Let's talk about the best military shooter not enough played: Spec Ops: The Line

[BeaconofTruth]

It is a great game, but in the first 15 minutes you're walking about in a science station. You can press a microwave and someones soup explodes. It's entire game loop during that time is "walk around", followed by some mixing up with "push a cart". If premise and setting hasn't hooked you, then Half-Life 1 and 2 should be as boring as they can be, cause their entire 15-30 minute intros relies on drawing you as a player in into their worlds without relying on any shooty bang bang.

Click to shrink...

That is completely different from actually tolerating the core gameplay loop. Anyone can recognize that Half Life is choosing to open slowly and will eventually let me shoot shit.

World building is fine, tho on replays Half Life's brand of story telling is a drawback. But once you get to the core loop Half Life has solid ballistics, fun guns, allows for bunnyhopping, no ADS or weapon limits, a wide variety of enemy types n encounter designs.

Spec Ops once it gets to the actual meat of the game is clunky, plodding, n has all the shallow short comings that come from being a cover shooter.

Which yeah the game doesn't have much going for it in that department to take longer than 15 minutes with its gameplay to realize it's unremarkable.

 

[Keasar]

That is completely different from actually tolerating the core gameplay loop. Anyone can recognize that Half Life is choosing to open slowly and will eventually let me shoot shit.

World building is fine, tho on replays Half Life's brand of story telling is a drawback. But once you get to the core loop Half Life has solid ballistics, fun guns, allows for bunnyhopping, no ADS or weapon limits, a wide variety of enemy types n encounter designs.

Spec Ops once it gets to the actual meat of the game is clunky, plodding, n has all the shallow short comings that come from being a cover shooter.

Which yeah the game doesn't have much going for it in that department to take longer than 15 minutes with its gameplay to realize it's unremarkable.

Click to shrink...

Well, I don't know what else to say but I am sorry that the game insulted you by not living up to your fine standards in gaming, not being as excellent and perfect as those games you approve of your high taste.

I still love it. Warts and all, and quite honestly I think a lot of you people seem to have some REALLY high bar of what's acceptable if this game somehow was the bottom of the barrel. I think it was one of the bravest titles to be developed and judging by a lot of the replies here, that opinion still stands. I will still call it one of the best shooters in the genre.

 

[BeaconofTruth]

Well, I don't know what else to say but I am sorry that the game insulted you by not living up to your fine standards in gaming, not being as excellent and perfect as those games you approve of your high taste.

I still love it. Warts and all, and quite honestly I think a lot of you people seem to have some REALLY high bar of what's acceptable if this game somehow was the bottom of the barrel. I think it was one of the bravest titles to be developed and judging by a lot of the replies here, that opinion still stands. I will still call it one of the best shooters in the genre.

Click to shrink...

Maybe you shouldn't be so petulant about people disagreeing with your take slick? I didn't say anything about my taste, or my standards, or put down cats for liking the game in spite of the gameplay. You have a thread calling it the best game of its style, and yeah people are going to disagree as well.

So the passive aggressive comment wasn't warranted, especially when you decided to smell your own farts in the op and took jabs (intended or otherwise) at people valuing escapism and rolling with the dumb fun action games provide.

I don't think it's bottom of the barrel, but I do think it's a fairly poor gameplay loop, as I'm not super fond of too many games with this type of gameplay. Much less one that is a bare bones version of it.

You are correct in saying it's a brave title, it's a ballsy title, it has narrative ambitions few games have, but in the same vein it is a poor video game to me and a lot of people who value the mediums defining characteristic. Multiple things can be true.

One of my personal favorite video game stories is tied in a terrible puzzle platformer: papa & yo. Were I actually insulted by Spec Ops I wouldn't have finished it, but I did because I dug the story beats enough even if I think it doesn't earn all of it.

Now someone naturally forgiving towards interactions as just a vehicle for story telling, isn't going to be as critical of the gameplay. That's fine, they have different virtues. That doesn't mean there is going to be zero disagreement had.

 

[Keasar]

Maybe you shouldn't be so petulant about people disagreeing with your take slick? I didn't say anything about my taste, or my standards, or put down cats for liking the game in spite of the gameplay. You have a thread calling it the best game of its style, and yeah people are going to disagree as well.

