Spec Ops: The Line

[Smitty]

Also, and this has been bugging me -

If the only thing people are taking away from the second WP scene is that it's sad that Walker accidentally killed loads of civvies, I would question what thinking is going on in people's minds.

Er, what about all the soldiers you killed for no real reason? What about the incredible suffering they went through before they died?

Are people telling me they walked through that scene of utter devastation, an absolutely hellish scene with burnt husks cowering in APCs and the bottom of the fountain, moaning men scrabbling in the dirt, staggering figures dying in front of you, anguished cries and moans of suffering and burning flesh filling the air and ONLY got moved by the experience when they got to the civvies? The horrible deaths of these men are meaningless, but dead civvies is an unimaginable tragedy?

The guy with the burnt black face sitting stunned against the wall who simply asks ''why?'' before expiring - some of you waltzed through all of this thinking 'this is the just the cost of doing business'?

Excuse me whilst I baulk.

I said it before - everyone suffers. Yes, the scene shows that there are unintended consequences to your actions. But surely the biggest takeaway is that you are willing to unleash ferocious violence towards some mythical moral resolution.

You're prepared to do terrible things, when you don't even know what is going on.

[Looper]

A point about the language the civilians speak:

They all speak Farsai, not Arabic. Is that symptomatic of Walker's PDST from whatever happened in Kabul, which in turn implies he is mad from the get-go?

[Smitty]

A point about the language the civilians speak:

They all speak Farsai, not Arabic. Is that symptomatic of Walker's PDST from whatever happened in Kabul, which in turn implies he is mad from the get-go?

I forgot about Kabul. It's fair to say that Walker may be suffering from PDST already. He doesn't like to talk about Kabul, he has a debt to Konrad for doing something there.

I guess he could be 'mad' in some sense from the beginning. He only seems to suffer a sharp disconnect from reality after the WP scene though, where he starts imagining Konrad is taunting him.

See? It's all open to interpretation.

But it's all in stark contrast to most shooters in which there's a clear story, clear objectives, clear villians and clear good guys. There's an evil plot you have to stop by killing a lot of people.

The Line is all about throwing that all up in the air. It takes away the sanctity of violence because it's all in the pursuit of moral rectitude.

Also, I read somewhere a theory that a lot of the people left behind were the servant/service class (the game apparently says this at some point), and that is largely made of people from outside Dubai. People whose language might be Farsai.

[user removed]

To Nashwan and Pedro

Merely by playing the game you are implicated, you don’t need to have had a choice within the game. That you are actually playing this for pleasure is one of the points they are trying to make.

This is the crux of the narrative I think, not only is it a damning implication of the glory of war as a real life sentiment, but also the glorification of war via computer games and the ease in which we accept the atrocities we commit in games like CoD or MoH.

I do think, reading others interpretation of the WP scene end that it could probably have had more impact if you were less obviously funnelled into this course of action. But I, personally, didn't expect the end result of that scene and was happily marking and firing on targets right up until the last couple of shots.

You're already presented with the horror of WP before this scene, you know the pain you'll inflict on the soldiers, but at this point they're the enemy so it's just desserts etc. Added to the overarching feeling, it's just a computer game. So when Smitty says what about the soldiers, at that point, they're expendable and almost expected to suffer. It's only the end punch that reaches out to the player and says, you're a fucking monster, you not them.

[Trigg]

Also, and this has been bugging me -

If the only thing people are taking away from the second WP scene is that it's sad that Walker accidentally killed loads of civvies, I would question what thinking is going on in people's minds.

Er, what about all the soldiers you killed for no real reason? What about the incredible suffering they went through before they died?

Are people telling me they walked through that scene of utter devastation, an absolutely hellish scene with burnt husks cowering in APCs and the bottom of the fountain, moaning men scrabbling in the dirt and burning flesh filling the air and ONLY got moved by the experience when they got to the civvies? The horrible deaths of these men are meaningless, but dead civvies is an unimaginable tragedy?

The guy with the burnt black face sitting stunned against the wall who simply asks ''why?'' before expiring - some of you waltzed through all of this thinking 'this is the just the cost of doing business'?

Excuse me whilst I baulk.

I said it before - everyone suffers. Yes, the scene shows that there are unintended consequences to your actions. But surely the biggest takeaway is that you are willing to unleash ferocious violence towards some mythical moral resolution.

