I think that game developers, and writers, need to stop trying to force players to feel bad about their actions in video games. I will never feel bad about killing any person in a video game, you know why? THEY'RE NOT REAL!!! You can't kill that which has no life in the first place. That stupid white phosphorus scene was ridiculous. The player and his squad had the high ground and could have easily taken those guys out with conventional small arms fire. NOOOOOOO, says the developers, we're going to force you into this one course of action and then scold you for it. That is a contrived mountain crap. If you really want to impact the player in a meaningful and thought provoking way, they should take notes from games like Limbo, Braid, and Journey. Those games made quite an impact on me and I never had to burn anyone with white phosphorus.

“You are, within the context of you playing it, the cause of everything because you chose to play that game, and it is reacting back at you.”

That could be said of any game. I don't find that position all that profound.

I don't know, it feels like there's a lot of revisionist wisdom in the article above. Addressing each complaint with "we meant to do that." It reminds me of how Apple reinterpreted some of the bugs on their products as "features".

And this, along with Syndicate, is why you don't waste talent or money on doomed thunder-stealing FPS IP Zombie knockoffs.

IGN had a similar article, but where some other things was revealed, such as the fade to black or white, to show the truth or the things that was just in Walkers head.

The things that the developer had made visual, was interessting to read about, also something about a billboard that change during gameplay, and other things.

But the whole aspect about you as the player where going too feel something when you played the game did not happen to me, one of the only time that has happen was in The Longest Journey, there was just a part out got to in the game that kinda touched me in a way I was not prepared for, can't quite remember exactly where though.

I have also read all the reviews that talks about Spec Ops the line as something special story wise, and yes it has alot of interessting parts, but none of them where really doing something to me as a person.

David Cage though is on the right track, and Heavy Rain tried the whole emotional rollercoaster ride, but because of poor voice acting, or rather wrong voice actor (Norman Jayden) I was never really pulled in by it.

Beyond looks much better though so fingers crossed.

Spec ops had an interessting idea the whole thing with how they talk to each other later in the game, so yeah lots of great idea's just not executed so well overall.

@FreedomTown said:

@biggiedubs said:

Art can't be all heroes and happy endings, right?

Please tell me you didn't just equate anything in this garbage heap of a game to "art". Please.

I just did.

I couldn't finish it. A good story is not enough to keep me playing a otherwise bad game!

\@biggiedubs said:

@FreedomTown said:

@biggiedubs said:

Art can't be all heroes and happy endings, right?

Please tell me you didn't just equate anything in this garbage heap of a game to "art". Please.

I just did.

I'm not interested in starting the whole, 'are games art?' thing, because I honestly don't care, but I just used the word 'art' so I can compare it other mediums which have celebrated stories without heroes or happy endings. What's with the hate, anyway? Are you calling it a garbage heap purely because it plays like mediocre shooter, or what?

Because every other game out there is a grim dark downer ending that yells at you for enjoying a game and tries to make you feel about killing bots. And I for one am sick of it.

Therefore a game about a hero fighting evil and having a happy ending is more "artful" then this piece of shit.

The Metal Gear games for all its crazy does that "you're a bad person for killing these people" than the line because in metal gear you can NOT CHOSE to kill them. Here you're force to sit back and mow them down while the writer bitches about how its bad for doing it.

Poor guy didn't know how or what to think about without Jeff doing all of it for him. But this week, everything's back to normal.

\@biggiedubs said:

@FreedomTown said:

@biggiedubs said:

Art can't be all heroes and happy endings, right?

Please tell me you didn't just equate anything in this garbage heap of a game to "art". Please.

I just did.

I'm not interested in starting the whole, 'are games art?' thing, because I honestly don't care, but I just used the word 'art' so I can compare it other mediums which have celebrated stories without heroes or happy endings. What's with the hate, anyway? Are you calling it a garbage heap purely because it plays like mediocre shooter, or what?

Because every other game out there is a grim dark downer ending that yells at you for enjoying a game and tries to make you feel about killing bots. And I for one am sick of it.

