the video game equivalent of asking you to spell "icup" out loud
>mediocre 2010's generic third person shooter about killing people
>"cringe"
>mediocre 2010's generic third person shooter about killing people but now has a shitty and pretentious message about "are we really the bad guys?" presented in the worst possible way
>"masterpiece" and "hidden gem that we didn't understood at the time"
>"cringe"
>mediocre 2010's generic third person shooter about killing people but now has a shitty and pretentious message about "are we really the bad guys?" presented in the worst possible way
>"masterpiece" and "hidden gem that we didn't understood at the time"
Baby's first subversive video game
They draw you in with the "This is your fault", they hook you with the "How many Americans have you killed today?", and they reel you in with the "If Lugo were still alive, he would likely suffer from PTSD. So, really, he's the lucky one."
Shows immeasurable guts and measured sincerity in critiquing American's most respected and well-regarded foundation: The Troops. No one has ever, or will ever, have the guts to say "War Bad" again.
Shows immeasurable guts and measured sincerity in critiquing American's most respected and well-regarded foundation: The Troops. No one has ever, or will ever, have the guts to say "War Bad" again.
This review contains spoilers
you know what? fuck it. spec ops: the line is worth five stars and then some. for a long time i sat on the fence about it, and had it collecting dust, uncommentated, at 4.5 stars - no more.
the fact this game was shuffled out-of-sight by 2k games, that an attempt is being made to erase its existence from the public under dubious pretenses at worst, or that it's been dropped in a double-whammy of corporate greed and convenient timing at best, shows us that this game is just as sorely needed now as it was 12 years ago.
many like to do a little joking about its "look what i made you do"-narrative, but those people are unaware that this precise portrayal of leadership at the hands of a vague authority is part of the point. this is taking down not merely the modern military shooter alone, but the entirety of the military industrial complex and its implications. the game design here is a direct analogue of the military chain of command, and the way it attempts to dissuade individuals and society as a whole from seeking blame in the hands of the actor.
on february 25th 2024, united states airforce member aaron bushnell self-immolated rather than continuing to maintain part in the u.s. military's support of yet another genocide - a genocide funded and fueled by this global force for despicable violence, a genocide committed, in part, with white phosphorous used against a civilian population.
the timing is just a bit TOO on-the-nose. we are supposed to forget that the same thing fuels this propaganda as fuels the systematic dehumanisation and killing of several peoples in asia and africa. spec ops, unlike every single other "modern military shooter", didnt flinch, and didnt lie. and for that, it had to disappear.
this is the only game that had the guts to give the player a gun, and let them shoot at a peaceful civilian population - then stand there with the implications of their actions. no fade-out. no game over. only you and the simulacrum of a dead body.
from the river to the sea, palestine will be free.
the fact this game was shuffled out-of-sight by 2k games, that an attempt is being made to erase its existence from the public under dubious pretenses at worst, or that it's been dropped in a double-whammy of corporate greed and convenient timing at best, shows us that this game is just as sorely needed now as it was 12 years ago.
many like to do a little joking about its "look what i made you do"-narrative, but those people are unaware that this precise portrayal of leadership at the hands of a vague authority is part of the point. this is taking down not merely the modern military shooter alone, but the entirety of the military industrial complex and its implications. the game design here is a direct analogue of the military chain of command, and the way it attempts to dissuade individuals and society as a whole from seeking blame in the hands of the actor.
on february 25th 2024, united states airforce member aaron bushnell self-immolated rather than continuing to maintain part in the u.s. military's support of yet another genocide - a genocide funded and fueled by this global force for despicable violence, a genocide committed, in part, with white phosphorous used against a civilian population.
the timing is just a bit TOO on-the-nose. we are supposed to forget that the same thing fuels this propaganda as fuels the systematic dehumanisation and killing of several peoples in asia and africa. spec ops, unlike every single other "modern military shooter", didnt flinch, and didnt lie. and for that, it had to disappear.
this is the only game that had the guts to give the player a gun, and let them shoot at a peaceful civilian population - then stand there with the implications of their actions. no fade-out. no game over. only you and the simulacrum of a dead body.
from the river to the sea, palestine will be free.
Nier but American
I finished Spec Ops: The Line a few hours ago and the game blew my mind. The story of the game was such a surprise and was extremely well written. The campaign was really short and only clocked in around 6 hours, but it was great. If you've read the book Heart of Darkness or watched the film Apocalypse Now (which you should) you may find this game very familiar with its plot, but has its own spin and obviously just take inspiration. I really don't want to spoil anything, but don't pass this off as a generic modern military shooter. It's more than that. The gameplay is honestly pretty mediocre and average. It's probably the weakest part of the game, but that doesn't mean it can't be fun sometimes. I'd highly recommend this game, but only get it when it's one sale. It's a short campaign with an amazing story. Also, stay FAR away from the multiplayer. 8/10.
Man I remember not really feeling the game over the years, but only now have I realized none of this really... meant anything to me.
I'm gonna be blunt, I don't think Yager Development really had an idea as to what they wanted to make here until the last minute of development time. I have absolutely no concrete evidence for this, but between the stretch of development period starting in 07 and releasing in 2012, the random assortment of influences ranging from Heart Of Darkness and Apocalypse Now, Platoon, Deer Hunter, and stuff like Tower Of Babel and psycho-horror having uneven presence, and the random assortment of thematic elements bouncing between anti-war, the hunger and cyclical downfall of man for violence, the effects of PTSD - which granted, at least manages to stay a bit consistent once it does pop up - thereby having these revelations come out with little fanfare whenever it's demanded instead of organically being planted or earned, it's hard to really like, get an idea as to what one should even dissect from this.
In fact, I'd argue the game doesn't even become infamous for its heavy-handed nature until around Chapter 5, being subtle for the most part beforehand with unfunny albeit disconnected and off-centered dialog between Lugo, Martin, and Adams, outside the obnoxious eyeroll that is Jimi Hendrix's Star-Spangled Banner guitar cover being played in the menu with the upside down American flag being shown. It isn't until that specific chapter where things just... sorta unravel in weird directions. Despite the numerous decisions and choices presented upon you, none of them really carry the weight they're supposed cause they still reach the same endgoal and berating of "ooooo why did you do thaaaaaat". I don't mind the heavy-handed beatdown of the themes or even, lately, the illusion of choice within gaming, but SOTL doesn't really feel deep or impactful enough to justify the former, and the latter fails since the subtext and wrap-around implication of what they're supposed to represent don't amount to much, if at all. The Trojan Horse Gameplay, as a counter-argument, crumbles apart since that's literally what you're doing the entire time as well, feeling as if can't let the player stop and take a rest, soaking up what has happened within the story. It's probably why gunfights happen immediately following up these brief pauses and story moments, something even COD games during this time at least sort of managed. One could argue that, because of the way the narrative plays out, it has to have this many encounters in order to justify it, which to me doesn't sit right at all since there's an abundant amount of loading screens that read like a pathetic attempt at garnering introspection, almost as if Yager just wanted to make sure the audience knows what to feel. The game's linear as-is anyway, what's to stop them from including a chapter or two who's entire motif is just walking, building up all these identifiable elements instead of just keeping them shallow?
Actually, on that note, the gameplay is something I've rarely see anyone talk about just how it actually functions, getting pined as "generic" before one moves on to praise orinsult criticizes the rest of the package. It actually has some ideas to set itself apart but not enough application to really do so. Playing this on Hard meant I had to actually use commands for Lugo and Adams to take care of enemies, as well as pop off grenades or shoot something in order for sand to crop up and appear. Both are neat systems (even if the former is just an aggressive streamline of mechanics and encounters you'd see from tactical shooters like Rainbow Six and SWAT4), though unfortunately enemy behavior made it so that usually funnel between short-mid range within quasi-open circles or linear corridors, which means you'll rarely find the ample time to shoot off glass or vents in order to let sand sweep up and incapacitate the enemies. The friendly AI is also very, very mundane, half the time I opted to just shoot my targeted enemy since the other two, even when having plenty of time to do so, don't ever knock them out. As for how Hard itself works, it opts for that boring damage output modifyer approach, get a grenade near you and you're dead no matter what, as well as only taking 3-4 bullets before you're grey-zoned out and have to backpedal between the numerous amount of cover that happen to be nearby. Even then, it doesn't particularly get bothersome until that halfway point, where opponents ramp up and both positioning and the type of gun you use start to matter more... which basically amounts to "shotguns are no longer a viable option" and having to fall back on rifles and pistols, which was what I was already doing to begin with. The guns sound adequate enough, though some like the machine guns and SMGs need more oomph to them, and despite what the game will warn you, you're rarely gonna find a situation in where your ammo pool isn't gonna be enough to carry you through. Do wish the checkpoint system was better in some regard, each time I thought there was enough room for it to activate, it never did, and it also never saves after a choice was made, meaning I had to see the same scene with Chapter 7's choice that precedes the firefight multiple times due to deaths. Blech.
