next »

[The_Flying_Dove]

I thought that I'd take a break from discussing Heavy Rain, so I decided to talk about the upcoming Spec Ops game. According to wikipedia:

The Line is primarily a third-person shooter with emphasis on squad-based tactics. The player controls Captain Martin Walker who is accompanied by a Delta Force team to rescue a U.S. Army Colonel who remained behind in Dubai. To accomplish this goal, players must traverse the city to neutralize enemy threats and natural disasters to find and recover the lost Colonel, named John Konrad. As the player progresses, better weapons and equipment will become available to accomplish goals easier. Squad commands will also be available, allowing the player to direct their teammates to perform certain actions or move to certain areas.[1][2]

The game focuses on the natural sandstorms of Dubai to provide dynamic terrain changing during gameplay, similar to Fracture and the Red Faction series. This is supported by an unpredictable engine that randomizes when and where sandstorms will arise, as well as how harsh they will be. Sandstorms may open or close paths to the players as well as turn advantages in a firefight.[1][2]

The game will follow the story of player character Captain Martin Walker as he is sent into a post-apocalyptic Dubai with an elite Delta Force team. Previously, Dubai was a wealthy area with many high profile citizens until catastrophic sandstorms left a majority of the city buried. This caused many to evacuate, leaving only a few behind. One of the people left behind was U.S. Army Colonel John Konrad, a founding member of Delta Force, who refused to evacuate from a training facility in the city and instead remained behind with the men under his command to help protect the citizens that could not evacuate. After several weeks of no contact, the Army fears that Col. Konrad and his men are lost to the destruction of the city until a weak distress signal is picked up. This gives the Army reason to deploy the player and their squad, who must infiltrate the city, neutralize outlaws and survive sandstorms as they attempt to determine what happened to Konrad and his men.

In addition, it will be one of the first true anti-war games ever released. If Six Days in Fallujah captured your interest, then this game might do the same. There actually was an interview on the game recently, on GameSpot.com. The link can be found below:

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/specopstheline/video/6244904/spec-ops-the-line-interview--greg-kasavin-

[Christian Knudsen]

Sounds and looks pretty cool.

In addition, it will be one of the first true anti-war games ever released.

I have no idea what you mean by this, though?

[The_Flying_Dove]

What I meant was that it will be one of the first games to include choices for the player that involve doing what your team tells you to do, and it may not always be the most ethical thing to do. You will need to choose between obeying your orders, or disobeying them to do what's right. In other words, it is aiming for a shades of gray morality, rather than a black and white one.

[Christian Knudsen]

I'm not really sure having the player make "moral" choices makes it an anti-war game. It just seems like most other FPS shooters (but looks cool, though!) that include the "moral" choices gimmick. It's not like having the player choose between two actions in InFamous made it into some anti-superhero statement. I guess I just didn't get any anti-war vibes from the clips they showed in that interview, mostly because the player was shooting guys in all the clips. The narrative could be all about the horrors of war, but (and I guess I may just be cynical) I'd think most large game developers would focus on the "shooting bad guys" action, as that's probably what they believe most FPS gamers want. I'd love to be surprised, though! :D

[The_Flying_Dove]

Well, in the interview, Greg Kasavin mentioned that the game will be very narrative-driven, so I don't think that it will be just another FPS game. It'll be more like Bioshock, Deus Ex, or any other FPS game with a good plot. Sadly, very few FPSs ever care about anything else than the shooting, even if it means glorifying violence. Why should games be stuck in the "little kiddie" realm? This medium deserves to be good for both adults and children. By saying that games are fine the way they are right now, one is saying that it's okay for them to limit their ideas and never push for more creative freedom. Do we really want to see games being the same in the next 50 years? Sure, your children (or grandchildren) might enjoy it, but you will probably have grown tired of video games by then, if all remains the same.

[falsion]

The thing is with FPS games is that most people will chose whatever option lets them shoot people anyway, since that's what people play them for. Kinda like how the "No Russian" airport scene in Modern Warfare 2 was meant to make you feel some tinge of morality but people just ended up shooting everything up anyway.

[The_Flying_Dove]

But you don't think that many people would be turned off if a game provided some very horrifying results from killing someone, or would you? MW2 really wasn't that special with its story at all. Only one level was shocking. It didn't move the game into a darker state after that. That's exactly what happened with Saving Private Ryan. The beginning of the movie is very graphic, but the rest of the movie isn't all that impressive.

As more games take up non-linearity, I'm sure that their stories and characters as well as gameplay will evolve further. FPS games have just started popularizing open-ended gameplay. System Shock was the first one to do that, but its impact wasn't big enough. Now we have games like Bioshock, Crysis, Far Cry 2, STALKER, and several others that are pushing this genre forward. It's only a matter of time before games try to portray their characters and situations as close to reality as possible.

[Christian Knudsen]

Why should games be stuck in the "little kiddie" realm? This medium deserves to be good for both adults and children. By saying that games are fine the way they are right now, one is saying that it's okay for them to limit their ideas and never push for more creative freedom.

