Errant Signal - Spec Ops: The Line
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 08. 2024
- For further reading, I sincerely recommend Tom Bissell's piece on Spec Ops:
www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8...
Additionally, this piece comparing No Russian to what Spec Ops does is really great:
www.magicalwasteland.com/mw/20... - Hry
One of my favourite parts was in the opening credits. It lists all the developers, producers and whatnot, then under "Special Guest" it gives your username.
Oh, gods yeah, I still remember that the first time I played through at first thinking 'Aw, thats a nice touch. They know I'm part of the story here, so that's a 4th wall breaking "Thanks for buying our game" pat on the back'
Oh, how little did I know what I was a part of back then. Oh dearie, dearie me
First time seeing it: eyyy it’s me. Second time: Please, I don’t wanna be here. This isn’t my fault. Walker made me do it.
"None of this would have happened if you [the player] had just stopped. But on you marched, and for what? [The end of the game?]"
It's telling that before two of the most pivotal moments in the game's entire storyline, there are literal signs telling you to S T O P
He left out how in the game ammo is incredibly rare, and an easy way to get ammo is to knee cap a soldier then do an incredibly brutal execution move for extra ammo. The game rewards you for being a monster so that when you realize you are, it hits all the harder. This game needs to be talked about more
This game brings up interesting questions but even then it doesn't provide any answers. I consider this game pointless
Denzel Romero It's not supposed to provide answers. It's supposed to ask questions for you yourself to answer. It would be pointless if it answered the questions it asked as then you would not even have to think about it. Ironic that you call it pointless for the exact reason it has a point, and imply that the game would have a point if it did what would make it pointless.
+Michael Prymula The game isn't striving for realism.
+Michael Prymula It's a matter of balancing things again with player choice and moralising it. How brutal are you willing to be in order to get ahead? Do you brutally execute someone for your own gain? Or do you simply shoot the enemy and hope you get enough ammo from drops?
It's the game rewarding you for doing it, and then through the animation telling you how horrible a person you are for doing it.
^So did Undertale do it right?
Just gonna note something about the upside down American flag. It is standard code to hang your flag upside down in the military if your base is under siege and you have no other means of communication.
Upside down flag is for distress call,but it's gonna be hard for Poland/Indonesia/Monaco,UK,and pretty much Symetrical flag
TheWingsofprey but Nepal has a poopie flag and can’t do rhat
In all menu variants it's inverted untill the very end post epilogue variant where it's the right way up
There's a screenplay there, somewhere.
It also represents that America is diseased, rotten to the core.
There’s no saving it as we have to pull it out by the roots.
There's nothing that prevents it from being both; having a canonical, story driven reason for flying a distress symbol doesn't detract from its resonance as an inverted symbol of Americana set atop Hendrix's twisted, distorted, slightly atonal version of the American anthem.
btw if you shoot up when you are surrounded by the civs they will run. No need to shoot them if you want to cling onto any morality you have left in the game. And this game really did make me think of that when I was surrounded "Do I have to shoot them? I've done enough to deserve the surrounding." So my last thought was do it like they do in the movies shoot up in the air and make them panic, and that worked.
You can also melee attack them to get them to disperse without killing any of them.
I tried to walk through the mob and got hurt bad then saw someone throw a Rock that almost hit my head it definitely would’ve killed me if it hit so I just sprayed them. I didn’t realize I could’ve just scared them off until I watch videos after the ending. Shit broke me. When Lugo walked out that door after his death and I had to shoot him dead. I noticed my other partner aiming his gun at me. I just looked at the screen in silence and literally said “I don’t want to kill anymore” but I had to see the story to its end. This game is a great think piece subject. 2nd favorite I’ve ever played
@@soversetile "But I had to see the story to its end"
And there it is. "I had to." "I didn't have a choice." "You made me do this."
You didn't have to see anything. You could have shut down the game at any point - no, it wouldn't have changed the story, but it would at least have made you personally divorced from it as a player - but you didn't shut the game down. You finished it. You grit your teeth and looked away while you gunned all those game characters down, because you *wanted* to see the ending, even after they told you to stop playing - not had to - wanted to.
Darasilverdragon you’re right. Damn this game has a powerful message and I’m even learning more a year later
I shot in the air too.
Nearly mowed them down, not gonna lie. I had a full on rage trigger go off in my head when they killed Lugo, I swapped on the underside 'nade launcher thinking "Yeah, I want to inflict MAXIMUM carnage for what they did", aimed the sights directly at the face of someone in the mob....and then a funny question floated into my mind.
"Can I really blame them?"
And the answer came back "No. I can't".
I was incredibly relieved that they allowed you to shoot into the air and the mob broke and ran.
I read a very laconic but very good summary of SO:TL's goal -"If you can't accept the blame for what you did in Dubai, you also shouldn't accept the praise for what you did in CoD".
G36Ghost good quote
I'm saving this quote ^^
Why would any player accept either? You aren't the protagonist.
Spec Ops: The Line does not give me option NOT to do things. If I could choose not to enter Dubai, NOT to use WP, alongside many other forced events, then the blame could be placed on me. However, when game gives me choice?
That is on developers, not on me. I am not at fault anymore than I am reading a book about horrible events.
Far Cry 4 manages to make this point far better without beating player over the head with it. You can cause untold destruction and pain by disobeying and pushing ahead, or you can be good little guest, sit tight and avoid everything. Your choice is what determine the future. If you choice to try to escape, the pain that happens is on you.
I felt the same way, but us claiming we did not have a choice makes us just like Walker claiming Konrad didn't give him a choice. Don't you think that there's something almost beautifully disturbing about that parallel?
Amazing game.
What's funny is that Battlefield 3 actually does delve into this question, then immediately turns around and sells itself as "It doesn't matter, shit is exploding, kill the enemy"
Bullshit, BF3 ftw!
TheLiosoul Lol What you mean?
Sure it was so annoyingly linear, and quite short, but still enjoyable overall.
TheLiosoul Well I see, but just don't think I like it just because it's a shooter.
I'm not big on CoD or Halo, js.
BF3 and BF4 try to be an intriguing narrative, but they fall short not to say that each games campaign didn't have it's moments. If they had put more time in to the story mode it would have been great although the Battlefield series has really just been multiplayer up until recently, but I'll tell you what the screams on multiplayer make me feel kinda bad for killing or even falling to help a teammate.
Chrono Reactor I had read DICE were rly trying to improve BF's single-player experience with BF4, I haven't played it yet, but have heard a lot of negatives about the campaign so I take it DICE didn't succeed well?
am i the only person who noticed the stop sign at the beginning of the game? when you first learn about the cover mechanics?
I saw it but thought nothing of it.
That is a good catch
Devin Rampersad spine chilling
I seen it too, although I played that game until my PS3 broke.
I spotted it right away (I assume you mean because it's in English?)
But...well...only due to...experience I guess? I wasn't any kind of spec ops but you still learn to notice things that don't belong and notice them FAST. Or you get your friends killed. Or...unfortunately...both.
An absolute masterpiece, I don't care what anyone says. Gripped me in a way few games have.
(I've seen you comment on many spec ops: the line videos, so I hope you can comment on this.)
Here's my theory, (Sorry if it's a bit long) Walker is Konrad, he joined the military because he wanted to be like one of those Action heroes in the movies, or in the case of video games, The modern military/CoD protagonists, He even spouts one-liners when he kills "enemies", like "Guess you should've stayed home!" or "I'm getting' too old for this shit!" to fuel his power fantasy that I'm going to get into soon. Anyway, he enlisted to go to Afghanistan, where he fought in Kabul. Once Konrad fought, he'd experienced the horrors of war. After Kabul, John Konrad changed his name to Martin Walker to escape what he had done and started from scratch again, which explains why Walker is a captain and Konrad a colonel. Combine the horrors of war with staying in Dubai for approximately six and a half months and so called "forced" to do all these horrible things, you would start to expect horrible things to happen. I say this because some transitions fade to white, which means they are imagined or altered, and walker imagined the gate scene, he still wanted to feel like an awesome Rambo-esc action hero. So he conjured up white phosphorus to desolate nearly a hundred people, but he remembered how it affects people from earlier experiences, so he expected to be punished for his sins. Walker also wanted the perfect buddy-buddy action movie team, so when he was assigned Adams and Lugo he imagined them to be good friends; which they were, but not great friends (Also did you notice that sometimes walker looks scared in some battles and other times he has an action hero gaze.)