The presentation, I'm surprised, doesn't get mentioned much either even though I have some serious problems with it. Perhaps it's the PC port being Not Good, but the shadow rendering is bad, often times creating this annoying aliased, jaggy look on the character models. I also just, flat-out despise how many effects are being used, bloom especially since it leads into those "towards the light!" moments that gets reused more times than necessary. Combine that with the dull, sepia-like color tone covering up some actually nicely colored and lighted areas and setpieces, and it just hurts the look. The licensed soundtrack's pretty good, but that's mainly cause I already liked the licensed artists like Black Angels, aforementioned Jimi Hendrix, Deep Purple, Mogwai, and Alice In Chains to name a few, but hey, at least they managed to get the juxtaposition and tone-setting right considering psych/post-rock and grunge music's backstories. The actual soundtrack though, I doubt I'm actually gonna remember by the time the game leaves my headspace.
So with all these problems, why in the hell did I give it a 2/5? Mainly cause I don't find like, anything actually offensive about it. I ragged on Yager and made that egregious claim way earlier, but I also don't think they really attempted to try and well, BE any smarter than others, that's just the runoff effect of the hyperzealous fans that aren't even that commonplace now. Plus, some of the moments sprinkled across did at least work, I mentioned the first half but I also like Chapter 10 and 12 too. Really, I like all the quiet, bittersweet moments in general, it's some of the very few times it hones in on what it set out to achieve in its messy, messy ventures. Not to mention, compared to other games that get mocked and ridiculed for being, and I say this as someone that abstains from saying this nowadays, "pseudointellectual" cringe, it's nowhere near as bad as those despite whatever the detractors say, though I don't particularly blame them to some degree since again, this doesn't really have a set idea as to what it wants to do.
All that said, I do find the amount of people that try really, really hard to unravel some supposed double standard people have with this by using nonequivalent examples instead of the easy target of Metal Gear or even an out-there yet fundamentally similar target like Far Cry, where 3 came out the same year even, really funny. Yea bro, call out the people trying to act smart by doing the same action, just on the opposite end, that'll show them... oh shit now I'm doing that, fuck!
I'm gonna be blunt, I don't think Yager Development really had an idea as to what they wanted to make here until the last minute of development time. I have absolutely no concrete evidence for this, but between the stretch of development period starting in 07 and releasing in 2012, the random assortment of influences ranging from Heart Of Darkness and Apocalypse Now, Platoon, Deer Hunter, and stuff like Tower Of Babel and psycho-horror having uneven presence, and the random assortment of thematic elements bouncing between anti-war, the hunger and cyclical downfall of man for violence, the effects of PTSD - which granted, at least manages to stay a bit consistent once it does pop up - thereby having these revelations come out with little fanfare whenever it's demanded instead of organically being planted or earned, it's hard to really like, get an idea as to what one should even dissect from this.
In fact, I'd argue the game doesn't even become infamous for its heavy-handed nature until around Chapter 5, being subtle for the most part beforehand with unfunny albeit disconnected and off-centered dialog between Lugo, Martin, and Adams, outside the obnoxious eyeroll that is Jimi Hendrix's Star-Spangled Banner guitar cover being played in the menu with the upside down American flag being shown. It isn't until that specific chapter where things just... sorta unravel in weird directions. Despite the numerous decisions and choices presented upon you, none of them really carry the weight they're supposed cause they still reach the same endgoal and berating of "ooooo why did you do thaaaaaat". I don't mind the heavy-handed beatdown of the themes or even, lately, the illusion of choice within gaming, but SOTL doesn't really feel deep or impactful enough to justify the former, and the latter fails since the subtext and wrap-around implication of what they're supposed to represent don't amount to much, if at all. The Trojan Horse Gameplay, as a counter-argument, crumbles apart since that's literally what you're doing the entire time as well, feeling as if can't let the player stop and take a rest, soaking up what has happened within the story. It's probably why gunfights happen immediately following up these brief pauses and story moments, something even COD games during this time at least sort of managed. One could argue that, because of the way the narrative plays out, it has to have this many encounters in order to justify it, which to me doesn't sit right at all since there's an abundant amount of loading screens that read like a pathetic attempt at garnering introspection, almost as if Yager just wanted to make sure the audience knows what to feel. The game's linear as-is anyway, what's to stop them from including a chapter or two who's entire motif is just walking, building up all these identifiable elements instead of just keeping them shallow?
Actually, on that note, the gameplay is something I've rarely see anyone talk about just how it actually functions, getting pined as "generic" before one moves on to praise or
The presentation, I'm surprised, doesn't get mentioned much either even though I have some serious problems with it. Perhaps it's the PC port being Not Good, but the shadow rendering is bad, often times creating this annoying aliased, jaggy look on the character models. I also just, flat-out despise how many effects are being used, bloom especially since it leads into those "towards the light!" moments that gets reused more times than necessary. Combine that with the dull, sepia-like color tone covering up some actually nicely colored and lighted areas and setpieces, and it just hurts the look. The licensed soundtrack's pretty good, but that's mainly cause I already liked the licensed artists like Black Angels, aforementioned Jimi Hendrix, Deep Purple, Mogwai, and Alice In Chains to name a few, but hey, at least they managed to get the juxtaposition and tone-setting right considering psych/post-rock and grunge music's backstories. The actual soundtrack though, I doubt I'm actually gonna remember by the time the game leaves my headspace.
So with all these problems, why in the hell did I give it a 2/5? Mainly cause I don't find like, anything actually offensive about it. I ragged on Yager and made that egregious claim way earlier, but I also don't think they really attempted to try and well, BE any smarter than others, that's just the runoff effect of the hyperzealous fans that aren't even that commonplace now. Plus, some of the moments sprinkled across did at least work, I mentioned the first half but I also like Chapter 10 and 12 too. Really, I like all the quiet, bittersweet moments in general, it's some of the very few times it hones in on what it set out to achieve in its messy, messy ventures. Not to mention, compared to other games that get mocked and ridiculed for being, and I say this as someone that abstains from saying this nowadays, "pseudointellectual" cringe, it's nowhere near as bad as those despite whatever the detractors say, though I don't particularly blame them to some degree since again, this doesn't really have a set idea as to what it wants to do.
All that said, I do find the amount of people that try really, really hard to unravel some supposed double standard people have with this by using nonequivalent examples instead of the easy target of Metal Gear or even an out-there yet fundamentally similar target like Far Cry, where 3 came out the same year even, really funny. Yea bro, call out the people trying to act smart by doing the same action, just on the opposite end, that'll show them... oh shit now I'm doing that, fuck!
Anti twitter video game because it's about accountability
backloggd users can't stop getting filtered i swear
the only people who hate this games narrative are dipshits who take personal offense to the idea that their hobby can be both enriching and enjoyable and also fulfill a disgusting role as glorification of conflict with or without their agency.
Just wish the rest of it wasn't so mediocre.
Just wish the rest of it wasn't so mediocre.
"the great thing about spec ops the line isn't playing the game, it's telling everyone on reddit that my literary exposure is 6 cliffnotes browser tabs"
ought to be reviled for its big moment with the same pointing and sneering as press f to pay respects
ought to be reviled for its big moment with the same pointing and sneering as press f to pay respects
Another stereotypical run-and-gun military story about a hero saving the day is what I expected going into this, but that is far from what you get from this game. Instead, you are dealt with an emotionally gripping story that shows you the true horror of war, a realistic adaption that doesn't shy away from being dark.
