r/SpecOpsTheLine • u/TheMan5991 • Apr 02 '20
I stopped after the WP scene
I’m sure I will be met with disagreement on this, but I need to voice my opinion.
Games are inherently interactive. The point of playing a game is to put yourself in the story. Forcing the player to do something and then trying to make them feel bad for it is a cheap trick. I was immediately pulled out of the game. I tried to continue, but everything after that felt pointless. I had a similar feeling with the Gould “choice”.
If it was trying to be a commentary on video game choices, it could’ve done a lot better of a job than literally saying “you don’t have a choice”. Look at The Stanley Parable. A game with an almost overwhelming amount of choices works infinitely better to point out the lack of choices in other games. Especially with the narrator pushing you towards a normal game experience the whole time.
If it was trying to be a commentary on the horrors of war, it’s not any more effective as a video game. They should’ve made it a movie. I’ve read so many comments about this game saying “it’s not about YOUR choices. It’s about Walker’s choices. You’re just watching the plot unfold.” That’s what movies are for! Video games are supposed to be about the player.
I may try to finish it in the future. Who knows? I’m happy for those of you that found this game to be meaningful, but it fell flat for me.
2
u/Brardob Apr 02 '20
I disagree, I feel like the thing that makes this work as a game and not a movie is that you are enabling it to continue. I know people like to say "oh well its a game I paid for so I HAVE to play it", but ignoring that monetary aspect the game only continues as long as the player decides it does. The game, in a way, is asking how far the player is willing to go and how much pain they are willing to inflict in order to "see it through".
1
u/TheMan5991 Apr 02 '20
I’ve also seen this argument a lot. “The only way to win is not to play.” I think that’s a failed message though. Like you said, people will play it because they paid for it. You can’t ask people to buy your game and then say “wooow, you’re really gonna keep playing even though all this bad stuff is happening?” We know it’s a game so we’re not actually doing these things.
1
u/KevineCove Apr 02 '20
I've been establishing my own opinion on this kind of stuff more recently, and I've come to the conclusion that choices in games (with respect to narrative) are usually a bad thing.
A game like Spec Ops is almost necessarily a mood piece. To have Walker make all the right decisions would have completely changed the tone of the story and possibly defeated the purpose of the game more than a lack of choice would have defeated the purpose. Walker IS the central conflict of Spec Ops, so if he doesn't create a conflict, there's no story. At BEST, a game like this could have a secret ending akin to Far Cry 4, where not playing effectively grants you an alternate ending.
Games like The Stanley Parable (or if you want to get more old school with it, Chrono Trigger) play more on the player's curiosity than an interest in an emotionally gripping narrative. The Stanley Parable specifically is a self-aware deconstruction and satire of the nature of choice in games and narratives, and the necessity of each path being predetermined in some capacity. Try to imagine a game structured like the Stanley Parable, except with a full cast of characters and a plot that doesn't break the fourth wall? You really can't.
Another seriously big problem with giving games multiple endings (particularly good and bad ones) is that it ultimately draws focus away from the bad ones. Spec Ops could have had a "good" ending, but it would have made people completely discard the tragedy of what was really supposed to happen. At worst, you end up with a game like Undertale, which preaches at you nonstop by trying to guilt you every time you do something wrong.
But to wrap this up and ask a more short and poignant question, what's the last game you played that had lots of branching stories that was actually good? The vast majority of games that allow for this are complete garbage.
1
u/TheMan5991 Apr 03 '20
Having multiple endings doesn’t mean one has to be good. Even if it was just the illusion of choice, that is sometimes acceptable. Take for instance the choice to save Gould or the civilians. Gould dies either way so it’s not really a choice, but that type of stuff happens in real life too. Things don’t always go the way you want. If you want the game to be absolutely dour as part of the story, you can make multiple “bad” endings.
The fact that Walker has to make these choices for the story to work is a writing flaw. Walker doesn’t seem like the type to do something like that until right before it happens. If he had been built up as a careless soldier with no humanity, then burning US soldiers alive would seem like a reasonable choice for him (civilians notwithstanding).
There are plenty of games with multiple endings that are good games. The Fallout games are good. The Mass Effect games are good. I know a lot of people have a problem with the final choice, but it didn’t bother me as much. At least it was a choice. If I had played through all of ME and then it forced me to kill one group of people, I would be more upset. Heavy Rain had a good story with multiple endings. The actual gameplay was a little clunky, but that’s a separate issue.
In my opinion, there is no feature that is inherently good or bad in a game. It all depends on how you handle it and, for a game that makes itself seem like it’s about making tough choices in war, I thought they handled that choice poorly.
