From Spec Ops: The Line to a AAA free-to-play shooter
76 replies, posted
One thing which intrigues me is how no one mentions the artwork through out the game. Something which really caught me off guard was [sp]when I was walking around the area where that one Memorial Wall was set up for the soldiers of the Damned 33rd which had died in Afghanistan and Kuwait, and if you keep your eyes glued towards the list of where they would of been in Afghanistan, you actually will see Walker, Lugo, and Adams names popup onto the list. This and the statement by Walker regarding how, "Konrad is a hero, he pulled my bloody corpse out of Kabul" leaves me to believe that Walker's squad was actually killed in Afghanistan in a very similar representation to what most people have accepted as, "They were killed by this". In other words, they were most likely in a Blackhawk trying to evacuate Kabul, and were KIA when escaping. Another thing which supports this is that we are never explicitly notified on how exactly Walker is up and walking after supposedly being severely wounded in the field of battle in Afghanistan.[/sp]
I don't think the game is necessarily trying to attack the player for liking shooters. The developers are gamers too, they probably play shooters and have fun with them just like most people, it's not like they're saying you're shit for liking them. They just used the disconnect between the player and Walker to serve the story and take advantage of the interactiveness that games have in order to make the story seem more personal. Like I said before, if you don't like the gaming meta commentary, just ignore it and act like a third party who's observing Walker instead of Walker himself, it's still a great tragedy about how trying to be a hero can fuck everything up.
Also, like someone said before, while the white phosphorus scene was pretty good, I feel like there were some other scenes that were particularly well done too. [Sp]Lugo's lynching and the first time you shoot at American troops[/sp] were definitely highlights of the game for me, with an honorable mention going out to [sp]Radioman's death[/sp]
The game failed for me because I can't be made to feel bad about a decision I have NO CHOICE in doing.
you have no moral obligation to not do it, or to feel bad if you have no choice.
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ought_implies_can[/URL]
[editline]6th December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ericson666;43085570]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[/QUOTE]
if you had it so that you could save the civilians, then you can make it so that the people who mindlessly blow their way through that section are made to feel like cunts, when the people who object to it get to feel like they made the right decision by breaking the mould
as it stands, nobody feels bad because NOBODY WAS GIVEN A CHOICE
one of the best parts of gaming is interactivity. You can't make an art statement that players will mindlessly kill their way through anything even if it's objectionable, when you give them no alternative
they utterly torpedoed their own point.
if they're trying to write a typical fps videogame storyline, yes, they succeeded. If they're trying to do some sort of meta commentary on ethics and the nature of games, they utterly failed
[QUOTE=Ericson666;43085570]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[/QUOTE]
The story is good, but should have been a movie instead. The story does not work with the medium at all, the game takes a backseat to the story at all times. The story and game does not work together to create an experience, the game is just what they chose to present the story with because it's relevant to the point of the story and then ignored everything a game can do to enhance the story.
They wouldn't have "saved everyone", they would still have fucked everything up and killed lots of people for no good reason other than trying to be a hero, it's not like the citizen would thank them or anything. They bloody their hands mindlessly in their struggle to "beat the ultimate bad guy" "the boss" "the mastermind" "the wicked evil" and end up completely ruining any chance for survivability in the city. Hell, if anything, saving all those citizen just to [sp]leave them to starve and dehydrate[/sp] is almost worse in a way. Here you've done all you can to try and be the good guy, killing the people you believe is bad and saved the people you thought were good, trying to become the ultimate badass and heroic saviour of the people, and then in the end you [sp]fuck up all of their water supply and kill off everyone you tried to save along the way[/sp], how is that bad? How does that ruin the story? It would be given a different pace, not a different outcome, nor would the point actually change.
And AGAIN, the possibility to rescue them shouldn't be obvious or known to the player at all, for all they know it's just a generic shooter where killing everyone is fun, there are no good indications about who is innocent or not, who is a civilian and who is a soldier, to the player it's just a bunch of people in their way that they can choose to kill. It's the possibility of not murdering them and still being able to progress that you discover [I]afterwards[/I] that would make it.
They wouldn't know, so there is no reason for them to reload for the best ending because they didn't know there was such a thing. And hello, a-fucking-gain, I'm not talking about altering the ending at all, I'm talking about altering specific parts of the games where you are forced to [sp]kill civilians to progress[/sp] only to have it slapped in your face that you shouldn't do that. Those who already spoiled themselves of the possibility beforehand would be no different from the people that spoiled themselves of the whole story and plot beforehand (like me), so the point would be killed anyways.
I really don't know why you guys seem so insitent on the story being so set in stone that any alteration of it would require a new ending and that everything it tries to convey would be thrown out of the window. It's not a perfect mastermind story that can't be changed without losing it's point.
[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]
It was more of an invitation for you to have the last say. But yeah,you're right about the first point. As Raidyr said, I've had this discussion quite a bit. And as much as I like the game, talking about only it over and over again for months gets tiresome. I've already said enough and stated my case. We just fundamentally disagree. Any more discussion I bring would just be rephrasing the same things I've been saying the whole time, just as you have.
Game could had been better, if they made the gameplay alot better. Personally, I think the 'making it a generic shooter to focus on story' kinda bullshit. You can still have a great story with a great gameplay.
