• From Spec Ops: The Line to a AAA free-to-play shooter
    76 replies, posted
For Yager: [t]http://i4.minus.com/jbnR5FFR8zoMKi.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;43072269]For Yager: [t]http://i4.minus.com/jbnR5FFR8zoMKi.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] [t]http://puu.sh/5Cn4h.png[/t]
[QUOTE=DudeGuyKT;43072369][t]http://puu.sh/5Cn4h.png[/t][/QUOTE] Oh my god, that is gonna make a perfect reaction image now.
[QUOTE=Super Muffin;43072029]Are you joking? I'm serious this comparison makes no sense. New Vegas is the furthest thing possible from any artistic merit. It's a game with awful aesthetics, broken gameplay, and bland writing.[/QUOTE] The more I've played it, the more I've come to appreciate the writing in New Vegas. It was very ambitious in its endings. You could go triple agent and screw everyone over at the last moment. A lot of possibilities for how you can manipulate the game's endings are possible. Also I once did a non-lethal playthrough for fun and discovered that you could do almost every quest in the main game without killing any living thing with the exception of missions that tell you up-front that you will need to assassinate someone outright. The flexibility in how you can approach the missions impressed me, it was almost Deus Ex levels of choice in that regard. [editline]4th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;43071354]I feel like The Line only works if you, the player, are tuned into the same train of thought as the main character.[sp] In the white phosphorous scene, I didn't think twice at the chance to blow up the entire bad guy camp because I thought the only problem that could possibly arise was using a controversial weapon. When I got down to the ground and realized what actually happened, my jaw literally dropped - the game convinced me that it was actually my choice (which it was, in a way), so I felt guilty, like it intended, from that point on.[/sp] I can sympathize with the people who, when getting to the [sp]white phosphorous, realized what was going on and refused to do it and were forced to by the game, didn't have the same emotional impact. If you catch onto it early then the whole game becomes a cheap attempt at making you feel bad for things you didn't do. That's a valid complaint.[/sp][/QUOTE] I thought the devs at one point wanted for some people to realize the shallowness put into that scene. The idea of how it railroaded players into taking these choices brought light to the illusion of choice in gaming. Like a darker version of The Stanley Parable. Being frustrated or annoyed at the game for yelling at you for doing something that you had to do was one of their desired reactions.
[QUOTE=be;43070947] "I'm supposed to feel bad about an action that the game gave me no choice but to make? I had no choice but to use the gas on those guys, the game wouldn't let me go on otherwise!" "Oh yeah! That's the genius of Spec Ops, you see, they're representing how you as a gamer are making these choices just because you have to! Don't you feel bad now?"[/QUOTE] Actually, the developers mentioned that. They said that the argument that "the game made me do it!" was fair, but they couldn't advance the story the way they wanted to if they let you do that section without using the gas.
[QUOTE=Super Muffin;43072029]Are you joking? I'm serious this comparison makes no sense. New Vegas is the furthest thing possible from any artistic merit. It's a game with awful aesthetics, broken gameplay, and bland writing.[/QUOTE] I didn't even like playing New Vegas that much, but the writing was not at all bland
[QUOTE=Samiam22;43072605]Actually, the developers mentioned that. They said that the argument that "the game made me do it!" was fair, but they couldn't advance the story the way they wanted to if they let you do that section without using the gas.[/QUOTE] they did say that during one of the early builds there was a choice to literally go back the way you came and the game would end shortly thereafter but it wasn't implemented because..i think engine limitations or something this was the lead writer's saying, and he's a pretty nice guy.
[QUOTE=Falchion;43070535]Spec ops was not that good, imho all the hype is undeserved. Even the plot wasn't too clever, even though they tried to earn some shock value.[/QUOTE] I keep trying, but i can't seem to type up an appropriate response, so i'll keep this one short. Spec ops the line did something no game had done before. It used the advertising campaign to lure everyone into a false sense of security. They expected a generic modern military shooter, and they got something completely different: A story worth playing through. That's why i like spec ops.
[QUOTE=theseltsamone;43071122]5 Kill Streak! You can now call in White Phosphorus! You lose![/QUOTE] You win! You lose!
