-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Spec Ops: The Line |OT| Apocalypse Whenever - Starring Nolan North
- Thread starter NotTheGuyYouKill
- Start date
legacyzero
Banned
Diseased Yak
Gold Member
I just finished this and it was amazing. Easily the best single player campaign of any of the shooter genre I've played. The mechanics needed some work, though. I didn't like the inclusion of "heavies" in the game. Can this shit please die already?! Sheesh. I also had trouble with some points in the game, as other said, with the checkpointing, but overall it was a fantastic game and I'm not sad that I picked it up day 1 for $60.
I'm definitely going to play through it again just to see how it plays knowing what happens in the end. I thought the nods to Heart of Darkness and the main "bad guy" being named Konrad (a la Joseph Conrad) were heavy handed (you even got the crazy bearded journalist!) but overall Yager really did a great job and I can't wait to see what they do next.
I'm definitely going to play through it again just to see how it plays knowing what happens in the end. I thought the nods to Heart of Darkness and the main "bad guy" being named Konrad (a la Joseph Conrad) were heavy handed (you even got the crazy bearded journalist!) but overall Yager really did a great job and I can't wait to see what they do next.
KB was waay better than 360, I practically walked through chapter 14 on hard using a KB, whereas chapter 14 on 360 pad I must've spent 45 minutes. Once you try taking out a mounted gun with a controller, you will start using KB and never look back.
Messofanego
Banned
FUBAR difficulty is not so bad!
I wish they fixed the config folder issue, annoying to delete it each time for proper performance.
I wish they fixed the config folder issue, annoying to delete it each time for proper performance.
Been doing that, still 30. It was 30 first time I started the game.
Still pretty fucked up.
Just got past
the gate, more specifically when you're choosing to shoot the guys hanging or the snipers.
I rented the game this week and just finished it off (only 4.5 hours on Normal); I had no interest in the game but wanted to check it out solely on the concept of the narrative and storytelling, and I really enjoyed it a lot. This is a game that I'd say no one should buy, but almost everyone should play. If I didn't know any better, I'd say that the super-generic title "Spec Ops: The Line," was an attempt to Rickroll the type of audience that loves Dudebro Spec Ops Military Shooters into second-guessing themselves.
Also, speaking as an American, I find a wonderful sense of poetic irony in this game releasing around July 4th. The soundalike of Hendrix's Star-Spangled Banner is a really wonderful touch; just in case people aren't aware of the history or interpretations behind Jimi's Hendrix rendition of the US national anthem, check out a few articles like this one. I thought the song was just noise until a friend pointed out the musical interpretations, and now I think it's fantastic. I think the inclusion adds elements of thinking about nationalism and service without actually touching on it much in the game.
As a whole, the gameplay was super-mediocre, and the narrative is likely full of holes and stumbles, but the dev team can't be applauded enough for actually having the balls to put these themes into a game. I really enjoyed walking through it.
General game and story discussion:
Also, speaking as an American, I find a wonderful sense of poetic irony in this game releasing around July 4th. The soundalike of Hendrix's Star-Spangled Banner is a really wonderful touch; just in case people aren't aware of the history or interpretations behind Jimi's Hendrix rendition of the US national anthem, check out a few articles like this one. I thought the song was just noise until a friend pointed out the musical interpretations, and now I think it's fantastic. I think the inclusion adds elements of thinking about nationalism and service without actually touching on it much in the game.
As a whole, the gameplay was super-mediocre, and the narrative is likely full of holes and stumbles, but the dev team can't be applauded enough for actually having the balls to put these themes into a game. I really enjoyed walking through it.
General game and story discussion:
My favorite parts of the game were the loading screens and messages. I'm assuming the messages are just randomized, but for me, right after Lugo died, the next respawn loading screen I had was of Adams staring blankly off to the side with the message "This is all your fault." It had a lot more impact than I thought it would. And then the next message I got was "You are still a good person," as if Walker was just repeating it to himself constantly.
All of the general taunting messages you get as the game progresses just twist the knife deeper as you go on; I think the most haunting one I got was something along the lines of "If Lugo made it out of this thing alive, he'd probably suffer from a major case of PTSD; so if you think about it, he's really the lucky one."
As far as some people's criticism about player agency and the lack thereof, I don't think the player not being able to just say "fuck it" and leave Dubai removes any of the story's impact. I see it as the player not having any choice because Walker doesn't see himself as having any choice.
All of the general taunting messages you get as the game progresses just twist the knife deeper as you go on; I think the most haunting one I got was something along the lines of "If Lugo made it out of this thing alive, he'd probably suffer from a major case of PTSD; so if you think about it, he's really the lucky one."
