Jacob Geller's video essays are incredibly consistently phenomenal. I wish I could post this to more than just ~games because I genuinely think even those with no interest in videogames would gain...
Jacob Geller's video essays are incredibly consistently phenomenal. I wish I could post this to more than just ~games because I genuinely think even those with no interest in videogames would gain a lot from watching this video essay. This particular one delves into aspects of Spec Ops: The Line's criticism of real contemporary war crimes, which are rarely given their due focus when discussing that incredibly influential game.
Honestly I'd recommend people on Tildes watch pretty much any video essay Jacob has ever made, as he's one of the best creators in the space, but in particular I think his insights into military violence and war crimes as depicted in videogames hit exactly the right mark. If you like this one, his video analyzing torture scenes in Call of Duty is also very good.
Isn't that like the main thing people talk about? Or is it the subtlety between "you're a crazy person committing war crimes" and "you're committing war crimes?"
Isn't that like the main thing people talk about? Or is it the subtlety between "you're a crazy person committing war crimes" and "you're committing war crimes?"
I didn't watch the entire video but the way OP is characterizing it, to me, is the main reason why Spec Ops is discussed today and the only reason why I played it nearly a decade ago, because...
I didn't watch the entire video but the way OP is characterizing it, to me, is the main reason why Spec Ops is discussed today and the only reason why I played it nearly a decade ago, because people mentioned it's anti-war themes back then and even now. I lean on the side of Super Bunny-Hops criticism of the game that the mechanics of the game undercuts the message/emotion as everything is so linear that there's no choice in it, unlike other anti-war games mentioned in that 9 year old video.
edit : finally got around to finishing the entire video. it's quite good and brings a new perspective to this game by grounding it in real life examples and narratives sewn by militaries trying to justify their horrible actions.
This critique never makes sense to me. No one complains when a game with a linear story and no choices calls you a hero. Why complain when the opposite happens?
the mechanics of the game undercuts the message/emotion as everything is so linear that there's no choice in it
This critique never makes sense to me. No one complains when a game with a linear story and no choices calls you a hero. Why complain when the opposite happens?
Right but these hero/power fantasies are trying to achieve a completely different outcome and I'd argue, a linear story favors that outcome as it allows all players to feel that sense of...
Right but these hero/power fantasies are trying to achieve a completely different outcome and I'd argue, a linear story favors that outcome as it allows all players to feel that sense of accomplishment. Spec Ops is trying to something different and subvert the 2000s era mil-shooter genre while also telling a very obvious anti-war message.
When I played it, it had a distinct separation between gameplay and story and they felt entirely disconnected and at odds. So much of the game is trying to do some meta commentary and make the player think about what they've done during the campaign but when crucial moments happen to drive that point home, actions are taken completely out of the hands of the player. The end result is when the big moment in the game happens, I felt nothing and it was no different than watching a movie or reading a book. This is simply where the writers wanted to the story to go and I'm going to churn to this banal game play like I would commercial breaks on a TV show.
It's not to say linear story telling in games can't achieve this outcome. Like I remember reading a good think piece how the Last of Us subverts those power fantasies but I can't find that article. I appreciate what Yager was going for here but to me, there's a disconnect between understanding and feeling the impact of a game and that gap is entirely due to the lack of agency in the story.
Again, for accuracy, it’s not strictly speaking correct either. The BIG moment doesn’t have agency (outside meta arguments) but there’s lots of moments that appear to have none which actually do,...
Again, for accuracy, it’s not strictly speaking correct either. The BIG moment doesn’t have agency (outside meta arguments) but there’s lots of moments that appear to have none which actually do, and is an extremely clever use of mechanics married with theme.
So it's been a decade since I played the game but the fact that things don't appear to be choices in actuality are , to me, further argues my point that game play undercut the message of the game....
So it's been a decade since I played the game but the fact that things don't appear to be choices in actuality are , to me, further argues my point that game play undercut the message of the game. I'm not asking for giant QTE situations but the alternate ending and these choices you get to make feel less like meaningful choices but more like the choices made in Telltale games or alternate endings in Mass Effect.
Like don't get me wrong, I think it's an important game and one people should talk about but to me, it's flawed messanger.
I really don’t think you understand what moments are choices if you’re comparing it to mass effect or telltale. There are several moments where the game leads you towards using violence because...
I really don’t think you understand what moments are choices if you’re comparing it to mass effect or telltale.
There are several moments where the game leads you towards using violence because that’s what you’ve been conditioned to do by all these games, when you in fact do not need to
Lol, I guess we disagree. My question to you is do these moments of non-violence choices have any effect on the overall outcome or direction of the story? Does it stop the big moment those who've...
I really don’t think you understand what moments are choices if you’re comparing it to mass effect or telltale.
