History Headscratchers / SpecOpsTheLine

* Why do you have to either save Gould or the civilians? Why not ? There are only 3 or 4 Damned 33rd soldiers guarding them, and Walker and Co. would have probably been able to kill them in less than a second considering that Delta was in hiding and would have taken them by surprise. Instead, Walker just waits until the 33rd men kill one of the civvies and lead the others off. They could have just shot them all while Gould and the civilians were still close together. Presumably the civilians would have hit the dirt in the ensuing firefight and Gould would have crawled behind some cover. When the fight would have gotten over, everyone would still be alive, (though Gould may have died from his injuries anyway)

*** Eh, it didn't look like that to me. In the cutscene you can clearly see the civilians and Gould in the same shot, and I judge them to be maybe 30 feet apart. Also, when they're torturing the woman, all 3 of the 33rd in the area are occupied either watching or participating in the torture. They're also all close together. Delta could have killed them all in seconds with no risk to the civilians.

** What? of those lines are ambiguous. "Higher power" could mean his moral obligation to continue broadcasting to the 33rd or Konrad's last order or something. And surely Konrad and the Radioman weren't the ''only two people'' Walker met in Afghanistan - there may well be other soldiers who said something like "I remember that guy. Walker. Don't know that he got all the way out of Kabul, you know what I'm saying?" Walker himself says he knew other members of the 33rd than Konrad (like the ranking officers who were executed). It makes perfect sense that Walker would interpret them as referring to Konrad - he's psychotically obsessed.

* Why did Riggs say that if the Middle East declared war on the United States that we would lose? I seriously doubt that they could defeat the American Military. Maybe if Russia or China got involved we would probably lose, but what interest would they have in Dubai? It seems rather absurd to me that a war would want to be started over a rouge Colonel's actions. First of all Colonel Konrad was trying to help the people of Dubai and his failure to save certain people was an accident, he had good intentions at heart. Secondly any nefarious deeds that Riggs felt were necessary to cover up could easily be counted out in the international community as the actions of a Colonel who went AWOL. The whole war business seems improbable in the sense that we would lose and that there would even be justification for war in the first place.

** Maybe that's the point, original poster. One of the major themes of the game is how people can take on altruistic projects but not understand their own motives for doing so, and how this lack of understanding can lead to the degeneration of the original project into folly and tragedy. John Konrad ostensibly led the 33rd into Dubai to organize the evacuation, but some ingame intel suggests his underlying motive was to bolster his reputation after his failures in Afghanistan. Walker had at least three different goals (find and save the 33rd, save the surviving civilians of Dubai, kill Konrad), but the game makes it crystal clear that all these goals were chosen by Walker's need to prove himself a hero. In cases their desires led Konrad and Walker to embark on projects they were in no way prepared to successfully carry out, resulting in stopgap measures, overreactions, and death. I view Riggs, Gould, and the rest of the CIA team through a similar lens. They claim their actions were necessary to prevent a general war in the Middle East, but their fundamental goal was to prevent America from looking bad on the world stage. They might have been able to achieve that if they had simply broadcast to the world what happened in Dubai and arranged a relief effort, but they overreacted, assumed the worst at every turn, never conferred with anyone but themselves, and decided the best course of action was to incite the 33rd and the remaining civilians to destroy each other. When that failed, they killed the city. Riggs was far more lucid than either Walker or Konrad, but he was just as delusional about his motives.

* This is probably only a minor issue but why does the fake Konrad use the term "we" and why does Walker say "you" when referring to one another? Walker is technically talking to himself as the fake Konrad is an extension of his own personality, there is no we (the of them) or you (Konrad as an individual). Is his mind so damaged that the line between reality and his own personal fiction began to blur, or did he just think it would be weird to say, "You're wrong me! I'm a totally stable individual, zombie Konrad over there is only taking a nap! When he wakes up you and me can confront him."