Also Adams and Lugo are the 33rd and symbolize the two sides disagree with each other, and then one comes out on top. Lugo being the outnumbered good, and Walker and Adams are the powerful but insane bad. Lugo died and that's when things start to fall apart, more hallucinations, guilt trips, and changes in attitude. The " enemies" are also the military that came when Konrad sent the transmission six months ago, but revealed to be Walker sending the transmission at the end, but Walker doesn't want to believe that he's murdering innocent soldiers so he wouldn't think of himself as a war criminal. But in the ending he accepts that he's a murderer so the dead body of Konrad disappears and he kills himself or just accepts it and wants to live. The epilogue has Konrad or Walker in his uniform and sees his "enemies" as what they are. He keeps fighting the soldiers knowing full well who they are, and the ending where walker goes home isn't canon because it fades into white. Also I forgot to mention the radioman is imaginary, that's why he knows everything including the gate. I'm almost certain there's something in the game that I didn't remember which disproves this theory, I mean it even mentions cognitive dissonance, but for now I'll believe it.
Hey interesting comment, it wasn't too long at all, unfortunately some people tend to have short attention spans these days. I have heard this theory before but never in such detail, it certainly espouses the idea that the situation is one big, metaphor that Konrad has created in his head. The fact they are so isolated in Dubai makes it difficult to disprove, they have no outside contact with the military that proves Walker is Walker and not Konrad. As you say Lugo, Adams and Radioman would have to be figments of Konrad's imagination for this to work but seeing as they have no interaction with other people in the game outside your character it seems to work.
Yeah I've been thinking about this for a little while now and I'm finding it hard to find any plot holes in it. It also clears up plot holes in the game as to why Adams allowed Walker to continue with the mission after he breaks orders rather than relieve him of his command which would undoubtedly happen in real life. Perhaps the one problem I see here is the CIA and their interactions with Walker/Konrad, Gould tries to save him near the start which would seem counter productive to their goals and later you team up with Riggs who makes no comment that you are Konrad although he surely would recognise you. You didn't mention this in your initial post but maybe you have something that clears this up?
Anyway it's an interesting theory regardless and that's what I love about this game, it creates different opinions and allows you to think for yourself rather than force feeding you a storyline. I still like my theory but yours is no less valid because of that.
***** Really interest to read, I've played this game many times, and is the first time I came to realize that, well, I already knew 'bout the black/white fading, but, nevertheless, very interesting theory, but I'd really like to read about the helicopter beggining secuence and later on the crash, or CIA agents. Yes, what's the purpouse of the CIA on Dubai if all it's an allucination?
Leonardo Gonzalez The games says that the 33rd killed Lt. Daniels, The first one, (I forgot his name.) Gould, and Riggs. Which means Walker and his friends killed the CIA agents.
The plane crash was just a flashback.
It doesn't matter how many times u clear this game, sometimes u can never have enough of it, Cool game, very interesting concept, despite being A so understimated jewel, it's story remind me to Apocalypse Now. A shame there'll never be a 2nd Spec Ops
It's not empirically the best game I ever played, but dude, this game...This game changed me...
But the gameplay was super generic though
+SHAWKLAN 27 It doesn't matter. It's not about the gameplay. This game is more like a piece of literature rather than just a turn-your-brain-off shooter.
+SHAWKLAN 27 it's deliberate, "war isn't fun nor is it glamorous"
+maximuscesar me too, i was a black .
Your comment made me cringe so hard
The fact we are still able to talk about the game years after it was released means that this game was really something special.
The only other game like this, a game that I can still spend ages analyzing and discussing, years after initially playing it, is Silent Hill 2.
Thomas Fitzpatrick You read my mind.
If I'm comparing your game to Silent Hill 2 (a game that I would marry if I could) you must be doing something right.
Actually, LOTR _does_ engage with the idea of trauma. Anyone who's carried the One Ring is permanently scarred. Frodo loses a finger, and both he and Bilbo end up leaving forever because they can never really be made whole after what happened to them. Even the rest of the Hobbits end up somewhat estranged from their fellows.
+mightyNosewings But most people nowadays haven't read the books and thus have that final point driven home with a jackhammer when they see Saruman's industrialization of the Shire, after the One Ring has been destroyed.
Even so, it's framed as a separate "evil" force that corrupts people rather than the actions they take. While they may have consequences, the actions of carrying the ring and killing to protect the ringbearer are still portrayed as unequivocally good and heroic, which is easy to do when the opposition is a force of pure, objective evil with an inhuman army.
Yeah, the hobbits of the fellowship spent the ending of the movie together at a table drinking together saying something like "How do we go back to normal lives after experiencing what we did?" Pretty clear parallels to soldiers coming home from a war
Konrad: "You're here because you wanted to be something you're not: a hero."
Snake: "I'm no hero. Never was, never will be. I'm just an old killer, hired to do some wetwork."
Kinos141 that quote was apparently meant towards the player more so than walker
I always loved this game with it's progression into just killing your vibe in an excellent way. This was easily one of my favourite narrative games especially with the entrance of a hardcore minigun scene from a seemingly invincible helicopter glorifying warfare as you fight off a bunch of other weaker helicopters. Then you crash and all goes to hell
Also the Tom Bissell piece, dude's a very self expressionistic and yearning for validation writer. It actually annoyed me read most of the sentences just because I could read into how much he put them there for his own sake. And the idea that art should feel bad because it takes gritty reality and morphs it into something else for entertainment's sake is bullshit in of itself. We've always done that. It's a coping mechanism to see something horrendous and make light out of it. Just because they show, as he started with, a torture scene doesn't mean you have to be in arms about how wrong it is to view that. Especially when it was a demo about yet another game that told a gritty narrative of war. I mean honestly, fuck that dude, but that's me
literally
The message this game conveys is two-fold: It's a damnation of modern military shooters, but first and foremost it's a look at Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
One of the alternate endings shows Walker standing down before a squad sent to pick him up, and when they tell him he's going home, he says that he can't. Not really. I believe this is the true ending, though the other ones serve the same purpose:
If Walker kills Konrad and then the squad, he opts to stay in Dubai and take over, most likely repeating the cycle of near-dictatorship that Konrad ran. If Konrad kills Walker, that means in reality Walker shot himself because Konrad was well dead by the time he showed up.
All of the flashbacks reveal the hallucinations Walker saw and how the guilt of his actions were weighing down on him. The back and forth of feeling like he had no choice in what he was doing and then being crucified for it is a simulation of how real soldiers feel. This happens to translate well into pulling the rug from under other shooters by showing how ridiculous the tone and morality of those games are, but I feel like people focus way too much on that.
It's not insulting gamers for the sake of insulting gamers, it's pointing out the divide between reality and fiction.
+Mozata Pumishmumi "and when they tell him he's going home, he says that he can't. Not really"
This is the most chilling part of the whole game. When dealing with PTSD, youve basically become a different person, its like you died during your trauma and your survival is nothing but the afterlife and the consequences of it. Your home is no longer your home because the person that belonged there died and was reborn somewhere else.
MGSV also talked about this in what is easily the most overlooked part of the story that everyone claims was crap, the entire point of building outer heaven was so that the soldiers who had lost their native language (their true fatherland) and were reborn in the culture of war speaking only the language of war could have a place to call home, where everyone understands them and they can live in a world built by people like them.
I dont have a problem with the COD type games (though i think its silly to claim they are about rah rah america, considering the british SAS is the actual focus of the series) but I much prefer when they are being realistic and exploring the consequences, because I think if people take them seriously, it can help people understand real truama from the perspective of sufferers...as of now, the only attention PTSD has really gotten is the bullshit "i got ptsd from twitter", where SJWs are actually getting people to think that the illness is a fucking joke, and crippling the chances we have of really combating it.
