B-But the game never gives you a choice

>B-But the game never gives you a choice

Not the point, brainlet

My choice is to stop playing this mediocre shooter

...

Was the point to have aweful shooting with only the occasional interesting enviromental mechanic? Or was it to have no enemy variety so every non story encounter feels identical?

That's the good choise tho.

>The game tries to guilt me because the game forced me into killing nonexistent people who I have literally no reason to empathize with since they aren't presented in any sort of way which is relatable or interesting, they may as well be cockroaches, in an extremely merciful way which makes most forms of death seem torturous by comparison
Honestly, it's just absolutely pathetic. Anyone who is 'horrified by war' is a fucking normie, let alone from a fucking bombing. The developers are really uncreative if that's the most shocking and traumatic experience they could come up with.

Why would I feel bad for doing something that is unavoidable

Did you want the life story of every innocent civilian you murdered?

It's call of duty, but eventually the protag thinks he is the bad guy

I had to do it, it wasnt my fault, it was all because of konrad

I don't empathize with people who quite literally have no souls. The death of a complete and total stranger cannot be moving or intriguing. It's as stupid as pretending it's sad when a cow goes to the slaughterhouse or when a dog dies.

Not only is it a video game with "people" they railroad you into killing (meaning it's not your decision, and thus you hold no responsibility for their deaths or have any reason to feel guilt), but because they aren't characters, they quite literally AREN'T PEOPLE. They are no different from other animal species, devoid of all life and all desire to BE alive.

You mean you don't feel bad when someone dies in a movie?

>Not only is it a video game with "people" they railroad you into killing (meaning it's not your decision, and thus you hold no responsibility for their deaths or have any reason to feel guilt), but because they aren't characters, they quite literally AREN'T PEOPLE. They are no different from other animal species, devoid of all life and all desire to BE alive.

Do you not enjoy books or movies because none of the characters are real either?

Except youre the direct cause of those deaths, you can be cold and disregard random deaths, but being the cause of a tragedy is a whole another history in my opinion

How do you know they're innocent without seeing their life story, and how did I murder them if they're nonexistent and the game forces you to do so? Do you also think it's murder when you pluck a dandelion, clean some mold, crush a spider, destroy a protist, or cut the head off a chicken?

I can just tell you're 16 and in the stage where you think you know everything. Life hits hard, snap out of it faggot.

>he chose the good ending

You can try to justify all you want, you still killed all of them and kept going

>Burned alive by fire that can't be put out
>A quick and merciful death

>How do you know they're innocent without seeing their life story, and how did I murder them if they're nonexistent and the game forces you to do so? Do you also think it's murder when you pluck a dandelion, clean some mold, crush a spider, destroy a protist, or cut the head off a chicken?


Sounds like you're trying to defend your shitty actions. Really gets my almonds activating

The difference is that they are actually characters who have stories, personalities, and the narrative justifies feeling empathy for them. But, if a book kills of random strangers just as part of the story (for example, if the protagonist is witness to a scene where a train derails and causes the death of a thousand people), they aren't actually considered "people" for the purposes of literature criticism. They are objects which are used for the purposes of the story, objects which are conveniently killed to complete the surrounding world, and whether they are called human or not is irrelevant because they--one again--have no "soul."

I think he means when the game breaks the fourth wall to give you shit for doing something when it doesn't give you the chance to do anything different.

The only winning move is to not buy garbage FPS trash

woah... deep.

This kind of cynism will take you to a hole filled with your own feces up to your nose, watch out

>But, if a book kills of random strangers just as part of the story (for example, if the protagonist is witness to a scene where a train derails and causes the death of a thousand people) they aren't actually considered "people" for the purposes of literature criticism

Do you actually believe this putrid shit or are you consciously aware of the gaping hole in your thinking?

