Crossing Spec Ops: The Line

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Imp Emissary:
Actually, I would say that what you make Walker do could depend on what you think is the more appropriate punishment for the things he did. If we can get all "psychological" for a second, at the end of the game we (the player) are Walker's will, mind, conscience, whatever you want to call it, and in those last moments we (Walker) have to decide.

Do we A. Pull the trigger. End it all right now. No guilt, no PTSD, and no judgement besides our own (For right now lets not debate if Walker is going to Hell for what he did. Maybe later.) Or B. Put the gun down and live. Live with all the memories of what we did to be alive right now, and maybe if we're lucky we can be halfway worthy of still living.

Me personally? If Walker gets to just shoot himself and be free from it all. Doesn't that mean everyone he killed along the way really did die for nothing? Don't get me wrong. I don't think Walker is even an 1/8 near to being worthy of such sacrifice, but if he kills himself after all that then all those people don't even have his live to give their deaths meaning. Basically, I'm trying to say I don't think Walker deserves to just be done with it.

However, what you decide to do also depends on two important things as well. Do you think Walker can actually do anything after all this to gain redemption, or at least try to? And do you think he will actually even make the attempt?

That's how I see it anyway. You either take the easy way out, or you attempt to take on the probably hopeless challenge of living with what you have done. I don't think I could really blame Walker for pulling the trigger though.

Fair enough. I mean...in a way that is the gist of why people who commit suicide are called 'too cowardly for life'. Because pulling the trigger is the easy way out rather than going on and trying to pick up the pieces.

But indeed, it's hard to blame Walker for wanting to take his life. And yet I agree with you - he's the only survivor of Dubai. So if he dies...everything he has done, everything the 33rd, the CIA, the civilians have done...all of it will have been for naught. Because no one would hear the story of Dubai from Walker's POV, no one would know even the slightest inkling of what went down. This way at least he lives to tell the tale. Of the 33rd wanting to do good, but in the end not enough since they are soldiers and not people actually suited to the job like say...a police force. Of the CIA wanting to bury the truth by killing everyone (another point to consider! If Walker suicides, then the CIA's interests win out in the end!) and of Konrad being a good man...right up until the end when he could see the horrible things he would be forced to do on a daily basis and rather than become what he considered to be a monster...he chose to take his own life while he was still a good man.

It ties into what is said in the game right after your choice not to pull the trigger on Walker: "It takes a strong man to deny what's in front of him." to which Walker says to Konrad: "Stronger than you." And I guess that is true. But of course then the question comes - is being a strong man truly a good thing in this case?

I'd say it is. Even if not for Walker or even if he doesn't feel like it right away...it'll be good for those who learn from his tale.

I appreciate how Yahtzee encourged us to watch other stuff on this site.

Spec ops was a pleasant surprise from a game that looked like (from demo and cover) another generic brown 3rd person war shooter. The characterization of the party was quite deep unlike previous ones like bad company 2. The storyline for me was gripping and much higher quality than the majority of AAA shooters that come out.

I don't really feel like debating the whole "choice" since it is subjective and can be argued both ways. However, like yatzee I was more interested in my own introspective thoughts how the white phosphorous scene I was just like oh cool I get to make it rain fire on these enemy soldiers to find out the consequences of my actions.

*massive spoilers*

Despite that scene I was actually in denial along with walker that he had no choice. When I came up on the scene where the civilian and the soldier were hung up and I had to choice. I was in denial still and tried to save both and they both died wondering if I made the right decision (finding out later that the decision itself was an illusion). I was actually sad with the lugo scene but I didn't attack those that killed him. Thanks to briggs they were going to die anyways and I thought the slow death of starvation was more appropriate than shooting them.

Then finally making it through all that I went to the tower and I saw the truth. Konrad who walker and myself have been demonizing for his loss of humanity and blaming him for all the past actions was dead long ago and the true monster was walker and to a extent myself. I watched seeing walkers decisions and hallucinations to see what a tragedy these events were and the following results. Still despite everything that happened I shot konrad in an attempt to still be in denial and surrendered at the end only to hear the final words of walker to realize that he wasn't a hero or a villan, just a tortured soul at this point.

I personally believe what you get out of the game is how immersed in the game you were. I have friends that will play games that I play and get completely different experiences because they are no able to become immersed in any game which is sad from my point of view.

That scene was a masterpiece so much so I had to stop playing cause I hated myself for doing what I had done, I felt genuinely disgusted with myself afterwards.

