Yup, grabbed this game during the good 'ol flash sale for $5. I had been thinking of getting it before, but there were better games sort of calling me for the $20 its usually going for (Fuse, Demon souls, syndicate, deadspace 2 or 3, heck I might even consider aliens a higher priority). The demo came off as generic with some decent characters and a nice setting as well as a damn good trailer wrapped inside of it. Meanwhile the internet was raving about how brilliant it was for being "mature" (in other words pretentiously edgy and self-critical) and making players feel bad about themselves for playing a violent game. Yeah sounds like a blast and a real good excuse to sit through a generic 3rd person shooter (*cough* sarcasm *cough*). So yeah despite some incentive to grab this, it wasn't a top priority for $20. So even though I'd rather have it retail, I'm not so particular about this one and going for a discount that makes retail 3-4 times more expensive is a price drop that's worth it. Yet that's not the real subject here so I'll get on with it. Also there might be some small spoilers, I wouldn't recommend reading this if you plan to play the game yourself soon.
Spec ops is a solid game that places it priorities on weird places that make it worth your time if you're a fan of shooters or even simply stronger than average narratives. I have some issues with it on both sides, gameplay and story, but overall its been fun so far. The game does just enough minor tweaks to the generic style to be interesting while mostly motivating you through a better plot point than the average game. The most interesting aspect of it is probably the squad. You can order them onto a target, and you have to care for them if they goof up and get too injured. However best is how they will sometimes detect you as pinned down and offer a free flash bang, or sometimes they'll damage their target with a precise and free frag grenade throw. In other words they're really useful for speeding up the combat, but that's not to say enduring the combat is bad either... its solid fun. The main problem I have is that the cover system likes breaking itself. Sometimes you can't duck into cover, other times you can't vault over something even if you were just able to a moment ago. So you'll find yourself at moments where you soak up fire trying to get to or over a spot that doesn't register even when it should. There is also an occasion where that cover wont matter and you'll be taking damage when you should be well covered, but its not consistent enough to think of it as anything that randomly awful hit detection yet it also means its only a minor cheap death nuisance. What isn't is again that other broken cover trait which is what caused me to die as much as 3 times in a row earlier this morning. I remember hopping over a bar table and gunning down some enemies from that cover when they through a grenade at me. I tried jumping over the exact wall I just did only to wind up clubbing the air as the vault prompt wasn't working, then boom... dead. Thanks for wasting 5 minutes of my time with that.
Still I'm kind of done talking about the sour points there, because overall its a fun game and I've been enjoying my time enough to talk about it here for a good reason. Actually I also plan on doing a follow-up article for the narrative assuming it goes well (or incredibly bad... either way I'll have something to talk about). For now though the game's narrative is surprisingly smarter than I would have believed listening to the summary from others. Its less like Far Cry 3 and Last of Us's awful attempts at compassion and more like what Killzone and bulletstorm had issues with installing into the game's plot. Its about putting context into the shooting, not about just making you feel bad for pulling the trigger in a game that forces you to do that anyways. Thankfully Spec ops mostly understands that you can't tell a player they're evil puppy burning heartless souls for doing something that is forced to proceed.... at least it MOSTLY gets that. Instead its giving you signals that everyone has something they're fighting for, and ultimately you can't be a power fantasy hero. People will be cruel, trigger happy, misunderstand you, and play with your head, and in order to stop that you must kill them and fight their motives to get to your own conclusion. Its a game that is smarter than to throw you at a bunch of "bad guys" and then roll the credits when you stop some random nuke threat. Instead you have what appears to be a state of anarchy between a rouge US solider groups, some likely dead soldiers that refused to turn, and some agents that have given angry locals weapons to fight the rogue soldiers. You're never told their clear motives, and you never get to feel safe between either team. Your best bet is to stay alive and to help out any civilians left.
This isn't actually as interesting as some people will make it sound. Killzone has context and sympathy to the side you're hurting hidden within undertones and an ignored timeline of fictional history contextualizing the Helghast's stolen territory and industry. Meanwhile BulletStorm turns from savaging killing tribal neanderthals and mutants to killing elite military forces. During the later half of killing military forces, you get lectured by the enemy you're forced to work with. Your character was fighting him for giving out orders to kill innocents, but later on your pushed to think about the soldiers that may have been just like you and had family, morals, and a life to all care for while you're just ending them left and right. Oh but according to the internet critics and core gamers those stories are garbage and don't count because they aren't hammered into your head every second and the gameplay is better than average. So spec ops is refreshing (unless we count gameplay, who wants that?), mature, and a hidden gem for being executed just a bit better. Yeah you can tell I'm a bit sour over this. For people who make such a big deal on adding mature perspective in gaming, they sure seem to have a narrow view of it when it comes to analyzing games. I bet if they took out the dark toned loading screens and civilian casualties they would have missed the morals entirely and dismissed it like they did others. But anyways yes Spec ops does do a good job with these morals, and its a far stronger focus point than the other games I've mentioned. Where as Killzone makes it a little too subtle, and BulletStorm does it a little too late, Spec ops has its main attention on it and it works. I guess it also helps hammer the message home because its not as cheesy, but that's more of a taste thing and I have to say I guess that's why I prefer the other games a bit more in terms of the whole package.