Therefore a game about a hero fighting evil and having a happy ending is more "artful" then this piece of shit.

The Metal Gear games for all its crazy does that "you're a bad person for killing these people" than the line because in metal gear you can NOT CHOSE to kill them. Here you're force to sit back and mow them down while the writer bitches about how its bad for doing it.

@MEATBALL said:

I am so going to buy this when it hits $20. >_>

this.

@phrali: Well not everyone thinks that way, and god forbid people support a game that tries to do something new.

I just finished the game last night. I really enjoyed it. It was average as a shooter, but really good plot and acting. As far as getting a deeper meaning, I really didn't. But I enjoyed the twists and turns of the story big time. I will admit there were quite a few, "WTF?" moments. WTF as in, "I didn't expect that!" moments.

Playing a game in which I really enjoyed the story was quite refreshing.

@Hailinel:

Homefront, Mass Effect 3, Army of Two 40th day, Bad Company 2, Black Ops. Cain and Lych (both games)

Great article and summary of the spoilercast preceding it. I personally enjoyed the game quite a bit, after it was all over and done with. Yes, the shooting was poor. Yes, they may have lingered too long before hitting the stronger story beats and getting it moving. But it was refreshing in the end, and I enjoyed it overall. The story sold me on it, and mostly because I love the two source materials it was birthed from.

The interesting thing is, as Jeff has stated, is how this game's legacy will go forward into the medium.

I liked Spec Ops.

Not so much for the twists-- which were a cool tool for telling the story-- but for the story itself, which raised a lot of interesting ideas about the difference between a "good" act and a "heroic" one; about when killing actually "counts" and when it's just considered "part of battle;" and about exactly how much you can really hope to accomplish in a complex situation when your only available action is force. -But that's just the half of it.

The really great thing about the storytelling, is that all the assumptions Walker makes in response to those questions-- his need to keep pushing forward; the guilt and evil of his enemies; the automatic justification of his own actions, regardless of force-- are the exact same assumptions that the player is expected to make while playing a third-person shooter.

It's like the "would you kindly" moment in Bioshock, only extrapolated out into an entire game! Think about it!!

...Also, I thought the shooting was pretty okay.

I haven't yet played this game, but all the talk regarding the story does have me intrigued to some degree. With that said, I do have a question: From what I understand, The Line forces upon the player to do things he/she doesn't want to do. I get the point of this and get what it's trying to do and critique and how it's emotionally heavy and so on. However, I'm a little torn at the same time. If a lot of this is indeed presented with a “yep, this is sure ugly but you gotta do what you gotta do,” isn't that in a sense absolving people of their responsibility to not do shitty things? I could be way off, not having played the game—maybe it treats the subject from a totally different perspective—but I got that feeling quite a lot from watching videos and hearing things about the game.

@Dunchad: I just watched the cutscenes on youtube and felt pretty good about it. I don't really want to have to suffer through all the gameplay problems, but then again everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

I played this game and fell in love with it almost immediately. The gameplay is mediocre, but if you just pop it on easy and blow through it for the story, its a Great game.

They kept me second guessing my characters sanity and my actions, and made it quite uncomfortable at times. But I love a game that can make me 'Feel' something.

I couldn't care any less about the thousands of AI I mowed down in Modern Warfare, but throughout this game their were quite a few scenes where I actually felt bad about what I was doing.

I say, Well Done!

Had a lot of fun with this game, and got it nice and cheap through the Summer Steam Sale!

Heavy is FUCKING DEAD. I enjoyed the hell out of this game. Wasn't expecting to want to buy it, but it's exactly the kind of game that appeals to me. Putting story before a lot of other aspects of the game. Fantastic voice performances also.

I'm surprised at the amount of flak this game is getting in the comments. The goal of the game was to provide a more realized play on morality in the shooter genre. Yes, the gameplay is standard, but that's kind of the point: The game is about interactive depictions of violence and the way it's portrayed. There will always be room for polished teenage power fantasies like Call of Duty, where you play a Christlike figure saving the game's world from a tide of faceless enemies, and Oblivion, where the world bends and submits to the player's every desire. I'm not going to chastise someone for not wanting to play this, but I think it's indubitable that a game like this is absolutely necessary in the shooter genre. For me, it was exactly the kind of game that I've been wanting for years.