The narrative of the game is beautifully written and the twist at the end of the game is unexpected and really opens the player's eyes up. I won't spoil what it is, but when it hits, it hits hard. It is honestly in my opinion one of the best I have ever experienced. It left a lasting impression on me long after, and if a game does that, best believe I am holding it in high regard.
So why isn't the game a 10/10? Well purely because of the gameplay. It's very mediocre and there is nothing special about it. But that's not the selling point of this game, the outstanding story is. If you want a game to make you think, then play this underrated masterpiece immediately.
The narrative of the game is beautifully written and the twist at the end of the game is unexpected and really opens the player's eyes up. I won't spoil what it is, but when it hits, it hits hard. It is honestly in my opinion one of the best I have ever experienced. It left a lasting impression on me long after, and if a game does that, best believe I am holding it in high regard.
So why isn't the game a 10/10? Well purely because of the gameplay. It's very mediocre and there is nothing special about it. But that's not the selling point of this game, the outstanding story is. If you want a game to make you think, then play this underrated masterpiece immediately.
oh look at me i'm so sad we get it already shut up
Spec Ops: the Line talks about war games without actually wanting to be one. It talks about how underneath that facade of heroes where they always come out victorious, where there is always someone harmed in the assault whether you want them to or not but it doesn't show or show.
The story and narrative of this game are the biggest strength of this game. It's a journey into the abyss where you keep going down both literally and figuratively. Horrible things happen that are just out of your reach. It's basically a linear story, where bad decisions and mishaps are the order of the day.
Play it if you like subversive stories, that try to do something out of the ordinary. The gameplay is the least of it, but it's serviceable.
The story and narrative of this game are the biggest strength of this game. It's a journey into the abyss where you keep going down both literally and figuratively. Horrible things happen that are just out of your reach. It's basically a linear story, where bad decisions and mishaps are the order of the day.
Play it if you like subversive stories, that try to do something out of the ordinary. The gameplay is the least of it, but it's serviceable.
Such an awesome shooter that it inspired me to join the military to protect my country
"The US military does not condone the killing of unarmed combatants. But this isn't real, so why should you care?"
I began collecting physical copies of Xbox 360 games almost a year ago, anticipating seventh generation releases might suffer from the same degree of inflation that's plagued earlier console libraries in the aftermarket. This was perhaps a foolish concern as many seventh gen games are still widely available on digital storefronts, but occasionally there's an exception, a game that gets delisted and which sees a hike in value that makes it highly sought after and prohibitively expensive. I picked up Spec Ops: The Line last March, and I'd say the near five times increase in its market value is a damn good ROI. That's why they call me Mr. Money.
Being delisted and thus becoming more relevant also served as a great motivator to finally take the game off my Xbox shelf andfight the good fight, oorah! shoot a bunch of unarmed civilians. My curiosity for it had been mounting for some time anyway, in no small part to the march of retroactive playthroughs and ensuing Hot Takes that have ended up in front of me with increasing frequency. Some of the more disparaging opinions I've seen cast Spec Ops as boorish, weakly imitating the broad strokes of its inspirations, most notably Heart of Darkness. Hell, the main antagonist, John Konrad, shares a name suspiciously similar to author Joseph Conrad -- it doesn't get more on-the-nose than that.
Indeed, when you compare Spec Ops: The Line to the quality of meta-narrative games releasing today, it seems downright quaint, maybe even oafish in how it makes its case against the institution of war and the distressing consequences of "justifiable violence." With a setup that amounts to "respected military leader has gone off the grid and established a cult" that uses borrowed imagery from Jacob's Ladder, and story beats that are undercut by the repeated pop of achievemnts, I can get where people are coming from.
However, Spec Ops is very much a game of its era, and it's easy to take for granted what it's doing when you aren't being mindful of the climate of gaming circa the late-aughts and early 2010s. This released during the height of Call of Duty's popularity, in a time when military shooters played more like propaganda for America's actions in the Middle East. These games frequently cast the player as the hero, whose actions were unassailable or at least justifiable enough that the player was never made to see or consider the consequences of what they'd done. America's Army was allowed to hit the mass market roughly around this time, for chrissake.
Spec Ops is a military shooter about military shooters, and directly addresses the way gaming culture insulated players to the violence of war by glamorizing it. It accomplishes this in ways both subtle and heavy-handed, typically within the same set piece, like the infamous white phosphorus scene which is set up like a typical mortar firing mission that then forces you to slowly walk through the aftermath and survey the horrific results of what you've done. Kid Coolout angrily yelling at Nolan North for having yet another mental break might functionally serve as an awkward statement of intent by the writers, and other games before Spec Ops looked into the camera and stated in no unclear terms that "war bad," but the very specific and pointed way in which Spec Ops attacks its particular brand of shooter makes what it's doing both novel and necessary.
I especially enjoyed some of the ways Spec Ops preys on how players might approach a game of this type during this era, too. The opening sequence has one of your squad members attempting to reason with a group of insurgents by speaking their language, leaving you in the dark as to what is being discussed while another squad member gets in your ear about an interactive piece of the environment. "Hey, that bus is full of sand, if you shoot it you can take them out..." Yeah. Yeah, what's a little war crime in my shooter? This is a video game, I'm doing that all the time. I see a window flashing yellow and a prompt that says "shoot" and I squeeeeze the trigger...
Of course, a lot of these choices - and those that are larger and more narratively driven - are an illusion. "I didn't have a choice," is something Walker repeatedly states to make peace with his actions. It's a video game, you did what was expected of you, so why should you stop and feel bad about it? The more you progress and the more Walker deteriorates physically and mentally, the more you're hit with these excuses. Even the loading screens trade helpful gameplay hints to press you on what you've done or otherwise steep you in Walker's headspace.
"To kill for yourself is murder. To kill for your government is heroic. To kill for entertainment is harmless."
None of this is particularly special when viewed strictly through a modern lens, but as a piece of work so heavily characterized by when it came out, I think it's pretty damn great. Less great, however, is its gameplay, which even by 2012 standards was about as dry as a cover-shooter could possibly get. This is partly the result of being hit with delays, one of which was to force a multiplayer mode into the final product, as was the trend at the time. I didn't bother to mess around in that, but having watched a few videos, it does appear very tacked on and lacks the core game's subversive spirit. If only that time were spent elsewhere, like incorporating more dynamic elements to the sand that's blanketed Dubai as was originally intended... oh well.
I think there's a lot of fair criticisms out there about Spec Ops: The Line, but I also think some of them are perhaps too colored by what is expected of a game today rather than appreciating the atmosphere of the time. There's enough of value here that I think it's worth playing even outside its notoriety as a delisted game, and as my pal Larry Davis pointed out to me in private, it's also crazy that this is where a series of 10$ PlayStation 1 games eventually ended up.
"You are still a good person."
(Sad "oorahs")
I began collecting physical copies of Xbox 360 games almost a year ago, anticipating seventh generation releases might suffer from the same degree of inflation that's plagued earlier console libraries in the aftermarket. This was perhaps a foolish concern as many seventh gen games are still widely available on digital storefronts, but occasionally there's an exception, a game that gets delisted and which sees a hike in value that makes it highly sought after and prohibitively expensive. I picked up Spec Ops: The Line last March, and I'd say the near five times increase in its market value is a damn good ROI. That's why they call me Mr. Money.
Being delisted and thus becoming more relevant also served as a great motivator to finally take the game off my Xbox shelf and
Indeed, when you compare Spec Ops: The Line to the quality of meta-narrative games releasing today, it seems downright quaint, maybe even oafish in how it makes its case against the institution of war and the distressing consequences of "justifiable violence." With a setup that amounts to "respected military leader has gone off the grid and established a cult" that uses borrowed imagery from Jacob's Ladder, and story beats that are undercut by the repeated pop of achievemnts, I can get where people are coming from.
However, Spec Ops is very much a game of its era, and it's easy to take for granted what it's doing when you aren't being mindful of the climate of gaming circa the late-aughts and early 2010s. This released during the height of Call of Duty's popularity, in a time when military shooters played more like propaganda for America's actions in the Middle East. These games frequently cast the player as the hero, whose actions were unassailable or at least justifiable enough that the player was never made to see or consider the consequences of what they'd done. America's Army was allowed to hit the mass market roughly around this time, for chrissake.
