This has to be the only shooter I was actively excited to play aside from Bioshock Infinite in a very long time. Now that I think about it both games actually have a lot in common, in that their greatness is essentially not derived from their gameplay but from their narrative and the thought that went into building game's overall theme.
Spec Ops: The Line is a third person shooter that was developed by the German studio Yager Development and published by 2K Games in 2012. Its available on the PC (On both Windows and OS X) as well as the PS3 and Xbox 360. I personally got this game quite late having just played this game a few months ago thanks to a recent humble bundle, I can safely say that the game holds up really well so don't let its age deter you from getting it. Buying the game may be a bit of a hassle for some people though, especially if you live in the Middle East since the game is banned in the region. Before the game even came out the UAE government had banned previews of the game in the region and came to agreements with both digital vendors and real stores to not sell the game in the region. I personally wasn't surprised when I found out since I have very low expectations for Arab governments but I still can't get my head around it. The reason cited by the UAE government for banning the game was that it showed Dubai in a negative light by showing it in a state of destruction. Lets ignore the fact that movies and videogames pick their settings due to their significance in real life and being featured in either is essentially a huge compliment and homage to you since the people behind the game recognize that your city is well known. I'd just like to point out Dubai has been used as the setting for tons of movies prior to this coming out, with Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocal being the most prominent example I can really right now, and they never experience any such resistance from the UAE government for their depiction. I guess the UAE government is just full of old people afraid of videogames.
This might take my geek level up in the eyes of some people, but the only reason I got the game was because I heard that it was based on the book "Heart of Darkness" by Joseph Conrad and I'm a huge fan of the book. The same book was used by the way was used as the basis for the movie "Apocalypse Now". My reaction wasn't all happiness though, I had a bit of a bi-polar response being very happy that its based on something I like but also worried that its going to be boring since I know the source material and I'm won't be surprised by anything in the game. I don't want to delve into the narrative first though since its the most complex and juicy part and I'd rather save it for later.
Instead I'm going to be starting with the game mechanics, you know, the parts of the game that make it a game. The shooting, the crouching, the hiding behind chest high walls kind of stuff. This part of the game has to be the weakest aspect in my opinion, I'm not calling it bad because it isn't bad, it is just the weakest of all the parts that make this game a whole. There is nothing new or innovative when it comes to the combat mechanics in the game and anyone that played a shooter before will not only be able to guess all the various combat situation in the game but also all the various enemy types and weapons you will able to use. Its put together is a largely competent way however, everything works the way it should and it feels smooth playing the game. You shouldn't be experiencing any clipping through walls or game breaking glitches as the game is way more polished than that. The only slight difference in this game might be that you have two AI squad mates that can be ordered around during the fighting or left to their own devices who are there to help you, although in some circumstances they might lead to your death due to the AI making a dumb move. But even this isn't that unique. As a whole, the combat aspect of the game is put together pretty competently you aren't going to be experiencing any unintended frustration from it, well, the 'take cover' command might frustrate you a bit since I felt it was a bit clunky and it longer than I would have liked on a few occasions for the game to register that I wanted to take cover or get out of cover.
Now, the narrative is something that I was a fan of due to be liking the source material but that doesn't mean that I was one percent behind all the choices that were made. The fact that all the civilians in Dubai speak Persian doesn't make any sense as the largest cultural group in Dubai are South Asians and not Persians was quite annoying for me. There some rather obtuse creative choices when it came to cut scenes with certain colours being associated with certain states of mind which is only mentioned by the head of development in press interviews he did making it useless since I don't think most players would notice it. This is aside from the fact that there is some over analysis and undeserved patting on the back such as having all the scenes of war crimes in the game accompanied by images with their eyes blotted out being claimed as unique when its a pretty standard symbol across all human history and within multiple mediums of expressions. Also, the references to "Heart of Darkness" were very heavy handed, such as main protagonist behind named Joe Konrad, at times and that struck me as a bit lazy. This last one wasn't a massive annoyance thought since it would be dumb of me to expect a large divergence since the developers strove to base the game on "Heart of Darkness". For the most part, its largely the same with the overall theme of the story focusing on the exploration of the concept of madness. The premise is also near identical with the story following an individual sent to retrieve a mentor of theirs from a foreign setting as they had gone missing. From there we find out the mentor figure has gone rouge and is behaving in a way deemed inappropriate by his former superiors and country. It was a strong story in the book and strong one here. What makes it great though was the fact that the developers used aspects that are exclusive to videogames to really drive the point home for the player and gives them a much stronger sense of ownership over the experience compared to the book and movie (Apocalypse Now).
