Is Spec Ops: the Line overrated?
Yes
22% (117)
22% (117)
No
77.8% (414)
77.8% (414)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Is Spec Ops: the Line overrated?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Every single game in existence, and every game that will come in the future, are all both underrated and overrated.
Because people have different goddamn opinions.

Maybe what bothered me was the phosphorous situation.

NO! Why the fuck is this even a real question?!

I don't think its old enough to be overrated.

SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
Yahtzee's extra punctuation really hit the nail on the head, what I took away from it was during the white phosphorus scene was that games had trained me to fire away at clusters of enemies, games rarely let you damage innocent/teammates, and if you do the game usually gives you a game over. What made this sequence different was not only did you not get stopped for doing the wrong thing, the game makes you progress through your mistake, seeing the results of your actions, the burning bodies, screams, etc.

I liken this sequence to what some of the scientists felt when they created the atomic bomb. Kenneth Bainbridge famously said "Now we are all sons of bitches" when he saw the massive explosion he helped create. I enjoy that kind of message, the what have I done! moment. That is an aspect that is prevalent in human life, people make mistakes and in hindsight think What have I done? This is a phenomenon rarely put into games because usually your game ends when you make a mistake.

Another thing that makes the game great is how it turns from the Gear of War style manshow of violence into a depressing story of having to follow your leader, the support characters want to stop but they are required to follow their leader's command. There is a great line when after the squad realizes they killed innocent people, Lugo exclaims that "He turned us in to murderers," the voice acting for this line was very well directed, Lugo's inflection really helps show his character, he has been shooting people for the entire game but when they burned innocent people he realizes that this is the point he became a murderer. It brings up the debate as to whether or not soldiers are seen as murderers, a hot topic no matter what your stance.

Also, the ending reminds me of the ending to Braid, the ending is ambiguous and requires discussion, not to the extent Braid's ending did but it does warrant discussion.

The game isn't without it's faults, unless you are playing it for the story aspect it isn't that good, the gameplay is linear and stale. But the game is meant for it's story, The Line of right and wrong and how it can be crossed.

Everyone who considers themself to be a gamer should play this game, its not for people who play socially amongst friends, but it is a great solo experience gamers should try. Plus if you own a PC its like 5-10 dollars on Amazon, although the PC port has some issues, primarily that all the onscreen context buttons are based on controller UI, such as when you want to take cover it will tell you to press X, which isn't the X key but the X button from a controller.

Overrated? Perhaps,but I would emphasize more on overhyped by people who finished it and we have ourselves to blame.
Outside this site of avid,well-informed gaming wise,internet users the mainstream has no idea what this is,because it's not CoD and doesn't seem to really represent CoD.

I do not think the game is overrated. I do think however though that there is a bit of a knee jerk reaction to how people perceive the game compared to how it is talked about. I personally really enjoyed the story and the way the game play out. Its not flawless, it has its issues, and sometimes its frustratingly bad, but for me I found that the good aspects of the game (the story, how the interactions made me think, and how the dialogue plays on itself) out weighed the bad parts.

Sgt. Sykes:

kanyewhite:
In fact, if it was a film, I think it wouldn't be praised.

Um...

image

Wow, almost 3 pages before someone brought up this point? That's the first thing I thought when I read that line from the OP.

When compared to other games SPEC OPS: The Line is the single greatest FPS I have played since Bioshock. A ride for the century. Because I seriously doubt we will see many others like this.

The Line is a game where choice is mostly hidden and not intuitive, a game that has evoked more emotions than say Walking Dead (a game where choice is commercially advocated to you, and yet always made irrelevant).

Nothing in The Walking Dead can be "discussed", nothing in this game besides a minute or two of episode 5 caused any feels at all, and they were all contrived, and predictable as all hell. You see Clems cap on the street, check the cardboards, and BOOM ZOMBIE!

Spec Ops: The Line has no commercially advocated or marketed choices and yet it allows you to make the most profoundly relevant and different choices I have seen for a long time. How to disperse a crowd of angry civvies, do you shoot the CIA agent begging for relief after he is trapped underneath a burning truck? What do you do, and what does it mean for you?

Personally I shot Konrad, and I surrendered my weapon. It made sense to get out of this elaborate purgatory. I came, I saw, I chose, and it was good. The fact that you can shoot these guys that come to fetch you and stay is amazing. The fact that Walker / the player can decided that he should pay the price of his actions in suicide is amazing. There is even a theory that Konrad is the guy inventing up a Captain Walker persona to escape his own guilt (supported by the fact that captain Walker is wearing Konrads clothes when they come to get him).

