Without any new games to discuss Matt, Ethan and Ricardo take a silly look at the news and then a slightly less silly look at the history of story and moral choice systems in video games, from KOTOR to The Walking Dead to… Army of Two 2?
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:20:26 — 55.2MB)
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Android | RSS
Since Ricardo decided to write about my personal GOTY pick, The Walking Dead, I’m going to write about my runner-up for 2012. Another game that did an amazing job with its story, choices, and brutal player revelations: Spec Ops: The Line.
Upon first glance, Spec Ops appears to be nothing more than a very generic, third-person, military shooter set in the Middle East. After a late first act turn, however, the game proceeds to flip what you expected on your head, and instead takes you on a slow, spiraling descent down a dark road to madness. Without spoiling as much as I already have, it’s safe to assume that things to do not go well for Capt. Walker and company.
Spec Op’s story not only addresses themes such as the horrors of war and posttraumatic stress disorder, but also is a direct statement on war games, player agency, and those who seek entertainment out of virtual violence.
Throughout the game players are presented with “choices” that do have consequences in the main story, but when it comes down to the most important moments of the story, there is no choice. If you play the game, you will do horrible things to proceed, and the game will take note of that. It might seem unfair for a game to ask you to do something and then say you’re a bad person for doing it, but in a world where we’ve become accustomed to being “the one,” the player character who can save the day and do anything no matter what, Spec Ops tells you sometimes you can’t control everything.
According to the lead writer for the game in a series of interviews, Walt Williams, the player does have a choice: He or she can stop playing the game.
Again, the idea seems totally alien, contradictory, and perhaps even nonsensical. At the end of the day Spec Ops perhaps does not have an opinion itself, but is simply asking the questions. Why do we get enjoyment out of virtual violence? Is it OK for us as a society to glorify war and grisly deaths the way modern war games often do? Does the player always have to be able to save the day and make whatever choice they want?
Spec Ops: The Line is by no means a perfect game. In fact the gameplay itself would probably be described as bland. It’s a perfectly competent 3rd person shooter, with some vehicle sequences thrown in. The game flew under many a radar prior to release for not showing off anything that seemed interesting, but the only way it could have shown anything that was interesting would be to spoil its story.
The game relies on shock to convey its message. One could argue how effective some of those moments are, but for the most part I was genuinely moved by the game and its characters. Seeing how the Delta Force team slowly falls apart is incredible. Even small details, like having the character’s “reloading” and other shouts grow more desperate and unhinged as the game progresses create a sense of insanity. By the end of the game even the loading screens are calling you out. “How many Americans have you killed today?”
Spec Ops works better as a conversation piece, a work of criticism, than a game. That’s why it’s number 2 on my personal list. But the questions it asks are those that need to be asked. With recent events, people outside our world are asking questions about violence in video games. While I don’t believe video games cause real world violence, there is still room to examine why we view these forms of media as entertainment, and take a hard look at some of the potential problems this entertainment industry has. Knee-jerk reactions and angry shouting at those who disagree won’t help our case.
As for Spec Ops it’s a shame it didn’t quite get the attention it deserves for pointing out some of these things. While there was a brief zeitgeist following the game’s release, discussion on some of it’s larger themes seems to have dried up. Hopefully other games in the future can pick up that torch, and continue to view these important subjects in a nuanced way.
While Spec Ops: The Line may not have been my game of the year, it rides a close second. What it represents is perhaps more important that what it actually is.
I just finished Spec Ops: The Line, and a certain part of me wishes I hadn’t.
Playing a game that sets you on a path as part of the story, and then chastises you for following along seems exploitative, and perhaps it is. But Spec Ops really made me question my own decisions as a player as well as the decisions of the characters in the story. At one point I said to myself, “This is horrible. I am not having fun.” Yet I couldn’t stop playing, and no one was forcing me to do so.
Delta Force Captain Walker’s horrifying journey into damnation and insanity begins as any generic military shooter would. If you’ve listened to this week’s podcast you know that the beginning of the game is so standard it could be considered boring. It’s not until over an hour into the game that the slippery slope into chaos starts to become truly evident. However, the idea is that it could have been avoided long ago; by the player, by Walker, by his squad, or by the rogue American soldiers you were sent to find in the first place. Things just get worse and worse, and no matter what decisions you make trying to fix things there’s a feeling in the pit of your stomach telling you that things aren’t getting better. Then they get even worse.
Spec Ops: The Line does not glorify war.
Some have called Spec Ops: The Line a statement about military shooters, American patriotism, or violent video games in general. While arguments could be made for all of these, writer for the game Walt Williams has said in various interviews that the main target of criticism are the players themselves (warning, links contain major spoilers, do not read/listen unless you’ve finished the game.)
So you have a game that is an amazing work of storytelling. It’s something that you want to experience, juxtaposed with a message telling you’re enjoying killing people (albeit fictional, digital people) for your own entertainment, and you should stop.
See why I’m a little upset?
Yet I can’t recommend Spec Ops: The Line enough. Just know what you’re getting into.
If we play games for entertainment; for fun; what does it mean when a game shakes us in such a way that is not pleasant, yet still drives us to keep going? Does a game have to be fun to be entertaining, and does and game that ceases to be “fun” in that standard way also cease to provide the same entertainment?
Telltale Games’ The Walking Dead is another such example. As soon as the recently released Episode 2: Starved for Help gets started, the game makes it clear that your choices have consequences and no choice will solve all the problems and keep everyone happy. No matter what you choose to do, people get angry, violent, or die as a direct result of your actions. Even after the episode calms down it only becomes a waiting game as the tension builds toward a gut wrenching climax that you can do nothing to prevent, no matter how much you see it coming.
The Walking dead forces players to make tough choices.
While The Walking Dead doesn’t go to quite the extreme that Spec Ops does, neither episode has ended that you would call a happy one, and it doesn’t look like things will be getting better in the coming episodes.
Yet both these games I enjoy, and both these games have received praise for their engaging stories and choices that are more than the overly simplistic “good vs. evil” system we’re used to.
So does a game have to be fun to provide entertainment? In a certain sense, yes, but the entertainment doesn’t come from simple enjoyment or happiness. Horror games have been taking advantage of a similar effect for years. Ben “Yahtzee” Croshaw said as much in his review of Spec Ops, calling it was almost a horror game in its own right.
In recent times Amnesia: The Dark Descent stands out as a game that effectively uses horror, so much so that players have reported being so terrified they haven’t finished it. It’s the adrenaline and excitement and morbid fascination of discovering what lies around the next corner that keeps players going, not necessarily because it falls into the normal realms of “fun.”
Amnesia: The Dark Descent has been known to completely terrify its players.
Spec Ops: The Line makes you feel bad while playing it because that’s its goal. While we may view games as entertainment, sometimes the consumer’s desire for entertainment conflicts with the creator’s goal for the story or message. If you can enjoy that message, even if the message is offensive, horrifying, or possibly condemning the player, then games can still be enjoyed without necessarily being “fun.”