[QUOTE=legolover122;43070663] Spec ops the line was marketed as a generic as fuck third person military shooter. The marketing worked in favor of the bait and switch story, but it didn't help people like me who saw the trailers and immediately went "fuck that."[/QUOTE] they even advertised it like that at Pax East when it was there that year. they only let people play the multiplayer.
[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;43071354]I feel like The Line only works if you, the player, are tuned into the same train of thought as the main character.[sp] In the white phosphorous scene, I didn't think twice at the chance to blow up the entire bad guy camp because I thought the only problem that could possibly arise was using a controversial weapon. When I got down to the ground and realized what actually happened, my jaw literally dropped - the game convinced me that it was actually my choice (which it was, in a way), so I felt guilty, like it intended, from that point on.[/sp] I can sympathize with the people who, when getting to the [sp]white phosphorous, realized what was going on and refused to do it and were forced to by the game, didn't have the same emotional impact. If you catch onto it early then the whole game becomes a cheap attempt at making you feel bad for things you didn't do. That's a valid complaint.[/sp][/QUOTE] I agree, the game worked perfectly for me because I had the same train of thought as the main character, that's what annoys me about the people going about the "lol what choice I had to use the white phosphorus fuck you game" like playing through the game you have basically presented to you as those are pieces of shit and your just going through the game with knowledge that they are horrible people so when the white phosphorus is presented it's like "well fuck you I don't care if there is another way or not I'm gonna teach these bitches a lesson!" I think people looked for another choice solely for the fact the game said there was, if you immerse your self into the game and have the thought of the main character why would you care if there was another choice or not, you just think "fuck these people" and want to do as much damage as possible to them. I don't think it's annoying cause people looked for another choice but to me its that it's just natural if you immerse your self into the game, it's like when people say games like Amnesia, Outlast or any horror game in existence doesn't bother them because they don't immerse themselves into the game and just have the mindset of "lol its just a game who cares" Though the marketing worked perfectly for me as well, I just got it because I thought it would be good and fun to waste my time with and didn't expect the story like that at all. But like people said that's the problem, you can't assume everyone is going to go into the game and have the same train of thought as the main character or even get the game in the first place due to what they see.
I couldn't get into Spec Ops because the entire premise basically made you play through a below-average shooter (part of the point, I guess) to experience an above average story. A story that is interesting but wouldn't have as great of an effect on a player like me who doesn't exactly play a crap ton of pseudo modern military shooters anyways (unless you count actually "realistic" stuff like Arma) partially because I think they are ridiculous in how they present themselves and their premises. I feel like for Spec Ops to "work" you have to be the kind of person who can seriously buy into or enjoy the single player campaigns from CoD, for example. I just simply can't find the time or energy to want to play through a game that doesn't really do anything for me (either in setting, gameplay, premise, etc) except the story. Its the same reason why I couldn't get through Lost Odyssey - what a great story... too bad its tucked behind an 80 hour slog-fest classic-style RPG. If thats the exact style of game you love, then great! For me, I need something more.
spoke with the lead writer and he's not a part of this project, he only found out about it shortly before i told him. F2P and military shooter just are two words that don't appeal to me anymore, but yager have made 2 good games so far
Spec Ops' story is one of the most overrated things I can think of in the past decade of games. It's literally just Heart of Darkness and the majority act like it's the most original thing to come out since sliced bread and as moving as losing a loved one.
[QUOTE=A big fat ass;43077010]Spec Ops' story is one of the most overrated things I can think of in the past decade of games. It's literally just Heart of Darkness and the majority act like it's the most original thing to come out since sliced bread and as moving as losing a loved one.[/QUOTE]Listen to them talk about how they might have PTSD after playing it and how it's more harrowing than when they were bullied in high school.