This game is not mainstream. This game is not overrated, and yet it is. This game is not fun, and yet it is compelling, interesting, engaging, profoundly awesome when compared with every other game of 2012.

The Line has set itself apart. It is the only game of 2012 that will remain relevant for many years to come, and those who can appreciate it sometimes only have the vocabulary to express that they feel it is better than. It is the first real attempt at being different. It is the only compelling argument of video games as art made in 2012.

bastardofmelbourne:
It's overrated, but only because people have started putting it on a pedestal so high up that Nolan North could scratch God's ass.

It's still a fantastic game.

This, even though I still believe it's not overrated.

You might be genuinely thinking to yourself, after finishing the game: "Wow, this game blew me away, I wonder if other people liked it as much as I did.."

Then you're on a crusade filled with back-patting and circle-jerking (I don't mean this in a negative way). That's when the game "feels" overrated, even though it might not be at all. I wouldn't call the game humble, but it kept both feet on the ground.

Frotality:
Spec Ops is praised for doing something different. you're thinking of it in a linear, gameplay/narrative quality sense, which was never the developers intent. the gameplay is generic and stale for a very good reason: its not that they couldnt make it better, its that the whole freakin point of the game is to make you question the true value of all the other generic and stale shooters you play. to put it bluntly: you're not supposed to enjoy it. the game was made to deconstruct a genre, not provide a good example of it. Yager wanted to communicate something with their game, and they communicated that message very well, something few games have done, and for that they should be praised.

you cant think of it in an X out of 10 kind of way. it had a message, and it delivered it well. a refreshing change of pace from games simply trying to out-gore each other, dont you think?

I really need you to read what you've written again.

Rid all thought of Spec Ops from your mind.

Read it again.

You've just said that, because it's the 'intent of the devs' the mediocre gameplay is a something in the games favour.

That's just too much, I jokingly thought that in my head, and someone actually came along and said it.

Priceless :'D

Daystar Clarion:

Frotality:
Spec Ops is praised for doing something different. you're thinking of it in a linear, gameplay/narrative quality sense, which was never the developers intent. the gameplay is generic and stale for a very good reason: its not that they couldnt make it better, its that the whole freakin point of the game is to make you question the true value of all the other generic and stale shooters you play. to put it bluntly: you're not supposed to enjoy it. the game was made to deconstruct a genre, not provide a good example of it. Yager wanted to communicate something with their game, and they communicated that message very well, something few games have done, and for that they should be praised.

you cant think of it in an X out of 10 kind of way. it had a message, and it delivered it well. a refreshing change of pace from games simply trying to out-gore each other, dont you think?

I really need you to read what you've written again.

Rid all thought of Spec Ops from your mind.

Read it again.

You've just said that, because it's the 'intent of the devs' the mediocre gameplay is a something in the games favour.

That's just too much, I jokingly thought that in my head, and someone actually came along and said it.

Priceless :'D

I feel kind of like this is very reductive, like the old-school film critics condemning "Bonnie and Clyde" for being violent and ugly, assuming up-front that all films were supposed to be was sequences of pretty images. If something in a work is the way it is to get across a point, and it succeeds in doing so, it's successful. I feel as though Spec Ops' gameplay being deliberately like the works it is critiquing got across its point.

As for whether or not Spec Ops is overrated, I'm inclined to say no. It is acclaimed for its acerbic and unsentimental plot, themes and writing, and those things are as good as people say they are. To pretend that people considered it the complete package - graphics, gameplay, lifespan, all that - is to misrepresent why it's been praised. It excels in an area where very few other games do - complex, layered and metatextual writing - and thus it stands out. People have figured out how to make games into enjoyable little tasks for a long time, but the quality of the story in Spec Ops: The Line is something new, and that makes it significant in a way that very little else was this year. Its good parts are exactly as good as people say they are, its average parts are widely acknowledged to be average and its failures are minimal. It meets its praise fairly well in my opinion.

kanyewhite:
*Puts on flame suit, hides behind bullet proof glass*

Okay, I liked Spec Ops. It was good, some of the time. However, every time it pops up on these forums people call it "A SHOW OF HOW OUR MEDIUM IS ART AND BETTER THAN MOVIES!!!!" I felt like the game was hindered by all the delays and a lower budget than it deserved. The gameplay was ok, just not standout.