It is this use of the medium and manipulation of the player that made the game great for me. There are multiple example that I could point out here, but if I do so this section would simply be spoiler after spoiler. So, I'm going to speak generally of the matter which is going to end up causing this section to be a lot shorter than I would like it to be. The first type of example would be asking the player to take action without giving them full knowledge of the situation with some of these choice then resulting in the player committing a war crime. This not only might cause people to be surprised by what just happened, but for some people it might result in abject anger at what they were tricked into doing. The second would be how your deaths due to being the garbage player that you are integrated into the game as false realities with certain events not happening again the second time you are running through an area as the game load back into a previous check point. The final example would the game just becoming more and more hostile towards you as it progresses with loading screens going from standard to video game stuff with tutorial information to very clear statements that question your morality and integrity and pose some very large questions about the entire videogame industry. These major examples are only the tip of the iceberg as well. There is a ton of nuance to the design of the game with a myriad of tiny things here and there that you won't even notice the first time through (Well, I didn't so I assume you won't either) that give the game a much deeper strength of character and just demonstrates the level of care that went into making this game.
Spec Ops: The Line gets a little to much praise for my liking, but that doesn't and didn't stop me from realizing how great of a game it is and really enjoying myself as I went through it. There is a bit to much flattery thrown at the game with it being called unique when it really isn't that unique even within the videogame industry. This wasn't the first time civilians are killed in a videogame, or the first time Americans as cast as the enemy and it isn't the first time war crimes are acknowledged. What is unique though is the massive effort put in to give the player a strong sense of ownership over the matter that is complemented by a development philosophy that ensured even the tiniest of details in the background pushed that agenda forward. Spec Ops might be a competently designed shooter at best and I may think that people see it as having more artistic value than I do, but that doesn't stop it from being a great overall game with a strong narrative and commitment to its theme. That alone sets it apart from most games in its genre and the reason that I recommend that you play this it sooner rather than later.
This might take my geek level up in the eyes of some people, but the only reason I got the game was because I heard that it was based on the book "Heart of Darkness" by Joseph Conrad and I'm a huge fan of the book. The same book was used by the way was used as the basis for the movie "Apocalypse Now". My reaction wasn't all happiness though, I had a bit of a bi-polar response being very happy that its based on something I like but also worried that its going to be boring since I know the source material and I'm won't be surprised by anything in the game. I don't want to delve into the narrative first though since its the most complex and juicy part and I'd rather save it for later.
Instead I'm going to be starting with the game mechanics, you know, the parts of the game that make it a game. The shooting, the crouching, the hiding behind chest high walls kind of stuff. This part of the game has to be the weakest aspect in my opinion, I'm not calling it bad because it isn't bad, it is just the weakest of all the parts that make this game a whole. There is nothing new or innovative when it comes to the combat mechanics in the game and anyone that played a shooter before will not only be able to guess all the various combat situation in the game but also all the various enemy types and weapons you will able to use. Its put together is a largely competent way however, everything works the way it should and it feels smooth playing the game. You shouldn't be experiencing any clipping through walls or game breaking glitches as the game is way more polished than that. The only slight difference in this game might be that you have two AI squad mates that can be ordered around during the fighting or left to their own devices who are there to help you, although in some circumstances they might lead to your death due to the AI making a dumb move. But even this isn't that unique. As a whole, the combat aspect of the game is put together pretty competently you aren't going to be experiencing any unintended frustration from it, well, the 'take cover' command might frustrate you a bit since I felt it was a bit clunky and it longer than I would have liked on a few occasions for the game to register that I wanted to take cover or get out of cover.
It is this use of the medium and manipulation of the player that made the game great for me. There are multiple example that I could point out here, but if I do so this section would simply be spoiler after spoiler. So, I'm going to speak generally of the matter which is going to end up causing this section to be a lot shorter than I would like it to be. The first type of example would be asking the player to take action without giving them full knowledge of the situation with some of these choice then resulting in the player committing a war crime. This not only might cause people to be surprised by what just happened, but for some people it might result in abject anger at what they were tricked into doing. The second would be how your deaths due to being the garbage player that you are integrated into the game as false realities with certain events not happening again the second time you are running through an area as the game load back into a previous check point. The final example would the game just becoming more and more hostile towards you as it progresses with loading screens going from standard to video game stuff with tutorial information to very clear statements that question your morality and integrity and pose some very large questions about the entire videogame industry. These major examples are only the tip of the iceberg as well. There is a ton of nuance to the design of the game with a myriad of tiny things here and there that you won't even notice the first time through (Well, I didn't so I assume you won't either) that give the game a much deeper strength of character and just demonstrates the level of care that went into making this game.
Spec Ops: The Line gets a little to much praise for my liking, but that doesn't and didn't stop me from realizing how great of a game it is and really enjoying myself as I went through it. There is a bit to much flattery thrown at the game with it being called unique when it really isn't that unique even within the videogame industry. This wasn't the first time civilians are killed in a videogame, or the first time Americans as cast as the enemy and it isn't the first time war crimes are acknowledged. What is unique though is the massive effort put in to give the player a strong sense of ownership over the matter that is complemented by a development philosophy that ensured even the tiniest of details in the background pushed that agenda forward. Spec Ops might be a competently designed shooter at best and I may think that people see it as having more artistic value than I do, but that doesn't stop it from being a great overall game with a strong narrative and commitment to its theme. That alone sets it apart from most games in its genre and the reason that I recommend that you play this it sooner rather than later.
No comments:
Post a Comment