[QUOTE=A big fat ass;43077010]Spec Ops' story is one of the most overrated things I can think of in the past decade of games. It's literally just Heart of Darkness and the majority act like it's the most original thing to come out since sliced bread and as moving as losing a loved one.[/QUOTE] Can I be honest and tell you all to [B]go away[/B]. This kind of story has never been told in a videogame format and just because it uses elements common to a form of media that questions war, or examines doesn't mean its a bad story. [B]THEY'RE WORKING WITHIN A GENRE WHICH HAS SET RULES THAT ARE VAGUE BUT NEED TO BE FOLLOWED FAIRLY CLOSELY.[/B]
[QUOTE=Super Muffin;43072029]Are you joking? I'm serious this comparison makes no sense. New Vegas is the furthest thing possible from any artistic merit. It's a game with awful aesthetics, broken gameplay, and bland writing.[/QUOTE] except for the fact that the writing was really good, the gameplay was really good and the graphics were fine.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;43070561]Spec Ops: The Line was interesting for me because it tried to be something different. Its failure seems to indicate to me that the industry as a whole is not yet ready to take games seriously as an artform.[/QUOTE] No, it's failure comes from being a generic third person shooter that plays awfully bad. Just because it's mechanically meant to be generic to support the story doesn't make it good, it's an awful game to play, and the story is forced upon you in the worst possible way. Making a statement about [sp]mindless killing whilst forcing you to mindlessly kill[/sp] breaks everything the game tries to stand for. I'm given no freedom to avoid the things it wants me to do in order to tell me that that is a bad thing. Without even haven seen the phosphorus scene before I [sp]immediately understood that there were civilians down in that pit.[/sp], now then, what options does the game give you to avoid [sp]blasting a bunch of civilians with phosphorus? NONE, ABSOLUTELY NO OPTIONS. The game shoves the scene into my face when it wasn't an action I wanted to take[/sp]. The point the game tries to make is completely annihilated when it forces me to do something I didn't want to do in the first place but it gives me no option not to do, except "don't play anymore". So to me, personally, Spec Ops: The Line is a bad game, a boring game. It's got awful mechanics because it wants to pretend to be a normal game, and then the reason it has awful mechanics fails because it's forced upon you which is doing the exact same thing the games it tries to criticize does. It feels telling you the point is more important than allowing you to avoid the point and commend you for that. If Spec Ops: The Line instead gave you an option to NOT [sp]mindlessly kill "bad people" and civilians[/sp], then it would have been much better. It could keep the storytelling and presentation the same, it just wouldn't have to force you to [sp]kill everything[/sp] to progress. The phosphorus part could have been the same, but after [sp]blasting only the people in your way, not the ones in the gravel pit[/sp] and then go out of the radar mode, then you should have been able to progress and discover [sp]the gravel pit, and see civilians, alive, and a comment could be made about how thankful you are that you didn't blast them as well[/sp]. Spec Ops: The Line is a game, not a movie, and it completely ignored everything that comes with that. I want to be punished for my actions, not for the story's actions.
You're entirely and demonstrably wrong. It's about the [I]illusion of choice[/I] in gaming. The illusion that even in these games like in Deus Ex or Fallout or Skyrim where the player is given "a lot of choice," over the events of the story, in every case the outcomes are predetermined because the script and the mission paths need to be programmed into the game. Even the "choices" you get in this game are shown to be entirely meaningless in the grand scheme of things. The only way to escape the game's predetermined path was to simply not play. This takes the concept of choice and takes it to its logical conclusion. I've thought about this at length, and I've come to the conclusion that if the game had a more traditional choice mechanic, the entire story would have been perverted and it wouldn't have been nearly as interesting. Instead of being an 8/10 it would have been a 5/10 or 6/10 in my eyes because the gameplay was shitty and it would have no interesting narrative to support it. The message would be gone, and the experience would be destroyed instantly. Also anybody who says the bad gameplay was intentional is full of shit. I love the game but not enough to bullshit myself. It wasn't fun to play and it's only worth two play throughs at most on easy.