We have so many people whos lives are destroyed by PTSD because their family and friends do not understand it, and grow tired or fearful of the person suffering and that needs to change. Its becoming a more common theme in media (iron man 3 had it, which was good) but unfortunately people are just ignoring it, and again, I cant shake the feeling its because PTSD has been turned into buzzword for college students.
Bearling As a person with PTSD, my thoughts exactly. Thank you for this.
This game showed me ... it changed my perspective not only on games but on what Ive done which is nothing and I say NOTHING to what real soldiers did and felt
Who’s to say Walker is real?Maybe he’s a figment of Konrads imagination and was a coping device for him to Vicariously blame someone else.Could be vice versa who’s to say Konrad is real
Something i noticed is that as the game goes on (about chapter maybe 11 or 12) it starts to become more gore-y. Limps start flying, heads exploding, and pink mists going everywhere from granades. Just when you descend more and more into madness and violence, that violence becomes even less real and more "gameified"
I don't think this game is a criticism of military shooter games, but more like a criticism of players and expectations. People tend to play these types of games for the feeling of 'saving the day,' but being so far removed from the experience as to forget exactly what makes them a hero besides 'You shot all the baddies!' Elements like how Walker come in to rescue civilians are ignored almost immediately when the focus shifts to shooting people rather than saving them. Like how a lot of people play. I can't exactly say I blame people for playing like this, since that's how games set up the player to feel, but at the same time, players play for that exactly feeling in these kinds of games.
This game is fantastic, it blew me away
War is just fucked.
George Havenhand so is society
Paradigm shift True
George Havenhand I once read something along the lines of : ''war is peace'' ,freedom is slavery , Ignorance is strength''. It's very easy to misinterpret though but it holds some truth as well, by our terminology.
Paradigm shift That's from George Orwell's 1984
at least it never changes
"Remember when shooters were about killing demons from Hell? Those were the good days..."
I mean Doom was inspired by a game where you shot Nazis...
@@redzgaming6880 what's the difference between the two really
@@ascendedchairmanofthelemur9711 True
Bioshock forces you to kill the first person you encounter. I tried to see if a pacifist run was possible, but the game that criticized lack of choice in other games couldn't even let me ignore the first mook.
The thing that got to me most about the game was Konrad's little chat with Walker at the end, he was also talking to you. Let me explain. Nobody forced you to buy the game. Nobody made you play the game. You could've stopped at any time, like Walker. But, like Walker, you kept going. And for what? Some sense of...completion? Perhaps, like Walker, you wanted to save the day, be a hero. But, like Walker, all you've done in Dubai is cause suffering, death, and destruction. *Do you feel like a **_hero_** yet?*
@Manek Iridius For starters, the game's not $60. Secondly, I have games I have never finished because I simply did not like them. You could have quit, played something else, or literally done anything else. The game's point is that in Spec Ops the Line you literally continuously make life worse and worse for everyone in the game, but yet you don't quit. Do you enjoy making those people suffer? Because you are endorsing the suffering by pressing start.
I'm surprised you failed to comment on the single most scathing criticism the game had, mechanically, on 'killing bad guys is good' mindset.
Rewarding you with more bullets for executing injured soldiers
Yeah, that's what I mean. I was just surprised Errant didn't comment on that. But considering how much is in there already, it was inevitable that some things would be left out. For time constraints if nothing else
*****
It's supposed to mean that Walker is getting crazier by the minute
@Manek Iridius waaa waaaaa waaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
Manek Iridius “you have these tools to get the job done”
Job of slaughtering 46 people with white phosphorous? And you feel attacked when someone says that you shouldn’t do this job.
Go back to CoD infinite.
I'm going to go against the grain here and say that the 'Death from Above' mission in MW is trying to make the same sort of commentary that Spec Ops is - people really don't give Modern Warfare the credit it deserves for its important moments of clarity and commentary amidst all of the action schlock that came after and the objectively-false 'Greatest Generation' myths of the games which came before it. I don't think it's at all fair to include clips of Death from Above in the same light as fucking No Russian - which has nothing valid to offer any discourse. EDIT: Also it's very much implied that Frodo and Sam were fucked up psychologically from their journey, isn't it? I thought that was a deliberate war metaphor from Tolkien.
2 things I also noticed: during the mortar scene, you can constantly see Walkers reflection in the monitor screen in contrast to the CoD scenes with a similar mechanic. Also, I found the ground executions to be the somewhat most disturbing acts which the game clearly rewards with amo (which is mostly scarce) and also tells you to in the loadingscreen comments about. There are so many details in this game that make you notice, how much the devs thought about delivering their message...
I did not read the game as a commentary on games. It was a commentary on war. The game references come in because modern war looks like a game from afar, and because games tend to treat it as a game, and because Spec Ops: The Line is a game. But it's a game about war, not about games.
What about the indirect references to the player, like showing the player's name in the opening credits, the loading screen messages talking directly to the player, or Konrad saying to walker, but really talking to the player "You did have a choice! You could have stopped!"? That's talking directly to the gamer. The game acknowledges itself to be a game, and questions the player's intent to keep carrying forward. That's what mostly all shooter games do, they hook you in and force you to continue to slaughter people by the thousands. It's not even subtle.
"Feel like a hero yet?"
That's what every single modern fps does, they try and succeed to make the player feel like a hero.
It's genius.
You should watch ExtraCredits analysis of the game, it goes really in depth about this topic.
This is the only game that made me sick. Like I felt sick to my stomach. A masterpiece and a game that I will think about forever.
Some people criticise the fact that you never have a choice wether or not to commit the horrible actions Walker does. That they would have chosen not to kill civilians and american soldiers. Well that is the thing. You always had the choice to stop playing. You started losing the second you started the game.
"Spec Ops: The only winning move is not to play." Now that is something I want to see on the box.
Then what would the point of the game be if I wasn't supposed to play it?
Are you seriously suggesting that I was supposed to cough up the full price of the game just to, what, stop playing it after 15 minutes, or better yet, just leave in on the shelf, unopened?
I'm not saying that I would just turn around and leave when given a choice, but since I wasn't given that choice, then all the scorn game pours on me for not leaving simply rings hollow, that's it.
NO ONE would've learnt anything if they've 'won'.. but they'd not knew they've won..
You have to be okay with the fact that you are not supposed to "win"
Johan Malmgren But then again there are some who'd consider murdering people fun and not feel a single bit bad in the first place too..
Jan Strzelecki
You don´t know about the atrocities Walker is going to commit. The really difficult "choices" surprise him and you at the same time. He will react out of a reflex, just like a normal player. The thing the devs tell the player is not "You shouldn´t have played a game you pay for". What they tell us is "You COULD have stopped, if you WANTED." Of course you can play and finish The Line. But don´t blame anyone else for doing so.
2:06 That's the point. They even marketed it that way. It was supposed to feel like a generic shooter, then totally catch you off guard with the story.
Even that sand mechanic (you shoot the glass above the enemies and they die) it was supposed to look like a gimmick which is why it only appears a few times in the game.
Fucking finally, a good explanation. all i see is "OOHHH HE IS DEAD ALL ALONG" (wtf is with this theory, ever since the Sixth Sense everyone jumps to this "Dead All Along" Theory).
It's just Walker looking for an explanation for his mistakes and blaming it on an easy target, a dead man.
it's also a HUGE critic to the shooters where it's all "KILL EVERYONE, WE HAVE A STORY BUT IT'S JUST AN EXCUSE FOR HAVING SOMEONE TO KILL... JUST KILL EVERYONE YOU SEE". like Battlefield and COD (specially COD).
it also goes against everything stereotypical on society... the tough army dude, the "America ruuules baybayyy", etc.
People who like to kill everything and not enjoy the story will enjoy it none of the less, but people who like stories and plots will love this game.
The game does have a purgatory/reliving his crimes feeling which comes from the surreal imagery and that self-awareness moment where the game restarts itself (the helicopter scene). You could interpret those aspects as Walker being dead to explain it (and trapped in some state that he has to relive those memories), or you could rationalize it as PTSD or some other condition.
Bit late but one of the head guys is the one that introduced that for theories. It's a valid interpretation too.
