Quick Look: Spec Ops: The Line

Looks really crap

Whatever the single player seems super interesting. I'll just play it on the highest difficulty.

Jeff and a lot of users seem really down on this, but I think it looks pretty good. The shooting seems solid, the art direction is strong in the level he showed, and the story sounds unique. No reason to hate on it just because of the genre.

I think the SP portion of this game looks fine, no worse than any other 3rd person shooter released in the past year or so.

And the MP doesn't seem terrible by any means.

Played the demo. It's an ok game but nothing to write home about. Was hoping for more but got less. Overall rating - meh

Good QL though.

Kinda annoying with the "who would play this stuff" trolling.

Ii really reallyy likee dit.

@Max_Cherry said:

@Drebin_893 said:

Some nice Hendrix 'Star Spangled Banner' in the background there.

I was at Woodstock as a 21 y/o kid. It was pretty awful; it wouldn't stop raining, almost all the really good bands canceled, and the LSD was bad. So, I left early and missed Jimmy Hendrix playing the Star Spangled Banner at the very end. Instead, I almost hit a fucking dragon and died on the way home (I was on drugs).

Sounds legit, grandpa

meh

"THE .50! SOMEONE GET ON THE .50!"

@CTS_1987 said:

"THE .50! SOMEONE GET ON THE .50!"

Make Yayo do it.

Them jaggies.. I find the lack of anti-aliasing disturbing.

I agree the multiplayer is lame, but the single player is fun and the story pretty good.

Actually, it is a great story for a shooter.

So is the story good?

I love Joseph Conrad but Heart of Darkness seems like it's the plot of every film and game these days.

@Melos said:

Since the topic has come up, I would love more input on what makes a game visually good or bad for others. I'm really starting to feel out of touch because lately a lot of games that I think look nice are apparently considered ugly. What is it exactly that ruins the look of Spec Ops: The Line, for instance? I can see the poor design in the multi-player, but not the campaign. Perhaps the problem doesn't translate even in HD video -- is it jagged edges, low quality textures, frame rate? Or do you just notice something in the animation or an over-use of the same assets and can't tune it out? I think the lighting is quite nice, and there are some distinct colors being used from all over the wheel. Does a game have to have cartoon levels of color saturation in order to not be called "brown?" Maybe it's all a matter of style, nothing so technical. I get that the look may be forgettable, but ordinary shouldn't equate to bad craftsmanship. I'm not necessarily saying there is no good reason to think that this game has bad graphics, I just can't see any glaring flaws. It might just be that I'm too forgiving these days, having lived through rudimentary sprites and the chunky polygon era of gaming. If that's the case, please help me see what makes this game ugly.

I quite agree. I know enough about 3d modeling and design to confidently make myself seem like an idiot here, but I am constantly baffled when someone comments on the "look" of a game with such brevity, especially if it's in a negative way. I for one really enjoy the look of this game and while it doesn't have quite the unique vision or palette of other titles like say, Journey or Fez, I still find it rather impressive. It's very easy to scream "Jaded Games Journalist" here, but my love for the Bomb is strong. Therefore, I would love to know more about what makes a game aesthetically pleasing to, most specifically in this case, Jeff.

@Fontelroy: I think it might be consoles showing their age. On the PC it looks absolutely gorgeous: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNrsT57Xnq8&list=UUy1Ms_5qBTawC-k7PVjHXKQ&index=0&feature=plcp

@Fontelroy: I've been playing games for over 25 years and I get annoyed and pissed off when someone calls most modern games "ugly".

It's not a legitimate criticism 90% of the time. It's gamer elitism. It's the same as a guy who won't swallow a bottle of wine that doesn't cost 1000 dollars declaring that it tastes "disgusting"!

I dont think its a bad looking game, nice lighting and the areas seem nicely varied, the story stuff seems really interesting, more so than i thought what really highlighted it for me was the moment jeff pulled the trigger on that guy, i didd assume we where about to see the fail screen, i may pick this up.

Call of Duty = Zip around the world and shoot everything in a chaotic situation, flash bang wallop, mindless.

Spec Ops The Line = Moral choices, enviromental elements. Deep involving storyline that makes you play to the end to see how it all pans out.

Spec Ops The Line wont sell very well because the "kids" dont want involving gameplay when they can just mindlessly press RT and be a dick online.

Wow that's the first military themed shooter I've seen where you actually kill U.S. soldiers, and at the same time playing as an American.When was the last time a game let you do that?

@SkullcrusherMountain: ALRIGHT YAYO UR UP SON GIVE' EM HELL!

@SkullcrusherMountain: ALRIGHT YAYO UR UP SON GIVE' EM HELL!

@gbrading said:

I love Joseph Conrad but Heart of Darkness seems like it's the plot of every film and game these days.

You gotta tell me about all these games and movies based on or inspired by Heart of Darkness, I've had a pretty hard time finding them (unless you're counting every single one that recite/reference the "I love the smell of Napalm in the morning" or "We're playing Wagner from these helicopters!" scenes from Apocalypse Now!, without bothering with the deeper themes in that movie or the novel).

