous and the difficult choices you need to make to fight a perceived evil justify your actions, and so does Walker himself.
The fact that the game gives you the illusion of control and then takes it away from you makes the ending even more shocking, because Walker coming to terms with reality is as much a shock for him as it is for you, the player that has been walking that path with him.
Walker isn't inherently evil, he's a delusional, broken man. His unwillingness to accept the consequences of his actions sent him on a downward spiral of madness and violence. He did really think he was doing the right thing, and so did we.
But the game isn't berating you for "falling for it", or even shooting pixels on a screen. Aside from just telling Walker's story, it just wants to make you think, how many times in games have you done terrible things without really questioning whether it was the right thing to do? How many shooters did you play where the hero slaughters hundred of enemies and in the end we never really thought twice whether it was the right thing to do?[/QUOTE]
i don't think that's the case - it's not a subversion for me because no shooters of that period offered any choice (that was the problem with shooters of that period), and considering that "No Russian" was in 2009, the dudebro gaming market was pretty exposed to questioning the horrific actions they were doing
and that's exactly the problem: the player isn't walking the path with walker, the player is forced into the path with him because it's the only way to play the game - if the player was offered a choice, then the outcome would have weight, because then the player [I]did[/I] assume that Walker's way was righteous, and [I]did[/I] assume that the ends justified the means
but the problem is the player isn't offered any choice, you simply can't progress through the game if you don't white phosphorous the dudes, you can't progress through the story without doing the horrific actions
the game asking a question of how many times you've done terrible things without really questioning it is a disingenous question when the game forces you to do terrible things, and gives you no opportunity to question it
there's an ethical axiom from Kant called [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ought_implies_can"]ought implies can[/URL] which I think really pushes how i feel here: there's no meaningful ethical message, because you cannot ascribe ethical value to forced action, it's not legitimate
what I will say is this:
spec ops is brilliantly written, does an exceptional job of setting the scene, and the idea of using Dubai as a setting is genius but i think trying to put a player-focused ethical point to it pushes past what the game is capable of, and is exactly why there's so much push-back against the game in discussions like this
I dunno, I didn't feel the gameplay was any better or worse than your next average third person shooter. The story elevates it
Third person shooters are my favorite video game genre.
As third person shooter gameplay usually goes, Spec Ops: The Line felt great, besides the vault and melee button being on the same button. Sliding into cover is awesome, I wish that was more of a thing. The cover system lets you aim directly on the left and right side (And crouch in cover) without exposing your entire body, as well as allowing you to blind fire in all directions. It's surprising how many third person shooters forget about these essential things. (Watch Dogs, GTA V)
The most important thing to me in a TPS is how much detail has been put into the weapon and character animations. Spec ops has perfect weapon animation with all of the slides, chambers, and magazines fully animated and functional. The player animations on Walker are contextually fitting as well. When you sit in cover, you literally sit in cover. It really feels like you're taking a break from getting shot at when you're being suppressed. Let's not forget how all of his animations gradually begin changing in intensity over the course of the story.
All the right notes for an avid third person shooter player are there. I understand that a majority of people dislike the cover shooter genre, but for the people that enjoy it... this game plays great.
[QUOTE=Live2becool;52503707]Third person shooters are my favorite video game genre.
As third person shooter gameplay usually goes, Spec Ops: The Line felt great, besides the vault and melee button being on the same button. Sliding into cover is awesome, I wish that was more of a thing. The cover system lets you aim directly on the left and right side (And crouch in cover) without exposing your entire body, as well as allowing you to blind fire in all directions. It's surprising how many third person shooters forget about these essential things. (Watch Dogs, GTA V)
The most important thing to me in a TPS is how much detail has been put into the weapon and character animations. Spec ops has perfect weapon animation with all of the slides, chambers, and magazines fully animated and functional. The player animations on Walker are contextually fitting as well. When you sit in cover, you literally sit in cover. It really feels like you're taking a break from getting shot at when you're being suppressed. Let's not forget how all of his animations gradually begin changing in intensity over the course of the story.
All the right notes for an avid third person shooter player are there. I understand that a majority of people dislike the cover shooter genre, but for the people that enjoy it... this game plays great.[/QUOTE]
The M4/AR thing's piston doesn't moves though.
Sleeping Dogs does the "descent" aspect well. The game starts off with you just beating thugs up and then executions become lethal and you have more shooting sections after the massacre. Wei Shen is no longer a cop, he's a legit gangster now and he wants revenge.
It's kind of undone in the post game DLC when he goes back to being a regular cop on the street after all the people he has killed.
Batman: Arkham Knight also does madness well because of how subtle it is. You won't even notice The Joker's face flashing on billboards
[QUOTE=Dr.C;52504027]Batman: Arkham Knight also does madness well because of how subtle it is. You won't even notice The Joker's face flashing on billboards[/QUOTE]
Wait this happens?
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PVy27BKtbs[/media]
Holy shit.
I replay it just for the level design alone
I love the game but wow Desert Dubai is amazing
That canyon full of towers, wowza
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.