As far as some people's criticism about player agency and the lack thereof, I don't think the player not being able to just say "fuck it" and leave Dubai removes any of the story's impact. I see it as the player not having any choice because Walker doesn't see himself as having any choice.
azentium said:
I think the distinction you're missing is that this isn't supposed to be an RPG where you are creating your own persona of Walker; you're just following along with a guy that's already damaged goods. He's a top-tier, single-minded Delta Force Spec Ops badass. Creating a game that gives a soldier in Walker's shoes the opportunity to make a "no-kill playthrough" would miss the point about how fucked up his situation is. Why would he ever question anything beyond carving the world into Good Guys and Bad Guys? This isn't punishing the player, it's just tracking Walker as he's forced to deal with his own bullshit instead of just saying "It's not my fault!" or "We had no choice!" like he does throughout the entire game.
Even as early as Chapter 2 or 3, when you start gunning down American soldiers and Adams and Lugo keep saying "What the fuck? Why are we doing this?" Walker unhesitatingly responds with "We were defending ourselves" or "We had to, we had no alternatives." He's not in a state to question that, which is ironic because IIRC he also justifies killing members of the "traitor" 33rd with a line that goes something like "orders that aren't right aren't worth following." He's a quivering mess when he stands still and thinks about everything, which is why he never does that until the very end of the game, when he's the only dude left standing.
But to your point about not having any meaningful decisions in the game -- which is true -- I think that's only a problem if your think empowering the player is a requirement for a good game. Walker's not a good guy; he could theoretically turn around and bail out right at the beginning of the game, but a) he mentions something about it not being a good tactical decision, likely to cover up that b) he's a flawed character and turning around is an option a "good" soldier would never even consider. These Colors Don't Run, and all.
Even as early as Chapter 2 or 3, when you start gunning down American soldiers and Adams and Lugo keep saying "What the fuck? Why are we doing this?" Walker unhesitatingly responds with "We were defending ourselves" or "We had to, we had no alternatives." He's not in a state to question that, which is ironic because IIRC he also justifies killing members of the "traitor" 33rd with a line that goes something like "orders that aren't right aren't worth following." He's a quivering mess when he stands still and thinks about everything, which is why he never does that until the very end of the game, when he's the only dude left standing.
But to your point about not having any meaningful decisions in the game -- which is true -- I think that's only a problem if your think empowering the player is a requirement for a good game. Walker's not a good guy; he could theoretically turn around and bail out right at the beginning of the game, but a) he mentions something about it not being a good tactical decision, likely to cover up that b) he's a flawed character and turning around is an option a "good" soldier would never even consider. These Colors Don't Run, and all.
Cuban Legend
Member
I agree with your sentiments, is my below post an accurate representation of your thoughts?
1.some game are about empowering the players with game-changing choices and decisions.
2.others try to tell an amazing story/narrative without player control over the outcome
You can have one or the other perfectly alone, but both together is hard to do, Spec Ops is the the 2nd one hidden in the guise of the 1st one.
We were trolled abit, albeit marvelously and beautifully,and YAGER are gods for doing so.
Spec Ops cherry picks which segments of the story the player can be involved in. As a result, the game takes away player agency when it matters the most. It forces the player down certain paths for the sake of pursuing a specific character arc. For example, in Chapter 8, the player must use the white phosphorous. Before that specific mission, I could literally take on an entire platoon without breaking a sweat. This time around, the enemies have super hero vision and could kill me almost instantaneously. I thought this may have been the result of playing on the Combat Ops difficulty level. However, when I chose to play through that segment again on the easiest difficulty, I was met with the same super-mutant soldiers. There are several moments leading up to, and following, this particular event where I, as Walker, could co-author the narrative. However, most of these events, coincidentally, also had very little impact on the direction that the game took. Why allow the player to make any narrative decisions at all, if the game won't let her be involved in meaningful way? There are also some other, much more minor issues that demonstrate how often the gameplay and narrative conflict with one another, but they aren't necessarily as important to the overall experience.
Speaking specifically to the narrative, the motivations of certain government agencies aren't very well thought out. For unexplained reasons, the U.S. Army sends in an entire infantry unit into Dubai against the UAE's wishes. If starting a war against neighboring Arab states is a concern of the United States, why did they bother sending an entire infantry, unsolicited, to the UAE and publicly announce their arrival? Additionally, how does the CIA expect to remove all of the evidence of the 33rd's presence? The hanging corpses, burnt bodies, torn American flags, military intelligence files, and U.S. Army equipment are all scattered across Dubai. Any foreign military forces entering into the city will discover those eventually, if not as soon as they arrive. Besides, it is inevitable that the water supply will run dry eventually, if a considerable portion of it could fit into a handful of tank trucks. Why go through all of the effort of destroying the remaining water, when the 33rd was already on its last legs? Nothing about the CIA or U.S. Army's presence can be reasonably justified.