Lol, I guess we disagree. My question to you is do these moments of non-violence choices have any effect on the overall outcome or direction of the story? Does it stop the big moment those who've played the game are aware of? Does it change the the narrative arc of Walker's journey? How do these non-violent choices square the fact that the entire game is about mowing down every enemy to advance to the next check point to push the story forward? Ultimately, do taking these actions lead to a significantly different experience for those who play it e.g. those who take the pacifist route in Undertale?
Maybe I'm wrong or it's the fact that it's been a decade since I played this game but after refreshing my memory with videos and plot summaries, I don't believe the answer is yes. In this sense, to me, these non-violent choices are in the "Walker will remember this" style of Telltale games or the slightly different endings of Mass Effect 3. In fact, if my memory serves me right, the actions that impact the various endings of Spec Ops are taken in the ending itself. This is why I compare these moments to ME3 and Telltale games, sure you can do something different here but ultimately, what difference does it make. I mean that's kind of Yager was trying to achieve here, right?
This is the gift/curse of linear story telling, on one hand you can cultivate a similar experience for all players but any choices you place in the game ultimately lack any real impact because everything must converge back to the singular story you're trying to tell.
You're misunderstanding the purpose of those moments. The story of The Line is set. It is linear. In the most crucial moments you have no choices. Arguably, depending on your interpretation of it,...
My question to you is do these moments of non-violence choices have any effect on the overall outcome or direction of the story?
You're misunderstanding the purpose of those moments.
The story of The Line is set. It is linear. In the most crucial moments you have no choices. Arguably, depending on your interpretation of it, the story is over before you start playing, so there cannot be a different outcome.
Those moments are not meant to do something as "mundane" or perhaps common, as alter an ending route. That's something that matters only in a game. The whole point of those moments is to point out, to you the player, through gameplay, not hammer over the head cutscenes or narrative, how you have conditioned yourself to seek violence first. In fact you do not need to "mow down every enemy", you just assume you do.
In short, there was never any intent to affect the ending of the game. The goal was to make the player think a bit more about how they're playing the game.
To be clear I think the game is good and unique, but has it's flaws. I just feel like this is engaging with it on the totally wrong level. You're criticizing it for not "changing the ending" when the entire point of the game was that the game parts are just that, but your real life decisions might need some reflecting upon if you constantly choose violence(and no I don't actually think violent games make for violent people but I do think it was a very clever way to do this).
I'd argue its a much more effective method than the many games that make clear you can murder the puppy or hug it or whatever to get a nicer ending cut scene. There is no obvious reward, much like real life, just the realization that you probably just mowed down a bunch of people you didn't need to because that's what you expect at that point in the game.
In short it was 100% never the goal to do something as common as dynamic storytelling with different endings. The message they're trying to send, agree with it or not, would literally be massively undercut by doing so, and go against the very message they're trying to convey.
Edit-
Just to ramble a bit more about this, if there's anything else I could compare it to, it's probably House of Leaves or similar style stories.
In both cases there is a very clearly defined plot, but how you engage with the actual media is a "second" plot or message. Granted in the case of House of Leaves, it's trying to just heighten the intensity of the original story while The Line isn't trying to tell a story with it's gameplay so much as convey a thesis. The "base" plot is just Heart of Darkness all over again.
I think The Line is one of the most unique experiences of this. While the loading tips are blunt about it those little moments where you just "shoot the badguys" when you didn't need to are a really really clever and unique use of the gaming medium to try and send a message. It manages to thread the needle of not feeling cheap while still feeling like a decent call out of your actions. The game has basically been screaming at you for awhile that you should probably reassess your methods, but you almost certainly don't, which meshes very well with exactly what is causing the entire plot to spiral out of control.
You, the human behind the game, can change and might notice that you can. Walker, the character trapped in the narrative, has already, or must, fail. I normally roll my eyes at things trying to be overly clever with their messaging, especially something as well tread and poorly discussed as "anti violence/war", but The Line is one of the few things trying to be clever that I think pulls it off, but mainly because of those few small moments of gameplay choices.
I feel the rest is fairly standard mixes of clever and heavy handed messaging, but I'd be hard pressed to say what you could just cut to still have those gameplay moments have the proper impact. Again it's the setup of both a "normal shooter" followed by a somewhat obvious "twist" but all off that is set dressing for the much more clever message in the hidden "how will you behave" choices. If on the one end of the scale you have something like Bioshock's little sisters with a literal "kill them or not" mechanic complete with obvious bonuses and changed endings, I feel like The Line is the complete opposite where the only "reward" is even noticing there was a choice, and thinking about how you handled it reflects on the message the game is trying to convey.
Thank you for clarifying. I still assert the gameplay is about killing enemies to progress the plot. Just because there are hidden non violent options doesn't mean the overwhelming gameplay isn't...