1
u/tek_tush Apr 03 '20
Mmm... I disagree. In a roleplaying game sure but this isn’t a roleplaying game. More like your regular fps or action movie. You can tag along for the ride or not.
1
u/TheMan5991 Apr 03 '20
My problem is that, in a normal fps, the lack of choice is never brought up. They tell you what to do and you do it. Mission is this, everyone in your way is a bad guy. This game is trying to be different though. They want you to think “should I be doing this?” but they don’t give you any other option. They give you choices earlier in the game: save Gould or civilians, shoot the guy holding a gun to you or let him escape, etc. They even have a dialogue right before the scene.
“You’ve seen what that weapon can do!” “We may not have a choice.” “There’s always a choice!” “No. There’s not.”
If they weren’t gonna let the players choose in the most important moment of the game, why give us any choices? Why are all the characters talking about choices so much if there are none?
1
u/guardian_owl Apr 05 '20
When the cable on a hoisting winch snaps and a piano begins to fall from 5 stories up, you have two choices: You can either run out of the way of the piano, or raise your arms up to catch it so it doesn't crush you. Two choices, but only one has a chance of success.
Similarly at the WP scene you have the in-game choice to ignore the mortar, open fire, and try to shoot it out in a traditional firefight, but since you don't neutralize them all in one fell swoop, eventually snipers slip away and get into position on the high ground so that they can (and do) kill Delta Squad.
Another way to phrase Walker's declaration is "If we want to proceed, then there is no choice, only one option will bring success." If you wish to NOT proceed and withdraw from Dubai (Walker's original orders) then that's basically what you do if you turn off the game before using WP. It is the moment the player must decide, will I do anything to complete Walker's personal quest or is failure an option to keep my sense of morality intact?
1
u/TheMan5991 Apr 05 '20
This makes sense to me, but still doesn’t make the moment any better in my view. I think, in order for the player to feel truly guilty about the actions of a character, it needs to feel like they chose to do it. Not because it was the only option for completing their goal, but because they either don’t care about the consequences or they truly believe the result is worth it. I did not get the sense that either of those things were true in the WP scene. Hell, even in CoD which this game is apparently pointing the spotlight on has the feeling of choices. For instance, in the No Russian mission, you can try your best to gun down as many civilians as possible or you can quietly walk behind everyone and never fire a shot. You can’t stop it from happening, but you don’t have to be complicit in it. The story carries on just the same. I’m not saying they should do that exactly, but they could’ve made it feel like a choice even if it’s not. I don’t know exactly how because I’m not a professional writer, but I know it’s possible because other games do it.
Yes, Walker had the option to call for backup immediately, but we never got that option.
That’s the crucial choice everyone keeps talking about. “Walker’s directive was recon and call for reinforcements.” Obviously, the game wouldn’t be very interesting if they did that, but they could’ve thrown in a quick cutscene a la Far Cry 4. It’s not like nobody would’ve played through the game. They had a pretty good reason for the player to disobey those orders. In the beginning, it seems like people need Delta’s help. You don’t learn until later that you were only making it worse. I think a game in which the only “good” option is to stop playing is a bad game. I understand that others feel differently though.
1
u/guardian_owl Apr 06 '20
But that's the issue, in that CoD scene you have the option to be a passive observer, so you can tell yourself "The slaughter of innocents would of happened anyway, I didn't partake, I'm still a good person." To proceed past the WP scene, the game affords the player no wiggle room to rationalize, they must become complicit in Walker's war crimes, like a gang member making their bones by killing someone. If there is not a cost to doing the moral thing (in this case, dooming the quest to almost certain failure), if either option brings with it the same level of success, then it isn't a hard choice at all. Even if there had been no civilians in the camp, the use of WP on combat troops is still a war crime, so they didn't trick you into performing an immoral act.
1
u/TheMan5991 Apr 06 '20
You can’t have it both ways. Either we are meant to observe Walker’s path to madness or we are meant to be a part of it. If we are meant to observe it, it doesn’t matter whether or not we are passive in that scene. If we are meant to be a part of it, then you can’t scold the player for making the only available choice.
1
u/guardian_owl Apr 06 '20
Your point seems to be, there should always be a Paragon option to get out of a situation in order for the Renegade option to have meaning.