i played it on FUBAR recently i can say that wasnt very fun but the story felt more "rewarding" when you finally finished the worst areas
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;43080944]You're entirely and demonstrably wrong. It's about the [I]illusion of choice[/I] in gaming. The illusion that even in these games like in Deus Ex or Fallout or Skyrim where the player is given "a lot of choice," over the events of the story, in every case the outcomes are predetermined because the script and the mission paths need to be programmed into the game. Even the "choices" you get in this game are shown to be entirely meaningless in the grand scheme of things. The only way to escape the game's predetermined path was to simply not play. This takes the concept of choice and takes it to its logical conclusion. I've thought about this at length, and I've come to the conclusion that if the game had a more traditional choice mechanic, the entire story would have been perverted and it wouldn't have been nearly as interesting. Instead of being an 8/10 it would have been a 5/10 or 6/10 in my eyes because the gameplay was shitty and it would have no interesting narrative to support it. The message would be gone, and the experience would be destroyed instantly. Also anybody who says the bad gameplay was intentional is full of shit. I love the game but not enough to bullshit myself. It wasn't fun to play and it's only worth two play throughs at most on easy.[/QUOTE] Oh, right, just as I said, that's shit and makes the game bad because it gives you no choice. There is no "illusion of choice" in the game. It's criticizing other games by blatantly being just like other games, in the worst way possible. Also how could you even think that when you get choices it isn't a choice only an illusion of one when you can actually take a choice? That doesn't really make sense. Yes, some games give you choices but then throws them out of the window, and [sp]this was sort of "criticized" by given you like... 2 or 3 choices throughout the game where the outcome is the same[/sp], but that's a small part of the game, and if it gave you a choice that actually changed the way a part of the game was presented, then that would be a valid choice, not an illusion of one. A choice in a game doesn't have to change the whole game, it only needs to change a part of it, as long as it doesn't promise more than that, if a choice changes the outcome of something, then it is a choice, not an illusion of one. I already mentioned that the only way to follow the message of the game was to simply not play it, and that's forced bullshit and an easy scapegoat for not putting in the effort to make your story and point work in more than one specific setting and way. Of course a traditional choice mechanic would ruin the game, a traditional choice mechanic would make it obvious to you when you have a choice, my suggestion is to keep the game exactly the same in terms of what it shows you, but in the background of it all it has a checkbox system, again with the phosphorus scene it would be like this: [sp]Check A: kill all soldiers check B: kill civilians.[/sp] only check a would need to be checked, check B is an alternative thing that can happen and changes what happens next, but if the player has only checked A, stops doing the action that can perform the objectives and keeps going, then what was before forced bullshit isn't forced bullshit and the player is commended for that by hinting at what could have happened, or something along those lines. The message SHOULD be gone if the player is proven to not be part of the demographic that the story is even trying to preach to. Forcing a person to crawl through a story "aimed at them" trying to call them out for things they don't do, believe or so on and so forth just makes it a really bad story. Again, this is not a movie, a movie is supposed to force you one story because it isn't interactive, a game is interactive, a game can speak directly to a player, and as such, when it's trying to tell the player something through the players actions, trying to teach them something, it better be the actual players actions, otherwise your story completely crashes and burns, because it's given blame to others for it's own actions.
The fact that it gives you no choice strengthens the point instead of diminishing it. It's thematically similar to the Stanley Parable in regards to "choice." You don't really ever have any true free choice in a game, you must always be restricted to the paths that the developers chose for you. You might see a game and you have a choice between saving some civilians or not but there's ultimately no choice because every outcome is predetermined and every possibility is accounted for you. You might think "I want to crawl through that window," but you can't because the developer decided that you aren't allowed to. You might think you have choice in any fps game but any power you actually have over the world outside of modding and cheating is limited to a very tiny scope where your actions are constantly being railroaded along a set developed path. Sure, the choices could change the outcome of the game but again, ultimately, it's because the developer wills it and not because you will it. Unlike in real life, in games you are ruled entirely by destiny as set by the developer even though you think you have power over the events in the game. Such a thing as true freedom is arguably an impossibility by the very nature of the medium. (Unless you talk about games like Dwarf Fortress but for the sake of this discussion let's keep with FPS/action games with overarching narratives.) Your proposed change of giving the player the option to not kill the civilians, even in the background, would utterly destroy the entire theme of the game in which a three man squad descends totally into madness and despair. The disconnect between the player and Walker would never be there, and it would be [I]exactly[/I] like a modern Call of Duty/Medal of Honor