Speaking specifically to the narrative, the motivations of certain government agencies aren't very well thought out. For unexplained reasons, the U.S. Army sends in an entire infantry unit into Dubai against the UAE's wishes. If starting a war against neighboring Arab states is a concern of the United States, why did they bother sending an entire infantry, unsolicited, to the UAE and publicly announce their arrival? Additionally, how does the CIA expect to remove all of the evidence of the 33rd's presence? The hanging corpses, burnt bodies, torn American flags, military intelligence files, and U.S. Army equipment are all scattered across Dubai. Any foreign military forces entering into the city will discover those eventually, if not as soon as they arrive. Besides, it is inevitable that the water supply will run dry eventually, if a considerable portion of it could fit into a handful of tank trucks. Why go through all of the effort of destroying the remaining water, when the 33rd was already on its last legs? Nothing about the CIA or U.S. Army's presence can be reasonably justified.
Picked this up on the $25 Amazon sale, played through it in 3 sittings on Suicide Mission difficulty. I didn't really have any complaints about the gameplay; the cover is a little sloppy but there were only a handful of times I couldn't get to the cover I wanted, which happens with every cover based shooter I have played. The gunplay was fine, shotguns in particular had a nice "oomph" to them, and the levels and vistas throughout were quite well done. I was expecting a lot of brown and grey, and there was a surprising amount of color throughout.
I thought the story was great; I plan to play through again once my backlog is cleared. Knowing how it all comes together, I'd like to see if anything changes with the few places you can make choices. I doubt there will be much different beyond a couple of cutscenes, but even if there isn't, another play through knowing the end result is sure to change how I perceive a lot of events.
Have to give it up for Nolan North too, as many have posted his arc from
was really well done. The main menu music and scenery changing as you progress was a nice touch as well.
I thought the story was great; I plan to play through again once my backlog is cleared. Knowing how it all comes together, I'd like to see if anything changes with the few places you can make choices. I doubt there will be much different beyond a couple of cutscenes, but even if there isn't, another play through knowing the end result is sure to change how I perceive a lot of events.
Have to give it up for Nolan North too, as many have posted his arc from
a fresh disciplined soldier to an unhinged, bloodthirsty killer
For the narrative path to be as divergent as some people here expect is just unreasonable. The game has to force you down a certain path otherwise the dev is faced with the problem of creating too much content that half the players will never see. Yager obviously had a specific story they wanted to tell using the gameplay conventions of the modern military shooter. It's great that Spec Ops creates the illusion of choice with some of it's story beats and actually allows the player to tackle some situations in multiple ways, but it's not and was never meant to be a Role Playing Game.
Kenshin001
Member
About the water:
We should have a spoiler thread for this game too.
At the end he is walking past gushing fountains and an aquarium. I didn't get it. The whole thing about destroying the water made no sense when there was abundant water.
We should have a spoiler thread for this game too.
shadyspace
Banned
Kenshin001
Member
Ha, of course.
I usually associate fountains with fresh water so it kind of threw me off, but yeah the aquarium would be salt water.
So, I was just looking at the VGA Trailer with which they announced this game.
Best trailer ever. Watched it many times.
But the game has changed substantially. The old UE3 without Lightmass kinda looked better?
Or maybe they had to scale back some of the scenes for consoles?
IDK.
Definitely watch the trailer if you've played the game, link is in the Pic:
What do you guys think?
This game had a storied development with over a year of delay.
I was one of the first waves in the private multiplayer beta about a half a year after the trailer and it looked quite different back then.
I wonder what happened?
Best trailer ever. Watched it many times.
But the game has changed substantially. The old UE3 without Lightmass kinda looked better?
Or maybe they had to scale back some of the scenes for consoles?
IDK.
Definitely watch the trailer if you've played the game, link is in the Pic:
What do you guys think?
This game had a storied development with over a year of delay.
I was one of the first waves in the private multiplayer beta about a half a year after the trailer and it looked quite different back then.
I wonder what happened?
So, I was just looking at the VGA Trailer with which they announced this game.
Best trailer ever. Watched it many times.
But the game has changed substantially. The old UE3 without Lightmass kinda looked better?
Or maybe they had to scale back some of the scenes for consoles?
IDK.
Definitely watch the trailer if you've played the game, link is in the Pic:
What do you guys think?
This game had a storied development with over a year of delay.
I was one of the first waves in the private multiplayer beta about a half a year after the trailer and it looked quite different back then.
I wonder what happened?
Based on that trailer The Line was on track to become the brownest game ever. I'm glad they changed the look.
That's true. But they lost a lot of detail in the process. I loved how colorful the game was at moments.
Also, how many trailers ever use Bjork?
soulassssns
Banned
So, I was just looking at the VGA Trailer with which they announced this game.
Best trailer ever. Watched it many times.
But the game has changed substantially. The old UE3 without Lightmass kinda looked better?
Or maybe they had to scale back some of the scenes for consoles?
IDK.
Definitely watch the trailer if you've played the game, link is in the Pic:
What do you guys think?
This game had a storied development with over a year of delay.
I was one of the first waves in the private multiplayer beta about a half a year after the trailer and it looked quite different back then.
I wonder what happened?
