Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel

An interview on GameStar.de talks (in German) with the folks at Yager Developments about Spec Ops: The Line learns that in spite of the positive reception the military shooter met with, it's failure to achieve mainstream success leaves Yager reluctant to revisit the genre. The sentiment we see in a machine-translated version of the article is that the intellectual approach they took to the shooter only appeals to a subset of the audience, and the costs of making a AAA shooter do not justify a game tailored to a niche audience. Art director Mathias Wiese also notes that five years of looking at war images can be rough on the developers, which would have left them reluctant to make a sequel even if Spec Ops had been a huge hit. Thanks Strategy Informer via NeoGAF.

View
54 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >

54. Re: Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel Jul 23, 2014, 20:46 Quboid
 
Flatline wrote on Jul 23, 2014, 19:51:
Quboid wrote on Jul 23, 2014, 01:07:
In real life if I was forced to ... well, that's besides the point. Whatever the reason, it wouldn't be because reality was scripted in a way that created a contrived a plot line. Whatever happened in real life wouldn't rip me out of the experience and remind me that I'm not really there.

Actually that's exactly the point.

Seriously, "bomb the shit out of coordinates X,Y NOW SOLDIER" is a thing that happens in real life. And in real life occasionally that has resulted in innocent people being killed or lethal friendly fire. How you deal with committing an atrocity is the entire point of the game.

Shit as a soldier you're taught not to question orders, especially in the heat of battle.

You're actually illustrating the point of the game designers pretty well.

But reality is realistic. If this happened in real, it would not remind me that I'm sitting at home, playing a game. Reality doesn't have its immersion broken because of unrealistic scripting limitations.

This did not put me in the position of a soldier who does something terrible by mistake, nor did it put me in the position of a solider who was ordered to do something terrible. It put me in the position of sitting safely in a room about 3,500 miles from Dubai.

I wasn't thinking "oh what a terrible thing" or "oh I'm a terrible person", I was thinking "oh lame, the devs assumed I wouldn't notice that they're civilians from their outline in the mortar's sight but I did". I wasn't forced by an order from a commanding officer or any other realistic reason, I was forced because the game didn't offer any of the myriad of actual options that reality does offer.

I felt frustrated and removed from the game's version of reality. If this was intentional to make me feel the madness that's taking over my character, then these developers screwed up worse than I ever thought because at least for me, any meta connotations completely backfired. Feeling like the developers got carried away does not replicate the feelings one would have after accidentally brutally burning to death innocent civilians, in much the same way as my Windows desktop doesn't replicate the bravery and consequences of refusing an order.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
53. Re: Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel Jul 23, 2014, 19:51 Flatline
 
Quboid wrote on Jul 23, 2014, 01:07:
In real life if I was forced to ... well, that's besides the point. Whatever the reason, it wouldn't be because reality was scripted in a way that created a contrived a plot line. Whatever happened in real life wouldn't rip me out of the experience and remind me that I'm not really there.

Actually that's exactly the point.

Seriously, "bomb the shit out of coordinates X,Y NOW SOLDIER" is a thing that happens in real life. And in real life occasionally that has resulted in innocent people being killed or lethal friendly fire. How you deal with committing an atrocity is the entire point of the game.

Shit as a soldier you're taught not to question orders, especially in the heat of battle.

You're actually illustrating the point of the game designers pretty well.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
52. Re: Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel Jul 23, 2014, 14:08 Prez
 
ItBurn wrote on Jul 22, 2014, 00:00:
Redmask wrote on Jul 21, 2014, 23:19:
ItBurn wrote on Jul 21, 2014, 18:46:
You guys would find gems in a turd.

Says the guy posting 20 times in a thread about a game he supposedly hates.

21

Says the guy who postz 21 times in a thread about a game he supposedly hates.

I thought Spec Ops was a great game myself.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
51. Re: Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel Jul 23, 2014, 01:07 Quboid
 
If they intentionally significantly reduced the level of immersion I felt to make a point then their heads were so far stuck up their own asses that they failed to make a good experience. People don't play corridor shooters continually thinking "should I continue or am I doing bad things and should stop?", they're thinking "where's this guy going to pop his head up next". You can't enjoy a game if you're continually reminded that you're sitting at home.