clone and it would descend even further into the mediocrity that you believe it inhabits. The notion of allowing the player to have a "happy ending" is totally against the goals of the game. Walker's orders are to get in and get out. Walker decides to be the hero. You can see plainly the monster that Walker is becoming and plainly disagree with his actions and motives, yet keep going anyway because you as a gamer expect for it to all work out in the end as most typical games do, but it really doesn't. I believe that the way it subverts the most common conventions in games in its class makes it a wonderful experience that is quite unlike any game that I've ever played, but that would be a very long winded discussion indeed. Also, consider another facet that I don't see often explored in these games. The game takes a rather harsh look at PTSD in soldiers, and one possible interpretation could be how it's chastising the player for taking pleasure in an experience that is designed to simulate the conditions that real soldiers might go through, albeit in a much more exaggerated fashion, and come back mentally scared for the rest of their lives. Or, at least, it's examining the paradoxes inherent in such a form of entertainment. It doesn't have to be about yelling at the player for liking to go out in real life and napalm balm people, but it could be enough to make players question why, as a culture, we enjoy these power fantasies so much when in reality these actions are terrible, evil things. All of this stuff is open to interpretation. You might think it's stupid but I think it's beautiful and that the discussion among gamers that the developers wanted to spark was worthwhile. [editline]5th December 2013[/editline] A discussion like this could go on forever so I'll just call it a day there.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;43082765]The fact that it gives you no choice strengthens the point instead of diminishing it. It's thematically similar to the Stanley Parable in regards to "choice." You don't really ever have any true free choice in a game, you must always be restricted to the paths that the developers chose for you. You might see a game and you have a choice between saving some civilians or not but there's ultimately no choice because every outcome is predetermined and every possibility is accounted for you. You might think "I want to crawl through that window," but you can't because the developer decided that you aren't allowed to. You might think you have choice in any fps game but any power you actually have over the world outside of modding and cheating is limited to a very tiny scope where your actions are constantly being railroaded along a set developed path. Sure, the choices could change the outcome of the game but again, ultimately, it's because the developer wills it and not because you will it. Unlike in real life, in games you are ruled entirely by destiny as set by the developer even though you think you have power over the events in the game. Such a thing as true freedom is arguably an impossibility by the very nature of the medium. (Unless you talk about games like Dwarf Fortress but for the sake of this discussion let's keep with FPS/action games with overarching narratives.) Your proposed change of giving the player the option to not kill the civilians, even in the background, would utterly destroy the entire theme of the game in which a three man squad descends totally into madness and despair. The disconnect between the player and Walker would never be there, and it would be [I]exactly[/I] like a modern Call of Duty/Medal of Honor clone and it would descend even further into the mediocrity that you believe it inhabits. The notion of allowing the player to have a "happy ending" is totally against the goals of the game. Walker's orders are to get in and get out. Walker decides to be the hero. You can see plainly the monster that Walker is becoming and plainly disagree with his actions and motives, yet keep going anyway because you as a gamer expect for it to all work out in the end as most typical games do, but it really doesn't. I believe that the way it subverts the most common conventions in games in its class makes it a wonderful experience that is quite unlike any game that I've ever played, but that would be a very long winded discussion indeed. Also, consider another facet that I don't see often explored in these games. The game takes a rather harsh look at PTSD in soldiers, and one possible interpretation could be how it's chastising the player for taking pleasure in an experience that is designed to simulate the conditions that real soldiers might go through, albeit in a much more exaggerated fashion, and come back mentally scared for the rest of their lives. Or, at least, it's examining the paradoxes inherent in such a form of entertainment. It doesn't have to be about yelling at the player for liking to go out in real life and napalm balm people, but it could be enough to make players question why, as a culture, we enjoy these power fantasies so much when in reality these actions are terrible, evil things. All of this stuff is open to interpretation. You might think it's stupid but I think it's beautiful and that the discussion among gamers that the developers wanted to spark was worthwhile. [editline]5th December 2013[/editline] A discussion like this could go on forever so I'll just call it a day there.