You're prepared to do terrible things, when you don't even know what is going on.

I didn't bat an eyelid if I'm honest.

[MrHendo]

Much the same as i do for real life soldiers, I see death on the battlefield as fair game - you go to fight to potentially die for your cause or country.

[user removed]

True that, but using chemical agents, especially those designed to burn is banned against civilian targets and even questioned heavily when used against military. You'd genuinely have to be fucked up to use it against humans. The joys of moderen warfare.

[user removed]

Also, to put this in context, I watched Platoon for the first time no more than 4 days before playing and completing Spec Ops. Perhaps making me somewhat hyper sensitive to the topics at hand!

[Smitty]

-snipped post-

If people are reading this thread who haven't played the game, this is an obvious spoiler.

[Distinct muttering]

Lots of spoilers flying around now which could reduce the impact of some of the later scenes for people playing it for the first time.

[Smitty]

When you're walking through the carnage, Lugo says 'this...this was too much'. In response Walker says 'stop talking'.

It's a terrible thing you've just done. Lugo knows it. Walker knows it too, but denies it.

And that's BEFORE the civvies.

[Smitty]

I didn't bat an eyelid if I'm honest.

Well I guess that shows why we even have a game like The Line. Gamers have become desensitised to violence, even depictions of extreme suffering.

That scene has got maimed men crawling around, some of whom breath their last breath right in front of you. It's got tonnes of burned husks splayed in horrible positions - trying to get away from the all consuming fire, to protect themselves.

The walk is punctuated by moaning and cries of pain.

There's even a guy calling out for help, sobbing, saying that he is trapped, he can't feel his legs. 'Oh god' he cries.

None of this moved you?

I found it the single best evocation of war i've ever seen in a game. Suffering and misery.

[user removed]

If people are reading this thread who haven't played the game, this is an obvious spoiler.

Sorry, spoilered, wasnt thinking, please remove the quote.

[Trigg]

Well I guess that shows why we even have a game like The Line. Gamers have become desensitised to violence, even depictions of extreme suffering.

That scene has got maimed men crawling around, some of whom breath their last breath right in front of you. It's got tonnes of burned husks splayed in horrible positions - trying to get away from the all consuming fire, to protect themselves.

The walk is punctuated by moaning and cries of pain.

There's even a guy calling out for help, sobbing, saying that he is trapped, he can't feel his legs. 'Oh god' he cries.

None of this moved you?

I found it the single best evocation of war i've ever seen in a game. Suffering and misery.

In all honestly, not really no.

But then I wasn't particularly enjoying the game and I'd become disinterested. I was only playing through because of the positive comments in this thread and wanting to get it over and done with. I can't even remember any imagery from that section with the exception of a burnt woman holding a baby?

I don't think I'm desensitised to violence at all though, I've been playing Sleeping Dogs and thats been more emotive for me due to having an investment in the story as well as enjoying the game as a game. The latter of which I think Spec Ops suffered with which is probably why I'm less than enthused with the whole package.

[CarloOos]

I genuinely can't empathise with criticisms of the gameplay, which has seemingly become something of an accepted standard to trot out in all discussion of the game. The mechanics are rock-solid and as a cover-based shooter the level design offers more genuine tactical freedom than pretty much anything since Gears of War 1, barring the Uncharted series with its added verticality. I did play it on Hard though (which was genuinely tough), which probably made this more apparent.

[Flub]

Someone has made a playlist for the soundtrack on Spotify Spec Ops The Line

[Radish]

Smitty:

Didn't they use chemical warfare prior to that scene? There's a section where one of your squad members (I can't remember which) says "what's that smell?" and then you see the white phosphorus killing, I think, civilians. I'm not saying that means the soldiers deserved it (having used it themselves) but a) it takes away from the impact of the second scene because we've already seen it and b) to be fair, they did use it themselves. If I murder someone I'd be a bit of a hypocrite to complain about someone trying to do the same thing to me, especially if it's in self defence.

As gamers we probably are generally desensitized but so what? This would hardly be the first game to point that out or abuse that fact in some way. I remember playing a flash based game which puts you in control of a sniper rifle looking at a building ,with a man standing in front of it. There isn't a game or a reason for it, it's purely a way of testing to see how long it takes you to shoot a stranger that's done nothing to you. I find that to be a far more succinct and interesting idea than anything in Spec Ops.

