History Headscratchers / SpecOpsTheLine

** It still doesn't seem fair for the game to call the player a bad person for continueing to play the game they payed money for.

*** The answer to any and all of those questions is "not necessarily" -- but that's not what the OP was asking. The OP was asking, quote, "what is the game trying to say?", and the things listed in response are simply things that that the game is trying to say. You're not obliged to like or agree with all or even any of them, but that doesn't mean the game isn't trying to at least make you think about them.

** The answer is that it isn't; Williams and Yager Games are simply using a particular genre to ask these kinds of questions one time. That said, there is a hint of disingenuousness here; passively watching a TV show is a different viewing experience to actively playing a video game. Williams and Yager Games aren't commenting on the act of watching TV, they're commenting on the act of playing a video game. There may indeed be moral questions that can be (and FWIW [[Film/FunnyGames have been]]) asked of the experience of passively watching fictional characters suffer for entertainment pleasure -- but Williams and Yager Games don't ask them of TV shows because that's not the medium they're working in.

* As raised above, ''Spec Ops'' solely saves its judgement for those seeking to play psuedorealistic, "modern" first-person shooters. Walt Williams has expressed his distaste for anything resembling these games, even ''Counter-Strike'', and the game accuses players of being active participants of violence. But with the rise of grimdark, violent fiction like ''The Walking Dead'' or ''Game of Thrones'' and series inspired by its bleak outlook on humanity, and with Walt Williams and Yager Games' work on other violent series, why is the consequence of viewing a fictional story pinned on the viewer when it is one genre, but not another?

*** Is a reader or watcher suddenly responsible for the sole action of a character, whose guiding actions are set by the creators to be as horrific as possible, simply because they read or watch a story? What of the pro-Spec Ops players defending the game - are they then horrible people for "committing" such a deed? Why are "non-violent" games inherently better than "violent" ones that cause "pain and suffering"?

*** Is a reader or watcher suddenly responsible for the sole action of a character, whose guiding actions are set by the creators to be as horrific as possible, simply because they read or watch a story? What of the pro-Spec Ops players defending the game - are they then horrible people for "committing" such a deed?

*** It's interesting to note Yager games went on to make several violent games in military or horror settings, and Walt Williams himself wrote a story about a fascist stormtrooper actively doing horrible things for TheEmpire. Why, then, is this kind of "cruelty" acceptable when it's not a genre or game series favored by the author? In addition, Walt Williams stated he even hates "violent" shooters like Counter-Strike - but Counter-Strike revolves around plotless PVP dressed up in a 90s view of WesternTerrorism, not racist anti-Arabic terror. So what kind of point is the game trying to make, as below? And if a game tries to speak for the player, assumes things of the player, and uses these assumptions, however wrong, to attack the player, it's a bad argument. Again, "shut the game off" does not wipe the rest of the game's plot from reality.

*** And finally, another is this: you own the consequences of your decisions and actions, even if they're only within the virtual realm of a video game. In the game, the characters stubbornly press on with increasingly poor decisions despite the evidence mounting that doing so will only cause more pain and suffering, and are eventually forced to reckon with the consequences of doing so. Similarly, for whatever reason you knowingly chose to purchase a video game based around violence and shooting despite there being plenty of other non-violent options for entertainment (both video games or otherwise) available to you, and you knowingly continued to play it despite the fact that the characters would end up suffering horribly if you did so. In consequence, the game tried to make you feel bad and question yourself for doing so. You don't have to like it, but it's nevertheless a result of decisions you made and one way or another you're going to have to come to terms with that. This doesn't necessarily mean that you should never play a violent video game ever again -- but ultimately, whether you do or not you're ultimately the only one responsible for that decision and any consequences it has.

** Look at it this way: a central theme of the game is "decisions and their consequences". Throughout the game, the characters make decisions and are then forced to reckon with the consequences of doing so. By asking the player to do so as well, the game developer is simply extending the theme to the player. The player makes a decision to buy a game and start playing it. The developer, in this case, is simply reminding the player that to ''continue'' with the game is a decision they make as well. No one else. The game hasn't come to life to force them, the developer isn't pointing a gun at their head. The player can stop playing as soon as the first insulting cut-scene message comes up if they don't like it, as soon as Walker is confronted with the decision to use white phosphorus, or at any point they want. They can uninstall the game, take it back to the store and demand a refund, sell it second hand, throw it in the garbage, torch it, whatever they want. So if they ''do'' decide to keep playing despite all this, while they might not like the end result and can criticise it all they want, one thing they ''don't'' get to do is complain that the game made them do it. Because the only person responsible for the decision to continue is the player, and therefore they own the consequences of doing so as well, even if it's just a gameplay experience they find unsatisfying.