I also feel like kind of an idiot for complaining about the gameplay itself before I played it. The game plays exactly the way it needs to.

@pakattak: I am also bothered by misplaced modifiers. Once you learn the rule, you can't unlearn it....

@LethalKi11ler said:

@Dunchad: I just watched the cutscenes on youtube and felt pretty good about it. I don't really want to have to suffer through all the gameplay problems, but then again everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

The super weird thing about Spec Ops is that there aren't really any gameplay problems. The gameplay is super standard for a third person cover based shooter, but by no means is it broken. You're never fighting the game's mechanics, but there's this weird sort of myth about this game that the game does not play well. It plays fine, it just doesn't do anything mechanically that messes with the GOW/Uncharted formula, besides making everybody more fragile.

Also, as a disclaimer, I'm one of those people that get's really adamant about defending this game:

I am currently playing through this game, and I find the element of fourth wall breaking something that serves as a very effective way of toying with the player. which is surprising, given that usually it merely serves to break immersion for a gag.

@d715 said:

@Hailinel:

Homefront, Mass Effect 3, Army of Two 40th day, Bad Company 2, Black Ops. Cain and Lych (both games)

That's funny because I remember playing 40th Day and totally saving the day. Black Ops also ends with you killing the bad guy and getting out of the exploding submarine, right? That seems like a hero triumphing over evil to me. According to a plot summary I just read, the ending is a heroic sacrifice that saves America. I think that's about as patriotic and 'good vs evil' as you can possibly get.

Also, you're controlling a character, so stop getting so offended that he's killing innocent people. You're not him and, ultimately, you're not meant to relate to him and his actions.

The plot isn't that great anyway, I'm more interested in how it's told.

@High_Nunez: Maybe your being irked by the game, no matter the context, is your way of being immersed in it. Having a rigidly rationale approach to the medium as a whole might confine you to experiencing a game as its creators meant you to.

@avid8bit: I've considered that before, but it really isn't. My problem with connecting with games in this emotional, and intimate level is that it never feels intimate. There's no raw sense of experience, it's controlled, and artificial. I guess a part of my brain can't get past that. The physical act of using the control, for instance, is alienating. I can appreciate it if a game has a decent story, and Spec Ops: The Line (just to bring it back around) is sort of an okay story(there are some weird holes in it), but as a deconstruction of shooters, it fails, and making me question my enjoyment of shooters, it didn't do it for me. Ultimately, it's the underhanded sententiousness that bothered me. The presumption by the creators of the game, not the game itself. The best thing I can say about it is that it had some cool ideas - like the devolving morale of the trio - and it's attempt at profundity is ambitious at least.

This article (and the gamespot podcast last week) made me think quite a bit about how I play games.

I came to the conclusion that i've never been able to get truly attached to a video game from a story and character stand point. I always struggle to imagine what people are saying when they tell me they are 'immersed' in a games universe. I always feel completely detached from every thing that I see in a game even if my actions directly caused the outcome of a scene (for example in an RPG).

It's not that I lack imagination either I just simply can't get past that fact that i'm playing a video game. The game box, the controller i'm holding and the TV i'm playing the game on all contribute to the feeling of being detached.

What they did with Spec Ops however was incredibly clever and spoke to me an awful lot more than any richly crafted video game world could. They communicated directly with me, as the player of the video game in the real world. They didn't send all these messages to the character I was meant to be playing or to the world I was supposed to be immersed in.

An excellent article. I love that this has people elevating the conversation around a game from simply a diatribe on mechanics and "fun" but in a more literary direction. It's a sign for every medium that it is growing up and really flexing what is possible within the medium.

This game left me stressed out upon completion.

and I missed intel, too. I. Sincerely hope this game doesn't do anything like hide content in its Impossible-Difficulty.