And actually, to go back to TWD it just occurred to me that I can't be that desensitized to violence otherwise I wouldn't have been effected so strongly by it. But then, perhaps that's because it goes to a lot more effort to build relationships than Spec Ops does, which is perhaps the point Spec Ops is trying to make - killing strangers.

I don't think I really have a specific point to make, I'm just rambling now

[redman]

should be getting this tomorrow (bought from England last week but once it hits Ireland, they see if anyone else wants it first)

Anyway, just wondering should I be playing this on hard or is normal a good enough challenge?

[Rudi von Starnberg]

Hard isn't the top difficulty and if you're at all used to shooters you'll probably find it the best-pitched difficulty level. I started on normal and switched to hard a little way into the game, and I'm usually not one to go for the higher difficulty levels for the sake of it. Hard felt just right.

[redman]

cool, thanks

[Yewone]

I'd argue to stick with normal, it's best if the game flows nicely rather than potentially getting stuck and having to replay certain checkpoints multiple times.. Doing so just gets in the way of the story.

[Colonel Panic]

I did it on hard and it suffers from the occasional annoying bottleneck that will have you cursing at the screen, but nothing too major.

[Rudi von Starnberg]

I'd argue to stick with normal, it's best if the game flows nicely rather than potentially getting stuck and having to replay certain checkpoints multiple times.. Doing so just gets in the way of the story.

This is also a good point, in spite of what I said.

[robdood]

This is currently £4.99 on Steam if anyone resisted it during the winter sale.

[Hexx]

Oh dear me did a scene at the Gate.

I'm going to hell

Chapter 7 question

What happens if you save Gould?

[Colonel Panic]

He dies anyway

[Looper]

The Gould bit was a good example of the game being a bit fluid:

I went to save the civilians, then changed my mind - the game allowed me to kill the dude who was choking out Gould and play it like I'd let Lugo kill him.

[Monkichi 3.0]

I completed this over the weekend. One thing that struck me and which has been touched upon in the thread but:

The catalyst is a natural disaster. There was no ideological goal, no great plan or enemy, it's just a natural disaster. The 33rd go in as a rescue team, not to fight an enemy. The CIA initially goes in to rescue people. Your team goes in to rescue people. There is no enemy. Most of your battles are actually initiated by you. You walk into an area, there are troops usually talking about something mundane. The troops aren't gathered around discussing how they will rule Dubai or kill everyone, they are generally chatting about mundane things. All indications are that you should stop doing what you're doing. Your own squad reminds you that you're only there as a rescue team.

I was initially confused in my first playthrough because I was looking for an enemy. "So who are the bad guys?" I'd keep asking, never really pausing to consider that there may be no bad guys as such. The mission was clear, yet because you're armed you assume you should be taking down a big bad guy. It's the assumption that you're there as a hero that causes a lot of the violence, the assumption that someone needs to be killed for things to get better. I think the same applies for the 33rd. They lost sight that this was a natural disaster, a blameless tragedy. The insistence on being the hero, on there being a bigger picture, of there being a payoff if you continue, that's what gets everyone killed. As others have pointed out, if you character had turned back in the many chances he has then it would have been over. Yet we keep going on, because despite all evidence to the contrary, we're playing the hero and we're trying to get to the last chapter where everything will be made clear, despite the game constantly telling you there is no prize at the end, there is no payoff. Yet I kept going.

[Plopboy]

I've just finished this and I did enjoy it in a thought provoking way. One thing it did remind me of and I don't know if this has been mentioned, but it reminded me of

The Milgram experiment http://en.wikipedia....gram_experiment

The Milgram experiment on obedience to authority figures was a series of notable social psychologyexperiments conducted by Yale UniversitypsychologistStanley Milgram, which measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience. Milgram first described his research in 1963 in an article published in theJournal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,^[1] and later discussed his findings in greater depth in his 1974 book, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View.^[2]

Where the game is the authority figure telling you what to do and you, the player, are the participant. I really like the idea that the real chioce you do have is not to play the game, but yet I still carried on to the end.

spoilered just in case it gives anything away.

[DocG]

Just started this on PC, using a 360 pad. The Invert Look option doesn't seem to do anything. Is there some incantation to get the right stick inverted? I'm utterly spack handed with up-is-up controls.