Spec Ops The Line is my absolute favourite 7/10 game, because it's one of the few games where 'You are too stupid to get it' is a legitimate dismissal of most of its common criticisms

Yeah, I did. Just like I kill gnats that fly in through the open window while I'm at my computer to stop them from assailing the screen. Because why should I care about an entity that doesn't have any legitimate feelings, no desire to be alive, and has no capacity for empathy in itself? The killing of objects in a video game which don't qualify as people since they aren't named characters with dialogue in the narrative is no different from killing a fly. If you feel bad about that, especially when the game railroads you into it--so you don't have any choice--then I'll just call you what you are: a liar.

...

This game had such dumb spikes of difficulty. That part where you fell down and have enemies spawning from every direction for minutes was completely bullshit.

>Spec Ops The Line is my absolute favourite 7/10 game, because it's one of the few games where 'You are too stupid to get it' is a legitimate dismissal of most of its common criticisms

If the shoe fits though, I don't think anyone defends the barebones TPS with like 2 mechanics

faggot

You control your actions, and your sins wont be forgotten

It's a legitimate fact. Just because an entity in a book is referred to as being human doesn't change the fact that it's narrative object. When Bill Sikes kills Nancy, it's sad, somewhat tragic, and establishes Sikes as a murderer because he killed another character--someone who we knew, could empathize with, and who wanted to be alive. But, if a murderer in a story is merely stated to have killed "people" in the past, those individuals who he supposedly killed are in actuality just narrative objects. There is no reason to feel bad for his victims, because they aren't actual entities with feelings or stories, but are objects created simply to establish the background of a legitimate character.

To me this game is more like an experience. I got into it only because Sup Forums told me to with zero idea what to expect. I was sure it was cause of the visuals and setup, and they indeed are pretty amazing. The gameplay was pretty mediocre and at some point felt more like a chore or a method of delivery for the plot. The end though really stunned me and I understood that the it was all somewhat calculated. It's like I had to endure the game to understand the end. I'll probably never replay it, surely not fully, unless I'll be showing it to someone. And even that just so he can "experience" it too. The experience is amazing but it's only good for that one time. I much more enjoyed talking about it then playing it.

Indeed I do, and sins aren't forgotten--but it's not a sin for imaginary objects to "die" in a video game. In fact, the characters who die as a result of the bombing in the game were never alive--not just because they're fictional nobodies with no personality--but because their only appearance is after their death. From the purposes of the story, they are literally just corpses and are not actually losing anything; since you never saw them alive in the first place.

>movie
>>>/neofag/

I don't know what to tell you, it doesn't matter if it's an explicitly fleshed out character or a nameless person on the street, their lives have significance, i shouldn't have to tell you this.

dude.... your a fuckin psycho... kys

You are grasping desperately, trying to justify your actions. The game is by no means a masterpiece, it has many flaws and it is somewhat overrated. But you ae literally failing to understand it's second grade level of philosophy. And by doing that you are the exact type of person that it mocks. I didn't even think someone like that existed and that's why I considered the story heavy handed and a bit forced. But maybe it wasn't heavy handed enough. You obviously didn't understand it

its bad on purpose: the game

>but user, quitting the game is a metaphor for Walker leaving the city behind!
>you were given a choice all along!

>The game is mediocre on purpose
Man these devs are GENIUS

IT WAS MEDIOCRE ON PURPOSE!!

That part wasn't so bad, if you just hang by the bar near where you fall. You get a wall to your back and the deagle there is a 1HSK
Worst part was the cruise liner after the sandstoem hits, late in the game. Heavily armoured SWAT niggers surrounding you around the boat, so you cant move around to avoid the 10 juggernauts that spawn

It's a TPS, actually.

If you guys think Spec Ops: The Line is a good game, then you guys must fucking LOVE Undertale. In comparison, the genocide route in Undertale is something you need to legitimately put effort into doing consciously and against the recommendations of the game which suggests that killing people is wrong. In Spec Ops, the game railroads you and prevents you from making alternative choices, and the bombing of civilians also happens beyond your knowledge. In Undertale, you have to spend a lot of time purposefully killing characters face to face--who you see living and happy, and who have personalities and histories.

