modeps

Yager's Spec Ops: The Line

Recommended Posts

Finished this game over the past weekend and I've gotta say, despite it being a fairly generic TPS cover based shooter, the story really drove it into awesome territory. Strange to see that kind of attention paid to it. Really fantastic work by their writing team.

Anyone else give it a go?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I heard Patrick Klepek recommend it as well. Apparently it's a mediocre FPS with some great story stuff? I find it almost hard to believe – is it worth playing for the story, even if you've become tired of run-of-the-mill FPS game-play?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't played this, but that's the prevailing opinion I've heard as well. It doesn't really bode well for the dev team, because as far as I'm aware the story was pretty much written by writers on the publishing side of things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The demo they put out was pretty legitimately awful.

It's a very subpar shooter, it plays like total shit.

People keep saying the story takes some really great turns though, and some of the character stuff they've apparently done sounds neat. (For example - Multiple animation and dialogue sets for the main characters, detailing growing frustration and exhaustion as the game progresses.)

It seems like a game that is perhaps worth taking a chance on once it hits bargin bins.

That game has had a really weird, protracted development cycle though. It went through a bunch of hands before finally hitting store shelves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is definitely a bargain bin game for me. (Which is also not a good sign for the developers). Wouldn't pay full price for a game that's half good.

Which is kind convenient looking at its current price on Amazon: http://www.amazon.co...ec ops the line

A whopping 50% off a week after release?! It's a pretty indecipherable tactic on the publisher's part, as I doubt the game was doing thaaat poorly to merit slashing the price this soon. Also probably doesn't paint a positive picture for the dev's future with this franchise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is definitely a bargain bin game for me. (Which is also not a good sign for the developers). Wouldn't play full price for a game that's half good.

Which is kind convenient looking at its current price on Amazon: http://www.amazon.co...ec ops the line

A whopping 50% off a week after release?! It's a pretty indecipherable tactic on the publisher's part, as I doubt the game was doing thaaat poorly to merit slashing the price this soon. Also probably doesn't paint a positive picture for the dev's future with this franchise.

What makes you think it was the publisher's decision? Amazon is only marking down the downloadable version; if demand for the game was very low on Amazon (regardless of how well it is or isn't selling through other outlets), maybe this is just what Amazon felt was necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The demo they put out was pretty legitimately awful.

It's a very subpar shooter, it plays like total shit.

People keep saying the story takes some really great turns though, and some of the character stuff they've apparently done sounds neat. (For example - Multiple animation and dialogue sets for the main characters, detailing growing frustration and exhaustion as the game progresses.)

It seems like a game that is perhaps worth taking a chance on once it hits bargin bins.

That game has had a really weird, protracted development cycle though. It went through a bunch of hands before finally hitting store shelves.

Awful? Not at all. It's just a third person shooter. They've attempted to do a few things to make it a little different, like having ammo be something scarce and have selectable fire modes for weapons, but there's nothing that says it's any worse that other Unreal Engine based TPS games out there.

The story is really well done and honestly, it's a bit of a commentary on both war, heroism, and how dumb third person shooters are. I've heard others refer to it as more akin to Apocalypse Now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't played this, but that's the prevailing opinion I've heard as well. It doesn't really bode well for the dev team, because as far as I'm aware the story was pretty much written by writers on the publishing side of things.

As much as I loved the story aspects, yeah... I can't see this game selling very well commercially. Two years ago, it would have been on the top of everyone's list. Now though, not quite as a sure thing.

Walt Williams self identifies with 2K, so yeah, I guess Yager just "made it work" for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like i said, i only played the demo, but it seemed like a bad shooter.

Control had a real loose feel to it, the cover system was bad, and the enemies were major bullet sponges. It just felt really muddy, nothing about it really clicked.

Ammo scarcity and selectable firing modes are not bold new features, and definitely not something to hang your hat on in the face of the above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like i said, i only played the demo, but it seemed like a bad shooter.

Control had a real loose feel to it, the cover system was bad, and the enemies were major bullet sponges. It just felt really muddy, nothing about it really clicked.