Thank you for clarifying. I still assert the gameplay is about killing enemies to progress the plot. Just because there are hidden non violent options doesn't mean the overwhelming gameplay isn't about committing violence.
That said , if devs obfuscate choices like this then it's not that much different than no choice at all. I'd argue that the vast majority of individuals in this thread and in the commentaries linked are unaware of these possibilities and had a completely different experience than you. Like you said sometimes devs can be too clever about these things but there's a huge area to explore between handholding pop up prompts and Spec Ops subtle implementation of choice. In fact its quite possible that I noticed these choices and took a non violent options (I usually do because I find them to be more interesting) but those choices had little to no impact on how I feel about my time with the game.
This is why my criticism of gameplay still exists. I don't want branching options (those games were just examples) or alternate endings. I do want a clearer ludonarrative harmony and in my opinion gameplay choices failed to fully convey Yagers lofty ideas, like I wish I had your experience and the gameplay had the impact on me that it did on you. But at this point we're just discussing differing experiences so I'm not sure what else I have to add about a game I feel is important but underwhelming as an experience.
Yeah, the lack of real choice and clashing of mechanics and message really ruined that game for me. An anti-war game where killing people is literally the only thing you do was a pretty brain-dead...
Yeah, the lack of real choice and clashing of mechanics and message really ruined that game for me. An anti-war game where killing people is literally the only thing you do was a pretty brain-dead design decision that I feel would not have happened if the creators were not making a sequel to an established IP. I guess it was a good financial decision in the end, but man, does it make the game feel like a mess to me.
I've always heard it put that you do always have a choice. You can choose to stop playing. It's the same in war. You can choose to do what you're forced to do or you can not, but if you don't,...
I've always heard it put that you do always have a choice. You can choose to stop playing.
It's the same in war. You can choose to do what you're forced to do or you can not, but if you don't, it's over.
Yeah, if you could just choose not to do the evil thing then the story is not as impactful. Spoilers The whole point of the white phosphorus strike is that the military thinks it's ok to use on...
Yeah, if you could just choose not to do the evil thing then the story is not as impactful.
Spoilers
The whole point of the white phosphorus strike is that the military thinks it's ok to use on scary bad guys (still a crime) but then you realize it was a misread and you actually hit civilians that the true horror of using white phosphorus (a war crime) on people always leads to horrific circumstances. The fact that the people were innocent in the end just makes it worse.
Spoilers end
I remember being a little annoyed when I first played it cause it does force your hand to do so, but at the same time, it is trying to tell a particular story. If this was a branching narrative RPG and this was just a particularly fucked up evil option it wouldn't have had the narrative impact it did and we probably wouldnt be talking about it.
Just to reinforce that message, the inability to do anything different is part of the message. The experience of megalomania is a compulsive one, you are no longer making choices, just driven my...
Just to reinforce that message, the inability to do anything different is part of the message. The experience of megalomania is a compulsive one, you are no longer making choices, just driven my your mental illness.
To me that feels a bit of a cop out, particularly when there are a lot of "empathy games" out there that offer a more real sense of choice. I think one thing that the Super Bunny Hop video points...
To me that feels a bit of a cop out, particularly when there are a lot of "empathy games" out there that offer a more real sense of choice. I think one thing that the Super Bunny Hop video points out that is that games like "This War of Mine" create choices and consequences for those choices. In "Spec Ops", there really is no choice (I don't agree with the assertion that not playing is an real choice but so be it) since so much of the game is on rails. Whether this was the idea from the get go to reinforce messages , I have my doubts, I did wish Spec Ops showed it's message more through game play rather than cut scenes. Like don't get me wrong, story wise, Spec Ops was great but man the game play was so generic 2010s cover shooter and actually not that fun.
I often think of Indigo Prophecy when the "choice not to play" comes up. When I played the game, I failed one of the final QTEs. Instead of Game Over, try again, a cutscene plays and the credits...
I often think of Indigo Prophecy when the "choice not to play" comes up. When I played the game, I failed one of the final QTEs. Instead of Game Over, try again, a cutscene plays and the credits roll.
That's it. Bad Guys won, you failed. Credits rolled.
I've literally never gone back and played it again for the 'real' ending because 1. That's fucking funny and 2. That's how the story ended.
Games that say "you can stop whenever" need to give you an end whenever. Put an in game "out" into it. Allow me to leave the space station and say "the end." Let the bad guy win and I run off with my tail between my legs.
If Spec Ops had a "retreat or use the phosphorus" that'd be one thing. That'd drive the point home. There's two stories. Walker and me. If I'm just playing Walker's story, don't try to make me feel bad for playing it. Imagine if someone sat behind you while watching Scarface and told you about how drugs hurt communities and that you're bad for watching?
But, I may be in the minority, I liked the gameplay. It's nothing amazing but it's fine.