[/QUOTE] No, the fact that you have no choice completely destroys the point for anyone that isn't exactly the target audience they aimed the game at. In Stanley Parable you have a lot of choices, and it's choices you make, and as you discover what your choices do you take other choices based on that again, it's a game that only consists of choices and then seeing the consequence of your choices. Your idea of not having a true free choice is just as applicable in real life, your choices are always restriced to what's available to you at any given time, you just have so many more choices that expands the illusion of having free choices and makes it seem like there are hardly any restrictions despite there being three major factors downscaling your choices immensely (1. your abilities 2. time 3. a choice must be made (at all times)). Also, again, the very fact that, as you say, choices are limited in FPS games, railroading you through their own pre-set story as if it was a movie is why they are dreadful. Spec Ops just borrows all the terrible parts of games and says "lol no, we are terrible on purpose so it's ok, you see? Clever aren't we?" which is dreadful. Spec Ops could easily give it's game good FPS mechanics and a more expanded storyline without ruining anything, they could give the game way more depth and actually bring some punch to the message rather than stripping the player of any choice possible just in order to tell one simple story which bases itself on you being a particular kind of person with a specific set of morales and specific likes in gaming. My proposed change of not killing the civilians gives the game 10x more depth and makes people realize they are horrible when they play the game like they expect it to be played "FUCKED UP ALL THIS SHIT, FUCK YEAH" and then realize they killed civilians thanks to great imagery afterwards and also finds out (either through the game, or even better, through the internet) that they could have avoided it altogether. That gives people a reason to dig a bit into their soul, when they find out that "Jeez, I could have avoided that if I just paid a bit more attention to what was going on rather than just mindlessly blast everything". Obviously this would not apply to everybody, because it's just a game, so what the fuck, why should I care? But I believe that brings forth the point of the game 10000x more because fucking hey, it's the game questioning what you do in games and why you think it's okay to just shoot everything to progress and not give a single thought to your actions, if you actually give them a hidden possibility to actually give some thought to their actions and behave more properly, it will all give a lot more meaning, because you have chosen to NOT behave properly and get appropriately questioned by the game through it's story. In other words it would be [B]practicing what it's preaching[/B]. I never said it would have a happy ending, that would be extremely silly, I only meant that most things going on in the game that are of critical importance and involves non-forced slaughter of people should have possibilities to avoid all the excess slaughter the game criticizes you for, it shouldn't be obvious, it shouldn't hint at it's possibility, but it should be there. These actions should result in the following scene after the action giving some hint to your right-doings, if there is a cutscene or dialogue following it, of course. [sp]The ending could still remain the same, the whole point of the story would still be the same, you still charged in on your own and got lots of people unnecessarily killed and fucked up the whole place beyond belief just to become "a hero".[/sp] It would just have felt less bitchy in the end because you weren't forced to do something you didn't want to do. I also think it should have an option to return at the very start and end the game there, if anyone does that in the first play it would probably be humerous to them and then when they play the whole game it not only makes sense that they could do that making them go "ooh", but it also creates a lot of credibility to the story and the point it's trying to make. There is seriously not one good reason I can think of for why the choices it harps on at you for not taking shouldn't be present in the game in some way shape or form. It ruins all credibility when it completely forces me to do everything just for it to allow itself to make a point. It's just doing the exact same shit every other game does, mechanically and narratively, just that it's trying to criticize, and somewhat mock, those games, by being those games. Which is dumb. Also why would anyone [sp]hope for it to work out in the end[/sp] in a game like this? It never really gave the impression it would, did they? Unfortunately I played it after watching Zeropunctuation talk about it, so I wouldn't really know. But I wouldn't have played it if I didn't either, for very obvious reasons, so. I think somewhere along the line you have gotten the impression that I think the actual story and point Spec Ops: The Line made is dumb, that only leads me to believe you have completely missread what I have been saying, or rather, you have read it with a completely wrong point of view. Yes, sure, I haven't specifically mentioned what I thought of the story itself, but I have given vast support to it simply by hating on the way it's been presented and how the presentation has ruined the story itself. I don't have anything against the story and point of SO:TL, it's good and appropriate, what they are trying to do (and for many have succeeded to do) is absolutely good, it's a worthwhile piece of critique that really just reflects what people have been saying for years prior to the game's release. It's just that the way the story is presented with the game is complete fucking bollocks and is done in what I believe is the worst way possible. The way they made the game is like a movie, which is dreadful, never tell a movie story in a game, just make it a movie then. If you want to tell as story in a game, adopt the story to how a game works, don't try to adopt the game to the story. [editline]thiseditlineisfake[/editline] Also known as *I don't want to argue anymore, so I'll just have a last say on the matter*
[QUOTE=A big fat ass;43077010]Spec Ops' story is one of the most overrated things I can think of in the past decade of games. It's literally just Heart of Darkness and the majority act like it's the most original thing to come out since sliced bread and as moving as losing a loved one.[/QUOTE] You spelled "The Last of Us" wrong in that first sentence.