[QUOTE=dgg;43089335]The story does not work with the medium at all, the game takes a backseat to the story at all times. The story and game does not work together to create an experience, the game is just what they chose to present the story with because it's relevant to the point of the story and then ignored everything a game can do to enhance the story.[/QUOTE]
Being a game is the whole point.
It's a game that critiques games, though its success is debatable.
[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]
except I'm pretty sure any smart person who played it said that it [i]was[/i] heart of darkness in a modern conflict and didn't claim the story to be original.
The execution of it, the fact that it could only have worked if games like call of duty were so mindless and bland is what was interesting.
[editline]6th December 2013[/editline]
not that it 100% succeeded, mind you
[QUOTE=Super Muffin;43091311]Being a game is the whole point.
It's a game that critiques games, though its success is debatable.[/QUOTE]
That's what I said. They chose it to be a game because it's relevant to the story and point, but then ignored the fact that it is a game, not a movie.
I feel like I'm the only one who actually kind of enjoyed The Line's gameplay
I feel like I'm the only one who actually kind of enjoyed The Line's gameplay
I didn't enjoy it at first, as it is pretty substandard, but it does grow on you.
[editline]6th December 2013[/editline]
But man, what a story.
[QUOTE=dgg;43089335]The story is good, but should have been a movie instead. The story does not work with the medium at all, the game takes a backseat to the story at all times. The story and game does not work together to create an experience, the game is just what they chose to present the story with because it's relevant to the point of the story and then ignored everything a game can do to enhance the story.
They wouldn't have "saved everyone", they would still have fucked everything up and killed lots of people for no good reason other than trying to be a hero, it's not like the citizen would thank them or anything. They bloody their hands mindlessly in their struggle to "beat the ultimate bad guy" "the boss" "the mastermind" "the wicked evil" and end up completely ruining any chance for survivability in the city. Hell, if anything, saving all those citizen just to [sp]leave them to starve and dehydrate[/sp] is almost worse in a way. Here you've done all you can to try and be the good guy, killing the people you believe is bad and saved the people you thought were good, trying to become the ultimate badass and heroic saviour of the people, and then in the end you [sp]fuck up all of their water supply and kill off everyone you tried to save along the way[/sp], how is that bad? How does that ruin the story? It would be given a different pace, not a different outcome, nor would the point actually change.
And AGAIN, the possibility to rescue them shouldn't be obvious or known to the player at all, for all they know it's just a generic shooter where killing everyone is fun, there are no good indications about who is innocent or not, who is a civilian and who is a soldier, to the player it's just a bunch of people in their way that they can choose to kill. It's the possibility of not murdering them and still being able to progress that you discover [I]afterwards[/I] that would make it.
They wouldn't know, so there is no reason for them to reload for the best ending because they didn't know there was such a thing. And hello, a-fucking-gain, I'm not talking about altering the ending at all, I'm talking about altering specific parts of the games where you are forced to [sp]kill civilians to progress[/sp] only to have it slapped in your face that you shouldn't do that. Those who already spoiled themselves of the possibility beforehand would be no different from the people that spoiled themselves of the whole story and plot beforehand (like me), so the point would be killed anyways.
I really don't know why you guys seem so insitent on the story being so set in stone that any alteration of it would require a new ending and that everything it tries to convey would be thrown out of the window. It's not a perfect mastermind story that can't be changed without losing it's point.[/QUOTE]
The game and story definitely work together. The [sp]weirdness that comes from shooting the Americans for the first time and Lugo's lynching[/sp] wouldn't be nearly as effective if you were just Walker fuck up from a passive viewpoint like in a movie.
[quote]And AGAIN, the possibility to rescue them shouldn't be obvious or known to the player at all, for all they know it's just a generic shooter where killing everyone is fun, there are no good indications about who is innocent or not, who is a civilian and who is a soldier, to the player it's just a bunch of people in their way that they can choose to kill. It's the possibility of not murdering them and still being able to progress that you discover afterwards that would make it.
They wouldn't know, so there is no reason for them to reload for the best ending because they didn't know there was such a thing. And hello, a-fucking-gain, I'm not talking about altering the ending at all, I'm talking about altering specific parts of the games where you are forced to kill civilians to progress only to have it slapped in your face that you shouldn't do that. Those who already spoiled themselves of the possibility beforehand would be no different from the people that spoiled themselves of the whole story and plot beforehand (like me), so the point would be killed anyways.[/quote]
Tons of people tried reloading the [sp]WP scene[/sp] and tried to find different ways to do it even though there was no indication that you could do something different. And besides, I don't get how you can tell that there were [sp]civilians down there[/sp] without prior knowledge that they were there. [sp]Walker and co. had no way of knowing that they were there, and it made a hell of a lot more sense that those were soldiers rather than some random civilians who were supposed to be somewhere else[/sp]
[QUOTE=dgg;43089335]The story is good, but should have been a movie instead. The story does not work with the medium at all, the game takes a backseat to the story at all times.[/QUOTE]
The thing is, the developer was contracted to make a military shooter set in the Middle East using the Spec Ops franchise so while yeah, the story was kind of ham-handed and none of your choices mattered it was probably the best thing that could've come out given the circumstances.
[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,[B] and bland writing.[/B][/QUOTE]
Oh no you fucking didn't nigga
[QUOTE=Skyward;43093109]Oh no you fucking didn't nigga[/QUOTE]
no one fucks with chris avellone
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.