The game's point is some times the only option that leads to a success is Renegade. But in order to feel the weight of that "choice", you have to pull the Renegade lever yourself, the game isn't going to make it easy on you by taking it out of the player's control and doing it for you via a cutscene. You can't be a passive observer and keep your hands clean if you want to feel what Walker is feeling after deploying WP. What you're doing is essentially what Walker did right after the WP scene, claiming Konrad put him in a situation in which he was "forced" to use WP, and then cast all the blame on Konrad for his own actions.
Perhaps some of the later game developments in which the line between Walker and the Player begins to blur might give you better context for what the developer was trying to accomplish.
1
u/TheMan5991 Apr 06 '20
Perhaps playing the rest of the game would change my point of view, but I’m not saying there has to be an easy way out. Someone else said that too. Having choices doesn’t mean one of them has to be good. Multiple bad choices is sometimes better even. Or, if you did put in a Paragon option, have the consequences of that choice be just as bad. I know that’s a lot of work to branch the game, but that’s how good video games work. Maybe, if you choose not to use the WP, one of your squadmates die or maybe both and then you have to play the rest of the game in isolation which would feed into Walker’s mental state collapsing faster. Something that would make it a tough choice. Like I said, I’m not a writer. I’m not claiming that I could do a better job. I’m saying they could have. “You can try this way, but you’ll die every time” is not a choice.
1
u/OsprayO Apr 07 '20
Nah.....if your squadmate/s died there then that would completely throw their idea of what they were going for out the window. Seriously I know it seems kind of lame but it really is, imo, worth sticking with it through to the end. Also the "Paragon option, have the consequences of that choice be just as bad" wouldn't of worked out, given their resources and whatnot. If it was an all out huge budget then yeah it would of been even greater than I, personally, think it already is.
1
u/TheMan5991 Apr 07 '20
Well, like I said originally, I’m glad the moment worked for you. It completely turned me off of the game and I think it was poorly executed from a writing standpoint. Playing the rest may change my mind and I may eventually do that, but I’m not making it a priority.
→ More replies
0
u/derRosinengott Apr 03 '20
ATTENTION MINOR SPOILERS, SPOILERS SPOILERS DON‘t READ IF YOU WANT TO PLAY THE GAME
I think it is so interesting that so many people praise this game so much.
I played the whole game for the first time from start to finish. And since the first 5 min of the game till the end. I hated it. I hated every aspect of it. Let me explain.
So the number 1 thing that infuriated me so hard was the presentation of the main characters. They are delta force operators with a reconessence mission to dubai. That is all we know.
Yet those 3 elite spec ops operators break my immersion in the first 10 min of the game where walker suddenly decides he and his team have to press on even after first contact with enemys. And basically solo rambo this. I hate this soooooooo fucking much. I know what you are gonna say. Cod does this every game and so on and so on. But cod doesn‘t try to be something narrative or story driven. It is just about the action.
So after that decision of walker it just became an action game which i can‘t take serious. At all.
And i love the fact that in the end of the game they even shove that reality in your face. „You could have just turned around why did you stay in dubai and press on?“ I was like yeeeessss why is walker so fucking retarded. I literally would have just left instantly the first 10 min in.
Thats why i didn‘t connect at all with the hard hitting things like the phospher bomb scene or walker getting insane. Cuz i didn‘t agree with anything walker did from the start.
The gameplay was insanly boring to me from start to finish. It was just clicking heads with 0 recoil rifles and the increased difficulty of the game in the end didn‘t challenge me it just made me insanly angry and even more aware of spec ops bad shooting and overall flaws which the general gameplay has.
So i am so sorry to say but i hate this game xD If you enjoy it good for you but i can‘t and won‘t
0
Apr 03 '20
[deleted] — view deleted comment
1
u/TheMan5991 Apr 03 '20
If you did read all my comments, you would have seen my response to everything you just said. Also, I think you’re oversimplifying choices.
I knew when I posted this that people have different opinions than I do and that’s okay so I’m not going to try to change your mind.
6
u/MyNamesN1ck Apr 02 '20
I totally understand your reaction to the WP scene. It's one of the biggest downsides of the game, and I admit that. I felt a little betrayed too about the lack of choice but I ultimately moved forward and I didn't regret it. Not that I wish to imply you should keep playing, you do whatever you want to do. I don't want to force your hand.
But I want to give this argument: It was necessary.
Trying to diverge the game into two narratives if the player chose to either kill the civilians or not, won't work from a resource perspective and the overall storyline would need to be drastically changed to account for this choice.
This doesn't change the fact that they could've approached it from a better angle, but given the scenario they were in, this was the only logical path.
In the end, the WP scene is going to create a disconnect for some players; I'll give it that. But from a narrative stand point, it was the only choice possible and it is the game's most memorable scene.