Spec Ops is a military shooter about military shooters, and directly addresses the way gaming culture insulated players to the violence of war by glamorizing it. It accomplishes this in ways both subtle and heavy-handed, typically within the same set piece, like the infamous white phosphorus scene which is set up like a typical mortar firing mission that then forces you to slowly walk through the aftermath and survey the horrific results of what you've done. Kid Coolout angrily yelling at Nolan North for having yet another mental break might functionally serve as an awkward statement of intent by the writers, and other games before Spec Ops looked into the camera and stated in no unclear terms that "war bad," but the very specific and pointed way in which Spec Ops attacks its particular brand of shooter makes what it's doing both novel and necessary.
I especially enjoyed some of the ways Spec Ops preys on how players might approach a game of this type during this era, too. The opening sequence has one of your squad members attempting to reason with a group of insurgents by speaking their language, leaving you in the dark as to what is being discussed while another squad member gets in your ear about an interactive piece of the environment. "Hey, that bus is full of sand, if you shoot it you can take them out..." Yeah. Yeah, what's a little war crime in my shooter? This is a video game, I'm doing that all the time. I see a window flashing yellow and a prompt that says "shoot" and I squeeeeze the trigger...
Of course, a lot of these choices - and those that are larger and more narratively driven - are an illusion. "I didn't have a choice," is something Walker repeatedly states to make peace with his actions. It's a video game, you did what was expected of you, so why should you stop and feel bad about it? The more you progress and the more Walker deteriorates physically and mentally, the more you're hit with these excuses. Even the loading screens trade helpful gameplay hints to press you on what you've done or otherwise steep you in Walker's headspace.
"To kill for yourself is murder. To kill for your government is heroic. To kill for entertainment is harmless."
None of this is particularly special when viewed strictly through a modern lens, but as a piece of work so heavily characterized by when it came out, I think it's pretty damn great. Less great, however, is its gameplay, which even by 2012 standards was about as dry as a cover-shooter could possibly get. This is partly the result of being hit with delays, one of which was to force a multiplayer mode into the final product, as was the trend at the time. I didn't bother to mess around in that, but having watched a few videos, it does appear very tacked on and lacks the core game's subversive spirit. If only that time were spent elsewhere, like incorporating more dynamic elements to the sand that's blanketed Dubai as was originally intended... oh well.
I think there's a lot of fair criticisms out there about Spec Ops: The Line, but I also think some of them are perhaps too colored by what is expected of a game today rather than appreciating the atmosphere of the time. There's enough of value here that I think it's worth playing even outside its notoriety as a delisted game, and as my pal Larry Davis pointed out to me in private, it's also crazy that this is where a series of 10$ PlayStation 1 games eventually ended up.
"You are still a good person."
(Sad "oorahs")
This is the Joker of video games
Editing this review to paint over the previous one. Basically I am nowhere near as red hot against this game as I was at release and I don't think it's particularly fair or genuine of me to keep that grudge on ink. Feels performative or something, I frankly no longer give a shit about Spec Ops in the same way.
There's really no telling anyone "no, i get it, i'm just not laughing" and it's not even worth it to try.
There's really no telling anyone "no, i get it, i'm just not laughing" and it's not even worth it to try.
"Gamers" don't know how to talk about art.
Spec Ops: The Line es un reboot de una franquicia de shooters tácticos que ya estaba prácticamente muerta desde antes que apareciera este juego, siendo su entrega anterior en 2001, por lo que se puede analizar fácilmente como un producto propio, uno con MUCHOS problemas en casi todos sus aspectos.
Empezando por el gameplay, este juego es uno de los hijos bastardos de Gears of War y se inspira mecánicamente en este mismo, heredando todos los problemas de los llamados "shooters de coberturas", incluyendo y no limitándose a cosas como: problemas de cámara, tanto de perspectiva como de campo visual; problemas de ritmo, al enfocarse en asomarte de escombros para recibir balazos mientras intentas darle a la cabeza a 1 o 2 tipos para volverte a esconder y repetir el ciclo por intervalos de 5-8 minutos; problemas con el esquema de controles e interfaz, la primera haciendo sentir al juego como un clon barato de Gears, tal como se mencionó antes, pero un poquito mas rápido a la hora de moverte, y el segundo haciéndote sentir como un cordero siguiendo las ordenes del pastor por como el juego te presenta cosas como los objetivos, las acciones posibles como esconderte entre coberturas, pasar sobre estas, recoger armas, entre otros.
Ahora, exceptuando un par de cosas mecánicas, el conjunto jugable es una experiencia mediocre, por lo mucho. Pero por culpa de la narrativa y el desarrollo, el juego tropieza bruscamente con todo lo "polémico y/o revolucionario" que intenta ser, y por eso puedo decir una cosa con total seguridad:
Cualquiera que alabe Spec Ops: The Line de alguna manera es un pelotudo.
Empezando por la historia, la campaña del juego nos presenta a los protagonistas, un equipo de fuerzas especiales que llega a una Dubai en ruinas en búsqueda de sobrevivientes y de un pelotón el cual desapareció en la ciudad tras una misión de rescate fallida.
En base a esta premisa, se intenta mostrar como las mejores intenciones pueden acabar horriblemente mal en base a una serie de eventos desafortunados, ocasionados por falta de información tanto para los protagonistas como para el jugador.
Todo bien hasta ahí, una historia que ha sido trabajada tanto en películas como en libros, a los cuales el juego les hace guiños; EL PROBLEMA es el como se integra con la narrativa de este medio y el como se desarrolla:
El juego hace partícipe al jugador en todos los acontecimientos "horribles" de la historia, incluyendo el asesinato de todos los enemigos que te encuentres y (SPOILER... SUPONGO) el uso de fósforo blanco, un arma incendiaria y tóxica real, sobre civiles.
El problema de esto son 2 cosas que van de la mano:
1-El juego es lineal y completamente scripteado, con elecciones que no afectan de ninguna manera significativa la historia (exceptuando un par de decisiones al final del juego para endings distintos).
2-Consecuencia de lo anterior, el juego OBLIGA al jugador a ser participe de todos los eventos del juego, sin dar elección de una solución que no involucre dejar una montaña de cadáveres.
De nuevo, esto no estaría TAN mal en conjunto, pero el juego de paso tiene la osadía de intentar hacer sentir al jugador culpable por sus acciones, siendo la más notable la escena del fosforo blanco, donde incluso le hacen zoom a los cadáveres rostizados de los civiles que no tenías más opción que matar. Este es el problema más grande del juego, la insistencia en culpar al jugador por toda la masacre que ha hecho, a pesar de obligarlo a hacerlo... y se pone peor cuando, y volviendo a los problemas mecánicos, el juego no solo te obliga a matar, sino te INCENTIVA a hacerlo.
Al principio, deliberadamente omití un par de detalles respecto al gameplay; uno es sobre los enfrentamientos y otro sobre la interfaz, y de nuevo estos van de la mano:
El juego, a pesar de intentar hacerte sentir culpable casi todo el tiempo, incentiva a matar a todo lo que se mueva en los enfrentamientos, permitiéndole ejecutar a los enemigos tirados y heridos, y causando un efecto de cámara lenta después de cualquier tiro a la cabeza hecho; ni siquiera es una ventaja táctica como sería una mecánica de bullet time por la duración del efecto, es solo una recompensa visual al jugador para incentivarlo a seguir disparando con precisión.
Además de esto, y al igual que todos los juegos de su generación en adelante, el juego tiene un sistema de logros/trofeos, el cual es un incentivo de seguir jugando para en forma de objetivos acumulables y llegar a ciertos puntos del juego, ¿el problema? El progreso de la mayoría aparece en la interfaz, y el mas prominente son los logros por matar; matar con rifles, con francotiradores, con armas pequeñas, pesadas, de tiro a la cabeza, granadas, etc. Esto por si solo no estaría mal si no fuera por el mensaje que se fuerza a dar.
Spec Ops: The Line es un grupo de conceptos mediocres que, en vez de levantarse entre ellos para dar un mejor producto, cavan su propia tumba, entorpeciéndose entre ellos mismos y dando una experiencia que, lamentablemente, suele ser usada como un buen ejemplo de lo que puede llegar a ser el medio, cuando el mensaje que termina dando es digno de un preescolar.