When did I say that? I said that I'm skeptical that a mayor studio will actually carry through on those statements. You have a strange way of taking peoples' critique of the games you post about (which I assume you have no personal investment in?) very personal...

[SirNiko]

I always considered Metal Gear Solid as the anti-war game. To get the highest score and unlock all the special content you need to beat the game without killing anyone. There were lots of fun ways to fight if you intended to kill people, but in the end the game drives you towards avoiding people and using non-lethal force to accomplish pretty much everything. Which is sort of ironic, since that means that all the different guns in the game go ignored in favor of the tranq gun.

I'm not convinced by your blurb that this game offers anything significantly different than games before it. When the game comes out and people start playing it, only then could I really say if the moral decisions are designed in a way that tickles the brain in a fashion not yet seen.

In others, more show, less tell.

The sandstorm survival aspect could be neat, depending on implementation.

-SirNiko

[falsion]

But you don't think that many people would be turned off if a game provided some very horrifying results from killing someone, or would you? MW2 really wasn't that special with its story at all. Only one level was shocking. It didn't move the game into a darker state after that. That's exactly what happened with Saving Private Ryan. The beginning of the movie is very graphic, but the rest of the movie isn't all that impressive.

People love horrifying results though, as long as they're not real. MW2 wasn't the best example, but there have been many games with moral choices where you could be a complete monster and do terrible things, and guess what? People do them anyway and, in fact, enjoy doing them.

It's all about "schadenfreude." Same reason why people can be a complete ass on the internet, troll people and even cause harm to them without even thinking about it, but in real life, they'd think twice about doing so. You'd be surprised how just the simple fact that someone is behind a computer (or console) or thinks "it's just a game" can change the way people act.

The biggest flaw in any video game attempt to implement morality is failure to realize this. I don't see how this will be any different.

[Renton]

You will need to choose between obeying your orders, or disobeying them to do what's right. In other words, it is aiming for a shades of gray morality, rather than a black and white one.

That sounds pretty black and white to me.

[PaleFox]

It's all about "schadenfreude." Same reason why people can be a complete ass on the internet, troll people and even cause harm to them without even thinking about it, but in real life, they'd think twice about doing so. You'd be surprised how just the simple fact that someone is behind a computer (or console) or thinks "it's just a game" can change the way people act.

This is true.

Imagine you are playing, say, Morrowind. Does anyone play Morrowind and not murder or steal? No, because you can get away with it. And even if you couldn't, if your character is locked up or what have you, he is only a character on the screen. Video games imply an inherent abstraction from reality, no matter how realistic (or indeed, how stylized) the game is or the results are. In order for it to have an impact, results have to be irreversible, which is not viable for a big budget title -- and even then, it's still only a character who doesn't exist.

It's not been very common for people to connect with their persona in the game, and generally people blame it on writing, but I think that frankly it is because games are not capable of this sort of artistry.

(This is not to say they are incapable of all artistry, just this type)

Does this make sense?

[undertech]

This game gives you too much ammunition for it to be possibly anti-war.

[The_Flying_Dove]

It's all about "schadenfreude." Same reason why people can be a complete ass on the internet, troll people and even cause harm to them without even thinking about it, but in real life, they'd think twice about doing so. You'd be surprised how just the simple fact that someone is behind a computer (or console) or thinks "it's just a game" can change the way people act.

This is true.

Imagine you are playing, say, Morrowind. Does anyone play Morrowind and not murder or steal? No, because you can get away with it. And even if you couldn't, if your character is locked up or what have you, he is only a character on the screen. Video games imply an inherent abstraction from reality, no matter how realistic (or indeed, how stylized) the game is or the results are. In order for it to have an impact, results have to be irreversible, which is not viable for a big budget title -- and even then, it's still only a character who doesn't exist.

It's not been very common for people to connect with their persona in the game, and generally people blame it on writing, but I think that frankly it is because games are not capable of this sort of artistry.

(This is not to say they are incapable of all artistry, just this type)

Does this make sense?

Well, usually it's young people who are ignorant and don't follow reality closely in the media. I'm sure that many adults out there are more interested in meaningful works than anything else. With that said, I think that adults would actually be the ones to care more for their actions within a game than a child would. If more games were based on real stories or events that happened, I'm pretty sure that people would give a damn as to what happens to their characters. Even games like the one that was based on the Columbine Massacre, despite their controversies, are a good step forward. People just have to learn to respect this medium better and treat it like every other medium.

You said that people usually won't treat their actions in games as in reality because they're just playing as avatars, so it's surprising how people blame games on terrible events. But I'm positively sure that non-fiction content could have people think more about what they decide to do in games.

[The_Flying_Dove]

I really get irritated whenever people say that games just can't be at the same stage as literature and cinema. This perception has been held by many people partly because too few games have been controversial enough to focus on real events. Mainstream games are probably going to be the last ones to break through this mold. Too much criticism from the press will only halt the production of a game like this. So, I believe that hope lies in indie games for challenging this industry to be less censored.