Ammo scarcity and selectable firing modes are not bold new features, and definitely not something to hang your hat on in the face of the above.

The fodder enemies go down in only a few hits, and if you headshot they're done in one. The only real sponges in the game are the "Heavy" soldiers who walk around carrying a SAW. They aren't particularly awful either. There are some "elite" type soliders, that are more fully armored, but again, nothing crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes you think it was the publisher's decision? Amazon is only marking down the downloadable version; if demand for the game was very low on Amazon (regardless of how well it is or isn't selling through other outlets), maybe this is just what Amazon felt was necessary.

I was under the assumption that the publisher had to approve discounts on distribution sites like Amazon. Am I totally off base here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fodder enemies go down in only a few hits, and if you headshot they're done in one. The only real sponges in the game are the "Heavy" soldiers who walk around carrying a SAW. They aren't particularly awful either. There are some "elite" type soliders, that are more fully armored, but again, nothing crazy.

It wasn't that, i think it was a lack of feedback, like the enemies weren't responding to being shot.

Edit: I think i'm probably remembering some details incorrectly, but I still thought that demo was terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the assumption that the publisher had to approve discounts on distribution sites like Amazon. Am I totally off base here?

Regardless of how 2K's agreement with Amazon works, it clearly isn't a publisher-wide markdown, because the game is still full-price on Steam and 2K's own site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes no argument there. Just curious as to their thinking on this discount in particular. Maybe an attempt to supersede pirating on the PC market or just general reluctance of PC users to buy a generic looking shooter? You have to admit even if it's solely a digital discount it's kind of an extreme case. It went up only one week after the game was put up on Steam for twice the amount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This game. Phew.

I know that it was marketed as an in-your-face, THE-HORROR-OF-WAR game, but if you're going to make a game about the horror of war this is how you do it.

I was nonplussed after the phosphorous incident. I was reeling after the shootout with the heavy in the mall's mannequin room.

I was seriously impressed with the sandstorm firefights. The stuff that seems silly and Army-of-Two-ish at the beginning turns truly brutal by the end of the game, to the point where I was wincing at my monitor at melee executions. And the script was spot-on. It begins as a parody and morphs into something really grim.

I would recommend Spec Ops The Line to fans of Metro 2033 and people who enjoyed Gears of War but thought it was trite and broseph-y.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely agree with Thainatos. Played through the game and some of the places it goes narratively are pretty jaw dropping. It reminds me of a more competently made Kane & Lynch (for what it is trying to do with mechanics and how they tell a story).

A co-worker is complaining about the lack of recoil and feel to the weapons, which I think is fair but other than that the game is really solid.

Worth the money to see where they went with it and an utter surprise to me as I had expected another Call of Duty/Army of Two game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm 3 hours in. The gameplay (with a few exceptions) is rote, but the story is very interesting. I'm looking forward to finishing it the next few days and will put my full thoughts down here.

Also, I guess that Amazon deal was a good idea as I would not have bought it otherwise! If only there was more of an established space in the market for $25 games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that was quick. Finished the campaign after about 5 hours.

It's definitely a fascinating game. It kind of reminds me of a not-as-well executed Verhoven film. As in, cheesy schlock laid over serious commentary about society and human nature.

The moments I loved best were when the gameplay and the script work hand in hand.

The way your character becomes more and more of a villain as the game progresses. Going from making understandable mistakes (like accidentally shooting civilians in a crowded refugee camp) to shitty choices (deciding to hit an entire camp with white phosphorous despite having zero intel) to full on brutality (the massacre of a tower full of soldiers). Not to mention the way the VO and takedowns ramp up continuously. From friendly banter with your teammates and supportive chatter to hateful orders given and barely received. Cursing at soldiers as you kill them, kneecapping them before you shoot them as they beg for help. That stuff was just wonderfully done. The broad strokes of the story were less well executed. The fact that it ended in a "it was all a dream" deus ex machina scenario kind of ruined a lot of what led up to it. And most of the cutscene dialogue is way too obvious (YOU'RE the monster, Walker. You made us killers! Argh). Really it could have had less of a cutscene based story and derived all of it's narrative from the gameplay and dialogue you hear while playing.