Empezando por el gameplay, este juego es uno de los hijos bastardos de Gears of War y se inspira mecánicamente en este mismo, heredando todos los problemas de los llamados "shooters de coberturas", incluyendo y no limitándose a cosas como: problemas de cámara, tanto de perspectiva como de campo visual; problemas de ritmo, al enfocarse en asomarte de escombros para recibir balazos mientras intentas darle a la cabeza a 1 o 2 tipos para volverte a esconder y repetir el ciclo por intervalos de 5-8 minutos; problemas con el esquema de controles e interfaz, la primera haciendo sentir al juego como un clon barato de Gears, tal como se mencionó antes, pero un poquito mas rápido a la hora de moverte, y el segundo haciéndote sentir como un cordero siguiendo las ordenes del pastor por como el juego te presenta cosas como los objetivos, las acciones posibles como esconderte entre coberturas, pasar sobre estas, recoger armas, entre otros.
Ahora, exceptuando un par de cosas mecánicas, el conjunto jugable es una experiencia mediocre, por lo mucho. Pero por culpa de la narrativa y el desarrollo, el juego tropieza bruscamente con todo lo "polémico y/o revolucionario" que intenta ser, y por eso puedo decir una cosa con total seguridad:
Cualquiera que alabe Spec Ops: The Line de alguna manera es un pelotudo.
Empezando por la historia, la campaña del juego nos presenta a los protagonistas, un equipo de fuerzas especiales que llega a una Dubai en ruinas en búsqueda de sobrevivientes y de un pelotón el cual desapareció en la ciudad tras una misión de rescate fallida.
En base a esta premisa, se intenta mostrar como las mejores intenciones pueden acabar horriblemente mal en base a una serie de eventos desafortunados, ocasionados por falta de información tanto para los protagonistas como para el jugador.
Todo bien hasta ahí, una historia que ha sido trabajada tanto en películas como en libros, a los cuales el juego les hace guiños; EL PROBLEMA es el como se integra con la narrativa de este medio y el como se desarrolla:
El juego hace partícipe al jugador en todos los acontecimientos "horribles" de la historia, incluyendo el asesinato de todos los enemigos que te encuentres y (SPOILER... SUPONGO) el uso de fósforo blanco, un arma incendiaria y tóxica real, sobre civiles.
El problema de esto son 2 cosas que van de la mano:
1-El juego es lineal y completamente scripteado, con elecciones que no afectan de ninguna manera significativa la historia (exceptuando un par de decisiones al final del juego para endings distintos).
2-Consecuencia de lo anterior, el juego OBLIGA al jugador a ser participe de todos los eventos del juego, sin dar elección de una solución que no involucre dejar una montaña de cadáveres.
De nuevo, esto no estaría TAN mal en conjunto, pero el juego de paso tiene la osadía de intentar hacer sentir al jugador culpable por sus acciones, siendo la más notable la escena del fosforo blanco, donde incluso le hacen zoom a los cadáveres rostizados de los civiles que no tenías más opción que matar. Este es el problema más grande del juego, la insistencia en culpar al jugador por toda la masacre que ha hecho, a pesar de obligarlo a hacerlo... y se pone peor cuando, y volviendo a los problemas mecánicos, el juego no solo te obliga a matar, sino te INCENTIVA a hacerlo.
Al principio, deliberadamente omití un par de detalles respecto al gameplay; uno es sobre los enfrentamientos y otro sobre la interfaz, y de nuevo estos van de la mano:
El juego, a pesar de intentar hacerte sentir culpable casi todo el tiempo, incentiva a matar a todo lo que se mueva en los enfrentamientos, permitiéndole ejecutar a los enemigos tirados y heridos, y causando un efecto de cámara lenta después de cualquier tiro a la cabeza hecho; ni siquiera es una ventaja táctica como sería una mecánica de bullet time por la duración del efecto, es solo una recompensa visual al jugador para incentivarlo a seguir disparando con precisión.
Además de esto, y al igual que todos los juegos de su generación en adelante, el juego tiene un sistema de logros/trofeos, el cual es un incentivo de seguir jugando para en forma de objetivos acumulables y llegar a ciertos puntos del juego, ¿el problema? El progreso de la mayoría aparece en la interfaz, y el mas prominente son los logros por matar; matar con rifles, con francotiradores, con armas pequeñas, pesadas, de tiro a la cabeza, granadas, etc. Esto por si solo no estaría mal si no fuera por el mensaje que se fuerza a dar.
Spec Ops: The Line es un grupo de conceptos mediocres que, en vez de levantarse entre ellos para dar un mejor producto, cavan su propia tumba, entorpeciéndose entre ellos mismos y dando una experiencia que, lamentablemente, suele ser usada como un buen ejemplo de lo que puede llegar a ser el medio, cuando el mensaje que termina dando es digno de un preescolar.
I find it so funny that the global and economical west needs constant "war is bad" messages thrown at it to feel good at the fact they're single handedly destroying the world
great pacing, great characters, great voice acting, great writing, everything is here! even the gameplay isn't terrible like i thought it'd be, at absolute worst its just forgettable
edit: looking at top reviews of this game is really confusing to me. obviously this is a critique of the military and military shooters as a whole, but it's not you who's making the decisions. you're not a silent military man, the game isn't in a first person perspective, the player is just guiding walker through what he would've done anyway.
edit: looking at top reviews of this game is really confusing to me. obviously this is a critique of the military and military shooters as a whole, but it's not you who's making the decisions. you're not a silent military man, the game isn't in a first person perspective, the player is just guiding walker through what he would've done anyway.
Sorry Spec Ops: The Line, you're no Metal Gear Solid.
Bog standard average cover shooter released in the sea of mediocre dull grey shooters of the seventh generation of consoles. It slaps you in the face with anti-war messaging so on the nose that it actively made the game worse for me.
When much better shooters exist and way more games convey the same anti-war messaging in a more profound way, there's really little reason to play this game for the first time in 2023.
Bog standard average cover shooter released in the sea of mediocre dull grey shooters of the seventh generation of consoles. It slaps you in the face with anti-war messaging so on the nose that it actively made the game worse for me.
When much better shooters exist and way more games convey the same anti-war messaging in a more profound way, there's really little reason to play this game for the first time in 2023.
This review contains spoilers
Oh boy, its one of these. One of these games no matter what I think of Ill get half of people yelling at me. I honestly kind of dread writing this review cause there's a lot I want to say about it but it almost feels like everything I do is going to come off as just reacting to people's views on it. That's always kind of going to be the issue when experiencing things only because of the reputation they've accrued over the years.
"Theres no such thing as an antiwar film" Truffaut supposedly said, referring to how no matter how brutal or pointless war may be depicted on screen it will never actually convey the full horror of it, and the spectacle of war movies will in fact romanticize war. Saving Private Ryan has a fairly brutal opening scene depicting the D Day landings but it also boosted recruitment numbers for the american military so its a net negative for the world.
I don't know if I agree entirely with that sentiment, certainly there is some truth to it but I feel like its 1000% times more true for videogames, especially in the AAA space. I don't really buy it as intentional but there is nothing more dehumanizing and dull than the mindless act of mowing wave after wave of soldiers from behind cover in the godawful slog that is this game. It also kind of undermined (or perhaps strengthened depending on your opinion) the point of the famous "white phosphorous" scene cause I didnt realize that I was supposed to use the mortar, so I tried to do it normally, quickly running out of ammo and getting shot and dying several times until I realized what I was supposed to do.
At that point though, all I was feeling was anger and frustration, perhaps mirroring that of captain walker and his squad, when we got to the obviously imitating both the gameplay mechanics of Call OF Duty and the like and the real life footage of american drones wiping out civillians in the middle east. I didnt feel much horror then as my squad made it to all the dead soldiers and civillians in all honesty, though the image of the charred corpse of a mother holding her child, whilst pretty trite and forced, was somewhat haunting; it reminded me of visiting the atomic bomb museum in hiroshima.