In real life if I was forced to ... well, that's besides the point. Whatever the reason, it wouldn't be because reality was scripted in a way that created a contrived a plot line. Whatever happened in real life wouldn't rip me out of the experience and remind me that I'm not really there.

If they didn't intend the frustration, they made a flawed game. If they did intend the frustration, they made a deeply flawed game.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
50. Re: Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel Jul 22, 2014, 19:54 Flatline
 
Quboid wrote on Jul 22, 2014, 07:06:

But Spec Ops: The Line wasn't talking to *me*. That's the problem. I wanted it to talk to me but by attributing a terrible decision that I never made to my character, it built a wall between us.

In real life, if you're ordered to fire a barrage at grid coordinates X,Y and you find out after the fact that due to a fuckup in intel you killed a lot of innocent people, can you hide behind "it's not my fault I had no choice I was forced to do it!"?

It seemed clear to me in the game that you were expected to get pissed at the game and the devs for "not giving you a choice" and to build up that wall and keep going, guns blazing. That "I had no choice goddamn it!" is exactly what the character is thinking. Things could have gone a dozen different ways. Circumstances reduced those options. The frustration you feel at not having a choice is the displacement that the main character is feeling. This isn't his choice. Either circumstances left him with no choice at that moment or some asshole with a controller and a rambo fantasy hit a button and now he's got to deal with a horrible act on his shoulders.

I mean, think about it. Your character's original mission is to see if people are still alive in Dubai. As soon as you recon and find life, you're supposed to pull out and report back in.

Nobody in this thread has bitched about the lack of choice at that point where you first find life in Dubai. That's okay because we're playing the game to indulge in the hero fantasy. It's only when something we don't like, which attacks that hero fantasy, is attributed to us that we complain, and the displacement starts.

Edit: It's also interesting that people claim the idea of "stop playing or live with your choice" is bullshit, but isn't that exactly what every intentionally spawned enemy in every shooter (Especially the more derivative shooters) amounts to? A railroaded decision point- You will kill this character or the game ends. We accept that railroaded binary choice because it reinforces the hero fantasy. However, when it's something distasteful, then it becomes a problem.

This comment was edited on Jul 22, 2014, 20:03.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
49. Re: Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel Jul 22, 2014, 16:24 Creston
 
It's pretty impressive that the excuses put up here for the Line make the Far Cry 3 writer's excuses look downright logical in comparison.
 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
48. Re: Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel Jul 22, 2014, 07:27 Redmask
 
ItBurn wrote on Jul 22, 2014, 00:00:
Redmask wrote on Jul 21, 2014, 23:19:
ItBurn wrote on Jul 21, 2014, 18:46:
You guys would find gems in a turd.

Says the guy posting 20 times in a thread about a game he supposedly hates.

21

Go outside at night and look at the little dipper for a few minutes.
 
Avatar 57682
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
47. Re: Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel Jul 22, 2014, 07:06 Quboid
 
007Bistromath wrote on Jul 22, 2014, 00:12:
Quboid wrote on Jul 21, 2014, 20:37:
This isn't The Stanley Parable.

One of the most important lines in the game, one that comes through so crystal clear, and which is repeated more than once, a line which it could easily be argued is addressed to the player just as much as it is to the character: "all you had to do was stop."

The Stanley Parable is EXACTLY what this is.

But Spec Ops: The Line wasn't talking to *me*. That's the problem. I wanted it to talk to me but by attributing a terrible decision that I never made to my character, it built a wall between us.

The Stanley Parable, as well as being very meta and actually talking to the player, was supposed to be restarted regularly. A linear shooter like Spec Ops: The Line is not and I really, really hope Yager weren't intending that. I want my money's worth and if there's supposed to be a statement about how I consider "my money's worth" to be more important than avoiding the horrible stuff that happens in game then it utterly fails because my money is real and the suffering isn't.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
46. Re: Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel Jul 22, 2014, 00:12 007Bistromath
 
Quboid wrote on Jul 21, 2014, 20:37:
This isn't The Stanley Parable.

