Spec Ops: The Line

[jonamok]

People liking the game and saying how much they liked equals 'hype' apparently. Other people's appreciation of something is not offered up as a guarentee that you'll feel the same way.

It was reviewed (to my recollection) by those who'd played it, as a great shooter with a mature and powerful story. Perhaps 'hype' was too strong, but however you frame it, for me it was only pretty good mechanically, and a bit of a let down from a storytelling perspective. I understand what it was trying to do, and applaud the idea, but the execution was lacking.

But of course, that's just my opinion, shared on a forum for sharing opinions. Self-evidently nobody is wrong here. I'm sorry I didn't enjoy it as much as others on here (yourself included presumably).

[squirtle]

This is £2.99 on the 360 on Live at the moment. If you haven't played it, it's a steal at that price.

[Varsity]

This is £2.99 on the 360 on Live at the moment. If you haven't played it, it's a steal at that price.

Picked this up the other day while randomly looking through games on the store. Surprised it's that low, hardly anything on the store ever goes that low. Quite enjoying it so far but it's nothing really special in my eyes at the moment. My housemates keep telling me to stick with it but I'm now on chapter 6 and it hasn't really picked up yet.

Will continue anyway just for OCD completion sake.

[feltmonkey]

Definitely keep going.

[Varsity]

Reached the first "moral choice." Shit just got real, still too easy though.

Too many cases of enemies almost running like a train into gunfire.

[PK]

I think after a while this becomes more of a commentary on action games than an actual game. I think - but I'm not sure - that the enemies running into your gunfire are a deliberate choice to exaggerate the unrealistic and callous nature of military-themed shooters. A lot of people in this thread (and elsewhere) are convinced that this is the case but I've never been fully convinced either way.

It may, of course, just be a bad military-themed shooter with a tacked-on moral aspect!

[Varsity]

I think after a while this becomes more of a commentary on action games than an actual game. I think - but I'm not sure - that the enemies running into your gunfire are a deliberate choice to exaggerate the unrealistic and callous nature of military-themed shooters. A lot of people in this thread (and elsewhere) are convinced that this is the case but I've never been fully convinced either way.

It may, of course, just be a bad military-themed shooter with a tacked-on moral aspect!

To be fair I haven't played many shooters recently, but thinking back, everything COD is pretty much that, just without the story element. It's an odd one, story is normally what gets me playing over everything else. I really want to get involved and enjoy but it just seems too, I don't know what the word is. The characters are too shallow.

The first moral choice made me think I should care for my actions but then I realised, I know literally nothing about the characters so just chose the narcissistic evil option. As I said though, have real OCD with not finishing stuff and it's relatively easy 1000. Might enjoy it more when I get some more playtime rather than just an hour before work ^^

[KriessG]

Reached the first "moral choice." Shit just got real, still too easy though.

Too many cases of enemies almost running like a train into gunfire.

What difficulty you on, normal I assume?

[RubberJohnny]

I don't know why people think this is a bad military shooter. I played this and Medal of Honor, which often has the opposite forum opinion of being underrated.

Experience in Medal of Honor - walk forwards, hit invisible wall until someone says something, hit another invisible wall until scripted thing occurs, get to a bunker, wait until scripted call in of a Predator missile occurs (you'll see a lot of Predator missiles called in on bunkers, it's the climax of basically all missions). There's the bog standard rail shooter bit and the simon says stealth mission nicked from CoD4, but that's it. People say they like the spectacle, the excitement of these things, but it's nowhere to be found, you've seen the first twenty minutes, you've seen it all. All the guns feel and play the same. There's one enemy. All the levels look alike. Come across a metal door? Wait for your buddies to open it, no enemies on the other side. Wooden door? Kick it open in slowmo and shoot the guys behind, it's so predictable - and all the examples of running up against script triggers undermine its attempts to be cinematic. I'd like to believe my experience is atypical - surely everyone else isn't running into these invisible walls and waiting for NPCs to do things and thinking this is good? But then I realised there's so little freedom in the game that it is the experience that the average player gets.

Whereas Spec Ops is far more interesting, I can't think of a single invisible wall or waiting for NPC section. The shifting sands, although scripted, provide surprising moments that are far more cinematic than Predator missiles as the ground gives way underneath you and drops you into a luxury hotel. You travel through beautiful and diverse locations, which actually tie into the plot the game is telling and its characters mental states - when characters are freaking out in the aftermath of the white phospherous they're in claustrophic concrete trenches spiked with jagged rebar. The experience is more varied and mixed up even right near the end by weapons that actually feel and play differently and the introduction of new enemy types. Even the on rails bits are used for spectacle (collapsing the penthouse on a skyscraper) and have importance to the story.

Medal of Honor feels like something several hundred graduates threw together for a corporate directive - Spec Ops feels like people who are at the top of their game in art, level design, etc and understand how to actually use their medium.