The game is almost comical in how many of those forced emotional moments and the jarring contrast between "war is hell, civillians get killed etc" and just never ending stream of pop up gallery shootouts every 30 seconds. And yet, and this is the part where Ill get pelted with stones by the Backloggd™ intellectual elite, I do think there is a lot to appreciate about it, which is why Im giving it the middling score of 5/10 to be an insufferable fence sitter.
See, and again this is impossible to deal with without coming off as reactionary (not in the political sense) but there's a lot of unfair sneering about this game on this very page that I see as kind of unwarranted to some degree. First of all, to anyone who has given this game half a star, please name another AAA game before or since where you shoot at american soldiers (and no, PMCs don't count) , I'll wait.
You can't can you? That is honestly still refreshing that in a sea of awful, brown military shooters where you uncritically support american imperialism mowing waves and waves of brown people presumably just defending themselves from the massive war machine you're backed by to protect the business interests of the US, that this game would have the balls to have you shooting at (albeit rogue) american servicemen.
And I can just hear the pre emptive typing : "wow, making fun of military shooters, how profound, we all know they're bad and its insanely easy to mock/criticise them". And sure, that is somewhat true but here's the thing : this is a AAA game, you know, the ones where even today Ubisoft will release a game about you supporting US imperialism and invading other countries and insist its "not political".
Like yeah, you are right this game occupies the intellectual kiddie pool and hell, its profoundness is severely overstated but this is still pretty much as far as AAA (mostly western I'll admit) games get. Its like seeing a baby take its first steps and going "coh, can't even run the 100m, how lame". I think there's a place to appreciate a game that whilst fumbled, released as a military shooter trying to crticize its whole subgenre and customer base, by the ever money conscious AAA sector where you don't uncritically support US imperialism (and also there are some fairly in depth subversions of the US military, its not just "drones kill inoccent civilians", the hendrix stars and stripes, a lot of the jargon and details and stuff used by the actual military and even just the attitude of US soldiers is lampooned at least somewhat effectively) and shoot at US soldiers, which are sacred targets of worship in the AAA space and broader western culture as a whole.
In a columbo voice Oh and just one more thing. The big complaint about the game undermining its theme of choice has never really convinced me even before playing it. You're not allowed to choose? First of all clearly we're playing with the conflict between player and player character (like in Silent Hill 2 but player character conflict, Japan I guess) and the lack of choice or thought kind of mirrors how captain walker keeps justifying his actions as "I had no choice", without realizing of course he keeps pushing himself and his squad into positions where hell have to use horrific violence rather than just leaving like he should have in the first place. This of course mirrors the actions of the player who will get the sense that this man is a menace and will continue anyways because, well its a videogame I suppose.
And I know, "thats super dumb why would I stop playing cause of the make believe actions of a bunch of ones and zeros" and look I somewhat sympathize, its kinda corny and I think later games like undertale have kinda tackled this better but honestly I think you're missing the main double hit here. Not only is this of course calling into question the players that at time of release went looking for these kinds of experiences and how morally iffy it is to be looking for realistic simulations of being a tool of a genocidal murder machine as opposed to just playing doom or something like that but also "your choice might have been justified at the time but you put yourself in the situation where that was the case in the first place" is also a criticism of military action in general. So many accounts of horrific violence always parrot the same "it was us or them" mentality without mentioning that you being there murdering them for oil is what caused that situation to begin with. Its not murder to committ self defense against invaders, though seemingly in the west we only understand this when the invaded are white.
Honestly, there's more that I could ramble on about like the weird ptsd/unreliable narrator thing and the smartly done 2 "choices" in the game but I think this is where'll end this unstructured screed. In conclusion I disliked playing it, its definitely not as profound as its supporters said, but its existence is worth a lot more than its detractors will admit.
*leaves the room as I am pelted with rocks, arrows and ukeleles"
"Theres no such thing as an antiwar film" Truffaut supposedly said, referring to how no matter how brutal or pointless war may be depicted on screen it will never actually convey the full horror of it, and the spectacle of war movies will in fact romanticize war. Saving Private Ryan has a fairly brutal opening scene depicting the D Day landings but it also boosted recruitment numbers for the american military so its a net negative for the world.
I don't know if I agree entirely with that sentiment, certainly there is some truth to it but I feel like its 1000% times more true for videogames, especially in the AAA space. I don't really buy it as intentional but there is nothing more dehumanizing and dull than the mindless act of mowing wave after wave of soldiers from behind cover in the godawful slog that is this game. It also kind of undermined (or perhaps strengthened depending on your opinion) the point of the famous "white phosphorous" scene cause I didnt realize that I was supposed to use the mortar, so I tried to do it normally, quickly running out of ammo and getting shot and dying several times until I realized what I was supposed to do.
At that point though, all I was feeling was anger and frustration, perhaps mirroring that of captain walker and his squad, when we got to the obviously imitating both the gameplay mechanics of Call OF Duty and the like and the real life footage of american drones wiping out civillians in the middle east. I didnt feel much horror then as my squad made it to all the dead soldiers and civillians in all honesty, though the image of the charred corpse of a mother holding her child, whilst pretty trite and forced, was somewhat haunting; it reminded me of visiting the atomic bomb museum in hiroshima.
The game is almost comical in how many of those forced emotional moments and the jarring contrast between "war is hell, civillians get killed etc" and just never ending stream of pop up gallery shootouts every 30 seconds. And yet, and this is the part where Ill get pelted with stones by the Backloggd™ intellectual elite, I do think there is a lot to appreciate about it, which is why Im giving it the middling score of 5/10 to be an insufferable fence sitter.
See, and again this is impossible to deal with without coming off as reactionary (not in the political sense) but there's a lot of unfair sneering about this game on this very page that I see as kind of unwarranted to some degree. First of all, to anyone who has given this game half a star, please name another AAA game before or since where you shoot at american soldiers (and no, PMCs don't count) , I'll wait.
You can't can you? That is honestly still refreshing that in a sea of awful, brown military shooters where you uncritically support american imperialism mowing waves and waves of brown people presumably just defending themselves from the massive war machine you're backed by to protect the business interests of the US, that this game would have the balls to have you shooting at (albeit rogue) american servicemen.
And I can just hear the pre emptive typing : "wow, making fun of military shooters, how profound, we all know they're bad and its insanely easy to mock/criticise them". And sure, that is somewhat true but here's the thing : this is a AAA game, you know, the ones where even today Ubisoft will release a game about you supporting US imperialism and invading other countries and insist its "not political".
Like yeah, you are right this game occupies the intellectual kiddie pool and hell, its profoundness is severely overstated but this is still pretty much as far as AAA (mostly western I'll admit) games get. Its like seeing a baby take its first steps and going "coh, can't even run the 100m, how lame". I think there's a place to appreciate a game that whilst fumbled, released as a military shooter trying to crticize its whole subgenre and customer base, by the ever money conscious AAA sector where you don't uncritically support US imperialism (and also there are some fairly in depth subversions of the US military, its not just "drones kill inoccent civilians", the hendrix stars and stripes, a lot of the jargon and details and stuff used by the actual military and even just the attitude of US soldiers is lampooned at least somewhat effectively) and shoot at US soldiers, which are sacred targets of worship in the AAA space and broader western culture as a whole.
In a columbo voice Oh and just one more thing. The big complaint about the game undermining its theme of choice has never really convinced me even before playing it. You're not allowed to choose? First of all clearly we're playing with the conflict between player and player character (like in Silent Hill 2 but player character conflict, Japan I guess) and the lack of choice or thought kind of mirrors how captain walker keeps justifying his actions as "I had no choice", without realizing of course he keeps pushing himself and his squad into positions where hell have to use horrific violence rather than just leaving like he should have in the first place. This of course mirrors the actions of the player who will get the sense that this man is a menace and will continue anyways because, well its a videogame I suppose.
And I know, "thats super dumb why would I stop playing cause of the make believe actions of a bunch of ones and zeros" and look I somewhat sympathize, its kinda corny and I think later games like undertale have kinda tackled this better but honestly I think you're missing the main double hit here. Not only is this of course calling into question the players that at time of release went looking for these kinds of experiences and how morally iffy it is to be looking for realistic simulations of being a tool of a genocidal murder machine as opposed to just playing doom or something like that but also "your choice might have been justified at the time but you put yourself in the situation where that was the case in the first place" is also a criticism of military action in general. So many accounts of horrific violence always parrot the same "it was us or them" mentality without mentioning that you being there murdering them for oil is what caused that situation to begin with. Its not murder to committ self defense against invaders, though seemingly in the west we only understand this when the invaded are white.