I would have put it "A show of how our medium can be better than movies"
Because the end of the game really was all it was cracked up to be, acclaim wise.
It wasn't some binary moral choice system. It looked like one, up until the Civilian vs the Military officer.
You have to shoot one of them so: Is stealing justified to save a life? or Is murder justified to promote order? Simple enough. But that's not the decision they're asking you to make because you get the same achievement no matter which one you shoot (And achievements are a mechanic)

The thing you have to choose is do you do what the radio (Voice in your head) tells you, or do you do what's right and try to save them both by shooting the snipers.

The choice you have to make at the end is also more complex than it first seems. It's basically asking you how much responsibility you want to take for your actions. Once you realize what you've done and that it's literally all on you do you deserve death, or do you risk punishment to try and undo some of your wrongs?
Not exactly simple.

This is where I'll get controversial. The STORY IS NOT THE BEST. In fact, if it was a film, I think it wouldn't be praised. The twist at the end felt like the bad Twilight Zone episodes

If you get right down to it it's the same twist at the end of Fight Club. Almost to a Tee.
You've been using something that only exists in your imagination to justify all the bad things you've done over the course of the game. But not all of it, Konrad didn't tell you to use the white phosphorus, Konrad didn't tell you to shoot up the refuges. So how many of your actions are you willing to put on the imaginary Konrad? Any of it?
At least that was going through my head when I was staring him down in the mirror. Because if it was all him then you're lost, and might as well let him shoot you. If all of it, some of it, any of it was you then you might still atone.
Most games don't make you think about that. How much of it did you do because the voice in your head, or the objective marker on your hud told you to? Because if all you're doing is following the orders of the little objective markers you're as good as lost.

and the "emotional" moments were good, but not "more effective than Schindler's List" (which I was told)

Schindler's List? The Oscar winning Steven Spielberg movie? About the Holocaust?
Most movies don't want to be compared to Schindler's List, let alone a video game.

And if you're comparing video games to movies you're already wrong
Movies and video games present narrative very differently by necessity. Books are all tell, movies are show don't tell, and video games are do don't show. (To quote Extra Credits) But that's where the problem lies with games. There has to be so much to "Do" that if you're not giving the player control over the narrative you have to punch it up with a near constant barrage of action. Making down time break the rule of story telling in gaming.

Think about something like Uncharted. (Does that have a good story? I think it's fine maybe 7/10 fine but for sake of argument I'll call it "Good") It's a strictly non player controlled narrative. So there are a crap ton of shoot outs in that game. Even though the story telling in Uncharted is strictly taking place during the cut scenes.
But there's a rub. Is Nathan Drake characterized as a killer? It's all self defense but still, he's killing LOTS of people. Does it effect him? Not really. He seems unfazed by the hundreds of people he's shot dead, but is he characterized as the kind of person who wouldn't give two thoughts to shooting someone in the head? No, plain and simple no. This is a clean cut example of a "Ludo narrative dissonance" The character you're playing is different from the character you're watching in the cutscenes.

Back to Spec Ops, Walker is a Ranking officer in the Military you don't get there without being able to kill people, but when he kills innocent people it eats away at him, and you can see that clearly, even when his actions indirectly lead to someone's death.
So Spec Ops has all the Do it needs, being set in a war zone. and the tell justifies the characters actions to himself, up until the point where that doesn't satisfy him any more then it's left up to you the player to decide how much responsibility Walker is going to take for everything he did to Dubai.

THe characters just felt generic even near the end, when they were supposed to be all crazy, except Walker. I also had a creeping feeling they were trying to make Konrad like Andrew Ryan in the sense you talk to him and never see him, which didn't do much for me.

You did get to see Andrew Ryan.


Generic... Hmmm well at this point it would be relative.

Lugo starts coming out of his shell just in time go get killed off. And Adams is a bit generic through and through. The Radio Man was cracked by the horror's he'd seen, Konrad was a figment of Walker's imagination. and Riggs an old man who thought murdering an entire city state was a better alternative that letting anyone find out that a dead American wasn't as honorable as he seemed.

The only character who struck me as particularly generic was Adams and that falls under the "Video games can't write good black characters" umbrella. But what did you want from them they're military men with a job to do. Most people under fire don't express the meaningful quirks that reveal the truths of the deepest recesses of their souls.
Lugo was like Comic relief up until he snapped. Like it was a defense mechanism, the more real things got the less jokes he cracked he broke down to the point where he strait up murdered the radio man. He couldn't blame himself because he was just following Walker's orders and the Radio man was forcing Walker's hand. That seems like a pretty deep character to me. Unwilling to stand up to his own chain of command but harboring enough resentment to take out his anger on a tangentially related third party.