** Look at it this way: a central theme of the game is "decisions and their consequences". Throughout the game, the characters make decisions and are then forced to reckon with the consequences of doing so. By asking the player to do so as well, the game developer is simply extending the theme to the player. The player makes a decision to buy a game and start playing it. The developer, in this case, is simply reminding the player that to ''continue'' with the game is a decision they make as well. No one else. The game hasn't come to life to force them, the developer isn't pointing a gun at their head. The player can stop playing as soon as the first insulting cut-scene message comes up if they don't like it, as soon as Walker is confronted with the decision to use white phosphorus, or at any point they want. They can uninstall the game, take it back to the store and demand a refund, throw it in the garbage, torch it, whatever they want. So if they ''do'' decide to keep playing despite all this, while they might not like the end result and can criticise it all they want, one thing they ''don't'' get to do is complain that the game made them do it. Because the only person responsible for the decision to continue is the player, and therefore they own the consequences of doing so as well.

** Look at it this way: a central theme of the game is "decisions and their consequences". Throughout the game, the characters make decisions and are then forced to reckon with the consequences of doing so. By asking the player to do so as well, the game developer is simply extending the theme to the player. The player makes a decision to buy a game and start playing it. The developer, in this case, is simply reminding the player that to ''continue'' with the game is a decision they make as well. No one else. The game hasn't come to life to force them, the developer isn't pointing a gun at their head. The player can stop playing as soon as the first insulting cut-scene message comes up if they don't like it, as soon as Walker is confronted with the decision to use white phosphorus, or at any point they want. They can uninstall the game, take it back to the store and demand a refund, throw it in the garbage, torch it, whatever they want. So if they ''do'' decide to keep playing despite all this, they don't get to whine and complain that the game made them do it, because the only person responsible for that decision to continue is the player, and therefore they own the consequences of doing so as well. Whether that's the game continuing to insult you or the characters being led to a bleak ending. You might not like the game as a result, and you can criticise it all you want, but ultimately only you were responsible for making the decision to finish it.

*** No one is saying "You're not allowed to criticise the game because you should have shut the game off". They are simply pointing out that (a) shutting the game off is as valid an option as continuing to play it, meaning "the game made me continue it" isn't necessarily a foolproof defence (the game itself, and the game maker for that matter, cannot force the player to do anything; the player themselves makes the decision whether to continue playing or not) and (b) it is perfectly valid for a game maker to confront the player with the ethical decisions that they might otherwise take for granted while playing video games. It's simply an artistic choice -- a confrontational one, perhaps, but an artistic choice nonetheless. You don't have to like that it does this, and you're perfectly entitled to criticise the game for doing so, but it's not in and of itself a failing of the game. And bluntly, the fact that some players react so defensively to this game challenging the actions they take and decisions they make while playing it may suggest that a nerve has been touched and the game maker may have a point. VideoGameCrueltyPotential is still a form of cruelty, after all, even if it's only happening to pixels on a screen.

*** Another is that, while the game might not necessarily be anti-US military, the US military aren't automatically "the good guys" and/or hyper-competent badasses in every situation either; the US military is made of people, and people have ulterior motives, have potentially unreliable perspectives, and screw up and make potentially disastrous mistakes. And this is a point worth making, because the US military makes choices that have literally life-or-death consequences, and they're given a lot of respect, power and authority in modern society. The game is suggesting that it's worth regarding them critically; they're still people.

*** Another is that such a power fantasy is one that might have devastating real world consequences. I suspect that more than a few recruits to the US military are people who have enjoyed video games involving US soldiers being heroic, super-competent badasses and join up on some level hoping to fulfill that power fantasy in real life. The game is showing that, outside of a video game, chasing such a fantasy might have horrible effects.

*** And finally, another is this: you own the consequences of your decisions and actions, even if they're only within the virtual realm of a video game. In the game, the characters stubbornly press on with increasingly poor decisions despite the evidence mounting that doing so will only cause more pain and suffering, and are eventually forced to own the consequences of doing so. Similarly, for whatever reason you knowingly chose to purchase a video game based around violence and shooting despite there being plenty of other non-violent options for entertainment (both video games or otherwise) available to you, and you knowingly continued to play it despite the fact that the characters would end up suffering horribly if you did so. In consequence, the game tried to make you feel bad and question yourself for doing so. You don't necessarily have to like it, but it's nevertheless a result of decisions you made and one way or another you're going to have to come to terms with that. This doesn't necessarily mean that you should never play a violent video game ever again -- but ultimately, whether you do or not you're ultimately the only one responsible for that decision and any consequences it has.