** Hallucinations are often described as not particularly vivid. Dreams are more vivid due to having a contained environment. The issue with is an altered state of mind. A strong hallucination won't really mesh with a dynamic environment(i.e. not sleeping or dreaming). A series of vivid ''images'', appearing in flashes, might be what a hallucinater actually sees. But in that altered state of mind, the individual will fixate on those images, tune out real life, and fill in the blanks of those images to get a semi-coherent event/series of events. Essentially, they'll just have a "go with a flow" mindset and be convinced that something is happening even if the hallucinations don't provide that much evidence. It's like hypnosis. So Walker shouldn't actually see Konrad moving and interacting, but he'll understand those actions to be happening more than what's actually happening around him.

* Why did Riggs say that if the Middle East declared war on the United States that we would lose? I seriously doubt that they could defeat the American Military. Maybe if Russia or China got involved we would probably lose, but what interest would they have in Dubai? It seems rather absurd to me that a war would want to be started over a rouge Colonel's actions. First of all Colonel Konrad was trying to help the people of Dubai and his failure to save certain people was an accident, he had good intentions at heart. Secondly any nefarious deeds that Riggs felt were necessary to cover up could easily be counted out in the international community as the actions of a Colonel who went AWOL. The whole war business seems improbable both in the sense that we would lose and that there would even be justification for war in the first place.

** Maybe that's the point, original poster. One of the major themes of the game is how people can take on altruistic projects but not understand their own motives for doing so, and how this lack of understanding can lead to the degeneration of the original project into folly and tragedy. John Konrad ostensibly led the 33rd into Dubai to organize the evacuation, but some ingame intel suggests his underlying motive was to bolster his reputation after his failures in Afghanistan. Walker had at least three different goals (find and save the 33rd, save the surviving civilians of Dubai, kill Konrad), but the game makes it crystal clear that all these goals were chosen by Walker's need to prove himself a hero. In both cases their desires led both Konrad and Walker to embark on projects they were in no way prepared to successfully carry out, resulting in stopgap measures, overreactions, and death. I view Riggs, Gould, and the rest of the CIA team through a similar lens. They claim their actions were necessary to prevent a general war in the Middle East, but their fundamental goal was to prevent America from looking bad on the world stage. They might have been able to achieve that if they had simply broadcast to the world what happened in Dubai and arranged a relief effort, but they overreacted, assumed the worst at every turn, never conferred with anyone but themselves, and decided the best course of action was to incite the 33rd and the remaining civilians to destroy each other. When that failed, they killed the city. Riggs was far more lucid than either Walker or Konrad, but he was just as delusional about his motives.

* This is probably only a minor issue but why does the fake Konrad use the term "we" and why does Walker say "you" when referring to one another? Walker is technically talking to himself as the fake Konrad is an extension of his own personality, there is no we (the both of them) or you (Konrad as an individual). Is his mind so damaged that the line between reality and his own personal fiction began to blur, or did he just think it would be weird to say, "You're wrong me! I'm a totally stable individual, zombie Konrad over there is only taking a nap! When he wakes up you and me can confront him."

** Hallucinations are often described as not particularly vivid. Dreams are more vivid due to having a contained environment. The issue with both is an altered state of mind. A strong hallucination won't really mesh with a dynamic environment(i.e. not sleeping or dreaming). A series of vivid ''images'', appearing in flashes, might be what a hallucinater actually sees. But in that altered state of mind, the individual will fixate on those images, tune out real life, and fill in the blanks of those images to get a semi-coherent event/series of events. Essentially, they'll just have a "go with a flow" mindset and be convinced that something is happening even if the hallucinations don't provide that much evidence. It's like hypnosis. So Walker shouldn't actually see Konrad moving and interacting, but he'll understand those actions to be happening more than what's actually happening around him.

* Why do you have to either save Gould or the civilians? Why not both? There are only 3 or 4 Damned 33rd soldiers guarding them, and Walker and Co. would have probably been able to kill them in less than a second considering that Delta was in hiding and would have taken them by surprise. Instead, Walker just waits until the 33rd men kill one of the civvies and lead the others off. They could have just shot them all while Gould and the civilians were still close together. Presumably the civilians would have hit the dirt in the ensuing firefight and Gould would have crawled behind some cover. When the fight would have gotten over, everyone would still be alive, (though Gould may have died from his injuries anyway)

*** Eh, it didn't look like that to me. In the cutscene you can clearly see both the civilians and Gould in the same shot, and I judge them to be maybe 30 feet apart. Also, when they're torturing the woman, all 3 of the 33rd in the area are occupied either watching or participating in the torture. They're also all close together. Delta could have killed them all in seconds with no risk to the civilians.