It was definitely alot grittier than it is now.
NullPointer
Member
Seriously. The color and vibrancy of the game made for a nice contrast.
Kenshin001
Member
So, I was just looking at the VGA Trailer with which they announced this game.
Best trailer ever. Watched it many times.
But the game has changed substantially. The old UE3 without Lightmass kinda looked better?
Or maybe they had to scale back some of the scenes for consoles?
IDK.
Definitely watch the trailer if you've played the game, link is in the Pic:
What do you guys think?
This game had a storied development with over a year of delay.
I was one of the first waves in the private multiplayer beta about a half a year after the trailer and it looked quite different back then.
I wonder what happened?
Wow, looks a lot different. Was definitely scaled back, must have been budget/time issues. Don't know about PC but the while the art design of the game was good, it looked pretty basic and ugly in a lot of parts and I had a few issues with the controls, especially with the cover system. They're not a major developer so I can ignore that but in a game that is about immersion it doesn't help that the graphics are dated and gameplay a bit janky.
Boil dat shit.
FunkyMunkey
Banned
Just finished this game, and I realllllly really enjoyed it. Came out of nowhere for me, and I didn't expect it to be this good. I loved the story and progression in it along with almost everything else. A few minor kinks in the cover system and such but nothing to deter from the fun. And you get used to that and the controls and gunplay very quickly.
Hopefully more people pick this up, because it definitely doesn't deserve to bomb. I wouldn't pay full price for it, but for what I paid on Amazon, it was worth it. A great mind**** action experience.
Hopefully more people pick this up, because it definitely doesn't deserve to bomb. I wouldn't pay full price for it, but for what I paid on Amazon, it was worth it. A great mind**** action experience.
Hi i'm Caleb
Member
Just played through this game in one sitting, and I don't even like military shooters. My only real gripe with the game is that you kill ALOT of people...I mean some of those gun fights go on for a bit.
But everything else, the story , the characters, the choices, the setting, the ending, the dialogue...I loved it all. One of the most memorable games i've played in awhile.
Bravo Yager Dev guys...you made a game in a bloated genre and crafted something truly unique. If this isn't my game of the year it will probably be my (Nier) game of 2012. It just came out of no where and rocked me.
But everything else, the story , the characters, the choices, the setting, the ending, the dialogue...I loved it all. One of the most memorable games i've played in awhile.
Bravo Yager Dev guys...you made a game in a bloated genre and crafted something truly unique. If this isn't my game of the year it will probably be my (Nier) game of 2012. It just came out of no where and rocked me.
XANDER CAGE
Member
Just beat this.
I think people are giving this game far too much credit for its story. Walker's character progression is fantastic, but the surrounding narrative (the "twist" especially) is entirely eye-rolling to me.
interesting idea I guess, but I found the gameplay mediocre at best and the story cliche and overreaching.
I think people are giving this game far too much credit for its story. Walker's character progression is fantastic, but the surrounding narrative (the "twist" especially) is entirely eye-rolling to me.
Villains being "figments of your imagination/guilt/past/trauma wow you didn't see that coming!" is played out to the point of ridicule in film, comics, and writing, so why does this game get a pass?
"No John, you are the demons." And then John was a zombie
Kenshin001
Member
I thought it was good but it didn't blow me away like I thought it would. Some of it was confusing. I'm still not sure what The Gate was about
ie. what the civilians were doing there, were they trying to get in or out? What was the meaning of the dying soldier's words?
Think they could have halved the body count and probably still had the same impact. In fact a lot of stealth and avoiding enemies would have created tension.
Curious if people think this sort of game could have been done by an American developer given the nature of the game and themes. I know MW2 has some parallels but I don't think it explores the morality of what you are doing to anywhere near the same extent.
Just beat it... 7 hour play through on normal, although I'm the type to take my time and explore the entire surroundings.
I absolutely loved it! So glad I went with my gut and purchased this game day one. I don't care that the game's on sale now, I'm happy to support good efforts like this. Here's hoping it builds upon good word of mouth and becomes a success, because it definitely deserves more hype and attention than it's received so far.
I absolutely loved it! So glad I went with my gut and purchased this game day one. I don't care that the game's on sale now, I'm happy to support good efforts like this. Here's hoping it builds upon good word of mouth and becomes a success, because it definitely deserves more hype and attention than it's received so far.
GAF is a tough crowd to please and im so glad people are really enjoying what Spec Ops has to offer, the potential of Spec ops is through the roof and id love to see a full fleshed out sequel with better mechanics.
definetly worth the price of admission
edit
The Multiplayer has some of the most awesome displays of character customization, ton of variants and things to unlock
wish more MP games did this, last one i remember having this much character unlocks was Rainbow Six Vegas.
definetly worth the price of admission
edit
The Multiplayer has some of the most awesome displays of character customization, ton of variants and things to unlock
wish more MP games did this, last one i remember having this much character unlocks was Rainbow Six Vegas.