I watched Grave of the Fireflies as a teenager and it was an absolutely gut-wrenching experience that made me reflect on the morality on the use of the atom bomb to end WW2. I'm still glad I...
If I'm just playing Walker's story, don't try to make me feel bad for playing it. Imagine if someone sat behind you while watching Scarface and told you about how drugs hurt communities and that you're bad for watching?
I watched Grave of the Fireflies as a teenager and it was an absolutely gut-wrenching experience that made me reflect on the morality on the use of the atom bomb to end WW2. I'm still glad I watched it.
I could probably make similar analogies for books, TV shows, all sorts of other media, but I hope you get the picture. I think that games should be allowed to make their players feel bad, and even possibly personally attacked for playing the game as intended.
Also for what it's worth I feel like the "don't play it" argument is a cop-out.
I've been impacted by plenty of media including Spec Ops, despite it being essentially Heart of Apocalypse Now which I'd engaged with long before playing it and maybe I'm just relating too much to...
I've been impacted by plenty of media including Spec Ops, despite it being essentially Heart of Apocalypse Now which I'd engaged with long before playing it and maybe I'm just relating too much to the idea of killing my own Konrad and returning to an undeserved hero's welcome, but I think it's a fine line to walk as well.
You're completely right. A game can make you feel bad for the things you've done. A game can make you feel bad for who you are. Games should be free to give you those same feelings that American History X does. Even a game like The Suffering, which explicitly allows you to be the murderer of your wife and children, or the original God of War trilogy can give you the opportunities to relish in all that chaos, have fun, and think "man, that's fucked up," without explicitly holding up the mirror and telling you the only answer is to cap yourself in Dubai.
Hell, the nuke in Terminator 2 was enough to get me in the same headspace as Grave of the Fireflies and I can actually rewatch T2... Not touching fireflies again for a long while.
But when the US army uses white phosphorus, do the ones doing it have an easy binary choice like this, where each option is equally easy? Or did it feel like something they had to do, something...
If Spec Ops had a "retreat or use the phosphorus" that'd be one thing. That'd drive the point home.
But when the US army uses white phosphorus, do the ones doing it have an easy binary choice like this, where each option is equally easy? Or did it feel like something they had to do, something that they could only avoid by doing things they'd consider as far from real options as the gamer does turning off the console?
I think one of the points this video is making is that while the game does say a lot when it comes to Walker's psyche and yours as a player, it's not just about you two.
There are moments where you have choices in the game. I’m aware the BIG one is forced but for the sake of accuracy there’s a lot of clever moments of agency
There are moments where you have choices in the game.
I’m aware the BIG one is forced but for the sake of accuracy there’s a lot of clever moments of agency
The fact that it's forced on the player undercuts the common interpretation that the game is a criticism of players thoughtlessly pulling the trigger in video games, but I think it still supports...
The fact that it's forced on the player undercuts the common interpretation that the game is a criticism of players thoughtlessly pulling the trigger in video games, but I think it still supports Geller's interpretation that it isn't so much a critique of war games, or the player, but of the real actions taking place in real life. In his words, the use of white phosphorus specifically (as opposed to regular bombs or nuclear weapons or napalm) in a game about killing civilians is a "very fucking deliberate choice."
Yeah, I think a lot of people in this thread are retreading the usual discussion of Spec Ops: The Line as ludonarrative -- which are good discussions to be fair! -- rather than engaging with the...
Yeah, I think a lot of people in this thread are retreading the usual discussion of Spec Ops: The Line as ludonarrative -- which are good discussions to be fair! -- rather than engaging with the video essay, which deliberately focuses on other aspects of the game's war criticism.
I am definitely one of those people who retread the same discussion. Maybe it was the 30 minute length of the video and a quick skim of the video but you're right, as I watch it now , the...
I am definitely one of those people who retread the same discussion. Maybe it was the 30 minute length of the video and a quick skim of the video but you're right, as I watch it now , the discussion is quite different and the focus on real life uses (and excuses/cover ups) for the use of white phosphorus, the desire to re-frame the conversation away from choice and onto real life victims of this weapon. All really good, hopefully people will watch the video and you get the discussion you intended.
I'm happy people are having a discussion in any case! It's an interesting topic that people discuss a lot for a reason. I just hope that people also watch the video and pay attention to the...
I'm happy people are having a discussion in any case! It's an interesting topic that people discuss a lot for a reason. I just hope that people also watch the video and pay attention to the aspects he's discussing here.
I recommend you actually watch the video, as Geller makes the distinction more clear in the essay, but essentially the difference is between the game's more criticism of military shooters and more...