The only main problem I have with it is that it still occasionally pushes you into those awkward moments where you couldn't really do anything, and thus the guilt or conflict itself is tied to the oversimplified game control and a lack of player input that is needed to successfully work its message. The best example is a spot where you meet the first living American soldier. You rescue him from a guy that seemed at first glance to be a typical villain, yet things don't go quite as planned. He's very uneasy, and terrified that he doesn't immediately recognize you. Both you and him are demanding weapons are put away. You... can't do anything. There is no way to "lower" the weapons for a truly different interaction or to attempt to establish trust in the first possible friendly face you see. I really did feel safe enough to put the gun down and watch a conversation unfold. Instead my virtual interaction wasn't there and I was scripted to demand the other soldier just puts his gun down, and suddenly the main character is a bit broken from caring about soldiers to being surprisingly cynical on the guy he just rescued. You have to keep your gun raised and it feels like you are forced to be an uncooperative guy with a life threatening weapon on a target that hasn't done anything wrong to you. Then the solider finally says "I can show you the rest of my squad you came to rescue, wait here.". Then he goes away and you're forced to disobey him and trail him. If you sit there and wait like you're told, the only thing happens is that you get your squad mates mad for not moving along the generic objective marker faster. That sense of realistic context, and any attempt at choice to properly justify a question of your morals is thrown out the window at this scene as well as the characters as you know them, because again your guy seems like the type who would have been glad rather than cynical and bullying towards another soldier. If a game wants to make the player question their morals as this does to some extent, its best to actually let them freakin' choose so they have actually feel weight tied to their decisions. You can't guilt trip someone for something they would never have done in their own free will. Imagine if you got to the flag in Mario bros, and then you got lectured for being a mean guy who vandalized property for changing the flag. It doesn't make sense, and it turns the potential for good moral investigation into a pretentious "art form" that is predetermined to mock the player for morals they never owned up to on their own.
With that being said though I've got to restate what I did before... for the most part this game is more about context than player morals so far. I like that. Context and motives to enemy actions is awesome, and makes them more interesting and develops a better investing plot that has real drama rather than an artificial A to B story. That part truly is where a game can say its more "mature" than the usual. However the problem is when it tries to force a scripted context on the player's morals and then lectures them on it. Unless the game is mocking or about the lack of control within game design (probably the closest example would be MGS2) this just wont work. You can't feel like a monster by doing the only thing possible to avoid a game over screen. That's also why similar things such as Tomb Raider's "survival" hype fell to shreds. It forced you down the road of a one man army. There was no survival to it more so than just returning fire like any other shooter. However a better example was what was wrong with FC3's narrative and the later half of Last of Us, it gifts you ammo, forces you to use it, and then tells you you're a monster for doing the only thing possible. It doesn't work like that! Again, when the game sticks to telling you background details about the commander of the rogue army, the radio man, the agents, the revolutionaries, or the city in general... its awesome, and a truly gripping and wonderful narrative experience that I aim to finish today, tomorrow, or the next day. When it breaks that in a couple of moments to guilt trip you for dodging the game over screen, its a shit move done by lazy moral pushing hipsters attempting too hard to be edgy. Its a part of the self-critical trend that needs to die already, and I'm tired of the internet saying this is the "mature" way to go. Its the opposite, its just childish. Even Infamous is more sophisticated than that, and that is the game that put the silly moral meter into the mainstream. I think a part of the Spec Ops creators know this as well... there are moments where the game tries to flash a quote that contradicts the scripted nature of this moral pushing. "There's always a choice" your squad mate says as you're ironically forced to use white phosphorus bombs. Sure there's a choice, in real life and RPGs that are ahead of you. You know if this game actually does turn around and blow me away with some 4th wall breaking thing about lack of choice I can sort of apologize for bad mouthing its few sour parts like this.
I wish I could say more, but I feel like I might already end up repeating myself in the follow up article. Its not really a review either, just chatting about what I'm playing... and I've noted its narrative, and I've noted its play it safe gameplay. I've ranted about its wrongs, and I've complimented its rights as compared to similar games. Its a good game overall and I'd say it was more than worth the money put down. I hope the game's ending doesn't let me down, and I'll probably put up another article talking about it when I get around to it. Then... I'll probably resume Okami or something.
No comments:
Post a Comment