I played through the entire game in one sitting, which I think is probably the best way to play it (which obviously says a lot for renting instead of buying). It's hardly the best game I've ever played, but to me it's absolutely a strong contender for the sleeper hit of the year and one of the most thought-provoking and "Holy shit I never really saw any of this coming" games I've ever played, and I've played a lot of fucking video games.
I think people who have finished the game and didn't enjoy it have kind of completely missed the point. The cover based shooting isn't groundbreaking but it's fun and mechanically sound enough to not have you groaning every time you run into a new room, if for nothing else just to see where the story goes. The game does an absolutely amazing job with that carrot on a stick. Much of the criticism of the story is that it doesn't allow you to make choices that affect the arc of the plot and that no matter which choices you make the game will always end kind of the same way with small, arbitrary differences. So what? The game was made to tell one story and it does so wonderfully.
The biggest legitimate complaint of I've heard about is the controls though. Honestly sometimes they just don't work. There are plenty of times that I was standing right in front of an obvious piece of cover and pressed space bar and just nothing happened and I died. That happened enough times throughout the course of the game that by the very end I felt like almost all of my deaths were because the game wouldn't do what I would tell it instead of me making any sort of a mistake and that frankly just sucks. I remember playing through Gears of War years and years ago and any time I pressed the cover button the character would "sticky" move into the closest piece of cover and it worked wonderfully and was enjoyable. In Spec Ops most of the time you're reloading a checkpoint and thinking to yourself "Ok, I fucking know I pressed the God damn button.".
People go on and on about a lack of innovation in games today and this is absolutely one of the most creative and innovative games that I've played in years. As they said on the Giantbomb Cast, after playing through this game I can't believe that games before it have never had
To me Spec Ops: The Line will probably go down as one of the absolute most underrated games of this entire console generation and I think that any game developer out there right now should absolutely play through it and try to take away many of the subtle details of the game, because it absolutely nails many of the things that it was trying to do in a way that is stunningly rare in this day. Like a great movie, it's a story that makes you think and you kind of care about what's happening, rather than just plugging through it shooting every person that appears and just running from area to area like a mindless zombie. The first hour or so is pretty boring and terrible and you might want to just turn it off and stop playing because you don't think it will go anywhere, but I think that kind of "meh" beginning is perfect because it serves as a perfect contrast to the high-powered mid and end game and serve them well.
I think people who have finished the game and didn't enjoy it have kind of completely missed the point. The cover based shooting isn't groundbreaking but it's fun and mechanically sound enough to not have you groaning every time you run into a new room, if for nothing else just to see where the story goes. The game does an absolutely amazing job with that carrot on a stick. Much of the criticism of the story is that it doesn't allow you to make choices that affect the arc of the plot and that no matter which choices you make the game will always end kind of the same way with small, arbitrary differences. So what? The game was made to tell one story and it does so wonderfully.
The whole point of the story is to show a soldier in an unfamiliar land dealing with the mental trauma of confusion and death. This guy sees people burning alive in front of him, his best friends murdered, and kills hundreds of his own military brothers.
The biggest legitimate complaint of I've heard about is the controls though. Honestly sometimes they just don't work. There are plenty of times that I was standing right in front of an obvious piece of cover and pressed space bar and just nothing happened and I died. That happened enough times throughout the course of the game that by the very end I felt like almost all of my deaths were because the game wouldn't do what I would tell it instead of me making any sort of a mistake and that frankly just sucks. I remember playing through Gears of War years and years ago and any time I pressed the cover button the character would "sticky" move into the closest piece of cover and it worked wonderfully and was enjoyable. In Spec Ops most of the time you're reloading a checkpoint and thinking to yourself "Ok, I fucking know I pressed the God damn button.".
People go on and on about a lack of innovation in games today and this is absolutely one of the most creative and innovative games that I've played in years. As they said on the Giantbomb Cast, after playing through this game I can't believe that games before it have never had
the dialogue change and become more frantic and manic as the game gets progressively more crazy. After finishing Spec Ops: The Line I just don't think I can take a video game seriously where all this traumatic, absolutely insane shit has happened throughout the course of the story and the characters just take it all in stride anymore.
To me Spec Ops: The Line will probably go down as one of the absolute most underrated games of this entire console generation and I think that any game developer out there right now should absolutely play through it and try to take away many of the subtle details of the game, because it absolutely nails many of the things that it was trying to do in a way that is stunningly rare in this day. Like a great movie, it's a story that makes you think and you kind of care about what's happening, rather than just plugging through it shooting every person that appears and just running from area to area like a mindless zombie. The first hour or so is pretty boring and terrible and you might want to just turn it off and stop playing because you don't think it will go anywhere, but I think that kind of "meh" beginning is perfect because it serves as a perfect contrast to the high-powered mid and end game and serve them well.