If you pick up all the Intel the Radio man has a pretty good arc.
Riggs was set in his ways and patriotic to a damn fault, a character you've seen before but well executed. (No pun intended)

The game's satire isn't exactly the video game Animal Farm

I'm not sure Spec Ops was supposed to be satire for anything.
This isn't Bioshock sand edition, this is a character drama in a military setting. I think the focus of this game is to tell a story with the mechanics of player action, making a more allegorical statement about gaming it's self instead of a satirical one. Also Animal Farm was really blunt and beating you over the head with the points it was trying to make. Also the point Animal Farm was trying to make was really one sided.

and I felt if you sort of cut out the white phosphorous stuff and the lynching, it just could have been another generic shooter.

You'd have to take out the end section where you choose whether you shoot Konrad or let him shoot you, then the Epilog.
That would take away all the meaningful retrospection, because other than that it's a binary moral choice system.
And still leaving it as it is, if the game made the decision for you based on your previous choices that would push it down from great game to slightly above average game.

You'd have to take out a lot more to bump it down to generic. You have to give credit to how well written and acted it was, the shooting sections were average, sometimes even tedious. The brown was brown and the grey was grey. but some of the interior levels were worth looking at. The weapon placement was a bit too on the nose, but ammo was scarce enough to keep you cycling through weapons for the most part. I can't tell you how many times I just held on to my empty M4A1 until I found one of those ammo boxes.

But the sheer quality of the story telling, and the story that was told was masterful (especially for video games, not that that's relevant, since games and movies have radically different approaches to story telling)
The fact that Spec Ops has an engaging lead character with no Ludo Narrative Dissonance is unbelievable all on it's own.

I think I'm way too harsh, but maybe we were too easy.

I don't really think you're being too harsh, I just think you were judging it on the wrong criteria.
Thinking narratively acclaimed games need to stand up against narratively acclaimed movies was your first mistake, and thinking all narratively acclaimed games need to stand on the same legs as Bioshock was your second.

If this game is so eye-opening, then where are all the ex-COD dudebros renouncing their brown people murder simulating ways?

Spec Ops is being praised by people who already hate the genre (thus are ecstatic to see their bias confirmed in all its narrow moral myopic glory) and critics eager to have another "games are art" talking point. Everyone agrees the gameplay is mediocre, some even going as far as to call it intentionally unenjoyable. Thus, what we're left with is people gladly paying 60 dollars for 6 hours of tedious gameplay for the sake or criticizing others for spending that amount on games they considered FUN with robust competitive online adding even more value.

How shrewd you all are.

You're like the fans of ME3 condemning Gears of War: judgmental against the product you're playing a pale imitation of for the story. I hate FPSes as much as the next asocial reject, but I don't need to pretend my taste is moral outrage.

kanyewhite:
*Puts on flame suit, hides behind bullet proof glass*

Okay, I liked Spec Ops. It was good, some of the time. However, every time it pops up on these forums people call it "A SHOW OF HOW OUR MEDIUM IS ART AND BETTER THAN MOVIES!!!!" I felt like the game was hindered by all the delays and a lower budget than it deserved. The gameplay was ok, just not standout.

This is where I'll get controversial. The STORY IS NOT THE BEST. In fact, if it was a film, I think it wouldn't be praised. The twist at the end felt like the bad Twilight Zone episodes, and the "emotional" moments were good, but not "more effective than Schindler's List" (which I was told). THe characters just felt generic even near the end, when they were supposed to be all crazy, except Walker. I also had a creeping feeling they were trying to make Konrad like Andrew Ryan in the sense you talk to him and never see him, which didn't do much for me.

The game's satire isn't exactly the video game Animal Farm, and I felt if you sort of cut out the white phosphorous stuff and the lynching, it just could have been another generic shooter.

I think I'm way too harsh, but maybe we were too easy.

I've not gotten very far in the game, and frankly the gameplay is pretty dire, it's barely a standard corridor shooter. It's one of these cases where 'satire' isn't worth the cost of having to play such a shitty game.

Plus the port is fucking godawful.

I'll finish it at some point, but I'm not in any hurry to at the moment.

AdonistheDark:
If this game is so eye-opening, then where are all the ex-COD dudebros renouncing their brown people murder simulating ways?