So the passive aggressive comment wasn't warranted, especially when you decided to smell your own farts in the op and took jabs (intended or otherwise) at people valuing escapism and rolling with the dumb fun action games provide.

I don't think it's bottom of the barrel, but I do think it's a fairly poor gameplay loop, as I'm not super fond of too many games with this type of gameplay. Much less one that is a bare bones version of it.

You are correct in saying it's a brave title, it's a ballsy title, it has narrative ambitions few games have, but in the same vein it is a poor video game to me and a lot of people who value the mediums defining characteristic. Multiple things can be true.

One of my personal favorite video game stories is tied in a terrible puzzle platformer: papa & yo. Were I actually insulted by Spec Ops I wouldn't have finished it, but I did because I dug the story beats enough even if I think it doesn't earn all of it.

Now someone naturally forgiving towards interactions as just a vehicle for story telling, isn't going to be as critical of the gameplay. That's fine, they have different virtues. That doesn't mean there is going to be zero disagreement had.

Click to shrink...

You accuse me of passive aggressiveness and your very first post in this thread was:

If you like your game to play shitty, sure. Cool story, bad game.

Click to shrink...

 

[BeaconofTruth]

You accuse me of passive aggressiveness and your very first post in this thread was.

Click to shrink...

Stand by it, if you are fine with your game to play shitty sure, I'm not tho. It's straight up aggressive.

Either way my direct posts in quotes have hardly been put downs or gassing up my own standards by comparison.

Considering you made the thread, you shouldn't exactly be opposed to the idea that people will challenge your opinion/take.

 

[Keasar]

Stand by it, if you are fine with your game to play shitty sure, I'm not tho. It's straight up aggressive.

Either way my direct posts in quotes have hardly been put downs or gassing up my own standards by comparison.

Considering you made the thread, you shouldn't exactly be opposed to the idea that people will challenge your opinion/take.

Click to shrink...

And I stand by that if you prefer your games to be action romps that pumps your ego and artificial self-worth then that is your deal, I want something else though, and Spec Ops was that something for me. Which is why I wanted to give it my praise.

 

[BeaconofTruth]

And I stand by that if you prefer your games to be action romps that pumps your ego and artificial self-worth then that is your deal, I want something else though, and Spec Ops was that something for me. Which is why I wanted to give it my praise.

Click to shrink...

That part is relatively fine (tho the snark n condescension was unwarranted, hence you got it back), because there isn't anything less artificial about being overly invested in a story message, especially one condemning a type of player that you clearly aren't.

The ridiculous dismissal of any and all criticism of the gameplay with wank like "it's actually missing the point" or "you are doing a disservice", nah, that's bull.

Considering the story requires the player to actually have been trying to get some enjoyment out of the game for the game to then put them down for it, it is a big failing of the gameplay to be so unsatisfying.

Considering it's most scathing critique of the player are stuff the player can't avoid doing, people have some ground in pointing out how the gameplay makes these knocks but you couldn't avoid doing them.

Scripted sequences get flack from gameplay centric crowds, it probably also warrants some criticism from a narrative lens as well.

No one is asking the game to be Vanquish, criticizing the players willingness to take part in violent behavior has been done before, I would argue better in games where the gameplay actually is satisfying. It gives the game more leg to stand on when it makes its criticism.

A more limber feeling walker, less lethargic weapon pick ups, more environmental interactions (like the sand shit they show early and then proceed to do nothing with), to fleshing our the tactical stuff, a little bit more varied encounters (especially when it started getting trippy), more distinct enemy types, and a host of other small stuff could have been done to make that part of the game better.

None of which would get in the way the game tells its story or what it proceeds to tell. As it stands the game has reasonably good smoke grenades and some good polishing effects to make headshots come off brutal n juicy.

 

[Deleted member 21709]

Finished this on XBX, I thought it was quite effective. The gameplay was a little clunky at times, but it's fine.

 

[Keasar]

That part is relatively fine (tho the snark n condescension was unwarranted, hence you got it back), because there isn't anything less artificial about being overly invested in a story message, especially one condemning a type of player that you clearly aren't.

Click to shrink...