Finished it last night on PC...this game probably has one of the best narratives Ive seen in a military or TPS shooter ever. This game really makes other shooter stories and narratives (GoW, Halo, CoD, etc...) seem like Saturday morning cartoons that try too hard to be epic...but Spec Ops really nailed a mature and non-cheesy story in a video game.
I did enjoy the ending even though I tend to roll my eyes at typical
, Ill have to play through it again to completely wrap my head around it. But everything leading up to the ending was presented incredibly and Lugo and Adams brought a lot of character and personality to the game.
As far as gameplay goes, the shooting mechanics were solid and firefights were intense and fun (playing on Suicide Run difficulty) and the level design and set pieces had enough variation to keep the whole game interesting. Cover mechanics weren't the best but they were servicable...this is about as straight forward as a shooter gets and I honestly think it's the better for it.
I really hope this game sells well, but it's not really burning up the charts on steam so hopefully the console versions fared better. I don't care about a sequel or anything since it wont make sense and the game will have a lasting impression if it stands by itself more so than if it became part of a series, but I would like to see Yager rewarded for creating an incredible and unique game.
I did enjoy the ending even though I tend to roll my eyes at typical
"it was all in your head" story explanations
As far as gameplay goes, the shooting mechanics were solid and firefights were intense and fun (playing on Suicide Run difficulty) and the level design and set pieces had enough variation to keep the whole game interesting. Cover mechanics weren't the best but they were servicable...this is about as straight forward as a shooter gets and I honestly think it's the better for it.
I really hope this game sells well, but it's not really burning up the charts on steam so hopefully the console versions fared better. I don't care about a sequel or anything since it wont make sense and the game will have a lasting impression if it stands by itself more so than if it became part of a series, but I would like to see Yager rewarded for creating an incredible and unique game.
JustProgress
Member
Beat the game in 4.6 hours according to Steam, so it was really short, but wow I loved it. Was only like 15$ from Amazon, so I'm probably biased, but the campaign was worth my price of admission. Too bad everytime I try to play multiplayer I end up just hosting a game that no one joins.
YuriLowell
Member
Finally finished it up and wrote my review.
Fairly strong story, but everything else was pretty terrible.
http://duelanalogs.com/reviews/2012/7/6/spec-ops-the-line.html
Fairly strong story, but everything else was pretty terrible.
http://duelanalogs.com/reviews/2012/7/6/spec-ops-the-line.html
You mean $25 right? Unless you had saved up Amazon bucks or something.
Messofanego
Banned
JustProgress
Member
Yea, I couldn't remember how much it was
Had to choose between Ghost Recon and this when I bought it the other day. Glad I made the right choice. Maybe it didn't have the best shooter mechanics, and the story was a bit crazy, it sure was a compelling storyline. Even after
. Also, the part where
I haven't read Heart of Darkness or seen Apocalypse Now, but can someone explain me the relation between those two and Spec Ops? I hear that there are a lot of similarities but that it isn't a straight adaptation.
the credits, wow, pretty powerful stuff
Adams comes out of the door and starts shooting and talking was really crazy. I knew it wasn't right because he reacted to gunshots just like a 'heavy', but I couldn't get my mind around what was going on.
I haven't read Heart of Darkness or seen Apocalypse Now, but can someone explain me the relation between those two and Spec Ops? I hear that there are a lot of similarities but that it isn't a straight adaptation.
Spec Ops borrows themes and plot ideas from both but isn't a direct adaptation of either the book or the film. The original novel Heart of Dearkness is set in Africa, while the film adaptation Apocalypse Now takes place in Cambodia during the Vietnam War. If you want more detail than that just go to wikipedia. I haven't read the book, but I can highly recommend Apocalypse Now Redux (extended edition of the film) it's awesome, and it will be clear to see what Yager were drawing from if you watch it.
Or just watch this you'll probably get the idea:
Apocalypse Now redux - Trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxENJ2LwecY
NullPointer
Member
Messofanego
Banned
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
If anyone is in this thread and reading spoilers while still intending to play the game, do not read the spoilers in this post. You have been warned.
Although I agree with your view on the ending, I think that if you had to wait till the ending to have any kind of feedback to what the game is trying to do, it's safe to say this really "is not for you". I don't mean that in a terribly offensive way, but it demonstrates the 'work attitude' instead of 'average player' attitude, if you know what I'm referring to.
Gabriel from Penny Arcade once made this point with Assassin's Creed, if you remember that one.
I also find it highly curious that a reviewer or critic, who presumably has ample knowledge of video game or shooter tropes, would not recognize
Although I agree with your view on the ending, I think that if you had to wait till the ending to have any kind of feedback to what the game is trying to do, it's safe to say this really "is not for you". I don't mean that in a terribly offensive way, but it demonstrates the 'work attitude' instead of 'average player' attitude, if you know what I'm referring to.
Gabriel from Penny Arcade once made this point with Assassin's Creed, if you remember that one.