** Note that Delta team is just trying to consider their options and how to approach the situation. Maybe they could have saved them both if they acted more swiftly - however, they're still piecing together what to do at that time, and didn't want to go gung ho shooting everyone without thinking first.

** What? Both of those lines are ambiguous. "Higher power" could mean his moral obligation to continue broadcasting to the 33rd or Konrad's last order or something. And surely Konrad and the Radioman weren't the ''only two people'' Walker met in Afghanistan - there may well be other soldiers who said something like "I remember that guy. Walker. Don't know that he got all the way out of Kabul, you know what I'm saying?" Walker himself says he knew other members of the 33rd than Konrad (like the ranking officers who were executed). It makes perfect sense that Walker would interpret them as referring to Konrad - he's psychotically obsessed.

* Something that confuses me specifically with this wiki, and the internet in general. One of the major elements of the guilt-trip said to be induced on the player is the fact that you are killing American soldiers. Well, what if the player isn't an American? Or isn't massively patriotic? Or doesn't support the US military, to the point where this doesn't feel like so much of a problem? Is this wiki so American-centric that this is assumed to almost unilaterally be the case for any player regardless of their nationality and opinions? Furthermore, we're apparently meant to feel bad for attacking them as they responded "in self defence". If I remember correctly, the first instance of a Delta-33rd confrontation occurs as a result of '''them''' attacking you because they think you're CIA. So it was Delta was acting in self defence! After that point, a mutual hatred developed and both groups had every right to attack/defend against eachother. Also, yes some of the soldiers are humanised. But as TV Tropes itself concedes, nobody in this game is innocent. The 33rd were guilty of war crimes too, even if Delta's use of WP was completely out of line. Let's not forget about the sandboarding, for example. They also didn't have the good sense to leave the doomed, FUBAR city after Konrad killed himself. So should we really feel quite so bad as the main pages suggest for killing not-so-innocent soldiers? The division were effectively rogue after some point, and they probably would have attacked even a larger force which didn't suffer from Walker's developing mental health problems/ jingoism. The only non-named 33rd soldier/officer I felt bad for killing was the one wiped out by WP who croaks ''"why?"''. And even ''he'' would have been one of the guys firing on you if you try to bypass the enforced WP mortar! Yes, the rest are [[PunchClockVillain just doing their job]] with humanising [[EnemyChatter background conversations]] but they fired on me first. When I'm just acting in self defence (even if other tropers interpret Delta's actions in other fashions) you can't really guilt trip me for wanting to put every enemy down and survive.

*** The opening question is, frankly, rather disingenuous. The lede is being pretty heavily buried; not only was the project not one that Walt Williams had full creative control over (as it was based on an existing property, meaning there were likely limits to what he could and couldn't do compared to a project that was by and large his own baby), the "[[VideoGame/StarWarsBattlefrontII2017 fascist stormtrooper]]" game alluded to above is explicitly about said stormtrooper experiencing a HeelFaceTurn, realising that the cause she'd been fighting for was evil, and ''rejecting it'' in order to defect and fight for a better cause. It's not like Walt Williams went on to write ''Yay, Fascism! The Video Game'', as is clearly being implied; the player is clearly expected to ''also'' find the cruelty of the Empire unacceptable and reject it (not least because that's been the central message of ''Star Wars'' for almost fifty years). Though for what it's worth, the plot of ''Battlefront II'' is in some ways a bit of a mirror of ''Spec Ops''; both revolve around soldiers who start off believing that they're fighting for a worthy cause only to end up discovering that they're on the wrong side, but while Iden Versio is able to realise the error of her ways and turn away before it's too late, Captain Walker is sadly deprived that opportunity. The two aren't as contradictory or hypocritical as the above is trying to imply.