Shiro2809 I'm not taking ownership of that interpretation because it seems like an obvious fact about the story. I was just pointing out that it's a little more complex than "OOOOOH HE WAS DEAD ALL ALONG!" from the OP.
Brian Colfxire I was referring to the 'dead all along'. One of the lead guys on the game introduced that.
Shiro2809 Ah okay.
Am I the only person who did not shoot the people who were sounding you when your friend got hanged? All I did was shoot a few times on the ground and they all ran away?
+Ale20000X ohh by the way I did not mean to put a question mark at the end
+Ale20000X Probably not, but it's very telling that many people just didn't consider this an option. Might be because the standard shooter method is to, well, shoot.
+Ale20000X yeah me neither. i shot into the air. and btw, in the end, my first choosen "finale" was to shoot myself
+Ale20000X I didn't shoot them. It was hard to do... since I like basic murder. lol.
I had a Scar.I grenaded them.
I really appreciated how the executions you can perform in this game became increasingly overwrought the further you went into it. From simple clean headshots to the one featured wherein Walker shoots his kneecap and then the head, or puts the barrel in the poor guy's mouth, the whole thing mirrors Walker's descent into levels of depravity. Casting Nolan North was also a genius move. Who better to help critique the medium and culture than possibly the most well known voice actor in the business, known for his wise cracking unquestionably good heroes. Wonderful title.
Is it just me, or does everyone read this game differently?
Rc Cooper How?
I mean that everyone reads the characters and story differently.
While playing this game, I figured this story was what you would get if you took the common character of modern shooters like COD and placed them in a world where all his actions had consequence that would have to be confronted from mission to mission.
Rc Cooper Yeah i get you know. That was the same way i read it
the white phosphorus scene was a prime example. In COD games you're more or less rewarded for raining death on a city, but spec ops makes you walk through the hell you just created.
+Rc “Tattooless Metalhead” Cooper That's how you know you its a really good game.
OK, dude used the No Russian mission as an example of potential horrific acts. No Russian was a completely horrific act. come on.
+Kinos141 Eh, details. Probably just an oversight.
In fairness, the player doesn't actually *need* to open fire - just be present to watch as the others do. Kind of like Lugo and Adams, come to think of it.
The killing is a horrific act but the game tells you that doing it will save more people in the long run.
You are doing it for the greater GOOD. You are a MARTYR of morality, giving up your own values because of DUTY. Also you never rise a gun to US citizens and soldiers, Spec Ops doesn't give a shit about nationality.
Shepherd : It will cost you piece of yourself. It will cost nothing for everything you have saved.
(send message to Makarov) : Pvt.Allen is CIA
Pvt.Allen : We send strong message to Russian, Makarov.
Makarov : There is no message.
(Shot Allen)
Makarov : This is the message,
I like this video, but the airport scene from MW2 was supposed to be depicted as a bad thing, so it doesn't work so well in the context in which it was used in the video.
I've never played MW2 but wouldn't it have been a better idea to just shoot Makarov (or whoever was there with the player) and prevent hundreds of civilian deaths?
Williamz 3 years late (lmao) but of course everyone tries that. If you try shooting Makarov, or his men then they'll shoot you for betraying them.
Here I am, even two more years late.
I’d even argue that CoD’s ‘No Russian’ mission hits on the same or similar idea as Spec Ops: The Line. During that particular mission, you don’t *have* to fire your gun at all. You can just walk through and no one will do anything to you for not shooting. Of course, it’s a CoD game, so most players just did what they assumed they needed to to progress. But once you realize you can opt to not participate (albiet, you still have to bare witness to a terrorist attack) and still ‘beat’ the mission, it shows the fault in always just following the carrot at the end of the stick. It was a bit of a mind-fuck to find out you could’ve gotten all the payoff without engaging in any of the human sacrifice if you had just stopped to think about what you were actually doing.
@@slimkt I kinda find it odd that people tend to forget that the first few Modern Warfare games depict war as being terrifying, in fact, if I remember correctly, one of the games ended with most of the main cast dying in a neuclear explosion before they can complete thier mission, I think some of them were still twitching and badly burned. I even found the scene where you attack people from a helicopter rather unnerving, something about the fact that the game left most of the damage up to your imagination got to me for some reason. I like Spec Ops: The Line, but find that some of the game's fans can be rather pretentious, more so than the game's biggest critics say that the game is.
This game hurt to play. When I got to the white phosphorus choice, I seriously think if I waited a little longer to make the choice, then I would have had a harder fight, but I wouldn't have had to use the white phosphorus. I regret that choice so much! And later, when I was supposed to mercy kill a man so he didn't painfully burn to death, I was shaking so badly that I missed my shot. I had no more bullets and listened to the man scream as he died. It was painful.
Frodo didn't much want to talk about throwing the ring into Mount Doom either.
Go home Sam.
in fact in the books frodo actually is effected negatively after destroying the ring.
Joseph Ahrens
At the very least, the video didn't say that Frodo enjoyed it, just that the game was showing that binary morality and "Ultimate Evil" that exists in fantasy fiction can't be just slapped onto fiction emulating real life.
and then there's American Sniper :D
Max Payne is very likable so i don't know what you're talking about...
Reptilian
Dem nigguhs wus askin fo it
YE MAX LES GO DEEP IN DUH PAINT DUAL WIELDIN EN SHIT
Bravo! This was a superb analysis that really put the game in a different light for me.
Another big Aha-Moment for me was when I realized that Konrad is not named after the Heard of Darkness' Antagonist, but rather after its author - framing the games' ending as a dialog between the game and the player, as you pointed out.
The video that made me love Errant Signal.
After reading some of the comments. It's such a shame how much bog standard game design has been so imbedded in our expectations that we judge games by such a limited perspective. People would rather just have a checklist of what's "good" and "bad" and judge every game by those linear standards. Problem is that doesn't work with games like it does with movies or books. What makes a game good? What is good anyway? There is no static answer to that question.
Video games are not like movies or books where there is a much more clear defining of what is good and bad. Because the medium is interactive, a lot of the quality of games comes from that very interaction between player and game, where as you are just a spectator in every other medium. This means that our standards for judging games has to be as diverse as the people who play them, as we all have different tastes and preferences.
Calling a game bad because you didn't like it is wrong, same with calling a game good because you liked it. In this medium the only defining set of objective qualities are the functionality of the game, in simply the question of "Does it run properly". Everything else is completely subjective and I think people need to start realizing that.
I hope a bunch of dudebros bought this game thinking it was a generic shooter.
I originally played the demo back in 2012 and thought it was just boring. Bought it 2 years later after hearing about it's amazing story and it's one of my favourite games of all time.
imagine if there is a secret ending when walker said evac the moment they see civs you can actually LEAVE
Nadhif Bhagawanta There was even a stop sign before you walk into the area, if I recall correctly.
Nadhif Bhagawanta I've thought that myself.
Nadhif Bhagawanta There is. Stop playing.
Anyone else see "Special Guest - Campster" at 17:26??
I never took this game as hatred of shooters. This was 'the one that got it right'.
The scene where Lugo is hanged...and the people are cussing and throwing rocks at you in between the word 'Konrad'...I had a goddamn panic attack it was so legit. I seriously had to stop playing and weep for an hour. Chucking rocks at you, hurling insults, and you just have to keep your cool and distance yourself from reality.
It amazes me how much Walker hallucinated the wholeway through the game. Billboards of Konrad's face as early as chapter 1 for instance, which brings to light the theory that the whole game is Walker's dying dream. That he never leaves Dubai and gets to go back home. Then there were instances of the Lugo heavy with the creepy loading screen if you die there, the horrific execution of the Adams hallucination and the final confrontation with Konrad leaving him to shoot you, or you killing yourself
I largely agree with a number of comments here. This game is smart, but it also isn't as smart as it thinks it is. The problem is that it assumes every player is unaware that the character they play in military shooters isn't necessarily a 'good guy'. It also really depends on the game. Some shooter games present you as a straight up soldier, just following orders, and rarely does it promote your character as heroic, more like a survivor of a horrific war. Some games do promote you as heroic while mowing down enemies, but usually this is either accompanied by a cartoonish or colorful attitude or its rendered clear via the plot while diplomacy is not a sufficient answer to your challenges in the game.
