Overview- Critic & User
Reviews - Videos &
Screenshots
News- Codes
& FAQs - Gameplay
Controls - Similar
Games
Answers
Bundles
Critic & User Reviews
IGN Preview of Spec Ops: The Line
If I were to tally up all the people I've shot throughout the host of single player first-person shooter campaigns I've played I'd be shocked. Outside of the games where the antagonists are super natural or not of this world, most of the humans were foreigners, people who already feel alien to me and more easily identifiable as "enemies." This allows for a sense of detachment that's a bit disturbing.
I don't know what it says about me that playing Spec Ops: The Line bothers me in a totally different way. Sent in to hunt for survivors of a horrific sandstorm in Dubai, my squad and I quickly get wrapped up in a battle with "rogue" American soldiers. Defying orders, one General and a battalion of Americans stayed behind to help with the evacuation, and in the days since the sandstorm, all hell has broken loose. Americans are killing civilians, acting like kids ruling a deserted island, but it's unclear if some of them are still loyal. Moments into my time in Dubai, though, one thing's apparent: they're going to shoot at me, and I have to kill them if I want to live.
Moments like these in Spec Ops give me pause. I grew up on a military base, and have plenty of friends who joined the Marines and Army right out of high school; I can't help but think of them as Spec Ops directs me to gun down Americans. Yes, they are an in-game threat, and yes, I must do it in order to progress with what is ultimately a video game, but I can't detach in the same way.
That's part of the intent in Spec Ops, though; the developers want players to consider the morality of what you're doing. Indeed, the characters in your squad grapple with the consequences, crying out about shooting their own, only to have your character, their leader, tell them 'it's them or us'. The issue that comes up is how plausible it all feels. The destruction of Dubai remains a bit far-fetched, but I've had friends and news outlets tell me enough tales of soldiers misbehaving that I could see something like this happening. Putting guns in the hands of people barely old enough to qualify as adults and giving them extreme power over others makes for a scary proposition when you think about it, and Spec Ops hints at a possible outcome when they're put under extreme duress.
In that the story makes me feel something Spec Ops is already a success. The team has talked about the choices you have to make throughout the campaign, and how they want the player to feel whatever emotion comes to them through the campaign. When I had to make a choice to save civilians or a CIA Agent, aka save an American or a group of foreigners I had no connection to, I had to think about it. Sure, it's a binary choice, but either way someone had to die, this wasn't the whole "are you a jerk or not" morality of, say, Infamous.
The problem with offering players options and expecting them to feel something about their choice is that it breaks the experience when said choices and their effects illicit the wrong response. The demo of Spec Ops ended with my squad and me rolling up to an enemy encampment. We can see what looks like a hundred or so American soldiers, working out, talking – doing all the things soldiers do in their downtime. We need to get past them, but my squad of three is vastly outnumbered. But then I see a launcher and some white phosphorus rounds nearby, a highly contentious ammunition that kills people by burning them alive. One squad member remarks that this would clean them up easily, but the other one says that I don't have to do it, that "there's always a choice."
But he's wrong. While I tried to stand up and start shooting them with my rifle (something a Producer on hand said I was the only one to try), ultimately I asked and learned that players must use the phosphorus rounds. Relenting, I walked over to the computer and dropped round after round onto Americans, my character's reflection on the screen reminding me that I am the instrument of death.
In the aftermath I walked through the dead and dying soldiers, putting bullets in the suffering. I was angry and a bit horrified, sure, but also bothered by the fact that I didn't have a choice. Imagine, then, my shock when the demo ends with a burnt American soldier telling me that they were only trying to help. The implication is there – not all of the Americans have gone rogue. But my gung-ho, strike first strategy – my increasing ease of associating American uniforms as that of the enemy -- has made me kill good people. My people.
Telling a story from a perspective of someone that's wielding a gun and shooting people in the name of "fun" is a challenge. But Spec Ops: The Line certainly does its darndest to make sure you feel something. When it comes to market this Spring, I don't know that I'll play through it, but if nothing else I'm thankful to have experienced a game that actually makes me reflect on the things I've done.
Anthony Gallegos is an Editor on IGN's PC team. He loves any and all sorts of games and gaming questions. You can reach out to him on Twitter and MyIGN.
©2012-02-06, IGN Entertainment, Inc. All Rights Reserved
I don't know what it says about me that playing Spec Ops: The Line bothers me in a totally different way. Sent in to hunt for survivors of a horrific sandstorm in Dubai, my squad and I quickly get wrapped up in a battle with "rogue" American soldiers. Defying orders, one General and a battalion of Americans stayed behind to help with the evacuation, and in the days since the sandstorm, all hell has broken loose. Americans are killing civilians, acting like kids ruling a deserted island, but it's unclear if some of them are still loyal. Moments into my time in Dubai, though, one thing's apparent: they're going to shoot at me, and I have to kill them if I want to live.
Moments like these in Spec Ops give me pause. I grew up on a military base, and have plenty of friends who joined the Marines and Army right out of high school; I can't help but think of them as Spec Ops directs me to gun down Americans. Yes, they are an in-game threat, and yes, I must do it in order to progress with what is ultimately a video game, but I can't detach in the same way.
That's part of the intent in Spec Ops, though; the developers want players to consider the morality of what you're doing. Indeed, the characters in your squad grapple with the consequences, crying out about shooting their own, only to have your character, their leader, tell them 'it's them or us'. The issue that comes up is how plausible it all feels. The destruction of Dubai remains a bit far-fetched, but I've had friends and news outlets tell me enough tales of soldiers misbehaving that I could see something like this happening. Putting guns in the hands of people barely old enough to qualify as adults and giving them extreme power over others makes for a scary proposition when you think about it, and Spec Ops hints at a possible outcome when they're put under extreme duress.
In that the story makes me feel something Spec Ops is already a success. The team has talked about the choices you have to make throughout the campaign, and how they want the player to feel whatever emotion comes to them through the campaign. When I had to make a choice to save civilians or a CIA Agent, aka save an American or a group of foreigners I had no connection to, I had to think about it. Sure, it's a binary choice, but either way someone had to die, this wasn't the whole "are you a jerk or not" morality of, say, Infamous.
The problem with offering players options and expecting them to feel something about their choice is that it breaks the experience when said choices and their effects illicit the wrong response. The demo of Spec Ops ended with my squad and me rolling up to an enemy encampment. We can see what looks like a hundred or so American soldiers, working out, talking – doing all the things soldiers do in their downtime. We need to get past them, but my squad of three is vastly outnumbered. But then I see a launcher and some white phosphorus rounds nearby, a highly contentious ammunition that kills people by burning them alive. One squad member remarks that this would clean them up easily, but the other one says that I don't have to do it, that "there's always a choice."
But he's wrong. While I tried to stand up and start shooting them with my rifle (something a Producer on hand said I was the only one to try), ultimately I asked and learned that players must use the phosphorus rounds. Relenting, I walked over to the computer and dropped round after round onto Americans, my character's reflection on the screen reminding me that I am the instrument of death.
In the aftermath I walked through the dead and dying soldiers, putting bullets in the suffering. I was angry and a bit horrified, sure, but also bothered by the fact that I didn't have a choice. Imagine, then, my shock when the demo ends with a burnt American soldier telling me that they were only trying to help. The implication is there – not all of the Americans have gone rogue. But my gung-ho, strike first strategy – my increasing ease of associating American uniforms as that of the enemy -- has made me kill good people. My people.
Telling a story from a perspective of someone that's wielding a gun and shooting people in the name of "fun" is a challenge. But Spec Ops: The Line certainly does its darndest to make sure you feel something. When it comes to market this Spring, I don't know that I'll play through it, but if nothing else I'm thankful to have experienced a game that actually makes me reflect on the things I've done.
Anthony Gallegos is an Editor on IGN's PC team. He loves any and all sorts of games and gaming questions. You can reach out to him on Twitter and MyIGN.
©2012-02-06, IGN Entertainment, Inc. All Rights Reserved