Honestly, there's more that I could ramble on about like the weird ptsd/unreliable narrator thing and the smartly done 2 "choices" in the game but I think this is where'll end this unstructured screed. In conclusion I disliked playing it, its definitely not as profound as its supporters said, but its existence is worth a lot more than its detractors will admit.
*leaves the room as I am pelted with rocks, arrows and ukeleles"
Quando falamos sobre jogos de guerra existem dois caminhos a serem seguidos: choque e heroísmo. O método mais comum se refere ao último, que busca destacar o jogador como um soldado experiente, aquela arma escondida do exército buscando salvar a humanidade, o contrário acontece com aqueles que tentam transmitir a realidade de uma guerra através do choque, sendo muitas vezes um ato de rebeldia e sensibilidade.
Não vou exatamente dizer qual deles Spec Ops decidiu seguir, mas posso afirmar que os desenvolvedores escolheram o mais interessante, mas não menos problemático. Enquanto jogava comecei a pensar em, como meu professor gosta de dizer, problemáticas básicas: o que é ser um herói e um vilão? Como posso dizer que uma pessoa é um herói se ela deixa um rastro de sangue enquanto caminha pela areia?
O que consequentemente me levou a uma frase que resume perfeitamente o jogo: “você acha que um soldado termina uma guerra sem ser um criminoso?” Esse é um dilema universal, pois se pararmos para pensar, até a própria palavra guerra perdeu sentido em certas partes do mundo, sendo equiparada com algo muito mais simples e sem poder, praticamente um sinônimo de dia.
De fato, o recurso mais importante de The Line é sua narrativa, mas ao não criar um personagem marcante ocorre talvez o maior problema do jogo, a falta de identidade. Olhar para Walker é como olhar para qualquer protagonista de algum jogo militar lançado entre 2010 e 2013 e isso é extremamente frustrante, pois ele é um personagem interessante.
Sua gameplay apesar de extremamente repetitiva tem seus pontos positivos, mas em geral é o clássico sistema de esconde e atira. Já a ambientação e soundtrack me surpreenderam de uma maneira extremamente satisfatória, as cenas dos prédios, ruas e casas dominadas pela natureza faz qualquer pessoa imaginar o próprio futuro e as músicas durante as partes de combate causam um ânimo elevado.
Retratar a guerra de uma maneira agregadora é algo bem raro e apesar dos tropeços gigantes, Spec Ops: The Line consegue cumprir o que promete, uma pena a péssima otimização e o combate não permitirem usufruir de tudo o que deveríamos, mas continua sendo uma ótima recomendação para quem quer sair do básico.
Não vou exatamente dizer qual deles Spec Ops decidiu seguir, mas posso afirmar que os desenvolvedores escolheram o mais interessante, mas não menos problemático. Enquanto jogava comecei a pensar em, como meu professor gosta de dizer, problemáticas básicas: o que é ser um herói e um vilão? Como posso dizer que uma pessoa é um herói se ela deixa um rastro de sangue enquanto caminha pela areia?
O que consequentemente me levou a uma frase que resume perfeitamente o jogo: “você acha que um soldado termina uma guerra sem ser um criminoso?” Esse é um dilema universal, pois se pararmos para pensar, até a própria palavra guerra perdeu sentido em certas partes do mundo, sendo equiparada com algo muito mais simples e sem poder, praticamente um sinônimo de dia.
De fato, o recurso mais importante de The Line é sua narrativa, mas ao não criar um personagem marcante ocorre talvez o maior problema do jogo, a falta de identidade. Olhar para Walker é como olhar para qualquer protagonista de algum jogo militar lançado entre 2010 e 2013 e isso é extremamente frustrante, pois ele é um personagem interessante.
Sua gameplay apesar de extremamente repetitiva tem seus pontos positivos, mas em geral é o clássico sistema de esconde e atira. Já a ambientação e soundtrack me surpreenderam de uma maneira extremamente satisfatória, as cenas dos prédios, ruas e casas dominadas pela natureza faz qualquer pessoa imaginar o próprio futuro e as músicas durante as partes de combate causam um ânimo elevado.
Retratar a guerra de uma maneira agregadora é algo bem raro e apesar dos tropeços gigantes, Spec Ops: The Line consegue cumprir o que promete, uma pena a péssima otimização e o combate não permitirem usufruir de tudo o que deveríamos, mas continua sendo uma ótima recomendação para quem quer sair do básico.
sabe, é interessante pegar esse jogo aqui depois de todo o papo ao redor dele ter dado uma reacendida após ele ter sido delistado pela 2k. The Line é bem único, e gosto muito de falar sobre ele. eu gosto até de ouvir outras pessoa falarem sobre ele! olha só q maluquice.
esse jogo n merece ser apagado da existência. n tem muito o q eu possa falar dele q n tenha sido dito um milhão de vezes, por bem ou por mal. talvez esse jogo tente me fazer sentir culpada por matar soldados americanos um tanto q demais as vezes, o q é meio cringe. talvez o gameplay dele seja formulaico demais, e não case muito bem com o tipo de história contada aqui ou com a crítica q ele quer fazer dos seus contemporâneos.
mas acho q o q mais me suprendeu nele, após recentemente ter aguentado algumas horas de alguns outros third person shooters da época, é como esse jogo é meio q bem escrito. os diálogos tem uma vibe até q um tanto q naturalista, q funcionam muito bem com o ótimo trabalho do cast. acho q esse é um dos pontos mais fortes desse jogo, e foi uma das principais coisas q me fizeram continuar jogando The Line.
a historinha aqui realmente tenta ser o Heart of Darkness dos videogames. e talvez até consiga. em partes. um pouquinho. pra época do seu lançamento, sem dúvidas foi. uma pena q algumas das cenas mais ousadas e visualmente interessantes fiquem mais relegadas a reta final do jogo, mas eu defendo q The Line faz um bom trabalho em contar sua história de uma maneira visualmente engajante. videogames hj em dia tentam tanto imitar cinema, mas na maioria das vezes fazem isso de uma maneira bem medíocre. é bom ver um pouquinho mais de esforço e ousadia aqui.
esse jogo genuinamente n merece ser apagado da existência. todo o discurso ao redor dele n merece morrer pq uma distribuidora n quer renovar um contrato imbecil. o trabalho e a arte de mais de 600 pessoas n merece sumir do mapa da noite pro dia. se vc tiver interesse, n é lá muito difícil encontrar ele por aí. talvez vc encontre algo pra apreciar nele, e mantenha a chama dele viva por mais um tempinho.
esse jogo n merece ser apagado da existência. n tem muito o q eu possa falar dele q n tenha sido dito um milhão de vezes, por bem ou por mal. talvez esse jogo tente me fazer sentir culpada por matar soldados americanos um tanto q demais as vezes, o q é meio cringe. talvez o gameplay dele seja formulaico demais, e não case muito bem com o tipo de história contada aqui ou com a crítica q ele quer fazer dos seus contemporâneos.
mas acho q o q mais me suprendeu nele, após recentemente ter aguentado algumas horas de alguns outros third person shooters da época, é como esse jogo é meio q bem escrito. os diálogos tem uma vibe até q um tanto q naturalista, q funcionam muito bem com o ótimo trabalho do cast. acho q esse é um dos pontos mais fortes desse jogo, e foi uma das principais coisas q me fizeram continuar jogando The Line.
a historinha aqui realmente tenta ser o Heart of Darkness dos videogames. e talvez até consiga. em partes. um pouquinho. pra época do seu lançamento, sem dúvidas foi. uma pena q algumas das cenas mais ousadas e visualmente interessantes fiquem mais relegadas a reta final do jogo, mas eu defendo q The Line faz um bom trabalho em contar sua história de uma maneira visualmente engajante. videogames hj em dia tentam tanto imitar cinema, mas na maioria das vezes fazem isso de uma maneira bem medíocre. é bom ver um pouquinho mais de esforço e ousadia aqui.
esse jogo genuinamente n merece ser apagado da existência. todo o discurso ao redor dele n merece morrer pq uma distribuidora n quer renovar um contrato imbecil. o trabalho e a arte de mais de 600 pessoas n merece sumir do mapa da noite pro dia. se vc tiver interesse, n é lá muito difícil encontrar ele por aí. talvez vc encontre algo pra apreciar nele, e mantenha a chama dele viva por mais um tempinho.
mediocre commentary on humanity's helpless cruelty and the excess violence in videogames: pretentious meta garbage
mediocre commentary on humanity's helpless cruelty and the excess violence in videogames, japan: OOOH SHIT WHAT A GAME, IT'S BAD ON PURPOSE!
mediocre commentary on humanity's helpless cruelty and the excess violence in videogames, japan: OOOH SHIT WHAT A GAME, IT'S BAD ON PURPOSE!