(EDIT: sorry, I had actually forgotten about Far Cry 2. Need to finish that).

@jakonovski said:

Kinda annoying with the "who would play this stuff" trolling.

Yeah, no matter how the game actually turned out (I'm not sure I actually got a good enough idea from the Quicklook to really tell), it has a really interesting premise that intrigued me and certainly a lot of other people. I'm sure quite a few of them picked it up without waiting for reviews (in the Quicklook Patrick and Jeff talk about not being impressed by what they had seen of the game prior to release - but everything I had heard from previews from both Giant Bomb and other gaming outlets before this were pretty damn positive).

But, yeah, I just read the New York Times review they referenced, very well written and discusses some real problems with the game: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/arts/video-games/spec-ops-the-line-from-2k-games-makes-killing-personal.html

@Agent47:

darkest of days? unless a game where that happens came out between the two.

http://www.giantbomb.com/quick-look-darkest-of-days/17-1370/

Storytime got in your shooter, huh? Who would've guessed. It's not like that's one of the trends that have been bugging me for years, now. It came on especially strongly when I watched the Future Soldier quick look, with its [AREA CLEAR, NOW SIT BACK FOR EXPOSITION/SETPIECE] indicator at the end of every encounter. Then Medal of Honor happened at E3. The trick to making shooters nowadays seems to be to build an extremely linear environment, further make sure all control is taken away from the player before and/or after every single encounter and include lots of flashy moments that play out exactly the same way every time to strip away any replayability that may have been left...

And what the heck is anyone doing questioning the existence of a multiplayer mode in a goddamn shooter?? It started a long time ago, and probably should have faded more at this point, but we still live in an age where customers feel cheated if their newly purchased, high-budget game doesn't have a multiplayer mode. "This trend of putting multiplayer into games to try and extend the life cycle of the product"? More like, the trend of making sure people don't look at your game and say, "Oh, it doesn't have multiplayer? Well, maybe I'd buy it at half price, then, but I'll give it a pass for now."

Games have sort of traditionally had some kind of multiplayer, whether they needed it or not, whether it was any good or not, and even whether the developer wanted it or not, since, oh, I don't know... Doom? Command & Conquer? Every single game from that point onward, except for the extremely gutsy ones made by confident developers that knew their campaign would be a masterpiece no one would feel bad paying 60 bucks for even when most games' campaigns only count for about 10% of the time people will spend with them, at best?

What is video game?

gonna have to cancel my subscription if patrick keeps being in every quick look

@galloughs: That's why I stopped listening to the bombcast... :(

@JazGalaxy said:

@Fontelroy: I get annoyed and pissed off when someone calls most modern games "ugly".

It's the same as a guy who won't swallow a bottle of wine that doesn't cost 1000 dollars declaring that it tastes "disgusting"!

Yeah but dude if a bottle of wine isnt atleast 1001 dollars who gives a shit.

@galloughs said:

gonna have to cancel my subscription if patrick keeps being in every quick look

Then just go ahead and cancel it then. Its not like they're going to fire him, so either get over your hate or cancel your sub.

I think this looks pretty damn good, don't know what Jeffs problem is.

@fisk0: I was thinking of Toy Story 3 and Up. Although never explicitly stated by the filmmakers, the plots of both are very Heart of Darkness-esque. And yep Far Cry 2. It's not like they're direct adaptations but the general plot outline is quite similar.

@banquos_revenge: The developers were extremely up front about the Heart of Darkness influences (going so far as calling it a straight up adaption of the novel early on). I guess the way they blatantly state that might have been what's turning people against it too, because by the sounds of at least New York Times' (excellent) review, they are doing it pretty heavy-handedly. I'll probably pick it up out of curiosity just to see how it turned out, but when they use loading screens and achievement popups to tell you how you should feel about a given moment or the characters, it doesn't sound like they went about it the right way.

@Rox360 said:

Storytime got in your shooter, huh? Who would've guessed. It's not like that's one of the trends that have been bugging me for years, now. It came on especially strongly when I watched the Future Soldier quick look, with its [AREA CLEAR, NOW SIT BACK FOR EXPOSITION/SETPIECE] indicator at the end of every encounter. Then Medal of Honor happened at E3. The trick to making shooters nowadays seems to be to build an extremely linear environment, further make sure all control is taken away from the player before and/or after every single encounter and include lots of flashy moments that play out exactly the same way every time to strip away any replayability that may have been left...

And what the heck is anyone doing questioning the existence of a multiplayer mode in a goddamn shooter?? It started a long time ago, and probably should have faded more at this point, but we still live in an age where customers feel cheated if their newly purchased, high-budget game doesn't have a multiplayer mode. "This trend of putting multiplayer into games to try and extend the life cycle of the product"? More like, the trend of making sure people don't look at your game and say, "Oh, it doesn't have multiplayer? Well, maybe I'd buy it at half price, then, but I'll give it a pass for now."

Games have sort of traditionally had some kind of multiplayer, whether they needed it or not, whether it was any good or not, and even whether the developer wanted it or not, since, oh, I don't know... Doom? Command & Conquer? Every single game from that point onward, except for the extremely gutsy ones made by confident developers that knew their campaign would be a masterpiece no one would feel bad paying 60 bucks for even when most games' campaigns only count for about 10% of the time people will spend with them, at best?