I also find it highly curious that a reviewer or critic, who presumably has ample knowledge of video game or shooter tropes, would not recognize
the full and complete trope aversion in chapter eight of almost any shooter made to date as such: the vehicle section is the awesome payback section, awww yeeeeah.
This game doesn't just turn it on its head after the event, it announces its presence and gives it proper context ("there's always a choice!"), and when you use it, there is a reflection of Walker in the equipment, removing the player from the "I'm so awesome" and taking him into the "I need to watch someone do something unforgivable" territory. It deserves critical credit for how that particular ludonarrative combines with the framed narrative alone.
The ending is similar to this, but the 'you're a bloody psychopath' is meant to do something else. I agree that as a trope, it was weak, but in the context of what Lupo and Adams do and say during the game, it is properly announced during the game that something -while not making too clear what exactly- is very, very wrong with the situation or Walker in particular. Also, I think the ending flashes your choices of key moments, just very shortly.
The last scene is a 'repeat' of chapter eight really, but now the object is not only something else, it's Walker as well, and you can make the choice he apparently could not make earlier.
what choice did you make? Emphasis being 'you'.
I know some - well, most actually- players (looking at eatchildren for instance) seem to have difficulty reading 'intent' in certain design choices, and treat the product as a set of rules only -what else is a game from the player perspective?-, but that doesn't mean it's not there.
This game doesn't just turn it on its head after the event, it announces its presence and gives it proper context ("there's always a choice!"), and when you use it, there is a reflection of Walker in the equipment, removing the player from the "I'm so awesome" and taking him into the "I need to watch someone do something unforgivable" territory. It deserves critical credit for how that particular ludonarrative combines with the framed narrative alone.
The ending is similar to this, but the 'you're a bloody psychopath' is meant to do something else. I agree that as a trope, it was weak, but in the context of what Lupo and Adams do and say during the game, it is properly announced during the game that something -while not making too clear what exactly- is very, very wrong with the situation or Walker in particular. Also, I think the ending flashes your choices of key moments, just very shortly.
The last scene is a 'repeat' of chapter eight really, but now the object is not only something else, it's Walker as well, and you can make the choice he apparently could not make earlier.
what choice did you make? Emphasis being 'you'.
I know some - well, most actually- players (looking at eatchildren for instance) seem to have difficulty reading 'intent' in certain design choices, and treat the product as a set of rules only -what else is a game from the player perspective?-, but that doesn't mean it's not there.
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
I tried reading Heart of Darkness, but it's "sailor English", so it's really hard to understand wtf he is saying most of the time.
I made it a considerable length into the novel, but at some point it just become torture to me. The grammar that is, not the content.
Messofanego
Banned
Seeing
Walker reflected on the screen of the mortar strike was chilling and a cool detail, so you knew you were involved in this and not some emotionally distant AC-130 moment you'd see in Modern Warfare where you can be willy-nilly with murdering human ants from the sky with no consequence.
I also liked how the ending takes into account the mass-murdering you usually do in shooters and shows you that
you've killed pretty much everyone left in Dubai. No one's left, not even the menu dude
WickedLaharl
Member
I was really taken by surprise on this one. Did not expect such an emotionally complex story from an arcadey shooter especially after playing the demo.
definitely worth a play.
definitely worth a play.
I never played the demo because I didn't even know this game was coming out until it did. I bought it and played it for about an hour because there's like absolutely nothing else to play right now and stopped after that hour with no intention to go back to it. Then I listened to the Giantbomb cast and decided to give it a second shot, and played through the rest of it in one sitting and absolutely loved it.
I feel like this game shouldn't even have a demo because they can't show you anything at all that is really unique and interesting.
XANDER CAGE
Member
Sorry, what? My opinion isn't valid because I waited until I finished the game to comment on the story, the thing that everyone is saying the game is worth playing for? I wasn't reviewing the game. This wasn't "work" for me. It's completely unfair to say that the game isn't "for me" because I didn't like it as much as a lot of other folks did. I noticed the "trope reversal" you pointed out, but I didn't think it was particularly clever, nor did I think it was very fun - it was at least contextualized better than most scenes of its nature, but it wasn't particularly engaging or well crafted, in my opinion.
The game didn't really win me over because its narrative had far more to say than its gameplay. The story makes a whole lot of fuss about "there always being a choice", but you're only actually presented with a choice in a few key situations, and no choice during arguably the key situation. The game features the same narrative/gameplay dissonance that Uncharted, Max Payne, and hell, practically every shooter has, just in the complete opposite direction - the game is, obstinately, a shooter that keeps trying to tell you how much fun you're not supposed to be having, which I just find kind of droll. Games can absolutely be about what conflict does to a character, but it really needs to focus on the character, and I found the attempted meta-textual "it was all you!" stuff really ham-handed. Of course it was all me.