Spec Ops is being praised by people who already hate the genre (thus are ecstatic to see their bias confirmed in all its narrow moral myopic glory) and critics eager to have another "games are art" talking point. Everyone agrees the gameplay is mediocre, some even going as far as to call it intentionally unenjoyable. Thus, what we're left with is people gladly paying 60 dollars for 6 hours of tedious gameplay for the sake or criticizing others for spending that amount on games they considered FUN with robust competitive online adding even more value.

How shrewd you all are.

You're like the fans of ME3 condemning Gears of War: judgmental against the product you're playing a pale imitation of for the story. I hate FPSes as much as the next asocial reject, but I don't need to pretend my taste is moral outrage.

You.

I like you :D

You're right though, it's a game that preaches to the choir.

The worst kind of rhetoric.

kanyewhite:
I felt like the game was hindered by all the delays and a lower budget than it deserved. The gameplay was ok, just not standout.

True, the low budget and gameplay issues are very present, even hinder your enjoyment of the game (the first two hours or so I was like, "this is the game everyone is freaking out over?"). But I think they make the most of it. Things like a crap cover system, respawning baddies entering through the same predictable points, and simplistic level design just fit. It underscores the game's message perfectly.

The STORY IS NOT THE BEST. In fact, if it was a film, I think it wouldn't be praised. The twist at the end felt like the bad Twilight Zone episodes

It isn't a film though; its a game. Its not just the story, its how the story ties in with the gameplay and our own (mis)understandings of heroism, the tropes of video gaming that we accept unquestionably, the violence of the real world that we're told has no costs but that this game shows to be far from true. To me, the twist at the ending wasn't the point. You can't pick out a scene and praise or malign the story for that. It's not just the written story; its a story crafted in such a way that could only be expressed in a game. And isn't that what we should be praising in video game stories?

I don't think your viewpoint is invalid, but I just wanted to raise these key points that I felt when playing the game that contrasted with your argument.

Overrated? Maybe. But all great games are. It deserves it more than any other game I've played in a long time.

I feel like what video games do, that books and movies can't succeed, is make you feel like you are in direct control of your character. Books, really, just have you on a rail while you follow someone's story, but video games make you want to follow the story while controlling what you do. Now - some games don't capitalize on that. Most games, really, just want you to go on for some fun. But games with a more story-based experience try to make you feel like you are in control of what happens in the story - to varying effects, obviously, and not with every freedom. It's supposed to make it easier to connect with the protagonist because, to a point, you are the protagonist.

But, that falls flat whenever the player does not connect with the protagonist, or any of the situations that a character are in. (Such as, when a moral choice thrust on you doesn't make you feel anything. Randomly running into a drowning orphan, having a moral choice of "save the orphan or your pants", when all you really want to do is walk away. The game can't make you care about the orphan.) Spec Ops, I think, does it best by making the moral choices affect who you like and don't like. It also gives you a feeling of what has to be done, and what would be a morally correct thing to be done.

Still, the moral choices in the game aren't gold. But, but but but, the game doesn't have the Mass Effect or inFamous grading scale for good vs. bad; moral choices don't directly influence the ending. It's not "you don't have enough goodboy points to unlock this ending", it's what you decide right at the end. I like that.

It's sort of a certain tasting game, and I think its timing has a lot to do with it. The twist at the end was bullshit, but others think it was pretty well set up. The forces behind Walker can be dissected if you liked the game, or forgotten if you didn't. You can agree that the moral choices were sudden but not unreasonable, or you can say the cutscenes broke the flow.

TL;DR, it's your choice in the end, but it's a damn good story for this medium. If you didn't see it, you probably went in the game waiting for something different.

It is actually underrated. There's only a handful of people who appreciate it.

It's a great story for any medium and the gameplay actually isn't bad. It's not great, but it wasn't like I was saying, "Oh, God. Why am I playing this? This is painful!"

That one big grim moment in the middle of the game (you know the one)? That hit me like a truck, even after I had it spoiled for me. I heard someone complaining about how you weren't given enough choice about it. But I hear that from the same people who praise games like The Walking Dead, which also will lead you into a trap (that you know is a trap. Talking about the end of the fourth episode, for example) and then "punish" (for lack of a better word) you for it. Even games that center themselves around choice are still based on a construct. You have to accept that. If you don't, then I have to question how long you've been gaming. It's nothing new.

Skipping many of the replies I have to agree with some on the first page, it's actually underrated as aside from these forums and a handful of other places the game is largely ignored. It's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but it's certainly a very powerful package. On a more personal note I didn't find the Willy Pete scene the most moving by far, the more subtle moments did it for me.