*** Another is that such a power fantasy is one that might have devastating real world consequences. I suspect that more than a few recruits to the US military are people who have enjoyed video games involving US soldiers being badasses and join up on some level hoping to fulfill that power fantasy in real life. The game is showing that, outside of a video game, chasing such a fantasy might have horrible effects.

*** Another is that war is messy; you might go in with good intentions, but, well, we all know where those can lead.

*** Another is that, while the game might not necessarily be anti-US military, the US military aren't automatically "the good guys" and/or hyper-competent badasses in every situation either; the US military is made of people, and people have ulterior motives, have potentially unreliable perspectives, and screw up and make potentially disastrous mistakes. And this is a point worth making, because the US military literally makes choices that have life-or-death consequences, and they're given a lot of respect, power and authority in modern society. The game is suggesting that it's worth regarding them critically; they're still people.

*** Another is that, while the game might not necessarily be anti-US military, the US military aren't automatically "the good guys" in every situation either; the US military is made of people, and people have ulterior motives, have potentially unreliable perspectives, and screw up and make potentially disastrous mistakes. And this is a point worth making, because the US military literally makes choices that have life-or-death consequences, and they're given a lot of respect, power and authority in modern society. The game is suggesting that it's worth regarding them critically; they're still people.

*** And finally, another is this: you own the consequences of your decisions and actions, even if they're only within the virtual realm of a video game. In the game, the characters stubbornly press on with increasingly poor decisions despite the evidence mounting that doing so will only cause more pain and suffering, and are eventually forced to own the consequences of doing so. Similarly, for whatever reason you knowingly chose to purchase a video game based around violence and shooting despite there being plenty of other options for entertainment (both video games or otherwise) available to you, and you knowingly continued to play it despite the fact that the characters would end up suffering horribly if you did so. In consequence, the game tried to make you feel bad and question yourself for doing so. You don't necessarily have to like it, but it's nevertheless a result of decisions you made and one way or another you're going to have to come to terms with that. This doesn't necessarily mean that you should never play a violent video game ever again -- but ultimately, whether you do or not you're ultimately the only one responsible for that decision and any consequences it has.

* It's worth finally asking explicitly: what is the game trying to say? It's not anti-war or anti-US military (even without WordOfGod denying this, it isn't set during an official conflict, and Walker's American backup does end up saving the day), and it's definitely criticizing the player (the loadings screens, the character's looking at the camera when they lecture Walker, etc. See above) But for what? People say WordOfGod is that it's meant to make the player reflect on why they play shooter games (to feel like a hero), and that if you're not comfortable with what it makes you do, you should shut the game off. But what if the player bought this shooter game for another reason (which isn't an unfair assumption. How well did [[Videogame/Hatred]] sell)? Or enjoys the power fantasy, but wouldn't act as recklessly as Walker would? And if it's terrible when you kill virtual people (as the loading screens imply) and you bear the full responsibility of it for playing the game, should the player never play a violent game again? WordOfGod denies this to be the moral.

*** Indeed. But (a) that's not the same as being 'unfair' and (b) that's also just a matter of personal opinion, since what is "pretentious and condescending" to one may be "interesting and thought-provoking" to another.

*** To answer the original question of who was commanding the 33rd after Konrad's death. the most likely answer is…no one. At least, no one person. The Radioman seems to be the closest thing the batallion has to a central authority, and he's not shown to be terribly effective. The various smaller units of the 33rd are probably working semi-independently of each other depending on how much they're separated geographically, though they clearly keep in communication.

* How could these people survive for months? Dubai has lost all contact with the outside. There are 5,000 civilians, not to mention the battalion themselves. How would they have enough food to last?

** There's a few possibilities. The first is that one of Konrad's last orders was simply not to come up to his penthouse for any reason, which does skirt the boundaries of 'plausible' a bit since eventually they'd radio up or send a guy up (orders be damned). The second is they simply didn't KNOW he was there at all considering there's zero guards around the penthouse and Adam's last stand can't have caused every single soldier - particularly those guarding their CO - to come running. The third, and perhaps most thematically fitting, is that the 33rd - at least those who find him - were simply in denial about his death, not unlike Walker. It was easier to pretend they were still following their (living) CO's wishes, rather than admit to themselves that their beloved leader realised he'd fucked up big time and topped himself and they'd (metaphorically) damned themselves for nothing.

*** Whoever said art had to be fair? It's simply offering you a choice -- continue playing or don't -- and asking you to consider the ethical consequences and/or issues of your decision either way. You paid for a game and received a game; you didn't pay for immunity from criticism for playing the game.

*** Whoever said art had to be fair?