This review contains spoilers
El momento más revelador y definitorio de Spec Ops: The Line es aquel en que ordenamos el lanzamiento aéreo de fósforo blanco sobre el enemigo, representado visualmente como un cúmulo de puntitos blancos en nuestra pantalla de ordenador portátil, que a su vez refleja nuestro rostro (el del protagonista) mientras ejecutamos la operación. Así, el juego superpone la matanza a nuestro careto, como imprimiéndola en nuestra conciencia, y uno se pregunta si no será eso lo que el capitán verá a partir de ahora cada vez que se mire en el espejo.
Tras ese momento, en el que por cierto acabamos con numerosas vidas de civiles por error, el juego se aboca a un camino de locura y muerte en que cada vez se hace más evidente que no somos salvadores, sino verdugos.
Hay dos maneras de interpretar esto y de ello dependerá nuestra valoración del juego. Podemos leer los sucesos como un metacomentario acerca de nuestras acciones al mando, ya sabéis, esa infame acusación pseudoreflexiva de "mira, jugador, tú estás matando, tú estás haciendo esto, reflexiona y siéntete culpable". O podemos leerlos de forma más literal (o directa, o diegética), como algo que le ocurre al protagonista y no a nosotros. Yo me decanto por la segunda, siendo para mí la propuesta un tour de force insano por la guerra y hacia la locura, Apocalypse Now como plantilla, y no tanto el pedante y banal discurso meta que muchos le achacan.
Como revisión de aquel descenso a los infiernos no es gran cosa, si acaso un blockbuster shooteril de ritmo conseguido y alocada recta final que parece cuestionarse (aunque no convincentemente) la misión de tropas patrias en terreno extranjero, y como extensión la idea general de autojustificación: uno siempre se ve a sí mismo como el bueno, aunque no lo sea. Ese viejo "todo el mundo tiene sus motivos". Así es como experimenté yo el juego, al menos: un relato videojueguil violento e insano sobre el punto de vista, no un metarreproche hipócrita a la complicidad del jugador con violencia videojueguil.
La mayoría de mis conocidos piensan que el juego es malo o muy malo, pero yo no lo veo así.
Tras ese momento, en el que por cierto acabamos con numerosas vidas de civiles por error, el juego se aboca a un camino de locura y muerte en que cada vez se hace más evidente que no somos salvadores, sino verdugos.
Hay dos maneras de interpretar esto y de ello dependerá nuestra valoración del juego. Podemos leer los sucesos como un metacomentario acerca de nuestras acciones al mando, ya sabéis, esa infame acusación pseudoreflexiva de "mira, jugador, tú estás matando, tú estás haciendo esto, reflexiona y siéntete culpable". O podemos leerlos de forma más literal (o directa, o diegética), como algo que le ocurre al protagonista y no a nosotros. Yo me decanto por la segunda, siendo para mí la propuesta un tour de force insano por la guerra y hacia la locura, Apocalypse Now como plantilla, y no tanto el pedante y banal discurso meta que muchos le achacan.
Como revisión de aquel descenso a los infiernos no es gran cosa, si acaso un blockbuster shooteril de ritmo conseguido y alocada recta final que parece cuestionarse (aunque no convincentemente) la misión de tropas patrias en terreno extranjero, y como extensión la idea general de autojustificación: uno siempre se ve a sí mismo como el bueno, aunque no lo sea. Ese viejo "todo el mundo tiene sus motivos". Así es como experimenté yo el juego, al menos: un relato videojueguil violento e insano sobre el punto de vista, no un metarreproche hipócrita a la complicidad del jugador con violencia videojueguil.
La mayoría de mis conocidos piensan que el juego es malo o muy malo, pero yo no lo veo así.
warning: political rant
This game is often criticized for its sorta hackneyed delivery of the "war is bad" theme and for making the player feel bad about actions they have no control over. But honestly, if you ask me, an American military shooter game that literally yells at and antagonizes its own player for liking American military shooter games is pretty cool and based, actually.
Like, I don't know man. I remember being a teenage gamer in America in 2012. I remember playing Call of Duty. I remember Call of Duty being "that game that all the boys play when they get together." I remember how, when the media talked about video game violence, they were pretty much specifically talking about Call of Duty (or sometimes GTA or Mortal Kombat or something). Regardless, American war shooters were all the rage and you couldn't escape talking about them, whether in praise or derision, whenever any topic concerning video games would come up.
One thing I don't remember hearing that much about though, and maybe this is just my experience, is how weird it was that all these shooting games were very obviously military fucking propaganda. Support for the military industrial complex is so incredibly ingrained within American society that the media will literally talk about how dangerous video game violence is to the youth without ever even entertaining the notion about how that violence glorifies modern imperialism or how it contributes to manufacturing the perceived necessity of foreign invasions. Game critique was so criminally underdeveloped that the only retort that gamers could come up with to "Do video games cause violence?" was "Actually, video games don't cause violence." Any further nuance about how this very specific glorification of military violence could, in fact, serve the interests of the state via its utility as recruiting material for impressionable young boys, needless to say, did not quite make it into the critical minds of teenage gamer bros at the time. So honestly, when Spec Ops: The Line came out and took an admittedly blunt hammer at issues like war hero worship and needless military intervention that even now, as a nation, we're still really bad at talking about, I actually found it refreshing.
I could ramble about politics for hours, and I haven't even really talked about the game at all...but honestly, so much has already been written about this game that I would literally just be making the same points other people have already made, but worse. Ultimately, the point is that Spec Ops: The Line hates you for liking Call of Duty and that's kind of awesome, in my opinion.
This game is often criticized for its sorta hackneyed delivery of the "war is bad" theme and for making the player feel bad about actions they have no control over. But honestly, if you ask me, an American military shooter game that literally yells at and antagonizes its own player for liking American military shooter games is pretty cool and based, actually.
Like, I don't know man. I remember being a teenage gamer in America in 2012. I remember playing Call of Duty. I remember Call of Duty being "that game that all the boys play when they get together." I remember how, when the media talked about video game violence, they were pretty much specifically talking about Call of Duty (or sometimes GTA or Mortal Kombat or something). Regardless, American war shooters were all the rage and you couldn't escape talking about them, whether in praise or derision, whenever any topic concerning video games would come up.
One thing I don't remember hearing that much about though, and maybe this is just my experience, is how weird it was that all these shooting games were very obviously military fucking propaganda. Support for the military industrial complex is so incredibly ingrained within American society that the media will literally talk about how dangerous video game violence is to the youth without ever even entertaining the notion about how that violence glorifies modern imperialism or how it contributes to manufacturing the perceived necessity of foreign invasions. Game critique was so criminally underdeveloped that the only retort that gamers could come up with to "Do video games cause violence?" was "Actually, video games don't cause violence." Any further nuance about how this very specific glorification of military violence could, in fact, serve the interests of the state via its utility as recruiting material for impressionable young boys, needless to say, did not quite make it into the critical minds of teenage gamer bros at the time. So honestly, when Spec Ops: The Line came out and took an admittedly blunt hammer at issues like war hero worship and needless military intervention that even now, as a nation, we're still really bad at talking about, I actually found it refreshing.
I could ramble about politics for hours, and I haven't even really talked about the game at all...but honestly, so much has already been written about this game that I would literally just be making the same points other people have already made, but worse. Ultimately, the point is that Spec Ops: The Line hates you for liking Call of Duty and that's kind of awesome, in my opinion.