Thanks for the article by the way. It made me curious enough about the game to grab it from Steam and now I'm going to go cry a little because this game was kinda psycho.

@biggiedubs said:

Black Ops also ends with you killing the bad guy and getting out of the exploding submarine, right?

It also ended with the revelation that you were (likely) the one who killed Kennedy. Not never minding the ending, the whole game is about a crazy person who, for most of the game, sacrifices most of the real people around him for the whims of his imaginary friend.

Then we have Resistance, a series that is basically the embodiment of It Got Worse. The victory of the first game is momentary, as England is soon overrun again, America is decimated and the hero turns to a Chimera before being killed in 2. By the time 3 rolls around, the Chimera have the world by the nuts, and even at the end, it's pretty clear that humanity has a shit-ton of rebuilding to do, with the ultimate fate of the Chimera still in question.

We have Halo. Reach was basically an impossible battle against a seemingly infinite enemy. The ODSTs prove absolutely unimportant in New Mombasa, and the end of the mainline Halo trilogy is the hero in a capsule in Bumfuck, Nowhere while a mass-funeral is held, with no one really in the mood to celebrate the end of a thirty-year genocide.

Then there's Gears of War, a series that was mostly about a group of tired ass soldiers in a war they could never hope to finish, much less win. By the end, Marcus has lost his best friend, and is wondering if there's anything left to live for.

Then there's the vaunted Modern Warfare series, which so many "gamers" put on a pike as the cause of all ills in the gaming industry. During the trilogy, a mad American general engineers a war with Russia, two of the heroes are branded traitors, one of them dies slowly and painfully, and the ending is a subdued affair in which the other is left to smoke his cigar. No great big ovation, no "save the world," just a subdued moment, watching a body swaying, perhaps pondering where his path has led him the last few years.

While there are plenty of crap stories in gaming, there's no shortage of quality either. People who claim there aren't are not so much looking for better stories, as much as stories in which the United States is ultimately the villain. I do want to give Spec Ops: The Line a look, because it looks very interesting, but let's not pretend it's some pivotal moment or the first time that a game's story has been engaging.

@YukoAsho:

I'm going to quote myself for this:

'The plot isn't that great anyway, I'm more interested in how it's told'.

and

'This game doesn't have a particular great plot, it just hasn't, but that not's the point. The fucking point is that for once a game was able to tell a plot without the use of terrible exposition over a blank screen, with as little dialogue as possible, with as little cut-scenes as possible. Actually telling the story through actions in the game.'

I still think the plot is okay. I also still think that the majority of video game plots are garbage, however. It's the actual craft of the storytelling I'm much more interested in. It's worth a luck, as long as you're mindful and take notice of the small details instead of focusing on the overarching plot.

Don't play it listening to music, and give it you're full attention and it's totally worth playing.

Great article, Patrick. Just finished the game last night. Some other noteworthy loading screens: "How many Americans have you killed today?" and "You are a good person."

And I think it's great that Williams was around during the voice acting recording sessions--you could really tell. The voicework in this game was stellar across the board, especially North's. "Kill fucking confirmed!"

I just wonder how much stuff the writer said on that gamespot podcast was truely the intention of the developers. I was listening to that podcast and when the writer said "if someone wants to put our game down and stop playing, then i think the game was successful...." thats a bold position for a developer to take. Of course, he was talking about it in the context of being bothered by the actions the characters have to do.

@Zenogiasu said:

And I think it's great that Williams was around during the voice acting recording sessions--you could really tell. The voicework in this game was stellar across the board, especially North's. "Kill fucking confirmed!"

Was cool to hear the writer say that the reason they were so ragged and worn out sounding by the end of the game is because they always recorded the dialog straight through from beginning to end. It says a lot about the voice actors , and the creative people behind the game to do that for the sake of adding that touch to the game.

@biggiedubs said:

@d715 said:

@Hailinel:

Homefront, Mass Effect 3, Army of Two 40th day, Bad Company 2, Black Ops. Cain and Lych (both games)

That's funny because I remember playing 40th Day and totally saving the day.