Some of it was really cool. The color was fantastic and, like I said in my first post, the part of the game I really did find impressive was the way Walker fell apart as the game progressed. The hallucinations, the choice segments, the twist, the endings - that stuff I found pretty tired. It doesn't help that the game's writing and presentation is nowhere near as nuanced, engaging, or challenging as the two stories it keeps reminding you it's influenced by, thereby constantly giving you two incredibly high bars to measure it by.
Oh, yeah, and it wasn't a particularly good shooter either, and I'd much rather have a great game with a dumb story than a dumb game with a great story.
Some of it was really cool. The color was fantastic and, like I said in my first post, the part of the game I really did find impressive was the way Walker fell apart as the game progressed. The hallucinations, the choice segments, the twist, the endings - that stuff I found pretty tired. It doesn't help that the game's writing and presentation is nowhere near as nuanced, engaging, or challenging as the two stories it keeps reminding you it's influenced by, thereby constantly giving you two incredibly high bars to measure it by.
Oh, yeah, and it wasn't a particularly good shooter either, and I'd much rather have a great game with a dumb story than a dumb game with a great story.
Anyway yeah, sorry if that's a wall of text but it's kind of irritating that your response to me seems to be based entirely around my listed occupation on my profile.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
I don't so much have 'difficulty' reading the intent as disagree with the execution. Spec Ops is brimming with plenty of great narrative ideas, but they were lost on me as the end user. And though I can understand people with differing experiences will argue otherwise, my critical assessment is limited to what I feel does and does not work in an interactive medium.
Using your example of Chapter 8. I do feel the bait-and-switch of the phosphorus section, counter the 'payback' trope of so many shooters, was a great idea. But because I, as someone involved in the experience. But I did not feel "I need to watch someone do something unforgivable" afterwards.
The reason is that incident disconnected me from the act of interacting. I didn't want to use the white phosphorus, and tried to find an alternative. While bombing, it was predictable as shit that there was a mass of civilians at the end. I didn't want to continue bombing, because I knew what would happen. But I had to, because if I didn't I'd have half a game to review, and the game offers no alternative to do otherwise.
Now I can understand that an argument could be made for some kind of meta cleverness to the narrative in that by stating I 'had' to do the bombing, and disconnecting from Walker due to it, is itself representative of Walker's madness. Walker disconnects from reality, I disconnect from Walker. But this is the execution I disagree with, because it's hinged entirely on how invested I am in the act of playing the game. After The Gate I didn't want someone to blame. Instead I felt disconnected with a protagonist making decisions that were not my own, yet surrounded by a narrative trying to weigh me down with responsibility.
Using your example of Chapter 8. I do feel the bait-and-switch of the phosphorus section, counter the 'payback' trope of so many shooters, was a great idea. But because I, as someone involved in the experience. But I did not feel "I need to watch someone do something unforgivable" afterwards.
The reason is that incident disconnected me from the act of interacting. I didn't want to use the white phosphorus, and tried to find an alternative. While bombing, it was predictable as shit that there was a mass of civilians at the end. I didn't want to continue bombing, because I knew what would happen. But I had to, because if I didn't I'd have half a game to review, and the game offers no alternative to do otherwise.
Now I can understand that an argument could be made for some kind of meta cleverness to the narrative in that by stating I 'had' to do the bombing, and disconnecting from Walker due to it, is itself representative of Walker's madness. Walker disconnects from reality, I disconnect from Walker. But this is the execution I disagree with, because it's hinged entirely on how invested I am in the act of playing the game. After The Gate I didn't want someone to blame. Instead I felt disconnected with a protagonist making decisions that were not my own, yet surrounded by a narrative trying to weigh me down with responsibility.
EDIT: What I will say, related to the above, is that the impact of Spec Ops' narrative is difficult to argue when so much of that impact hinges on player investment into Walker and the experience surrounding him. I can very easily see how a gamer who is invested would find more value in the narrative that I did. But because of narrative issues I was not as invested as I wanted to be, and due to that disconnect felt the narrative too weak to hold the experience. I can't very well tell somebody that what they experienced and drew from the story was 'wrong', but I can argue why it was I am unable to relate.
Can somebody tell me the history of the developer?
I still remember that 10 years ago people in Germany taked about Yager in the same breath as Crytek as a promising newcomer studio. Well, then they released their self-titled game Yager and afterwards I've never heard of them again -- until now.
So, what have they done in the past 10 years? I honestly thought the studio has been closed down a long time ago. How did they survive for so long without releasing a game?
I still remember that 10 years ago people in Germany taked about Yager in the same breath as Crytek as a promising newcomer studio. Well, then they released their self-titled game Yager and afterwards I've never heard of them again -- until now.
So, what have they done in the past 10 years? I honestly thought the studio has been closed down a long time ago. How did they survive for so long without releasing a game?
That's different to mine, I had
.Lugo be the heavy and it was a really weird moment. Mostly cause I sided with Adams to save the civilians
Right now on 2nd playthrough on FUBAR and just got past The Gate, so can't wait to see that moment
No my bad.
It's Lugo actually.