Jake

Idle Thumbs 70: An Angry God

Recommended Posts

Y'know, I agree with Chris that Spec Ops is following in a line of "pulling the rug out from under you" subversive games, but really disagree that it's both having and eating its cake. Just because Spec Ops is using the same shooter mechanics as happy-gore-time shooter games, doesn't mean it benefits from them in the same way.

I mean, for me, Spec Ops was not "fun" to play. It was kinda brutal. Like someone punched me in the gut, then just sorta left their fist lodged in my solar plexus.

With Braid and BioShock, pulling-the-rug-out happens in a single, surprise moment right near the end of the story, casting a shadow backward on everything you've done. But you still had fun doing it.

In Spec Ops, that shadow appears about a third(?) of the way into the game, and it hangs over everything you do from then on. It's an atmosphere that permeates most of the game, actively trying to stamp out any casual enjoyment you might get from its shooting. This is a game that does not want you to have fun, that presents turning the game off and walking away as a legitimate player choice.

To me, that's not a game that's trying to benefit from the thing it's criticizing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Y'know, I agree with Chris that Spec Ops is following in a line of "pulling the rug out from under you" subversive games, but really disagree that it's both having and eating its cake. Just because Spec Ops is using the same shooter mechanics as happy-gore-time shooter games, doesn't mean it benefits from them in the same way.

I mean, for me, Spec Ops was not "fun" to play. It was kinda brutal. Like someone punched me in the gut, then just sorta left their fist lodged in my solar plexus.

With Braid and BioShock, pulling-the-rug-out happens in a single, surprise moment right near the end of the story, casting a shadow backward on everything you've done. But you still had fun doing it.

In Spec Ops, that shadow appears about a third(?) of the way into the game, and it hangs over everything you do from then on. It's an atmosphere that permeates most of the game, actively trying to stamp out any casual enjoyment you might get from its shooting. This is a game that does not want you to have fun, that presents turning the game off and walking away as a legitimate player choice.

To me, that's not a game that's trying to benefit from the thing it's criticizing.

I think what I said was that it was trying to have and eat its cake. I think your reading of the game is totally valid, but I didn't have the same reaction. I think the developers fully intended the gameplay itself to be fairly traditionally fun and engaging throughout, and it ended up feeling basically the same for me as most other modern cover-based shooters. I also don't think they really do present turning the game off and walking away as any more of a legitimate player choice than any other game does. That comes off as disingenuous to me. That's always a "choice" in every game(/film/novel/etc.) but it's pretty obvious that the developers of this game (like the developers of pretty much every game) expect and hope that the player will complete the campaign and see the game's ending.

Again I think your reading is totally valid given your experience with the game. My reaction to the gameplay experience might have been colored by having played either too many or too few similar games (I really have no idea) or any other number of factors. It wasn't "fun" for me either, but it was un-fun in the same way most games with similar gameplay end up feeling un-fun for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This certainly colors my take and approach on the game, but after listening to Gamespot's spoiler podcast that had the lead writer and designer of the game, it sounds like they were attempting to craft an experience close to what other barry had.

If I remember correctly he specifically mentioned the potential of turning off the game as a player choice. Whether or not that execution catches with you while playing is something different altogether.

It might be worth a listen for anyone that's been intrigued about the Spec Ops discourse over the summer.

http://www.gamespot.com/features/gamespot-gameplay-special-edition-spoilercast-spec-ops-the-line-6386587/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but even when successful, the creative decision to reinforce non-participation as an audience choice still feels like a weird form of entrapment.

I mean, I have a friend who refuses to watch any film by Michael Haneke because she knows she'll be told in the course of the movie that she's a terrible person for watching Funny Games or whatever. By refusing to watch any Haneke film, she's supposedly learned the lesson Haneke was trying to teach, but somehow I don't feel like he'd be satisfied with that.