I clearly was however back when I first played Spec Ops: The Line in 2012, it's why the game hit me so hard and why I appreciate the game even today. I was the exact type of player the game condemned. It's why I appreciate the game so much. My entire opening post is about my experience with the game from the perspective of a player who was that exact type 7 years ago.

Considering it's most scathing critique of the player are stuff the player can't avoid doing, people have some ground in pointing out how the gameplay makes these knocks but you couldn't avoid doing them.

Click to shrink...

And how often do players demand that there be other solutions in more common shooters? Why does Spec Ops have to somehow be the game that has a alternative solution to every occasion? Where are these same demands for when Black Ops asked players to punch a guy in the fucking jaw with a glass shard in it? Nothing in those games are "avoidable", Spec Ops follows the same formula to make its point, players just do what the game tells them to.

The reason why people this time seem to be hanging themselves so much upon "I had no choice!" is because for once the game points out to them what they are doing and confronts them. They are being exactly what the character Walker is who by the end repeats constantly "I had no choice."

 

[zerocalories]

Reminds me of nier automata

Overhyped story wrapped in mediocre gameplay

 

[BeaconofTruth]

And how often do players demand that there be other solutions in more common shooters? Why does Spec Ops have to somehow be the game that has a alternative solution to every occasion? Where are these same demands for when Black Ops asked players to punch a guy in the fucking jaw with a glass shard in it? Nothing in those games are "avoidable", Spec Ops follows the same formula to make its point, players just do what the game tells them to.

The reason why people this time seem to be hanging themselves so much upon "I had no choice!" is because for once the game points out to them what they are doing and confronts them. They are being exactly what the character Walker is who by the end repeats constantly "I had no choice."

Click to shrink...

A bunch? Call of Duty and its ilk are routinely criticized for being too linear, too railroaded, too scripted. I don't know where you are getting this meme no one asks more from CoD. Yeah it has a big audience, but on this forum? You'll easily get your detractors.

The difference is also in context. Call of Duty isn't trying to make you feel bad about anything you're doing, Spec Ops is trying make a criticism of that type of game and that type of player. And if the player is the one being dunked on, but the player can't avoid doing stuff, it's going to make all those criticisms valid. A big reason why people like The Witcher or New Vegas, is because when you do something shitty in those games, that impact lands more when you realize you actually could have avoided it.

Or alternatively, they were sold a product that plays terrible, doesn't satisfy on a basic interactive level, and then proceeds to tell a story that's entire point is on condemning the player for shooting n bombing civilians n shit. There is a pretense to that game, that some people simply aren't buying. Hence why other action games that have also criticized the player, don't get flack for something like that.

 

[EloKa]

The difference is also in context. Call of Duty isn't trying to make you feel bad about anything you're doing, Spec Ops is trying make a criticism of that type of game and that type of player. And if the player is the one being dunked on, but the player can't avoid doing stuff, it's going to make all those criticisms valid. A big reason why people like The Witcher or New Vegas, is because when you do something shitty in those games, that impact lands more when you realize you actually could have avoided it.

Click to shrink...

It would be nice to know how many situations in Spec Ops are actually not avoidable at all.
Some choices which felt pushed onto the player are actually avoidable, the game just doesn't tell you that.
Basically the game often tells you to select either option A or B without telling you that C also exists.

 

[BeaconofTruth]

It would be nice to know how many situations in Spec Ops are actually not avoidable at all.
Some choices which felt pushed onto the player are actually avoidable, the game just doesn't tell you that.
Basically the game often tells you to select either option A or B without telling you that C also exists.

Click to shrink...

The major ones either aren't or you have scenarios like the two bodies you can shoot under that bridge, and you could try fighting your way out. But it's redundant (they die), and it's a lop sided combat encounter that makes you play the cover shooter in all its extra cover shooter boredom. But a lot of this thread is more taking shots at the White Phosph scene n such.

 

[Mr_Zombie]

The major ones either aren't or you have scenarios like the two bodies you can shoot under that bridge, and you could try fighting your way out. But it's redundant (they die), and it's a lop sided combat encounter that makes you play the cover shooter in all its extra cover shooter boredom. But a lot of this thread is more taking shots at the White Phosph scene n such.

Click to shrink...

