This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

I feel like gamers exaggerate how Spec Ops the Line made them feel (spoilers)

#1casedawgzPosted 5/12/2014 3:31:33 AM
I always see stuff like "it made me rethink shooting dudes in video games and made me not really want to play action games at all!"

No it didn't. It told a great story and it was a nice critique of games, but people who act like they were so profoundly affected by it that they don't like action games anymore are basically just lying to seem artsy.
---
I give up on Justin Gabriel
#2Jedi454Posted 5/12/2014 3:38:35 AM
Is it worth playing though? That's my question.
---
*~Waiting For~* Borderlands PreSequel, The Witcher 3, Dragon Age: Inquisition, Destiny, Sacred 3, The Division and Pokemon Alpha Sapphire.
#3casedawgz(Topic Creator)Posted 5/12/2014 3:41:12 AM
It's pretty good. The story really is great but the gameplay is really paint by numbers cover shooter.

The art house crowd will tell you the gameplay was Supposed to be boring and generic but that doesn't make it less boring and generic.
---
I give up on Justin Gabriel
#4orangeneePosted 5/12/2014 3:56:12 AM
I'm sure most former/current combat vets (myself included) don't think anything of it. They've seen worse.

I think you're right TC, it's the artsy folk reading too much into things. While I'm with the 'games are art' crowd, Spec Ops is still a game. Just with a more interesting storyline than the usual military shooter.
---
Peace has cost you your strength, victory has defeated you.
GT/PSN:Hellsteeth30
#5Killah PriestPosted 5/12/2014 4:05:18 AM
I do not exaggerate how it made me feel, it made me feel disgusted and still does.
---
Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Weep, and you weep alone.
The armory of god is guarding me but all you can see is holographic artistry.
#6PwnostarPosted 5/12/2014 4:25:35 AM
It was a game that gave an illusion of choice and then criticized the player for playing the game. The people who act like it's some profound critique of gamers and their desensitization are just lying to themselves.

For example, I'll talk about the white phosphorus scene, since it's pretty clear that it was meant to shock the player and make them feel bad. If you actually look at how that played out in the game, there was no real option to not make the decision. My second playthrough, I tried avoiding it by killing all of the enemies...except they're on infinite respawn and they'll destroy you if you try running through. You can't wait around for any other options because, again, the enemies will destroy you. And it's not like you can just turn around at any point and say "Nope, let's not do this mission, guys." There's no actual choice in the game. The only real choice the player is given is between either playing the damn game or turning off their console.

Of course, I've seen some moral high-grounders say "Well, you should have felt bad and turned off the game. The fact that you kept playing proves the developers' point."

Really? Like I just spent $60 on this game and I'm not going to play it because some bad stuff happens that I had no actual choice in? The only point the developer really proved was that they can make a game filled with horrible things, charge me $60 for it, and then point fingers at me like I'm the bad guy when I unknowingly buy it and try to get my money's worth out of it.

Spec Ops: The Line is a good story about how awful war can be. It's also a good story about insanity and delusions. It is not, however, a good critique of modern games or gamers.
---
John 1:43 --
The next day Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, "Follow me on Instagram."
#7Killah PriestPosted 5/12/2014 4:27:55 AM
At least we know gamefaqs is full of people that can read other peoples thoughts.
---
Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Weep, and you weep alone.
The armory of god is guarding me but all you can see is holographic artistry.
#8glassghost0Posted 5/12/2014 4:45:00 AM
Killah Priest posted...
At least we know gamefaqs is full of people that can read other peoples thoughts.

---
New User (3) - Awarded to users with at least 25 Karma.
3DS FC: 3067-4989-8122
#9simonbelmont2Posted 5/12/2014 5:06:58 AM
Pwnostar posted...
It was a game that gave an illusion of choice and then criticized the player for playing the game. The people who act like it's some profound critique of gamers and their desensitization are just lying to themselves.

For example, I'll talk about the white phosphorus scene, since it's pretty clear that it was meant to shock the player and make them feel bad. If you actually look at how that played out in the game, there was no real option to not make the decision. My second playthrough, I tried avoiding it by killing all of the enemies...except they're on infinite respawn and they'll destroy you if you try running through. You can't wait around for any other options because, again, the enemies will destroy you. And it's not like you can just turn around at any point and say "Nope, let's not do this mission, guys." There's no actual choice in the game. The only real choice the player is given is between either playing the damn game or turning off their console.

Of course, I've seen some moral high-grounders say "Well, you should have felt bad and turned off the game. The fact that you kept playing proves the developers' point."

Really? Like I just spent $60 on this game and I'm not going to play it because some bad stuff happens that I had no actual choice in? The only point the developer really proved was that they can make a game filled with horrible things, charge me $60 for it, and then point fingers at me like I'm the bad guy when I unknowingly buy it and try to get my money's worth out of it.

Spec Ops: The Line is a good story about how awful war can be. It's also a good story about insanity and delusions. It is not, however, a good critique of modern games or gamers.


Yeah, it sounds like the devs forced you into that situation and then told you off for taking part in it. What's worse is they used lazy infinite respawning enemies as a way to make it happen. They wanted to make an interesting point about gamers but used cliche videogame artifice and smoke and mirrors to do it. A ham-fisted way to make a point.

Telling players to either do the mission or turn off the console and not play the game is not an elegant solution.

It reminds me of what the film director Michael Haneke often does with his films like Funny Games. He wants his films to be successful and he wants people to see them. But when you do watch them it's like he is telling you off for watching a violent movie. By making the film in the first place he is more complicit than his audience is.

I've heard a lot about the game and I'd like to play it for myself sometime.
---
and when he crossed the bridge the phantoms came to meet him
#10Wolfie80Posted 5/12/2014 5:09:26 AM
I didn't really think too much of it. It was nice too have some morality choices put in there, but too me the endings weren't so different that I walked away with a new mindset. The book and/or the movie (Heart of darkness & Apocalypse Now) it was loosely based upon were certainly more thought provoking. I applaud the game for being a different type of action game, but personally that is all I saw it as.