I recommend you actually watch the video, as Geller makes the distinction more clear in the essay, but essentially the difference is between the game's more criticism of military shooters and more generally of war (generic) from its criticism of very specific war crimes the US and Israel were committing in the Middle East at the time. Much of the critical analysis of Spec Ops: The Line has focused on its use of ludonarrative to point the finger at the player (the comments below this comment do!) whereas the criticism directly of particular real-life war crimes through the use of white phosphorus is more often a footnote in writing about Spec Ops: The Line. He provides examples and context that make this more clear, but to use your example, it's the difference between "you're committing war crimes" and "this is a war crime and its effects are horrific (compare and contrast with the news)"
There's only so much I can write here without restating things Geller says in the essay, and I'm a much worse writer than he is. So I really do recommend watching the essay.
Nah I always just discussed the war crimes myself. Spoilers! - the white phosphorus bit is crazy and really opened my eyes when I first played it -Spoilers! (I don't know how to spoiler post on...
Nah I always just discussed the war crimes myself. Spoilers! - the white phosphorus bit is crazy and really opened my eyes when I first played it -Spoilers! (I don't know how to spoiler post on mobile)
I always thought the losing your mind as the main character was because of the war crimes, not leading to the war crimes.
The character does the war crimes because you press the buttons and make them do them but I'll be damned if he wasn't loco from Jump Street. He got more and more deranged as the game went on and...
The character does the war crimes because you press the buttons and make them do them but I'll be damned if he wasn't loco from Jump Street. He got more and more deranged as the game went on and perhaps pushed even more because of the war crimes but he was never really a stable dude if he lost his whole mind in the first hour or so of the game.
I draw a fun parallel between Spec Ops and Red Dead 2 in that the reason the character feels bad and the reason I feel bad are different. In Red Dead 2, the scene that sets the ending in motion...
I draw a fun parallel between Spec Ops and Red Dead 2 in that the reason the character feels bad and the reason I feel bad are different.
In Red Dead 2, the scene that sets the ending in motion gives you no choice. You can press threaten 100 times but you have to press hit to move forward. In my game, Arthur punched a man once and that haunted him until the end. Same with Spec Ops, you have to make the wrong choice. There's no "secret" game over. Drop the phosphorus.
I didn't feel bad about either of them. Then, in Spec Ops, I later gunned down some refugees, only to be politely informed that I didn't have to do that. I didn't need to be a guy with a machine gun gunning down scared people with rocks - but I did anyway. That one has stuck with me. Walker didn't do that, I did.
Jacob Geller's video essays are incredibly consistently phenomenal. I wish I could post this to more than just ~games because I genuinely think even those with no interest in videogames would gain a lot from watching this video essay. This particular one delves into aspects of Spec Ops: The Line's criticism of real contemporary war crimes, which are rarely given their due focus when discussing that incredibly influential game.
Honestly I'd recommend people on Tildes watch pretty much any video essay Jacob has ever made, as he's one of the best creators in the space, but in particular I think his insights into military violence and war crimes as depicted in videogames hit exactly the right mark. If you like this one, his video analyzing torture scenes in Call of Duty is also very good.
Isn't that like the main thing people talk about? Or is it the subtlety between "you're a crazy person committing war crimes" and "you're committing war crimes?"
I didn't watch the entire video but the way OP is characterizing it, to me, is the main reason why Spec Ops is discussed today and the only reason why I played it nearly a decade ago, because people mentioned it's anti-war themes back then and even now. I lean on the side of Super Bunny-Hops criticism of the game that the mechanics of the game undercuts the message/emotion as everything is so linear that there's no choice in it, unlike other anti-war games mentioned in that 9 year old video.
edit : finally got around to finishing the entire video. it's quite good and brings a new perspective to this game by grounding it in real life examples and narratives sewn by militaries trying to justify their horrible actions.
This critique never makes sense to me. No one complains when a game with a linear story and no choices calls you a hero. Why complain when the opposite happens?
Right but these hero/power fantasies are trying to achieve a completely different outcome and I'd argue, a linear story favors that outcome as it allows all players to feel that sense of accomplishment. Spec Ops is trying to something different and subvert the 2000s era mil-shooter genre while also telling a very obvious anti-war message.
When I played it, it had a distinct separation between gameplay and story and they felt entirely disconnected and at odds. So much of the game is trying to do some meta commentary and make the player think about what they've done during the campaign but when crucial moments happen to drive that point home, actions are taken completely out of the hands of the player. The end result is when the big moment in the game happens, I felt nothing and it was no different than watching a movie or reading a book. This is simply where the writers wanted to the story to go and I'm going to churn to this banal game play like I would commercial breaks on a TV show.
It's not to say linear story telling in games can't achieve this outcome. Like I remember reading a good think piece how the Last of Us subverts those power fantasies but I can't find that article. I appreciate what Yager was going for here but to me, there's a disconnect between understanding and feeling the impact of a game and that gap is entirely due to the lack of agency in the story.