Madkipz:

Personally I shot Konrad, and I surrendered my weapon. It made sense to get out of this elaborate purgatory. I came, I saw, I chose, and it was good. The fact that you can shoot these guys that come to fetch you and stay is amazing. The fact that Walker / the player can decided that he should pay the price of his actions in suicide is amazing. There is even a theory that Konrad is the guy inventing up a Captain Walker persona to escape his own guilt (supported by the fact that captain Walker is wearing Konrads clothes when they come to get him).

I have a Different perspective about what you did.

Surely shooting Konrad extends the 'purgatory' and suicide is the relief/acceptance

Universally accepted and pretty literal anyway;
Konrad asks Walker who should answer for the 47 deaths (white phosphorous part)... if you shoot Konrad then that means that you do not accept responsibility but if you shoot yourself/walker (or left him shoot you) that means you accept it's your fault.

Cool titbit;
If you shoot Konrad and get into the Jeep to leave Dubai the screen fades to White. The screen only fades to white when Walker is hallucinating. In all other endings (and other non-hallucination cutscenes) the screen fades to black.

Writer's hinted theory;
The writer's said that to them, Walker pretty much 'dies' in the helicopter-hence the 'I've done this before' line. Also note the first cutscene post helicopter is pretty much hell;

If walker is done, then everything after the helicopter is resolving the issue's about who's to blame etc etc. So shooting Konrad and voiding all responsibility is the continuation of your purgatory torture; he even says to the soldier in the Jeep that he died/didn't survive Dubai before the screen fades to white. I think he is wearing Konrad's outfit because deep down he really is the 'bad guy', the one responsible , even though you rejected that ending for him.
Shooting yourself(or rather Walker shooting himself) is not really suicide because you are already dead...or just not there. It's accepting that you bear responsibility for the 47 civilians. If you shoot Konrad and do not accept it's your fault then your crazy hallucination world continues.

This also goes for the other theory; Walker dies at the start of the game..and his playing out the rest of it in his head trying to justify his actions. Hence he gets de ja vu in the helicopter scene. Either way the explanation above can fit this also

Not saying you are wrong or anything. I just saw your explanation of your choice and thought I would share a different approach/theory.

It's tricky talking about Spec ops, you play as walker but there is a level of disconnect and also the 4th wall stuff so I go from talking from 3rd person to 1st! arhg!

Regardless of subject matter, the poll question is logically broken. Something which is overrated is by definition considered to be great by the majority (who will vote "not overrated" in the poll).

GoaThief:
Skipping many of the replies I have to agree with some on the first page, it's actually underrated as aside from these forums and a handful of other places the game is largely ignored. It's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but it's certainly a very powerful package. On a more personal note I didn't find the Willy Pete scene the most moving by far, the more subtle moments did it for me.

As I was playing the game I felt the tension and anger in the action scenes increase. Especially after Lugo's death.
I never pinpointed it but I really felt it. I was getting angry like Walker and feeling the pressure.

Only after finishing when I read up on it, people pointed out how at the start of the game Walker would shout 'reloading' 'tango down' and gradually it got to 'I'm fucking reloading!!!!' 'I got that fucker!!' 'arghhhh'.
Even the execution's got more and more harsher....to a simple shot to bludgeoning them to death and putting the muzzle into their mouth and then pulling the trigger

For me it happened so gradually and subtly I got caught up in it and didn't notice how it was done on purpose. That's pretty impressive

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RDfp12VU3g

The combat was mediocre but it really did add to the complete package!

How the hell is Spec Ops overrated when it has bee massively ignored by most gamers and professional journalisim. You ask the average gamer about it and the very name itself will send question marks through their heads.

So that's my question to the the thread. How does a game that doesn't get mainstream or user be considered overrated when a majority of the public has barely heard of it?

AdonistheDark:
If this game is so eye-opening, then where are all the ex-COD dudebros renouncing their brown people murder simulating ways?

Spec Ops is being praised by people who already hate the genre (thus are ecstatic to see their bias confirmed in all its narrow moral myopic glory) and critics eager to have another "games are art" talking point. Everyone agrees the gameplay is mediocre, some even going as far as to call it intentionally unenjoyable. Thus, what we're left with is people gladly paying 60 dollars for 6 hours of tedious gameplay for the sake or criticizing others for spending that amount on games they considered FUN with robust competitive online adding even more value.

How shrewd you all are.