What this game is actually smart about however is its presentation of american military worship. I totally agree with this game that this is a problem.
MAJOR SPOILERS FOR Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2:
Even in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare trilogy, The game points out that an american general was one of the major bad guys all along, fabricating a reason for america to go to war. And Ludonarratively, it makes sense for your character to mow down enemies, because your character simply wishes to survive their assigned military mission.
I wont say MW2 is without flaws in its story, namely it has massive plot holes and its statistically impossible for a singular soldier to rack up as many kills and survive as the average CoD character. But the character's motivation is pretty clear.
Hell, not to mention that the Russian/American conflict was caused by unchecked espionage acts against an ultra-nationalist terrorist entity.
The problem with COD is it trivializes the death and destruction, as most shooters do. There is never a payback for the death, never a kick to the gut, never a realization that you killed people. That's not an easy thing to live down, and only sociopaths go through that unscathed. This is what its about, the adrenaline glorifying of death, no consequences, and no reason to care. What reason do you have in MW2 to actually regard those you kill? Does your character ever do that? Does the game even acknowledge those you killed? This is the heart of the issue, you ever hear of For Whom the Bell Tolls? This is what it reveals, not exactly the same point, but it starts with the same question, its not about motivation, nor survival, its about PTSD, American glorification of war, and the trivialization of death and destruction in war, especially in video games.
I don't think I agree. The Line makes a great point about the brutality of combat sure by making your enemies slowly and miserably bleed to death after battles, but that isn't its main focus. Its main focus is clearly to criticize the idea that the player character is a good guy in shooters, especially shooters with any sense of realism to its aesthetic. That ultimately is the problem: most of the best of such shooters don't actually do that, at least in terms of plot. Though, there are a few, most Tom Clancy games come to mind, for instance.
IDK if its fair to expect games to always humanize the immediate opposition you have to kill to succeed.
imo, humanizing them in smaller details would be great, but what I really think we need is for more games (or even movies, books, and other forms of media where killing is commonplace) to at least show a small wear to the character(s) for the killing, not breaking down, but not shorthand trivializing either. Imagine for a sec that a well-written action game actually questioned your actions, even say the game actually gave you a choice to kill or not? In a sense Dishonored sort of achieves that, but in that game, you don't care for those you harm or kill, you just want a better ending. All I wonder is how different action games would be if the game at least showed you disagreements between your actions and your characters or those around him, and actually expressed it to some extent, making them more human.
Maybe its a pipe dream, but I'd like to see a bit more humanization in games like that, to at least acknowledge what killing someone means more then just a "I remember every one of them," cop-out. Not that I complain for those violent fun action games, but I'd love a few more games where its clearly not absolute moral good to be a soldier and kill.
Even for those of us who aren't "Rah rah Call of duty shooty bang bang" spec ops has some great moments and lessons.
Spec ops was the game that basically slapped me in the face and said "Hey, dipshit. Intentions means exactly jack shit. You intended to help people? Well you didn't. You fucked up all the shit. Your intentions were meaningless".
That was a painful, amazing ride.
spec ops the line is the only modern military shooter i've ever played mostly because of what you talked about in this video. I bought it because I heard it was slanted in this way and heard it got kind of crazy.
the biggest problems I have with this game is that it's about as subtle as a sledgehammer about it's message about "ambiguity" and it's critique of the Modern Millitary Shooter..
the game has one giant critical error, it assumes Player 1 thinks he is a Hero... you see, people don't think they play as heroes, people have heroes in their personal lives, people connect to heroes in character driven pieces. COD and the likes make you feel like a soldier and leave you to decide if the baggage attached to it is good or not, you might be the protagonist, but a "hero?" not at all...
Spec Ops a very snakry game, and I... hate it for it, it's a game that has assumptions about the preception of Player 1, it's a game that thinks it can teach me a lesson, but ends up as a Richard Kelly level of mediocrity in it's presentation on Heart Of Darkness. toward the end of the game, when Konrad asked me if I felt like a Hero, I wish I could just laugh at his face kick him in the nuts, blow his head off and finish it off with a cathartic tea bag just to show him that NO, not me nor anyone who play first person shooter games ever think of themselves as "the Hero", and his entire commentary is rendered moot by the fact that it's... well... simply a video game.
but no, I was locked in a cutscene from developers who look down on me and think they have something important to tell.
Amen to that mate
+TheCh33ks the game is not supposed to give a choice other than to stop playing the game. Did you not watch the video? Konrad is a metaphore for the game. It ofcourse does not expect you to stop playing the game though.
Dude i love COD but ofcourse people feel like american heroes in those games, its a big escapist power fantasy.
Your comment speaks volumes of how u missed the point, whilst complaining that it is not subtle enough for you.
This is undoubtedly the best review of any form of artistic media I have ever watched. I've never put more thought into my view of video games or movies/books/television/media in general than I have in that 20 minutes that i was watching that video.
There's an old saying that "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
I am deeply saddened by the removal of Spec Ops from Steam. It has forever altered the way I perceive video game war. I believe its messages will always be relevant no matter the current climate. Music licensing deals has to be one of the most frustrating ways for great games to go dark
If you want to notice something messed up that throws a lot of weight behind the hallucination being the whole game, look at the top of the truck where the first 3 guys u fight are. There are 3 dead bodies up there when u show up and those 3 are up there with no dead bodies after u see the guy from the 33rd dead
This game really shows that we as gamers arn't that comfortable with violence as we think. This just shows that we dont get that violent by playing games as this game disturbed everyone.
CoD 4 did have its moments though, I mean, the american soldiers were deliberately depicted as absolutist "WAR IS GLORY" twats at the beginning of the game, the SAS as a bunch of morally ambiguous psychotic thugs, and the nuke scene was both memorable and a striking statement against the use of WMDs.
Also, the player always had the ultimate choice to just put down the game and stop playing (in Spec Ops).
For those of you saying the gameplay was bad and that you quit in an hour, there's a reason you didn't pick anything up from the game.
Just Another I never understood this. The gameplay wasn't revolutionary or anything, but it certainly wasn't *bad*.
It's because it's not designed to actually be a shooter as you know them. It's designed to make you question all modern shooters, but you have to play it to the end to understand.
The gameplay is not supposed to be particularily 'good', as it's designed to make you feel uncanny.
Just Another maybe they were just too good at the game.
Idk why people hate third person cover based shooters. They're so much more fun than those fps. All you do is look at the gun all day
+Just Another Gameplay to me was entertaining :P
Also, I've seen a lot of people point out that this game is an indirect adaptation of Heart of Darkness (while taking some themes from For Whom the Bell Tolls), I think it's been overlooked that this game is a LOT like the Mountain Patrol saga in Norman Mailer's 'The Naked and the Dead' - even including the 'military Moby Dick' aspect of Walker's insistence at carrying out the missions despite the fact that the situation has changed and his own men plead with him to give it up.
"Other moments force you to look at the horrors you've wrought, but these often feel cheap because you so rarely have a choice in your action. It's not until late in the campaign that Spec Ops gets more daring and disruptive with its storytelling, but by then it feels like too little, too late."
- Chris Watters
this is amazing. This makes the game Soooo much deeper .... and I already thought it was deep!!
It is an amazing game but it has one big flaw: It requires a very specific mindset to be enjoyed at full potencial
You must be a patriotic american that enjoys dudebro "´MURICA" FPS´s and be totally unaware of the plot twists.
Unfortunely for me, I already new about the white phosphorus and that the game was a middle finger to the "america fuck yeah" hero mith. I am also brazilian, so saying "military do bad things trying to fix shit" is not new concept because my country had a military dictatorship and anyone that don´t use fahrenheit is fully aware that the US army have a bad habit of fucking shit up. When Konrad said "Do you you feel like a hero yet?" my reaction was "it is awfully bold of you to assume I ever felt like a hero on the first place". So my game experience was basically "yeah, I know! You done being a pretentious!?" and honestly, I can´t blame the game. The game didn´t wronged me, I wronged the game.
It’s very cool that the CZcams algorithm seems to be recommending older reviews of this game. It’s also surprising to me to see that the channel is still chugging along after all these years.
frodo being scarred is ultimately viewed as a sacrifice for good, something that makes him even more heroic. While it doesn't quite glorify his quest, he is definitely a good guy dealing a blow to the bad guys that benefits everyone. That being said, this works in the context of that story, and I wouldn't have it any other way
Thank you for not doing the "It didn't give me any actual choices 2/10" like every CZcamsr who missed the point did.
Bioshock Infinite ain't got shit on this game.
True dat
I just watched Apocalypse Now. The inspiration for this game is unmistakable.
A neat thing I noticed while playing:
Throughout the entire game, start to finish, you are always going downwards. Always descending. You start the game at the top of a skyscraper, and from that point foward, you are constantly going down stairs, elevators, holes in the ground, ziplines, etc.
Not once do you ever go up. It's similar to the situation at hand, which is constantly declining and becoming worse.
I don't think the games like COD and BF that "glorify western militaries" are directly as tied to a culture problem as much as it is just how the genre is kind of rooted. When a president or army advertisement tells you they're the "good guys" its because they have a reputation and public image to stroke and look out for. When a game is made its goal is entertainment and money... unless it really is tied to the government in some way. They have nothing to actually benefit by summarizing soldiers as good or evil, and being fair to them they often have some form of awful American in the show. Like Shephard betraying people and turning a unit of soldiers into a cover up tool. So if they're one big happy face poster for the US military, they could do better than to make you kill one of their general that went insane. Wasn't there also an American in BF3 that stole a nuke? I could be wrong, that story was a mess and too boring to follow right, but I don't recall it ever trying to do well as a brain washing experience.
Anyways getting back to my original point, Shooters, along with about every other genre with some narrative, have been using an absolute good and evil for ages. I think the good and evil thing ultimately falls down to people being too lazy to change that up a lot, or they're worried it would be "risky" for whatever reason. Then again a lot of times there was never anything wrong with it either. Its only beginning to be "wrong" because the setting has shifted towards more real things. It feels kind of odd thinking of these fictional terrorists that look similar to the ones being fought in the real world have no stated motives whatsoever. Meanwhile it was acceptable to be the good guy and kill demons because demons are evil and its tough to argue with that. Are we going to look back on that as a Christian propaganda machine? It got more questionable but still acceptable to do good and evil with WW2 games because those games were still trying to play the role of history, and "the winners write history" concept dictates that the Allies can paint themselves however they want. So we had Americans/Russians/British killing Nazis and Japanese, and there wasn't much of a stir up over it. Yet now we're portraying more modern-like events, and we know that the modern day world is a political messy knot and that nothing is as clear as the old marine vs demon set up could be. So some are calling it BS and demanding a more "real" portrayal. Yet in and industry that is too lazy to even do anything but regenerating health over and over again for the core life component, can we really expect them to start mass producing complicated stories with good moral drives to every fictional man created?
Subbed
MGS is another good game that takes on the cavalier attitude towards warfare. It's mechanics encourage avoiding combat, for one, and the narrative 1)discusses the problem with the kinds of soldiers said cavalier attitude produces, and 2) Makes you feel the weight of anybody that the game DOES force you to kill. The statement on nuclear proliferation is just a bonus.
I found this to be some of your best work yet. Keep at it!
Got the best ending without even trying, on this game.
How? By not playing it at all.
What a brainfsck.
I went through an extremely traumatic near-death experience when I was young. It left me with terrible PTSD and other psychological problems. Games like CoD and Battlefield are needed for me cause I need an outlet for my anger, mostly cause I feel no sympathy towards people. Games like this and people say video game violence causes people to kill, I say bullshit, it's the opposite. Ultra-violent games let you be violent without hurting others. Just thought I'd throw my two cents in the offering tray.
The game doesn't say that video games cause violence it attacks the inherent core moral tenets and ideas of games like COD and Battlefield. If you feel like killing in a game is better than killing in real life then you agree
I just got around to playing and completing this game recently, and I was not let down. What a narrative gem it really is and I couldn't agree more on your assertions of it's themes and points. When a game sticks with you after completing it, that's rare. From a purely mechanical standpoint it's nothing special, but for me it's one of the most important games ever made, and to see it sold so poorly is a little saddening, that many gamers will trudge on playing Battlefield and Cod without any cause for thought in what a great narrative with a purely human focus could bring to not only military shooters but to gaming in general. The question of 'why' we do what we do within a game is so rarely shed light upon, I adored 'The Line' for having the maturity to confront me with that simple question. The aesthetic of the setting, being of destroyed oppulence, vibrant colours and marred beauty, changes and begins to frame an increasingly morbid defamation of capitalism, the fallacy of honour, and the single mindedness of humanity at it's worst, when we convince ourselves of righteousness in the face of extreme horror. What an experience...oh and I can't belive I never found your vids before. Subscribed.
In theory, this game "agreed with me" on a lot of points, but in practice, this game came off as condescending and vile by telling me that the only alternative to the sheer barbarism present within it was to not play, and I paid money for this game I'm supposed to not play. The devs essentially have the gall to gaslight the player by providing no alternatives to those paying attention to the plot and then calling you a monster for enacting the only course of events _they_ implemented. Turns out, avoiding spoilers after a ton of praise from friends and family was a huge mistake, as this is a game I could only appreciate from afar.
You paying money for a game you're not supposed to play is the kind of paradox that plays in other forms of art from time to time. There's nothing wrong with it from that point of view.
Fuck. I was just playing the white phosphorus scene and couldn't bring myself to move my character anymore. So I went on the internet to get some meta-level discussion but now you're telling me I have to finish the game before I can watch this video. What am I to do!? ;)
You have to move on to the end. It's worth it. Or is it?
I legit am asking that question to myself...
Ur Mom I will. I also played some more since my last comment. I just had to take a break. I literally stared at my character for a few minutes and couldn't bring myself to touch the controls. That already was some unique gaming experience right there.
...You haven't... really seen anything yet...
Move on, hero. To victory...
...
I honestly thought the game play was very stale and mind numbingly boring....
BUT!!!!
I don't think people realize that the enjoyment of a game doesn't necessarily have to derive from the game play, it can also people from the story and presentation itself.
If the point could of come across in a different matter I would have no argument against it but its a "video game" with a common perception of it being interactive media where you have to influence what occurs.
Kevin Levine even stated that the first person shooting mechanics in infinite were literally in it for game play's sake. Majority of people would skip any game if it didn't interest or excite them in order for a purchase.
People hate on Gone Home for its being as limited as possible in interactive material as possible disregarding it as a game entirely, I find it the complete opposite where adventure and mystery becomes the game play itself and where your influence and interactivity on the game doesn't need to be necessary to enjoy it.
This game unfortunately will be always regarding as an average third person shooter by the public even though it tries something different (compared to other popular series titles) and uses video games as a medium to present the story by the developers.
_"I honestly thought the game play was very stale and mind numbingly boring"_
To me that felt like the point. I noticed that anytime I caused an explosion it was so lackluster unlike other games where its like a mini Micheal Bay film. Killing became so mundane and easy to do until about half way through when you suddenly realize "Oh shit these are people I'm mowing down without a care, thats fucked up".
In this case being boring really worked imo and drove home its point. Gameplay is important but as you said enjoyment can be in the story and presentation itself. But that is much harder to market than 'MERICA FUCK YEAH! and enjoy for people looking solely to have fun and not analyze.
Hahaha definitely
Hahaha definitely
Subscribed so hard. Your videos are really fantastic. I've always found Extra Credits to be going for low-hanging fruit and massively simplifying things, whereas these videos of yours are nothing less than essays, in-depth cultural studies. Really looking forward to going back through everything you've done so far, and looking forward to your future posts!
Great breakdown! I remember watching the reveal trailer a couple years ago at the VGA's and I had a feeling the game was going to be something different. I played it when it came out and it floored me to the ground.
I think this is one of the most important video games of 2012, heck it's one of the most important games of this generation.
9:30 Was I the only one who fired at the ground and didn't kill anyone?
Yeah, I tried firing into the air to scare them off, it worked.
Osutin Non-casualty inducing solutions, huzzah!
I liked the game, but I don't think it should have been so damn condemning of the player.
Yes you could just stop, but thats dumb. How are you supposed to see the ending to the narrative if you just put it down.A narrative shouldn't legitimately want you to stop before the ending, that makes the ending a waste, especially if the ending is a fleshed out one.
theknack101 And that's choice. Imagine you're about to see an awful piece of media that might psychologically scar you. You're warmed about it beforehand but you're curious about the content of said piece.
If you continue to engage in the media, it's your decision just like in this game it was your decision to continue.
Ebvardh Boss But imagine didn't know about the game's overall message going in? Should I still be accepting that the game is telling me to stop playing?
I just don't generally like it when I pay for something and the thing I payed for is insulting me for using it. Its basically biting the hand that feeds you.
The game nudges you, but never outright tells you to stop playing. Therefore you go on to commit war atrocities because stopping is "dumb" (not trolling, just stating an opinion)
The main thing with the line is that it made you feel like you were the bad guy. Once you talk to Conrad he looks similar to the main character and that by trying to fight a bad guy you generally become a bad guy.
The devs made a superb mechanic where your choices are not made by pressing buttons A, B, X or Y, but in the gameplay itself.
I think this game's ending was more shocking to White Americans, who are used to being framed as the heroes.
I love how the word "feminist" pops up and people take time to bitch about that and not talk about the video's topic. "Oh dear the F-word was used BURN THE WITCH!" XD
Shut up.
Clearly you showed me. You people take this shit way to seriously. First world problems. XD
***** And yet no one can put everyone on an equal play field and judge accordingly, I agree that word is seen as synonymous with restriction. How about this we appease everyone instead of being right or wrong about the judgement of that word we just say everyone is wrong and only somewhat right if they can prove their argument, agreed? we just appeased the entirety of the internet.....or did we? o.o
The only bad thing in Spec Ops is Lugo's death, Adams' death and when Walker's outfit is torned apart
Fantastic analysis! I really hope more people pick this up... this game is easily one of the most important games in recent years. It really does deserve more attention!
Jesus fucking christ it's hilarious how this guy talks. So quickly, so smoothly and with so many words and references I absolutely do not understand... I mean I barely caught anything he said. After listening to most of this video I feel like a complete idiot and think this guy is a genius yet I have absolutely no idea WHY hahahaha oh god this video was 1000x more of a mindfuck than this game
***** uh... OK? Congrats? And it seems like you thought I said the game doesn't make sense. I mean it does have some plot holes and could have been presented in a more fulfilling manner, especially in terms of its twists, but I was
directly referring to this Errant Signal guy's commentary on the game not making sense -- not logically (honestly couldn't fairly comment on that lol) but just in terms of his thought patterns/way of speaking/vocabulary being WAY over my head lol.
jennifer wom
I think the analysis is quite insightful and logical. He supported his points with evidence and reason. And talking smoothly isn't a bad thing.
Basically the analysis points out that Spec Ops The Line is bucking the trend of modern shooters by singling out the hypocrisy and irony of glorified violence and moral absolutism (in modern shooters). He furthers examines how such glorification might have stemmed from embedded notions within the American culture.
It's not like he's speaking Farsi. His vocabulary is pretty vernacular.
sth128 I would definitely not say his language/way of speaking is vernacular. I and my friends are all a few years into college and it's still completely lost, yet most of our language and such isn't understood by our other friends and family members not in college... so yeah, this is not basic language here. At all.
jennifer wom
I took English as a second language and I understood Campster just fine. Unless you're in a country that doesn't speak English, I fear for the future of your country if college students can't handle this video.
He spoke in vernacular, plain and simple. Maybe you're just not that familiar with the game or modern gaming / movie culture.
Either way, you ain't gonna solve the problem by saying "Ermagherd this person is speaking like, all big words n' stuff, what a jerk for not speaking baby words". Try to expand your vocabulary from time to time while you're in college.
sth128 good for you? I'm not sure what you want me to say. I'm just saying that the majority of people, as well as others with college level education such as myself, do not and would not understand this. I am very much into gaming and film and all of that.
But way to hop on the offensive and start bashing for absolutely no reason there sth128. Being so proud of yourself for understanding this, puffing your chest and flaunting your 'intelligence' one would think you would see that I never once said or even implied that he was a "jerk" or anything of the sort. Great assumption though!
I think there is one choice that everyone doesn't think about, and that is continuing to play a game or choosing to not to choose a one way only choice, but just turning off the game. "The only winning move, is not to play."
Ye but that's like in the Stanley Parable, you can win by quitting, but...in any way you put it, it's still a game, i bought it to play it, it's always an interesting comment, but not a serious point imo
Except that "choice" just leaves Walker's story in suspension (or it continues in some sort of parallel universe without you to witness it) and doesn't in any way represent the choice of a soldier to stop fighting.
Titanium Rain he’s in hell anyway, it’s an endless loop bro. He never went home
I talked with my sister a little bit about one of the “choices” the player is given.
You have the options of killing the water-thief who has taken more than he’s allowed, killing the soldier who killed 5(?) of the water-thief’s family, or just leaving them both to eventually die of starvation or dehydration or whatever. What you decide to do is based on *your* morals. Do you leave them because they both deserve to die, or because you can’t or won’t decide? Do you kill the water-thief that may have doomed other’s lives by stealing their share? Do you kill the soldier who killed the water-thief’s family needlessly? Etc, etc. We decided that we would just leave them.
But none of that matters. In the end, both of them were skeletons, dead from the start. It isn’t the *sole* reason however in my opinion. Who is Walker to be the moral adjudicator? He’s committed treasons, atrocities, war crimes, and throughout the rest of the game, he will commit more. Who is he to be judge, jury, and executioner?
Which then reflects onto the player. You’ve also done these things in game by extension, by not putting the game down. You don’t commit these acts firsthand, but rather by having Walker be your vessel. So, really, how can the player or Walker judge them, when they’ve done terrible shit?
It doesn’t matter because:
1. The soldier and the water-thief are both dead.
2. Your choice doesn’t really have much moral value, considering what you’ve done (and are going to do) in the game.
(i am very late to the party)
But it doesnt call you a crazy maniac.It tells you "You are still a good person",and similar soothing things.It distances you from walker.Unless you identify with him in the beginning,in which case,well you deserve being called a crazy maniac.
So Portal if feminist all of a sudden just because it stars a woman? Okay. I thought it was pretty damn gender-neutral but what would I know?
It has nothing to do with it starring a woman. Its feminine/feminist perspective stems from the use of guns as a means of constructive problem-solving in an environment devoid of humanity as opposed to destructive tools to oppress humanity.
+Dave Starr Except that for hundreds of thousands of years men have been doing constructive problem solving using tools they built specifically for those purposes in environments that were devoid of humanity, and stayed that way until the men established themselves there.
The portal gun isnt a fucking M4, if a man was the protagonist of portal nobody would say its about feminism and the deconstruction of the gun, they would say its about a man with a tool for solving problems.
also, what fucking guns are you talking about with "destructive tools to oppress humanity"
Is there some sort of gun-lord who handles all the guns in the world and is somehow using them to keep you, me, and everyone else down?
Is the fact that a rifle is not but four feet from me right now a sign that I am currently being oppressed?
And what happens when someone oppressing people with guns gets fought back against with guns? Are the guns still tools to oppress the oppressor?
See, youve got two choices here...either outright admit youre an imbecile, or stick to your claim that guns are an oppressive tool and let everyone see you for one anyway.
+realevilcorgi +mike mikeson Maybe you should read this. Remember that is just an interpretation, not an absolute truth. Anyway, it's very interesting www.gamesradar.com/portal-is-the-most-subversive-game-ever/
+mike mikeson hey, so I'm not going to try and argue with you here on the content of your comment, I have no expertise in this field of debate so I'll leave it at that. But just so you are aware, your comment comes off as very hostile, and most people reading it who disagree with you or are on the fence, aren't going to be persuade by a tone that feels like it is attacking them. Be passionate in your arguement, yes, but avoid getting angry, or at least too angry, as it tends to make people less open and receptive to what you have to say if they don't already agree.