Again, for accuracy, it’s not strictly speaking correct either. The BIG moment doesn’t have agency (outside meta arguments) but there’s lots of moments that appear to have none which actually do, and is an extremely clever use of mechanics married with theme.
So it's been a decade since I played the game but the fact that things don't appear to be choices in actuality are , to me, further argues my point that game play undercut the message of the game. I'm not asking for giant QTE situations but the alternate ending and these choices you get to make feel less like meaningful choices but more like the choices made in Telltale games or alternate endings in Mass Effect.
Like don't get me wrong, I think it's an important game and one people should talk about but to me, it's flawed messanger.
I really don’t think you understand what moments are choices if you’re comparing it to mass effect or telltale.
There are several moments where the game leads you towards using violence because that’s what you’ve been conditioned to do by all these games, when you in fact do not need to
Lol, I guess we disagree. My question to you is do these moments of non-violence choices have any effect on the overall outcome or direction of the story? Does it stop the big moment those who've played the game are aware of? Does it change the the narrative arc of Walker's journey? How do these non-violent choices square the fact that the entire game is about mowing down every enemy to advance to the next check point to push the story forward? Ultimately, do taking these actions lead to a significantly different experience for those who play it e.g. those who take the pacifist route in Undertale?
Maybe I'm wrong or it's the fact that it's been a decade since I played this game but after refreshing my memory with videos and plot summaries, I don't believe the answer is yes. In this sense, to me, these non-violent choices are in the "Walker will remember this" style of Telltale games or the slightly different endings of Mass Effect 3. In fact, if my memory serves me right, the actions that impact the various endings of Spec Ops are taken in the ending itself. This is why I compare these moments to ME3 and Telltale games, sure you can do something different here but ultimately, what difference does it make. I mean that's kind of Yager was trying to achieve here, right?
This is the gift/curse of linear story telling, on one hand you can cultivate a similar experience for all players but any choices you place in the game ultimately lack any real impact because everything must converge back to the singular story you're trying to tell.
You're misunderstanding the purpose of those moments.
The story of The Line is set. It is linear. In the most crucial moments you have no choices. Arguably, depending on your interpretation of it, the story is over before you start playing, so there cannot be a different outcome.
Those moments are not meant to do something as "mundane" or perhaps common, as alter an ending route. That's something that matters only in a game. The whole point of those moments is to point out, to you the player, through gameplay, not hammer over the head cutscenes or narrative, how you have conditioned yourself to seek violence first. In fact you do not need to "mow down every enemy", you just assume you do.
In short, there was never any intent to affect the ending of the game. The goal was to make the player think a bit more about how they're playing the game.
To be clear I think the game is good and unique, but has it's flaws. I just feel like this is engaging with it on the totally wrong level. You're criticizing it for not "changing the ending" when the entire point of the game was that the game parts are just that, but your real life decisions might need some reflecting upon if you constantly choose violence(and no I don't actually think violent games make for violent people but I do think it was a very clever way to do this).
I'd argue its a much more effective method than the many games that make clear you can murder the puppy or hug it or whatever to get a nicer ending cut scene. There is no obvious reward, much like real life, just the realization that you probably just mowed down a bunch of people you didn't need to because that's what you expect at that point in the game.
In short it was 100% never the goal to do something as common as dynamic storytelling with different endings. The message they're trying to send, agree with it or not, would literally be massively undercut by doing so, and go against the very message they're trying to convey.
Edit-
Just to ramble a bit more about this, if there's anything else I could compare it to, it's probably House of Leaves or similar style stories.
In both cases there is a very clearly defined plot, but how you engage with the actual media is a "second" plot or message. Granted in the case of House of Leaves, it's trying to just heighten the intensity of the original story while The Line isn't trying to tell a story with it's gameplay so much as convey a thesis. The "base" plot is just Heart of Darkness all over again.
I think The Line is one of the most unique experiences of this. While the loading tips are blunt about it those little moments where you just "shoot the badguys" when you didn't need to are a really really clever and unique use of the gaming medium to try and send a message. It manages to thread the needle of not feeling cheap while still feeling like a decent call out of your actions. The game has basically been screaming at you for awhile that you should probably reassess your methods, but you almost certainly don't, which meshes very well with exactly what is causing the entire plot to spiral out of control.
You, the human behind the game, can change and might notice that you can. Walker, the character trapped in the narrative, has already, or must, fail. I normally roll my eyes at things trying to be overly clever with their messaging, especially something as well tread and poorly discussed as "anti violence/war", but The Line is one of the few things trying to be clever that I think pulls it off, but mainly because of those few small moments of gameplay choices.
I feel the rest is fairly standard mixes of clever and heavy handed messaging, but I'd be hard pressed to say what you could just cut to still have those gameplay moments have the proper impact. Again it's the setup of both a "normal shooter" followed by a somewhat obvious "twist" but all off that is set dressing for the much more clever message in the hidden "how will you behave" choices. If on the one end of the scale you have something like Bioshock's little sisters with a literal "kill them or not" mechanic complete with obvious bonuses and changed endings, I feel like The Line is the complete opposite where the only "reward" is even noticing there was a choice, and thinking about how you handled it reflects on the message the game is trying to convey.
Thank you for clarifying. I still assert the gameplay is about killing enemies to progress the plot. Just because there are hidden non violent options doesn't mean the overwhelming gameplay isn't about committing violence.
That said , if devs obfuscate choices like this then it's not that much different than no choice at all. I'd argue that the vast majority of individuals in this thread and in the commentaries linked are unaware of these possibilities and had a completely different experience than you. Like you said sometimes devs can be too clever about these things but there's a huge area to explore between handholding pop up prompts and Spec Ops subtle implementation of choice. In fact its quite possible that I noticed these choices and took a non violent options (I usually do because I find them to be more interesting) but those choices had little to no impact on how I feel about my time with the game.
This is why my criticism of gameplay still exists. I don't want branching options (those games were just examples) or alternate endings. I do want a clearer ludonarrative harmony and in my opinion gameplay choices failed to fully convey Yagers lofty ideas, like I wish I had your experience and the gameplay had the impact on me that it did on you. But at this point we're just discussing differing experiences so I'm not sure what else I have to add about a game I feel is important but underwhelming as an experience.
Yeah, the lack of real choice and clashing of mechanics and message really ruined that game for me. An anti-war game where killing people is literally the only thing you do was a pretty brain-dead design decision that I feel would not have happened if the creators were not making a sequel to an established IP. I guess it was a good financial decision in the end, but man, does it make the game feel like a mess to me.
I've always heard it put that you do always have a choice. You can choose to stop playing.
It's the same in war. You can choose to do what you're forced to do or you can not, but if you don't, it's over.
Yeah, if you could just choose not to do the evil thing then the story is not as impactful.
Spoilers
The whole point of the white phosphorus strike is that the military thinks it's ok to use on scary bad guys (still a crime) but then you realize it was a misread and you actually hit civilians that the true horror of using white phosphorus (a war crime) on people always leads to horrific circumstances. The fact that the people were innocent in the end just makes it worse.
Spoilers end
I remember being a little annoyed when I first played it cause it does force your hand to do so, but at the same time, it is trying to tell a particular story. If this was a branching narrative RPG and this was just a particularly fucked up evil option it wouldn't have had the narrative impact it did and we probably wouldnt be talking about it.
Just to reinforce that message, the inability to do anything different is part of the message. The experience of megalomania is a compulsive one, you are no longer making choices, just driven my your mental illness.
To me that feels a bit of a cop out, particularly when there are a lot of "empathy games" out there that offer a more real sense of choice. I think one thing that the Super Bunny Hop video points out that is that games like "This War of Mine" create choices and consequences for those choices. In "Spec Ops", there really is no choice (I don't agree with the assertion that not playing is an real choice but so be it) since so much of the game is on rails. Whether this was the idea from the get go to reinforce messages , I have my doubts, I did wish Spec Ops showed it's message more through game play rather than cut scenes. Like don't get me wrong, story wise, Spec Ops was great but man the game play was so generic 2010s cover shooter and actually not that fun.
I often think of Indigo Prophecy when the "choice not to play" comes up. When I played the game, I failed one of the final QTEs. Instead of Game Over, try again, a cutscene plays and the credits roll.
That's it. Bad Guys won, you failed. Credits rolled.
I've literally never gone back and played it again for the 'real' ending because 1. That's fucking funny and 2. That's how the story ended.
Games that say "you can stop whenever" need to give you an end whenever. Put an in game "out" into it. Allow me to leave the space station and say "the end." Let the bad guy win and I run off with my tail between my legs.
If Spec Ops had a "retreat or use the phosphorus" that'd be one thing. That'd drive the point home. There's two stories. Walker and me. If I'm just playing Walker's story, don't try to make me feel bad for playing it. Imagine if someone sat behind you while watching Scarface and told you about how drugs hurt communities and that you're bad for watching?
But, I may be in the minority, I liked the gameplay. It's nothing amazing but it's fine.
I watched Grave of the Fireflies as a teenager and it was an absolutely gut-wrenching experience that made me reflect on the morality on the use of the atom bomb to end WW2. I'm still glad I watched it.
I could probably make similar analogies for books, TV shows, all sorts of other media, but I hope you get the picture. I think that games should be allowed to make their players feel bad, and even possibly personally attacked for playing the game as intended.
Also for what it's worth I feel like the "don't play it" argument is a cop-out.