* kinda weird that arguing against the game ''emotionally attacking you'' gets weird counter-arguments about how people who criticise this are "getting personal". Cant have your cake and eat it too: either we "are taking it too personal" because a game straight-up says you are a murderer, or "you aren't affected by video games then" if you don't take offence to the game having you kill merikans by the truckload. What is it then?

** It's a better choice because it means Walker, unlike Konrad, is strong enough to face the consequences, both physical and mental, of his actions. When Walker shoots Konrad, he's shooting the part of himself that wants him to shoot himself, effectively in self defense. He's not actually blaming the dead man.

*** Also note that in Chapter 7, Lugo says "Gould's vital to our mission" and Adams says "Our mission is to rescue people" - both of them are wrong, their mission was recon. After Gould dies Lugo says "We got no idea what the fuck we're doin' here", which is an accurate assessment of Delta after trying to save Daniels to the end of the game.

*** 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.

* HAO 2 DEFEND GAME AGAINST BAD PEOPLE WHO SHOOT IMAGINARY PEOPLE:
** Insist your game is unassailable and you could just turn the game off and thus avoid all criticism
** Dismiss counter-arguments as getting personal
** ????
** '''PROFIT'''

* Realistically how did Walker get selected by Delta Force if he has a psychological disorder? PTSD is common enough in military circles, but the kind of high end disassociative personality disorder (including vivid hallucinations) Walker suffers from doesn't seem like a realistic manifestation of PTSD. This would imply that Walker already had the building blocks for mental illness prior to undergoing his trauma from Kabul or Dubai.

*** It's a bit like throwing a stone in a glass house. "Violence is ''only'' okay if you do it in a way I personally enjoy". Gamers already know the US Army doesn't run around doing trickshots off the top of skyscrapers with heartbeat monitors and Russians aren't plotting on gassing the world. Again, this is less about "you're not allowed to make the criticism" and more "the criticism it makes is dumb". Spec Ops implies we fully believe anything fictional, and the devs constantly talking about how ''Modern Warfare'' is unrealistic makes it sound like only blatant fantasy like ''Dreadnought'' or ''Star Wars'' will do, because we're only killing ''fictional'' polygons then.

*** I don't think anyone is arguing that the creators aren't right to do so or somehow aren't allowed to make this criticism, but more that any criticism leveled at the game criticizing the player is somehow invalidated by it just being a game, which isn't really supported by the game itself (remember, the game even sarcastically tells you the game is ''totally'' just a work of fiction and that you should ''totally not care'' about the deaths you caused). Either way, people are definitely allowed to get passionate about media (nitpicking or wrongheaded or otherwise, as ''Star Wars'', ''Pokemon'', and ''Game of Thrones'' fandom can tell us) and to pull a "haha just a game, argument invalid" argument seems odd for a game that argues otherwise, and people are allowed to criticize it as they see fit. This ''is'' a game that had several papers written about it.

*** At what point does it all become the player's fault, even though the game deliberately begins putting words in Walker/the player's mouth, and even though the consequences are written in such a way to blame the player? It's interesting that people really want to blame the audience while shielding themselves from criticism.

*** And also, I don't think the creators are seriously suggesting that "murdering polygons is on the level with Columbine". They're attacking "the player" in general terms, yes, and no, you don't ''have'' to like it. But ultimately, at the end of the day, the insults are just as much empty pixels on a computer screen as the video game characters you're shooting, they're not coming into your house and insulting you personally any more than you're presumably going out and shooting people in real life. The producers don't know you and the insults don't name you, so while they might not be nice to read there's really no reason to think they're directed specifically at any given individual player, so there's really no reason for any individual player to not shrug them off if so they wish. And perhaps this is part of the game's point; the insults are ultimately just as much a bunch of pre-programmed impersonal digital signifiers as the virtual people you're shooting, no more real or aimed directly at you personally as an individual than the virtual people you're shooting are really bleeding and dying -- but if the former is upsetting you and the latter isn't, well, maybe it's worth thinking about why that might be or what that might suggest. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it, but you also don't need to take it personally any more than you should take it personally if a fighting game implies you're a loser if you lose a bout -- and if you are taking it personally, then maybe there's a reason for that worth exploring.

*** And also, I don't think the creators are seriously suggesting that "murdering polygons is on the level with Columbine". They're attacking the player, yes, and no, you don't ''have'' to like it. But ultimately, at the end of the day, the insults are just as much empty pixels on a computer screen as the video game characters you're shooting, they're not coming into your house and insulting you personally any more than you're presumably going out and shooting people in real life. The producers don't know you and the insults don't name you, so while they might not be nice to read there's really no reason to think they're directed specifically at any given individual player, so there's really no reason for any individual player to not shrug them off if so they wish. And perhaps this is part of the game's point; the insults are ultimately just as much a bunch of pre-programmed impersonal digital signifiers as the virtual people you're shooting, no more real or aimed directly at you personally as an individual than the virtual people you're shooting are really bleeding and dying -- but if the former is upsetting you and the latter isn't, well, maybe it's worth thinking about why that might be or what that might suggest. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it, but you also don't need to take it personally any more than you should take it personally if a fighting game implies you're a loser if you lose a bout -- and if you are taking it personally, then maybe there's a reason for that worth exploring.

*** And also, I don't think the creators are seriously suggesting that "murdering polygons is on the level with Columbine". They're attacking the player, yes, and no, you don't ''have'' to like it. But ultimately, at the end of the day, the insults are just as much empty pixels on a computer screen as the video game characters you're shooting, they're not coming into your house and insulting you personally any more than you're presumably going out and shooting people in real life. They don't even know you. And perhaps this is part of the game's point; the insults are ultimately just as much a bunch of pre-programmed impersonal digital signifiers as the virtual people you're shooting, no more real or aimed directly at you personally as an individual than the virtual people you're shooting are really bleeding and dying -- but if the former is upsetting you and the latter isn't, well, maybe it's worth thinking about why that might be or what that might suggest. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it, but you also don't need to take it personally any more than you should take it personally if a fighting game implies you're a loser if you lose a bout -- and if you are taking it personally, then maybe there's a reason for that worth exploring.

*** Well, I can only speak for myself with any certainty, but I'm certainly not taking any criticism that people make of this game personally, even if I disagree with it and am willing to engage in discussion about it on the Internet. Furthermore, in my own reasonably limited experience I'd have to say that I certainly haven't seen any developers of the game or any of its defenders appear to take said criticism of the game personally the way that some critics seem to take the game questioning the morality of playing violent video games or their motives for doing so (which is not to say it hasn't happened, incidentally). So overall I'd have to say no, defending the game from criticism is ''not'' in and of itself "taking it personally". And frankly, that just seems like a slightly petty attempt at NoYou.

*** Not really; it ''is'' just a game. In the same way that violent video games don't necessarily directly lead to violent acts in real life, a developer suggesting parallels between virtual acts of war/violence and real acts of war/violence doesn't necessarily mean they're unarguably right; it just means that they're making a game about it. Either way, the same point can apply; it's just a video game, there's no need to take it ''too'' seriously.

*** Does anyone find it ironic that the fans of the game ''that equates killing fictional characters and committing virtual atrocities to actual killing and actual war crimes and telling you this in no uncertain terms'' are telling people criticizing it that it's "just a video game"?

** Other than Walker mentioning Konrad saving his life in Kabul, there's nothing in the game that says Konrad was ever on a battlefield. Walker himself looks to be in his late 20s or 30s, so if the game takes place in 2012, the Kabul incident could have happend at nearly any point of {{The War On Terror}}. Presuming Kabul happend near the start of that, Konrad may have still been in active service back then, and retired to non-field work a few years later. As for his rank, one of the games intel items is a pysch report of Konrad, stating that he has multiple mental health issues. Perhaps he was never promoted higher than Colonel because of those.

*** If we're going to take the "calm down it's just a game" route over a game that suggests murdering polygons is on the level with Columbine, perhaps we should consider how oddly personal the game makes its attacks, with constantly asking the player if they're "good people" and using a massacre to personally attack the player, is just a game as well.

*** In that case then to be honest, while it admittedly is a bit inconsistent, "violence is okay as long as it's not pseudo-realistic" seems like a perfectly reasonable enough position for them to take. So they prefer sci-fi / fantasy / horror games to realistic military shooters, that seems entirely fair (and again, there's a hint of disingenuousness here -- ''Dreadnought'' is a battleship simulator, yes, but you seem to be leaving out the important detail that it's a ''science fiction'' battleship simulator, and is clearly set in a made-up universe featuring battles between spaceship fleets; it's not like they're hypocritically critiquing games set in realistic military combat situations while simultaneously making such games themselves, as you're clearly trying to imply). It certainly doesn't mean they're somehow not allowed to make games that criticise and deconstruct first person military shooters.

*** Frankly, given Williams' hatred for even ''Counter-Strike'' and one of Yager's pet projects being a battleship simulator, it still seems like the message, genre-specific or no (or in the same medium or not), is "violence is okay as long as it's not psuedo-realistic". Yager went to work on ''Dead Island 2'' (however temporarily), with many post-2010 zombie games being inspired by ''The Walking Dead'''s popularity, and if Yager ''really'' didn't want to work on more violent video games, there are ''plenty'' of contracts out there for non-violent games that don't involve shooting polygons in the face.

*** So Walt and friends are no longer responsible for all the questionable parts of Spec Ops - what? So it's okay when developers have limits, but not when the player is working with a medium inherently limited by guidelines set by a developer? This sounds like the fandom ''really'' wants to push the idea of "consequences" on the player for... playing a video game with a predetermined ending and criticism aimed at the player, with no way to criticize the game or ideas itself because "consequences"? What "consequences", if the game ''is specifically fictional''? Walker is specifically written to match the player (or at least Yager/Williams' belief of the typical FPS player), as well as the narrative bringing the blame on the player in no uncertain terms - subjective or otherwise. Iden gets a pass, but anyone playing ''Spec Ops'' or the games it's criticizing isn't?

** Also, the producers might not necessarily have the luxury of choosing to work on projects that 100% meet their preferences every time they work; they might not necessarily enjoy working on violent shooters, but may have to because they're the only projects being commissioned at the time and they have to think of MoneyDearBoy like the rest of us. They simply used a project they were working on to ask these kind of questions that they felt were worth asking when they had the freedom and ability to do so.

*** True, but the UAE is a member of the Gulf Cooperation Council, a military alliance consisting of Oman, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Kuwait, and where the vast majority of US troops reside in the Middle East. At the very least, those nations would (understandably) expel all US troops from their borders out of another faction going rogue, which would be a huge strategic blow to the US.

*** The opening question is, frankly, rather disingenuous. The lede is being pretty heavily buried; not only was the project not one that Walt Williams had full creative control over (as it was based on an existing property, meaning there were likely limits to what he could and couldn't do compared to a project that was by and large his own baby), the "[[VideoGame/StarWarsBattlefrontII fascist stormtrooper]]" game alluded to above is explicitly about said stormtrooper experiencing a HeelFaceTurn, realising that the cause she'd been fighting for was evil, and ''rejecting it'' in order to defect and fight for a better cause. It's not like Walt Williams went on to write ''Yay, Fascism! The Video Game'', as is clearly being implied; the player is clearly expected to ''also'' find the cruelty of the Empire unacceptable and reject it (not least because that's been the central message of ''Star Wars'' for almost fifty years). Though for what it's worth, the plot of ''Battlefront II'' is in some ways a bit of a mirror of ''Spec Ops''; both revolve around soldiers who start off believing that they're fighting for a worthy cause only to end up discovering that they're on the wrong side, but while Iden Versio is able to realise the error of her ways and turn away before it's too late, Captain Walker is sadly deprived that opportunity. The two aren't as contradictory or hypocritical as the above is trying to imply.