Because that's where the meat of this game is. The incredibly ludonarrative consonance that basically NO other shooter has done as well. As has been said before: kain and lynch made a decent attempt, But Spec Ops nails it. Your character gets off on violence and chooses violence over any other means of resolving conflict. You're the unfortunate pilot of his avatar and if you want to get to the end of the story you have to willingly make him do evil. Make him smash civilians in the face and smash your gun butt into the neck of other soldiers and mow down wave after wave of human beings with actual lives (which you find out by eavesdropping on them before you inevitably kill them). My distaste for what I was doing grew to the point that the artifice of the game began to show and I had to see it as just killing numbers, but even that in and of itself was an interesting point I'm sure the writers were trying to make: the dehumanization of enemies in war. The way they switch so interchangeably and so conveniently. Some good food for thought, and a really awesome attempt at adding gravity to what is normally an incredibly superficial genre.

What has been said about the gameplay has been said. It's a by-the-books third person shooter. The guns feel mediocre, the stealth dynamic could have been done better, the teamplay is awkward, the radio logs should have been listenable-to while playing, and much, much more love could have been given to the characters animations and lip sync (which makes the cut-scenes kind of unbearable). It's hard to praise this game on any of those merits. But it's easy to praise it for the innovative ways it generates story from simple, rehashed building blocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris twote this: http://www.grantland...y-shooter-games, which is about shooters in general and this game in particular. I'm probably going to buy this game.

Yeah, I read that yesterday. Pretty fantastic writing and a great summation of shooters and Spec Ops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are making me want to play this game i already decided i didn't like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is a reason to play it - but that reason is not because it's a fun well executed video game. It's not a video game really, as much as it's a statement on video games. It's just so fucking weird it's worth trying. $25 is a good price for it. I think it could have been a distilled 2-hr experience and would have been better for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This line of thought was prompted a bit by that interview and more by this article on Giant Bomb today.

I found the loading screens' berating to be awkward at best. I saw "Can you even remember why you came here?" and thought, "Huh, not really. Guess they didn't do a good job of conveying my initial mission or making it memorable." Then, "Do you feel like a hero yet?" Fucking really? It was a ham-handed face-slap that made me angry. As much as they wanted me to feel guilty, I had done nothing as a player to warrant guilt.

As much as Walt Williams says that putting the game down was as much my choice as continuing on, that doesn't mean I was responsible for making the choice in-game. Like Jeff Gerstmann, I noticed what was obviously a group of civilians, and made every effort to not kill them with the mortar. Then the final enemy in that area is a tank that's right next to the trench, and the only thing I can do is bomb it and watch as the mortar splash hits all of them. When that happened, all I was doing was forwarding the story, and that "choice" wasn't one (also something admitted by Williams). I didn't make that choice. I didn't have anything to feel guilty about.

There was a moment later on, though, when you do have a real choice, and although the effects of that choice are minimal to the story (as far as I know), it's a real choice, driven by events on the parts of both parties involved.

Late in the game, you get separated from your squadmates. You meet up with one of them, and eventually come across the other being lynched by a mob of civilians. Their motivation is understandable. During a series of increasingly bad decisions, you phosphor-mortared innocent people. You may have killed a few during other moments of combat. However unwittingly, you helped to destroy their water supply.

On the other hand, they just killed your squadmate, a fellow soldier and (presumably) friend, when you're trying to do what you think is the right thing. You've been trying to help them.

When you finally get down to the mob, your squadmate is dead. The mob stands blocking your way to your destination. At that point, you objective changes to something like "Get to the gate." It doesn't imply any particular action to perform to get there, just that you must get there. So, do you take your revenge on the crowd by opening fire and killing them for hanging you friend and standing in your way, or do you realize all the fucked up things that you've done have justified their actions and scare them off by firing into the air?

It surprises me that with all the talk about the hard choices in the game, it's been entirely focused on a moment that isn't a choice, and this later event goes by completely unmentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now