I've been impacted by plenty of media including Spec Ops, despite it being essentially Heart of Apocalypse Now which I'd engaged with long before playing it and maybe I'm just relating too much to the idea of killing my own Konrad and returning to an undeserved hero's welcome, but I think it's a fine line to walk as well.
You're completely right. A game can make you feel bad for the things you've done. A game can make you feel bad for who you are. Games should be free to give you those same feelings that American History X does. Even a game like The Suffering, which explicitly allows you to be the murderer of your wife and children, or the original God of War trilogy can give you the opportunities to relish in all that chaos, have fun, and think "man, that's fucked up," without explicitly holding up the mirror and telling you the only answer is to cap yourself in Dubai.
Hell, the nuke in Terminator 2 was enough to get me in the same headspace as Grave of the Fireflies and I can actually rewatch T2... Not touching fireflies again for a long while.
But when the US army uses white phosphorus, do the ones doing it have an easy binary choice like this, where each option is equally easy? Or did it feel like something they had to do, something that they could only avoid by doing things they'd consider as far from real options as the gamer does turning off the console?
I think one of the points this video is making is that while the game does say a lot when it comes to Walker's psyche and yours as a player, it's not just about you two.
Then I will just say that my decision to give up was the definitive playthrough. 😜
There are moments where you have choices in the game.
I’m aware the BIG one is forced but for the sake of accuracy there’s a lot of clever moments of agency
The fact that it's forced on the player undercuts the common interpretation that the game is a criticism of players thoughtlessly pulling the trigger in video games, but I think it still supports Geller's interpretation that it isn't so much a critique of war games, or the player, but of the real actions taking place in real life. In his words, the use of white phosphorus specifically (as opposed to regular bombs or nuclear weapons or napalm) in a game about killing civilians is a "very fucking deliberate choice."
Yeah, I think a lot of people in this thread are retreading the usual discussion of Spec Ops: The Line as ludonarrative -- which are good discussions to be fair! -- rather than engaging with the video essay, which deliberately focuses on other aspects of the game's war criticism.
I am definitely one of those people who retread the same discussion. Maybe it was the 30 minute length of the video and a quick skim of the video but you're right, as I watch it now , the discussion is quite different and the focus on real life uses (and excuses/cover ups) for the use of white phosphorus, the desire to re-frame the conversation away from choice and onto real life victims of this weapon. All really good, hopefully people will watch the video and you get the discussion you intended.
I'm happy people are having a discussion in any case! It's an interesting topic that people discuss a lot for a reason. I just hope that people also watch the video and pay attention to the aspects he's discussing here.
I recommend you actually watch the video, as Geller makes the distinction more clear in the essay, but essentially the difference is between the game's more criticism of military shooters and more generally of war (generic) from its criticism of very specific war crimes the US and Israel were committing in the Middle East at the time. Much of the critical analysis of Spec Ops: The Line has focused on its use of ludonarrative to point the finger at the player (the comments below this comment do!) whereas the criticism directly of particular real-life war crimes through the use of white phosphorus is more often a footnote in writing about Spec Ops: The Line. He provides examples and context that make this more clear, but to use your example, it's the difference between "you're committing war crimes" and "this is a war crime and its effects are horrific (compare and contrast with the news)"
There's only so much I can write here without restating things Geller says in the essay, and I'm a much worse writer than he is. So I really do recommend watching the essay.
Nah I always just discussed the war crimes myself. Spoilers! - the white phosphorus bit is crazy and really opened my eyes when I first played it -Spoilers! (I don't know how to spoiler post on mobile)
I always thought the losing your mind as the main character was because of the war crimes, not leading to the war crimes.
We don't have a function for spoiler text on Tildes unfortunately. There's a detail drawer for expandable text, but nothing for inline text.
https://docs.tildes.net/instructions/text-formatting#:~:text=.-,Expandable%20sections,-You%20can%20create
Thanks for letting me know! At least it wasn't my bad for not doing it properly.
The character does the war crimes because you press the buttons and make them do them but I'll be damned if he wasn't loco from Jump Street. He got more and more deranged as the game went on and perhaps pushed even more because of the war crimes but he was never really a stable dude if he lost his whole mind in the first hour or so of the game.
I draw a fun parallel between Spec Ops and Red Dead 2 in that the reason the character feels bad and the reason I feel bad are different.
In Red Dead 2, the scene that sets the ending in motion gives you no choice. You can press threaten 100 times but you have to press hit to move forward. In my game, Arthur punched a man once and that haunted him until the end. Same with Spec Ops, you have to make the wrong choice. There's no "secret" game over. Drop the phosphorus.
I didn't feel bad about either of them. Then, in Spec Ops, I later gunned down some refugees, only to be politely informed that I didn't have to do that. I didn't need to be a guy with a machine gun gunning down scared people with rocks - but I did anyway. That one has stuck with me. Walker didn't do that, I did.
But that's my two cents.