Iirc the White Phosphorus scene is the only one where you have no choice, where the game basically forces you to do something and then mocks you for doing so. Other scenes either give you an option to fight, flee or resolve the conflict without violence (e.g. taking care of the angry mob after you find Lugo had been murdered).

 

[Keasar]

A bunch? Call of Duty and its ilk are routinely criticized for being too linear, too railroaded, too scripted. I don't know where you are getting this meme no one asks more from CoD. Yeah it has a big audience, but on this forum? You'll easily get your detractors.

The difference is also in context. Call of Duty isn't trying to make you feel bad about anything you're doing, Spec Ops is trying make a criticism of that type of game and that type of player. And if the player is the one being dunked on, but the player can't avoid doing stuff, it's going to make all those criticisms valid. A big reason why people like The Witcher or New Vegas, is because when you do something shitty in those games, that impact lands more when you realize you actually could have avoided it.

Or alternatively, they were sold a product that plays terrible, doesn't satisfy on a basic interactive level, and then proceeds to tell a story that's entire point is on condemning the player for shooting n bombing civilians n shit. There is a pretense to that game, that some people simply aren't buying. Hence why other action games that have also criticized the player, don't get flack for something like that.

Click to shrink...

Because games like Call of Duty presents a narrative of "clean war" where there are no civilians that can get hurt because of your actions. You seriously don't even stop to consider that in Modern Warfare 3 during the attack on Paris, players are given a controller with a TV screen that shows a house "filled with enemies" and told to push the button that nukes the hell out of it? You're just told the "bomb the fuck out of it" without pause, without any consideration of civilians, and the game then pats you on the back and goes "good work nuking those russians in that building that definetly didn't have anyone else in it don't worry". Are we to just seriously believe that Paris, a city of 2.14 million inhabitants just got cleaned out entirely? Who knows how many people are killed actually by the players, but games like Call of Duty refuses to acknowledge the possibility even, cause "you're the hero". You don't avoid those things however, you just do them unquestionably as the game tells, exactly what Spec Ops expects players to do.

As for The Witcher 3 and New Vegas, that is some false presentation of the game that you can somehow "avoid bad choices". Many of the quests don't have any "good or bad" situations, it's morally grey that comes down to player interpretation of what is "the better choice". The Witcher 3 for example many times acknowledges that players can't save everyone, there is never going to be a happy ending. Take for example the Heart of the Woods quest, where a Leshen have been feeding off a village's life energy posing as the Guardian of the village. In either of the options you pick, none of them could be really called "optimal". You just do what you feel is the right choice but you're not doing "the good choice", just a "personal moral" one, and often it comes with unforeseen consequences either way. Geralt (and by extension, the player) is not a hero to come save the world, he is just an actor in a world that doesn't really care what he does.

 

[BeaconofTruth]

Because games like Call of Duty presents a narrative of "clean war" where there are no civilians that can get hurt because of your actions. You seriously don't even stop to consider that in Modern Warfare 3 during the attack on Paris, players are given a controller with a TV screen that shows a house "filled with enemies" and told to push the button that nukes the hell out of it? You're just told the "bomb the fuck out of it" without pause, without any consideration of civilians, and the game then pats you on the back and goes "good work nuking those russians in that building that definetly didn't have anyone else in it don't worry". Are we to just seriously believe that Paris, a city of 2.14 million inhabitants just got cleaned out entirely? Who knows how many people are killed actually by the players, but games like Call of Duty refuses to acknowledge the possibility even, cause "you're the hero". You don't avoid those things however, you just do them unquestionably as the game tells, exactly what Spec Ops expects players to do.

As for The Witcher 3 and New Vegas, that is some false presentation of the game that you can somehow "avoid bad choices". Many of the quests don't have any "good or bad" situations, it's morally grey that comes down to player interpretation of what is "the better choice". The Witcher 3 for example many times acknowledges that players can't save everyone, there is never going to be a happy ending. Take for example the Heart of the Woods quest, where a Leshen have been feeding off a village's life energy posing as the Guardian of the village. In either of the options you pick, none of them could be really called "optimal". You just do what you feel is the right choice but you're not doing "the good choice", just a "personal moral" one, and often it comes with unforeseen consequences either way. Geralt (and by extension, the player) is not a hero to come save the world, he is just an actor in a world that doesn't really care what he does.