[Talvalin]

At the risk of being all "You've not played Halo properly until you play it on Legendary", I wonder if people complaining about it being a poor shooter having been playing it on a lower difficulty for the story. Don't get me wrong, that's absolutely fine but I played on Suicide Mission difficulty (because I'm an idiot) and you can't just hide behind cover and shoot people running at you. The enemies flank you, chuck grenades to flush you out of cover, or just swamp you.

Each encounter played out differently each time, even when doing exactly the same thing (or as close as possible). This is good, since retrying is less tedious, but also frustrating as you cannot guarantee enemy responses so as to map out how to get through the encounter. It's been a couple of years since I played it though, so this may be rose-tinted spectacles in action.

That said, whilst it was mostly enjoyable at that difficulty some of the spikes towards the end of the game were a little crappy. I suspect FUBAR is going to be a grind if I ever attempt it.

[Varsity]

I'm playing on Suicide Mission difficulty, apart from maybe one or two firefights where I had slight trouble for a go or two, nothing has been a real test. Most engagements seem to be solved by running back and forth between bits of cover avoiding grenades, popping out and taking a couple of shots and using your squad to pick people off.

Haven't really seen anyone try and flank properly yet to be fair as like I said above the majority of enemies tend to run into the area in a straight line.

[Kryptonian]

This is £2.99 on the 360 Store if anyone was looking for a reason to pick it up.

[Omizzay]

Crazy apocalyptic sandstorm in Dubai today. Really reminded me of this game.

[Parappa]

My mate just sent me a video of that from his balcony on JLT and it reminded me of Spec Ops as well!

[Unofficial Who]

I just finished playing the PC version, it's amazing how good this game still looks. It's possibly the best cover shooter I've played.

Which is sort of ironic given the narrative thrust of the game.

[Smitty]

 

[krenzler]

Another excellent in depth look by Raycevick.

 

 

[Smitty]

 

http://deadendthrills.com/gallery/?gid=65#/

[Smitty]

Looking back through the thread.

 

I really do think this is a landmark title for game narrative. 

[dreamylittledream]

1 minute ago, Smitty said:

Looking back through the thread.

 

I really do think this is a landmark title for game narrative. 

 

Agreed but in some ways also evidence of how little we've progressed since

[Smitty]

On 1/3/2013 at 16:25, Smitty said:

Re the menu screen changing:

Hidden Content

 

Someone really cared about this. 

[Smitty]

23 minutes ago, dreamylittledream said:

 

Agreed but in some ways also evidence of how little we've progressed since

 

Yeah. I haven't played anything like it before or since.

 

The lack of wider appreciation for it is criminal. 

[Smitty]

On 7/23/2017 at 17:31, krenzler said:

Another excellent in depth look by Raycevick.

 

 

 

Don't watch this if you haven't completed the game. 

 

---------------------

 

That was very good. God, I love this game. 

Edited July 25, 2017 by Smitty
updated

[Doomguy]

Loved this game. Actually went through it on all difficulties because it was that much fun. 

 

Will they ever make another? different setting etc? seems like the situation is similar to that of sleeping Dogs where they made a sublime game but after everything went dark on a sequel. 

[Spacehost]

Here’s a video on the AI of Spec Ops.

 

 

[Simmy]

The mental thing about this game is that the Developer, Yager, seems to have gone completely dark ever since Spec Ops.

 

They got the Dead Island sequel taken away from them, they put out a mediocre F2P game Dreadnought and that's it

 

What a waste of talent, really.

[K]

They went completely dark beforehand as well. They've been around for nearly twenty years, but they've only ever released three games IIRC. God knows how they keep the lights on given that they've never really had a hit game.

[Simmy]

25 minutes ago, K said:

They went completely dark beforehand as well. They've been around for nearly twenty years, but they've only ever released three games IIRC. God knows how they keep the lights on given that they've never really had a hit game.

 

Was wondering the same. They're just down the road from me and they haven't been hiring at all (minus reception/admin work) for ages.

 

Maybe they make decent money from cosmetics at the moment? But I can't see it...

[Mawdlin]

Some devs, and I suspect Yager is one of them, survive on projects which are funded by big publishers but never see the light of day. It's never meant to be that way but if the dev hits a particular milestone then they still get their payment.

 

I once met Timo and a few of his crew back in the day and they are passionate guys with lots of talent. I suspect a few of their (often secret) projects got sidelined and probably not due to any fault of their own.

[Simmy]

Just now, Mawdlin said:

Some devs, and I suspect Yager is one of them, survive on projects which are funded by big publishers but never see the light of day. It's never meant to be that way but if the dev hits a particular milestone then they still get their payment.

 

I once met Timo and a few of his crew back in the day and they are passionate guys with lots of talent. I suspect a few of their (often secret) projects got sidelined and probably not due to any fault of their own.

 

Oh yeah I can imagine. I just mean it from a selfish point of view, really - I want to play games by them. Dreadnought doesn't interest me at all unfortunately but I know they have it in them to meet the heights of Spec Ops again - and I want to play it!