Undertale > Spec Ops

Spec Ops' point is to criticize Call of Duty-like video games and the "make the player feel like the "hero/Jesus" narration by making the player doing the worse things possible because the game presumes the player will do anything to be the hero/Jesus.

Now, where is the problem with a video game having something to say about the video game industry and/or the world?

...

Is anybody else eagerly waiting for the day Dubai (and the rest of the Middle East) dies screaming?

not even him but
>my survival >>> theirs
basic survivor instinct

Did the developers actually say this? Because that would be really fucking stupid.

HAHAHAHAHA OH MY GOD

YOU FUCKERS WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO PLAY IT LIKE A GENERIC SHOOTER. YOU HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD ALL THE TIME.

>YOU HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD ALL THE TIME.

but that's exactly what generic shooters make you do

Except that's not true. The only lives which matter are lives which you are consciously aware of. A person you cannot acknowledge does not exist. Just as it would be impossible to have this conversation if your posts didn't exist, or if I could not see them. You would be an imaginary hypothetical, and it wouldn't make any sense to imagine you as existing.

You'll also have to back up the claim that lives have intrinsic worth, especially as our entire culture and surrounding world has a hierarchy of life value, in which--already--certain humans are worth more than others. If you want to pretend actually choosing to kill a person who you have a relationship with is just as bad as killing an entity which looks relatively like a person, but has no inner life or existence beyond its use as an object to be killed--you are being ridiculous.

were the fps controls shit on purpose too (lol

You cant run away

>Now, where is the problem with a video game having something to say about the video game industry and/or the world?
it shoukd have decent gameplay for starters
something that Call Of Duty provides but Spec Ops doesnt

As far as I'm aware, no. That's just something I've heard said a few times. I honestly like the game on the whole for at least trying something but the White Phosphorus scene was a huge shortcoming. Just adding an ingame ending of Walker getting the fuck out half way though would've added a lot to it, rather than being forced to descend further into villainy while the game berates you for it.

You were trying to "protect" the civilians frim the damned 33rd
Theres no survival involved in it, theres an object

>get to the white phosphorous section
>Shoot rounds no where near where all the civies where that I didn't even know about because my view wasn't even panned up that far
>Somehow they still all catch on fire anyway
It just felt silly, and I couldn't feel bad when the narrative broke so easily
So I didn't finish it, because the gameaplay wasn't compelling either.

Did anyone else just have a hard time taking the game seriously simply because the build up villain was fucking hilarious? I just kept laughing over the ridiculous shit he kept saying and it just ruined the serious mood the game tried to play off for me.

Objective*

It wasn't heavy handed at all. The event just isn't shocking or tragic. It's an unimaginative "tragedy" that happens all the time, and which I as a regular viewer of entertainment--is desensitized too. I could turn on the six o'clock news and see a more shocking, emotional, and interesting story than that which is presented to me in Spec Ops: The Line. Why? Because not only does it involve actual people, but there is a legitimate story on the news where a father has killed a son, a brother killed his sibling, a lover killed his wife, etc., etc. In Spec Ops, it is pretending that you should feel bad for killing objects. There would be legitimately no difference in the story if they said, "Oh no, the bombing resulted in the deaths of six-million jellyfish," because the "innocent civilians" are literally just indistinct corpses who have the personality, aspirations, desires, and backstory of a brainless lump of flesh.

are you retarded
when you use the phosphorous explosives its because one mirrion troops are swarming you and thats all you can do to actually survive

Spec Ops' gameplay is decent, where the fuck is the problem?

no its very mediocre and barely enjoyable
go replay it, i tried but its shit

It's a shame how inconsistent it is in this regard, you're forced to burn those fuckers to progress and then later on when facing down an angry mob you're able to either gun them down or just shoot into the air to make them disperse.

Riding a bike with uninflated tires is sufficient, but given the easy opportunity to inflate the tires, why wouldn't I choose to ride an improved bicycle? Just like I don't want to play mediocre shooters that try to be preachy with stupid ideas, so I instead move onto the innumerable, easily accessible games with better gameplay and story.