You're like the fans of ME3 condemning Gears of War: judgmental against the product you're playing a pale imitation of for the story. I hate FPSes as much as the next asocial reject, but I don't need to pretend my taste is moral outrage.

I once said this to someone who told me this in this video:

"The game isn't just limited to itself, turning off the game isn't really an option the developers expect you to take. The game is making the point that the choices we have go beyond what's just in a game, but that we have a choice with the games we play, we don't have to play these types of games to begin with.

I can't believe I have to explain this to you when Campster already went over this. It sounds to me like you just haven't understood it, nor has the author of those articles."

"we don't have to play these types of games to begin with"

The only way the audience could know that the game would go to this length to tell us that "killing is wrong" is by........well, playing it. And the same could be said about the gameplay. By looking at Spec Ops trailers, one would assume its just another generic shoorter in 3rd person and nothing else. Same could be said about trailers of Deus Ex HR, with just that we cant really tell what kind of gameplay it would be, do we? so, how can we avoid "these types of games" unless we actually play them?

Also, you are assuming that people ALWAYS take the same route of confort and lazyness by picking up what is basically the same game over and over. Like if, somehow, we knew that Spec Ops was going to be like COD (masturbatory gunfest). Sure, the trailer didnt help, but people can just play the games they already have. When we buy something is because we want to experience something different, and we expected such thing from Spec Ops. But when we went in, we get insulted for shit we didnt do, because "we could have played OTHER kind of games but instead prefered the same crap as COD". But again, how could we know? didnt i bought this game for something DIFFERENT to COD to begin with? the message just missed by a mile.

The only people who would be affected by this game is the ones that are too afraid to buy other games for fear to be challenged, but if they do buy Spec Ops then the message falls appart.

-----------

kanyewhite:

snip

Its too dangerous to go alone. Take this:

In favor:

In opposition:
http://theshillinfield.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/spec-ops-the-line-is-a-bad-videogame/
http://theshillinfield.wordpress.com/2012/12/11/spec-ops-the-line-is-still-a-bad-videogame/#more-95

AT God:
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
There is a great line when after the squad realizes they killed innocent people, Lugo exclaims that "He turned us in to murderers," the voice acting for this line was very well directed, Lugo's inflection really helps show his character, he has been shooting people for the entire game but when they burned innocent people he realizes that this is the point he became a murderer. It brings up the debate as to whether or not soldiers are seen as murderers, a hot topic no matter what your stance.

I would be good, it would had impact if you could choose. The main reason why Lugo got so angry was because he said there was a choice when in fact there wasn't one because the game didn't allow you, refusing to use the mortar would result in a endless spawning of snipers.

mad825:
I would be good, it would had impact if you could choose. The main reason why Lugo got so angry was because he said there was a choice when in fact there wasn't one because the game didn't allow you, refusing to use the mortar would result in a endless spawning of snipers.

The only problem with that solution is that by negating the other choice players would see the use of the mortar as a forced choice and would still have issues.

Speaking of personal experience the use of WP was something I agreed with as during the scene I felt like I was "punishing the 33rd and had no issues of firing the moarter. Really when Walker said "you brought this upon yourself" I echoed his thoughts until the very end.

Assassin Xaero:
Possibly. I think it lived up to the hype, but I could see how other people would just find it decent or overrated. Not nearly as overrated as The Walking Dead though.

Agreed. Games should have good gameplay first and foremost. If they don't and it's just about the story, why am I playing a game? I'd rather read a book or watch a good movie because those are all about the story (unless it's a mindless action movie: Transformers and Avengers) and almost always do it better than a game.

Don't get me wrong. I still highly value story in games, just not as much as GAMEplay. A great story can make a game with mediocre gameplay pretty decent and that's kind of what I thought of those two games.

G-Force:

mad825:
I would be good, it would had impact if you could choose. The main reason why Lugo got so angry was because he said there was a choice when in fact there wasn't one because the game didn't allow you, refusing to use the mortar would result in a endless spawning of snipers.

The only problem with that solution is that by negating the other choice players would see the use of the mortar as a forced choice and would still have issues.

Speaking of personal experience the use of WP was something I agreed with as during the scene I felt like I was "punishing the 33rd and had no issues of firing the moarter. Really when Walker said "you brought this upon yourself" I echoed his thoughts until the very end.

Erm, no. They would see the mortar as a easy and quicker choice rather than risking time and effort. Even then, the result of the using the mortar is bullshit as the civilians will get killed no matter what and they would go up like they were storing gasoline in the same place.