One of the most important lines in the game, one that comes through so crystal clear, and which is repeated more than once, a line which it could easily be argued is addressed to the player just as much as it is to the character: "all you had to do was stop."

The Stanley Parable is EXACTLY what this is.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
45. Re: Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel Jul 22, 2014, 00:00 ItBurn
 
Redmask wrote on Jul 21, 2014, 23:19:
ItBurn wrote on Jul 21, 2014, 18:46:
You guys would find gems in a turd.

Says the guy posting 20 times in a thread about a game he supposedly hates.

21
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
44. Re: Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel Jul 21, 2014, 23:19 Redmask
 
ItBurn wrote on Jul 21, 2014, 18:46:
You guys would find gems in a turd.

Says the guy posting 20 times in a thread about a game he supposedly hates.
 
Avatar 57682
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
43. Re: Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel Jul 21, 2014, 22:21 Neuenc
 
I think you're all right. Any form of entertainment can grab you, or push you away. In the end the outcome is up to each of us to perceive it in our own fashion.  
Avatar 50556
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
42. Re: Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel Jul 21, 2014, 20:37 Quboid
 
Asmo, you and I view this game quite differently. Perhaps I'm the exception here, perhaps there's no consensus, but you are talking about effectively a different game. How much did this affect you? Talking about being forced to watch horrific acts, psychopathy, sick sense of inevitability, what?!? I played a generic 3rd person cover shooter with a nice twist to the plot. The white phosphorous bit, I thought "oh this will be the bit Yahtzee was referring to in Zero Punctuation. Any way to avoid it? ... hmm, nope. OK then". This was grim by game standards but I managed to move on emotionally in about 5 seconds.

The only sense of frustration was that the game kept referring to this moment as if I - the player - had done it and every time came up, I got ripped out of the game as it reminded me that I wasn't in control. The exact moment that was supposed to define the game - and I suppose did define the game - was the moment where the game failed because it was trying to be a film.

Your point about narrative is sort of what I mean about the character's journey versus the player's. It's a game, I'm not watching this guy, I am controlling him. To have control effectively taken away at a crucial point diminishes the game. It wasn't the character losing control of reality, it was me being unable to get my objective ticked until I clicked on the right pixels. The narrative and plot may be developing wonderfully but this isn't a film and gameplay and immersion is now being affected by this disconnect.

The choice to continue playing the game, I'm not buying it. This isn't The Stanley Parable. Finishing the game was a bit of a chore because the gameplay was so generic, not because it was traumatising. The main reason I wouldn't describe this game as fun is because it was otherwise so generic, not because it was emotionally draining. It was memorable and I do admire it but it sounds like it affected you like Brothers: A Tale Of Two Sons managed to get to me. That's a game has nothing to do with choice or morality but it still managed to get under my skin - in a good, but not fun way.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
41. Re: Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel Jul 21, 2014, 20:34 ShakaUVM
 
It's an excellent game.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
40. Re: Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel Jul 21, 2014, 20:17 Quboid
 
It really depends on what the game was trying to be. The disagreement seems to be based on how you see it - the character's journey or the player's journey.

If it was trying to make the player think about how the player character descends into madness, then it has done a pretty good job.

If it was trying to make a moral point and trying to make the player feel bad, then it failed.
 
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
39. Re: Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel Jul 21, 2014, 19:50 Squirmer
 
Asmo wrote on Jul 21, 2014, 18:35:
And ultimately, you do have a choice. You could choose to stop playing the game.
Hahahahaha

You know what other game features this same shocking choice? Every single one of them. If you want to make an interesting commentary on games specifically you have to give players choices, since player agency is a defining quality of the medium. Yager just slapped a story on a boring game and pretended it was doing more than it was.

The game is a film basically, and Michael Haneke already made this film in 1997 (and many film critics rightly mocked him for it).
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
38. Re: Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel Jul 21, 2014, 19:48 ItBurn
 
siapnar wrote on Jul 21, 2014, 19:22:
ItBurn wrote on Jul 21, 2014, 18:46:
The story is uninteresting and convoluted and while it may attempt to make players think more deeply about what they're doing, it ultimately falls flat because of the game's flaws. The gameplay is awful and the fact that you stop playing only means that it's a terrible game.