"The US military does not condone the killing of unarmed combatants, but this isn't real so why should you care?" When the load screen had that in the place of a tip near the end, it just caught me off guard and I really had not idea what to say. It is the truth, but when it is the game saying it, there is really nothing soothing about it.

It is strange, I keep telling myself that I shouldn't feel guilty about anything that happens in the game, but I really can't help it.

Till Spec Ops: the Line, the closest a game has ever come to making me feel true guilt about my actions in game was when I played through Jade Empire following the way of the Closed Fist.

I'm a filthy skimmer so in response to Spider Jerusalem:

While you do have a point, from what I know of it the developers intended the White Phosphorous moment to be optional. However, I imagine making such a moment optional was a bit too ambitious for the scale of the project, and in the end they had to make a choice. Considering a lot of what they were trying to say with this game, that choice was to make Walker a bastard.

It makes sense with what the game is doing, which is a sort of critique or analysis on the modern obsession with war games. I feel like a game like this is kind of needed right now, imperfections and all. In an era where everyone is trying to make a Michael Bay video game it's nice to see an attempt at David Fincher.

As for the write-up, man, it is so very, very rare that Yahtzee and I see eye-to-eye on a game, and I expected him to rip Spec Ops: The Line apart. It was nice to see him give it a positive go for a change.

One thing I'd like to note, also, is how they presented the White Phosphorous in the game. The first time you see it you have no control, just watch as it drops on a bunch of soldiers and burns them slowly and horribly. So your first introduction is "this is horrible stuff".

Then everyone objects to it, and then you are presented it in a horrible, horrible manner.

While you touched on this in the other white blob moments, it just feels to me an intentional choice to take a powerful weapon and make the player feel horrible for it. Contrast it with any other game that tells the player "Use the rocket launcher!" or something, and then pats them on the back with a chest-thumping "Oo-rah!" as if they're some sort of hero.

I think the developers of Spec Ops: The Line intentionally tried to make these two greatly different in their presentation.

Seneschal:

Zhukov:
My problem with the white phosphorous scene was the way the game tried to make me feel guilty about it afterwards. You know, with the walk through the burning bodies and the cutscene with the dead mum and kid.

It didn't work because the game didn't give me a choice beforehand. If it had said, "Either use the phosphorous or face a really tough fight on foot" and I had chosen the phosphorous then it would have worked fine. But as it was, I didn't feel anything because I wasn't responsible. It was as if Bioshock had started telling me off for killing Andrew Ryan.

Agreed. It was a well-made scene, but it would justify it further if you could actually attempt to attack the Gate on foot. They could make the battle almost impossible (or literally impossible), so that you're forced to go back and use the mortar simply to make things easier for yourself. That would actually make the aftermath your responsibility, even if the game did rig the playing field for that.

Believe me, they did that. I tried, about 5 times in fact. I just kept dying and dying until I finally thought "God, I have to use the mortar".

OT:This article actually put that bit in a new light for me. So yeah, good article.

that section was good, it was damn near perfect. Because it's real... there is no "Super Hero" here. You can't beat an Entire armed platoon with armored vehicles with just 3 guys and limited Ammo... it would be STUPID to even try.

But walker was all about the mission, he can't stop. It's success at all cost... So, you need to use the mortars. You can start the fight on your own, shoot as many soliders as you want... but if their barrage won't get you, their snipers will... there is just no way around it. If you WANT to continue, if you WANT to pursuit your mission, you must play dirty and use the Mortar.

The little validation you have for your actions is that just a little earlier than that you saw that your enemies ALSO used the same tactics, so you feel like you're just giving them back...

Then you learn that YOU started the whole mess and that Walker simply can't accept that he screwed up, he was there to Rescue people and he ends up killing pretty much everyone he was supposed to save AND destroyed an ACTUAL rescue mission in the process... just because he was blindly loyal to his mission.

SpiderJerusalem:

evilthecat:

SpiderJerusalem:
Yes, I know, hence the sarcastic "good job Spec Ops".

Yeah, but short of paying someone to dump you in the uncharted jungle or a real-life warzone for a few months, I don't see how the game could adequately prepare you for moral failure.

Conrad's point, at least as I read, is that Europeans of his time could sustain the delusion of being more moral than the "savages" around them not because they were a different class of people, as they believed, but merely because of the environment in which they lived.

I dunno.. If you give people a moral choice with success and failure, most people will choose success, in fact if they make a mistake they'll reload their save game and go back and make the choice again. Why not? They're sitting in a comfortable room somewhere eating crisps and playing with fictional characters on a video game console.

I think there's a good argument that it's not possible to replicate Heart of Darkness in video game form, but I think there's also a very good point that if we're going to try then we need to accept that a loss of agency is required to tell that story, because it's not the story of us, of fat people living in luxury in nice houses, it's the story of what our fat arses would do if we were deprived of all the things which allow us to view ourselves as moral people.

I agree to an extent. I think there definitely is a demand and need for something that valuable, but I really disagree that Spec Ops is it.

It feels like they've tried cherry picking bits from both the novel and Apocalypse Now, thinking that it worked in the past and the overall message and purpose is muddled in the final product. In Apocalypse Now there was never a question that Willard wouldn't find Kurtz, their meeting was inevitable. But in a game, attempting to try and pull the "war makes villains of us all" angle and then try and spin that with the whole "you, the player, are responsible" when no choice is ever given - even if there's a clear distinct possibility for it - is disingenuous.

Now, had Spec Ops, for instance, given that moment and let the player choose what to do it still could have spun the same story forward from that point and deliver the message of ruthless, brutal slaughter by allowing the players actions define the person they become towards the end. Do you sneak by the opposition or do you go in, guns blazing? Did you shoot that wounded guy on the ground or walk by? Let that work seamlessly into the ending and I'd be right there with you, hailing Spec Ops as a leap forward.

But having a forced decision like that lead to one single outcome every time and then pretend like it's a moral tale about something? Pfft.

Spider, you are dominating this discussion thread & have beat me to every point I was about to make, but more articulately, so I agree with your ideas & would like to subscribe to your newsletter, as Homer Simpson once said.

Was SpecOps marketed at any point in its development as a deconstruction? No. What you're talking about was what made me quit playing Homefront, because my character (if you can call a guy who doesn't talk & gets yelled at a lot as such) was dragged from set piece to piece, including that game's bomb-the-enemy-with-phosphorous bit, where shit went downhill and I felt I had little bearing on events. Back onto SpecOps, it is kinda cheap of them to put the story on hold until you do that horrible thing & forced to feel guilty about it. It's total bullshit. Do I have to link to TvTropes' YouBastard page again?

And how THE FUCK did everybody's avatar pic turn into Justin Bieber??!!

That part of the game made my physically sick in my stomach. And the worst, or perhaps best, part is that I played right into the game's hand: This is Konrad's fault. I'm going to make sure I end him now.
I did eventually start to lose faith in Walker, especially when his execution kills became extremely brutal, but I kept telling myself that this was on Konrad's head. That ending was a real kick to the gut for me.

I do wish that choice was actually part of it. I fully expected, on my second run, that when I saved the CIA guy things would have gone different. And the first time I had to chose whether to kill the guy under the truck or let him burn, once I fired that bullet I kept wondering, "Oh God, am I going to need that shot later?" When you came across Lugo being held hostage I was certain that wasting that bullet was going to get him killed. Anyone else feel like a monster when they leave that guy to burn? I wanted to hit the mute button, but I told myself not to. Being uncomfortable was what the game was going for.

HAHA, this is so funny. If the Willy Pete scene didn't have Walker killing civies would the "detractors" complain about not having a choice to use the mortar?

As far as I see it, the only difference here from CoD:MW is Spec OPs doesn't give you an automatic game over screen when you hit civies due to fog of war.

In Spec Ops the game goes on after civilian friendly fire, unlike the CoD:MW which somehow is able to tell you a car with 4 people driving through a fire fight are civilians even though the only eyes on the car are a mile and half in the air; completely negating the concept of fog of war to give players guiltless fun killing the faceless bad guys.

And for all these people who keep talking about realism in games the Willy Pete scene is most realistic display of the aftermath of a bombing that I've seen in a video game. How many "realistic" shooters have you played where you kill someone with a grenade that lands at their feet and you just see the enemy roll over dead? There's nothing realistic about that, not the slightest thing.

So this game only works because there are so many other 'shoot everyone without guilt' FPSs out there?

Imagine if this was someone's first FPS and they had not played (encountered?) the others. What an experience that would be...

SpiderJerusalem:
But in a game, attempting to try and pull the "war makes villains of us all" angle and then try and spin that with the whole "you, the player, are responsible" when no choice is ever given - even if there's a clear distinct possibility for it - is disingenuous.

I am about to get a concussion from head-desking on account of how hard you are missing the point. Do you know what a videogame is?

I thought game designers made this point clear decades ago: You as a player, by the mere fact that you are playing the game, are, on account of the nature of videogames being interactive, complicit in any activities taking place in said game.

To then bitch about how the game didn't give you a choice, when indeed, that is the ENTIRE DRIVING FORCE behide the protagonist's decisions, is just ludicrous.

matrix3509:

SpiderJerusalem:
But in a game, attempting to try and pull the "war makes villains of us all" angle and then try and spin that with the whole "you, the player, are responsible" when no choice is ever given - even if there's a clear distinct possibility for it - is disingenuous.

I am about to get a concussion from head-desking on account of how hard you are missing the point. Do you know what a videogame is?

I thought game designers made this point clear decades ago: You as a player, by the mere fact that you are playing the game, are, on account of the nature of videogames being interactive, complicit in any activities taking place in said game.

To then bitch about how the game didn't give you a choice, when indeed, that is the ENTIRE DRIVING FORCE behide the protagonist's decisions, is just ludicrous.

I think all the head banging is making you spectacularly miss the point.

Just because you are pressing forward on the controller doesn't make it you who is making the choices. Especially if there are none. You might as well claim that film is an interactive medium then, because you as a viewer decided to sit down and watch it.

But when the game forces your hand at doing something, and then pretends to be able to turn it around and say "AHA! This was your choice!" it is nothing but a poor manipulation and lousy game design.

I posted earlier that had the developers truly wanted to take this path and keep the message intact, they would have allowed the player options to play as they saw fit and calculated that towards the ending. But no, instead you are forced to take the cheapest, most obvious possible choice and then sit through meandering and poorly handled melodrama when the game tries to rub it in your face that you - well, did what it forced you to do.

That's not interactivity.

btw in the WP scene you can attack the gate normally without using it just go to the far left area. not sure the fights winnable but its good fun.

good game nice story glad it was made and i played it, but it lost any emotional power for me to , its the whole immersion breaking problem of you cant be sat there dumbfounded asking your own character WTF are you doing? are you just being full retard for giggles? and then feel any guilt or even culpability for his actions.

i do feel a little sorry for the devs/writers. i mean they were so caerful to make it a humanitarian mission into a natural disaster NOT a war, and everyone missed it.

So possibly useless tidbit in the grander scheme of things: There is a Humvee, in the white phosphorous scene, while you're bombarding the zone it is driving back towards the largest mass of white blobs. Sure when you're bombarding you think its part of a mounting defensive line, then you realize later that it had positioned itself next to the civilians, while everyone else was panicking those soldiers made a conscious effort to take their big gun and armored vehicle to go defend the civilians. It's a nice touch.

One thing i don't see mentioned about the game, but felt was lacking, is the fact that the spiral of delusion didn't exactly 'hit' the conclusion needed to give the player real reason to doubt Walker's perception.

Everything, including the last final battle, was still grounded very much in reality. This didn't set up the delusional ending as good as it could because the switch from 'real' to 'delusion' was too fast. All that separated the 'reality' was that little cutscene of us going up the road and greeting, the what i then thought to be real, remnants of the battalion. Given the last 5 minutes of the game, we had no reason, prior to the ending 'cutscene' to doubt Walker's perception of reality.

If after the final battle/bunker explosion, we would have had a short gameplay moment, with Walker reaching the tip of his madness, i think that would have settled in the feeling a lot better. Let me walk you through it.

Imagine just watching the sequence after the bunker, you reach that bridge and realise that there's a final wave of enemies which you have to go through. The character then picks up two LMG's or one of the stationary Gatling sentries in the game, something ridiculous, and then advances on the enemies. The player can only reasonably go forward, the screen gets red as it usually does when you are near death, but you don't die.. hundreds of soldiers falling to your left and to your right as you wade through them effortlessly, trucks exploding for the pure visceral pleasure of carnage. You are a god amongst men, a god of war.

What would that sequence achieve? Make you question what you're seeing, set up the realisation that Walker really fell down the deep end.

Blackout62:
So possibly useless tidbit in the grander scheme of things: There is a Humvee, in the white phosphorous scene, while you're bombarding the zone it is driving back towards the largest mass of white blobs. Sure when you're bombarding you think its part of a mounting defensive line, then you realize later that it had positioned itself next to the civilians, while everyone else was panicking those soldiers made a conscious effort to take their big gun and armored vehicle to go defend the civilians. It's a nice touch.

Also, every time an explosion goes off Walkers face gets reflected in the laptop scree for a second... another very nice touch that mirrors exactly what yahtzee said about how these sections turn the player and the targets into senseless tiny little blobs.

[DELETE]

"You see, I didn't like that one scene because I WAS TOO SMART TO FALL FOR IT. MYES."

-at least 70% of the posters here

(deleted)

I saw a friend post a picture from the game on facebook and thought the artwork looked really nice. And the setting, ghosttown Dubai? Too good to be true. My friend also recomended it. So I had a few beers and thought this is going to be good!

I've only played it for maybe 20 minutes. I wasnt charmed by it at all. My first impression of the game was poor. A pointless helicopter/minigun unlimited ammo scence that was incredible boring. Walked around in the desert for a while and then quit in order to go back to Crusader Kings 2. Havent played it since (more than a month ago)

(deleted)

Completely agree. That scene with the phosphorus was just so good. And the part where you replay that helicopter scene and begin to get deja vu - such a great way of revealing just how far from reality Walker has got to be. I love this game. And I love how from the title, trailers, hell, even from playing through all of the demo, you'd think it was the most generic thing in the world. Means the target audience for CoD and Battlefield might get something to actually make them think for once.

Oh, and those loading screens. Gradually changing from just giving you tutorials and backstory, to giving you philosophical quotes like 'Freedom is what you do with what's been done to you.' and then going on to simply openly ask what the hell you're doing. Such a brilliant touch.

SpiderJerusalem:

Wank wank wank wank wank.

That's all I'm hearing. "Oh, you don't like these choices? Stop playing the game you bought. Yeah, we totally made a product that costs 60 euros so we could tell you to stop playing it."

Bullshit.

Do you read a book, or watch a film, and complain that you're not being given a choice as to the protagonist's actions?

It's a linear game that is telling a story.

Don't complain because you're not given the choice to avoid something fundamental to the whole story of the game.

OT: I thought the story was brilliant, but the gameplay was about as bog standard as you could get. I've completed it once, and I don't expect to do so again.
The environments were great too

SpiderJerusalem:

matrix3509:

SpiderJerusalem:
But in a game, attempting to try and pull the "war makes villains of us all" angle and then try and spin that with the whole "you, the player, are responsible" when no choice is ever given - even if there's a clear distinct possibility for it - is disingenuous.

I am about to get a concussion from head-desking on account of how hard you are missing the point. Do you know what a videogame is?

I thought game designers made this point clear decades ago: You as a player, by the mere fact that you are playing the game, are, on account of the nature of videogames being interactive, complicit in any activities taking place in said game.

To then bitch about how the game didn't give you a choice, when indeed, that is the ENTIRE DRIVING FORCE behide the protagonist's decisions, is just ludicrous.

I think all the head banging is making you spectacularly miss the point.

Just because you are pressing forward on the controller doesn't make it you who is making the choices. Especially if there are none. You might as well claim that film is an interactive medium then, because you as a viewer decided to sit down and watch it.

But when the game forces your hand at doing something, and then pretends to be able to turn it around and say "AHA! This was your choice!" it is nothing but a poor manipulation and lousy game design.

I posted earlier that had the developers truly wanted to take this path and keep the message intact, they would have allowed the player options to play as they saw fit and calculated that towards the ending. But no, instead you are forced to take the cheapest, most obvious possible choice and then sit through meandering and poorly handled melodrama when the game tries to rub it in your face that you - well, did what it forced you to do.

That's not interactivity.

you can attack the base if you want. the game is just being real to the scene, because if you attack the base, your odds are near impossible. but you can try and attack it if you want. then you die, and its mission over. and if yo uwant, you can consider that end of the game. :)

draythefingerless:

you can attack the base if you want. the game is just being real to the scene, because if you attack the base, your odds are near impossible. but you can try and attack it if you want. then you die, and its mission over. and if yo uwant, you can consider that end of the game. :)

Wrong. The battle is unwinnable because enemies keep respawning.

Cosmitzian:

draythefingerless:

you can attack the base if you want. the game is just being real to the scene, because if you attack the base, your odds are near impossible. but you can try and attack it if you want. then you die, and its mission over. and if yo uwant, you can consider that end of the game. :)

Wrong. The battle is unwinnable because enemies keep respawning.

so you wanted a winning option?