Like... I don't know, if I never buy or play Spec Ops: The Line because I don't want to commit heinous crimes and them be blamed for them, have I cooperated with developer intent or subverted it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like someone mentioned in the Spec Ops thread, I doubt the Spec Ops writers or Haneke want you to not experience their work. What they're probably attempting to do is make you question the pleasure you get out of other, less self aware work with similar content. (for Haneke it's thrillers and slashers, for Spec Ops it's military style FPSers)

Though, I've also come to think the writers and the game designers of Spec Ops were at fairly cross purposes. Especially from the gamespot interview, it sounds like the writers were handed an already planned out game and just tacked the story they wanted to tell on top of that. Which would make a huge amount of sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like was someone mentioned in the Spec Ops thread, I doubt the Spec Ops writers or Haneke want you to not experience their work. What they're probably attempting to do is make you question the pleasure you get out of other, less self aware work with similar content. (for Haneke it's thrillers and slashers, for Spec Ops it's military style FPSers)

Though, I've also come to think the writers and the game designers of Spec Ops were at fairly cross purposes. Especially from the gamespot interview, it sounds like the writers were handed an already planned out game and just tacked the story they wanted to tell on top of that. Which would make a huge amount of sense.

Yeah, I agree with everything in this post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though, I've also come to think the writers and the game designers of Spec Ops were at fairly cross purposes. Especially from the gamespot interview, it sounds like the writers were handed an already planned out game and just tacked the story they wanted to tell on top of that. Which would make a huge amount of sense.

Well no, if I understand correctly the lead writer had been on the project the whole time, and his constraints were "it's a modern military shooter set in Dubai. Ready, go."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, those were his constraints; that's what he was handed. Our wording is different but I think we're in agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not certain we are? What I'm saying is that considering the genre, the writing team had an incredible amount of freedom to do whatever they wanted. Essentially, they were beholden to the gametype because of the Spec Ops franchise name (modern military), and they had a location (sand). Maybe I'm interpreting it incorrectly, but as far as shooters go that might as well be a blank canvass, essentially unconstrained.

If we are both agreeing that they were allowed to make any 3rd person game with automatic weapons they wanted, then cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the two interviews I've read/listened to, the lead writer talked about how he had a lot of control over the overall direction of the game.

From Klepek's Giant Bomb article:

To ensure consistency, Williams was not just a script guy, but his fingers were everywhere: level design, voice over sessions, cut-scene and animation development, environmental storytelling, and art design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like someone mentioned in the Spec Ops thread, I doubt the Spec Ops writers or Haneke want you to not experience their work. What they're probably attempting to do is make you question the pleasure you get out of other, less self aware work with similar content. (for Haneke it's thrillers and slashers, for Spec Ops it's military style FPSers)

Well, I do think they'd like people to buy and play their game. But once you're playing it, the game offers "the player turning off the game and walking away" as a legitimate option available to you in reaction to the situations it presents.

I'm thinking of the dialogue that's basically aimed at the player. Moments when your squadmates insist, "There's always a choice," or ask why you don't just turn around and leave Dubai. The characters are clearly in over their heads, what are they still doing here?

I'd really recommend reading the Giant Bomb interview. Not to say that designer intentions = reality, but for me at least, I thought they executed what they set out to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Klepek article sheds some interesting light. I certainly stand corrected about him having no role apart from story.

What stood out to me from the article is that Williams had no shooter experience before working Spec Ops. Form the way the game plays out, I still can see him not having much to do with the actual execution and design of the gameplay, it plays very generically, lifted whole-cloth in places from other titles. I do see his hand in moments where the gameplay actions reflect your descent into savagery, and I think those are the most fascinating elements of the game by a long shot. I do wish there was more of that and less of the shooting bits which felt like filler in between the interesting parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm replaying Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, and it made me think of the discussions of Spec Ops and subverting the player's, you know, stuff.

MGS 4 has a nifty version of this. The major theme of the game is the PMC-driven, self-perpetuating war economy.

The game features a store through which you can purchase, sell and upgrade weapons and equipment (and remove the nanomachine-based ID locks from scavenged firearms). In any other game, this would be an upgrade mechanic for its own sake, because apparently you're supposed to have one in everything now. In this case, it's a temptation to engage in the war economy. If you use the store, you may be helping to perpetuate the various conflicts around the world in some small way.

The nice thing is that you're never overtly chastised or punished for using this service. You're also free to eschew it altogether; some sections of the game may be more challenging this way depending on your style of play, but it's entirely doable.

It seems crazy to praise MGS for subtlety, and it does hit you over the head pretty hamfistedly with its themes, but I like the way it's up to the player to give a shit or not when it comes to utilizing this particular system. (Although I could be forgetting a conversation in which someone gives you shit for doing it. Still, it's not a thing that takes control away from the player and makes you do something indefensible, nor is it doing the "you were being a shitty guy all along" rug pull.)

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