You can save the day, but your friend dies in the process. So, that's not exactly, "saving the day."

I've never been personally concerned about spoilers, and it was the GameSpot podcast that really piqued me into renting the game to power through the story. Glad I did, being aware of the context but experiencing the story for the first time doesn't ruin things; as Williams said, nobody had really picked up on most of the core issues.

I look forward to the 2012 award discussion on this. It deserves a place at the table.

There are moments of player agency that are subtly as well as overly forced. There's a sequence where you are given 1 bullet and a choice. Even if you choose to use the bullet, you can miss, and then you feel totally helpless and awful because there's no alternative (melee, etc.) I made a point of using execution moves throughout the game to see how it evolved. Towards the end of the game things become sadistic, then cringeworthy. Walker is a homicidal lunatic, like a caricature from Bulletstorm who can't leave anything alive.

@felakuti4life:

The problem is that video games isn't enjoy the same way as other media.

The Story in the Lina works for a movie or book but not as well in a game were the player controls the actions of the game. So yelling at the player that they are a bad bad person because the developers made it so they have no option to do anything other than the way the developers wanted and then claim some bullshit like it the real world, but in the real world doesn't spawn snipers that never miss and and endless horde of dudes attacking you until you do this one thing.

@d715 said:

@felakuti4life:

The problem is that video games isn't enjoy the same way as other media.

The Story in the Lina works for a movie or book but not as well in a game were the player controls the actions of the game. So yelling at the player that they are a bad bad person because the developers made it so they have no option to do anything other than the way the developers wanted and then claim some bullshit like it the real world, but in the real world doesn't spawn snipers that never miss and and endless horde of dudes attacking you until you do this one thing.

I don't think SOLTL would have the same impact as a book. If I had read the story instead of played it, I would have felt more detached. Being in the thick of it, playing as Walker, really made the fucked up shit he was going through resonate with me.

I'm also going to pedantic and point out that you can totally avoid sniper shots and the lack of infinitely spawning enemies in Spec Ops: The Line (except for the part before the sandstorm, I guess) :P

@Ravenlight said:

@d715 said:

@felakuti4life:

The problem is that video games isn't enjoy the same way as other media.

The Story in the Lina works for a movie or book but not as well in a game were the player controls the actions of the game. So yelling at the player that they are a bad bad person because the developers made it so they have no option to do anything other than the way the developers wanted and then claim some bullshit like it the real world, but in the real world doesn't spawn snipers that never miss and and endless horde of dudes attacking you until you do this one thing.

I don't think SOLTL would have the same impact as a book. If I had read the story instead of played it, I would have felt more detached. Being in the thick of it, playing as Walker, really made the fucked up shit he was going through resonate with me.

I'm also going to pedantic and point out that you can totally avoid sniper shots and the lack of infinitely spawning enemies in Spec Ops: The Line (except for the part before the sandstorm, I guess) :P

I agree. I don't think that the developers were trying to emulate life the way you think they are, @d715 . The game presents an ersatz choice to force your hand and make it clear that player agency is little more than a developer-crafted skinner box. In this way it is not emulating real life, but rather contrasting traditional game design with real life decision making processes. No, the real world does not spawn snipers and endless hordes of enemies, but the real world also does not allow you to take a bullet and shrug it off behind cover, or reload at the last checkpoint. SOTL is about those incongruities, and that's why it could be presented in no other medium besides video games. That is something I think all video game enthusiasts can get excited about.

@Phished0ne said:

@FengShuiGod said:

The character chatter in game is cool. But that's about it. I really don't understand the praise this story gets. Yo dude, you killed some innocent people, omg what an intellectual experience.

Its not even about that. A lot of the game is actually commentary about the nature of video games. Thats why there is discussion about it. If it was just another typical shooter with an attempted "tug at heartstrings" moment, no one would be talking about it.

So what? A video game gussies up its moral choices with a shoddy job of metatextuality. Once again, video games are praised as innovative for doing a third rate job of some old gimmick they aren't best suited to anyways.