What is video game?

In lack of better words, I like this post.

While I personally wasn't interested in Spec Ops for the potential multiplayer mode, that's certainly a feature the general audience expects from a game like this. And, yes, that has been expected from FPS, TPS and RTS games, at least on PC, since around the Doom or WarCraft era.

I love seeing people get butthurt about Patrick's presence, because there is literally nothing wrong with him (aside from the fact that he is not Jeff, Ryan, Vinny, Brad, or Drew, which is probably what most of their complaints boil down to, regardless of how they dress them up) and these users sound like lunatics. I'm not a huge fan of Alex Navarro, but I don't whine about it every time he posts something. This is their site, and they're not going to fire someone just because a group of users don't think he's cool enough.

Patrick's here. He's not going anywhere. Deal with it.

Watched Kevin VanOrd play the opening live, gonna skip ahead 10-15 minutes I think?

Jeff was being surprisingly harsh on this Quick Look. I think it looks pretty good, and the story seems intriguing.

I might have to try this game out sometime.

I'm curious what Jeff will think of this when he finishes the game. The game itself is pretty janky but the story, especially the last few chapters are downright outstanding.

The moments where Jeff talks about the walking through dead people Homefront-style are pretty timid in the beginning for a reason. The first one made me kind of chuckle since it was trying really hard to get me to care that I almost didn't. Towards the end though, when your character, and rightfully so, goes insane, the tone of the game changes completely. Everything from the reload dialogue to the general feeling of the situation go completely south. Even the tips on the loading screen become insane.

For a game that has killed me on more than one occasion thanks to the crappy controls and has had several instances of terrible texture loading and just general graphical errors, it certainly has had a great impact. The storytelling is just that great in my eyes and I'm curious what Jeff will say on the Bombcast next week.

Call of Duty = Zip around the world and shoot everything in a chaotic situation, flash bang wallop, mindless.

Spec Ops The Line = Moral choices, enviromental elements. Deep involving storyline that makes you play to the end to see how it all pans out.

Spec Ops The Line wont sell very well because the "kids" dont want involving gameplay when they can just mindlessly press RT and be a dick online.

@WilliamHenry said:

@galloughs said:

gonna have to cancel my subscription if patrick keeps being in every quick look

Then just go ahead and cancel it then. Its not like they're going to fire him, so either get over your hate or cancel your sub.

Little extreme there, I never said anything about firing him. I love reading his news stories, and Worth Reading is probably one of the things I look forward to on Friday afternoons, but in quick looks he rarely has anything to offer other than regurgitated reddit memes.

Joseph Conrad was from Poland. His name in polish was Jerzy Konrad Korzeniowski. Second name was than made into a surname. That's why Spec Ops's Kurtz is named Konrad.

Btw. This game is great - it's script is very, very smart.

@Sharpless said:

I love seeing people get butthurt about Patrick's presence, because there is literally nothing wrong with him (aside from the fact that he is not Jeff, Ryan, Vinny, Brad, or Drew, which is probably what most of their complaints boil down to, regardless of how they dress them up) and these users sound like lunatics. I'm not a huge fan of Alex Navarro, but I don't whine about it every time he posts something. This is their site, and they're not going to fire someone just because a group of users don't think he's cool enough.

Patrick's here. He's not going anywhere. Deal with it.

Did you actually put on and take off a pair of sunglasses repeatedly after writing this post?

@galloughs said:

gonna have to cancel my subscription if patrick keeps being in every quick look

Please unsubscribe.

All these people getting sincerely upset about someone not liking Patrick have to be spastic blowhard full of themselves dorks themselves.

I was impressed with the setting of this game. I'm surprised that isn't a running theme in reviews because watching the game is impressive. Dubai is a very interesting place to explore and the settings you run through go from crashed airliners to night clubs to shopping malls and enormous aquariums. The combat seemed average as many reviews seem eager to point out but I can't help feel the game is more than the sum of its parts. Watch a let's play series on the game and I think youll see what I mean. I found this one outstanding: (no connection to me) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6ZowWENKo&feature;=youtube_gdata_player I found the whole thing far more impressive than the reviews in general seem to suggest.

@artgarcrunkle said:

All these people getting sincerely upset about someone not liking Patrick have to be spastic blowhard full of themselves dorks themselves.

I just watched this whole Quick Look, and Patrick did not seem spastic to me. He offered some interesting comments. I think the people posting snipes against the Patrick Haters are sick of these comments on Quick Looks that might not exist on the site had he not covered the games. I don't want to live in a world where I don't know of McPixel's existence.

@galloughs said:

gonna have to cancel my subscription if patrick keeps being in every quick look

@AssInAss said:

This gif took like 2minutes to load for me, 2minutes which I couldn't properly stream the video :(

@emergency said:

@AssInAss said:

This gif took like 2minutes to load for me, 2minutes which I couldn't properly stream the video :(

lol I'm sorry :( Slow internet?