3 guys vs entire base, complete with snipers, explosives, and armored vehicles. yeah no, youre not rambo.

furthermore, it would debunk the whole white phospherous thing, by giving it a polar opposite. basically you would only use the phospherous if youre an evil bastard, and youre a white knight if you attack the base. whats the fucking point then? it becomes a jedi vs sith situation.

draythefingerless:

3 guys vs entire base, complete with snipers, explosives, and armored vehicles. yeah no, youre not rambo.

furthermore, it would debunk the whole white phospherous thing, by giving it a polar opposite. basically you would only use the phospherous if youre an evil bastard, and youre a white knight if you attack the base. whats the fucking point then? it becomes a jedi vs sith situation.

Nope, i wanted actually be proven wrong and shown via gameplay that assaulting the base is insane and that there is no other option. I would have liked to get killed to have that point proven to me.

Cosmitzian:

draythefingerless:

3 guys vs entire base, complete with snipers, explosives, and armored vehicles. yeah no, youre not rambo.

furthermore, it would debunk the whole white phospherous thing, by giving it a polar opposite. basically you would only use the phospherous if youre an evil bastard, and youre a white knight if you attack the base. whats the fucking point then? it becomes a jedi vs sith situation.

Nope, i wanted actually be proven wrong and shown via gameplay that assaulting the base is insane and that there is no other option. I would have liked to get killed to have that point proven to me.

well you eventually die i guess. if i had a complaint on that whole part of the game, is they should have overwhelmed the player with massive force, instead of regular attack waves. like 30 enemies just tossing nades n shooting at you. impossible to get away from.

draythefingerless:

well you eventually die i guess. if i had a complaint on that whole part of the game, is they should have overwhelmed the player with massive force, instead of regular attack waves. like 30 enemies just tossing nades n shooting at you. impossible to get away from.

Agreed.

Cosmitzian:

draythefingerless:

well you eventually die i guess. if i had a complaint on that whole part of the game, is they should have overwhelmed the player with massive force, instead of regular attack waves. like 30 enemies just tossing nades n shooting at you. impossible to get away from.

Agreed.

then again this game was for consoles...so i dont know if the hardware would of sustain that level of events at the same time.

once again, technology stalling us. :(

Angry_squirrel:

SpiderJerusalem:

Wank wank wank wank wank.

That's all I'm hearing. "Oh, you don't like these choices? Stop playing the game you bought. Yeah, we totally made a product that costs 60 euros so we could tell you to stop playing it."

Bullshit.

Do you read a book, or watch a film, and complain that you're not being given a choice as to the protagonist's actions?

It's a linear game that is telling a story.

Don't complain because you're not given the choice to avoid something fundamental to the whole story of the game.

OT: I thought the story was brilliant, but the gameplay was about as bog standard as you could get. I've completed it once, and I don't expect to do so again.
The environments were great too

Different formats, different means of telling a story.

Did you have something to contribute? Because you're doing nothing but bringing up points that have already been discussed and directly contradicting what the game itself is trying to do. If it wanted to be truly linear, don't even give the illusion of choice and especially don't start moralizing the player for playing the game. It's lazy.

Guy from the 80's:
I saw a friend post a picture from the game on facebook and thought the artwork looked really nice. And the setting, ghosttown Dubai? Too good to be true. My friend also recomended it. So I had a few beers and thought this is going to be good!

I've only played it for maybe 20 minutes. I wasnt charmed by it at all. My first impression of the game was poor. A pointless helicopter/minigun unlimited ammo scence that was incredible boring. Walked around in the desert for a while and then quit in order to go back to Crusader Kings 2. Havent played it since (more than a month ago)

It gets a lot better after that, but whatever, no point in trying to convince someone who quits after 20 minutes.

SpiderJerusalem:

I honestly think you're right. Even though i enjoyed the scene, it was fairly easy to see it coming. Anyone who considers that moment anything but railroaded is terribly confused.

However, i don't find linear storytelling that bad of a thing. It worked for me because i single-mindedly fired at everything that moved, and by the time i realized there was no way those white dots were soldiers i had already let loose the round.

For me at least, it wasn't about a choice (besides dying there wasn't much of a choice) as it was about immediate regret.

Then again it worked because i hadn't reached my suspension of disbelief, so i guess that moment only if believe the game's tone until that moment.

That said, i completely agree it wasn't one's choice.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here