[QUOTE=Xion21;43084674]You spelled "The Last of Us" wrong in that first sentence.[/QUOTE] How is that even relevant to anything?
Anyway on the topic of Spec Ops, I think it actually had a fair story. I wanna say that their marketing it is a generic modern military shooter was almost purposful, because then when people that picked it up expecting that, and got something different, something that was basically the antithesis of what the gung ho kill all the dudes shooters are, it made them think. I am NOT at all saying that it's the case, and as people have pointed out very well in this thread, it was a really bad move to market it that way, no matter what reasoning or lack thereof, but a part of me wants to think that the devs wanted a certain mindset to be in peoples minds when they started playing it, and I don't think they necessarily wanted people to be going in at first knowing exactly what it was.
If you don't like the comparisons to video games and how playing out a power fantasy is sad, just take the story at face value and view Walker as a tragic hero. You don't have to identify as Walker, just watching his development him breaking is a damn fine story in and of itself, even without the meta commentary But like someone else said, having the option to save the civilians would have killed the entire point of the game. The white phosphorous scene was Walker's snapping point, and where his crew really starts to question him. If you could just say "lol we saved everyone fucking aced it good job guys", it would completely undermine the theme that Walker's constant attempts to be a hero only fucks shit up more and more, and instead of having an interesting and tragic character arc, he'd just be another rough delta operator who's a bit pissed off. Besides, if you could save the civilians, people would keep reloading saves until they did it properly and didn't fuck up so they could get the "best" ending, regardless of what they would do in that situation, which again, kills the point
I tried Spec Ops the line for a few hours and got bored of it fairly quickly, the gameplay was boring. Furthermore the game tries to question you and your actions, giving this whole critical thinking and questionening vibe to it. Unfortunately you mow down tons of dumb cannon fodder enemies which takes nullified the whole experience for me. The generic combat heavily reduced the impact of the brutal scenes and overal atmosphere, if combat would have been more impactful and interesting with a few moral choices thrown in, this game could have been good.
What if it's another bait-and-switch style game like Spec Ops was? Is there any conclusive evidence that they're -not- trying to pull that again?
[QUOTE=dgg;43084624] Also known as *I don't want to argue anymore, so I'll just have a last say on the matter*[/QUOTE] To be entirely fair, SGTNAPALM has been discussing Spec Ops in threads like these for months now, probably since release. He probably doesn't want to type essays about it all over again. I think you both raise valid points but purely in terms of player agency I have to agree with dgg. It's interesting though that two different people can play the game and come out with wildly different opinions regarding that aspect, with one saying it would have ruined the games message and the other saying it would have improved it dramatically. I think there might have even been the same sort of back and forth for the dev team considering the game actually does give you choices before and after the infamous [sp]white phosphorous scene which I feel is massively overhyped compared to other elements of the game that work well. So many elements of it just felt too gamey and pulled me out of the experience it was trying to build. The infinitely respawning enemies, the clearly scripted mortar impacts, the fact that you couldn't kill the humvee without dropping a shell on it despite destroying the exact same model humvees later on in the campaign. All the other stuff was cool though. The subtle differences between the enemies you fought, the steady fraying of your teams senses, the constantly oppressive environments, the PTSD attacks, the gradually more gruesome finishers. All that stuff I loved.[/sp]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.