Click to shrink...

Why are you so gung ho on Spec Ops only gets judged in a vacuum with CoD? I don't like Call of Duty, its a shallow video game, double time for its multiplayer. I don't think it particularly ever told a good story. Its best achievements are relatively well paced campaigns that have varied action (1, 2, n 4, specifically). So sure if the argument is the story telling is better than Call of Duty's wank, congrats? Would argue, the CoD's after 4, are bombastic, bad boys 2 level of absurd, and double down on the jingoism that wasn't exactly present in the CoD games before them.

If your argument is CoD can and should make comments on this shit, and should have room for options, and let the player have more say in the matter? Then yeah I clearly fucking agree. For starters make the gameplay something more interesting than the same basic bitch ass ADS shooter.

People are easily capable of separating an actual atrocity vs an action game set up. Otherwise we play way too many games to satiate a murder a person itch.

The Witcher isn't false presentation at all, the point remains the same. If those games actually achieve making the player feel bad about one of their decisions, they have more leg to stand on. Because you have more of a choice in the matter, because yeah it's not black n white, it's morally grey in nature. Tends to land more, tends to get people more invested. Neither decision making you feel better, doesn't mean it still doesn't land. You still can end up second guessing the player, especially with how it plays out later. Has nothing to do with "good choices" or otherwise, it's the fact that you have one or more of a say in the matter. The Witcher has plenty of black n white, all anyone remembers are the morally grey scenarios (and rightfully so, its the best parts of the story).

As it stands Spec Ops The Line is just the white, condemning, admittedly well presented. But that does not mean the criticisms aren't valid. The action is unsatisfying on a basic level and being dull, undermines the game trying to mock me for trying to have fun when I'm not having it to begin with. The part where the game forces you to bomb shit n stuff, and then tries to act like you're the dick bag, kind of doesn't hold water to people who are gonna go "I'm not captain walker, i'm controlling a game where the only way forward was when i press this button", nor any other criticism one can bring up at the game.

 

[BeaconofTruth]

Iirc the White Phosphorus scene is the only one where you have no choice, where the game basically forces you to do something and then mocks you for doing so. Other scenes either give you an option to fight, flee or resolve the conflict without violence (e.g. taking care of the angry mob after you find Lugo had been murdered).

Click to shrink...

Fair you can shoot in the air to get the crowd out of there, but I can't think of too many scenarios where fleeing is an option. My major moments i remember in that game are

-White phosp
-the two bodies on the bridge
-the soldiers that you can jump early
-the guy who you can mercy kill or let him die slowly (or burn?)
-the end game one

 

[Dolobill]

I first played the game a year or two ago, and honestly I think the story concept is the only thing that raises the game slightly above complete mediocrity.

 

[Cpt-GargameL]

One of my favorites.

I wish they'd make a remaster or make another one.

 

[Ellyshia]

This was a top 5 game of the generation for me and a top 5 storytelling/ emotional response in a game of all time for me.

I went into it completely blind and thought oh god, it's going to be a mid-tier generic military shooter. The fact that it completely subverted my expectations was truly one of my most prized gaming experiences.

I never got the complaints about the gameplay, but then again shooters aren't my main genre by a long shot, so I'm no expert. I also played it on the hardest difficulty available and found it really challenging and fun. Like each enemy encounter was a puzzle and I had to figure out the order to kill enemies in and when to use my squad commands.

It's always a shame to hear the story didn't work for lots of people out there, because it worked so well for me.

 

[DarkShame3]

THis has moved to the top of my priorities list, especially since I've heard it is a very short time investment. I feel like I am really missing out not having played this yet.

 

[Deleted member 18379]

I played it and I liked it. I would enjoy a remaster. I know it gets flak for the big emotional decisions not really being your own and some sort of generic gameplay but it was memorable and told a good story.

 

[Keasar]

THis has moved to the top of my priorities list, especially since I've heard it is a very short time investment. I feel like I am really missing out not having played this yet.

Click to shrink...

It really isn't a very long game, but you should be able to find it really cheap nowadays, especially during sales, if that helps the decision to buy or not.