Why were people expecting non-linearity
It is called 'the line'

And why did walker find himself in that position?

i rather play TLOU again with a gamepad than Spec Ops again with any type of controls

completely irrelevant

i love the plot to this game, its hilarious. its the most extreme and coincidental form of mistaken identity ever. you could literally play the curb your enthusiasm theme to the end of this game when you realize what that major plot points are.

No it isnt, he would never need to resort to that weapon had he maintaned his objective

Weren't Walker and his dudes sneaking up on the enemies at the time? They saw a shitload of tanks and munitions, found the WP mortar shells, saw the heat signatures and just let loose, thinking they were fucking up the enemies. Turns out they were civilians. I never saw the game as trying to guilt trip me about playing a game like most seem to. I just saw it as a pretty good story of a soldier being forced to face the horrors of his dudebro soldier antiques, then spiraling downwards even more as he tries to pin it all on some 'villain' who turned out to be dead all along. The part in the shopping mall where you start seeing mannequins as enemies pretty much tells you that you can't believe what Walker is seeing or hearing anymore.

>He doesnt feel sad when a dog dies

fucking kill yourself you utter piece of irrelevent shitheel motherfucker shitbag piece of shit

> I'm desensitized to hundreds of civilians being burned alive

That's not even the point you psycho-autist. You don't have to cry yourself to sleep thinking about those people. The person you are empathizing with is the main character. They are "objects" to you but to him, in the confines of the story, they are actual people that he murdered. People that he was trying to save. Can you honestly not understand how that would traumatize him? He's the character and the "objects" serve the purpose of building his image. And his tragic image is the one supposed to cause some emotion. Now that I've expained it in fluent autism do you understand?

This

Basically the entire thing could have been avoided if either side was willing to talk for 5 seconds instead of being brooding hollywood cliches.

>Anyone who is "horrified by war" is a fucking normie
Can you give yourself off as an edgy basement nerd any more clearly?
You're too pussy to even go to war

>Anthropomorphizing random animals AND holding them at a higher level than humans
I'm not all that interested in hearing how you're an autistic faggot that has more in common with mere beasts than with actual people. Please don't reply to me again.

>Hundreds of fucking nobodies get killed in a fiction
If you want to pretend war is scary you could at least focus on trench warfare from WW1 or WW2. We've all heard the bombing story, especially as it is now happening regularly throughout the Middle East. As I said, you can find a better story on the news. The non-interactive anime sequence of Hiroshima being destroyed in Hadashi no Gen was more emotional and shocking than the cheesy preachy garbage in Spec Ops.

And sure, I get the main character might feel bad for killing "people" who hypothetically "exist" in his world and his imagination, but it's not strong enough to inspire any emotional response. I understand his feelings and how they could guide his narrative, but the fact is that I, myself, do not feel any guilt. I get that they're telling you he does, and they guilt him, but I'm arguing with the idiotic notion that Spec Ops suggests that the PLAYER is responsible and should feel bad.

Good post
Bad post

>The game tries to guilt me
>the game forced me
It was a story about a dude doing bad things and going insane with some meta commentary about military shooters of the day and how they treat the hero's actions as good even if they'd technically be war crimes. If you get in a huff about the game's "guilt tripping" you're the exact type of player the game is flinging shit at.
>Anyone who is 'horrified by war' is a fucking normie, let alone from a fucking bombing.
The point is that it copied the "aerial bombardment" gimmick that Call of Duty 4 had popularized and asked "what if you saw the aftermath of wiping out those white blobs on the IR feed?" It was commenting on that trend more than it was calling you "a bad person"
>BUT I DIDN'T HAVE NO CHOICE
It's the inciting incident that really starts Walker off on the wild ride of insanity and murder. If that doesn't happen, the game's whole narrative doesn't happen. The parallel of Walker rationalizing it by saying the enemy forced his hand and butthurt people who think a game is personally insulting them and crying because they had to do it to continue has never stopped being hilarious, though.