@FengShuiGod said:

@Phished0ne said:

@FengShuiGod said:

The character chatter in game is cool. But that's about it. I really don't understand the praise this story gets. Yo dude, you killed some innocent people, omg what an intellectual experience.

Its not even about that. A lot of the game is actually commentary about the nature of video games. Thats why there is discussion about it. If it was just another typical shooter with an attempted "tug at heartstrings" moment, no one would be talking about it.

So what? A video game gussies up its moral choices with a shoddy job of metatextuality. Once again, video games are praised as innovative for doing a third rate job of some old gimmick they aren't best suited to anyways.

But the thing is that there are no "moral choices"- the game is about the illusion of morality and choice in the shooter genre.

@felakuti4life said:

@FengShuiGod said:

@Phished0ne said:

@FengShuiGod said:

The character chatter in game is cool. But that's about it. I really don't understand the praise this story gets. Yo dude, you killed some innocent people, omg what an intellectual experience.

Its not even about that. A lot of the game is actually commentary about the nature of video games. Thats why there is discussion about it. If it was just another typical shooter with an attempted "tug at heartstrings" moment, no one would be talking about it.

So what? A video game gussies up its moral choices with a shoddy job of metatextuality. Once again, video games are praised as innovative for doing a third rate job of some old gimmick they aren't best suited to anyways.

But the thing is that there are no "moral choices"- the game is about the illusion of morality and choice in the shooter genre.

Nah the real reason they did this is because if they didn't do a "no Russia" like level no one would have bought it and quickly forget about the game in a week.

Plus the "true art is angst" crap

That's the reason why all the press (minus forbes) defended that shitty Mass Effect 3 ending like all off them said the same crap "not everything has an happy ending"

@felakuti4life said:

@FengShuiGod said:

@Phished0ne said:

@FengShuiGod said:

The character chatter in game is cool. But that's about it. I really don't understand the praise this story gets. Yo dude, you killed some innocent people, omg what an intellectual experience.

Its not even about that. A lot of the game is actually commentary about the nature of video games. Thats why there is discussion about it. If it was just another typical shooter with an attempted "tug at heartstrings" moment, no one would be talking about it.

So what? A video game gussies up its moral choices with a shoddy job of metatextuality. Once again, video games are praised as innovative for doing a third rate job of some old gimmick they aren't best suited to anyways.

But the thing is that there are no "moral choices"- the game is about the illusion of morality and choice in the shooter genre.

When I was writing my comment I almost put "moral choices" in quotes. Call them whatever you want, the choice to engage illusion of morality and choice in the shooter genre is a walk in metatextuality - like I said - but it doesn't do a good job at it.

@FengShuiGod: So you don't think a game should at least get some credit for trying something that has never been done in video game storytelling? It shouldnt get credit for elevating the discussion of story/player agency in video games? Much less doing it in a genre that until recently never even TRIED to do anything more than "HEY SHOOT THAT BAD DUDE". Feel free to enlighten me, but i've never played, heard about on any podcast, or seen an article written on any gaming site about a big budget game released by a major publisher that delves into a meta-discussion about its medium like The Line. Sure, the game wasn't as great as it could have been, sure, the story wasnt amazing. But it should at least get brownie points for trying something new.

@d715 said:

@felakuti4life said:

@FengShuiGod said:

@Phished0ne said:

@FengShuiGod said:

The character chatter in game is cool. But that's about it. I really don't understand the praise this story gets. Yo dude, you killed some innocent people, omg what an intellectual experience.

Its not even about that. A lot of the game is actually commentary about the nature of video games. Thats why there is discussion about it. If it was just another typical shooter with an attempted "tug at heartstrings" moment, no one would be talking about it.

So what? A video game gussies up its moral choices with a shoddy job of metatextuality. Once again, video games are praised as innovative for doing a third rate job of some old gimmick they aren't best suited to anyways.

But the thing is that there are no "moral choices"- the game is about the illusion of morality and choice in the shooter genre.

Nah the real reason they did this is because if they didn't do a "no Russia" like level no one would have bought it and quickly forget about the game in a week.