You guys would find gems in a turd.
Guys, thread's over. This fella's opinion is paramount.
Grovel, motherfuckers

Thanks
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
37. Re: Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel Jul 21, 2014, 19:22 siapnar
 
ItBurn wrote on Jul 21, 2014, 18:46:
The story is uninteresting and convoluted and while it may attempt to make players think more deeply about what they're doing, it ultimately falls flat because of the game's flaws. The gameplay is awful and the fact that you stop playing only means that it's a terrible game.

You guys would find gems in a turd.
Guys, thread's over. This fella's opinion is paramount.
Grovel, motherfuckers
 
Avatar 26019
 
I have projectile dysfunction.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
36. Re: Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel Jul 21, 2014, 18:46 ItBurn
 
Asmo wrote on Jul 21, 2014, 18:35:
...
And ultimately, you do have a choice. You could choose to stop playing the game. Quitting the game and refusing to play it would be the equivalent of the main character pulling his side arm and shooting himself or falling down catatonic, rather than push further and risk doing more terrible things. Even the act of refusing the play the game fits it's modeling of human psychology. And that's why it's brilliant.

The amount of BS has reached critical. The story is uninteresting and convoluted and while it may attempt to make players think more deeply about what they're doing, it ultimately falls flat because of the game's flaws. The gameplay is awful and the fact that you stop playing only means that it's a terrible game.

You guys would find gems in a turd.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
35. Re: Yager: No Spec Ops: The Line Sequel Jul 21, 2014, 18:35 Asmo
 
Elf Shot The Food wrote on Jul 21, 2014, 11:39:
"The game won't continue until you kill all those civilians!"

(Kills civilians)

"You're a bad, bad man for killing those civilians! Don't you feel ashamed?"

There are two parts where you can take action against civilians. One is incidental, the other, there is an alternate solution...

Spoilers:
The white phosphorous attack is incidental, you didn't know they were there. The second part is when you are trapped in the shanty town. Instead of murdering them, you can fire in to the air and they flee, allowing you to pass the section without killing anyone. It's a metaphor for thinking outside the flat plane of "everything must die for you to continue"...

That you lack the imagination to come up with the alternate solution is not the fault of the game, it's your mindset that every problem can only be confronted in one way, via gunplay, or that you need to be lead with visual queues or a voice over prompting you what to do. It's a micro example of a macro problem, ie. when everyone thinks the same way, a relatively simple solution to a problem is completely overlooked. Edit: Rofl, didn't notice a second page of comments before posting, I see you identified the fire in the air bit, my bad. ; )

And for those whinging about how directed it is, that's the very point of the game. You are not acting with free will, you are following a descent in to insanity. Think "A Streetcar named Desire". Blanche's descent in to madness and fantasy is a narrative, not a thing you can change. Your persona in Spec Ops is that of the subconscious along for the ride, forced to watch as your body performs grotesque and horrific acts. It's an enforced cognitive dissonance where your natural inclinations to not be a war criminal battles your desire to finish the game at any cost... That's the psychopathy factor, how willing are you to contradict your internal moral set just to finish the game? It's a sick sense of inevitability, not unlike true mental illness. You have little control even though you are the one playing the game. No, it's not fun, it's not supposed to be fun. But I've played quite a few games or watched movies that weren't fun, but were enjoyable anyway.

The fact that it evokes such strong emotions in people tells me the storyline did it's job. I would be more concerned if someone played that game and never thought twice about mowing people down, that none of the acts they had to commit to complete the game evoked a feeling of disgust or frustration at being unable to make a different choice.

And ultimately, you do have a choice. You could choose to stop playing the game. Quitting the game and refusing to play it would be the equivalent of the main character pulling his side arm and shooting himself or falling down catatonic, rather than push further and risk doing more terrible things. Even the act of refusing the play the game fits it's modeling of human psychology. And that's why it's brilliant.

This comment was edited on Jul 21, 2014, 18:59.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
54 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo