I think it's worth remembering that SOTL, unlike most of the games it's criticising, is not a first-person experience where you're inhabiting a faceless, personalityless meatpuppet, but a third-person shooter where you're controlling (or not controlling) a character with a pre-defined personality. As such, there's a lot more leeway in how you interpret it - is it just a straight-up 'military shooters and their players suck' rant, or is it a critique of Walker and the military mindset he embodies? Even the direct attacks on the player can come off as an extension of Walker's Never My Fault attitude, particularly given the diminished control you get during some of his worst actions (like the minigun sequence).
A pretty good review on the subject.
As someone who outright hates the tired old saying of "fictional violence is just as bad as real violence" *cough*noitisnot*coughcough*, I would say that it's absurd to think that being a hero means never having to fight, because let's face it; the world does not bend to our wills, which means to be a hero means to the accept the reality that sometimes we may have to fight if it means to protect others. And while I can agree that being hero means that it's possible to do other things besides fighting, it's equally absurd to think that being a hero means never fighting just as it's absurd to think that just fighting automatically makes one a hero.
But aside from that, though, I disagree with what Laculus says about the game's rants being directed solely at Walker. The developers themselves have said that their intention with the game is to make players of FPS games to think and question why they play FPS games(as much as I think their execution was very ham-fisted and pretentious), so no, the game's rants is not directed at Walker only. It's directed at both Walker and the players, and given that videogames and gamers already have had a long running undeserved reputation of fictional violence leading to real-life violence, having a game that insults and rants at the players does not help matters at all.
It kind of reminds me of Funny Games. The movie tries to claim that the audience should feel guilty for the suffering of the family. Yet the situation only exists because the director made the movie. So why should the creators be blameless, and the audience at fault?
The game isn't trying to make you "feel guilty," it's trying to make you think about the genre's implications. Some people read way too much into something so they can take offense at it.
and given that videogames and gamers already have had a long running undeserved reputation of fictional violence leading to real-life violence, having a game that insults and rants at the players does not help matters at all.
Do you have any idea how superficial that sounds?
It definitely doesn't help videogames case if you complain that a game dared have an anti-war stance. How are we meant to stop people confusing game violence with real violence if our games dislikes violence too? :P
Especially since the story was based on a literary classic that was then adapted in spirit into a film classic and was only now being adapted in spirit to a game. If every other medium can talk about a man's descent into madness of carnage and war, why not a game?
The comparison in attitude is incredibly relevant too. The book was bringing a rude awakening to people living in comfort with completely romanticised self-indulgent images of conflicts they were responsible for happening far away. The film was a rude awakening to people living in comfort with completely romanticised self-indulgent images of conflicts they were responsible for happening far away.
And now we have a game with a conflict in the middle east involving western soldiers and criticising the image of said wars that that medium tended to produce and indulge in.
The loading screens say things like "How many soldiers have you killed today?", "To kill for entertainment is harmless", and "They're not real, so why should you care?", which come off as bitterly ironic. At the end, a character says, "You were pretending to be something you're not. A hero." It's very difficult to notsee that as directed towards the player. Given that character's role, it's very ambiguous whether the player is supposed to take his words at face value or not.
"What's out there? What's waiting for me?"
I was going to jump in and discuss how by forcing you into doing what the writer is acting out against they are really reaching to slam the player for playing these games, but I think you summed it up nicely. If you had freedom of choice and evaluated your actions based on what decisions you made, maybe explore the idea of being selfish by raising yourself in the eyes of others by doing what they see as good, then it would be another matter entirely. I'm watching Las Vegas at the moment and there is a part in the story about Danny having to do something similar and how it affected him, maybe because there was no choice Walt Williams felt he could get away with condemning the player, but it seems very ham fisted in doing so.
Currently reading up My Rule Fu Is Stronger Than Yours
The point is, it's both and that this is media people are consuming regardless of whether they're playing Spec Ops the Line. It's not speaking to you specifically as a player of this game, but you as a probable player of all the similar games of it's ilk and close to the industry producing them.
Heart of Darkness was a criticism of colonial involvements in the Congo, but surely it's also a criticism to all the people reading adventure books about trips down the river? And in the same way Spec Ops takes a negative stance on the effects of violence in the middle east but it's also concerning itself with all the people playing games about being superhero soldiers in the middle east.
Here's the rub. Mark Miller hates comic book fans and tears into them for using comics as a substitute for the emptiness and meaninglessness of their lives. This may not be the intention with the game but let's throw that argument back in their face.
You smoke? Drink? Eat bad food? Watch adult movies? Chase women? How about spend your days condemning those who read comics or play war games? Oooooohhhhhh, you spend you days condemning those who read comics or play war games as a substitute for the emptiness and meaninglessness of your lives, oooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhh...
The point I'm making is, maybe, in a way, we all need some form of crutch whether it be Call of Duty, Archer or condemning those who do not think the same as we do.
Currently reading up My Rule Fu Is Stronger Than Yours
The point I'm making is, maybe, in a way, we all need some form of crutch whether it be Call of Duty, Archer or condemning those who do not think the same as we do.
Did you only just realise it now? That is in fact the way people live, and there's no need to include a maybe. There's also no need to either refer to hack named Mark Millar (Kick-Ass films are one of few cases of adaptations being an unquestionable improvement on source material) and the emptiness and meaninglessness of their lives titbit. That's literally Year 9-level existentialism and soon it stops being profound and just becomes annoying as hell.
Um...no, I do not recall anyone suggesting they had only just come to that realization now. For some being a Jerk Ass is how they get through life, despite the pity they get for it or their capability to be something great they cannot help but try and fill some dark void in themselves by acting all big and tough and macho. There is nothing profound about it, all it does is turn trolls from annoying as hell to pitiful and easy to ignore.
Currently reading up My Rule Fu Is Stronger Than Yours
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that the above comment was referring to me. Thus, I will firstly apologise if my previous comment came off as being too harsh and confrontational.
Now, to address your apparent judgement of me as a troll and having a dark void in me... Please have a look at my troper page, especially at the folder entitled Causes I support. I will let you form your own conclusions.
"Some people read way too much into something so they can take offense at it."
They're not reading anything into anything, they're reacting to what they see as unfair criricism on the part of the game. If they think the game is criticizing them as players, then there's no reason why they shouldn't take offense or "take it personally".
It doesn't help that the game can be interpreted as encouraging player suicide, since it identifies the ultimately suicidal Walker with the player.
And honestly, if the game's writer has to come out and clarify something, then that's a sign he didn't do a good job of making his point clear in the game itself.
It doesn't help that the game can be interpreted as encouraging player suicide, since it identifies the ultimately suicidal Walker with the player.
Bahahahahahahhahaa.
Laugh all you want, but it can still be seen as being in rather bad taste.
To those are depressed or suicidal, it can seem like a slap in the face. So take your "bahahah" and shove it.
Leave a Comment:
Admirable, but extremely flawed.
Where to begin?
Spec Ops: The Line is a "game about games". In this case, the game is an analysis on the modern military shooter, and our glorification of their violence as a way to feel like a hero. Indeed, the game goes to great lengths to show how such a way of thinking is flawed and unsettling, and forces players to rethink as to whether or not they are comfortable with violence as a means to make one feel like a hero. In that respect, it is quite an ambitious title in terms of themes and questions, and should be applauded for that.
However, despite what many bloggers will tell you, the game's message and themes are not perfect. Its message that acting like a hero through violence is indeed a good one…….if it weren't for the fact that the game basically forces you to commit these atrocities without any choice. While the game and its defenders will try to say that that was the point, the player, despite what the metaphors say, aren't Walker. The player didn't choose to use White Phosphorus, nor did they choose to blame everything on Konrad. Really, the only choice one has in this game is to stop playing, which in and of itself is quite a dubious solution to present, especially after one has paid $60 for it. It's basically saying that you payed to not play the game, which doesn't feel clever so much as defensive. If that is the only choice, then why bother with the story?
Really, as much as one can try to say that these flaws are "what the writers intended, and you don't get it", they must be pointed as such. The game takes an incredibly one-sided view, blaming the player for everything that happens. Who forced these decisions to happen though? While the player did go through them, it's only because the developers chose to railroad them into doing so. In that regards, they share much of the same responsibility as the player, yet the game only targets the latter, calling everything their fault. Because of this one-sided nature, it is hard to really get into the story, as it is essentially beating you over the head as much as Walker is beating Konrad up.
And what is the message? You suck for wanting to be a hero through violent war games? Sorry, but that is far from profound. If that's the message, then what is the purpose of playing?
To conclude, SOTL is admirable, but its one-sided POV and defensive nature drag it down.