Plus the "true art is angst" crap

That's the reason why all the press (minus forbes) defended that shitty Mass Effect 3 ending like all off them said the same crap "not everything has an happy ending"

I'm slowly realizing that you did not actually play this game. However, I understand your point- all of this discussion of emotion and personal angst is very pretentious. I believe that the game, as a narrative vehicle that could only exist within the interactive medium- works on multiple levels, and I find that very exciting.

I'm not sure if I understood the flak that the ME3 endings got- they made it pretty clear from the beginning of the trilogy that you were going to play christ and sacrifice for the greater good of the universe- but I personally finished that trilogy feeling very ambivalent about the static nature of the games as a whole. I could definitely see why somebody would be disappointed with those endings though, but it's interesting to think if it just showed Shepard saving everyone and living happily ever after if people would be satisfied with that. Knowing that there will possibly be another trilogy in the canon now, I think I would be excited for them to create a game following the events of that ending.

@FengShuiGod said:

@felakuti4life said:

@FengShuiGod said:

@Phished0ne said:

@FengShuiGod said:

The character chatter in game is cool. But that's about it. I really don't understand the praise this story gets. Yo dude, you killed some innocent people, omg what an intellectual experience.

Its not even about that. A lot of the game is actually commentary about the nature of video games. Thats why there is discussion about it. If it was just another typical shooter with an attempted "tug at heartstrings" moment, no one would be talking about it.

So what? A video game gussies up its moral choices with a shoddy job of metatextuality. Once again, video games are praised as innovative for doing a third rate job of some old gimmick they aren't best suited to anyways.

But the thing is that there are no "moral choices"- the game is about the illusion of morality and choice in the shooter genre.

When I was writing my comment I almost put "moral choices" in quotes. Call them whatever you want, the choice to engage illusion of morality and choice in the shooter genre is a walk in metatextuality - like I said - but it doesn't do a good job at it.

A valid opinion- I thought that the game worked well, and was rather slick in it's ebb and flow and cinematography, but I could see why the execution could be disagreeable. In what way do you think it did not work?

I just finished Spec Ops not half an hour ago. And all I have to say is:

"Fuck"

@MrBeanTroll said:

Every time I read or hear anything about this game I really want to play it yet I know I don't have the patience for average shooter gameplay.

I actually don't get what's so "average" about that part. In my opinion, it's a far better shooter than the Uncharted games and Mass Effect games are and we're all playing those regardless, right? During my time with the game I felt compelled to use different weapons depending on the situation, the combat arenas were varied, well paced and forced me to make use of all the resources available to me (including running out of ammo which forced me to leave my safe cover occasionally). Aiming felt responsive and the weapons were different enough for me to have certain favorites and debating which weapon I should keep in my two slots for the next battle. I resent the notion that "average" should suggest "bad" in this case which is what seems to be what's happening here. It's all functional, effective and useful. Average does not mean sub-par. It's average because it does nothing unique with the shooting since the game is not about the fun of the shooting mechanics like a Gears of War, it's about supporting the narrative and context of the world which it does successfully.

SingleClap

@DeF said:

@MrBeanTroll said:

Every time I read or hear anything about this game I really want to play it yet I know I don't have the patience for average shooter gameplay.

I actually don't get what's so "average" about that part. In my opinion, it's a far better shooter than the Uncharted games and Mass Effect games are and we're all playing those regardless, right? During my time with the game I felt compelled to use different weapons depending on the situation, the combat arenas were varied, well paced and forced me to make use of all the resources available to me (including running out of ammo which forced me to leave my safe cover occasionally). Aiming felt responsive and the weapons were different enough for me to have certain favorites and debating which weapon I should keep in my two slots for the next battle. I resent the notion that "average" should suggest "bad" in this case which is what seems to be what's happening here. It's all functional, effective and useful. Average does not mean sub-par. It's average because it does nothing unique with the shooting since the game is not about the fun of the shooting mechanics like a Gears of War, it's about supporting the narrative and context of the world which it does successfully.

I agree completely with you. I really enjoyed the game aspects as well as the story aspects.