AdonistheDark:
If this game is so eye-opening, then where are all the ex-COD dudebros renouncing their brown people murder simulating ways?

Spec Ops is being praised by people who already hate the genre (thus are ecstatic to see their bias confirmed in all its narrow moral myopic glory) and critics eager to have another "games are art" talking point. Everyone agrees the gameplay is mediocre, some even going as far as to call it intentionally unenjoyable. Thus, what we're left with is people gladly paying 60 dollars for 6 hours of tedious gameplay for the sake or criticizing others for spending that amount on games they considered FUN with robust competitive online adding even more value.

How shrewd you all are.

You're like the fans of ME3 condemning Gears of War: judgmental against the product you're playing a pale imitation of for the story. I hate FPSes as much as the next asocial reject, but I don't need to pretend my taste is moral outrage.

While I actually agree with your point I just wanted to say that I actually enjoy ME3's gameplay more than any Gears game. I've always felt like there isn't enough impact behind the guns in Gears but ME3 really nailed that for me. Plus, flying around the battle as a Vanguard is incredibly enjoyable. So personally, I think ME3 actually nailed its gameplay more than many other games.

it is overrated but thats ok because it was undervalued by the crowd. Its not the seminal classic some claim or the cathartic emotional journey others bill it as , but its so much more worthy then most of the tat out there that i am really ok with it.

double post.

Madkipz:
When compared to other games SPEC OPS: The Line is the single greatest FPS I have played since Bioshock. A ride for the century. Because I seriously doubt we will see many others like this.

The Line is a game where choice is mostly hidden and not intuitive, a game that has evoked more emotions than say Walking Dead (a game where choice is commercially advocated to you, and yet always made irrelevant).

Nothing in The Walking Dead can be "discussed", nothing in this game besides a minute or two of episode 5 caused any feels at all, and they were all contrived, and predictable as all hell. You see Clems cap on the street, check the cardboards, and BOOM ZOMBIE!

Spec Ops: The Line has no commercially advocated or marketed choices and yet it allows you to make the most profoundly relevant and different choices I have seen for a long time. How to disperse a crowd of angry civvies, do you shoot the CIA agent begging for relief after he is trapped underneath a burning truck? What do you do, and what does it mean for you?

Personally I shot Konrad, and I surrendered my weapon. It made sense to get out of this elaborate purgatory. I came, I saw, I chose, and it was good. The fact that you can shoot these guys that come to fetch you and stay is amazing. The fact that Walker / the player can decided that he should pay the price of his actions in suicide is amazing. There is even a theory that Konrad is the guy inventing up a Captain Walker persona to escape his own guilt (supported by the fact that captain Walker is wearing Konrads clothes when they come to get him).

This game is not mainstream. This game is not overrated, and yet it is. This game is not fun, and yet it is compelling, interesting, engaging, profoundly awesome when compared with every other game of 2012.

The Line has set itself apart. It is the only game of 2012 that will remain relevant for many years to come, and those who can appreciate it sometimes only have the vocabulary to express that they feel it is better than. It is the first real attempt at being different. It is the only compelling argument of video games as art made in 2012.

first, to say that spec ops is the "only game of 2012 that will remain relevant" is bullshit.

ME3 concluded the best sci fi series of all time (flaws and all).
Dishonored gave you endless choices on how to tackle situations, even if the moral code system is predictable.
Far cry 3 gave unprecedented freedom for a open world game.
TWD created what could be argued as the video game industry's first truly believable cast of characters.
Borderlands 2 is currently the best loot grinding game on the market.
Max payne 3 has what could be the best 3rd person shooting in the genre.
Journey is the first game that could be truly labelled as art, and is spearheading the "games are art too" movement.

see what i mean? spec ops is an excellent game, albeit overrated (because of the constant praise), but it is not the only thing that 2012 will be remembered for.

also, to say it's the BEST FPS since bioshock (which was only excellent story wise) is a very... strange opinion, to say the least. see, the mechanics in the game are sub-par. other games (like the previously mentioned max payne 3) have the energy and fluidity that spec ops just dosent.

sorry if it seems like i attacked you, but i wanted to chime in, and i have no ill will with this.

AdonistheDark:
If this game is so eye-opening, then where are all the ex-COD dudebros renouncing their brown people murder simulating ways?

They're hanging out with the girls that stopped watching romantic comedies because some other movie that they had no interest in whatsoever explained how dumb, overdone and borderline psychotic the majority of romantic comedies tend to be.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked