Why Spec Ops: The Line Mattered

Rozaŭtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 9 months ago

Why Spec Ops: The Line Mattered

Toribor@corndog.social · 9 months ago

I sort of feel like it’s correctly-rated. It’s a serviceable third person cover shooter with an interesting setting and some great visuals. The reveal of “you’re the real monster here” has a good amount of impact but it’s hard to totally land that message when the game offers no alternative.

The main problem was that all that was a bit of a pleasant surprise. The good parts of the game were sort of hidden behind the disguise of a generic military shooter. The box art couldn’t possibly be more boring. It sold very poorly and gained momentum later for being actually good.

It’s a bummer to see it leave Steam knowing that less access to it will mean less people get to check it out.

Vodulas [they/them]@beehaw.org · 9 months ago

The reveal of “you’re the real monster here” has a good amount of impact but it’s hard to totally land that message when the game offers no alternative.

Yeah, the game lost me at that spot. I tried literally everything I could to avoid it, and a literal invisible wall stopped me. The thing is, the narrative has been done before. Classic Heart of Darkness/Apocalypse Now, but with a slight twist. It hasn’t been done in games AFAIK, but it takes a deft hand, and Spec Ops failed for me

Crotaro@beehaw.org · 9 months ago

it’s hard to totally land that message when the game offers no alternative.

I’m of such split opinion when it comes to this argument against the game. I’ve read it so many times now and I kind of agree that there should have been some nuanced choice that changes the story in such a way where Walker tries to redeem himself? If I recall correctly, the only choice that actually made a difference for the end, was what you did in the very end scene with the mirror, right? And, of course, the choice not to play the game.

Then again, would it have been better if the player had had the option for a less shitty (not necessarily good or positive) path? Sometimes in life, especially during war, the only things that happen to you are shit and even what you do might be out of your control, because you only have one option that results in staying alive or because your mind is so focused on the task at hand that you can’t even consider other ways of tackling a problem. This might be a bit graphic, but I think Spec Ops puts you in the passenger seat with a maddened driver. You tell the driver your destination (finishing the game) and he just hits the pedal and, no matter how much you protest, he roadkills every person on the way there. The car doors are unlocked and he occasionally stops, giving you an opportunity to get out. When you finally arrive at your destination and complain that he killed all those people, he goes “If you had left the car, I would’ve stopped.” I don’t know, I feel like I have a point here, but I can’t put it into words.

Also, there are games like Animal Crossing that aren’t criticised with “Well, the message (of positivity and being rewarded for hard work and cooperation while being friendly) falls a bit flat, since the player doesn’t even have alternative options, aside from not playing the game.”

So, yeah, I’ll leave it at that now, since I think my comment is plateauing in its insightfullness.

AVeryCleverName@lemmy.one · 9 months ago

I think the crux of spec ops was less about morally judging the player or even the protagonist actions. In my opinion the driving theme of that story was encouraging critical analysis of the media we participate in, in this case, video games. It’s not so much that the player had no choice but to do those bad things, the important part is the way the context of the surrounding narrative framed those choices. And then extrapolating that to other games of a similar ilk and frankly media as a whole.