There is quite literally no more shocking or traumatic experience than chemical warfare

>anyone who is horrified by war is a normie

Come back when you've wiped the brains of your friend from your face while you take enemy fire faggot

Irrelevant. The fact is that war stories just aren't scary any more because they're so ever-present. Being shocked by a fictional war narrative is as dumb as being shocked by a slasher horror flick. If you've seen any actual documentary footage of war, or if you even watched the Saving Private Ryan movie, you saw more frightening and emotional shit than what appears in Spec Ops.

I'm merely saying that civilian bombing is a routine; it happens ALL the time, and there's nothing shocking about it any more. If they want to pretend you, as the player, should feel bad for bombing imaginary civilians who don't even have any dialogue, who die in such an unimaginative way--it isn't going to work. Just as I don't see people praising Call of Duty for the "No Russian" scene where you shoot a bunch of people in an airport as top-notch writing which demands emotional investment, I don't know why anyone would praise Spec Ops. The scene in Call of Duty is actually even better, because the scenario isn't as common, and it's intentionally done with constant input from the player--you have to hold down the trigger and go through the entire level, knowing you are "murdering innocent people."

Watch Waltz with Bashir you contrarian fedora tipping faggot with no life experience whatsoever

>He did a bad thing!
HNNNNNNNNNGH TOP WRITING OF THE DECADE. THIS REALLY MADE ME THINK. A TRUE DECONSTRUCTION OF THE GENRE.

>If they want to pretend you, as the player, should feel bad for bombing imaginary civilians
I don't know why people keep insisting that this is the point of it all. Walker is the one who feels bad and guilty for doing it, and I just feel bad for him because I usually empathize with the characters I play as. Even the loading screen messages of "Do you feel like a hero yet?" says more about Walker and his expectations in my opinion. He honestly thought he was being a hero, going into Dubai to save civvies. He just doesn't seem to be able to see how he's fucking everyone up while he points the finger at a literal corpse.

What a load of bullshit dude, you disregard whats happening because it isnt close to you, no empathy whatsoever

The point was that you never even would have tried another option in the first place. Do you feel like a hero now?

>military shooters of the day and how they treat the hero's actions as good even if they'd technically be war crimes.
A war crime is not necessarily unethical.
>"what if you saw the aftermath of wiping out those white blobs on the IR feed?"
You'd likely feel nothing since it's a video game, and it doesn't matter if you see the corpse of the person you kill. You murder tons of people in Hitman, you run over people in Grand Theft Auto, there's an innumerable amount of games with more "in your face" murder than this, and nobody is moved or interested by it.

Either way, it's a bad story. The problem is that fans of this mediocre, generic shooter like to pretend it has a commentary which criticizes the player, so we're merely setting them straight. I agree, all of the "you're a bad person" shit is designed for the fictional protagonist, not for you. You shouldn't feel bad, but furthermore, you shouldn't actually find this scene to be good or give the game any praise. It just goes to show how many fucking plebeians there are that are obsessed with video games, which are nothing more than glorified toys. If you wanted this kind of content done right, you could have watched a movie, read a book, looked at a painting, or even listened to a song--but instead you are deluded into thinking that dull, poorly executed shit in a video game is 'great' because you're merely ignorant of art itself.

It was an okay game, considering I got it in a $1 bundle.

People who paid $60 for it should probably be a little disappointed.

The game DOES give you a choice. stop playing. the game turns off, your character is killed for disobeying a direct order, game over.

>Horrors of war have been apart of literature and movies for decades
>When a game forces you into something it's deep and revolutionary

> If you want to pretend war is scary
> Anime
> Moving the goal post

Why did I ever interact with you

it is, it is completely irrelevant
when its about your survival its irrelevant how you found yourself in that position
wrong
you are faced again a huge amount of enemies that you can only survive by using those explosives
this is literally the part where you are swarmed by infinite number of enemies u til you use it

THE. EDGE.