+realevilcorgi
Did it never occur to you that all the "gendered" characters in the original Portal are female?
Or that, in Portal 2, any character gendered "masculine" -- Wheatley, the defective turrets, Cave Johnson -- is depicted as bumbling and incompetent? And how GlaDOS brings order and control where Johnson and Wheatley couldn't?
Or how the series' core relationship -- that of GlaDOS and Chell -- is between two women?
I mean, I noticed this stuff just playing it on my own.
There's also been a lot of really interesting stuff written on the trope of "virtual" or "cybernetic" women -- think SHODAN, Hatsune Miku, Cortana, Siri -- really, you'll start seeing it everywhere once you're aware of it -- that Caroline/GlaDOS falls right into.
And if you want to get really fanciful -- slightly too much so for my interests, but still worth mentioning -- you can get into the vaginal symbolism of portals, and the trope of women as confusing, indirect, more complex than men.
I kind of noticed something throughout the video. Something I really didn't catch on until my third or fourth viewing. (To be fair I've played through Spec Ops The Line like eight times)
You (Errant Signal) talked about how the game is harmed as it blames you for doing these horrible acts through the fourth wall, and yet you fight back with saying that you never had a choice as the game always pushed you along that singular path. But then I look back to what you said about Winstates, and your winstates video. You claim that anything that pushes you toward a winstate is good and anything that doesn't or pushes away from a winstate is bad.
Wouldn't it be that for Spec Ops The Line that this logic is inverted? The winstate is this horrible monstrosity that is Walker. Away from the winstate or at least deviating from it is the last glimpse of humanity Walker has left. I know it gets parroted a lot but what if not playing the game truly is the moral outcome in this scenario.
And not because the game forces you to do these horrific acts, but because you willingly continue to play because you are pushing for a winstate, a completion of the games narrative and content. And for the majority of its intended audience, they wouldn't think twice.
It's even enough for those of us who played through and felt bad about it. Or felt sympathy or empathy for the events and characters. I watched Apocalypse Now and I didn't view it as a war themed action movie. I felt physically sick towards the end. I wanted nothing to do with it and I sure as hell couldn't watch it again immediately after.
Sorry for the wall of text.
Pretty much a year late, and doubtful you'll give a damn, but I think that's the best summary of what The Line is all about. It's a sharp inversion of so much of what modern video games present as good with no comment or deeper consideration. Good show.
Ira Shantz-Kreutzkamp Thank you very much.
I have never seen your reviews but this one was amazing.
This is one of those games that even if the gameplay sucks, the story alone can make a game last. Any gamer that can should play this game, you won't regret it.
After I played this, I couldn't play any other shooter for a week... they simply made me sick
You know, my biggest problem with games or whatever medium tackles this subject (relating to games) is that adversaries or NPCs in games NEVER feel like people. Which immediately destroys the whole point these things try to make.
I confess, I have "mass-murdered" mindless "aliens", "monsters", "demons", "humans", "gods", whatever. Name it and I've probably shot a digital bullet through it at one point in my life, mostly because none of them ever even tried to fully surrender even against vastly superior odds. I believe I share this track record with many many gamers.
Here's the catch, though: they were all life-less robots, so I feel 100% no guilt.
Some robots with a simulated personality, to try to desperately emulate a human being or a dog or a three-headed dragon from another dimension or whatever, but robots nonetheless. I hope the developers or the people that praise spec ops the line for its underhanded take at challenging the player with some hollow moral dillemmas (hollow because its not even close to reality), don't actually believe that players feel like they kill actual people.
As a commentary on the glorification of war and the alienation of non-western ethnicities, it has some merit. But not in this medium, it's not the right audience in my opinion. In that regard, it falls in the same category as people claiming that video games make people violent or sexist, except spec ops says "video games make you not care about the realities of suffering in war as long as you get your fix of entertainment and personal glory." I take offense to that, because developers never bother to give us the option to make an enemy surrender, unless its a core feature (eg. the SWAT games).
Skyrim is a notable example of a game that disappointed me in that regard where I noticed that sometimes enemies would get on their knees and beg for their lives. That made me really happy because I liked the idea of being able to be merciful to my enemies and not have to kill everyone.... but then it turns out that they'll go back to attacking you full-force in under a minute. So there's absolutely NO point in indulging their cries for mercy! You HAVE to bash their skulls in while they're on their knees begging for mercy, even if only to save time. Do I ever feel guilty? Nope! Because the game never gave me any choice.
I could ramble on, but I really shouldn't xD
Also; No, game, I don't care how much you assume I'm not asking the kinds of obvious questions that you keep assuming I'm not asking or how much you point that finger at me, I did not do whatever you just keep trying to make me feel I did that you clearly set up as a trap. Stop being pretentious about it, its silly and embarrassing.
If the game tells you stop playing because you're a horrible person for enjoying the violence, then what's freakin point here? The game sounds too preachy for my liking
In my opinion, it is. For all its pretentions on the glorification of violence, it still went out full-price, featuring mainly alot of violence... One could argue its to attract the audience that its trying to bring its message to, but somewhere it still comes across as hypocritical.
You can't force us to supposedly do horrible things and then go like: You are terrible! Go feel like a bad, insane person! This whole thing would have worked much better as a movie than as a game.
+Acolyte47 You've misunderstood it, the point of the game isn't to make YOU feel like a bad or horrible person.
+Rudolf Ferdinand Reyes - DecodingTheCodes You see, there are a couple of problems with that. The horrible actions you and the developer seem to be accusing the player of were in fact the only options within the universe of the game and because there was literally no other option to progress, the only option left was to not take the choice at all. That's hypothetical suicide. That boils down to "I don't like how the universe works, so I remove myself from the equation by destroying my presence from it." So you're saying I should have commited hypothetical suicide to atone for the actions of another individual? A 2-dimensional individual thats not even a real person?
If the player actually had a choice, then it would make sense. The developers made a narrative-driven game and its presented as such. They marketed it as such. I paid money to experience their narrative and I have experienced the game's narrative, because that's why I paid money for it. So you're saying I am a horrible person for falling for the marketing ploy that promised I would experience a satisfying and complete rollercoaster ride of romantic escapism? So what? Everyone should have just bought this 50 dollar product and then leave it on their shelf and not touch it ever? What kind of a scam is that? We, the player, are innocent of the main character's crimes because we had no say in it. There is no moral high ground here. The product is deceptive and the player is morally indifferent. There is nothing here to be proud of or smug about. I can see what the developers tried and its a nice attempt, but in that regard I think Bioshock handled this similar topic waaaay better.
It doesn't even make sense. If the main character did all these weird things, like talking to dead bodies, why didn't his teammates ever intervene? Why didn't they relieve him of his command when he was obviously insane and directly going against their orders? Considering the standards of military discipline, thats a pretty big plot hole.
Here's what you can learn from Spec ops the line, as presented by the game:
- Incendiary weapons are real and they are atrocious.
- Communities in the desert apparently need water to survive.
- The US army lets schizophrenic psychopaths lead fireteams.
- Developers lie.
- Bruce Boxleitner should be in more stuff.
That's really it. This kind of discussion veers into the realm of "amg such violence in games make people violent." Which is bullshit. So please stop being smug about it.
And about the NPCs, with what you said about it, are you one of those persons that thinks that if a machine can mimic a person 100%, it is therefore a person and not a lifeless imitation of life? I object to that.
tldr; The player never chose to make bad shit happen, THE DEVELOPERS
chose to make bad shit happen. The player only chose to progress the
story. We can't be blamed for that. Period.
+Acolyte47 "It's the Developers. They did it. All of it."
God I love this game. Its probably my favorite, at the moment anyway. Thanks for helping me see this games deep message. Christ I felt like a monster after finishing this
I don't comment much, but now seems to be the time. Errant Signal reviews are genuinely brilliant, and look beyond the, "yay i get 2 jump into cover and no scope dem bots" and actually dissect the game itself into a review that I can honestly use when I'm looking for games to play for my own enjoyment. Keep up the good work, sir. It's greatly appreciated.